Regional Algorithm for Estimating High Coccolithophore Concentration in the Northeastern Part of the Black Sea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript (remotesensing-2354874) presents a modified regional algorithm is presented to accurately quantify coccolithophore concentration in the northeastern Black Sea during intense blooms, using in situ, hydro-optical, and satellite data, as well as accounting for the ratio of detached coccoliths to coccolithophore cells. The updated algorithm is less sensitive to variations in chlorophyll concentration and CDOM absorption coefficient.

The sections of introduction, material and methods, results, discussion, and conclusion are well-founded and solid, requiring only minor corrections, as per my comments below.

It appears to be a sequence of events and monitoring that has been taking place over time in the region. With each time period, an algorithm is calibrated for the region. Is it possible to develop a more comprehensive model that can be adopted in other countries or continents for similar monitoring purposes?

Minor coments:

L10. Scientific name in italics;

L11. “и”?

Please organize the keywords in alphabetical order and replace them with other keywords that are not identical to those in the title.

L38. Reference outside “parenthesis”;

L42. “Calcite is a mineral formed by calcium carbonate (CaCO3)...”

Figure 1. Why were samples not collected between 38°E and 38.1°E? What was the MODISS fitting curve? In addition, add (a) and (b) in figure.

L147. mL; International scientific notation, check in all manuscript;

L240. Were..

Do not include references in the conclusion. They should be reported based on your work. Additionally, include future perspectives. This can add value to your work and demonstrate to other researchers the next steps to take.

Table 1. What is bold and underline in numbers? Descript in legend.

L630. Scientific name;

The article is generally well-written. It requires minor corrections to improve fluency.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thanks for your careful reading and valuable comments. All comments were taken into account in the revised text of the manuscript.

Best regards, 
Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The paper is dedicated to the regional algorithm for estimating high coccolithophore concentration in the Black Sea northeastern part. The algorithm allowed to obtain more accurate results in high coccolithophore concentration areas as well as to take into account the coccolith contribution.

 

 

2. The topic is original and relevant in the field. The authors have improved their previous version of the regional algorithm for estimating high coccolithophore concentration in the Black Sea northeastern part. The advantage of the new algorithm include its lower sensitivity to variations in the values of chlorophyll concentration and colored dissolved organic matter absorption, which are not associated with coccolithophorid blooms.

 

 

3. The authors have modified their previously developed regional algorithm to quantify the concentration of coccolithophores in the northeastern part of the Black Sea under conditions of intense bloom. Comparing the new and previous version of the algorithm, the authors have expanded significantly the dataset of in situ coccolithophores and coccolith concentration determinations.The ratio between the number of detached coccoliths and plated coccolithophore cells was also taken into account. The advantage of the new algorithm include its lower sensitivity to variations in the values of chlorophyll concentration and colored dissolved organic matter absorption, which are not associated with coccolithophorid blooms.

 

 

4. There is no need to make any improvements or something else. The authors outlined shortly the current achievements in the field in the introduction, and provided detailed description of the materials and method, as well as the obtained results, their discussion, and conclusions.

 

 

5. The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented in the manuscript and address the main questions of their study.

 

 

6. The references are appropriate.

 

 

7. All the tables and figures are appropriate. They show well the research and experiment details and results.

Please, prepare the figure captions exactly in accordance with the journal template.

Please, explain ‘F Chl’ and ‘F CDOM’ (Tables 1 and 3) in the text.

 

 

8. Other comments.

 

Lines 80, 85, and 165. Please, provide exact webpages for mentioned information instead of the general web site. And it is advisable to present them as references in the section References.

Please, remove a comma in the end of Equation (8).

Please, use ‘Figure’ instead of ‘Fig.’ in the text.

 

 

After detailed consideration of the manuscript, I have found that the results obtained are new and significant for the field. The manuscript is written well but needs some corrections before its publication in the journal.

 

 

So, the paper needs at least a minor revision.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thanks for your careful reading and valuable comments. All comments were taken into account in the revised text of the manuscript.

Best regards, 
Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf