Review of Yates et al.

General comments

This is a very good paper based on a rare data set that is well processed, providing both original results and a very informative discussion. Processing is simple in its principles, but rigorous. This simplicity makes the paper easy to follow, even with a rich set of results.

The study has different scales of analysis and at the habitat-scale, it brings very interesting details. Also, some of the results could not really be foreseen (fig 5) and this brings a lot to the hurricane and coral reef literature, even if it specific to a Florida reef.

The reader will have access to detailed results that are not necessary to review here, but the study certainly provides a unique database in the context of Caribbean-Atlantic reefs, and as it claims, it fills some major gaps.

Really I don’t see much to complain about with this paper, except two minor comments. It could be publish as is, which is something I have seen only twice in my reviewing career.

Specific comments :

Two minor hiccups:

L122 : I would not say Florida Keys, or the FRT in particular, is a barrier reef ; No way. Rather call them shelf reefs.

L541 (and elsewhere): Accretion: I would not use this word here, as I would consider it as the process of incorporating the sediments and other calcareous material in the reef structures itself, hence a hardening process different than sediment deposition and movements.

Then, may be no need to talk about restoration (L32, abstract). This is the trendy word of the moment in coral reef literature and beyond. Everyone is using it, which bothers me, and it is not justified here. Or add a specific technical paragraph in the Discussion in how there results could really help restoration (only one hint on restoration taking into account the results is provided in the conclusion).

Technical corrections: none, did not see any errors.

END OF REVIEW

Here, we are given a welcome and specialized analysis of a particular reef within the Florida Reef Tract, with pre-storm, post-storm, and post-recovery LIDAR observations informing the transient dynamics associated with sedimentation incurred by hurricane stresses. While the results are mostly reasonable, the proposed analysis provides real-world evidence alongside data analysis that can inform future studies of highly transient sedimentary impacts on coral reefs. 

The science is conducted very well, paper and analyses are very well written, and I only have minor comments to suggest in how the paper is framed, as well as a few grammatical/editing notes:

L52: The discussion on seagrass here feels more of an afterthought, rather than given full appreciation of the dynamical role it plays in the ecosystem alongside corals. I suggest either elaborating upon it further, or leaving the discussion as an entirely physical analysis.

L57-60: This sentence runs on and is hard to read.

L265, 270-271, 286: Units appear wrong - should be Mm instead of mM.

The first part of the discussion could also be heavily improved with more care taken towards structure and a central message. Often the messaging became diluted because focus would shift significantly through a paragraph. The final paragraphs are structured very well.

L539-568: A break around L554 may be helpful, separating patterns of erosion and corresponding deposition from the review of the underlying mechanisms.

L590 is an important point to make as it also validates potential concerns I would have regarding the reliability of LIDAR as a post-hurricane measurement device. However, the current placement of the note seems slightly out of place and suggests a much less pressing role in the ultimate analysis.

L608 I believe this is a typo and should be ‘aerial.’’

L613-615 This line that suggests conflict between the current work and a previous work feels unnecessary, because while the pattern of motion for major landforms may have been oriented WSW, at the larger scale, the primary source of sediment originally deposited onto LKR may have arrived from the south, and the following motion of the sand lobe was not a part of the during hurricane motion.