Effect of Rising Temperature and Carbon Dioxide on the Growth, Photophysiology, and Elemental Ratios of Marine Synechococcus: A Multistressor Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this study, the authors selected six Synechococcus strains from coastal and open ocean environments to determine their degree of diversity in responses to increasing temperature and pCO2. they found that the growth and photophysiological responses of the six strains in response to increased temperature and pCO2 were similar in that temperature had a larger effect than pCO2. The article can be considered to publish in a Sustainability journal but after minor revision after performing the following comments.
11. Authors should avoid using first-person pronouns “we” in the manuscript.
22. Introduction needs to improve with recent references (i.e.
10.1016/j.marenvres.2022.105670;
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.738474
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.05.029
33. In section Experimental set up and procedure, “DI” should be spelled out.
44. The legend of Figure 1 is too long it should be reduced specially this part was well written in the material and methods section.
55. In 2.7. Statistical analysis section, please correct “()”.
66. According to the presented Figures, most of data are not significant. I think if the authors increased the ranges between temperature and PCO2 they will get significant results.
77. Duncan test should be represented in all figures by different letters to be easily recognized.
88. In 3.1.1. Specific growth rate responses in WH7803 and WH8102, the author mentioned “Lowest specific growth rate of 0.25 d-1 was observed at 26 °C, 800 ppm in WH7803, while the lowest specific growth rate value of 0.2 d-1 was observed at 26°C, 400 ppm in WH8102” please correct “lowest” to Highest.
99. In figure legends, the authors mentioned “Error bars denote SEM” I think they mean SE (standard errors) not SEM.
110. Figure 3 should be represented in another pattern it is not clear.
111. The conclusion should be summarized.
1
Author Response
"Please see attachment"
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
"Please see the attachment"
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors took all the reviewers' comments into their consideration and the manuscript has been improved well. I recommend this manuscript for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
The MS was revised according to the comments and could be accepted.
