Articles | Volume 22, issue 19
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-5157-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.Estimation of metabolic dynamics of restored seagrass meadows in a Southeast Asia islet: insights from ex situ benthic incubation
Download
- Final revised paper (published on 30 Sep 2025)
- Preprint (discussion started on 29 Jan 2025)
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor
| : Report abuse
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4000', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Feb 2025
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Wen-Chen Chou, 21 Mar 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4000', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Jun 2025
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Wen-Chen Chou, 24 Jun 2025
Peer review completion
AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload
ED: Reconsider after major revisions (25 Jun 2025) by Paul Stoy

AR by Wen-Chen Chou on behalf of the Authors (26 Jun 2025)
Author's response
Author's tracked changes
Manuscript
ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (28 Jun 2025) by Paul Stoy
RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (06 Jul 2025)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (08 Jul 2025) by Paul Stoy

AR by Wen-Chen Chou on behalf of the Authors (10 Jul 2025)
Author's response
Author's tracked changes
Manuscript
ED: Publish as is (13 Jul 2025) by Paul Stoy

AR by Wen-Chen Chou on behalf of the Authors (15 Jul 2025)
Manuscript
The authors presented a set of incubation experiments using vegetated and unvegetated sediment cores and explored production, respiration, and carbonate precipitation and dissolution rates for these two type of environments. Their general conclusions are as expected, i.e., seagrass vegetation enhances organic carbonate production along with net calcification, compared with bare sediments.
The manuscript is largely well written and easy to comprehend. The only major comment I have is with the way statistics is presented. It is unclear why the authors chose to report standard error instead of standard deviation for these replicate core incubations. Is the purpose to reduce the size of the error bar? I would report standard deviations instead to show variability. There are also some confusions with how the two set of incubations are compared, please see detailed comments below.
The graphic abstract is inconsistent with abstract "… resulting in no significant difference in NEC between SG and BS”. But in the graphic abstract, NEC = 10.9 and -2.3 in SG and BS sediments.
Section 2.5, need to spell out assumptions for using short durations (a few hours) to estimate daily rates.
L102, add citation for Coral Allen Atlas
L141, change “checker” to “sonde”
L163, change “difference” to “sum”, adding respiration rate and NPP to get GPP.
L175, state the duration of alkalinity difference measurements
L205-207, suggest removing this sentence, otherwise worsening OA at night needs to be included.
L234-235, show the data.
Fig. 5, use the same y-axis unit to avoid confusion
L287, reword to “when GPP is lower”.
Table 1, why not use the same unit to facilitate comparisons?
Fig. 7, need error bars
L356, remove “shoot density” or change to high shoot density and root biomass.
L383, but earlier in the text (L216), Ω between the two sets are not significantly different, which contradict with L213 however.
L391-392, with NEC much different, why alkalinity fluxes are similar? Or is it because the variations are larger than the difference of the means?
L396-397, note the cited study use a seawater that may or may not be the same as the seawater in your case, so it is useful to do some calculation.