It is a really interesting paper that highlights the importance of incorporating this type of monitoring within traditional methodologies, as it allows you to record important organisms for the ecosystem that traditional methods might be underestimating.
I have only a few minor comments for the authors to address:
1. To clarify you compared MPAs and nMPAs of 2015 to the ones in 2021and in 2021 you compared the biophony of MPAs and nMPAs, all of this to assess the effects of the bleaching events? It is just a little bit confusing on the text.
2. For a paper of this length you have a lot of figures, some could go to the supplemental material
Figure 1 Is interesting and a really good work documenting all the events throughout the timeline of Moorea reefs, is not your main result since you focus only on the recent bleaching events.
Figure 3 is the schematic representation of your measures; this also could go to supplemental material.
In figures 4 and 8 is not clear what the icon of panel A and B represents and also in the description is no indication of what it is.
In figure 5 you do have that panel B is for coral and macroalgae, but the icon is not clear, also the letter B should be near the panel. I would recommend putting a legend for the colors within the figure and not only in the description.
Figure 6 what do you mean by evolution of coral cover and the PSDFpeak, it is an annual rate of change? It gives information about the sites, but it could also go to supplementary information.
Figure 9 the information on these ecological features is from 2015 or 2021? It is not clear within the description. It gives important information of the monitoring data, but could also go in the supplementary information
Figure 10 and 11, these ones could go in one figure in different panels.
Minor comments
Page 1 Line 41
Delete de s of resiliences
Page 2 Line 7-8 “In Moorea (French Polynesia), regular monitoring of coral cover has
revealed that over the last four decades variation of the coral cover oscillated from <10% to >80% %.”
It is not clear whether the cover increased from 10% to 80% or that some sites have had10% and others 80%, I recommend to restructure this sentence. Also delete the extra “%”