Three-Dimensional Quantification of Copepods Predictive Distributions in the Ross Sea: First Data Based on a Machine Learning Model Approach and Open Access (FAIR) Data
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review for the paper "First Three-dimensional Quantification of Planktic Food Chain lower levels (Copepods) for the Ross Sea region Marine Protected Area (RSRMPA), Antarctica: Using FAIR-inspired legacy data with Machine Learning, and Open Source GIS" by Marco Grillo, Falk Huettmann, Letterio Guglielmo, Stefano Schiaparelli submitted to "Diversity".
General comment.
In the present paper, the authors aimed to produce a data set including three-dimensional predictive distribution maps for common copepod taxa inhabiting the Ross Sea. They used the archive Italian data (FAIR-inspired legacy data from the 1980s) and various open access GIS data to visualize the presence/absence of copepods at horizontal and vertical scales. Application of Species Distribution Modeling based on machine learning with three types of algorithms allowed the authors to obtain maps showing the relative index of occurrence and the presence/absence of the copepods in the Ross Sea. The paper demonstrated copepods to be geographically separated. The authors also proposed machine learning as a successful tool to predict the occurrence of copepods in the Ross Sea. This article may be interesting for scientists dealing with modeling planktonic communities. I have some suggestions to improve the ms.
Specific remarks.
The title is too complicated. I recommend the authors to simplify the title. For example:
Three-dimensional visualization of Copepods in the Ross Sea: first data based on a machine learning model.
L15-16. Consider replacing "Zooplankton is a fundamental group in all aquatic ecosystems located the base of the food chain" with "Zooplankton is a fundamental group in aquatic ecosystems representing the base of the food chain".
L18. Consider replacing "At sea copepod crustaceans" with "Marine copepods".
L45. Consider replacing "And recent" with "Recent".
L49-68. These sections should be merged into one paragraph.
L60. km2. ‘2’ must be in the upper index.
L69-75. This sentence is redundant and may be omitted from the Introduction.
L83-99. These sections should be merged into one paragraph.
L109-117. These sections should be merged into one paragraph.
L118-121. This sentence is redundant and may be omitted from the Introduction.
L175-176. Please, provide a more detailed caption for Table 2.
L206. Consider replacing "in the water cube" with "in the whole water layer". Also, insert full stop at the end of the sentence.
L214. Please, provide a detailed caption for Figure 2.
L245. Insert ‘(Fig. 3)’ after ‘T. conifera'.
L245. Insert ‘(Fig. 4)’ after ‘Paraeuchaeta exigua'.
L273. There appears to be an incomplete sentence. Please, rewrite.
L286-287. Consider replacing " ‘80s to the middle of the ‘90s. " with "1980s to the middle of the 1990s. ".
L295. Consider replacing "to produces" with "to produce".
L369-372. The authors mentioned suspensory-feeding copepods although there is no data on the feeding modes of copepods considered in the study. I recommend the authors to update their Table 1 with feeding modes for each copepod taxa.
L374. Consider replacing "specie ecologies" with "species ecology".
L394. Consider replacing " in the ‘80s, early ‘90s. " with "in the 1980s and early 1990s. ".
L 440. Consider replacing " science" with "Science".
L546. Oithona similis should be italicized.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we are resubmitting our MS after quite a lot of reworking that was necessary to fulfill your expectations and suggestions.
We have changed the title, modified the MS and add the trophic guilds as you suggested.
We thanking you for having asked this additional effort that, we believe, has increased the relevance of the paper.
We have also restructured some sections of the MS in order to avoid as much as possible any repetition.
We are submitting two copies of the MS: the final (sanitized) version and the one with the track changes.
We report here below are specific responses to your specific comments and we would like to thank you for your help and time dedicated to revise our contribution.
I hope that the MS could be now positively evaluated for the publication in Diversity.
Please see the attachment.
On behalf of all authors I thank you in advance for your collaboration
With all my best regards.
Marco Grillo
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript presented studies the quantification of trophic chains using Machine Learning.
First of all, it should be noted that there are few works dedicated to marine zooplankton, and therefore the content is of interest. However, the work needs to be improved in some essential aspects.
First, the title is not adequate because it is not necessary to define an abbreviation in it, meaning that it is not necessary (RSRMPA) and yet it is not understood what FAIR is, it should be written with the full text. However, this would lengthen the title and may also be inappropriate for the lake. It is therefore suggested that the title be revised accordingly and be adjusted to the style of the titles of scientific articles.
As for the abstract, it presents the interesting aspects of the paper adequately, but should not define abbreviations in the text, such as SDM and RIO. However, it uses FAIR which is unknown. The use of GIS is acceptable as it is a known term in the scientific world.
The introduction is well presented and includes the fundamental aspects of the work. A bibliographic review on the presence of copepods in Antarctica is missing. It should cite the most interesting works on this subject. Some details that could be modified are the following:
Line 44. The format of the reference does not fit the style of the journal.
Line 49. MPA is not defined.
Line 50-51. Only the unabbreviated description should be used, as CCAMLR is only used two other times in the text.
Line 60. Place superscript correctly.
Lines 73 and 74. Not necessary e.g. citations would be sufficient.
Line 101. Do not abbreviate app.
As for the methods section, some of the details are as follows:
Line 132 and 135. The format of the reference does not fit the style of the journal. The URL is not necessary, as it will appear in the reference list.
Line 156. Indicate which solution is used for preservation.
Line 159. The format of the reference does not conform to the style of the journal. Note that this work has already been cited in line 132. This reference is also used inappropriately in Table 2.
On the other hand, the list of variables in Table 2 would be more appropriately presented as Annex A, given its length. The header of the table is not written.
Lines 182 and 183. The format of the reference does not conform to the style of the journal.
Line 187-188. Explain the biological reasons for separating the strata.
Line 193. AUC does not need to be abbreviated as it is not used in the document.
Paragraph 199-206 already presents results, so it would be more appropriate to move to section 3, Results. Note that Table 4 is cited and is placed later, after Table 3. This table is also not cited in the text.
Figure 2 is not cited in the document.
In the presentation of results, line 219 indicates that "sample size" is presented but previously it has not been described in the methodology what this variable means nor what units of measurement it has. It should be explained in section 2 and in table 4 put the units. This table 4 should be adjusted to occupy only one page, decreasing the spacing.
Line 311, 321, 328, 332, 333, 365. The format of the reference does not conform to the style of the journal.
Finally, the reference list should be adjusted to the style of the journal.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we are resubmitting our MS after quite a lot of reworking that was necessary to fulfill your expectations and suggestions.
We have added citations regarding the biogeographical distribution of Antarctic copepods, moved Table 2 to Appendix A and corrected the reference list as you suggested.
We thanking you for having asked this additional effort that, we believe, has increased the relevance of the paper.
We have also restructured some sections of the MS in order to avoid as much as possible any repetition.
We are submitting two copies of the MS: the final (sanitized) version and the one with the track changes.
We report here below are specific responses to your specific comments and we would like to thank you for your help and time dedicated to revise our contribution.
I hope that the MS could be now positively evaluated for the publication in Diversity.
Please see the attachment.
On behalf of all authors I thank you in advance for your collaboration
With all my best regards.
Marco Grillo
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have modified all the manuscript according to my proposes in the review. I have only a concern in order to adapt the list of references to the style of the journal, but can be made the changes in the final edition process.
