Diversity of Diatom Algae in the Lena Delta Nature Reserve and the Adjacent Territory in the Specific Ecological Factors of the Arctic
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The science done in this study appears to be sound but it was difficult to read. I strongly suggest that the authors get further help refining the English. I have made a few suggestions but the whole manuscript needs to be corrected for English.
I was confused on what defined the three regions Lena Delta, “Adjacent area” and Tiksi Region. This need to be stated clearly and represented clearly in Figure 1.
The hypothesis was worded poorly making it difficult to follow. I made a suggested revision but don’t know if it is correct. Similarly, I didn’t understand the basis for the overall conclusion for the hypothesis that was stated in the Discussion.
Explain what the Willis Curve and Ssp/Sp Index tell you about biodiversity and WHY.
The authors make conclusions about benthic diatom habitat yet in the methods they sampled only plankton in 13 of the 14 lakes.
Specific Comments:
L13. Location of the reserve should be given
L14. ..which in addition to the complimentary list…?
L16. Here and throughout the word ‘replenished’ doesn’t really fit. Saying ‘increased by’ makes more sense.
L29-31. I don’t understand.
L66 identification of endangered Red Book species in the Arctic region…
L69. I don’t understand the difference between the adjacent territory and the Tiksi region.
Figure 1. How is the Lena Delta Nature Reserve different from the “adjacent territory”? They are both represented as green dots on the map.
L 79. I don’t follow your hypothesis. Is this correct: “Our hypothesis is that the relationship between diatom biodiversity and environmental parameters in the adjacent region can be used to infer biodiversity patterns within the entire coastal zone, including the reserve.”
L117. Based on what was said before I thought you sampled only in the Tiksi region? Again, define exactly what the adjacent territory, Tiksi Region and Lena Delta are.
L116. If you were interested in finding as many diatom taxa as possible why didn’t you sample benthic diatoms from all the lakes?
L155. ...with 65 species is the most abundant followed by Pinnulariaceease . …
L158-160. I (and probably many readers) don’t know what the Willis Curve tells you. Explain why the distribution of the number of species over genera being a smooth line tells you the area is sufficiently studied. Is there a reference for this?
L170. So Ssp in the index is the number of subspecies varieties of diatoms? More background on what this Ssp/Sp index is and what it means would be helpful.
Table 3. First row should be Area (km2)
Figure 4. Make it more clear that the top row of graphs is Delta Region and bottom row Tiksi lakes.
Figure 5 and Table 5. What is a plankto-benthic habitat?
L305. What kind of comparison analysis does the JASP program do? Is it based on a similarity index? Give a reference.
L325-327. Again explain how and what the Willis Curve and Ssp/Sp index tell you about the flora. Not all readers are familiar with these metrics.
L333. How does the sp/area index tell you lake morphometry was important?
L350. But for most of the lakes in Tiksi you only sampled plankton, not the benthos. Section 2.2 Sampling says rocks were scraped for only one lake.
L361-364. I don’t follow this conclusion. The two areas had similar environmental conditions but different floras, so that implies a lot of endemic diatom species?
L380-381. No paragraph break. Describe your previous hypothesis on climate change.
I strongly suggest that the authors get further help refining the English. I have made a few suggestions but the whole manuscript needs to be corrected for English. In a particular, the authors need to work with an English translator to make the statement of their hypothesis in the Introduction and the statement of their conclusion in the Discussion more comprehensible.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Thank you and the Reviewer 1 for comments. All comments were considered, and corrections were inserted into the paper. Please find the Responses to each comment of the Reviewer 1 below.
With best regards,
Prof Sophia Barinova,
Corresponding author
The science done in this study appears to be sound but it was difficult to read. I strongly suggest that the authors get further help refining the English. I have made a few suggestions but the whole manuscript needs to be corrected for English.
Response: English has been edited
I was confused on what defined the three regions Lena Delta, “Adjacent area” and Tiksi Region. This need to be stated clearly and represented clearly in Figure 1.
Response: Figure 1 replaced, and text clarified, rewritten
The hypothesis was worded poorly making it difficult to follow. I made a suggested revision but don’t know if it is correct. Similarly, I didn’t understand the basis for the overall conclusion for the hypothesis that was stated in the Discussion.
Response: rewritten
Explain what the Willis Curve and Ssp/Sp Index tell you about biodiversity and WHY.
Response: inserted as:
It was found that when the Willis curve is represented by a hyperbolic distribution, it can be used as a criterion for the completeness of the list of algoflora and, therefore, for the subsequent analysis of alpha or gamma diversity.
As it was revealed earlier [61], the Index of intraspecific/species variability of diatom floras of Eurasia decreased from north to south, which may be associated with climate change and therefore can be used as a criterion for future warming.
The authors make conclusions about benthic diatom habitat yet in the methods they sampled only plankton in 13 of the 14 lakes.
Response: rewritten
Specific Comments:
L13. Location of the reserve should be given
Response: Figure 1 is changed; the green line outlined the reserve territory.
L14. ..which in addition to the complimentary list…?
Response: rewritten
L16. Here and throughout the word ‘replenished’ doesn’t really fit. Saying ‘increased by’ makes more sense.
Response: done
L29-31. I don’t understand.
Response: rewritten
L66 identification of endangered Red Book species in the Arctic region…
Response: rewritten
L69. I don’t understand the difference between the adjacent territory and the Tiksi region.
Response: rewritten here
Figure 1. How is the Lena Delta Nature Reserve different from the “adjacent territory”? They are both represented as green dots on the map.
Response: rewritten
L 79. I don’t follow your hypothesis. Is this correct: “Our hypothesis is that the relationship between diatom biodiversity and environmental parameters in the adjacent region can be used to infer biodiversity patterns within the entire coastal zone, including the reserve.”
Response: rewritten
L117. Based on what was said before I thought you sampled only in the Tiksi region? Again, define exactly what the adjacent territory, Tiksi Region and Lena Delta are.
Response: defined in Figure 1 and text rewritten
L116. If you were interested in finding as many diatom taxa as possible why didn’t you sample benthic diatoms from all the lakes?
Response: it was done because the samples accumulated both, plankton and periphyton in these shallow lakes. Corrected in the text.
L155. ...with 65 species is the most abundant followed by Pinnulariaceease . …
Response: done
L158-160. I (and probably many readers) don’t know what the Willis Curve tells you. Explain why the distribution of the number of species over genera being a smooth line tells you the area is sufficiently studied. Is there a reference for this?
Response: done, cited available paper [60]
L170. So Ssp in the index is the number of subspecies varieties of diatoms? More background on what this Ssp/Sp index is and what it means would be helpful.
Response: done, cited available paper [61]. Text added.
Table 3. First row should be Area (km2)
Response: done
Figure 4. Make it more clear that the top row of graphs is Delta Region and bottom row Tiksi lakes.
Response: done
Figure 5 and Table 5. What is a plankto-benthic habitat?
Response: plankto-benthic is not habitat, but the name indicator group of species that inhabited both, the water mass and can be periphytic. We named the substrate preferences indicators as “Habitat” where three groups of indicators were identified: (P – planktonic, P-B – plankto-benthic ……”
L305. What kind of comparison analysis does the JASP program do? Is it based on a similarity index? Give a reference.
Response: the ref given in MM, there also as [58].
L325-327. Again explain how and what the Willis Curve and Ssp/Sp index tell you about the flora. Not all readers are familiar with these metrics.
Response: It was described above in details and there can be duplicated.
L333. How does the sp/area index tell you lake morphometry was important?
Response: text added, the sentence is rewritten
L350. But for most of the lakes in Tiksi you only sampled plankton, not the benthos. Section 2.2 Sampling says rocks were scraped for only one lake.
Response: corrected, rewritten
L361-364. I don’t follow this conclusion. The two areas had similar environmental conditions but different floras, so that implies a lot of endemic diatom species?
Response: in both regions the endemic species were found but its real list can be represented in future studies.
L380-381. No paragraph break. Describe your previous hypothesis on climate change.
Response: done
Comments on the Quality of English Language
I strongly suggest that the authors get further help refining the English. I have made a few suggestions but the whole manuscript needs to be corrected for English. In a particular, the authors need to work with an English translator to make the statement of their hypothesis in the Introduction and the statement of their conclusion in the Discussion more comprehensible.
Response: English has been edited
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Barinova et al. Review (2440925)
General Comments:
This ms provide interesting and valuable insight into diatom species distributions and relative abundance in Arctic coastal lake sites which are generally considered highly responsive to climate change. Although the field sampling represents only a one-time “snapshot” (mid-peak growing season), the recorded high diatom diversity and presence of threatened species is noteworthy and suggests additional studies to reveal future trends.
The data are presented well and but could be improved with some clarification of figures (graphs) labels on axes.
It is, however, surprising that the authors do not cite, nor in any way acknowledge the seminal research of the late, globally well-renowned Dr. Ruth Patrick who was instrumental in revealing the utility and importance of diatom populations as indicators of aquatic ecosystem health in general and their utility as indicators of pollution. I suggest the authors review Dr. Patrick’s published work (an internet search will reveal this quite easily),and include reference to this.
Lastly, I wonder if the authors might consider the broader landscape (i.e. watershed) influences on the diatom diversity and abundance. Such attributes as topography (slopes/contours), surface area might also reveal some causal relationships. The apparent uniqueness of diatom species distribution in the sampled lakes compared with other lakes is striking and warrants further study.
Specific comments:
Ln 16. And Ln 150, and Ln 163 : Suggest replacing “replenished” with either “augmented” or increased“, or “updated” by 278 species”, etc. see other usage in the ms where this word could be changed.
Ln 16-17 Suggest “We showed that the species of the genera…..” (an active sentence rather than passive).
Ln 20 Suggest “from 1-10”
Ln 25: Suggest “unique” or “has discernable different species distribution” instead of “individual”. Please keep in mind that these data are from a single sampling event so some caution is advised.
Ln182: Suggest “above sea level” instead of a.s.l.
Figures: Please label y-axes more specifically so that the reader easily see what is plotted.
Figure 4 is particularly revealing and instructive, though the color and range choices are a bit confusing. Generally such figures use a continuum of color density correlated with increasing value; however it seems in Fig. 4 that similar colors are associated with > and < values. Perhaps this could be improved?
This is a good paper with new information and relevance to global climate change as well as. There are some minor language (vocabulary) suggestion I made, which the Editor can evaluate as well.
The omission of Patrick's work is quite surprising- I don't know if the authors are unaware or simply did not chose to credit her critical research-puzzling.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Thank you and the Reviewer 2 for comments. All comments were considered, and corrections were inserted into the paper. Please find the Responses to each comment of the Reviewer 2 below.
With best regards,
Prof Sophia Barinova,
Corresponding author
General Comments:
This ms provide interesting and valuable insight into diatom species distributions and relative abundance in Arctic coastal lake sites which are generally considered highly responsive to climate change. Although the field sampling represents only a one-time “snapshot” (mid-peak growing season), the recorded high diatom diversity and presence of threatened species is noteworthy and suggests additional studies to reveal future trends.
The data are presented well and but could be improved with some clarification of figures (graphs) labels on axes.
Response: labels on axes added.
It is, however, surprising that the authors do not cite, nor in any way acknowledge the seminal research of the late, globally well-renowned Dr. Ruth Patrick who was instrumental in revealing the utility and importance of diatom populations as indicators of aquatic ecosystem health in general and their utility as indicators of pollution. I suggest the authors review Dr. Patrick’s published work (an internet search will reveal this quite easily),and include reference to this.
Response: text and ref added.
Lastly, I wonder if the authors might consider the broader landscape (i.e. watershed) influences on the diatom diversity and abundance. Such attributes as topography (slopes/contours), surface area might also reveal some causal relationships. The apparent uniqueness of diatom species distribution in the sampled lakes compared with other lakes is striking and warrants further study.
Response: The study of the influence of landscape aspects will be the subject of further research. There is not enough data for this screening study. This may distort the conclusions since the region is poorly explored.
Specific comments:
Ln 16. And Ln 150, and Ln 163 : Suggest replacing “replenished” with either “augmented” or increased“, or “updated” by 278 species”, etc. see other usage in the ms where this word could be changed.
Response: done
Ln 16-17 Suggest “We showed that the species of the genera…..” (an active sentence rather than passive).
Response: done
Ln 20 Suggest “from 1-10”
Response: done
Ln 25: Suggest “unique” or “has discernable different species distribution” instead of “individual”. Please keep in mind that these data are from a single sampling event so some caution is advised.
Response: done
Ln182: Suggest “above sea level” instead of a.s.l.
Response: done
Figures: Please label y-axes more specifically so that the reader easily see what is plotted.
Response: done, Figures replaced
Figure 4 is particularly revealing and instructive, though the color and range choices are a bit confusing. Generally such figures use a continuum of color density correlated with increasing value; however it seems in Fig. 4 that similar colors are associated with > and < values. Perhaps this could be improved?
Response: Maps on Figure 4 were constructed by R program on the base of our data. The figure caption enriched by description which maps are related to which region. The first two maps from the left showed the mapped area. Each of these first maps have no gradient because have one but different color. Please see the caption. All other maps have each their own gradient of color from green to red that can be seen in the legend.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
This is a good paper with new information and relevance to global climate change as well as. There are some minor language (vocabulary) suggestion I made, which the Editor can evaluate as well.
The omission of Patrick's work is quite surprising- I don't know if the authors are unaware or simply did not chose to credit her critical research-puzzling.
Response: thank you, your recommendations, English was corrected. Of course, Ruth Patrick green book was cited.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
