Microalgae Indicators of Charophyte Habitats of South and Southeast Kazakhstan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments to the Authors

Sametova et al. explored charophytic habitats and algal communities in S-SE Kazakhstan and found that diversity of these habitats can serve as a tool for tracking future climate change. The manuscript contains many interesting data and conclusions and is of general interest for both experts and non-experts. However, some concerns are still to be addressed.

Comments:

1) Abbreviations (even common ones) should be solved at first use.

2) Some statements on p7 are questionable. First, it is written that “trend lines show(!) that … species richness … negatively related to site altitude”. Well, such trend line can indeed be calculated/drawn, however, due to high scatter of data (from 10 to 45), and arbitrary (non-linear) scaling of the x-axis, that statement is not supported by data. There are species-rich habitats at both low and high altitudes and the same for species-poor habitats. Also, although Authors declare a decreasing trend for both temperature and species richness, later (in line 175) they conclude that “if the temperature increases, the number of species … becomes smaller”. These two are in sharp contradiction.

3) Figs. 6 to 9 shows various trends as a function of altitude. Perhaps, sorting data according to other variables might also be worthwhile.

4) Fig. 9 is confusing. What does the white colour mean? Missing data or what? As shades of blue dominate on the figure, rescaling/recolouring may to be considered. It would be more informative to indicate altitude on the x-axis rather than station numbers. As font size is too small along the y-axis, expanding the y-axis may improve figure quality.

5) Although some foreign data are also mentioned in the Discussion, putting main findings and conclusions into global context is missing.

6) References are dominated by self-citations which should be avoided in scientific literature.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for comments. All your recommendations were taken in account and the paper text was corrected. Please find my responses to each comment, below.

With best regards,

Prof Sophia Barinova,

Corresponding author

 

Comments to the Authors

Sametova et al. explored charophytic habitats and algal communities in S-SE Kazakhstan and found that diversity of these habitats can serve as a tool for tracking future climate change. The manuscript contains many interesting data and conclusions and is of general interest for both experts and non-experts. However, some concerns are still to be addressed.

Comments:

• Abbreviations (even common ones) should be solved at first use.

Response: corrected

• Some statements on p7 are questionable. First, it is written that “trend lines show(!) that … species richness … negatively related to site altitude”. Well, such trend line can indeed be calculated/drawn, however, due to high scatter of data (from 10 to 45), and arbitrary (non-linear) scaling of the x-axis, that statement is not supported by data. There are species-rich habitats at both low and high altitudes and the same for species-poor habitats. Also, although Authors declare a decreasing trend for both temperature and species richness, later (in line 175) they conclude that “if the temperature increases, the number of species … becomes smaller”. These two are in sharp contradiction.

Response:

Corrected as: Because the graphs are organized by site altitude, the trendlines plotted for each of the variables can reflect the effect of altitude on the distribution pattern and in this case suggest …

And

Although the general patterns in Figure 3 reveal a decrease in both indicators, temperature and species richness, with an increase in habitat altitude, a detailed analysis of the relationships between these two indicators reveals more subtle relationships and shows mutually opposite dynamics at specific stations. That is, at some stations, as the temperature rises, the number of species in the community becomes smaller, and vice versa, rich communities were found at lower water temperatures at the station.

3) Figs. 6 to 9 shows various trends as a function of altitude. Perhaps, sorting data according to other variables might also be worthwhile.

Response: We try to sort our data in order to other variables but only altitude give some function.

 

4) Fig. 9 is confusing. What does the white colour mean? Missing data or what? As shades of blue dominate on the figure, rescaling/recolouring may to be considered. It would be more informative to indicate altitude on the x-axis rather than station numbers. As font size is too small along the y-axis, expanding the y-axis may improve figure quality.

Response: Corrected as: The color of the cells varies from white to blue then to red according to the proportion of the number in the entire distribution. The Figure reconstructed as recommended.

5) Although some foreign data are also mentioned in the Discussion, putting main findings and conclusions into global context is missing.

Response: the references and related sentences are included.

6) References are dominated by self-citations which should be avoided in scientific literature.

Response: Proportion of the authors’ citations is changed and some references were added.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Introduction

Line 34 – ‘wildly’?

Line 36 – I suggest ‘Charophytes may occur as… or…’ rather than ‘Charophytes prefer to grow…’

Line 44 – ‘autoecology’

Line 54 – ‘confirms’

Lines 53-55 – On my opinion, this last sentence on the fossil record of Charophytes in Kazakhstan is not particularly important, since this paper is not aimed at discuss these aspects. I suggest to delete it.

 

Materials and Methods

Line 78 – ‘41°00’ to 46°40’ N’ and ‘68°12’ to ‘81°45’ E’. This should be the proper way to express the coordinates. Please check.

Line 79 – ‘245 and 3629 m’ instead of ‘245-3629 m’

Line 87 – ‘previously’ instead of ‘firstly’?

Line 92 – delete ‘here’

Line 97 – ‘few’ instead of ‘little’

Line 100 – delete ‘per year’

Line 102 – ’21 sites’; what do you mean with ’14 of which they were recognized firstly’?

Line 104 – ‘climate is cold-temperate’

Line 114 – ‘Overall’ instead of ‘Altogether’

Line 119 – ‘The periphyton’ instead of ‘Periphytonic’

Line 130 – ‘soft’?

 

Results

Line 185 – ‘were’ instead of ‘was’

 

Discussion

Line 353 – ‘altitude’ instead of ‘height’!

Line 400 – ‘The data herein presented demonstrate the importance…’ instead of ‘The conducted studies show the prospect…’

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for comments. All your recommendations were taken in account and the paper text was corrected. Please find my responses to each comment, below.

With best regards,

Prof Sophia Barinova,

Corresponding author

 

Line 34 – ‘wildly’?

Response: misprint corrected as widely

Line 36 – I suggest ‘Charophytes may occur as… or…’ rather than ‘Charophytes prefer to grow…’

Response: corrected

Line 44 – ‘autoecology’

Response: corrected as autecology

Line 54 – ‘confirms’

Response: corrected

Lines 53-55 – On my opinion, this last sentence on the fossil record of Charophytes in Kazakhstan is not particularly important, since this paper is not aimed at discuss these aspects. I suggest to delete it.

Response: this mention is given for confirms that the Kazakhstan environment was favorable for charophytes sins prehistoric.

Materials and Methods

Line 78 – ‘41°00’ to 46°40’ N’ and ‘68°12’ to ‘81°45’ E’. This should be the proper way to express the coordinates. Please check.

Response: Table 1 corrected and replaced

Line 79 – ‘245 and 3629 m’ instead of ‘245-3629 m’

Response: corrected

Line 87 – ‘previously’ instead of ‘firstly’?

Response: corrected as “for the first time”

Line 92 – delete ‘here’

Response: deleted

Line 97 – ‘few’ instead of ‘little’

Response: changed

Line 100 – delete ‘per year’

Response: deleted

Line 102 – ’21 sites’; what do you mean with ’14 of which they were recognized firstly’?

Response: corrected as “on 14 of which they were found firstly”

Line 104 – ‘climate is cold-temperate’

Response: corrected

Line 114 – ‘Overall’ instead of ‘Altogether’

Response: corrected

Line 119 – ‘The periphyton’ instead of ‘Periphytonic’

Response: corrected

Line 130 – ‘soft’?

Response: this term is usually used for non-diatom algae, so, corrected as “non-diatom”

Results

Line 185 – ‘were’ instead of ‘was’

Response: corrected

Discussion

Line 353 – ‘altitude’ instead of ‘height’!

Response: changed

Line 400 – ‘The data herein presented demonstrate the importance…’ instead of ‘The conducted studies show the prospect…’

Response: corrected

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Perfect response to the reviewer's comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for your report and high score of assessment.

With best regards,

Prof Sophia Barinova,

corresponding author

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I noticed and sincerely appreciated your work aimed at improve the manuscript following the previous suggestions. However, I suggest one last effort, especially in the Introduction, in order to ameliorate the readability of this nice manuscript:

Line 16-17 – Please rephrase as: ‘Charophyte algae are a very sensitive group of microorganisms living in Kazakhstan water bodies’. At least in the abstract there is no real need to highlight that charophytes fossil record in Kazakhstan dates back to the Eocene (which is an epoch, not a period). I strongly suggest to delete this passage.

Line 22 – Delete ‘a.s.l.’ (it is better to avoid acronyms in the abstract)

Line 54 - Delete 'age of the Paleogene'. Middle Eocene is enough.

Lines 68-69 – ‘Since charophytes often form monospecies population like meadows in unpolluted waters and have a high cleansing capacity.’ Sorry, I do not understand this sentence. Please rephrase.

Line 70 – What does it mean that charophytes are ‘pure’?

Lines 78 – What does it mean ‘without categorization’?

Lines 84-93 – Sorry, but it is very difficult to follow this passage… Please rephrase.

Overall, from line 68 to 93 you added a lot of information to the previous version of the Introduction. It is ok, but you should better rephrase the sentences.

Lines 94-97 - Rephrase as: 'The aim of the present work is to identify the preferred habitats of charophyte algae in south and southeastern Kazakhstan and, at the same time, the associated species of microalgae, providing an ecological assessment of known and new habitats with species-indicator properties'. You state your aims too much times on my personal opinion. Here, at the end of the Introduction, is the best place.

Line 110 and below - 'in three of which'

Line 120 – ‘Sites sampled’ instead of ‘Sites sample’

Lines 123-124 - 'during sampling' instead of 'at the same time of sampling'

Line 126 – Rephrase as ’75 samples of microperiphyton and microphytobenthos…’

Line 132 – Rephrase as ‘… Phytointroduction (Almaty) for microscopic studies’

Line 274 - 'This indicates that hydrology also plays...' instead of 'This indicates that the factor of...'

Line 351 - 'consider' instead of 'involve'

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for your comments in the Report 2. Please find my responses to each comments below.

With best regards,

Prof Sophia Barinova,

Corresponding author

 

Dear authors,

I noticed and sincerely appreciated your work aimed at improve the manuscript following the previous suggestions. However, I suggest one last effort, especially in the Introduction, in order to ameliorate the readability of this nice manuscript:

Line 16-17 – Please rephrase as: ‘Charophyte algae are a very sensitive group of microorganisms living in Kazakhstan water bodies’. At least in the abstract there is no real need to highlight that charophytes fossil record in Kazakhstan dates back to the Eocene (which is an epoch, not a period). I strongly suggest to delete this passage.

Response: deleted

Line 22 – Delete ‘a.s.l.’ (it is better to avoid acronyms in the abstract)

Response: deleted

Line 54 - Delete 'age of the Paleogene'. Middle Eocene is enough.

Response: deleted

Lines 68-69 – ‘Since charophytes often form monospecies population like meadows in unpolluted waters and have a high cleansing capacity.’ Sorry, I do not understand this sentence. Please rephrase.

Response: Rephrased as: Charophytes often form a monospecies population like meadows in unpolluted waters. Their massive meadows often fill a significant part of the reservoir, thus participating in the process of water self-purification.

Line 70 – What does it mean that charophytes are ‘pure’?

Response: deleted

Lines 78 – What does it mean ‘without categorization’?

Response: specificity

Lines 84-93 – Sorry, but it is very difficult to follow this passage… Please rephrase.

Overall, from line 68 to 93 you added a lot of information to the previous version of the Introduction. It is ok, but you should better rephrase the sentences.

Response: Rephrased

Lines 94-97 - Rephrase as: 'The aim of the present work is to identify the preferred habitats of charophyte algae in south and southeastern Kazakhstan and, at the same time, the associated species of microalgae, providing an ecological assessment of known and new habitats with species-indicator properties'. You state your aims too much times on my personal opinion. Here, at the end of the Introduction, is the best place.

Response: done

Line 110 and below - 'in three of which'

Response: done

Line 120 – ‘Sites sampled’ instead of ‘Sites sample’

Response: done

Lines 123-124 - 'during sampling' instead of 'at the same time of sampling'

Response: done

Line 126 – Rephrase as ’75 samples of microperiphyton and microphytobenthos…’

Response: done

Line 132 – Rephrase as ‘… Phytointroduction (Almaty) for microscopic studies’

Response: done

Line 274 - 'This indicates that hydrology also plays...' instead of 'This indicates that the factor of...'

Response: done

Line 351 - 'consider' instead of 'involve'

Response: done

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf