Habitat and Features of Development of Plankton Communities in Salt Lakes (South-Eastern Transbaikalia, Russia)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Good day!

The authors express their deep gratitude to the referee for valuable comments.

№ 1

Review of: Habitat and features of development of plankton communities in salt lakes ( South-Eastern Transbaikalia, Russia) by Natalya Tashlykova and Ekaterina Afonina

Authors have to complement the introduction with more referencies about the algae and zooplankton comumunities. The introduction focus only in the physico-chemical parameters but three of the main aims are focusing the phyto and the zooplankton „to assess the plankton communities studied lakes; - to identify dominant species in the different types of lakes; - to analyze the change in abundance and taxonomic diversity.” Please describe the importance of algae and zooplankton community in salin lakes.

Changes applied

Line 79: sulphate and chloride type lakes are underrated than chloride type lakes Changes applied

Line 130-136: how many liters of water were filtered under the sampling? Why did you use different mesh size? Data added

Table 1. Borzinskoe part, problem with the lines. Changes applied

Results: How can you verify the diversity of communities when you counted 54 taxa of phytoplankton and 27 zooplankton taxa in sodium lakes, 23 taxa of phytoplankton and 4 zooplankton taxa in chloride lakes and 15 taxa of phytoplankton and 5 zooplankton taxa in sulphate lakes? This was not within the scope of the study.

Soda lakes have higher numbers than other types. Did you check the results when you use two lakes from each types? This was not within the scope of the study.

Figure 4 and 5: How do you explain the changes in the compositon of phytoplankton and zooplankton communities. Changes applied

Line 5 and 6 when Cryptophyta appear the rotifers disappear? or opposite. You write facts that everybody see but in science we have to now the reasons why it happend? What happend? These are new results. Changes applied

Line 312: corrrect it Changes applied

Line 371: also the water volume is low, not enough place to live that is why not enough space for the different species This statement is wrong. In these lakes, this is due to the physicochemical parameters of the environment and competition between phyto- and zooplankton species.

Discussion: the discussion contains all results again but these things just facts. Please compair other salin lake results like Mongolian lakes or other salin lakes. Why your results are unique? In this case the discussion just a description Changes applied

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript “Habitat and features of development of plankton communities in salt lakes ( South-Eastern Transbaikalia, Russia)” by Natalya Tashlykova and Ekaterina Afonina presents a study, carried out in 2021–2022, of plankton algae and invertebrates in salt lakes of the territory of a closed drains in the south of South-Eastern Transbaikalia (Russia). Phyto-and zooplankton of 16 lakes (chloride, sulfate and soda lakes) were studied during the maximum vegetation period, from July to August. The results of taxonomic composition, peculiarities of spatial-temporal diversity of plankton communities were accompanied by the measurements of abiotic environmental paprameters.

Overall, data presentation and description should be improved. The figures and tables need, in my opinion, a better structuring. The data obtained needs to be more embedded in the discussion, otherwise the discussion strongly resembles a review.... Minor carelessness and spelling errors throughout the manuscript should be corrected. Please go very carefully, through the manuscript and correct accordingly.

Line 38: Non-Standard abbreviations (e.g. such as Eh - redox potential) should be written out when used for the first time.

Table 1: The overview of the data of the respective lake would be enormously facilitated (and more simplified) if the authors could add the type (classification) of the lakes (soda type I-III, chloride and sulphate types). At least the prevalent ion type should be mentioned.  

Lines 194-196: This paragraph should be removed. Instead, the authors could give more detailed description of their findings with respect to PCA analyses.

Table 3: Please simplify the presentation of the data content in this table, perhaps by showing the three lake types (using additional columns). It would make the results clearer and increase the information content.

Line 258: please change cels to cells

Figures 4 and 5: it is somewhat confusing that for some lakes there are two values (2021 and 2022), and for others there are not, and they are not somehow spatially separated. Graph axes need a description within the graph. The cake diagrams need to be stated properly in the legend. Again, it would be nice to note the type of the respective lake or separate them by type?

Author Response

Good day!

The authors express their deep gratitude to the referee for valuable comments.

№ 2

 

The manuscript “Habitat and features of development of plankton communities in salt lakes ( South-Eastern Transbaikalia, Russia)” by Natalya Tashlykova and Ekaterina Afonina presents a study, carried out in 2021–2022, of plankton algae and invertebrates in salt lakes of the territory of a closed drains in the south of South-Eastern Transbaikalia (Russia). Phyto-and zooplankton of 16 lakes (chloride, sulfate and soda lakes) were studied during the maximum vegetation period, from July to August. The results of taxonomic composition, peculiarities of spatial-temporal diversity of plankton communities were accompanied by the measurements of abiotic environmental paprameters.

Overall, data presentation and description should be improved. The figures and tables need, in my opinion, a better structuring. The data obtained needs to be more embedded in the discussion, otherwise the discussion strongly resembles a review.... Minor carelessness and spelling errors throughout the manuscript should be corrected. Please go very carefully, through the manuscript and correct accordingly.

Line 38: Non-Standard abbreviations (e.g. such as Eh - redox potential) should be written out when used for the first time.

Changes applied

Table 1: The overview of the data of the respective lake would be enormously facilitated (and more simplified) if the authors could add the type (classification) of the lakes (soda type I-III, chloride and sulphate types). At least the prevalent ion type should be mentioned.

Changes applied. Data added.

Lines 194-196: This paragraph should be removed. Instead, the authors could give more detailed description of their findings with respect to PCA analyses.

Changes applied.

Table 3: Please simplify the presentation of the data content in this table, perhaps by showing the three lake types (using additional columns). It would make the results clearer and increase the information content.

Changes applied

Line 258: please change cels to cells Changes applied.

Figures 4 and 5: it is somewhat confusing that for some lakes there are two values (2021 and 2022), and for others there are not, and they are not somehow spatially separated. Graph axes need a description within the graph. The cake diagrams need to be stated properly in the legend. Again, it would be nice to note the type of the respective lake or separate them by type?

Changes applied.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Manuscript title: Habitat and features of development of plankton communities in salt lakes (South-Eastern Transbaikalia, Russia)

This study analysed the influence of main environmental parameters on plankton (phytoplankton and zooplankton) communities structure in different salt lakes. So, this research is interesting because there is no enough data about plankton communities structure of salt lakes (chloride, sulphate and soda lakes). Data was analysed by different statistic methods, but deeper discuss of environmental conditions and biological components that characterized investigated lakes are needed. The manuscript can be improved if the following problems could be solved:

 

Abstract: Abstract is too short and general, there is no information about data of environmental parameters and their influence on plankton communities. So, I suggest to add some information i.e. results in abstract.

 

Introduction: In the Introduction, the distribution and main characteristics of salt lakes are described, but there is missing information about previous research and knowledge of influence of environmental factors on the structure of plankton communities in different types of saline lakes as well as some information about previous research of ecological status in investigated lakes (such as amount of nutrients etc.).

Please add explanation of “Eh” (l. 38).

 

Material and methods

Please add information about depth (minimum, maximum, average), lakes surface area, pH values for sulphate and chloride lakes as it shown for soda lakes (l. 88-93).

Please explain the abbreviations the first time you use them in the text (i.e. l. 114 - TDS).

Please specify a total number of samples (16 lakes, littoral zone and deep-water zones, 2 years – 64 samples in total?). Explain why some samples are not taken in both years (2021 and 2022).

I suggest to add detail explanation of plankton community’s analyses. Please add information about plankton nets (pores size) for phytoplankton sampling.

 

Results

In general, the results are very difficult to follow. The tables and figures are not clearly visible. There is no information about on how the dominant species were determined. Please describe it. This part of results is very confusing e.g. Chlamydomonas sphagnicola is only present in one lake in year 2021; Chroomonas caudata is only present in one lake in year 2022; Phormidium sp. is dominant in soda lakes (this species was found only in two lakes in 2021); Phormidium sp.2 is dominant only in chloride lakes? etc. Furthermore, Ph. sp. and Ph. sp.2 are listed in table 3, but in table 4 there is only Psp (Phormidium sp.). I suggested to present plankton results in detail and accurately (I suggest to add some new figures or statistical analysis of dominant species in lakes instead of table 3, if it is possible). Maybe, add CCA or RDA analysis in order to explain the influence of important environmental variables on plankton community structure with emphasis on dominant plankton species.

Figures 4 and 5, box-plots are not clearly visible, especially differences between years (2021-2022). Please improve these figures.

Please use the same way to explain results, phytoplankton abundance and biomass are described according to the lake type of lakes, but zooplankton abundance and biomass are described according to minimum and maximum values.

Please check sentence l. 148, I think that there are differences between abiotic parameters in all lakes in 2021 and 2022. I suggest to explain in detail differences between years such as salinity, turbidity, concentration of oxygen (in some lakes there is hypoxia (3.58 mg/L) or anoxia (1.92 mg/L)).

It's not common, but add horizontal lines in table 1 – it is difficult to follow localities and sampling years.

How did you take samples from a depth of 3 or 5 cm? Is this even a depth that is representative of determining the correct results? Are there deeper sampling sites at Kudzhertaj and Balyktui lakes?

Also, it is not clear how are the results were presented in table 1 – mean values of the samples taken from the littoral zone and deep-water zone?

It is necessary to explain the PCA analysis in more detail. How do you explain that Kudzhertaj lake with high salinity (194-292 g/L) is located next to TDS, but Nizchniy Mukei lake (salinity 128 g/L) is completely on the opposite site?

 

 

Discussion

Discussion must be improved by more information about investigated lakes and compare with others known data, e.g. l. 328-336 - connect your data with previous research.

The changes in salinity between the lakes are very interesting. There are extremely large salinity values and it is necessary to explain them in results and describe the changes of plankton communities structure related to salinity.

Please add some information about cyanobacterial bloom in your research (l. 326-327). Is cyanobacterial bloom being present during the investigated period?

 

 In conclusion, the formal presentation of the paper needs a major revision.

Author Response

Good day!

The authors express their deep gratitude to the referee for valuable comments.

№ 3

 

This study analysed the influence of main environmental parameters on plankton (phytoplankton and zooplankton) communities structure in different salt lakes. So, this research is interesting because there is no enough data about plankton communities structure of salt lakes (chloride, sulphate and soda lakes). Data was analysed by different statistic methods, but deeper discuss of environmental conditions and biological components that characterized investigated lakes are needed. The manuscript can be improved if the following problems could be solved:

 

Changes applied

Abstract: Abstract is too short and general, there is no information about data of environmental parameters and their influence on plankton communities. So, I suggest to add some information i.e. results in abstract.

 

Changes applied

Introduction: In the Introduction, the distribution and main characteristics of salt lakes are described, but there is missing information about previous research and knowledge of influence of environmental factors on the structure of plankton communities in different types of saline lakes as well as some information about previous research of ecological status in investigated lakes (such as amount of nutrients etc.).

Please add explanation of “Eh” (l. 38).

 

Changes applied

Material and methods

Please add information about depth (minimum, maximum, average), lakes surface area, pH values for sulphate and chloride lakes as it shown for soda lakes (l. 88-93). Changes applied

Please explain the abbreviations the first time you use them in the text (i.e. l. 114 - TDS). Changes applied

Please specify a total number of samples (16 lakes, littoral zone and deep-water zones, 2 years – 64 samples in total?). Explain why some samples are not taken in both years (2021 and 2022). Changes applied

I suggest to add detail explanation of plankton community’s analyses. Please add information about plankton nets (pores size) for phytoplankton sampling. Changes applied

Results

In general, the results are very difficult to follow. The tables and figures are not clearly visible. There is no information about on how the dominant species were determined. Please describe it. This part of results is very confusing e.g. Chlamydomonas sphagnicola is only present in one lake in year 2021; Chroomonas caudata is only present in one lake in year 2022; Phormidium sp. is dominant in soda lakes (this species was found only in two lakes in 2021); Phormidium sp.2 is dominant only in chloride lakes? etc. Furthermore, Ph. sp. and Ph. sp.2 are listed in table 3, but in table 4 there is only Psp (Phormidium sp.). I suggested to present plankton results in detail and accurately (I suggest to add some new figures or statistical analysis of dominant species in lakes instead of table 3, if it is possible). Maybe, add CCA or RDA analysis in order to explain the influence of important environmental variables on plankton community structure with emphasis on dominant plankton species.

Figures 4 and 5, box-plots are not clearly visible, especially differences between years (2021-2022). Please improve these figures.

Changes applied

 

Please use the same way to explain results, phytoplankton abundance and biomass are described according to the lake type of lakes, but zooplankton abundance and biomass are described according to minimum and maximum values.

Please check sentence l. 148, I think that there are differences between abiotic parameters in all lakes in 2021 and 2022. I suggest to explain in detail differences between years such as salinity, turbidity, concentration of oxygen (in some lakes there is hypoxia (3.58 mg/L) or anoxia (1.92 mg/L)).

It's not common, but add horizontal lines in table 1 – it is difficult to follow localities and sampling years.

How did you take samples from a depth of 3 or 5 cm? Is this even a depth that is representative of determining the correct results? Are there deeper sampling sites at Kudzhertaj and Balyktui lakes?

Also, it is not clear how are the results were presented in table 1 – mean values of the samples taken from the littoral zone and deep-water zone?

It is necessary to explain the PCA analysis in more detail. How do you explain that Kudzhertaj lake with high salinity (194-292 g/L) is located next to TDS, but Nizchniy Mukei lake (salinity 128 g/L) is completely on the opposite site?

Changes applied

Discussion

Discussion must be improved by more information about investigated lakes and compare with others known data, e.g. l. 328-336 - connect your data with previous research.

The changes in salinity between the lakes are very interesting. There are extremely large salinity values and it is necessary to explain them in results and describe the changes of plankton communities structure related to salinity.

Please add some information about cyanobacterial bloom in your research (l. 326-327). Is cyanobacterial bloom being present during the investigated period?

 

Changes applied

In conclusion, the formal presentation of the paper needs a major revision.

Changes applied

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

I recommend to authors to review the manuscript according to some suggestions reported in the sended version containing the observations.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Responses to comments

 

The authors thank the reviewers for their work and comments. They improve the quality of the article.

 

Line 77-78

Level or reservoirs decrease

Changes are made

 

Table 3

each species name and author must be in one line

Changes are made

 

Number of reservoirs must be changed with names of lakes, anywhere it's impossible to have a clear idea of the situation in different basins.

Changes are made

 

For each species and each lakes it must be reported the abundance value

The format of the table (the number of lakes, the location of the species name on one line) does not allow such information to be given.

 

Figure 3

Format the text

Changes are made

 

Line 276

This table is confused, abbreviation of species names is unclear

Changes are made

 

Figure 4

Format the text

Changes are made

 

Line 312

Afonina and Tashlykova, 2018

Changes are made

 

Line 312

Sulfate

Sulphate

Changes are made

 

Line 365

Discussion is very confused. It's unclear what are the significant factors among the amount of data, and the real importance of the three categories of basins.

It lack a correlation analysis between physico-chemical factors and diversity, abundance and biomasses of organisms respectively.

For this reason conclusions are weak and less significant in respect to other studies. It's important report one or more tables summarizing lakes, physico-chemical parameters, abundance and biomasses values, and on these data must be made a statistical analysis, in such a way it can emerge the importance of the different basin categories. Discussion and conclusions must rewrited better, in a more clear way.

Внесены изменения

 

Строка 367

Бассейн реки Улдза-Торей

Внесены изменения

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, data presentation (especially structuring) and description improved a lot. The discussion still  needs some restructuring (something like a a common thread),  data obtained still needs to be more embedded in the discussion.... Through the correction many carelessness and spelling errors throughout the manuscript appeared and should be corrected. Please go very carefully, through the manuscript and correct accordingly.

Some specific issues

Line 15: it should be either differ or are different, please correct appropriately

Line  24: all abbreviations should be declared at first use

Unfortunately I could not really do anything (understand) with Table 2 (which is actually Table 3), 'Species composition of phyto- and zooplankton', as it is stretched out by corrections and is unreadable. It would be nice to have a corrected table without >track-changes<.

Table 3 (line 300) should be Table 4

The figures especially fig 4  and 5 appeared very pixelig, which should be improved (very hard to read)

Table 4 (line 338) should be table 5, and the values should be checked (especially Nph at the TDS?), the legend should be explained in specific order first lines and then the raws, not mixed

The discussion (line 390) starts somehow in the middle of nowhere, could be there something missing?

Author Response

Responses to reviewer 2

The authors thank the referees for their comments.

 

Overall, data presentation (especially structuring) and description improved a lot. The discussion still needs some restructuring (something like a a common thread), data obtained still needs to be more embedded in the discussion.... Through the correction many carelessness and spelling errors throughout the manuscript appeared and should be corrected. Please go very carefully, through the manuscript and correct accordingly.

 

 

 

Line 15: it should be either differ or are different, please correct appropriately

Сorrections made

 

Line 24: all abbreviations should be declared at first use

Сorrections made

Unfortunately I could not really do anything (understand) with Table 2 (which is actually Table 3), 'Species composition of phyto- and zooplankton', as it is stretched out by corrections and is unreadable. It would be nice to have a corrected table without >track-changes<.

Сorrections made

Table numbers have been edited.

I do not make corrections to the text.

Please read the pdf format of the article file

 

Table 3 (line 300) should be Table 4

Сorrections made

 

The figures especially fig 4 and 5 appeared very pixelig, which should be improved (very hard to read).

Copies of drawings in JPG format will be sent to the editorial office.

 

Table 4 (line 338) should be table 5, and the values should be checked (especially Nph at the TDS?), the legend should be explained in specific order first lines and then the raws, not mixed

Сorrections made

 

The discussion (line 390) starts somehow in the middle of nowhere, could be there something missing?

This remark is not clear.

The lines indicated in the remark contain links:

Борзенко С.В. Основные процессы формирования различных типов соленых озер: данные изотопного состава на примере озер в Забайкалье, Россия. Наука об общей окружающей среде 2021,782 , 146782.

Чанг, У.Ю.Б. Большие озера Китая. Журнал исследований Великих озер 1987, 13 (3), 235-249.

Наконец, В.М. Континентальные рассолы и эвапориты северных Великих равнин Канады. Осадочная геология 1989, 64, 207-221.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Manuscript title: Habitat and features of development of plankton communities in salt lakes (South-Eastern Transbaikalia, Russia)

Manuscript ID: diversity-2138891

The authors have improved some parts of the manuscript (Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods), but there are still certain concerns that probably must be improved, especially in the chapter Results. There are too many “track changes” and it is not possible to follow the text, especially the tables (Table 2 – Table 3). Also, in the chapter Discussion the changes made by the authors are not clearly visible.

So, I suggest to add version of manuscript without “track changes” in order to be reviewed.

Author Response

Responses to reviewer 3

The authors thank the referees for their comments.

 

Manuscript title: Habitat and features of development of plankton communities in salt lakes (South-Eastern Transbaikalia, Russia)

Manuscript ID: diversity-2138891

The authors have improved some parts of the manuscript (Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods), but there are still certain concerns that probably must be improved, especially in the chapter Results. There are too many “track changes” and it is not possible to follow the text, especially the tables (Table 2 – Table 3). Also, in the chapter Discussion the changes made by the authors are not clearly visible.

Итак, я предлагаю добавить версию рукописи без “отслеживания изменений”, чтобы ее можно было просмотреть.

Внесенные исправления

Номера таблиц были отредактированы.

Я не вношу исправлений в текст.

Пожалуйста, ознакомьтесь с файлом статьи в формате pdf

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Data analysis appears to be improved even if from the comparison any significant result have been achieved. I recommend to the authors to format better the tables and to make the figures clear and legible, the captions must be complete. Moreover I think the authors must carry out further studies to clarify the differences among these types of freshwaters as in this study reached too week conclusions.

Author Response

Responses to reviewer 4

The authors thank the referees for their comments.

Анализ данных, по-видимому, улучшился, даже если в результате сравнения был достигнут какой-либо значительный результат. Я рекомендую авторам лучше оформить таблицы и сделать рисунки четкими и разборчивыми, подписи должны быть полными. Более того, я думаю, что авторы должны провести дальнейшие исследования, чтобы прояснить различия между этими типами пресных вод, поскольку в этом исследовании были сделаны слишком недельные выводы.

Внесенные исправления

Я не вношу исправлений в текст.

Пожалуйста, ознакомьтесь с файлом статьи в формате pdf

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The presentation and description of the data as well as the discussion section improved a lot. However, since the authors did not use genome sequencing techniques for the species identifications, they should be more careful with species comparison in their discussion. In my opinion, they should stick to describing the description of the genera rather than naming of the species. There are still many spelling errors throughout the manuscript appeared and should be corrected. Please go very carefully, through the manuscript and correct accordingly.

Author Response

Responses to reviewer.

The authors thank the referee for suggestions and comments.

The presentation and description of the data as well as the discussion section improved a lot. However, since the authors did not use genome sequencing techniques for the species identifications, they should be more careful with species comparison in their discussion. In my opinion, they should stick to describing the description of the genera rather than naming of the species.

The recommendation is not clear.

In the discussion, the authors indicate only the zooplankton species B. plicatilis, M. brachiata, M. asiaticus. This species are cosmopolitan, halobiont and typical inhabitant of inland saline lakes.

Defining these types of sequencing methods is redundant.

In addition, we cannot limit ourselves to generic names Brachionus, Moina, Metadiaptomus, because representatives of the genera live in various ecological conditions, including fresh ones.

 

There are still many spelling errors throughout the manuscript appeared and should be corrected. Please go very carefully, through the manuscript and correct accordingly.

The manuscript, after passing the review process, will be sent for language correction to the firm offered by the editors of the journal.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx