Transformation, Fluxes and Impacts of Dissolved Metals from Shallow Water Hydrothermal Vents on Nearby Ecosystem Offshore of Kueishantao (NE Taiwan)
, Yao Zhang 1,2 and Kai Tang 1,2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors investigated selected trace metals and dissolved DIC, ammonia and Chl a concentrations along with water temperature and pH in two shallow hydrothermal vents of Kueishantao Islet. They found significant differences of dissolved metals concentrations between two vents. Also estimated the plume fluxes and suggested that plume fluxes may have some effects on nearby seawater ecosystem due to dynamics coastal processes.
The authors collected representative samples from yellow and while vents and found higher release of dissolved metals in the white vent than in the yellow vent. The authors attributed this difference to more precipitation in yellow vent. Elevated Fe and Mn concentrations were also noted in all samples due to desorption of these two elements from particles.
The manuscript is well-written. The materials and methods adopted in this study are acceptable. However handling data sets with interpretations can be improved by the following comments:
- PCA analysis especially PCA/factor analysis, should explain approximately around 70-75% of parameters’ relationship/grouping. Here unfortunately PC1 and PC2 explain ~42% of the data variance with the remaining 58% is unexplained. This means that the authors should consider PC3 for the discussion as there should be some additional processes that are missing to explain the dataset in this complex hydrothermal vent system or the dataset consists of some incompatible parameters. Explaining 42% of the dataset is likely meaningless though it provides two most important controlling mechanisms/processes in the study area.
-
The authors should explain in one or two sentences about how dissolved trace metals (Fe, Mn, V and Cu) are related to carbonate parameters such as TA, DIC and biological parameters such as Chl-a before explaining these parameters inter-elemental relationships/grouping.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Mei et al. analyzed water samples from hydrothermal vents.
The results showing an potentially impact of nearby ecosystems.
Abstract should be made in a more fluent and easy to comprehend form, the title should also be rephrased.
Introduction is well contructed.
2.3. Sample collection and analytical methods
This chapter poses a serious weak point of the manuscript. The two "sample collection" and "analytical methods" should not be put together.
The analytical methods part is extremely weak, a step by step protocol should be detailed. The cited reference ([41]) refers only to Cu, Cd, and Mn.
Dissolved Oxigen depends on the time of the day, such data as in which time of the day the samples were collected should be stated
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript makes a strange impression. On the one hand, underwater hydrothermal systems are an important and interesting site. They provide a lot of theoretically important information; on the other hand, they are a promising source of metals. The authors studied two side-by-side sources, differing in color: white and yellow. As expected, they showed differences in temperature and composition. This raises a number of questions. 1. Why are the illustrations and tables given at the end of the article - did it make it almost impossible to understand the material presented? 2. Why is there no worldwide survey of works on this topic? 3. Why were these studies carried out at all, for what purpose and what conclusions were obtained, apart from purely descriptive ones, at the level of the student's coursework? 4. There is a glimpse of information about previous similar works, but where are the comparisons of analyzes made at different times, why were the analyzes performed again? Thus, the article presents interesting factual material, but there is no justification, no discussion, no conclusions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors took into account the comments, except for the need to review the data on underwater hydrothermal systems and to present the results of the work of previous researchers. However, the manuscript currently appears to be ready for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
