Diatoms of the Macroalgae Epiphyton and Bioindication of the Protected Coastal Waters of the Kazantip Cape (Crimea, the Sea of Azov)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript represents valuable contribution for the Sea of Azov protected area biodiversity description. Comprehensive approach was applied (4 stations, 11 macroalgae species, one year monthly sampling) to characterise the epiphyton diatom community in terms of diatom species composition and seasonal dynamics of abundance. 

Although the results produced are detailed and abundant, the results should be presented and discussed more clearly. I advise general improvement of English language that could contribute to better understanding of the results and discussion. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Authors should improve English language since in this form the manuscript is difficult to read and understand due to lower English language quality. 

Author Response

Response to Comments of Reviewer 1, Report 1

 

Dear Reviewer 1,

The authors are very grateful for the hard work on the manuscript and your suggestions that helped us to significantly improve the presentation of our study results. We've tried to improve the English. Language was checked and corrected.

With best regards,

Prof Sophia Barinova,

Corresponding author

 

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript represents valuable contribution for the Sea of Azov protected area biodiversity description. Comprehensive approach was applied (4 stations, 11 macroalgae species, one year monthly sampling) to characterise the epiphyton diatom community in terms of diatom species composition and seasonal dynamics of abundance. 

Although the results produced are detailed and abundant, the results should be presented and discussed more clearly. I advise general improvement of English language that could contribute to better understanding of the results and discussion. 

Response: done

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Authors should improve English language since in this form the manuscript is difficult to read and understand due to lower English language quality. 

Response: done

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Dear Authors,

The manuscript “Diatoms of the Macroalgae Epiphyton and Bioindication of the Protected Coastal Waters of the Kazantip Cape (Crimea, the Sea of Azov)” is well written and within the journal's scope. Diversity of diatom community on different species of macroalgae of the protected coastal waters of Kazantip Cape of the Sea of Azov and their use in bioindication was studied in this manuscript. I think the manuscript is clearly written, covers a interesting topic, in particular since data from this study are obtained for the first time for the protected waters of Kazantip Cape of the Sea of Azov. Also, the role of diatoms as bioindicators in marine environment has been poorly investigated, in contrast to lotic ecosystems. Still, I have a few comments I wrote below:

Lines 81-82: Please be more specific in defining of aim of the study. Please change the expression “epiphyton different species of macroalgae”. Maybe you can put in the parenthesis (on different species of macroalgae): The aim of this work is to study the diversity of diatom community in epiphyton (on different species of macroalgae)…Also, bioindication is very a broad term, so here be more precise, for example …bioindication based on saprobity index…

Lines 175-176: Please put species names in italic.

Line 434: delete the parenthesis after the “works”.

 

Sincerely,

The reviewer

Author Response

Response to Comments of Reviewer 2, Report 1

 

Dear Reviewer 2,

The authors are very grateful for the hard work on the manuscript and your suggestions that helped us to significantly improve the presentation of our study results. We have taken into account all your comments and made appropriate changes and corrections to the manuscript.

With best regards,

Prof Sophia Barinova,

Corresponding author

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Dear Authors,

The manuscript “Diatoms of the Macroalgae Epiphyton and Bioindication of the Protected Coastal Waters of the Kazantip Cape (Crimea, the Sea of Azov)” is well written and within the journal's scope. Diversity of diatom community on different species of macroalgae of the protected coastal waters of Kazantip Cape of the Sea of Azov and their use in bioindication was studied in this manuscript. I think the manuscript is clearly written, covers a interesting topic, in particular since data from this study are obtained for the first time for the protected waters of Kazantip Cape of the Sea of Azov. Also, the role of diatoms as bioindicators in marine environment has been poorly investigated, in contrast to lotic ecosystems. Still, I have a few comments I wrote below:

Lines 81-82: Please be more specific in defining of aim of the study. Please change the expression “epiphyton different species of macroalgae”. Maybe you can put in the parenthesis (on different species of macroalgae): The aim of this work is to study the diversity of diatom community in epiphyton (on different species of macroalgae)…Also, bioindication is very a broad term, so here be more precise, for example …bioindication based on saprobity index…

Response: corrected

Lines 175-176: Please put species names in italic.

Response: corrected

Line 434: delete the parenthesis after the “works”.

Response: corrected

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The data about diatoms from the marriage epiphyton in the coastal part of the Kazantip Cape are presented. The paper brought new knowledge about the unique marine ecosystem of Crimea that is relevant to phycology and  ecology. The authors have used proper methodology, however, some research methods are not described or described very insufficiently. The figures and tables are appropriate and easy to understand, but some of them should be corrected. The authors have used statistical analysis for the interpretation of the results. The conclusions of the MS are consistent and based on the results.

I can recommend the MS for publication after correction.

Suggestions to authors:

Major suggestions:

1. The section “Materials and Methods” should be corrected. Some methods, for example SEM, are not described. 
2. The reference list contains mostly old references.  From 60 references only 9 papers were published in 2019–2024. Add at least 40 newly published references.

Minor suggestions:

Abstract: It is better to divide the first sentence into two parts because it is too complex for understanding. In the first part, you can stress the geographical uniqueness of the studied area. In the second part, you could describe the methods of the study.

Lines 62–63: Please add the authors of the genera.

Figure 1: Please enlarge the figure.

Figure 2: Align photos a, b, and c along the top edge.

Materials and Methods: Add information that you identified diatoms from live material. You presented the SEM pictures of diatoms. However, you did not provide a description of the SEM methods. Add this information.

Line 176: P. leucosticta should be italicized.

Lines 229–231: Transfer these sentences to the section “Materials and Methods.”.

Table 2: Correct “number of species” to “species number." Explain what means St. 1–St. 4.

Lines 259–261: Where are Tables 3 and 4? Add the equation for the Pearson coefficient calculation to the section “Materials and Methods.”.

Line 282: How did you estimate the similarity of diatom communities?

Lines 292-293: Add information about the calculation of the Bray-Curtis index to the section “Materials and Methods.”.

Lines 325–326: What means “richness species”. How did you calculate it?

Line 390: Replace the word “therefore” with a synonym.

Line 434: Remove the parenthesis.

Line 464: Replace the word “some” with a synonym.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Responses to Comments of Reviewer 3

 

Dear Reviewer 3,

The authors are extremely grateful for your hard work on the manuscript, your valuable comments and suggestions which helped us to significantly improve the quality of our data analysis and presentation. We have taken them into account in our revised manuscript. We have corrected the Materials and Methods section by adding a description of the SEM methods. We have included 4 publications for 2019-2024 in the sections Materials and methods, Discussion, as well as in the References. For convenience, changes made to the text are marked in colour.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The data about diatoms from the marriage epiphyton in the coastal part of the Kazantip Cape are presented. The paper brought new knowledge about the unique marine ecosystem of Crimea that is relevant to phycology and  ecology. The authors have used proper methodology, however, some research methods are not described or described very insufficiently. The figures and tables are appropriate and easy to understand, but some of them should be corrected. The authors have used statistical analysis for the interpretation of the results. The conclusions of the MS are consistent and based on the results.

I can recommend the MS for publication after correction.

Suggestions to authors:

Major suggestions:

1. The section “Materials and Methods” should be corrected. Some methods, for example SEM, are not described. 

 

Response: description of the SEM methods added

 

1. The reference list contains mostly old references.  From 60 references only 9 papers were published in 2019–2024. Add at least 40 newly published references.

Response: our paper is devoted to the diversity of diatoms of Kazantip Cape, the research of the plant component of the aquatic communities of which was carried out in the last century or the beginning of the present century. Thus, publications on this topic are mostly old. For the preparation of preparations from diatoms, cleaning their valves and subsequent identification of species, we used classical methods, atlases and keys, which are also mostly old publications. In the discussion, we used both old publications as primary sources on a particular issue, as well as new works.  Having additionally analyzed the new literature on the issue under study, we have added several more modern publications. Analise and introducing more new sources into the paper is problematic and requires, in our opinion, a revision of the subject matter of our work.

Minor suggestions:

Abstract: It is better to divide the first sentence into two parts because it is too complex for understanding. In the first part, you can stress the geographical uniqueness of the studied area. In the second part, you could describe the methods of the study.

Response: corrected

Lines 62–63: Please add the authors of the genera.

Response: corrected

Figure 1: Please enlarge the figure.

Response: corrected

Figure 2: Align photos a, b, and c along the top edge.

Response: corrected

Line 176: P. leucosticta should be italicized.

Response: corrected

Table 2: Correct “number of species” to “species number." Explain what means St. 1–St. 4.

Response: corrected

Line 390: Replace the word “therefore” with a synonym.

Response: corrected

Line 434: Remove the parenthesis.

Response: corrected

Line 464: Replace the word “some” with a synonym.

Response: corrected

Lines 259–261: Where are Tables 3 and 4? Add the equation for the Pearson coefficient calculation to the section “Materials and Methods.”

Response: we put Tables 3 and 4 in Appendix A, but mistakenly referred to Table 4 in the text. We've corrected it. We apologise.

 

The Pearson coefficient is calculated by the JUST program, which we have linked to (Love, J.; Selker, R.; Marsman, M.; Jamil, T.; Dropmann, D.; Verhagen, J.A.; Ly, A.; Gronau, F.Q.; Smira, M.; Epskamp, S. et al. JASP: Graphical statistical software for common statistical designs. J. Stat. Softw. 2019, 88, 1–17.). Therefore, we have not included the formula for calculating this coefficient in the Materials and Methods section.

Line 282: How did you estimate the similarity of diatom communities?

Response: statistical comparison of diatom communities on the different macroalgae and stations was done as JASP network analysis. The programmer performs Bayesian Pearson correlation analysis. Bayesian analysis is answers research questions about parameters using probability statements. The Pearson correlation coefficient is varied between –1 and 1 that measures the strength and direction of the relationship between each pair of variables.

Lines 292-293: Add information about the calculation of the Bray-Curtis index to the section “Materials and Methods.”.

Response: to compare the species composition of diatoms in coastal areas throughout the year, we used the PAST program, which constructs a Similarity Tree based on the calculation of the Bray-Curtis index. A link to this program has been added to the Materials and Methods section.

Lines 325–326: What means “richness species”. How did you calculate it?

Response: The species richness was determined as the number of species found in the counting chamber when viewing samples of macroalgae.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Revision of the manuscript that included English language editing improved the understanding of the manuscript. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

The authors are very grateful for the hard work on the manuscript and your suggestions that helped us to significantly improve the presentation of our study results.

With best regards,

Prof Sophia Barinova,

Corresponding author

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors corrected MS according to reviewer suggestions. I can recommend it for the publication, but you should add more recent literature. You can include it in the section Discussion. Citing the most recent publications is demand for MDPI papers.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

The authors are extremely grateful for your hard work on the manuscript, your valuable comments and suggestions which helped us to significantly improve the quality of our data analysis and presentation. We have taken them into account in our revised manuscript. We have included 11 publications for 2019-2024 in the sections Materials and methods and Discussion, as well as in the References. For convenience, changes made to the text are marked in color.

With best regards,

Prof Sophia Barinova,

corresponding author