Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2022 Mar 17;17(3):e0265593. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265593

Driving the blue fleet: Temporal variability and drivers behind bluebottle (Physalia physalis) beachings off Sydney, Australia

Natacha Bourg 1,¤a,*, Amandine Schaeffer 1,2, Paulina Cetina-Heredia 1,¤b, Jasmin C Lawes 3,4, Daniel Lee 1
Editor: David Hyrenbach5
PMCID: PMC8929625  PMID: 35299230

Abstract

Physalia physalis, the bluebottle in Australia, are colonial siphonophores that live at the surface of the ocean, mainly in tropical and subtropical waters. P. physalis are sometimes present in large swarms, and with tentacles capable of intense stings, they can negatively impact public health and commercial fisheries. P. physalis, which does not swim, is advected by ocean currents and winds acting on its gas-filled sail. While previous studies have attempted to model the drift of P. physalis, little is known about its sources, distribution, and the timing of its arrival to shore. In this study, we present a dataset with four years of daily P. physalis beachings and stings reports at three locations off Sydney’s coast in Australia. We investigate the spatial and temporal variability of P. physalis presence (beachings and stings) in relation to different environmental parameters. This dataset shows a clear seasonal pattern where more P. physalis beachings occur in the Austral summer and less in winter. Cold ocean temperatures do not hinder the presence of P. physalis and the temperature seasonal cycle and that observed in P. physalis presence/absence time-series are out of phase by 3-4 months. We identify wind direction as the major driver of the temporal variability of P. physalis arrival to the shore, both at daily and seasonal time-scales. The differences observed between sites of the occurrence of beaching events is consistent with the geomorphology of the coastline which influences the frequency and direction of favorable wind conditions. We also show that rip currents, a physical mechanism occurring at the scale of the beach, can be a predictor of beaching events. This study is a first step towards understanding the dynamics of P. physalis transport and ultimately being able to predict its arrival to the coast and mitigating the number of people who experience painful stings and require medical help.

Introduction

Physalia physalis is commonly known by beach-goers as the Portuguese Man-Of-War in the Atlantic Ocean, and as the bluebottle jellyfish in the Indian and Pacific Ocean (also called the Indo-Pacific Portuguese Man-of-War). It is a colonial Cnidarian, part of the Order Siphonophorae, comprising interdependent, highly modified zooids that rely on each other to survive [1]. P. physalis is globally distributed, though is predominantly found in tropical and subtropical waters [2]. These pelagic organisms are effective predators that use their stinging cells to paralyze and feed on fish and fish larvae [2, 3]. P. physalis can be present in large swarms and since their tentacles deliver intense stings, this can have impacts on public health and coastal, commercial, and fisheries activities [4]. P. physalis stings are rarely lethal (only a few deaths recorded, e.g. [5]), but can cause lifelong scarring and systemic symptoms such as gastrointestinal, muscular, cardiac, neurological and allergic reactions [6, 7]. In Australia, many marine stings are treated by surf lifesaving personnel (surf lifesavers and lifeguards) who, between 2009/10 and 2019/20, have treated on average 40,128 stings each year, placing pressure on surf lifesaving service delivery and resources [8].

Community and economic impacts of P. physalis presence along the shore and P. physalis morphology are relatively well understood [2, 7], yet our understanding of drivers that affect P. physalis distribution, abundance, transport to the coast and their temporal variability is limited. Off the eastern coast of Australia, strandings of P. physalis typically occur more frequently in summer. This is consistent with the suggestion that colonies mostly reproduce in autumn, and have a lifecycle of approximately 12 months [9]. One of the dominant zooids in each P. physalis is the pneumatophore, which is filled with gas and enables the juveniles and mature specimens to float on the surface of the ocean, hence subject to ocean currents and waves. The pneumatophore is bilaterally flattened and acts as a sail, directly subject to the wind forces. The float exhibits a dimorphism, roughly half of the population have it tilted to the right, and the other to the left [1]. This causes an individual to drift at a certain angle, respectively to the left or to the right, of the wind direction [10]. This sail can be moderately contracted and erected by an individual P. physalis and is, along with the elongation and contraction of its tentacles, the only active influence a P. physalis has on its transport [2]. P. physalis cannot actively swim; thus, their distribution is uniquely driven by physical and environmental atmospheric and oceanographic conditions in conjunction with their specific biological traits.

Previous studies have linked P. physalis beach stranding to environmental conditions, and modelled their arrival to the coast, usually focusing on unusual events (e.g. swarms). [6, 11] studied massive beaching events that occurred in summer 2010 off the Basque coast (Spain) and the Mediterranean Basin using Lagrangian particle tracking. These beached P. physalis were determined to have originated from the northern part of the North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre, thousands of kilometers away from their beaching location [11]. However, [11] emphasized that the determination of the source is strongly dependent on the wind parametrisation used in the Lagrangian tracking model, and proposed wind as the dominant driver of P. physalis transport. [6] suggested that the massive arrival of P. physalis to the coast had been strongly influenced by an anomaly in zonal winds. Since then, massive beachings of P. physalis off the coast of Ireland in autumn 2016 (August and October) prompted further research [12] to identify source populations. Results suggested that the population of P. physalis may have originated from the North Atlantic Current, supporting the findings of [11]. Regarding the drivers of P. physalis transport in the Pacific Ocean, [13] have used sting reports from five summers across eight locations in New Zealand to develop a neural network-based model to simulate the arrival of P. physalis towards the shore, while assessing the contribution of large-scale winds and waves. Wave direction appears to influence transport far from the shore, while wind direction and speed influence strandings close to the shore. [14] extended this analysis across New-Zealand and validated the influence of both wind and waves. They also highlighted that the meteo-oceanographic regimes responsible for beachings were location-specific. Unlike previous studies, a recent survey from [15] recorded nearly continuous strandings of P. physalis in Chile for three years, with the highest densities in the winter seasons two years in a row. These massive events coincided with an El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) perturbation, with warmer ocean temperature conditions, and positive zonal wind anomalies (westerlies) transporting P. physalis to the coast, further highlighting wind as the major driver of P. physalis arrivai to the coast.

The overarching goal of this paper is to extend our understanding of the environmental drivers of P. physalis by analysing strandings off three popular Australian beaches; our findings can assist coastal safety services towards the development of strategies that mitigate sting risks. We present the temporal variability of P. physalis beaching and sting reports over three locations off Sydney. We investigate the link between the presence of P. physalis on the shore and local winds, ocean temperatures, waves, ocean currents, and rip currents. Finally, the chances of P. physalis strandings are related to typical wind sectors, and discussed in lights of the coastline orientation.

Data and methods

Study area

Our study area is located on the southeast coast of Australia, and encompasses three beaches off Sydney that extend over ≈ 5.5 km of coastline, Clovelly (151.25°E, 33.91°S), Coogee (151.25°E, 33.92°S), and Maroubra (151.25°E, 33.95°S) (Fig 1). Maroubra is the most exposed and the longest beach (980m), and it is oriented directly towards the East. Coogee is smaller (410m) and more southward oriented. Note that Coogee has a small rocky outcrop (known as the Wedding Cake Island) 740m from the beach, which limits wave action on the beach. Clovelly beach is more South-oriented and is at the end of a narrow bay, hence more protected than the two other beaches (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Map of the study area off eastern Australia showing the location of the 3 different beaches (Clovelly, Coogee and Maroubra).

Fig 1

The location of Kurnell meteorological station is also shown (KN). The windrose in the top left shows the daily wind distribution measured at KN from 2016 to 2020 and the four wind sectors used in this study, which are roughly aligned with the local coastline. Top right: Satellite image of the different beaches (Image courtesy of the Earth Science and Remote Sensing Unit, NASA Johnson Space Center, eol.jsc.nasa.gov, Picture ID:ISS037-E-20021). Bottom right: picture of beached P. physalis.

P. physalis datasets

We present two datasets that record the presence of P. physalis, beachings and stings. Beachings are recorded daily by the council lifeguards, written around 9AM for each beach, and are qualitative descriptions of P. physalis presence on the beach: “None”, “Likely”, “Some” or “Many”. The dataset runs 4 years, from May 2016 to May 2020 (Fig 2). For this paper, we considered “Likely” days to be non-beaching days, and combined “Some” and “Many” to be observed. The resulting beaching dataset is then binary: 0 for absence, 1 for presence of P. physalis. At Coogee and Maroubra (Fig 2b and 2c), daily observational reports cover May 2016 and May 2020 with 94% and 93% data coverage (e.g. observations are missing on some public holidays when different life guards are on duty). In contrast, beaching reports at Clovelly beach only cover the warmer season, from October to April since the beach is not patrolled every day in winter (Fig 2a). Therefore, we focus the analysis of the beaching reports at Maroubra and Coogee, and look at composite conditions at Clovelly to understand differences amongst close-by locations.

Fig 2. Time series of the water temperature reported from 2016 to 2020 (Blue circles) for a) Clovelly, b) Coogee, c) Maroubra.

Fig 2

Days when beachings have been reported are shown by grey bars. Days when no beaching report is available (NaN) are scattered in black and shown at the top.

In addition, we explore the variability of surf lifesaver sting reports for the same three sites. These reports list the number of people stung by P. physalis and treated by the surf lifesavers between 2016 and 2020, during the weekends and public holidays of patrol season (September—April). Estimates on beach attendance were also recorded from 2018 to 2020. For example, on a weekend day in summer, Coogee records more than four thousand people on the beach and a maximum of 350 stings (02/01/2016). It should be noted that days when no stings were recorded does not equate to no P. physalis in the water. To remove false negatives, we do not analyse the data on days with no beach attendance. For matching days and locations (although different authors), beaching and sting datasets do not daily compare and sting reports are more frequent than beaching reports. Only 8%, 16%, and 32% of the stings corresponded to a beaching day at Clovelly, Coogee, and Maroubra, respectively. Due to this mismatch, and to the lack of data from April to September, the beaching dataset is the main material of the study and we use stings data to complete and nuance the analysis.

Environmental datasets

To determine the influence of environmental parameters on the transport of P. physalis to the shore, we investigate the link between beaching temporal and spatial variability and those of other environmental variables which are known for their seasonality and/or influence on P. physalis transport: winds, ocean currents, water temperature, wave height and rip currents. Water temperature, rip currents and wave height data are estimated daily by the lifeguards. Wave height is described by six categories ranging from flat to very high wave height (< 0.5 meter, 0.5 meter, 1 meter, 1.5 meters, 2 meters, > 2 meters). Surface water temperature data are recorded to 1°C resolution (Fig 2). Rip currents estimates are qualitatively described by the lifeguards in three different categories. These ranks are then replaced by the arbitrary values of 0, 1, 2 respectively for “minimal”, “be cautious”, or “dangerous”. Wind measurements were taken from the Kurnell weather station (ID: 66043) and used as a proxy for offshore winds (as per [16]). This station is located 8, 11 and 12 kilometers away from Maroubra, Coogee and Clovelly beaches respectively (Fig 1). Wind data are recorded every half an hour. The wind zonal and meridional components are daily averaged starting at 9AM local time for the beaching reports, and from 5PM local time for the sting reports, to match the timing of the observations. Predominant winds in this area are north-easterly, westerly and southerly, as shown on the windrose in Fig 1. For further detail on the monthly variability of winds, we refer to Fig 7 and [17].

Local ocean currents time-series are also considered. We analyse ocean current velocity data from close-by moorings along the coast. One mooring is located above the 100 m isobath 2 km from the shore, and another above the 65 m isobath 10 km from the shore (SYD100 and ORS065, respectively, described in [18, 19]). The mooring’s instruments measure U (zonal) and V (meridional) current velocity components throughout the water column every 5 minutes and every 4–8 meters in depth. Here, we used daily averages at the shallowest bins (11 m and 12 m, respectively).

We identify the temporal lag for which each variable is influencing the beaching of P. physalis, between λ = -7 to 0 days before the latter observations. Fig 3 shows the difference between the distribution of each variable when considering all data, or a subset when a beaching was recorded λ days later. We consider that the greater is the difference, the stronger is the relationship. The wind influence appears to be maximum for a lag of one day (Fig 3a and 3b: the maximum of the red line is at λ = -1), while considering other variables the same day as the beaching seems appropriate (Fig 3c–3e: the maximum of the red line is at λ = 0).

Fig 3. Each subplot shows two violinplots of a variable (U wind, V wind, wave height, rip currents, water temperature) with all data (grey), and data at the condition of a beaching at Maroubra λ days before (blue), for λ going from -7 to 0.

Fig 3

For each lag λ, the difference between the average of the two violinplots (beaching condition—all data) is plotted in red dashed line.

Statistical analysis

Taking into account the strong auto-correlation of time-series, we use a Generalised Estimating Equations (GEE) [20] model with an autoregressive AR(1) structure. We use this method, not to create a model able to predict the arrival of P. physalis to the shore, but to identify statistically significant relationships between environmental variables and the coastal presence of P. physalis. The algorithm is run in a backward step-wise fashion so as to only keep relevant variables. The response is the binary beaching event variable at Maroubra concatenated to the equivalent variable measured at Coogee. The predictors are the lagged wind zonal (cross-shore) and meridional (along-shore) components, the water temperature, wave height, rip currents estimates and the ocean currents zonal and meridional components, as well as a variable accounting for an annual cycle peaking on the the 7th of February, when the maximum beachings was observed, to represent seasonality. It is defined as: seasonality=1+cos(2πdayofyear-maxbbday365), where dayofyear is the day of the year (i.e. 31/12: 365, 01/01: 1… etc) and maxbbday is the day with the highest number of beachings on average over the four years (7th of February). A “site” variable (1 for Coogee, 2 for Maroubra) is also included in order to identify differences between the two locations (length, shape, orientation). We report Wald tests using a naïve variance estimator.

The same analysis is run with stings data as the response variable. The time-series of the number of stings are turned into binary data (0: no stings, and 1: at least 1 stings). We use the same predictor variables than for the beachings, and add the root square of the beach attendance time-series (the root square is taken to respect the linearity of the logit assumption).

Results

Temporal variability of P. physalis beaching

Between 2016 and 2020, daily observations of beachings from the lifeguards show that the occurrence of P. physalis off Sydney varies both temporally and spatially (Figs 2 and 4), with the beaching frequency differing from one beach to another. Maroubra is where P. physalis is the most likely to be sighted, with 132 beaching events over four years, followed by Coogee with a total of 82, and Clovelly with 38 beaching days (October to April only). These differences can be related to differences in the beach lengths and exposures to open ocean. Maroubra is the largest, followed by Coogee, while Clovelly is far narrower than the others. In addition, the Wedding Cake Island located in front of Coogee, and the enclosed geography of Clovelly, may prevent the arrival of P. physalis (Fig 1). Simultaneous beachings in Maroubra and Coogee occur only 14% of the beaching days. However, for the sting report dataset, this number increases to 54% of simultaneous stings at the two beaches, and the correlation between the two time-series of the number of stings is significant r = 0.3 (p < 0.0001).

Fig 4. Bar plot for each beach, showing the occurrence of observed beaching events for each season (see legend) from the 2016–2020 daily lifeguard data.

Fig 4

The total occurrences indicate the number of days over the four years and the percentages for each season are relative to the total numbers of occurrences per beach (e.g. in Maroubra 50% of the beachings occurred in summer). Winter months are not seen for Clovelly as there is no data.

For Coogee and Maroubra, where daily data are available all year long, beaching events display a strong seasonal signal, with frequent events in the Austral summer (December January February) and very infrequent events in the Austral winter (June July August) (Fig 4). Indeed, between 2016 and 2020, 50% and 47% of strandings occurred during the three months of summer in Maroubra and Coogee respectively. In Maroubra, spring is (after summer) the second season with most beaching events (30% of beachings), whereas in Coogee, beaching events are more numerous in autumn (25%) than spring. Interestingly, there are still instances of winter beaching for Coogee and Maroubra, up to 10% of annual sightings in Coogee, and 3% in Maroubra. This suggests that despite the seasonal cycle to their strandings, P. physalis survive winter time and cold temperatures and can still be advected to the coast. Therefore, the seasonality of their strandings is likely influenced by environmental parameters rather than only driven by their lifecycle.

Drivers of P. physalis transport to shore

Since P. physalis is more common in summer, but not impossible in winter (hence still alive), the question is whether environmental variables drive its seasonality. Fig 5 provides a view of seasonal cycles of beaching events at Maroubra (Coogee in Supp. Mat., S1 Fig) for each week of the year (averaged over the four years), together with water temperature, cross-shore winds and wind speed. Although the water temperature displays a strong seasonal signal (Fig 5a), it does not have the same phase as the seasonal signal of beachings (shown by the grey bars) which peak in early February, while ocean temperatures are maximum in late March. However, the seasonality of wind direction visually matches the annual cycle in P. physalis beaching. In particular, while the wind speed shows no seasonal cycle comparable to the beaching variability (Fig 5c), the weekly mean of the cross-shore component of the wind shows negative values, hence a wind blowing towards the shore (easterlies) in the first and last 12 weeks of the year, when sightings of P. physalis are frequent. Conversely, positive values, hence a wind blowing predominantly from land (westerlies) is dominant in winter when P. physalis rarely reach the coast (Fig 5b). The maximum sightings also occur during the strongest easterly wind (weeks 6 and 52) and no beaching occurred during the strongest westerlies (weeks 28–30, 32–33).

Fig 5. Weekly climatology of beaching events and environmental variables at Maroubra.

Fig 5

Grey bars on all panels show the number of beaching events per week over 2016–2020 and the standard deviation is shown in light grey shading. In panel a, the weekly mean water temperature is overlaid (right axis and colours). In panel b, the weekly mean cross-shore wind velocity component is overlaid (right axis and colours) with positive (negative) values showing wind from (towards) the coast. In panel c, the mean weekly wind speed is overlaid (right axis).

The link between environmental variables and the spatial and temporal variations in P. physalis arrival to the shore is further investigated using a GEE model. Tables 1 and 2 show the variables having a statistically significant relationship to beaching and sting events, respectively.

Table 1. Outputs of a backward step-wise GEE analysis with the binary beaching event variables at Maroubra and Coogee concatenated as the response variable.

Predictors are the lagged wind zonal and meridional components, the water temperature, wave height, rip currents estimates, the ocean currents zonal and meridional components, a seasonality variable accounting for an annual cycle peaking on the 7th of February, and a “site” variable (1 for Coogee, 2 for Maroubra). Only significant predictors are shown with their coefficients, 95% confidence interval, and p-value.

Predictors Coefficient 95% CI p-value
Wind U velocity -0.32 (-0.40;-0.24) 0.000
Rip currents 0.32 (0.12;0.52) 0.002
Seasonality 0.41 (0.10;0.73) 0.010
Wind V velocity 0.06 (0.01;0.11) 0.021

Table 2. Outputs of a backward step-wise GEE analysis with the binary sting event at Maroubra and Coogee concatenated as the response variable, in summer only.

Predictors are the lagged wind zonal and meridional components, the water temperature, wave height, rip currents estimates, the ocean currents zonal and meridional components, a seasonality variable accounting for an annual cycle peaking on the 7th of February, a “site” variable (1 for Coogee, 2 for Maroubra) and the root square of the beach attendance time-series. Only significant predictors are shown with their coefficients, 95% confidence interval, and p-value.

Predictors Coefficient 95% CI p-value
Wind U velocity -0.28 (-0.42;-0.14) 0.000
Beach attendance 0.01 (0.005;0.02) 0.001
Site -0.95 (-1.66;-0.24) 0.009

This analysis reveals a significant relationship between P. physalis beaching and winds, rip currents and an annual cycle. In particular, cross-shore wind was identified as the main driver for beaching events, with a high coefficient and the lowest p-value in the model outputs (Table 1). The negative coefficient for cross-shore wind shows that negative zonal winds (i.e. towards the shore) are likely to lead to a beaching event according to the model. These statistical results support the visual match shown in Fig 5. In increasing p-value order: cross-shore wind, rip currents, the annual cycle variable and along-shore winds all contribute to the temporal variability of P. physalis beachings. It should be noted that information on the site location (Coogee or Maroubra) does not seem to improve the model. Water temperature is not an important variable of the model either, which is consistent with beaching events that have occurred at both the coldest (16°C) and warmest (23°C) water temperatures (Fig 2), hence water temperature within this range (16–23°C) does not prevent nor significantly drive beachings. Although ocean currents are thought to play a role in P. physalis transport and regions of origin [11, 12], we find no clear pattern between ocean current velocity and observed beaching events. The same holds for wave height.

Regarding sting events, the beach attendance, the site, and the zonal wind time-series are the main variables to model the variablity of the stings in summer (Table 2). Unlike for beaching events, only the zonal component of the wind has a p-value < 0.05 and rip currents do not seem to be driving sting events. Rip currents may then be an important process that transports the P. physalis from nearshore waters to the beach itself, but does not affect stings, which might occur in the ocean, to the same extent.

Since wind appears to be the main driver for P. physalis arrival to the shore, we investigate the composite wind conditions for beachings and stings. Focusing on summer, when the majority of sightings occur, rose plots of wind conditions for 24 hours preceding P. physalis sightings show that north-easterly and south-easterly (i.e. shoreward winds) are the two most favourable directions for P. physalis beachings and stings (Fig 6), while no beaching occurs from south-westerly winds. There are spatial differences between the locations: North-East is the most favourable wind condition for beaching at Coogee and Maroubra, while it is South(-East) for Clovelly. Sting and beaching reports show similar favourable conditions for P. physalis in Maroubra and Coogee, but a few differences in Clovelly (Fig 6). At Clovelly, beachings are reported during north-easterly and southerly winds (consistent with the beach orientation), but fewer stings are reported during the latter.

Fig 6. For each beach: Summer rose plots showing daily wind conditions a day prior to sting (Stings) reports, beaching (Beaching) and no beaching observations (No Beaching).

Fig 6

Each beach is shown with the yellow line.

Chances of P. physalis beachings and stings per beach and wind sector

We now investigate how likely it is to see P. physalis during favourable wind conditions and how the likelihood varies between seasons and sites. For each beach, Fig 7 displays a windrose of the wind conditions of each season, with the blue color showing the proportion of P. physalis beaching events. Wind conditions display a strong seasonality, with summer dominated by (north-)easterly winds (favourable for beachings, see Fig 6), and winter by westerly winds (unfavourable for beachings, see Fig 6). Spring and Autumn can be seen as transitional in term of wind conditions. It is important to note that on top of the seasonal variability of winds, the proportion of beaching events for each wind sector differs from a season to another. We quantify the percentage of instances when each wind direction brought P. physalis to the shore in Table 3. Overall, for any wind condition, Maroubra is where beachings are most likely, followed by Coogee and Clovelly (Table 3). Again, these differences are consistent with the geomorphology of each beach shown on Fig 1. At Maroubra and Coogee, most of the beaching events are associated with north-easterly and south-easterly winds the day prior to sightings (Fig 7), with similar chances of beaching (i.e. 16–17% for Maroubra, 10–12% for Coogee, Table 3). Focusing on summer only, the north-easterly seabreeze is slightly more likely to lead to a beaching event in Maroubra, with a 24% chance of P. physalis beachings, while it is south-easterly wind that is more prone to beaching at Coogee (13%). For Clovelly as well, south-easterly winds (12%) are more favourable than north-easterly winds (4%). For all three locations, chances of beachings during westerly winds (North-West and South-West) are negligible, showing that winds from the coast usually prevent the arrival of P. physalis to shore. We note that favourable wind conditions for P. physalis beaching in Maroubra and Coogee (i.e. North-East followed by South, Fig 6) are more frequent than those for beaching in Clovelly (i.e. South followed by North-East, Fig 6), further explaining the differences in P. physalis abundance between the locations shown in Fig 4.

Fig 7. For each season and each site, a rose plot of wind conditions is shown.

Fig 7

The blue part represents the portion of dates with these wind conditions and a beaching event.

Table 3. Frequency of beaching events per wind sector.

The 4 sectors: North-East (NE), South-East (SE), South-West (SW) and North-West (NW) are redefined following the orientation of the coastline (see windrose of Fig 1). Blue: computed on data 24 hours before a sighting, all year round from 2016–2020, black: on summer dates only from 2016–2020. The number of days for each wind sector is indicated in bracket (all year; summer only).

Chances of beaching when Clovelly Coogee Maroubra
NE (368; 167) X 4% 10% 11% 17% 24%
SE (260; 111) X 12% 12% 13% 16% 22%
SW (297; 53) X 6% 2% 5% 2% 0%
NW (211; 10) X 0% 1% 0% 1% 0%

Even if the number of stings is likely underestimated (not all stings are treated and hence recorded by the lifeguards), the chance of stings displayed in Table 4 shows more frequent stings than beachings for any wind condition. This could be due to the differing datasets, but also to the fact that beachings P. physalis are only reported by lifeguards at 9AM, while stings can occur over a larger area (on the beach and in adjacent water) during the whole day. Still, the wind conditions transporting P. physalis to the shore are qualitatively the same for the two datasets. Indeed, as with the beachings, it is unlikely for stings to be reported after westerly winds for all three locations. For Coogee and Maroubra, North-East is the most favourable condition followed by South-East, while it is the opposite for Clovelly. Interestingly, north-easterly and south-easterly winds have almost equal chances to be followed by beachings at Coogee and Maroubra, although the chance of stings is much higher during north-easterly than south-easterly wind conditions, especially for Maroubra. As already mentioned (Table 2), there is an association between sting reports and the presence of people recreating in the water which can be influenced by the weather conditions, with north-easterly winds often associated with warm sunny days, while south-easterly are often the result of a low pressure system with rain and swell.

Table 4. Frequency of summer stings per wind sector.

Computed on data 24 hours before a report, on summer months only, from 2016 to 2020. The 4 sectors: North-East (NE), South-East (SE), South-West (SW) and North-West (NW) are redefined following the orientation of the coastline (see windrose of Fig 1). After each wind sector the number of instances that wind blew from this direction is written in parentheses. NW results will not be considered as there are only 2 reports available for this wind direction.

Chances of stings when Clovelly Coogee Maroubra
NE (73) 56% 43% 55%
SE (48) 48% 42% 38%
SW (21) 24% 5% 10%
NW (2) 50% 0% 50%

Discussion

This study is the first one to explore P. physalis beaching observations in relation to various environmental variables in Australia. Using multiple datasets collected from three proximate locations off Sydney’s coast, our results show that the occurrence of beachings differ in time as well as from one beach to another. We also demonstrate a strong relationship between this spatio-temporal variability and wind direction, with North-East and South-East clearly identified as favourable wind directions for P. physalis beachings at these locations. The differences in occurrence of observed beaching events among close-by beaches are likely explained by the geomorphology of the coastline as well as by the differences in frequency of favourable wind conditions. For example, winds favourable for beachings at Clovelly are different from the two other beaches (Fig 6; Table 3), and it could be explained by the orientation of Clovelly, which is oriented more towards the South than the other sites. The year-round dataset over four years enables the identification of a clear seasonal pattern in the frequency of beaching events. Most P. physalis beachings occurred in summer, with the least number of beachings recorded in winter. Given results from the GEE analysis, Figs 5 and 7, this variability seems strongly forced by the wind’s seasonality.

When analysing the beaching and sting datasets, some of the findings were unexpected. There are days where P. physalis beachings were sighted while no stings were reported and vice-versa. As the number of stings depends on the number of people present in the water, no stings being reported does not necessarily mean that no P. physalis were present in the water. Differences between the two datasets could be explained by the difference in the timing of the reports but also by the nature of the reports (stings happen in the water, while beachings are reported only when P. physalis are stranded on the shore). The discrepancy may also be due to weather conditions: north-easterly winds usually occur on sunny days, while southerly winds are often grey and rainy, influencing the number of days with beach-goers and their exposure to stings. Also, north-easterly winds usually occur in the afternoon at these locations when beach attendance is high and stings more likely, while beachings are recorded in the mornings by lifeguards. Even if sting and beaching reports do not match on a daily basis, the results regarding their link to environmental variables are quite similar across both datasets. We also identified North-East and South as typical wind conditions when stings occurred, and the differences between beaches and wind directions were similar to results using the beaching reports. Hence, wind direction is proposed as a major driver of seasonal patterns observed in P. physalis’ arrival to shore although the impact of their life cycle cannot be ruled out.

The relationship between winds, surface ocean currents, and P. physalis movements was first investigated by [21]. They studied P. physalis drifting direction versus the wind and observed a clear tendency of P. physalis moving at around 45° of the wind direction. The drifting angle of P. physalis and its asymmetry was later extensively studied by [1] using field observations and conducting experiments. They found that left (right) handed P. physalis drifted at 40° to the right (left) of the wind direction under light winds (under < 8 m s−1), and drifted in the direction of the wind under stronger winds. These concepts were extended by [10, 22], when a theory regarding P. physalis transport was developed by comparing its hydrodynamics to a wind-powered sailboat. This study shows the complexity of P. physalis hydrodynamic relationship with winds. P. physalis drifting angle to the wind is now believed to be approximately 40° and is suggested to vary with wind speed and with the size of P. physalis [1, 22]. Due to the lack of data on P. physalis’s handedness, this has not been investigated in the present study, but a suggested hypothesis is that of the two favourable wind directions identified, one direction (e.g. North-East) will push left-handed P. physalis to the coast; while the other (e.g. South) will push the right-handed to the coast.

It is important to highlight that the wind is a major contributor to the ageostrophic component of the surface current (influencing circulation and generating local waves). Stokes drift and wind-induced currents are known to be highly relevant in regard to the transport of passive tracers in the ocean surface [23, 24]. Thus, this relationship between beaching events and cross-shore wind can be explained by the wind drag on the above-water sail, but also by the wind-influenced water transport.

Some beaching events are recorded during winter months dominated by westerly winds, for example 10% of beaching events off Coogee occurred in winter (Fig 4). In addition, there is a high frequency of beaching events in spring recorded during weeks dominated by south-westerly winds, as can be observed during September and May in Fig 5. If wind was the only driving variable, beachings would not be expected when wind is coming from land. Moreover, we found that beachings are more likely in summer under any wind conditions (Table 3), and chances of beaching events under a certain wind direction vary from one season to another (Fig 7). On top of that, the variable accounting for the seasonal signal appears as a significant variable in the GEE model (Table 1), meaning that the seasonality of beaching events is not entirely captured by winds and rip currents. The wind is therefore not the sole driver of P. physalis transport to shore and other physiological or environmental variables such as sea state and ocean currents could also influence P. physalis transport and subsequent beaching events. Stokes drift, the movement caused by wave propagation, can also have an important role on the drift of organisms and inert particles in the ocean (i.e. lobster larvae [25], plastic [26]), and is likely relevant to P. physalis transport. However, our attempt to link ocean current and wave height with P. physalis beachings was not conclusive. This could be due to the datasets, with qualitative wave height data that may not be precise enough to resolve the scales at stake. Moreover the shallowest measurement available of ocean currents is located at a 11m depth, while the main body of P. physalis colonies usually only reach few centimeters. Observations of ocean currents closer to the surface and of higher resolution may be necessary to expose any dependence of beaching events on these variables.

To date, little is known about the ecology, lifecycle, and pathways of P. physalis. It has been suggested that colonies have a lifecycle of approximately 12 months [9] but specific details are lacking. Environmental factors such as light, temperature, salinity and food availability may have an effect on jellyfish reproduction and growth rates [2, 9, 27]. The results presented in this study demonstrate that P. physalis can be present close to the coast year-round and abundances may fluctuate during the year but also from one year to another, but show a general seasonal cycle which could be due related to P. physalis’s lifecycle. We do not find local ocean temperature to be a predictor of beaching events, and, within the range reached at these latitudes, cold water is not preventing the presence of P. physalis (e.g. beachings observed on the 01/09/2019 with water at 16°C). However, the seasonal cycle of ocean temperature at Sydney lagged by 3–4 months (similar to temperature at lower latitudes) is correlated with beaching events. We therefore do not exclude the possible influence of sea surface temperature on P. physalis’s abundance offshore [28, 29]. Our results show that local winds are important in nearshore waters, but we also hypothesise that ocean circulation offshore may be important in transporting P. physalis, for example from tropical zones to the temperate latitudes (where our observations are from), with the East Australian Current (EAC) being the main pathway [30]. Still, the unknown source location and variability in offshore abundance of P. physalis is a major source of uncertainty in this study and a clear knowledge gap to be addressed in future research.

It should be kept in mind that the observational dataset is anecdotal, and reliability of counts assessing P. physalis beaching may be affected by human subjectivity. Additional data collection would ideally include P. physalis size and morphology (left or right-handed). Records of an estimated number of P. physalis beached, as well as sustained observations at more locations would also be beneficial.

To conclude, our four year observational database of P. physalis beachings off Sydney, showed a clear seasonal signal of beachings in this area, with most beaching events occurring in summer. We identified a strong dependence of beaching events with wind direction at seasonal and daily timescales. These results are in agreement with literature suggesting that the wind plays an important role in P. physalis transport in other study areas (e.g. [6, 11, 13, 15, 28, 29]). Interestingly, rip currents, a physical mechanism occurring at the scale of the beach, are positively correlated to the beaching of P. physalis while stings are related to the sites. We expect these results to be valid for P. physalis arrival to the coast in other locations. However, the role of other variables need to be further investigated when more data are available, in particular for unexpected and extreme beaching events.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Weekly climatology of beaching events and environmental variables at Coogee.

Grey bars on all panels show the number of beaching events per week over 2016-2020 and the standard deviation is shown in light grey shading. In panel a, the weekly mean water temperature is overlaid (right axis and colours). In panel b, the weekly mean cross-shore wind velocity component is overlaid (right axis and colours) with positive (negative) values showing wind from (towards) the coast. In panel c, then mean weekly wind speed is overlaid (right axis).

(TIFF)

S1 Data

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Duncan Rennie, Manager Public Safety and Aquatic Services, as well as the Randwick City Council and all lifeguards and surf lifesavers who collected the datasets. The authors would also like to thank Stats Central from UNSW for their guidance with novel statistical analyses and the anonymous reviewers for their invaluable feedback during the preparation of this manuscript for publication.

Data Availability

Physalia physalis reports are in Supporting information. Wind measurement dataset can be obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology (http://www.bom.gov.au/places/nsw/MV07/observations/kurnell/). IMOS data is freely accessible at https://portal.aodn.org.au/.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Totton, A. and Mackie, G. (1960). Studies on Physalia Physalis (L.): Pt.1. Natural History and Morphology; Pt.2. Behaviour and Histology. Discovery reports. Cambridge University Press.
  • 2. Munro C., Vue Z., Behringer R., and Dunn C. (2019). Morphology and development of the portuguese man of war, physalia physalis. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Purcell J. (1984). Predation on fish larvae by physalia physalis, the portuguese man of war. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 19. doi: 10.3354/meps019189 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Mitchell S. O., Bresnihan S., and Scholz F. (2021). Mortality and skin pathology of farmed atlantic salmon (salmo salar) caused by exposure to the jellyfish physalia physalis in ireland. Journal of Fish Diseases, 44(11):1861–1864. doi: 10.1111/jfd.13499 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Burnett JW, G W. (1989). A fatal jellyfish envenomation by the portuguese man-o’war. Toxicon. doi: 10.1016/0041-0101(89)90050-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Prieto L., Macías D., Peliz Ã., and Ruiz J. (2015). Portuguese man-of-war (physalia physalis) in the mediterranean: A permanent invasion or a casual appearance? Scientific Reports, 5. doi: 10.1038/srep11545 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Cegolon L., Heymann W., Lange J., and Mastrangelo G. (2013). Jellyfish stings and their management: A review. Marine drugs, 11:523–50. doi: 10.3390/md11020523 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Surf Lifesaving Australia, S. (2020). National coastal safety report 2020.
  • 9. Ferrer L. and Gonzalez M. (2020). Relationship between dimorphism and drift in the portuguese man-of-war. Continental Shelf Research. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Lee, D. and Schaeffer, A. and Groeskamp, S. (2021). Drifting dynamics of the bluebottle (Physalia physalis). Ocean Science
  • 11. Ferrer L. and Pastor A. (2017). The portuguese man-of-war: Gone with the wind. Regional Studies in Marine Science, 14:53–62. doi: 10.1016/j.rsma.2017.05.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Headlam Jasmine L., Lyons Kieran, Kenny Jon, Lenihan Eamonn S., Quigley Declan T.G., Helps William. et al. (2020). Insights on the origin and drift trajectories of portuguese man of war (physalia physalis) over the celtic sea shelf area. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. doi: 10.1016/j.ecss.2020.107033 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Pontin, D., Worner, S., and Watts, M. (2009). Using time lagged input data to improve prediction of stinging jellyfish occurrence at new zealand beaches by multi-layer perceptrons. volume 5506, pages 909–916.
  • 14. Pontin D., Schliebs S., Worner S., and Watts M. (2011). Determining factors that influence the dispersal of a pelagic species: A comparison between artificial neural networks and evolutionary algorithms. Ecological Modelling, 222(10):1657–1665. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.03.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Canepa A., Purcell J., Cordova P., Fernandez M., and Palma S. (2020). Massive strandings of pleustonic portuguese man-of-war (physalia physalis) related to enso events along the southeastern pacific ocean. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Research, 48:2020. doi: 10.3856/vol48-issue5-fulltext-2530 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Wood J. E., Roughan M., and Tate P. (2012). Finding a proxy for wind stress over the coastal ocean. Marine and Freshwater Research, 63:528. doi: 10.1071/MF11250 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Wood J., Schaeffer A., Roughan M., and Tate P. (2015). Seasonal variability in the continental shelf waters off southeastern australia: Fact or fiction? Continental Shelf Research, 112. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Roughan, M., Schaeffer, A., and Kioroglou, S. (2013). Assessing the design of the nsw-imos moored observation array from 2008-2013: Recommendations for the future. In OCEANS 2013 MTS/IEEE—San Diego: An Ocean in Common, pages 1–7, United States. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
  • 19. Schaeffer A., Roughan M., and Morris B. (2013). Cross-shelf dynamics in a western boundary current regime: Implications for upwelling. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 43:1042–1059. doi: 10.1175/JPO-D-12-0177.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Liang K.-Y. and Zeger S. L. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika, 73(1):13–22. doi: 10.1093/biomet/73.1.13 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Woodcock A. H. (1944). A theory of surface water motion deduced from the wind-induced motion of the physalia. Journal of Marine Research, 5:196. [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Iosilevskii G. and Weihs D. (2009). Hydrodynamics of sailing of the portuguese man-of-war physalia physalis. Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 6(36):613–626. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2008.0457 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Ardhuin F. and Marié L. and Rascle N. and Forget P. and Roland A. (2019). The Role of Ekman Currents, Geostrophy, and Stokes Drift in the Accumulation of Floating Microplastic. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 39:2009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Onink V. and Wichmann D. and Delandmeter P. and van Sebille E. (2019). The Role of Ekman Currents, Geostrophy, and Stokes Drift in the Accumulation of Floating Microplastic. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 124:2019. doi: 10.1029/2018JC014547 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Feng M., Caputi N., Penn J., Slawinski D., de Lestang S., Weller E., et al. (2011). Ocean circulation, stokes drift, and connectivity of western rock lobster (panulirus cygnus) population. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 68(7):1182–1196. doi: 10.1139/f2011-065 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Onink V., Wichmann D., Delandmeter P., and van Sebille E. (2019). The role of ekman currents, geostrophy, and stokes drift in the accumulation of floating microplastic. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 124(3):1474–1490. doi: 10.1029/2018JC014547 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Purcell J., Fuentes V., Atienza D., Olariaga A., Talves U., Colahan C., et al. (2012). Temperature effects on asexual reproduction rates of scyphozoan polyps from the nw mediterranean sea. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-012-1047-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Torres-Conde E., Martínez-Daranas B., and Prieto L. (2021). The havana littoral, an area of distribution for physalia physalis in the atlantic ocean. Regional Studies in Marine Science, 44:101752. doi: 10.1016/j.rsma.2021.101752 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Fierro P., Arriagada L., Piñones A., and Araya J.-F. (2021). New insights into the abundance and seasonal distribution of the portuguese man-of-war physalia physalis (cnidaria: Siphonophorae) in the southeastern pacific. Regional Studies in Marine Science, 41:101557. doi: 10.1016/j.rsma.2020.101557 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Oke P. R., Roughan M., Cetina-Heredia P., Pilo G. S., Ridgway K. R., Rykova T., et al. (2019). Revisiting the circulation of the east australian current: Its path, separation, and eddy field. Progress in Oceanography, 176:102139. doi: 10.1016/j.pocean.2019.102139 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

David Hyrenbach

4 May 2021

PONE-D-21-06875

Driving the blue fleet: Temporal variability and drivers behind bluebottle Physalia physalis beachings off Sydney, Australia.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bourg,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Before this ms can be published, substantial changes need to be implemented to augment the analyses and strengthen the main lessons of the paper.

The introduction needs to be streamlined. For instance, the second paragraph (lines 17 to 46) is very lengthy and could be split into smaller focused sections.   The next two paragraphs (lines 47 to 94) could also be streamlined, and some of the material could be moved to the discussion, where it would be placed in context of the project’s findings.

As stated by one reviewer, the authors have not performed the proper statistical analysis to sustain their conclusions. Even though several papers dealing with the analytical approach required to understand environmental forcing are cited, the authors have only used person correlations in their analysis. The authors have to improve this section (by including a whole Data Analysis section in the methods) and undertake a more comprehensive analysis of the data at hand.to determine the influence of these factors (and potentially their interactions) on the beachings (and the summer stings).  The current piece-meal approach, where a single variable is considered at a time need to be augmented and strengthened. 

To facilitate the understanding of the patterns, I would also suggest focusing on the two sites with year-long data and removing the third site (rocky shore with only summer-time data).   Limiting the analysis to the two sites with year-long data (Clovelly and Maroubra) provides a more comprehensive and comparable perspective.  The ms already explains that this site is inherently different: “Note that Coogee has a small rocky outcrop (known as the Wedding Cake Island) 740 m from the beach, which limits wave action on the beach. Clovelly beach is more South-oriented and is at the end of a narrow bay, hence more protected than the two other beaches (Fig 1).”

Additionally, the Physalia physalis datasets need to be analyzed in a more quantitative fashion.  In particular, I would suggest the following analyses:

* Number of beachings:

Compare the number of beaching observations versus the number of survey days from a beach to beach.  There are 38 and 132 beaching reports for Clovelly and Maroubra respectively, even though the two beaches were surveyed on 94% and 93% of the days. Is this difference significant?  Is there an overall higher beaching rate in Maroubra?  Despite the data gaps, I would suggest you perform a cross-correlation to quantify how well the beachings data at the two beaches cross-correlate with each other. 

* Number of stings: 

I would suggest focusing this analysis on the same two beaches used in the beachings analysis, and discarding the data from Coogee.  Despite the data gaps, I would suggest you perform a cross-correlation to quantify how well the beachings data at the two beaches cross-correlate with each other. 

You state that “More than 10 stings have been reported 6, 9 and 10% of all patrolled days for Clovelly, Coogee and Maroubra”. 

Why did you not consider days where less than 10 stings have been recorded?  You could use values above and below this threshold as two separate categories (low and high), or you could take the log10-transform of the data.

How was this threshold number selected?  Seems like anomalous events should be determined on a beach-basis, not using the same threshold across all beaches.   I would suggest you provide a data summary of the number of stings reported per day, and then attempt to model these distributions to figure out “outlier days” for each beach. 

* Number of beachings VS Number of stings:

It would be very useful to investigate whether these two datasets are correlated.  Using the summer-period only, when stings are reported, can you perform a correlation for each beach, to see if there are more stings on days with more beachings.  This would be a very informative analysis.

* Wind Data: 

Can you please define the wind sectors and provide some summaries of wind speed / direction for the different seasons?  The ms currently states “predominant winds in this area are north-easterly, westerly and southerly, as shown on the windrose in Fig 1.”

The analyses of beachings per wind direction also need to involve statistical tests, using either chi-square tests or logistic regressions.  Reporting mere proportions is not enough.  You need to provide a sense of the variability (SD for the proportions) and the associated p values.  

* Ocean Currents:

Can you please report how well the near-surface and the integrated currents correlate with each other?  And report how well they match the wind speeds?   Currently, the ms states: “Here, we used daily averages at the shallowest bins (11 m and 12 m, respectively) and the depth integrated flow”.

* Seasonality:

The proportion of beachings needs to be statistically related to the different seasons.  This could be done with a chi-square test or using a logistic regression model, with the response variable of presence / absence of beachings.  The latter approach would be better, because it would allow you to assess the influence of other variables at once, including inter-annual variability.  Currently, the ms merely reports the %s of summer / winter days with beachings, and a metric of variability (SD for the proportions) is needed  Moreover, these proportions need to be compared statistically, using p values and measures of effect size (like the odds ratio).

* Lags and Multiple Temporal Scales:

While the paper mentions a “zero” lag and provides results at daily and weekly time scales, it is unclear how many lags were tested and how the weekly data were averaged and analyzed.  I would suggest you provide a summary table, showing what analyses were done, listing the lags that were attempted and the different temporal scales that were considered.

* Multi-variate Analyses:

These environmental factors are likely cross-correlated:  wind speed / direction, currents, water temperature.  I would ask the authors to explore these cross-correlations and to provide a supplementary table where these results are summarized.  If there are significant cross-correlations, I would urge the authors to use partial correlations to explore the influence of the drivers, after accounting for other cross-correlated variables. 

Moreover, it would be useful to know whether these environmental drivers differed seasonally and from year-to-year (within seasons).  This would provide the readers with a broader oceanographic background of the study area and the potential drivers. 

Finally, I would also suggest you summarize the weather (wind / current) and water temperature conditions measured during periods of unusually high and unusually low beaching (and stringing) periods.  This would provide a complementary perspective to the previous modeling approach, which would give readers a more in-depth understanding of the drivers of unusual “events”.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 18 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

David Hyrenbach, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

  1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

2a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

2b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain satellite images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1.              You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2.              If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

4. Please include captions for *all* your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Author,

You have made a great work into collecting and preparing a several-year dataset of stranded Physalia physalis colonies in three beaches in Australia. However, because they represent just three specific geographical points with their owns costals dynamics (in sence of oceanography and meterology), I recomend you to look forward a journal with emphasis in local studies.

Moreover, you haven't perform the proper statistical analysis to sustain your conclusions. Even you have cited very good papers dealing with the analytical approach required to understand environmental forcing on straned Physalia colonies, you have used just person correlations in just some statements. You must to improve this section (by including a whole Data Analysis section in methods, for instance).

The remaining of the manuscript is based on this (non proved) correlation and forcing and by this make it impossible to approve.

The relationship with the stings again is lacking of the proper statistical approach and must be reformulated.

Reviewer #2: SOME COMMENTS ABOUT THE PAPER:

After reading the article, I write down some recommendations and some thoughts that could help the authors to tweak some comments made throughout the article.

The authors use some apostrophes in grammatical structures where their use at the scientific article level may not be necessary or these structures can be rewritten. It is recommended to review its use with a native speaker, such as in:

…P.physalis's morphology

…P. physalis's course

Line 67:

For validation, these models were compared to massive beaching events that occurred in summer 2010 off the Basque coast (France) and the Mediterranean Basin.

The Basque coast is in Spain, in the autonomous community of the Basque Country. This community ends at the border between Spain and France. In the summer of 2010, the presence of Physalia occurred at several beaches along the coast. But on some important beaches, such as La Concha Beach (in the city of Donostia-San Sebastián), small fishing boats were transformed into cleaning boats and left the beach area to meet the Portuguese man-of-war and collect them before their arrival along the beach.

Line 194:

The few number of sightings in winter as well as P. physalis supposed lifecycle could be explained by a collective death in winter.

For me, a low or no number of winter sightings in the coastal area does not mean that there are a large number of deaths in the open sea. It is to be expected that there are always Portuguese man-of-war of different ages drifting for months in the great oceanic gyres (using the wind as main driver) with a peak of reproduction that could occur at the end of summer-beginning of autumn. On the European coast of the North Atlantic Ocean, it is typical that during the winter (not only in the months of summer) there is also a notable presence of small Physalia (3-5 cm long float, 3-4 months old) that due to the very strong southerly winds of successive storms (favourable to dragging towards the Bay of Biscay) have caused the appearance of Physalia on the coast to be anticipated. Therefore, the highest mortality possibly occurs when these organisms reach the dry beach, where they no longer leave and end up dying. These organisms do not appear to die from the severe winter conditions, at least in the North Atlantic Ocean. These conditions can make it possible for them to reach the coast at a time other than summer. It is for this reason that it is important to monitor the beaches outside of the time that the beaches are patrolled and during the lifetime of the organisms.

Line 348:

[11] similarly suggest that wind is a dominant driver of P. physalis transport, but propose wind to be more relevant offshore and ocean circulation becoming the main driver in nearshore areas.

[11] suggests that the wind is the most relevant mechanism both off and on the coast for this peculiar organism. The very superficial ocean circulation (considering this as the one that exists in the first 5 centimetres of the water column, where Physalia lives) in the great gyres of ocean circulation is greatly influenced by the wind, as shown by very low-weight drift buoys floating on the surface. The data of these buoys shows that the surface ocean circulation is far from following the Ekman theory (that is, generating a surface current at 45 degrees from the wind). It is for this reason that possibly the best solution to explain the drift of Physalia is to use the wind, because also the wind is the generator of local waves and the circulation at the upper centimetres of the water column.

Line 358:

In addition, there was a high frequency of beaching events in spring recorded during weeks that were dominated by south-westerly winds, as can be observed during September and May in Fig 5. This result is surprising since beachings would not be expected when wind is coming from land, if wind were the only driving variable.

To study the arrival of these organisms, it would be necessary to analyse not only the winds of the days prior to arrival, but also the evolution of winds throughout the life of these organisms, which could be from a few months to a year (more or less), depending on the size of the organism. Prevailing southwesterly winds could probably bring many Physalia located in the open sea below Australia. And winds from the northeast, east or southeast (in the days prior to arrival), even if they were of short duration, could cause these organisms to end up in the study beaches. Therefore, it is highly recommended to analyse the annual evolution of the wind in a very large area (several degrees in longitude and latitude) around the study area. Surely these organisms have been able to travel more than 10,000 kilometres on their journey to reach the beach.

Line 371:

Observations of ocean currents closer to the surface and of higher resolution (e.g. coastal High-Frequency RADAR) may be necessary to expose any dependence of beaching events on these variables.

The fundamental problem with using high-frequency radar observations to explain caravel drifts is that they provide information on currents at 1-3 meters above the surface. This information is quite different from that existing in the same ocean-atmosphere interface, that is, in the first centimeters of the water column. So to speak, the Portuguese caravel is a very light balloon (a caravel of 10 centimeters of float can weigh around 25 grams) that has tentacles that act as an anchor so that it does not fly. So it seems unlikely that trying to explain their drift with currents below 5-10 centimeters from the sea surface will not do much.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-06875_reviewer.doc

PLoS One. 2022 Mar 17;17(3):e0265593. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265593.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


24 Sep 2021

21/09/2021

Dear editor,

We thank you for the opportunity to revise manuscript ID PONE-D-21-06875 entitled “Driving the

blue fleet: Temporal variability and drivers behind bluebottle Physalia physalis beachings off

Sydney, Australia” which was submitted for consideration for publication in PLOS ONE.

We thank the reviewers for their thoughtful suggestions to our study. We have addressed our

responses to the reviewers' comments below and identified where changes have been made in the

revised manuscript using track changes and here with green text. We hope that the study is now

suitable for publication. It would be an honour to be published in PLOS ONE.

Yours sincerely,

Natacha Bourg and co-authors

REVIEWER 1:

Comments on:

“Driving the blue fleet: Temporal variability and drivers behind bluebottle Physalia

physalis beachings off Sydney, Australia.”

Abstract

Reviewer comment: The usage of “Jellyfish-like colonial organism” is not required since the formal

definition of Jellyfish encompasses the order Siphonophorae.

Author response: We have changed to “are colonial siphonophores that live at the surface of the

ocean” (Line 1 of Abstract).

The are other datasets of Physalia strandings covering comparable temporal coverage, so the use of

the words “unprecedented dataset”.

We did not come across such a daily presence / absence dataset for 4 years (please provide the

reference) but “unprecedented" was removed.

Classical presence/absence related with the higher sampling effort in summer?, in abstract must

include the avoidance to this factor.

The two sites focused on in this study (Maroubra and Coogee) have the same sampling rate (daily)

for presence / absence (lifeguard observations) in summer and throughout the year.

Introduction

Line 7: Reference #2 must be updated since the provided reference link to the pre-print version, but

now the work from Munro et al., can be found here (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-51842-1).

Thank you, the reference has been updated line 7.

Line 8: A reference must be given to this statement.

References have been added line 9 regarding the predatory behaviours and diet of P. physalis.

Specifically, Purcell (1984) and Munro et al. (2019) have been added.

Line 12: The cited reference (Prieto et al., 2015) doesn't account for any Fatal encounter with P.

physalis. The proper citation must be given.

We have added proper citation: Burnett et al (1989) line 13.

Line 20: You must provided already available (and listed in your reference list) information dealing

with spatio-temporal distribution and drivers of massive stranding, for this species in other places.

Line 20-21: There isn’t such a gap of information. Proper references must be given (see work from

Pontin et al., Canepa, et al, etc). You can refine the knowledge to some specific location and/or

analytical process; but the meaning of a gap isn’t what we have today.

We have completely re-written and organised the introduction, including a paragraph on the spatiotemporal

context and previous studies. We had missed the study from Canepa et al. (2020) and are

grateful for the mention of this great study. The new paragraph read ( Lines 40-71):

“Previous studies have linked P. physalis beach stranding to environmental conditions and model

their arrival to the coast, but have usually focused on unusual events (e.g. swarms). Ferrer and

Pastor (2017); Prieto et al. (2015) studied massive beaching events that occurred in summer 2010

off the Basque coast (Spain) and the Mediterranean Basin using lagrangian particle tracking. Ferrer

and Pastor (2017) proposed that offshore origin of these beached P. physalis was strongly dependent

on the wind parametrisation used in the lagrangian tracking model. They therefore concluded these

beaches P. physalis, were likely to have originated from the northern part of the North Atlantic

Subtropical Gyre, thousands of kilometers away. They proposed wind as a dominant driver of P.

physalis transport both off and on the coast. Prieto et al. (2015) suggested that the massive arrival of

P. physalis to the coast had been strongly influenced by zonal winds. Since then, massive beachings

of P. physalis off the coast of Ireland in autumn 2016 (August and October) prompted further

research (Headlam, 2020) to identify source populations of P. physalis. Results suggested that the

population of P. physalis may have originated from the North Atlantic Current, supporting the

findings of Ferrer and Pastor (2017). Using sting reports from five summers across eight locations

in New Zealand, Pontin et al. (2009) developed a neural network-based model to simulate the

arrival of P. physalis towards the shore while assessing the contribution of large-scale winds and

waves. They show that wave direction far from the shore can transport swarms to the studied

region, while wind direction and speed one day before sting reports, in cells close to the shore

strongly influence the strandings of P. physalis. A more recent and similar study by Pontin et al.

(2011) extended the analysis to different regions all around New-Zealand. They validate results

found by Pontin et al. (2009) that both wind and wave influence the occurrence of P. Physalis

strandings, while highlighting that different oceanographic regimes driving the beachings occur in

different study areas. Unlike previous studies, a recent survey from Canepa et al. (2020) recorded

nearly continuous strandings of P. Physalisin Chile for three years, with the highest densities in the

winter seasons two years in a row. These massive events coincided with an El Ni ~no Southern

Oscillation (ENSO) perturbation, with warmer ocean temperature conditions, and positive zonal

wind anomalies (westerlies) transporting P. physalis to the coast, further highlighting wind as the

major driver of P. physalis movements and variability

Line 28-30: You use a moon’s phase effect over monthly aggregation of a box jellyfish which is

totally different from a “pleustonic drifter” as Physalia physalis is. Beside this, you don’t provide

any reference and/or data that supports this statement. Please modify.

Thank you for this comment. However, the moon phase has been suggested to be relevant for P.

physalis in Hawaii. Even so, we have removed all analyses and mentions to the moon cycle in the

manuscript since we observed no association.

Line 30-31: You suggest a physiologic response of P. physalis to the moon cycle, based in one

statement which hasn’t any support. Remove this phrase.

The sentence has been removed.

Line 69: The Basque coast as cited in the proposed reference (“individuals of this species arrived at

the Basque coast (southeastern Bay of Biscay)”) refers to Spain and not France.

Our apologies, this has been rectified, line 42, and now reads:

“Prieto et al., 2015 and Ferrer and Pastor, 2017 studied massive beaching events that occurred in

summer 2010 off the Basque coast (Spain) and the Mediterranean Basin using lagrangian particle

tracking.”

Line 88: The reference here (Pontin et al.) must have the number 14 and not the number 21. Beside

this, there is another report from the same author which is much conclusive and required to be

incorporated into the document (refer to this: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.03.002).

Thank you for this information, we have updated these references as suggested see line 61.

Methods

Fig. 1: The satellite image isn’t clear enough where comes from. A dashed square highlighting the

area (or something similar) will be required.

Thank you, the image has been modified to illustrate this (see image below).

Line 137-138: Provide the statistical summary of the no-correlation between number of sting and

beach-goers’ statement.

Nothing is said about how author’s will analyze the effects of environmental variables over the

stranded data. A full section of Data Analysis is highly recommended, since this step is crucial in

the development of the objectives.

Thank you for highlighting this, there is now a full section with the heading Statistical Analyses in

the revised manuscript (lines 162-180) where a new statistical analysis is presented, and the

methods are described in detail.

Results

Line 193 and general: When highlighting comparisons about the number and/or percentage the

statistical result must be given.

The Results section has almost been entirely re-written including new statistical analyses. Please see

details below.

Line 196: There is no enough evidence along the section to infer a collective death in winter, since

some colonies can be washed offshore by the change in wind conditions. Also the life span of

colonies is highly unknown.

This statement has been modified, and now reads (lines 202-206):

"Interestingly, there are still instances of winter beaching for Coogee and Maroubra, up to 10% of

annual sightings in Coogee. This suggests that despite the seasonal cycle to their strandings, P.

physalis survive wintertime and cold temperatures and can still be advected to the coast.”

Drivers of beaching events

Line 202-203: No formal statistical approach is given to give support to that statement.

Line 204: Just for the wave height condition the usage of the Pearson’s correlation coefficient is

showed but considering the literature that authors have read, they should know that a direct

correlation coefficient isn’t enough to explain complex spatio-temporal process.

Line 210-225: The association between environmental variables and stranded jellyfish are analyzed

individually and mostly based on visual inspection of the environmental and biological process,

without the usage of proper statistical approaches.

The revised manuscript now includes a whole new set of statistical analysis. We have added lagged

correlations, and results from Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) models for the two allyearlong

beaching sites, and different timescales (daily and weekly), that support our previous

findings. Please see Data & Methods (lines 163-180) and Results (lines 220 and lines 252).

Seasonality of environmental variables

Line 230: There is no prove to sustain that statement

In the new GEE analysis, we investigate a possible relationship between the different environmental

variables and beaching events, supporting the statistical relationship between zonal (I.e., crossshore)

wind and beaching events, see Section Results lines 270-278 and Table 2.

Line 308: Put a comma after “Interestingly”

Done, line 315.

Discussion

Lines 319-321: You cannot sustain this statement “Our results demonstrate a strong relationship

between this spatio-temporal variability and wind direction at the daily timescale”, since you

haven't provided an analytical framework where statistical-based conclusions have arise. This

requires much more than image (visual) inspection.

We agree with the reviewer, and hope that the new statistical analysis mentioned above will

convince them.

Lines 323-325: You have not inspect the proportion of left/right-handed stranded Physalia physalis

colonies in your study; so you cannot conclude a direct effect from the wind, avoiding local surface

currents in complex coastal areas as you have signaled.

The reviewer is right, this was only a supposition which needs to be tested when the relevant

observations are available. This is what we meant by “It is possible that” at the beginning of the

sentence.

Conclusion

In general conclusions must be re-written after the proper analytical method have been given and

executed.

The whole manuscript has been re-written including a better organized introduction, new analytical

methods and results, which provide additional support to our conclusion.

REVIEWER 2:

SOME COMMENTS ABOUT THE PAPER:

After reading the article, I write down some recommendations and some thoughts that could help

the authors to tweak some comments made throughout the article.

We are thankful for the constructive comments which helped to improve the manuscript. Please find

details below.

The authors use some apostrophes in grammatical structures where their use at the scientific article

level may not be necessary or these structures can be rewritten. It is recommended to review its use

with a native speaker, such as in:

…P.physalis's morphology

…P. physalis's course

Updated to P. physalis, thanks.

Line 67:

“For validation, these models were compared to massive beaching events that occurred in summer

2010 off the Basque coast (France) and the Mediterranean Basin.”

The Basque coast is in Spain, in the autonomous community of the Basque Country. This

community ends at the border between Spain and France. In the summer of 2010, the presence of

Physalia occurred at several beaches along the coast. But on some important beaches, such as La

Concha Beach (in the city of Donostia-San Sebastián), small fishing boats were transformed into

cleaning boats and left the beach area to meet the Portuguese man-of-war and collect them before

their arrival along the beach.

Our apologies, this has been rectified (line 43). Thanks for sharing the background for this event, it

is nice to see that this was a shared effort between different communities.

Line 194:

“The few number of sightings in winter as well as P. physalis supposed lifecycle could be explained

by a collective death in winter.”

For me, a low or no number of winter sightings in the coastal area does not mean that there are a

large number of deaths in the open sea. It is to be expected that there are always Portuguese man-ofwar

of different ages drifting for months in the great oceanic gyres (using the wind as main driver)

with a peak of reproduction that could occur at the end of summer-beginning of autumn. On the

European coast of the North Atlantic Ocean, it is typical that during the winter (not only in the

months of summer) there is also a notable presence of small Physalia (3-5 cm long float, 3-4

months old) that due to the very strong southerly winds of successive storms (favourable to

dragging towards the Bay of Biscay) have caused the appearance of Physalia on the coast to be

anticipated. Therefore, the highest mortality possibly occurs when these organisms reach the dry

beach, where they no longer leave and end up dying. These organisms do not appear to die from the

severe winter conditions, at least in the North Atlantic Ocean. These conditions can make it possible

for them to reach the coast at a time other than summer. It is for this reason that it is important to

monitor the beaches outside of the time that the beaches are patrolled and during the lifetime of the

organisms.

We have removed this statement and thank the reviewer for the additional examples. We have also

observed P. physalis in winter, but much less than in summer, even during favourable wind

conditions. We are planning a survey of P. physalis‘ size to investigate the link between size and

seasonality in the area, all year-round. We would be interested in following up this comment

directly if possible.

Line 348:

“[11] similarly suggest that wind is a dominant driver of P. physalis transport, but propose wind to

be more relevant offshore and ocean circulation becoming the main driver in

nearshore areas.”

[11] suggests that the wind is the most relevant mechanism both off and on the coast for this

peculiar organism. The very superficial ocean circulation (considering this as the one that exists in

the first 5 centimetres of the water column, where Physalia lives) in the great gyres of ocean

circulation is greatly influenced by the wind, as shown by very low-weight drift buoys floating on

the surface. The data of these buoys shows that the surface ocean circulation is far from following

the Ekman theory (that is, generating a surface current at 45 degrees from the wind). It is for this

reason that possibly the best solution to explain the drift of Physalia is to use the wind, because also

the wind is the generator of local waves and the circulation at the upper centimetres of the water

column.

We have removed the sentence and agree with the reviewer, as mentioned in the Discussion: “It is

important to highlight that the wind is a major contributor to the ageostrophic component of the

surface current (influencing circulation and generating local waves) and stokes drift and windinduced

currents are known to be highly relevant in regard to the transport of passive tracers,

especially in the first centimeters of the ocean. Then, this relationship between beaching events and

cross-shore wind can be explained by the wind drag on P. physalis outside of water, but also by the

action of wind-induced current on its transport”. (Lines 357-363)

Line 358:

“In addition, there was a high frequency of beaching events in spring recorded during weeks that

were dominated by south-westerly winds, as can be observed during September and May in Fig 5.

This result is surprising since beachings would not be expected when wind is coming from land, if

wind were the only driving variable.”

To study the arrival of these organisms, it would be necessary to analyse not only the winds of the

days prior to arrival, but also the evolution of winds throughout the life of these organisms, which

could be from a few months to a year (more or less), depending on the size of the organism.

Prevailing southwesterly winds could probably bring many Physalia located in the open sea below

Australia. And winds from the northeast, east or southeast (in the days prior to arrival), even if they

were of short duration, could cause these organisms to end up in the study beaches. Therefore, it is

highly recommended to analyse the annual evolution of the wind in a very large area (several

degrees in longitude and latitude) around the study area. Surely these organisms have been able to

travel more than 10,000 kilometres on their journey to reach the beach.

We agree that the environmental conditions during P. physalis journey will determinate its

trajectory, including how likely it will be close to the coast. However, to reach and strand on the

beach, we show that the last 24 hours are key. While the long-term large-scale drivers are definitely

of interest, we would need to know where P. physalis comes from and how long it has been floating

in the ocean, which is still largely unknown. This will be the topic of further investigation in the

future.

Line 371:

“Observations of ocean currents closer to the surface and of higher resolution (e.g. coastal High-

Frequency RADAR) may be necessary to expose any dependence of beaching events on these

variables.”

The fundamental problem with using high-frequency radar observations to explain caravel drifts is

that they provide information on currents at 1-3 meters above the surface. This information is quite

different from that existing in the same ocean-atmosphere interface, that is, in the first centimeters

of the water column. So to speak, the Portuguese caravel is a very light balloon (a caravel of 10

centimeters of float can weigh around 25 grams) that has tentacles that act as an anchor so that it

does not fly. So it seems unlikely that trying to explain their drift with currents below 5-10

centimeters from the sea surface will not do much.

The reviewer is right, the significant vertical shear at the surface makes HF radars not optimal. We

have removed this statement.

EDITOR :

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that

it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands.

Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript

that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Before this ms can be published, substantial changes need to be implemented to augment the

analyses and strengthen the main lessons of the paper.

We thank the editor for their time and effort to provide additional comments which helped us

improving the manuscript. We hope that the editor will agree that the revised manuscript provides

the statistical evidence to support our conclusion. We also made substantial changes to the writing

and organization of the manuscript.

The introduction needs to be streamlined. For instance, the second paragraph (lines 17 to 46) is very

lengthy and could be split into smaller focused sections. The next two paragraphs (lines 47 to 94)

could also be streamlined, and some of the material could be moved to the discussion, where it

would be placed in context of the project’s findings.

The Introduction as well as most other sections of the manuscript have been re-written, taking into

consideration all comments.

As stated by one reviewer, the authors have not performed the proper statistical analysis to sustain

their conclusions. Even though several papers dealing with the analytical approach required to

understand environmental forcing are cited, the authors have only used person correlations in their

analysis. The authors have to improve this section (by including a whole Data Analysis section in

the methods) and undertake a more comprehensive analysis of the data at hand.to determine the

influence of these factors (and potentially their interactions) on the beachings (and the summer

stings). The current piece-meal approach, where a single variable is considered at a time need to be

augmented and strengthened.

New analyses are proposed in the revised manuscript. We chose to use a Generalised Estimating

Equations (GEE) model, taking into account multiple explanatory variables and using the daily

beaching dataset as the response. We used an autoregressive AR(1) structure for the GEE model to

consider strong auto-correlations in the daily time-series. The data at the two sites which have

observations all year-round were considered, not the site which is only patrolled in summer. See

Data & Methods (lines 163-180) and Results (lines 220 and lines 252).

To facilitate the understanding of the patterns, I would also suggest focusing on the two sites with

year-long data and removing the third site (rocky shore with only summer-time data). Limiting the

analysis to the two sites with year-long data (Clovelly and Maroubra) provides a more

comprehensive and comparable perspective. The ms already explains that this site is inherently

different: “Note that Coogee has a small rocky outcrop (known as the Wedding Cake Island) 740 m

from the beach, which limits wave action on the beach. Clovelly beach is more South-oriented and

is at the end of a narrow bay, hence more protected than the two other beaches (Fig 1).”

There is a misunderstanding between Coogee and Clovelly here. Coogee and Maroubra cover all

seasons and were the focus of statistical analysis. Still, we mostly use Maroubra as it seems to be

the most “neutral” (fewer missing data, largest beach with a quite neutral orientation, no island

located in front of the beach). Clovelly data, which is patrolled only in summer, is only shown when

focusing on summer.

Additionally, the Physalia physalis datasets need to be analyzed in a more quantitative fashion. In

particular, I would suggest the following analyses:

* Number of beachings:

Compare the number of beaching observations versus the number of survey days from a beach to

beach. There are 38 and 132 beaching reports for Clovelly and Maroubra respectively, even though

the two beaches were surveyed on 94% and 93% of the days. Is this difference significant? Is there

an overall higher beaching rate in Maroubra? Despite the data gaps, I would suggest you perform a

cross-correlation to quantify how well the beachings data at the two beaches cross-correlate with

each other.

We have added the information in the manuscript. It now read lines 192-195: “Simultaneous

beaching in Maroubra and Coogee occurs only 10-20% of the beaching days, and the correlation

between the timeseries of beaching presence at the daily timescale is r = 0.1, increasing to r = 0.3

when considering the weekly number of beachings.”

* Number of stings:

I would suggest focusing this analysis on the same two beaches used in the beachings analysis, and

discarding the data from Coogee. Despite the data gaps, I would suggest you perform a crosscorrelation

to quantify how well the beachings data at the two beaches cross-correlate with each

other.

You state that “More than 10 stings have been reported 6, 9 and 10% of all patrolled days for

Clovelly, Coogee and Maroubra”.

Why did you not consider days where less than 10 stings have been recorded? You could use values

above and below this threshold as two separate categories (low and high), or you could take the

log10-transform of the data.

How was this threshold number selected? Seems like anomalous events should be determined on a

beach-basis, not using the same threshold across all beaches. I would suggest you provide a data

summary of the number of stings reported per day, and then attempt to model these distributions to

figure out “outlier days” for each beach.

* Number of beachings VS Number of stings:

It would be very useful to investigate whether these two datasets are correlated. Using the summerperiod

only, when stings are reported, can you perform a correlation for each beach, to see if there

are more stings on days with more beachings. This would be a very informative analysis.

We have now included more information on the comparison between beaching and stings (lines

118-122): "Comparing the beaching and sting datasets for matching days and locations (although

different authors), only 7.9 %, 15.8%, and 32.3% of the stings corresponded to a day when beaching

was also at Clovelly, Coogee, and Maroubra, respectively. The daily match between these two

datasets needs more investigation (see Discussion) and longer time-series.”

The threshold of 10 stings have been chosen to remove outliers, since we suspect that the lifeguards

do not report the presence of P. physalis when they only see one specimen. We have performed a

sensitivity study to this threshold, but the correspondence does not change much.

For your interest, the two figures below provide additional details, including the beach attendance,

and the ratio between stings/beach attendance (size of the symbols). The association between stings

and beach attendance might exist in Coogee, but is not clear in Maroubra. Furthermore, even days

with high numbers of stings do not necessarily correspond to a beaching observation (see the

colours).

We discuss the potential reasons for the discrepancy between stings and beaching in the manuscript,

but this will need further investigation (lines 373-375):

"Differences between the two datasets could be explained by the difference in the timing of the

reports but also by the nature of the reports (stings happen in the water, while beachings are

reported only when P. physalis are stranded on the shore).”

Figure caption: Scatter plot showing beach

attendance against number of stings, with the colours displaying wether the beaching was reported

by lifesavers or not for the same day. The size of the markers show the percentage of stings

compared to the beach attendance.

* Wind Data:

Can you please define the wind sectors and provide some summaries of wind speed / direction for

the different seasons? The ms currently states “predominant winds in this area are north-easterly,

westerly and southerly, as shown on the windrose in Fig 1.”

The analyses of beachings per wind direction also need to involve statistical tests, using either chisquare

tests or logistic regressions. Reporting mere proportions is not enough. You need to provide

a sense of the variability (SD for the proportions) and the associated p values.

Instead of a logistic regression, we included a GEE model (see comment above), which takes into

account the variability of the wind. We also refer to Wood et al (2016) which details the monthly

mean and variance of the same wind dataset (see line 144).

* Ocean Currents:

Can you please report how well the near-surface and the integrated currents correlate with each

other? And report how well they match the wind speeds? Currently, the ms states: “Here, we used

daily averages at the shallowest bins (11 m and 12 m, respectively) and the depth integrated flow”.

Unfortunately, the shallowest surface current estimates we have in the region are at 11m and 12m,

which we expect to be less wind-driven than the top few centimeters of the ocean.

For your information, the figure below shows the correlation matrix the zonal (u) and meridional (v)

components of the 11m-depth and depth-averaged currents, and the wind velocity. It shows that

depth-integrated ocean currents are strongly correlated to the wind, but less so for the 11m depth

current.

Figure caption :

Correlation matrix of

different variables: wind

(u_wind, v_wind), depthintegrated

current from the

mooring depth-integrated

(u_cur_rot_int,

v_cur_rot_int), and at 11m

(u_cur_rot_11m,

v_cur_rot_11m).

* Seasonality:

The proportion of

beachings needs to be

statistically related to the

different seasons. This could be done with a chi-square test or using a logistic regression model,

with the response variable of presence / absence of beachings. The latter approach would be better,

because it would allow you to assess the influence of other variables at once, including inter-annual

variability. Currently, the ms merely reports the %s of summer / winter days with beachings, and a

metric of variability (SD for the proportions) is needed Moreover, these proportions need to be

compared statistically, using p values and measures of effect size (like the odds ratio).

The variability of beaching is shown in Figure 6, as a shading around the weekly means.

The inter-annual variability of the presence/absence of beaching is included in the GEE model as

the response variable, and the p-values reported take into account the auto-correlation of the timeseries.

See comments above.

* Lags and Multiple Temporal Scales:

While the paper mentions a “zero” lag and provides results at daily and weekly time scales, it is

unclear how many lags were tested and how the weekly data were averaged and analyzed. I would

suggest you provide a summary table, showing what analyses were done, listing the lags that were

attempted and the different temporal scales that were considered.

Thank you for the remark, we have added Figure 3 in the manuscript to show correlations at

different lags, supporting the choice of investigating the wind with a 24h lag.

Figure caption : Pearson correlation coefficient between beaching events at Maroubra anddifferent

environmental variables, for different lags. A negative lag means consideringvariables a day before

the beaching day

* Multi-variate Analyses:

These environmental factors are likely cross-correlated: wind speed / direction, currents, water

temperature. I would ask the authors to explore these cross-correlations and to provide a

supplementary table where these results are summarized. If there are significant cross-correlations,

I would urge the authors to use partial correlations to explore the influence of the drivers, after

accounting for other cross-correlated variables.

New analyses answer to this as GEE is multivariate.

Moreover, it would be useful to know whether these environmental drivers differed seasonally and

from year-to-year (within seasons). This would provide the readers with a broader oceanographic

background of the study area and the potential drivers.

We have not considered inter-annual variability in this study since four years is a relatively short

time-scale. We have however shown how ocean temperature, wind speed, and cross-shore winds

vary with seasons in Figure 6. For broader background, we refer to Wood et al. (2016), in particular

their Figure 5 which shows how winds and currents in the region vary month to month.

Finally, I would also suggest you summarize the weather (wind / current) and water temperature

conditions measured during periods of unusually high and unusually low beaching (and stringing)

periods. This would provide a complementary perspective to the previous modeling approach,

which would give readers a more in-depth understanding of the drivers of unusual “events”.

We agree that understanding unusual events is of great interest. This is discussed in the discussion

in a whole paragraph, lines 377-394.

Unfortunately, we do not have the right observational dataset to investigate properly the influence

of these parameters, hence cannot provide more than an educated guess for these events.

Attachment

Submitted filename: reviewer_comments.pdf

Decision Letter 1

David Hyrenbach

18 Nov 2021

PONE-D-21-06875R1Driving the blue fleet: Temporal variability and drivers behind bluebottle Physalia physalis beachings off Sydney, Australia.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bourg,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The authors have made substantial changes to the manuscript, but there are many pending issues that need to ne addressed, before this manuscript can be published.    

The main issues that need to be addresses are:

1. The paper describes analyses, but does not provide the necessary details to interpret the results

Line 111:“We explored whether sting numbers were dependent on numbers of beachgoers, but found no clear correlation between the two” Can you please explain how this was done and what were the results?

Line 121:“The daily match between these two datasets needs more investigation”. These statements also need more detailed reporting of the analyses. It is not possible to assess what was done and what is the correspondence between “stings” and “beachings”.

2. There are several untested assumptions for the statistical tests. 

Line 169:

NOTE:

The binary response data are not normal - but binomial.

The rip currents are rank data, not numerical.

3. Some of the discussion of the results compare proportions or discuss similarities, without actually performing the statistical analyses.   For instance:  Line 192:Did you attempt crosscorrelations between the two sites? This would be a much better way to assess covariability.

Table 3 and Table 4:  Can you please compare the observed proportions versus the expected proportions?  How frequently are these wind conditions observed, will influence whether these results are significant or not.

Line 198:  “Indeed, between 2016 and 2020, 50% and 46% of strandings occurred during the three months of summer in Maroubra and Coogee respectively. In Maroubra, spring is (after summer) the second season with most beaching events (30% of beachings), whereas in Coogee, beaching events are more numerous in autumn (25%) than spring” 

Can you please perform tests to determine if seasons matter: statistically speaking?  Merely mentioning the proportions of events is not enough to determine whether these proportions are significantly different from what we would expect.  Did you define the seasons equally, so each one accounts for 25% pf the time?  This would et the expected proportions.  But we need a way to assess if these proportions are significantly different from the observed proportions.

4. The writing needs to be organized:  much material needs to be moved:

  • From Methods to Introduction (see notes in the pdf)

  • From Results to Discussion (see notes in pdf)

5. The writing needs to be improved substantially to streamline the text, clarify the writing and fix some grammar and typos (like the persistent use of “data” in singular).

6. Finally, Page 3 – Figure Caption 1:  Can you please credit the images.

You used images from “Satellite image of the different beaches (From The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth”.  Is this a free creative commons product? 

Can you provide a reference?    I found the site, but there is no information on the use of these images:  https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/SearchPhotos/

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 02 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

David Hyrenbach, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-06875_R1_Editor_Revisions.pdf

Decision Letter 2

David Hyrenbach

7 Mar 2022

Driving the blue fleet: Temporal variability and drivers behind bluebottle Physalia physalis beachings off Sydney, Australia.

PONE-D-21-06875R2

Dear Dr. Bourg,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.  Thank you for addressing all the requested changes and revisions.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

David Hyrenbach, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

David Hyrenbach

9 Mar 2022

PONE-D-21-06875R2

Driving the blue fleet: Temporal variability and drivers behind bluebottle (Physalia physalis) beachings off Sydney, Australia

Dear Dr. Bourg:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. David Hyrenbach

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Weekly climatology of beaching events and environmental variables at Coogee.

    Grey bars on all panels show the number of beaching events per week over 2016-2020 and the standard deviation is shown in light grey shading. In panel a, the weekly mean water temperature is overlaid (right axis and colours). In panel b, the weekly mean cross-shore wind velocity component is overlaid (right axis and colours) with positive (negative) values showing wind from (towards) the coast. In panel c, then mean weekly wind speed is overlaid (right axis).

    (TIFF)

    S1 Data

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-06875_reviewer.doc

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: reviewer_comments.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-06875_R1_Editor_Revisions.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review_response.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    Physalia physalis reports are in Supporting information. Wind measurement dataset can be obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology (http://www.bom.gov.au/places/nsw/MV07/observations/kurnell/). IMOS data is freely accessible at https://portal.aodn.org.au/.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES