Temporal Evolution of Phytoplankton Metacommunity in a Disused Mediterranean Saltwork

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript: Temporal evolution of phytoplankton metacommunity in a disused Mediterranean saltwork 

 

General comments: This ms. describes the successional, structural, and dynamical traits of a phytoplankton metacommunity in a disused Italian saltwork (Saline di Tarquinia, Tyrrhenian Sea, Mediterranean). This saltwork, characterized by severe salinity and other physical variables fluctuations, is an extreme environment with a high naturalistic value. This research is interesting because there is not enough data about changes in phytoplankton structure and dynamics in this area. Furthermore, this research can be valuable in understanding the influence of hydrological regimes on phytoplankton in similar environments. The manuscript is well structured in all its parts, from the introduction to the discussion. The summary reflects the content of the work. The used methodology is appropriate for an ecological paper both for the instrumentation and sampling strategy, with thorough and appropriate statistical data processing. Results are clear and concise, and Discussion contains judgments and comparative data analysis.  

There some minor issues to be addressed by the authors to improve the ms.

 

Line 84: “approach” should be replaced by “approached”

Line 87: add a comma after “October”

Lines 117-118: indicate the position of “Foce Levante” and “Foce Ponente” on the Figure 1

Lines 142, 147, 165, 172, 180: the names of the company, the city and the country should be added to laboratory materials and instruments

Line 170 and throughout the text: in “Chlorophyll a” and “Chl a”, “a” should be written in italics

Line 236: “….in pond 4 between 0.6 μg/l (December 3, 2009) and 48.75 μg/l (November 236 26, 2009)” should be changed in “….in pond 4 between 48.75 μg/l and (November 26, 2009) 0.6 μg/l (December 3, 2009). 

Line 294 (paragraph 3.1.4.): I suggest describing the results of the statistical analyses (ANOSIM and SIMPER text) following the same order as in paragraph 3.1.3., i.e. referring first to the results relating to the dimensional component (micro-, nano- and pico-) and then to those of chemotaxonomy. Obviously, the authors can decide to do the opposite, provided that the same order is followed in the description of the variables considered.

Line 367: “..salinas has attracted” should be replaced by “..salinas have attracted”

Line 373: “..led an increasing..” should be replaced by “..led to an increasing..”

Line 431: replace “drivers” with “driver”

Line 481: delete “Author Contributions”

 

Moreover:

Throughout the text, the sampling sites (ponds) are sometimes indicated with a capital letter and other times with a lower case. I recommend standardizing the nomenclature.

Figures: 

Figs 4, 6 and 7: improve quality 

Figs 6 and 7: enlarge the font size because it is difficult to read

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

An interesting and well presented study of the effects of increasing salinity in a series of hypersaline pools off the Tyrrhenian coast. The study is interesting and provides quality information about the changes in plankton substructure associated with the different salinity regimes. Interesting work, worthy of publication. 

There are a few English language issues with the paper, mainly regarding the use of articles, and the proper use of tenses and singular/plural construction. There are some slightly awkward English constructions, none of which interfere with the understanding of the intent. 

The work could have been expanded and improved with a metagenomic analysis; perhaps the authors plan to do this for a second report. This report focused on the very broadly general characteristics of the plankton population based on chemical analyses. 

The heat map is clear in Fibure 4, but the legend is very small; could it be expanded in size so it is more readable? 

some questions persist:

line 145, 148: what is 'saltworker water? 

line 332: 'tend' not 'tent'

333: 'although they' isn't appropriate. Just say 'and'. 

367: 'has' should be replaced by 'have'

374: 'namely' is inappropriate. I think the authors mean 'mainly'

381: approach taken should be 'approach has taken'

400: Chl a should be closed up: Chla

415: 'species transported from the north toward the south' is more appropriate

417-418. Not sure what 'exacerbate . . . systems'. This should be more completely explained. 

420: 'flowing toward ponds up to evaporate' - not entirely sure what the authors mean; should reword or omit

Figure 7: A and B are not clearly indicated in the PCA analyses. it would be nice to have a few comments on the value of the clustering in Fig 7

and 429-30 and the material in this section refers to figure 7. could the authors please be more explicit with regard to their claims/statements? are there any specific implications? for birds, other animals? The authors ought to expand on the materia at the end of that paragraph around line 450.

464: what does 'performed in operative plants' mean? 

I think the supplementary materials could be part of the main paper. I haven't seen them; they could add to clarity. however they should be maintained either way (in the ms or as supplements).

good paper, should be published. 

 

 

 

I have attempted to correct small errors. the language should be examined by individuals skilled with English to make sure that I haven't missed anything. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript entitled "Temporal evolution of phytoplankton metacommunity in a disused  Mediterranean saltwork" was written in a sound English language that is almost free from linguistics and but the following scientific issues are present:

The study was conducted from July 2008 to April 2009, and its results are considered too old without any current scientific significance.

Sample collection is not in triplicate from each pond, and all results laking the standard error ars and significance analysis.

The study's analysis method didn't explain how the authors identified the main groups of the phytoplankton classes. All genera should be included in tables for all samples.

All physicochemical analyses of each pond should be included as this variation in phytoplankton may be due to salinity or other physicochemical limiting factors.

Grazing protozoa must also be included in the study as it always dramatically affects the phytoplankton community based on its grazing or feeding digestive system, which makes selective grazing for a specific group of phytoplankton based on its size.

Maybe repetitive study for the same study area during recent years will give a better understanding of the aim of this manuscript.

 

The final decision is Rejected.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for your reply.
But, no significant difference in the edited manuscript!