Windows into the Recent Past: Simple Biotic Indices to Assess Hydrological Stability in Small, Isolated Ponds
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPonds are less well investigated freshwater ecosystems than rivers, streams and lakes and no previous studies have developed indices for evaluating their status, at least in relation to their hydrological stability over time. This study therefore breaks new ground and is a valuable contribution in understanding the temporal relationships of pond stability and fauna.
The author uses two methods of sampling, a conventional net collection method and a photographic one, in an investigation of 19 ponds. It is unclear why the photographic method is employed but I suspect it is because it is quicker, non-lethal and suitable for use by citizen scientists. This needs to be made clear in the Introduction. I also found the Results section and its tables difficult to follow, including the section in which the indices are developed. This is because there are four biotic indices and two sampling methods all in one long section. Perhaps each sampling approach could be considered separately, and both the sampling approaches and all individual indices give subheadings in the text.
The paper has a suitable abstract, an informative introduction, well defined aims, and a good discussion. The standard of the writing is very good.
Specific points
Line 13. Allowed – use past tense.
Line 27. Some major non-European studies on ponds could be mentioned such as the alpine ponds in North America studied by Wissinger and co-workers, and those in New Zealand studied by Greig, McIntosh et al. The latter are particularly pertinent to the current study as the ponds varied in size a degree of permanence of the water.
Line 38. I would like to see the “certain climatic parameters” named here.
Line 72. Invertebrate communities or assemblages rather than invertebrates.
Line 102. The limitations of the files and key need to be mentioned. To what countries are they useful? Poland, Europe?
Line 111. How have the study areas changed since being retired from agriculture? A comment on the current environment/vegetation cover would be useful.
Line 142. Insert “a” before Merck.
Line 153. The net mesh size (1.5 mm) is quite coarse. Would small individuals of the selected taxa be missed at all do you think? Was the net dragged through vegetation or just open water. Clarify.
Line 187. The Shannon index is a measure of diversity rather than richness.
Line 193. R2 (superscript 2). This need attention elsewhere too, e.g., line 224.
Line 194. The hydrological stability indicators need defining here. This is the first mention of these measures (acronyms) I think.
Line 194-199. This text is Results not methods and should be moved to Results. Likewise, Lines 207-215 are Results and should not be in Methods.
Line 221. Would “taxa” be better than ”taxonomic variables” here?
Line 223. This is the first mention of Figure 3. Unfortunately, there are two figure 3s in the paper and this need to be sorted out.
Line 253. The second Figure 3 is referred to here.
Line 254. Insert “were” before based.
Second Figure 3 (page 7). It is unclear to me what the “appropriate letters” on the right refer to. Clarify in figure legend.
Tables 1 and 2. These are a bit of a mystery to me. Are the values in the body of the table Q values? What is the K-W test testing? I don’t see Tukey’s test values. What is E? These tables need to be made absolutely clear to the reader.
Line 363. Insert leech before species. This is the first mention of Dina lineata.
Line 364. E. testacea need to be in italics.
Line 418. Should Sum of 5R2+0.155 be 4R2?
Line 450. What is meant by extreme classes?
Line 556. The present article identified important bioindicators.... (If you don’t say present, the sentence could be referring to Epele’s studies.
Line 583. High or low percentages?
Author Response
Water reviews Reviewer 1
Author’s answers are bolded.
Thank you very much for all your valuable and precise remarks, comments and suggestions for changes. I am convinced that the text is much better in its current form.
I agree with almost all the reviewer's comments, I have corrected the relevant parts of the text. Some parts of the text have been added or rearranged.
Open Review
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Ponds are less well investigated freshwater ecosystems than rivers, streams and lakes and no previous studies have developed indices for evaluating their status, at least in relation to their hydrological stability over time. This study therefore breaks new ground and is a valuable contribution in understanding the temporal relationships of pond stability and fauna.
The author uses two methods of sampling, a conventional net collection method and a photographic one, in an investigation of 19 ponds. It is unclear why the photographic method is employed but I suspect it is because it is quicker, non-lethal and suitable for use by citizen scientists. This needs to be made clear in the Introduction.
The relevant fragment has been added
I also found the Results section and its tables difficult to follow, including the section in which the indices are developed. This is because there are four biotic indices and two sampling methods all in one long section. Perhaps each sampling approach could be considered separately, and both the sampling approaches and all individual indices give subheadings in the text.
The Results section has been slightly simplified and rearranged, I hope it is now more clear.
The paper has a suitable abstract, an informative introduction, well defined aims, and a good discussion. The standard of the writing is very good.
Specific points
Line 13. Allowed – use past tense. – it has been improved
Line 27. Some major non-European studies on ponds could be mentioned such as the alpine ponds in North America studied by Wissinger and co-workers, and those in New Zealand studied by Greig, McIntosh et al. The latter are particularly pertinent to the current study as the ponds varied in size a degree of permanence of the water.
the relevant citation has been added
Line 38. I would like to see the “certain climatic parameters” named here.
They have been named and listed
Line 72. Invertebrate communities or assemblages rather than invertebrates.
it has been improved
Line 102. The limitations of the files and key need to be mentioned. To what countries are they useful? Poland, Europe?
it has been clarified
Line 111. How have the study areas changed since being retired from agriculture? A comment on the current environment/vegetation cover would be useful.
the relevant fragment has been added
Line 142. Insert “a” before Merck.
improved
Line 153. The net mesh size (1.5 mm) is quite coarse. Would small individuals of the selected taxa be missed at all do you think? Was the net dragged through vegetation or just open water. Clarify.
The data on the mesh size were described imprecise, which was of course my mistake. The net used had a square-shaped mesh with a side of 1 mm, which means it stopped objects with a linear size smaller than its largest dimension, i.e. a diagonal of approximately 1.44 mm. It has been clarified in the text.
Line 187. The Shannon index is a measure of diversity rather than richness.
it has been improved
Line 193. R2 (superscript 2). This need attention elsewhere too, e.g., line 224.
improved
Line 194. The hydrological stability indicators need defining here. This is the first mention of these measures (acronyms) I think.
yes it has been rearranged
Line 194-199. This text is Results not methods and should be moved to Results. I concluded that the analysis described here is in fact a testing of initial assumptions, necessary for the correct application of the methods used in the further part of the analysis. For this reason, leaving this fragment in section 2.3 will make it easier for the reader to follow the content of this difficult fragment.
Likewise, Lines 207-215 are Results and should not be in Methods.
Yes, these parts of the text have been rearranged
Line 221. Would “taxa” be better than ”taxonomic variables” here?
Yes, it has been changed
Line 223. This is the first mention of Figure 3. Unfortunately, there are two figure 3s in the paper and this need to be sorted out.
Line 253. The second Figure 3 is referred to here.
It has been improved
Line 254. Insert “were” before based.
Second Figure 3 (page 7). It is unclear to me what the “appropriate letters” on the right refer to. Clarify in figure legend.
Tables 1 and 2. These are a bit of a mystery to me. Are the values in the body of the table Q values? What is the K-W test testing? I don’t see Tukey’s test values. What is E? These tables need to be made absolutely clear to the reader.
Table headers have been clarified. For Kruskal-Wallis test only p values are presented. E (exponent) is the symbol used as a power function to show large numbers in so called scientific E notation.
Line 363. Insert leech before species. This is the first mention of Dina lineata.
It has been improved
Line 364. E. testacea need to be in italics.
Yes, It has been improved
Line 418. Should Sum of 5R2+0.155 be 4R2?
Of course it should not. Thanks for Your perceptivity.
Line 450. What is meant by extreme classes?
it has been changed
Line 556. The present article identified important bioindicators.... (If you don’t say present, the sentence could be referring to Epele’s studies.
It has been changed.
Line 583. High or low percentages?
It depends. It has been clarified
Submission Date
19 March 2024
Date of this review
25 Mar 2024 22:49:15
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe originality / novelty of the manuscript is very high. The introduction is well organized. To use their indices in citizen science is a also great idea. But the material method part seems long and complex to me. ıt may be better to make a flowchart that summarizes the their methods and add this one as a new figure.
Results part can also be improved. The connection between different part of the study seems weak to me. you can reorganize this part according to your study objectives. Figure captions of Figures 3 and 4 can be bigger and more readable.
Discussion part can be improved. The compatibility between objectives and results of the study can be discussed.
A conclusion part can be added to summarize the study and explain how this study can be used in different regions of the world.
Other comments and edits can be found in attached pdf file.
The manuscript can be published after a major revision.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The English of the manuscript is understandable and quite well. But it should be better to get help from a native speaker or colleague to rephrase some parts and improve quality and shorten some parts.
Line 11: analyses
Line 15: The indices used in this study can be used as a useful tool, particularly in citizen science
Line 22: Hydroperiod
Line 41: Where? The warming observed all around the world or in the study site
Line 62:Did you mean private ponds which are defined as ponds owned by one person or entity and located entirely on the owner's property.
Line 135 m2 superscript
Line 143: Parameters (start with uppercase letter in all graphs ) Values
Line 173: open access databases
Line 182:The surface area changes of wetlands/ponds
Other comments and edits can be found in attached pdf file.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Author’s answers are bolded.
Thank you very much for all your valuable and precise remarks, comments and suggestions for changes. I am convinced that the text is much better in its current form.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The originality / novelty of the manuscript is very high. The introduction is well organized. To use their indices in citizen science is a also great idea. But the material method part seems long and complex to me. ıt may be better to make a flowchart that summarizes the their methods and add this one as a new figure.
Results part can also be improved. The connection between different part of the study seems weak to me. you can reorganize this part according to your study objectives. Figure captions of Figures 3 and 4 can be bigger and more readable.
Discussion part can be improved. The compatibility between objectives and results of the study can be discussed.
A conclusion part can be added to summarize the study and explain how this study can be used in different regions of the world.
Results and discussion were rearranged to increase compatibility between objectives and results. Fragments of the text was added in Results and Discussion.
Other comments and edits can be found in attached pdf file.
The pdf file is attached with my answers.
The manuscript can be published after a major revision.
I agree with almost all the reviewer's comments, I have corrected the relevant parts of the text. Some parts of the text have been added or rearranged. I posted my responses to two comments with which I do not fully agree (I think it would be better to leave these fragments unchanged) in a pdf file.
peer-review-35992717.v1.pdf
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English of the manuscript is understandable and quite well. But it should be better to get help from a native speaker or colleague to rephrase some parts and improve quality and shorten some parts.
Line 11: analyses
changed
Line 15: The indices used in this study can be used as a useful tool, particularly in citizen science
changed
Line 22: Hydroperiod
changed
Line 41: Where? The warming observed all around the world or in the study site
changed
Line 62:Did you mean private ponds which are defined as ponds owned by one person or entity and located entirely on the owner's property.
no - it is only linguistic awkwardness
Line 135 m2 superscript
changed
Line 143: Parameters (start with uppercase letter in all graphs ) Values
changed
Line 173: open access databases
changed
Line 182:The surface area changes of wetlands/ponds
changed
Other comments and edits can be found in attached pdf file.
Submission Date
19 March 2024
Date of this review
26 Mar 2024 11:41:28
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has revised his manuscript and accepted most of the suggestions I made. It reads more fluently now and makes a nice contribution to the present and future study of ponds. I have a small number of additional comments and suggestions as follows.
Line 40. Delete “the”.
Line 59. Life cycles (plural)
Figure 1. Nice map
Figure 2 legend. I suggest “Values of parameters measured in studied ponds...”
Line 159. I suggest “drag” rather than “time”.
Lines 182 and 193. “They” rather than “This”.
Figure 3 legend. Line 233, “open circle” not empty figure; line 234, “closed circle” not black figure.
Line 247. “...using PCA in variance...”. Also, state what software was used.
Figure 4 legend. Line 301. Delete “the” after figure 1.
Line 303. “shown” not added. See also legends to Tables 1 and 2.
The use of paragraph numbering helps the readability of this section.
Line 321. Add a space after this line and before Table 1.
Line 411. I suggest “one” rather than “you”.
Line 416. Reconstruct rather than reconstruction.
Line 581. Perhaps use “associated” rather than “attached” as the key is not attached but in a separate file.
Line 596. ”Analyses ... will require additional research, including primary faunistic studies and... hydroperiods.”
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSome small issues as shown in my report to the author need attending to.
Author Response
Comments on the manuscript have been taken into account. Thank you
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe present form of the manuscript is better than the previous version. I agree with author about figures (it seems like a technical issue). Results part is better now. English of the text is better now. It can be accepted for publication in its present form.
Author Response
Comments on the manuscript have been taken into account. Thank you
