All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The authors have successfully addressed all minor issues suggested by the reviewers. The manuscript is now ready for publication. Congratulations!
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Robert Toonen, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
As pointed out by the reviewers below, the manuscript will benefit from some clarification in the methods and a short expansion of some topics in the discussion. I am looking forward to receive an improved version.
The manuscript is written in clear English and is properly formatted. It could stand a few more literature references (I have suggested expanding the discussion), but the articles that are cited are appropriate.
The methods are appropriate for the question and are well-described. The authors did a particularly good job of describing the differences in their methods between years.
The conclusions are well-supported by the data. The results match the questions posed.
This is a very good manuscript. I find research on the early life-history stages of invertebrates to be important for a broad range of questions and especially timely in the case of corals. The authors have identified a critical knowledge gap and conducted well-designed experiments to fill it. Even though the exact methods varied from year to year, the authors are exceptionally clear and up-front about how the methods varied. They have also been clear about limitations to the experiment (relocation from the field, termination of an experiment by hurricane evacuation). I fully support publication of this manuscript following minor revision. My specific comments are below.
Abstract, line 25: Missing an article before “reef”
Abstract, line 26: In the present manuscript, the length of time a larva survives is described as “longevity,” “persistence,” and “survival,” so I suggest the authors decide on a single term, which they clearly define and use throughout the manuscript. Survival seems most fitting to me.
Introduction, line 46: Without an appropriate citation, the claim that coral larvae are especially poorly studied in Caribbean species is unsubstantiated. I suggest citing a review paper at the end of this sentence.
Introduction, lines 58-65: I suggest the authors add the names of the species that were studied in the cited papers to this paragraph, in order to provide more context. Larval duration can vary substantially among species, so referring to studies on coral larvae in general is less valuable.
Methods, line 90: What is meant by larval fitness? In my mind, fitness refers to an individual’s reproductive potential in an evolutionary context, but I doubt that is the authors’ meaning here. Perhaps “larval condition” is a better term?
Methods, line 90: Give mesh size.
Methods, line 101 and elsewhere: “at least 5 um” – does this phrase mean water was filtered to 5 um or less?
Methods, line 101: Reef water being “hauled” is an unconventional phrasing. I suggest replacing this word with “collected.”
Methods, line 157: There seems to be an asterisk here where a parenthesis belongs.
Results, line 197: I suggest saying “run” instead of “trial run” because the latter makes it sound like the runs being referred to were a pilot experiment.
Results, line 213: “Ramping up” sounds like slang, so I suggest replacing it with “increase” or a similarly equivalent wording.
Discussion, line 219: “timing pattern of settlement” – something should be plural here
Discussion, line 232: Wait, high incidence of MUPs is related to culture density? I am very interested in the significance of MUPs. Is this a commonly-observed phenomenon in corals? What might be the evolutionary or ecological significance of midwater metamorphosis? I suggest expanding the discussion on this phenomenon.
Discussion: I would like to see the authors expand their discussion on the implications of their findings for coral reef connectivity studies. How might their results for larval survival and competency affect modelling efforts? What does the variability between years/cohorts tell us about settlement success and connectivity in the field? How can these results be used for conservation efforts in the future?
This manuscript presents valuable data on larval longevity and competency in major reef-building corals in the Caribbean. There is a lot unknown about larval longevity, although long-distance dispersal is likely in broadcast spawning corals. Therefore the data presented here is of high value for the community and for informing parameters of biophysical dispersal models. The authors have transparently laid out their data and presented all the data in a relatively clear way.
I have only minor comments and I think this work is an important contribution to the field. One major clarification would be every time the authors refer to the first observed metamorphosis that this is without interaction with the cue, correct? Making sure this distinction is clear throughout will help the reader.
The research question is well defined, relevant and meaningful. The data here fills an important knowledge gap and this type of data is relatively logistically difficult to collect. This data is also important in the context of reef restoration. The methods are described in sufficient detail but a few clarifications are necessary.
Line 56: I might also include some of the population connectivity for Caribbean building corals, work such as recent manuscripts by Michael Studivan and Rippe et al. 2017 to bolster the argument for needing this important life-history data.
I would recommend changing the in text citations from “and others” to “et al.”
Lines 93-98: Could you elaborate on how many adult individuals were represented in each of the crosses? This is something that could be incorporated into Table 1.
Line 103: Could you clarify the replication here? As I am reading it now it looks like 5 replicate dishes of larvae per treatment (heat and control) for each species? Is that correct?
Lines 148-152: What was the level of replication for each competency assay?
Table 3: I would include information on what years the data was taken for each of these and across how many years of data each value includes.
Table 3: The third row, do you mean the % larvae remaining alive at first metamorphosis in the longevity experiments (w/o cue)?
Figure 2: typo in legend, line 3 “shows” not “sows”. Can you clarify that the dashed line refers to the onset of metamorphosis without exposure to cue? Also, you say to note the difference x-axis scales but they seem the same too me and the scale on the first row panels is missing.
Sup Fig 1: This could use some polishing up as many of the lines are staggered and some lines in the frames are missing.
The findings are valid and appropriately discussed.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.