Reply to “Letter to the editor regarding the article ‘Taking advantage of seagrass recovery potential to develop novel and effective meadow rehabilitation methods’ by Alagna et al., published in Marine Pollution Bulletin, 149: 2019 (110578)” by Calvo et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 158:2020 (111395)

• Published in: Marine pollution bulletin 2020-12, Vol.161 (Pt A), p.111754, Article 111754
• Main Authors: Alagna, Adriana, D'Anna, Giovanni, Musco, Luigi, Vega Fernández, Tomás, Gresta, Martina, Pierozzi, Natalia, Badalamenti, Fabio
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Alismatales; Bottom trawling; Dredging; Ecological engineering; Environmental Monitoring; Environmental Pollution; Habitat; Marine pollution; Meadows; Mediterranean Sea; Oceanic trenches; Posidonia oceanica; Recolonization; Recovery; Rehabilitation; Restoration; Sea grasses; Sea pollution; Sedimentation; Sedimentation rates; Sicily; Spontaneous recovery; Submarine pipelines; Substrate; Trenches (pipelines)
• ISSN: 0025-326X; 1879-3363
• DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111754

Calvo et al. (2020) criticize a new seagrass rehabilitation method proposed by Alagna et al. (2019) and inspired by the Posidonia oceanica spontaneous recovery observed at Capo Feto (Sicily), were recolonization was detected almost exclusively on rubbles deployed to fill a pipeline trench. Calvo et al. (2020) claim that natural recovery occurred consistently also on dead matte along the eastern side of the trench, weakening the assumption on which the method is based. Here we show that the P. oceanica patches reported by these authors as new establishments were already documented in 2003 (Vega Fernandez et al., 2005) and are attributable to the fragmentation of the pristine meadow caused by altered sedimentation rate after an extensive dredging operation. Moreover, we outline the area of applicability of the method tested in Alagna et al. (2019) and provide a point-by-point rebuttal to the complaints of imprecise and misleading contents of the paper.