Phytoplankton Indicators in the Assessment of the Ecological Status of Two Reservoirs with Different Purposes in Southern Ukraine
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
REVIEW OF THE ARTICLE BY TATIANA NOVOSELOVA ET AL. ENTITLED “Phytoplankton indicators in assessment of ecological status of two reservoirs with different types of exploitation in south region of Ukraine”
T. Novoselova et al. demonstrated the study of microalgal diversity in two artificial ponds, Tashlyk and Alexandrovskoye, on the Southern Bug River. The Authors described morphotaxa of algae, characterized physicochemical parameters of water at different depths, calculated the standard diversity indices and performed statistical analysis of data. The work makes good impression. Authors used conventional hydrobiological approaches and demonstrated large datasets. Statistical treatment is adequate. The work is a valuable contribution to the field of the study of anthropogenic factors on freshwater microbial communities. It is a topical issue, particularly considering the existing problem of toxic blooming of eukaryotic algae and cyanobacteria. The work is in scope of the journal.
The work has been improved after revision, but some minor points should be taken into account.
-Since Cyanobacteril taxa are under the control of both International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants and The International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes, please indicate, which concept do you use with the reference to the code.
-You say, that you use the LTI conept, at the same time, you say about species of algae (e.g., Table 5, Figl 5-8). Please, explain.
-I have additional question on the naming of sample stations. -Figure 9 (optionally). These graphs make an impression that studied parameters are the function of the name of the station as a number, e.g. on the pannel b abundance increases with the number of the station. However the number is only the name. Isn't it? It is better to change it to columns. Moreover, it is incorrect to give approximation in this case. l. 483. "lower station 60 " - what does it mean? What o the number of the station mean? It has to be explained in methods. What do the number mean?
l. 51-52. By definition, phyto- and zooplankton are organisms. Therefore, the word "organisms" has to be removed.
l. 76-86. Please, add geographical coordinates.
l. 119-121. Please, list studied parameters. Please, explain, what are alkalinity and hardness?
l. 137, 138. Name of the microscope should be given as follows: <name> (<manufacturer>, <city of origin>, <country of orign>).
l. 161-162. Although the date of the AlgaBase access has been provided in the references, please, also indicate it here.
l. 161-162. What do you mean on "names"? In Algabase there are names that are accepted taxonomically, homotypic/heterotypic synonyms, names of uncertain taxonomic status, but which has been subjected to some verification nomenclaturally, names of preliminary AlgaeBase entry that has not been subjected to any kind of verification. Please, explain clearly. Some species could be calculated several tymes as synonyms.
l. 162. Algabase should be AlgaBase.
l. 171. How was the index calculated? Based on cell number, biomass, other?..
l. 214. a should be ai.
-Table 2, 3, 6, 7. Please add the charge to ions, e.g. HCO3- instead HCO3, NO2- instead NO2, Na+ instead Na, etc.
-l. 229. "pigeon at the research stations" - what is it?
-l. 230-232. - ???
-Subsection 3.1: content has to be improved. Plese, describe these results by at least in several sentences (what were the differences between samples, which trends did you see ...). Tables 2 and 3, also should be cited here. No reference(s) to table 3 in the text.
-l. 258-274. Add references to figure(s) through these parts of text.
-Fig. 3 (caption). The line is rather orang than red.
-l. 295-300. It is rather methods description than results. Moreover, results should not contain references.
-l. 307. Do you really mean Table 1 here?
-l. 321-323, 335-336. This should be moved to the corresponding subsection of methods. Explain also clearly, what is similarity.
-l. 390-407. Species name should be italicized.
-Figure 11-13. Pelease, explain, what does the color scheme mean in the caption.
Author Response
Dear Editor and the Reviewer 1,
Thank you for your comments. Please find detailed responses to each comments below.
With best regards,
Prof Sophia Barinova,
Corresponding author
Responses to Reviewer 1
REVIEW OF THE ARTICLE BY TATIANA NOVOSELOVA ET AL. ENTITLED “Phytoplankton indicators in assessment of ecological status of two reservoirs with different types of exploitation in south region of Ukraine”
- Novoselova et al. demonstrated the study of microalgal diversity in two artificial ponds, Tashlyk and Alexandrovskoye, on the Southern Bug River. The Authors described morphotaxa of algae, characterized physicochemical parameters of water at different depths, calculated the standard diversity indices and performed statistical analysis of data. The work makes good impression. Authors used conventional hydrobiological approaches and demonstrated large datasets. Statistical treatment is adequate. The work is a valuable contribution to the field of the study of anthropogenic factors on freshwater microbial communities. It is a topical issue, particularly considering the existing problem of toxic blooming of eukaryotic algae and cyanobacteria. The work is in scope of the journal.
The work has been improved after revision, but some minor points should be taken into account.
-Since Cyanobacteril taxa are under the control of both International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants and The International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes, please indicate, which concept do you use with the reference to the code.
Response: as mentioned in MM section, the system of AlgaeBase.
-You say, that you use the LTI conept, at the same time, you say about species of algae (e.g., Table 5, Figl 5-8). Please, explain.
Response: usually we talking about LIT when it mean the calculation units and taxonomy, but in Table 5 we talking about “indicator-species” , which can be taxa on species, or genus level but have some indicator properties like Spirogyra (genus but indicator-species)/ In any case, Figure replaced, text corrected.
-I have additional question on the naming of sample stations. -Figure 9 (optionally). These graphs make an impression that studied parameters are the function of the name of the station as a number, e.g. on the pannel b abundance increases with the number of the station. However the number is only the name. Isn't it? It is better to change it to columns. Moreover, it is incorrect to give approximation in this case. l. 483. "lower station 60 " - what does it mean? What o the number of the station mean? It has to be explained in methods. What do the number mean?
Response: The present work is only a small part of the studies carried out on both reservoirs in connection with the influence of nuclear power plant coolers, as described in the introduction. That is, in this study, we took only the stations we needed. However, the numbers represent permanent monitoring stations over a number of years. That is, on the one hand, we cannot change the station numbers, since the link to the ongoing monitoring is lost, and on the other hand, these numbers do not indicate any number, but only the name of the station.
- 51-52. By definition, phyto- and zooplankton are organisms. Therefore, the word "organisms" has to be removed.
Response: removed
- 76-86. Please, add geographical coordinates.
Response: detail coordinates are given slightly below in Table 1.
- 119-121. Please, list studied parameters. Please, explain, what are alkalinity and hardness?
Response: removed, not discussed here.
- 137, 138. Name of the microscope should be given as follows: <name> (<manufacturer>, <city of origin>, <country of orign>).
Response: given.
- 161-162. Although the date of the AlgaBase access has been provided in the references, please, also indicate it here.
Response: added
- 161-162. What do you mean on "names"? In Algabase there are names that are accepted taxonomically, homotypic/heterotypic synonyms, names of uncertain taxonomic status, but which has been subjected to some verification nomenclaturally, names of preliminary AlgaeBase entry that has not been subjected to any kind of verification. Please, explain clearly. Some species could be calculated several tymes as synonyms.
Response: added – valid names. It is especially corrected because we added the data of access as you recommended.
- 162. Algabase should be AlgaBase.
Response: corrected
- 171. How was the index calculated? Based on cell number, biomass, other?..
Response: based on LIT number
- 214. a should be ai.
Response: correctad
-Table 2, 3, 6, 7. Please add the charge to ions, e.g. HCO3- instead HCO3, NO2- instead NO2, Na+ instead Na, etc.
Response: added
-l. 229. "pigeon at the research stations" - what is it?
Response: mistake, corrected
-l. 230-232. - ???
Response: sorry, left after comments, deleted
-Subsection 3.1: content has to be improved. Plese, describe these results by at least in several sentences (what were the differences between samples, which trends did you see ...). Tables 2 and 3, also should be cited here. No reference(s) to table 3 in the text.
Response: done
-l. 258-274. Add references to figure(s) through these parts of text.
Response: done
-Fig. 3 (caption). The line is rather orang than red.
Response: dependent to display, may be you have high quality one.
-l. 295-300. It is rather methods description than results. Moreover, results should not contain references.
Response: at the comment above for l. 258-274, you ask the reference also, and I done/ In any case, if it needs for better understanding, I cite it.
-l. 307. Do you really mean Table 1 here?
Response: corrected
-l. 321-323, 335-336. This should be moved to the corresponding subsection of methods. Explain also clearly, what is similarity.
Response: inserted, rewritten
-l. 390-407. Species name should be italicized.
Response: done
-Figure 11-13. Pelease, explain, what does the color scheme mean in the caption.
Response: Colors are given for the value amplitude of each mapped variable from green to red.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is interesting and presents the phytoplankton communities (and phytoplankton indicators) in two reservoirs with different types of exploitation in south Ukraine. One reservoir is used for cooling the nuclear power plant and the other has a "classical" design. The authors could have focused a bit more on the effect of heated water that affects phytoplankton communities in terms of global changes and conclusions could be more general.
Some other comments are attached to the manuscript. Also, the English language should be improved before the publication.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editor and the Reviewer 2,
Thank you for your comments. Please find detailed responses to each comments below.
With best regards,
Prof Sophia Barinova,
Corresponding author
Reviewer 2
The manuscript is interesting and presents the phytoplankton communities (and phytoplankton indicators) in two reservoirs with different types of exploitation in south Ukraine. One reservoir is used for cooling the nuclear power plant and the other has a "classical" design. The authors could have focused a bit more on the effect of heated water that affects phytoplankton communities in terms of global changes and conclusions could be more general.
Some other comments are attached to the manuscript. Also, the English language should be improved before the publication.
Responses to Reviewer 2 are given in enclosed pdf.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
REVIEW OF THE ARTICLE BY TATIANA NOVOSELOVA ET AL. ENTITLED “PLANKTONIC MICROALGAE IN ASSESSMENT OF ECOLOGICAL STATUS OF TWO RESERVOIRS WITH DIFFERENT TYPES OF EXPLOITATION IN SOUTH REGION OF UKRAINE”
T. Novoselova et al. demonstrated the study of microalgal diversity in two artificial ponds, Tashlyk and Alexandrovskoye, on the Southern Bug River. The Authors described morphotaxa of algae, characterized physicochemical parameters of water at different depths, calculated the standard diversity indices and performed statistical analysis of data. The work makes good impression. Authors used conventional hydrobiological approaches and demonstrated large datasets. Statistical treatment is adequate. The work is a valuable contribution to the field of the study of anthropogenic factors on freshwater microbial communities. It is a topical issue, particularly considering the existing problem of toxic blooming of eukaryotic algae and cyanobacteria. The work is in scope of the journal. I just suggest the Authors fix some minor points to improve the quality of the paper its before publishing.
MINOR POINTS
-Introduction is too short. The Authors cite only four references without detailed explanation of key results of these works. I suggest describing each work at least in several separate sentences. It is especially important since ref [4] is not in English. Because main topic of the article is artificial ponds in Ukraine I also suggest add an information about algal diversity in the ponds of Southern Ukraine, e.g. Tiliguli estuary, Odessa district, ponds in Crimea, etc. (at least 10-15 references). There is a lot of data on this issue. It would be also nice to see some data on the effect of anthropogenic factors on algal diversity in freshwater ponds, e.g. development of blooming.
-l. 33-61. It is better to move it to Materials and Methods.
-For convenience, please divide Materials and Methods into subsections, e.g. The objects of research, Determination of water physicochemical parameters, Determination of algae, Statistical analysis…
-Did you use standard manuals for algae determination? If yes, please, indicate.
-It is necessary to add the subsection “Sampling procedure”. How did You collect Your samples? Into sterile plastic tubes? Which volume of samples? Which volume of tubes? Did You store the samples (how?) or study them immediately after sampling. Sampling date (and preferably weather) should be added.
-l. 93-94. It would be better also to see the expressions for calculation txx and txy parameters of the matrix.
-l. 100-101. “s is species-specific saprobity index” - correct form is “si is species-specific saprobity index of the species i”.
-l. 105. Please, add the reference for e BioDiversity Pro 2.0.
Mc Aleece N, Lambsshead P, Paterson G, Gage J (1997) Biodiversity professional V2.0. The Natural History Museum and the Scottish Association for Marine Science, Oban
-l. 77-78. It is Methods.
-Table 2, 3, 6, 7. Please add the charge to ions, e.g. HCO3- instead HCO3, NO2- instead NO2, Na+ instead Na, etc.
-Table 2, 3. What is PI? Please, explain in legend.
-l. 128-137. “are” should be “were”.
-l. 222. It is Methods.
-l. 130, 282. “Phylum” is the more appropriate name of the taxon instead of “division”.
-l. 289. Species name is not italicized.
-Table 6, 7. Please, indicate units.
-l. 361-389, 403-445. Please, write results in Past Indefinite.
-Fig. 9 c and d. It is incorrect to drow all curves against one Y-axis, because N-content is in mgN/L, whereas others are dimentionless. Please, add second Y axis for N content.
-Fig. 9 eand f. Please, add units for temperature.
-general comment N-NO3- - do You mean nitrate nitrogen? not nitric.
-l. 395-402. It is methods.
-I think, it is interesting and important to compare the results with existing data on diversity of freshwater algae of Ukraine, e.g. Palamar-Mordvintseva, Tsarenko (2011). International Journal on Algae, 13(4); Solonenko, A. M. (2016) International Journal on Algae, 18(3); Lilitskaya et al. (2013) International Journal on Algae, 15(2).
-l. 476. Exclamatory sentences do not sound scientific. Remove the exclamation mark.
-l. 504, 515. Typing error.
-l. 523. Please, indicate these algae.
-l. 574. Who is S.XB.?
Reviewer 2 Report
General comments
Review microorganisms-1526900 – “Planktonic microalgae in assessment of ecological status of two reservoirs with different types of exploitation in south region of Ukraine” by Tatiana Novoselova et al.
The authors have done a lot of interesting work. The Authors presented original research. Unfortunately, from a scientific point of view, I have few serious concerns with this paper.
1. This manuscript lacks an Introduction chapter. The entire section "1.1. The objects of research" should be found in Material and Methods chapter. 2. In my opinion, this manuscript lacks the aim of the work and the research hypothesis. 3. The Material and Methods chapter lacks basic information, e.g., when the samples were collected (month, year), how much water was analyzed, with which devices the samples were analyzed etc. 4. Why the samples were collected from different depths? If the samples were taken from different depths, they cannot be compared with each other. Especially since the depth range was 1.15m – 30.0m! In my opinion, this influences the interpretation of all the results. 5. Table 1. - 41 degrees of Celsius at a depth of 8 m is a bit of a strange value for me…
In conclusion, I believe that the article is not suitable for publication in this form.
Specific comments:
L158: is this the work hypothesis?
Fig. 3 - what does the red line mean?
following the abbreviations in Table 5 is very difficult.
Reviewer 3 Report
microorganisms-1526900
Planktonic microalgae in assessment of ecological status of two reservoirs with different types of exploitation in south region of Ukraine
General comments:
The present study provides information on planktonic microalgae composition and density inhabiting two different reservoirs in the south region of Ukraine. They used indicator species to infer about the differences between the two reservoirs related to several environmental factors.
In my opinion, the present paper has several issues that should be addressed. First, you should consider asking an English native speaker to improve the language of the paper, as I found it hard to read, presenting several grammatical incongruences.
Second, the Introduction section needs a great improvement. The information you give is almost like a “Study area” subsection of Materials and Methods. I miss the main objectives of the study.
Additionally, you must improve the Materials and Methods section. For instance, how did you sample the phytoplankton, was it the entire water column? If so, how many depths did you sample. How many sampling stations did you use in each reservoir?
Although I believe it is interesting and important to study phytoplanktonic communities, the present study provides information of only one sampling occasion. Also, it seems more like a regional study, and therefore I recommend it to be published in a more regional journal.
I could not find the Appendix 1 you refer in the text.
Concluding, I do not believe that the paper in the present form has the quality to be published in Microorganisms.
