The Effect of Dust Transport on the Concentration of Chlorophyll-A in the Surface Layer of the Black Sea
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The reviewed manuscript contributes to the biogeodynamics of the Black Sea – an internationally-important object of study. It bears a lot of interesting information and interpretations. Before it can be accepted, this manuscript needs various additions and justifications, the authors also need to be more consistent in their writing.
- Please, provide affiliations with full street address and zip code. Also check whether the name of your institution matches its record in Scopus (I know this is required by RAS for paper counting).
- Lines 12-13: please, remove these phrases inherited from the template.
- Abstract: please, focus on your findings!
- Key words: do not use words from the title.
- Introduction (and check also the other sections): please, avoid too short, one-sentence paragraphs.
- Lines 39, 50, etc. Please, indicate the names of these authors and do not use the word 'Authors'.
- This paper needs either section or subsection called Study Area or Study Object explaining the geographical setting, citing the basic literature, and bearing the location map.
- Lines 109-110: you need to describe your sampling (area, equipment, season, years, etc.) with precision. This may take from paragraph to subsection.
- Results MUST be separated from Discussion. This is standard requirement in all high-class international journals. Results: only your findings. Discussion: generalization and interpretations of findings, research limitations, comparisons to results of the other studies, etc.
- Results: please, describe your findings as logically as possible and in strict accordance to the previous methodological descriptions. Do not mix results and interpretations.
- I see results dated back to 2010, 2016, 2019... OK, but, please, explain why different time slices are shown on the figures and how this time-dispersed information can be gathered together. This can be considered in Discussion (or in the methodological section).
- You refer to the Redfield ratio. This ratio MUST be explained and supported with citations in the methodological section.
- Discussion: why not to compare your findings to the outcomes of some other studies in the Black Sea region or elsewhere in the world?
- Conclusions: the present version is not informative. I recommend to include a numbered list of 3-5 main findings and to state perspectives for further research.
- The language needs polishing.
Good luck with revisions! Please, do not judge me overcritical. I see potential in your work and wish to see it published in the form it really deserves.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript addresses an important issue of phytoplankton population dynamics affected by Dust transport. The approach to address the issue looks good and the study has potential to contribute to scientific community. However, the authors failed to present their work in a scientifically acceptable way. The purpose of this study as demonstrated by the title, introduction, the research design, and conclusion remain unclear. The author also failed to present some important aspect of sample collection (e.g number of samples collected). As such it is hard to determine whether finding of this study is statistically valid or not. Therefore, I cannot recommend accepting this paper in its current form. Since this manuscript has a great potential, I encourage authors to work on it and resubmit after a major revision for reconsideration.
Critical suggestions for improvement:
- Demostrate the sample collection strategy with help of a table including number, type and date of sample collection
- Analyse data using a valid statistical model to analyse the difference before and after. Present the result clearly with help of a table. Include variability (standard deviation etc.) to present your result
Line wise comments:
An extensive revision is required to improve the language of this paper. Short two-line paragraphs in the introduction section could be reformatted and presented in a better way.
Line wise comments:
109-110- collected sample-what kind of sample?
113-115 “Ammonium was determined using a modified Sadgi–Solorzano 113 method for seawater, which is based on determining the indophenolic dye forming in an 114 alkaline medium from phenol, ammonia, and hypochlorite” – Citation?
112 and 124: “Correction for salinity was applied [31] when determining the silica acid” this line will better fit at the end of paragraph at 124.
170 – “The time interval is 8 days”- Time interval between what?
A total of how many samples were collected? Present a table showing the number and type of samples collected.
172-178 – It will be better to include a table presenting concentrations of phosphates, nitrogen, silicon etc in the experimental and control group.
189- ‘The trajectories of the air masses were analyzed in 189 order to identify dust transfer for the dates with the greatest difference in the nutrients 190 concentrations in the open and closed samplers, as well as for those precipitation samples 191 in which the nutrients concentrations were much higher than the volume-weighted mean”- This part should go in the Material and method section.
194-196- “Sea surface temperature maps were 194 constructed and analyzed for cases when was determined an increase in the concentration 195 of Chlorophyll-A to exclude the influence of upwelling”- this is repetition. Has already been stated in the previous section.
197-199 – “cases when the 197 visibility of the atmosphere made it possible to obtain satellite data on the distribution of 198 the content of chlorophyll-a in the Black Sea were considered” – what was time window between the chlorophyll-a data collection and nutrients sample collection?
Figure 2: There are several legends to this figure which makes it difficult to comprehend. Furthermore, it will be better to print (a) and (b) at a corner of maps instead of bottom. Write one clear legend for this map, presenting information about map a and b. In the Method section, write the methodology that was used to prepare this map in detail.
224-226 A thorough discussion comparing the obtained result with previous literatures is needed here.
Figure 4: Maps should be adjusted to align with the text of this paper. More detail should be provided in the legend including method or tools used to obtain these maps.
I would recommend splitting the result and discussion in two separate sections to make it more clear.
Conclusion:
Majority of information provided in this section are not relevant in this section and are repetition of what has already been states in introduction section e.g. “Many authors have studied the influence of dust aerosols on the characteristics of 312 marine ecosystems. However, most papers are dedicated to the influence of dust aerosols 313 on the Mediterranean Sea. The influence of the nutrients transfer containes in the dust 314 aerosol on the Black Sea surface layer remains insufficiently studied.”conclusion should be a broader presentation of findings of this study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have done many improvements and responded all queries. The paper reports interesting information from an area, which is poorly-known to the international research audience. Undoubtedly, the paper is based on sound research, the outcomes of which are interesting and important. In its present version, the paper is appropriate. The authors promised to make linguistic check, and I hope this will be accomplished. I do not see any reasons to argue against this publication, and, thus, it can be recommended for acceptance.
Reviewer 2 Report
A significant improvement has been made in the manuscript. Make the following changes.
1. Figure 1. Dont just write "monitoring site" in the legend. Write a detailed legend explaining what place it is.
