The Inland Cladocera and Copepoda Fauna in Greece
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper's main objective is to summarize knowledge about the biodiversity of Cladocera and Copepoda in Greece. The paper is significant as Greece is a biodiversity hotspot, and there are misidentifications in the literature. The paper was overall well written, and much of it was well described. I felt confident that the authors performed a careful review process. The paper systematized knowledge and contributed to knowledge about zooplankton diversity, especially since many relocations and recalling of taxa have been made recently. The paper deserves publishing. There are only minor revisions needed.
1. Table 1. Alona affinis and Biapertura affinis are the same taxa. Please change it.
2. Line 143. Please provide information why it cannot be confirmed. Based on which feature?
3. Line 146, Please provide information on what species were found in the same lakes
4. Lines 152-153, Please provide information on what regions, and examples of species
Author Response
Reviewer 1
General comment.
Copepoda and Cladocera have a great contribution to freshwater comminutes in terms of total abundance and biomass worldwide. They may dominate plankton assemblages during certain periods. Considering their important roles in the freshwater environments, the present study provides a good basis for future taxonomical investigations. In this article the authors aimed to present a checklist of Cladocera and Copepoda inhabiting inland waters of Greece based on previously published data. The manuscript is generally well written (in terms of English and general presentation). However, the current manuscript follows purely a taxonomy style and is only descriptive of the composition of the crustacean fauna. Therefore, it is now of local interest and needs to be strengthened. I suggest the authors update their taxonomical Tables with ecological information that will make the article attractive to a wider international audience.
Comment: Tables 1, 3, 5 should be supplemented by: 1) occurrence of the species (frequent, moderate, rare); 2) habitat (pelagic, benthic, parasitic, etc); 3) feeding mode (herbivorous, omnivorous, predators). This would make your work ecologically meaningful and interesting for other specialists dealing with freshwater environments.
Reply: We agree with the reviewr that this is important information that also highlited the lack of knowledge for several taxa and we have added the information about frequency of occurrence, feeding mode and habitat in the supplementary tables
Comment 1: L 13. Consider replacing "cladocera" with "Cladocera".
Reply: It has been replaced. See NEW lines 13
Comment 2: L 29. Consider replacing "the baseline" with "a baseline".
Reply: It has been replaced. See NEW lines 29
Comment 3: L 57. Consider replacing "restorations" with "restoration".
Reply: It has been replaced. See NEW lines 57
Comment 4: Tables 1, 3, 5, 7. Right column. Replace "Where" with "Region".
Reply: It has been changed.
Comment 5: Fig. 1. Coordinates and geographic names for the marine regions (Aegean Sea, Ionian Sea etc) must be added in the map.
Reply: Figure 1 was changed. See NEW Figure 1
Comment 6: L 120, 174, 235, 269. Consider replacing "have been classified" with "were classified".
Reply: They have been replaced. See NEW lines: 136, 161, 178, 194
Comment 7: Fig. 2. The number of species should be placed according to sorting from the most diverse family (Chydoridae) to the most poor family (Eurycercidae). The same should be done for Fig. 3 and 5.
Reply: It has been done. See NEW figures 2, 3 and 5
Comment 8: L 149. Consider replacing "analysis" with "analyses".
Reply: It has been replaced. See NEW lines 212
Comment 9: L 297. Insert comma after "in Greece".
Reply: It has been added. See NEW lines 316
Comment 10: I recommend the authors to give a brief conclusion summarizing the novelty of the study and possible applications of their results for future taxonomical and ecological studies.
Reply: we thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have added the conclusion section. See NEW lines 328-340
Reviewer 2 Report
Review for the paper "The Inland Cladocera and Copepoda Fauna of Greece" by Georgia Stamou, Polyxeni Kourkoutmani and Evangelia Michaloudi submitted to "Diversity".
General comment.
Copepoda and Cladocera have a great contribution to freshwater comminutes in terms of total abundance and biomass worldwide. They may dominate plankton assemblages during certain periods. Considering their important roles in the freshwater environments, the present study provides a good basis for future taxonomical investigations. In this article the authors aimed to present a checklist of Cladocera and Copepoda inhabiting inland waters of Greece based on previously published data. The manuscript is generally well written (in terms of English and general presentation). However, the current manuscript follows purely a taxonomy style and is only descriptive of the composition of the crustacean fauna. Therefore, it is now of local interest and needs to be strengthened. I suggest the authors update their taxonomical Tables with ecological information that will make the article attractive to a wider international audience.
General suggestion.
Tables 1, 3, 5 should be supplemented by: 1) occurrence of the species (frequent, moderate, rare); 2) habitat (pelagic, benthic, parasitic, etc); 3) feeding mode (herbivorous, omnivorous, predators). This would make your work ecologically meaningful and interesting for other specialists dealing with freshwater environments.
Specific remarks.
L 13. Consider replacing "cladocera" with "Cladocera".
L 29. Consider replacing "the baseline" with "a baseline".
L 57. Consider replacing "restorations" with "restoration".
Tables 1, 3, 5, 7. Right column. Replace "Where" with "Region".
Fig. 1. Coordinates and geographic names for the marine regions (Aegean Sea, Ionian Sea etc) must be added in the map.
L 120, 174, 235, 269. Consider replacing "have been classified" with "were classified".
Fig. 2. The number of species should be placed according to sorting from the most diverse family (Chydoridae) to the most poor family (Eurycercidae). The same should be done for Fig. 3 and 5.
L 149. Consider replacing "analysis" with "analyses".
L 297. Insert comma after "in Greece".
I recommend the authors to give a brief conclusion summarizing the novelty of the study and possible applications of their results for future taxonomical and ecological studies.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
General comment.
The paper's main objective is to summarize knowledge about the biodiversity of Cladocera and Copepoda in Greece. The paper is significant as Greece is a biodiversity hotspot, and there are misidentifications in the literature. The paper was overall well written, and much of it was well described. I felt confident that the authors performed a careful review process. The paper systematized knowledge and contributed to knowledge about zooplankton diversity, especially since many relocations and recalling of taxa have been made recently. The paper deserves publishing. There are only minor revisions needed.
Comment 1. Table 1. Alona affinis and Biapertura affinis are the same taxa. Please change it.
Reply: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have changed this and now we only mention Biapertura affinis
Comment 2. Line 143. Please provide information why it cannot be confirmed. Based on which feature?
Reply: We now provide an expalantion for theis. See NEW lines 204-205
Comment 3. Line 146, Please provide information on what species were found in the same lakes
Reply: We have added the clarification. See NEW lines 208-209
Comment 4. Lines 152-153, Please provide information on what regions, and examples of species
Reply: We have changed the beginning of the sentence so that it is clear that we are referring to that results of others. See NEW lines 212-216
