Bacterial Community Dynamics along a River-Wetland-Lake System
, Sándor Szoboszlay 2,*, Lajos Vörös 3, Zsófia Lovász 4, Nikoletta Méhes 4, Kálmán Mátyás 4, Rózsa Sebők 2, Edit Kaszab 2, Judit Háhn 2, Gergő Tóth 2, Péter Harkai 2, Árpád Ferincz 5, András Táncsics 1 and Balázs Kriszt 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General comments
In this paper, the authors explored the spatial and temporal microbial diversity of the river-wetland-lake system, as well as the link between the level of the major nutrients and the members of the planktonic algal and bacterial communities. The ms is clear and generally well written and I recommend publication after minor revisions.
Specific comments:
1. Delete “.” before [1] for Line 33 and elsewhere.
2. For Lines 69–71, modify the typeface.
3. For Line 156 and elsewhere, as well as the pages in the References Section, use “–“ instead of “-“.
4. Delete Figure S and Table S from the MS.
5. Uniform decimal places for the data.
6. Condensed conclusion section.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your advice and insights on improving the article. According to the guidelines of you and the other two reviewers, we tried to implement the requested modifications as best as possible.
The following main changes were made to the article during its revision. The figure describing the sampling area has been clarified, in the current version only the sampling areas are indicated, which are marked by red circles.
We have changed the structure of the Results chapter of the article, it currently consists of four paragraphs (Physical and chemical parameters / Algal community composition / Bacterial community composition / Bacterial community dynamics along the river-wetland-lake system).
We changed two figures belonging to the result to make them more transparent and easier to interpret. The figures describing the composition of the algal community and the content of chlorophyll have been merged due to the changed chapters. The tables describing the composition of the bacterial communities were replaced by a figure that shows the 20 most abundant bacterial taxa of the different parts of the water reservoir.
Furthermore, we supplemented the Results chapter with a Shannon Wiener Diversity Index table and a figure with the NMDS plot of the different water samples computed on the OTU abundance. We hope that these additions will make the results more transparent and easier to interpret.
We have also changed the structure of the Discussion section, in the current version we describe the changes taking place in the algae and bacteria community based on the four main different locations. We tried to eliminate overlaps between the results and the discussion chapters, in order to avoid unnecessary repetitions.
We have shortened the Conclusions section, only the essential conclusions remain, and we have supplemented the chapter with the findings we consider to be the most important.
Answers for specific comments and suggestions:
- Delete “.” before [1] for Line 33 and elsewhere.
Unnecessary full marks have been deleted from the end of the sentences.
- For Lines 69–71, modify the typeface.
The error was corrected, and the consistency of the font was checked in the rest of the text as well.
- For Line 156 and elsewhere, as well as the pages in the References Section, use “–“ instead of “-“.
The hyphen type has been changed as recommended.
- Delete Figure S and Table S from the MS.
Supplement Figures and Tables were deleted form the manuscript text.
- Uniform decimal places for the data.
We tried to uniform the decimal places for the individual environmental parameters, unfortunately in some cases this was not possible because the displayed value was below two decimal places, in these few cases we left three decimal places.
- Condensed conclusion section.
We have shortened the Conclusions section, only the essential conclusions remain, and we have supplemented the chapter with the findings we consider to be the most important.
We would like to thank you again for your constructive suggestions!
Best regards,
Sándor Szoboszlay
Reviewer 2 Report
1. Materials and Methods:
(1) Fig. 1: What is KBWPS? Are k3 F3 sample sites? Some red sites, and some black sites and with/without red cycle, what are the difference?
(2) Fig. S1 is not necessary in the text.
2. Results: there are too much subtitles. The structure would be organized by three sites (river/wetland/lake) or three parameters (Physical and chemical parameters/Algal community/Bacterial community) .
3. Discussion: The first paragraph could be cancelled. The second paragraph is the replicate of the results. It would be organized more clear.
4. Conclusion: it is too long. The main conclusions are enough.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your advice and insights on improving the article. According to the guidelines of you and the other two reviewers, we tried to implement the requested modifications as best as possible.
Answers for specific comments and suggestions:
- Materials and Methods:
(1) Fig. 1: What is KBWPS? Are k3 F3 sample sites? Some red sites, and some black sites and with/without red cycle, what are the difference?
The figure describing the sampling area has been clarified, in the current version only the sampling areas are indicated, which are marked by red circles. The inscription KBWPS (Kis-Balaton Water Protection System) was changed to wetland, and the caption was supplemented with an explanation of the water flow direction.
(2) Fig. S1 is not necessary in the text.
Supplement Figures and Tables were deleted form the manuscript text.
- Results: there are too much subtitles. The structure would be organized by three sites (river/wetland/lake) or three parameters (Physical and chemical parameters/Algal community/Bacterial community).
We have changed the structure of the Results chapter of the article, it currently consists of four paragraphs (Physical and chemical parameters / Algal community composition / Bacterial community composition / Bacterial community dynamics along the river-wetland-lake system).
We changed two figures belonging to the result to make them more transparent and easier to interpret. The figures describing the composition of the algal community and the content of chlorophyll have been merged due to the changed chapters. The tables describing the composition of the bacterial communities were replaced by a figure that shows the 20 most abundant bacterial taxa of the different parts of the water reservoir. Furthermore, we supplemented the Results chapter with a Shannon Wiener Diversity Index table and a figure with the NMDS plot of the different water samples computed on the OTU abundance. We hope that these additions will make the results more transparent and easier to interpret.
- Discussion: The first paragraph could be cancelled. The second paragraph is the replicate of the results. It would be organized more clear.
In the current version of the Discussion section we describe the changes taking place in the algae and bacteria community based on the four main locations of the water reservoir. We tried to eliminate overlaps between the results and the discussion chapters, in order to avoid unnecessary repetitions.
- Conclusion: it is too long. The main conclusions are enough.
We have shortened the Conclusions section, only the essential conclusions remain, and we have supplemented the chapter with the findings we consider to be the most important.
We would like to thank you again for your constructive suggestions!
Best regards,
Sándor Szoboszlay
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors in the study entitled "Bacterial community dynamics along a river-wetland-lake system" explored microbial communities using 16S rrna amplicon sequencing and Algal communities in Zala river, KBWPS and lake Balaton. Authors could nicely show microbial communities changes along with indicative physicochemical properties. This ms presents extensive datasets and measurement. Although it is an extensive study, the authors mostly catalog their findings without clearing stating the underling hypothesis and importance of their results. Better explanation and indication of these would help a reader grasp the importance of the work.
Further comments below,
It starts with Fig S1 and not Fig1, also figures numbering is not correct.
In 3.2, the authors could briefly indicate the method used for the quantification of Algal communities to not be confused with Cyanobacteria community profiling.
Fig2, We see a peak in graph A that do not show in B, (2nd), how could this be explained?
The authors could provide community composition and structure comparaisons between all sites, diversity, NMDS, enrichement of some taxa compared to all others, For instance, showing differences in community compostion in Fig3.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your advice and insights on improving the article. According to the guidelines of you and the other two reviewers, we tried to implement the requested modifications as best as possible.
Answers for specific comments and suggestions:
- It starts with Fig S1 and not Fig1, also figures numbering is not correct.
Supplement Figures and Tables were deleted form the manuscript text. Figures numbering were checked in the manuscript.
- In 3.2, the authors could briefly indicate the method used for the quantification of Algal communities to not be confused with Cyanobacteria community profiling.
We have changed the structure of the Results part of the article, it currently consists of four paragraphs (Physical and chemical parameters / Algal community composition / Bacterial community composition / Bacterial community dynamics along the river-wetland-lake system), so the alga community and cyanobacteria community profiling are clearly separated from each other.
- Fig2, We see a peak in graph A that do not show in B, (2nd), how could this be explained?
The differences between the chlorophyll a values and phytoplankton biomass of the samples from the Zala River can be explained by the fact that the chlorophyll content of phytoplankton in natural algal communities varies within wide limits, which is mostly determined by the species composition, the physiological state of the cells, the supply of nutrients (Vörös and Padisák 1991), these factors may be behind the different course of the two curves.
Vörös, L. & J. Padisák (1991) Phytoplankton biomass and chlorophyll-a in
some shallow lakes in central Europe. Hydrobiologia 215: 111-119.
- The authors could provide community composition and structure comparaisons between all sites, diversity, NMDS, enrichement of some taxa compared to all others, For instance, showing differences in community compostion in Fig3.
We changed two figures at the Results chapter to make them more transparent and easier to interpret. The figures describing the composition of the algal community and the content of chlorophyll have been merged due to the changed structure of the results. The tables describing the composition of the bacterial community was replaced by a figure that shows the 20 most abundant bacterial taxa of the water reservoir per sampling area.
We supplemented the chapter with a Shannon Wiener Diversity Index presentation table and a figure with the NMDS plot of the different water samples computed on the OTU abundance. We hope that this way the results can be better interpreted.
Additionally, we have also changed the structure of the Discussion section, in the current version we describe the changes taking place in the algae and bacteria community based on the four main locations. We tried to eliminate overlaps between the Results and the Discussion chapters, in order to avoid unnecessary repetitions. We have shortened the Conclusions section, only the essential conclusions remain, and we have supplemented the chapter with the findings we consider to be the most important.
We would like to thank you again for your constructive suggestions!
Best regards,
Sándor Szoboszlay
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I do not have further comments
