Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review

Manuscript ID: Quaternary-1996493
Vegetation history and estuarine ecology of the Texas Gulf Coastal Plain in relation to climate and sea level changes according to three pollen cores


This manuscript describes vegetation history on the Texas Gulf Coastal Plain as a means of palynological record during the Holocene and the evidence of prehistory in the Texas region. This paper provides valuable ecological data in response to climate and anthropogenic activities, while it is hard to follow throughout the manuscript. The introduction doesn't support research rationales and questions, which makes a reader go back and re-read sentences and paragraphs to infer the meaning instructed. Narratively written background information lost own purpose and is stranded in unsuitable locations. The author should follow simple steps to writing a scientific paper; simple rules for concise scientific writing include a clear separation between introduction, result, and discussion. The author should suggest or discuss some topics or arguments in the discussion, not in the introduction (e.g., Lines 38-40, 45-48, 68-84). The best way to describe the paleoenvironment is by following a chronological order (e.g., Lines 68-84). Odd English should be revised (e.g., Lines 86-87: if the author means the study site is focused on the TGCP, then just say it, without recital voice, Lines 88-97). Again, scientific writing should be concise and consistent with a logical flow unlike an instantaneous topic chosen or changed in every sentence (e.g., Lines 85-108). Detailed study site information should be added. The author falsely uses the words “comprised of, according to” in various sentences; all of them should be changed.

The results and discussion are hard to follow and inconsistent with vague information in materials and background settings. The palynological explanation is unclear (e.g., Lines 115-120). The major problem with this manuscript is not being focused on clear topics, which are even unclear. The author can’t devour all ingredients under mixed recipes. There is no reason to separate material and methods, which are inappropriately categorized. Overall, this manuscript needs to be largely reworked. These issues are problematic to be published in an international journal. I highly recommend authors carefully read the article “How to write a first-class paper” (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-02404-4). Additional comments are followed.

1) Table 1: it is better presented as a figure, not the table.

2) A figure displaying sediment cores or sedimentary profiles should be added.

3) If there is no data presented, why it is mentioned (e.g., Lines 132-138)?

4) Section 4.2 should be moved or combined with any matched section (methods?).

5) Explicit acknowledgment of what material is dated and what it means is very important, but lacking in this manuscript.

6) Figures 2 and 3 can be stored in the supplementary.

7) What are the geological gaps between zones (450-440 cm, 420-410 cm, …)?

8) What is zone 4? Is it only a 1 cm interval?

9) Same as zone 6 and sections 6.2.2 and 6.2.3.

10) Where does the Central Florida Atlantic coast pollen record come from?

11) Discussion 7.1 should be rewritten.

12) Captions in all figures need more details.

13) AP? Arboreal Pollen? Then define it first.

14) Coastal region is extremely dynamic due to fluvial and marine influences and even palynological records can be shifted from various mechanisms (e.g., pollen transport, pollination type, and external factors). To define the local condition at the time of deposition of the pollen grain, more data and multiproxy records can be supportive.

 

15) Voice and writing style in scientific writing should be consistent with a type of article, even the topic. The author needs to advise caution in terms of word choice (e.g., sequence stratigraphical terms).

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Revisions (with exceptions of 4 and 6 below) of Quaternary-1996493 are performed, see italicized notes.

1) Table 1: it is better presented as a figure, not the table.

Lithologies using Troels-Smith system are now annotated to pollen diagrams (Figs. 4-7), with Table 1 retained.

2) A figure displaying sediment cores or sedimentary profiles should be added.

See 1) above, lithological columns added to four diagrams.

3) If there is no data presented, why it is mentioned (e.g., Lines 132-138)?

See comment 7.

4) Section 4.2 should be moved or combined with any matched section (methods?).

Usually, I place all the pollen materials, both analog and palaeo- are placed in the same section, according to conventions in Rev. Palaeobot. Palyno. (e.g., see Ortega-Rosas 2008, vol. 151, Holocene altitudinal shifts in vegetation belts and environmental changes in the Sierra Madre Occidental, Northwestern Mexico, based on modern and fossil pollen data).

5) Explicit acknowledgment of what material is dated and what it means is very important, but lacking in this manuscript.

This has been clarified and made explicit step-by-step in the dating materials section. The humic fraction excluding macro-fossils is employed. This is uniform in all assays reported here.

6) Figures 2 and 3 can be stored in the supplementary.

I have consulted one editor of the special volume on this. Apparently, it is conventional to place the age-depth data (figures) in the main body. Ultimately, I place this at editor’s discretion but for now I will let it stand in the main body.

7) What are the geological gaps between zones (450-440 cm, 420-410 cm, …)?

This has been better explained through re-writing appropriate sections in methods and results. Gaps reflect parts of sediment cores deemed unlikely to produce viable and reliable pollen samples due to factors like weathering, oxidation, high energy deposition (storm deposits) etc. Bear in mind the reported sites are examined as a part of larger scale geo-archaeology projects for the NSF and US Army COE with limited budgets (with fieldwork made possible at two sites due to Prof. Glen Doran’s kind provision pro-bono of the Geo-probe 54 LT for fieldwork, see Acknowledgements). Simply, I did not wish to incur a large number of ‘void’ or degraded pollen samples through arbitrary interval sampling of problematic sediments (a suite of selective # samples better than that of an arbitrary #/2 samples). I have made basis of sample selection more explicit now.

8) What is zone 4? Is it only a 1 cm interval?

This is related to comment 7 remarks, these are statistically differentiated pollen spectra. 

9) Same as zone 6 and sections 6.2.2 and 6.2.3.

See 8 above.

10) Where does the Central Florida Atlantic coast pollen record come from?

This site (Rhizophora 2) is enumerated in the mangrove pollen analog materials section, namely, Orchid City at the northern limit of Rhizophora in Florida near the Sebastian River. Importantly, La Pesca also sits at the north limit of Rhizophora distribution in Gulf Coast in Tamaulipas state, MX (a theoretical limit is for red mangrove probably lies in an intermediate positon between La Pesca and Brownsville, but a poverty of estuaries in Tamaulipas north of La Pesca would limit tropical mangroves even where climate per se would permit it). These sites were sampled opportunistically with Nueces Bay pollen site in mind after the main pollen analysis of that site, during fieldwork on other projects (Laguna Project for Professor Karl Butzer of UT in northern Mexico and pollen work for Glenn Doran of FSU in Florida). As marginal mangle, these are likely closer analogs to a Middle Holocene Rhizophora presence around Nueces Bay. Initial experience of the mangrove pollen types from the perspective of light microscopic work comes from samples analyzed in conjunction with Dr. Shahidal Islam from Bay of Bengal mangroves (same genus, different species) who also kindly provided reference materials also. Incidentally, work under Dr. Islam at MA level as part of the Sea Level research Group at Durham U. provided the idea for the Nueces Bay and other coastal pollen cores as to inferring sea-level changes through estuarine impacts, as that is also a passive marginal coast.

11) Discussion 7.1 should be rewritten.

Yes, this is done, I hope it is clearer.

12) Captions in all figures need more details.

Captions are now less laconic, more can be added if needed.

13) AP? Arboreal Pollen? Then define it first.

This is now done in initial use of AP abbreviation. Basically, trees and shrubs (including mangroves) are also included here, the latter are statistically negligible.

14) Coastal region is extremely dynamic due to fluvial and marine influences and even palynological records can be shifted from various mechanisms (e.g., pollen transport, pollination type, and external factors). To define the local condition at the time of deposition of the pollen grain, more data and multiproxy records can be supportive.

I agree with these comments generally but I wish to limit digressions in this paper (with 3 sites to discuss). Thus I have provided references several technical papers by myself on these matters (see for example Albert 2011 from two cores from East Texas and Albert and Pokorny 2012 from two cores from northern Bohemia, Czech Republic, with a multi-proxy study done more recently in a 6-meter core at Nebelivka in Central Ukraine, Albert et al., 2020), and see also Brown reference [34, fluvial monitoring data relating to pollen in alluvial situations, Exeter, UK] and Traverse reference [36, sea transport of Pinus in beach deposits, Bahamas-Neves effect]. It is noted that the high Pinus in SL 2 may be due to sea transport (see Table 2). This is based on inferences derived also from intervening sandy (beach?) deposits in deeper parts of the core. The point is not expounded at any length, however. Table 2 is simply a bullet point assessment of pollen site taphonomy based upon a multi-decadal experience. Note introduction of term “Inferred” into Table 2. Note also that hydrology and local vs. regional inputs are inferred according well established analog studies beginning with Jacobson and Bradshaw (cited), a discussion of this problem is also seen in Albert 2011 in addition to other tests of pollen taphonomy based upon a dual core alluvial pollen analysis. Globally, the Albert and Pokorny 2012 study is the largest comparative alluvial pollen data comparison based upon more than 300 samples under different sedimentary conditions in one region (Peruc sandstone region).  As the work presented here (Quaternary-1996493) is entirely solo, a more multi-proxy approach, although desirable, simply isn’t possible here. The object of the article is merely to introduce the main ecological results and interpretations of pollen analysis in a large region entirely lacking in any such publically available data.

15) Voice and writing style in scientific writing should be consistent with a type of article, even the topic. The author needs to advise caution in terms of word choice (e.g., sequence stratigraphical terms).

This is a product of cooperation with archaeologists and geomorphologists. The reported pollen work is done under the Principle Investigator Robert Ricklis (archaeologist) and was also done during my research fellowship with the late Karl Butzer (geomorphologist). The usages are simply hard-wired at this point, but yes, there are terms and concepts that are touched upon that bear on other subjects, for example, high density of human occupation as relating to ecological changes indicated by the pollen data (c. Figs. 8-9) and alignments of high caloric-density plant food availability (e.g. pecan) with periods of human cemetery formation in the Late Archaic. I did not want to elaborate on this unduly, however. There is a tradition in Quaternary studies for this, and archaeologists might for example, find these references interesting, without my having to go into UT Austin-TARL TX site records to show the location of all such TGCP sites for this publication. That would be work for a separate article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an intersting work, presenting new pollen data from three sites in the Texas Gulf Coastal Plain in relation to climate and sea level change.  It is well organized, well written, informative and scientifically sound. I suggest only a few minor changes.

Affiliation: please indicate your full address, including the country.

Figure 1: The main figure and the inset look pretty much the same, being at a similar scale. You can put the study sites directly in the main figure.

Line 90: the precipitation gradient from 97 to 92 cm rain per year does not appear steep.

L. 99 and 100: spp. not in italics

L. 121: Troels-Smith [17].

Table 1: place the table in only one page

L. 138: the geo-location of the three cores would be better placed before the description of the sediments, when you first mention the sediment cores.

L. 203. I agree that linear interpolations may be better in your study sites. However, the graphic interpolation in Figs 2 and 3 does not appear linear, as the interpolation lines are not straight.

L. 221 derives not in italics

L 238 and all the following zones: the age seems expressed in calibrated years BP, but this is not specified either in the methods or in the resuts. Besides, the age/depth models are expressed in cal BC/AD. Please be clear and consistent throughout.

Figs 4-7: as you present the age/depth models for two sites, please include also the time scale (Cal BP or cal BC/AD) in the figures. 

Fig. 6: subfamily Cichorioideae

L. 393: dating to circa  8000 to 7300 BP

L. 395: Palmae produce pollen, not spores

L. 462-472.  indicate the common names of plants only once, only the first time you mention the species.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Revisions of Quaternary-1996493 are performed, see italicized notes.

Figure 1: The main figure and the inset look pretty much the same, being at a similar scale. You can put the study sites directly in the main figure.

Yes, that was an oversite, figure is simply redrawn by drawing office with inner inset removal.

Line 90: the precipitation gradient from 97 to 92 cm rain per year does not appear steep.

“Steep” replaced with term “significant”.

1. 99 and 100: spp. not in italics

Corrected.

1. 121: Troels-Smith [17].

Augmented citation added.

Table 1: place the table in only one page

Done (assuming no editorial changes).

1. 138: the geo-location of the three cores would be better placed before the description of the sediments, when you first mention the sediment cores.

Done.

203. 203. I agree that linear interpolations may be better in your study sites. However, the graphic interpolation in Figs 2 and 3 does not appear linear, as the interpolation lines are not straight.

This (grey band) is the two-Sigma error band, I have clarified the point in captions.

1. 221 derives not in italics

Corrected.

L 238 and all the following zones: the age seems expressed in calibrated years BP, but this is not specified either in the methods or in the results. Besides, the age/depth models are expressed in cal BC/AD. Please be clear and consistent throughout.

Sections dealing with chronology are now standardized throughout manuscript with modification of figures where needed.

Figs 4-7: as you present the age/depth models for two sites, please include also the time scale (Cal BP or cal BC/AD) in the figures. 

I will use the BP timescale as this seems to be the journal mode. I have placed the interpolated calibrated timescales in the zonal column as this works best from the perspective of the graphic capabilities of the TILIA program (alas, this does not allow a secondary scale, but a placement in zonal column works).

Fig. 6: subfamily Cichorioideae

Corrected in diagram

1. 393: dating to circa 8000 to 7300 BP

Done.

1. 395: Palmae produce pollen, not spores

Changed to “pollen grains”. Quite different, but yes.

472. 462-472.  indicate the common names of plants only once, only the first time you mention the species.

Done.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I uploaded the file.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

My comments in italics also see cover letter

Second review of manuscript ID: Quaternary-1996493
Vegetation history and estuarine ecology of the Texas Gulf Coastal Plain in relation to climate and sea level changes according to three pollen cores

First, authors should appreciate and show respect on reviewer’s comments and their time to spend to read their article. Arrogant voice in response does not help to improve your paper. The revision is not well written and details are still missing. It doesn’t read better yet, and still needs more work. If authors do not have enough time to revise them all, then I highly recommend them to resubmit it months later.

Unintended, I will respond normally to each point in italics as required (see above).

I am doing my best as a reviewer to review this article with spending my time and energy to give them meticulous guide and instruction, but the ignorance of my previous comments is an extremely inappropriate action.

Note, I think I did not click on the link for your main comments, that was simply a technical/navigational error on my part, other reviewer having placed his comments on the initial reviewer page. In effect this my first response to comments. 

Details are followed.

1. The authors didn’t response to the early statement “The author should suggest or discuss some topics or arguments in the discussion, not in the introduction (e.g., Lines 38-40, 45-48, 68-84)” and no change was made in Introduction.
2. There is no research rationale yet.

This is introduced now in first section. I am assuming rationale includes also importance of the environments examined. Thus I will add appropriate references from TX Parks and Wildlife and EPA, reproduced here (pending final reference ennumeration0:

Pollen data is used in this study to reconstruct vegetation in Central and South Texas Gulf Coast Plain (hereafter TGCP) with the aim of reconstructing terrestrial and estuarine vegetation in relation to climate and sea-level changes. In this work, sites chosen for study derive pollen from both alluvial and estuarine sources. Importantly, the marsh and riparian verge flora comprise a critical environment for a wide variety of fauna, including fish (https://tpwd.texas.gov/landwater/water/conservation/freshwater_inflow/guadalupe/index.phtml) and avifauna (https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/nep/basic-information-about-estuaries_.html)..

This would provide the basic ecological rational but can be elaborated at length, but I wish to be brief. It would probably be pertinent to note in introduction that these are PILOT studies for the region, so research questions and goals will need to be general in nature (see below). I will add that climate histories studies are not high in density in the region, a single NSF study is noted here and remains the primary ne, with few Quaternary studies also beyond those of contract archaeology in Texas as a whole.   

3. Author should include research questions and purposes in Introduction.

This and some (related) following points addressed in re-write of introduction.

4. Lines 21-25: Research paper should not start with research methods or results.

This and points in part 5 addressed in re-write of introduction.  

5. Introduction is where you describe briefly and clearly why you are writing the paper. The introduction supplies sufficient background information for the reader to understand and evaluate the experiment you did. It also supplies a rationale for the study(https://guides.lib.uci.edu/c.php?g=334338&p=2249903).

Goals:

• Present the problem and the proposed solution
• Presents nature and scope of the problem investigated
• Reviews the pertinent literature to orient the reader

This is done by discussing application of pollen data to coastal (esp. sea-level) changes and some pertinent regional data from Gulf of Mexico as a whole. Subsection added in introduction.

• States the method of the experiment

This is now elaborated in methods section. See manuscript.

• State the principle results of the experiment

These results are now foreshadowed in three final paragraphs of introduction relating to work on 1) forest limit changes, 2) sea-level changes and 3) presence of mangroves at two examined sites.

6. Again, no change was made: “Odd English should be revised (e.g., Lines 86-87: if the author means the study site is focused on the TGCP, then just say it, without recital voice, Lines 88-97)”.
7. Again, no change was made: “Again, scientific writing should be concise and consistent with a logical flow unlike an instantaneous topic chosen or changed in every sentence (e.g., Lines 85-108)”.

This is the section describing study region, the role of the sites in study region in achieving research goals is made explicit.

8. what is pollen recruitment? Specify it clearly (Line 55).

done

9. no subject in Line 57,

Note rewrite

10. Major revision needed Lines 52-85.

See above notes on introduction

11. Line 65-66 “assessed by proxy” should move to method or result,

This is in description of Hall’s Caves study, part or “Previous studies”, so results presented here as prior study even if removed from TGCP. It remains, after 22 years, the primary climate history study for the Texas Holocene and Late Pleistocene. There is more recent work on speleothems from Central Texas, but these data relate to Pleistocene events.

12. It is extreamly unclear why authors write 2. Previous environmental and archaeological research in the TGCP. Is it background information? Then why assessed and discussed? If this section has been written by one of other authors, correspondent or first author MUST REWRITE it again.

This is background information, it will set out the hypothesis to be tested as there is also no pollen data for the region (Hershop as noted, actually south central TX, is nearest pollen site). The use of numbers, not names, in the body of the text is a question of the journal style. The results are as presented by the authors (but see Copano Bay below), not my interpretation of primary data, and thus merely cited, e.g., in the case of Halls Cave above by Toomey. A use of author names on top of the citation method may be an appropriate step here. In terms of communications, the examined sites reported here were done during a long Research Fellowship with Professor Butzer at UT Austin, Geography D Geoarchaeology Lab, mostly on the Laguna Project, as additional work, also in close proximity to TARL and Vert. Paleontology on the Pickle Research Campus, so some of the named authors are known to me, some from Undergraduate days when I worked in Collections at TARL under Tom Hester (I curated the Aquila Lake plant materials used by Brown in the 1988 paper cited, for example). The main use of data produced by others is that presented in Figure 9, which derives from NSF Grant no. SBR-942-3650-based data of Dr. Ricklis (former Ph.D. student of Butzer, thus that linkage). The correspondent here (Fig. 9 data) is Dr. Ricklis of Corpus Christ, TX and he is well-consulted and examined the initial draft of this paper.   

13. Line 87: The focal region of study is comprised of should change to “the study region (focal region) is in the TGCP.

Wording changed

14. Authors use incorrect word “be comprised of”. Delete all of them in this paper and rewrite all relevant sentences.

Wording changed, these are mostly in descriptions of zones later in paper.

15. Lines 87-89: Move “Climate in the region is 87 Subhumid and Subtropical in aspect, with mean annual temperatures at examined pollen sites 88 approximating 22° (BK, SL, NB) to 23° Celsius (in Rio Grande valley south of main site 89 cluster)” to Line 99.
16. Line 99: wrong word choice “encountered”
17. Lines 100-113: rewrite them all. Don’t mix climate statement, sedimentary statement, and palynological statement. What a mass!

I will simply remove the sedimentary associations of the vegetation units (sand mottes/live oak for example), these can be discussed afterwards. So section starts with statement of climate, then flora, then geology. Relationship of estuaries to sedimentary conditions, associations of vegetation with specific substrates, etc. are retained but in SEPARATE paragraph afterwards, as this is an important concept in terms of the coastal environment. Thus para 1. Climate and vegetation, para 2. Geology and morphology, para 3. Vegetation and geology relationships.

18. Move Lines 114-120 to Line 87.

Sections restructured, see also materials, the specific site description are introduced here. Study region description thus now placed BEFORE this description.

19. Materials should not include result SEE 123-124

Addressed in re-write.

20. I suggest move Materials 4.1 to Study region 3.2 pollen site information and/or 6.1 Result (pollen site investigation). Before move them, authors should carefully revise them as a form of information and result.

Yes, the re-write essentially places pollen site information TOGETHER with materials. This will become clear when reading revisions.

Note background information is expanded and the provisional climate and sea-level history sequence suggested by that background material is made explicit in two tables. Pollen data that might address those reconstructions are also made explicit, so the reader will go from that and then encounter the materials section. By doing this, I think appreciate how the materials will address those hypotheses outlined in Tables 1 and 2. These are simplistic models as is appropriate given the low density of Quaternary studies generally in the region and a lack of prior pollen data also. They are realistic in terms of the resolution pollen site chronologies. The periods are in the order of 1000 years. Even the poorly dated NB can be employed here.

21. Please be guided with https://guides.lib.uci.edu/c.php?g=334338&p=2249903 when you authors revise it.

This is read, note changes in structure throughout paper.

Dear Reviewer,

Revisions (with exceptions of 4 and 6 below) of Quaternary-1996493 are performed, see italicized notes.

1) Table 1: it is better presented as a figure, not the table.

Lithologies using Troels-Smith system are now annotated to pollen diagrams (Figs. 4-7), with Table 1 retained.

I suggest to separate each site with different columns and rows with depth, granulometry, hue & others.

Modified as three tables, note additional comments on fragmentary fauna (Rangia fragments, indeterminate as to species, BK alluvial layer 1.5.-4.5 m), archaeological materials (Burned clay nodules-campfire remains, probably from Late Archaic occupation on adjacent terrace, BK ca. 1.3 m), places of sharp stratigraphic boundary definition (limus 4/4 in Troels-Smith system, see sand layers at SL, possible storm events), etc. 

2) A figure displaying sediment cores or sedimentary profiles should be added.

See 1) above, lithological columns added to four diagrams.

Lithology legend is missing, should be added.

Added

3) If there is no data presented, why it is mentioned (e.g., Lines 132-138)?

See comment 7.

Authors should present all geological records even if there is no pollen record. I suggest to store Figure Table 3, Figure 2, and Figure 3 to supplementary and make new Figures displaying geochronology, lithology, and sedimentary characteristics, which is a conventional way to present geological dataset. In the context, authors should mention NB was dated but no radiocarbon age detected due to XXX.

NB and SL lack secondary cores. BK has two. After taking the BK pollen core, Glen Doran and I also took two secondary cores (P2, P3, close to the archaeological site of Buckeye Knoll but off the floodplain, these bear more on archaeological site geomorphology, P2 is dated to 1420 BP at base and is only marginal to the paper, I am worried also about length of the manuscript!). In this paper will minimize interpretation of the geology to issues bearing on the palynology at present as geology is limited to field description and logical interpretation based on site geographic context. See cover letter.

4) Section 4.2 should be moved or combined with any matched section (methods?).

Usually, I place all the pollen materials, both analog and palaeo- are placed in the same section, according to conventions in Rev. Palaeobot. Palyno. (e.g., see Ortega-Rosas 2008, vol. 151, Holocene altitudinal shifts in vegetation belts and environmental changes in the Sierra Madre Occidental, Northwestern Mexico, based on modern and fossil pollen data).

You can put them in materials if introduction and background information regarding site, ecology, and morphology is well presented. But overall logics in this paper are flawed. I trying to guide you because this manuscript doesn’t comply a very basic scientific writing. If you would like to insist, please retreat this manuscript.

Note restructuring of manuscript.

5) Explicit acknowledgment of what material is dated and what it means is very important, but lacking in this manuscript.

This has been clarified and made explicit step-by-step in the dating materials section. The humic fraction excluding macro-fossils is employed. This is uniform in all assays reported here.

I suggest to put this information in the Table 3.

6) Figures 2 and 3 can be stored in the supplementary.

I have consulted one editor of the special volume on this. Apparently, it is conventional to place the age-depth data (figures) in the main body. Ultimately, I place this at editor’s discretion but for now I will let it stand in the main body.

Authors should present all geological records even if there is no pollen record. I suggest to store Figure Table 3, Figure 2, and Figure 3 to supplementary and make new Figures displaying geochronology, lithology, and sedimentary characteristics, which is a conventional way to present geological dataset. In the context, authors should mention NB was dated but no radiocarbon age detected due to XXX.

7) What are the geological gaps between zones (450-440 cm, 420-410 cm, …)?

This has been better explained through re-writing appropriate sections in methods and results. Gaps reflect parts of sediment cores deemed unlikely to produce viable and reliable pollen samples due to factors like weathering, oxidation, high energy deposition (storm deposits) etc. Bear in mind the reported sites are examined as a part of larger scale geo-archaeology projects for the NSF and US Army COE with limited budgets (with fieldwork made possible at two sites due to Prof. Glen Doran’s kind provision pro-bono of the Geo-probe 54 LT for fieldwork, see Acknowledgements). Simply, I did not wish to incur a large number of ‘void’ or degraded pollen samples through arbitrary interval sampling of problematic sediments (a suite of selective # samples better than that of an arbitrary #/2 samples). I have made basis of sample selection more explicit now.

I suggest to make Figure displaying lithology, age-depth, pollen collected layers, and possible geological gaps which will better explain all your words. You should stand readers’ side. When it is hard to read and follow sentences and figures, readers wouldn’t read your paper.

See added notes on figure captions, this will alert reader, see also section 5.1. (strata types avoided in pollen sampling, redox, sand, etc.).

8) What is zone 4? Is it only a 1 cm interval?

This is related to comment 7 remarks, these are statistically differentiated pollen spectra. 

Then mention it in the relevant figure.

Captions changed. This problem is mentioned briefly in results, but further mention is also made in discussion (7.2) where data limits of the single-spectrum zones in the Middle Holocene are discussed. There is a similar issue when comparing the freshwater estuarine phase of the early Middle Holocene (Zone 2, only 2 samples) at Swan Lake on Copano Bay with the basal foram sample of Williams at Port Bay on Copano Bay, indicating possible sea level still stand or fall in sea level, but only at base. The correlation is possible but not conclusive (an alignment of the two cores, so close to each other, on the possible association of still stand with fresh water estuarine development is interesting, this is certainly the case in the Late Holocene). In the discussion (7.2.), I state more work required on the Middle Holocene.  

9) Same as zone 6 and sections 6.2.2 and 6.2.3.

See 8 above.

Then mention it in the relevant figure.

Done

10) Where does the Central Florida Atlantic coast pollen record come from?

This site (Rhizophora 2) is enumerated in the mangrove pollen analog materials section,

>Mention it in STUDY site

Done

 namely, Orchid City at the northern limit of Rhizophora in Florida near the Sebastian River. Importantly, La Pesca also sits at the north limit of Rhizophora distribution in Gulf Coast in Tamaulipas state, MX (a theoretical limit is for red mangrove probably lies in an intermediate positon between La Pesca and Brownsville, but a poverty of estuaries in Tamaulipas north of La Pesca would limit tropical mangroves even where climate per se would permit it). These sites were sampled opportunistically with Nueces Bay pollen site in mind after the main pollen analysis of that site, during fieldwork on other projects (Laguna Project for Professor Karl Butzer of UT in northern Mexico and pollen work for Glenn Doran of FSU in Florida). As marginal mangle, these are likely closer analogs to a Middle Holocene Rhizophora presence around Nueces Bay. Initial experience of the mangrove pollen types from the perspective of light microscopic work comes from samples analyzed in conjunction with Dr. Shahidal Islam from Bay of Bengal mangroves (same genus, different species) who also kindly provided reference materials also. Incidentally, work under Dr. Islam at MA level as part of the Sea Level research Group at Durham U. provided the idea for the Nueces Bay and other coastal pollen cores as to inferring sea-level changes through estuarine impacts, as that is also a passive marginal coast.

Since you have all information here, then mention them in appropriate sections.

Done, NOTE, from 7.1 onwards, re-write is completed to parallel discussion with models. No more detailed point-on-point hereafter.   

11) Discussion 7.1 should be rewritten.

Yes, this is done, I hope it is clearer.

You may want to add and delete after organizing Introduction, Study site, Materials, and Methods.

12) Captions in all figures need more details.

Captions are now less laconic, more can be added if needed.

Legends are still missing.

13) AP? Arboreal Pollen? Then define it first.

This is now done in initial use of AP abbreviation. Basically, trees and shrubs (including mangroves) are also included here, the latter are statistically negligible.

Okay,

14) Coastal region is extremely dynamic due to fluvial and marine influences and even palynological records can be shifted from various mechanisms (e.g., pollen transport, pollination type, and external factors). To define the local condition at the time of deposition of the pollen grain, more data and multiproxy records can be supportive.

I agree with these comments generally but I wish to limit digressions in this paper (with 3 sites to discuss). Thus I have provided references several technical papers by myself on these matters (see for example Albert 2011 from two cores from East Texas and Albert and Pokorny 2012 from two cores from northern Bohemia, Czech Republic, with a multi-proxy study done more recently in a 6-meter core at Nebelivka in Central Ukraine, Albert et al., 2020), and see also Brown reference [34, fluvial monitoring data relating to pollen in alluvial situations, Exeter, UK] and Traverse reference [36, sea transport of Pinus in beach deposits, Bahamas-Neves effect]. It is noted that the high Pinus in SL 2 may be due to sea transport (see Table 2). This is based on inferences derived also from intervening sandy (beach?) deposits in deeper parts of the core. The point is not expounded at any length, however. Table 2 is simply a bullet point assessment of pollen site taphonomy based upon a multi-decadal experience. Note introduction of term “Inferred” into Table 2. Note also that hydrology and local vs. regional inputs are inferred according well established analog studies beginning with Jacobson and Bradshaw (cited), a discussion of this problem is also seen in Albert 2011 in addition to other tests of pollen taphonomy based upon a dual core alluvial pollen analysis. Globally, the Albert and Pokorny 2012 study is the largest comparative alluvial pollen data comparison based upon more than 300 samples under different sedimentary conditions in one region (Peruc sandstone region).  As the work presented here (Quaternary-1996493) is entirely solo, a more multi-proxy approach, although desirable, simply isn’t possible here. The object of the article is merely to introduce the main ecological results and interpretations of pollen analysis in a large region entirely lacking in any such publically available data.

You can summarize them in the form of figure or context if those background is important. If it okay not to mention all information (you don’t have to), but a logical flow in scientific paper is important as readers can follow what authors mean there.

15) Voice and writing style in scientific writing should be consistent with a type of article, even the topic. The author needs to advise caution in terms of word choice (e.g., sequence stratigraphical terms).

This is a product of cooperation with archaeologists and geomorphologists. The reported pollen work is done under the Principle Investigator Robert Ricklis (archaeologist) and was also done during my research fellowship with the late Karl Butzer (geomorphologist). The usages are simply hard-wired at this point, but yes, there are terms and concepts that are touched upon that bear on other subjects, for example, high density of human occupation as relating to ecological changes indicated by the pollen data (c. Figs. 8-9) and alignments of high caloric-density plant food availability (e.g. pecan) with periods of human cemetery formation in the Late Archaic. I did not want to elaborate on this unduly, however. There is a tradition in Quaternary studies for this, and archaeologists might for example, find these references interesting, without my having to go into UT Austin-TARL TX site records to show the location of all such TGCP sites for this publication. That would be work for a separate article.

I understand the works have been done in various fields of experts, while the first author and correspondent should fabricate them into a single piece. Again, you seem to have too much information for this article, you may want to exclude some of them and save it for another publication if intended. But again, logical flow should be clear. In order to make several publications with separating data, you should first do puzzle and fabricate them with clear research questions and conclusion within that specific article.

 

 

Review

Manuscript ID: Quaternary-1996493
Vegetation history and estuarine ecology of the Texas Gulf Coastal Plain in relation to climate and sea level changes according to three pollen cores


This manuscript describes vegetation history on the Texas Gulf Coastal Plain as a means of palynological record during the Holocene and the evidence of prehistory in the Texas region. This paper provides valuable ecological data in response to climate and anthropogenic activities, while it is hard to follow throughout the manuscript. The introduction doesn't support research rationales and questions, which makes a reader go back and re-read sentences and paragraphs to infer the meaning instructed. Narratively written background information lost own purpose and is stranded in unsuitable locations. The author should follow simple steps to writing a scientific paper; simple rules for concise scientific writing include a clear separation between introduction, result, and discussion. The author should suggest or discuss some topics or arguments in the discussion, not in the introduction (e.g., Lines 38-40, 45-48, 68-84). The best way to describe the paleoenvironment is by following a chronological order (e.g., Lines 68-84). Odd English should be revised (e.g., Lines 86-87: if the author means the study site is focused on the TGCP, then just say it, without recital voice, Lines 88-97). Again, scientific writing should be concise and consistent with a logical flow unlike an instantaneous topic chosen or changed in every sentence (e.g., Lines 85-108). Detailed study site information should be added. The author falsely uses the words “comprised of, according to” in various sentences; all of them should be changed.

The results and discussion are hard to follow and inconsistent with vague information in materials and background settings. The palynological explanation is unclear (e.g., Lines 115-120). The major problem with this manuscript is not being focused on clear topics, which are even unclear. The author can’t devour all ingredients under mixed recipes. There is no reason to separate material and methods, which are inappropriately categorized. Overall, this manuscript needs to be largely reworked. These issues are problematic to be published in an international journal. I highly recommend authors carefully read the article “How to write a first-class paper” (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-02404-4). Additional comments are followed.

1) Table 1: it is better presented as a figure, not the table.

2) A figure displaying sediment cores or sedimentary profiles should be added.

3) If there is no data presented, why it is mentioned (e.g., Lines 132-138)?

4) Section 4.2 should be moved or combined with any matched section (methods?).

5) Explicit acknowledgment of what material is dated and what it means is very important, but lacking in this manuscript.

6) Figures 2 and 3 can be stored in the supplementary.

7) What are the geological gaps between zones (450-440 cm, 420-410 cm, …)?

8) What is zone 4? Is it only a 1 cm interval?

9) Same as zone 6 and sections 6.2.2 and 6.2.3.

10) Where does the Central Florida Atlantic coast pollen record come from?

11) Discussion 7.1 should be rewritten.

12) Captions in all figures need more details.

13) AP? Arboreal Pollen? Then define it first.

14) Coastal region is extremely dynamic due to fluvial and marine influences and even palynological records can be shifted from various mechanisms (e.g., pollen transport, pollination type, and external factors). To define the local condition at the time of deposition of the pollen grain, more data and multiproxy records can be supportive.

15) Voice and writing style in scientific writing should be consistent with a type of article, even the topic. The author needs to advise caution in terms of word choice (e.g., sequence stratigraphical terms).

 

 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Third review of manuscript ID: Quaternary-1996493
Vegetation history and estuarine ecology of the Texas Gulf Coastal Plain in relation to climate and sea level changes according to three pollen cores

First, I see a greatly improved introduction, including specific research goals and backgrounds, while all pieces are separated as incoherent status due to disorganized sentences. At least the introduction should be in good formation, delivering a clear message. The authors should kake the introduction as concise/direct as possible and put additional information or background conditions into subheadings 1.1 or 2.1. with logical flows.

Other parts still need a lot of work. The biggest problem is that authors don’t listen to reviewers’ comments. I highly recommended that authors should read and study how to write a Scientific Writing Style (https://guides.lib.uci.edu/c.php?g=334338&p=2249903), but they likely ignored it and insisted on keeping the previous formation, non-scientific structure.

Authors should clearly explain terms that haven’t explained and concisely cite relative studies. The way of citing a previous study is total wrong. For example, “the TGCP region that are presently clustered around low-salinity estuaries or barrier islands (e.g., Mustang Island) in the Mid- and Late Holocene as studied by Robert Ricklis”. Who is Rober Ricklis? What did he do? Where is Mustang Island? When you mention the site, you should display that location in the map.

Need to organize headings and subheadings. I suggest making or adding geographical aspects of study region in a short paragraph, and then putting climate aspects into 2.1, geomorphological aspects into 2.2, ecological aspects into 2.3, and so on.

Details are following. 

Lines 26-27 (“For human ~”) need a line change/separation. When changing a subtopic, changing a line would help readers to follow the messages.

A line change again, between lines 35-36 (“In this study”).

Line 36, In this study, both the coastal and inland vegetation will be considered, should be changed to a present voice (are considered). 

Line 42, change This forest 42 limit to a range of forest or forest ecotone is controlled by precipitation… or something else. This forest limit sounds weird.

Line 44, change temperature differences are less significant within the region to temperature is a minor factor.

Lines 44-45, change “Results of reported pollen work will enable a provisional reconstruction of changes” to pollen results providing the ecotone shift in oak-pine-hickory forest or something else..

Lines 46, delete “The use of stratigraphic pollen data for reconstruction of climate conditions is well established”.

Line 47-49, need re-writing.

Line 49-60, move to method (pollen analysis) or add new section 1.1 Pollen analysis background

Line 62, delete “The use of coastal pollen data for reconstruction of sea level changes is a development of 62 the past fifty years of research initially focused in maritime Europe”

 Line 63-65, need re-writing. Something like.. this study reconstructs ecotone movements including fresh, brackish, and salt marsh (halophytes) controlled by sea-level rise (or coastal transgression).

Lines 66-74, move to method (pollen analysis) or add a new section 1.1 Pollen analysis background

Lines 67-86, move to the study site or add new section 2.2 study site details

Lines 93-95, change A significant precipitation gradient is encountered in the study 93 region, so that to precipitation rates vary in sites, for example, ~ BK site is 97 cm/yr, SL site is 92 cm, and so on… which variation limits the range of forest extension in the south ~

 Line 97, if Guadalupe only represents the BK site, then you should change the BK to Guadalupe (BK) throughout the paper.

Line 90-126, add geographical aspects of the study region, in a short paragraph, and then put climate aspects into 2.1, geomorphological aspects into 2.2, ecological aspects into 2.3, and so on. This will significantly help readers to follow your messages.

 

Section 3. “Previous environmental research in the TGCP and present hypothesis testing” need to be rewritten. When the author re-writes this part, put extra attention to sentence by sentence, and check if there is no misleading information.

Lines 142-144, need correction, but of note are 142 data of grass phytoliths of C3 versus C4 taxa studied by Robinsin for the Choke Canyon 143 project directed by Tom Hester [30] in the Nueces River valley of South Texas (Live Oak and 144 McMullen Counties).

Line 147-149, I don’t understand this part. DO NOT PUT “Hall’s Cave”. The author should explain what is Hall’s Cave and how it relates to here and then cite the study. THIS IS THE BASIC SKILL in scientific writing.

Line 152, I don’t understand “With respect to the climate data presented in this study” This part still belongs to the introduction and background where did we have the climate data presented here? Did the climate data indicate the climate background? Then, it is not your data and is never presented here. You should say the climate condition in the TGCP ~. If the data resulted from this study, then this part should be moved to discussion.

Line 155-174, DITTO.

I am confused with lines 175-220. Are these resulted from this study? Then move them to discussion.

 

At this stage, this manuscript is far from a publication. The manuscript must be largely re-worked.  

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Dear Reviewer (Round 3),

 

    The Round 3 point corrections are now made for the manuscript and I will summarize these here. I will note that the logic of individual comments is extended to the body. Thus changes of voice include multiple changes beyond point corrections. The same is the case for other suggestions. For example, ALL named sites and project regions are now plotted in Figure 1 (map), not just the individual case mentioned. I am avoiding the naming and plotting of individual archaeological sites (unless these are geographic references for the pollen cores). Importantly, a plotting of all sites from Figure 9 would overwhelm the map, but the text now specifies the location of these (about 50 sites from the site files of the Texas Archeological Research Lab at UT Austin) and this matter is dealt with in detail in the cited Ricklis literature also (PI on all reported sites in manuscript, his role is also now explained in the Background section text). The location of sites between the NB site and the BK site contributing to Figure 9 is made explicit in the text. Some elements of the Introduction are removed entirely or to Methods. There are now subsections added in Introduction, Study region and Methods as required, with some filling-out of the subsections. This will be evident (e.g. Study region: 1. Geography and Climate, 2. Flora and fauna [important bird, fish and shellfish species], 3 Geology etc.).  

Restructuring and deletion (of redundant) passages (e.g., lines 176-183 removed, 184-220 now in new sub-section) deal with some comments. In cases where there may be confusion (e.g., line 97 Gaudalupe BK), meaning is clarified. In the latter case, there is also a clarification of the site designations in the Materials section. The site descriptions should now all contain basic geographic context data, and basic description of the flora present today, as well as other pertinent details. I think this is needed to ‘sign-post’ the sites better in any case (and maintain the abbreviations).

Most changes are focused on Section 3 (Background). Not only is the situation at Hall’s Cave clarified (multiple comments on your part), but all site discussions are expanded (with discussion of individual archaeological sites removed, these are peripheral). Note the significant addition of one recent reference (Rice et. al., 2020) on the geology of the Nueces River delta for the NSF from Global and Planetary Change, the named core (ND 20) is plotted. I encountered this reference in a final check on background materials when going through ALL numbers of this journal. Notably, the results of the study dovetail with (presented) sea level and climate models (e.g., a reconstructed retreat of the delta due to sea level rise and reduced discharge/rainfall at 3800 BP fits very well with the Middle Holocene rise indicated in Figure 9 of the manuscript, as well as the northward migration of the forest limit 3-4 KYBP indicated in Figure 8, see also Tables 1-2, Middle Holocene [2] period). This is Reference 36 in the present enumeration scheme (only the lead author is named, it would appear to be an international project). One final technical note, I am now referring to the phytoliths from Choke Canyon (now plotted in Figure 1) as short-grass vs. long-grass types (see Background section), not according to the photosynthetic pathway (C4 vs. C3).  

 

Sincerel\y,

BA

Author Response File: Author Response.docx