Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Total Phosphorus in Sediments of Shuangtai Estuary Wetland during the Period of Reed Growth
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
I have read Your manuscript entitled: Spatial and temporal distribution of total phosphorus in sediments of Shuangtai estuary wetland during the period of reed growth.
Unfortunately, in my opinion, it has to be reviewed before being ready for publication in its current form.
To support You in further modifications, please find some guidelines:
1. Please verify English: grammar, units, subscripts, superscripts, nouns plural and singular, etc.
2. Please add the producer/supplier name, model, and country when providing equipment and reagents.
3. Please avoid using words from the title as the keywords- it can narrow the search area/possibility.
4. The method description is insufficient- please add more details. Were samples multiplied? Are average values reported? Please provide information on the number of repetitions and report results as average values with statistical error
Is there any reference to the method used for TP measurement, e.g., why samples were sieved through a100 meshes, not a80?
5. Please verify if all abbreviations are explained when using them the first time.
6. In the Introduction section, the novelty and the research gap should be emphasized
7. The results discussion should be expanded. There is no comparison to other research results.
8. Please provide information on the number of repetitions and report results as average values with statistical error
9. Lines 243-245- please verify its significance considering the data presented in the article.
10. Please verify the reference list- among 26 positions, only five are earlier than 2010, but any from the last five years occur.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The authors must introduce all previous studies and publications regarding spatial and temporal distribution of TP in the study area, identify knowledge gaps and describe how current study would fill the gaps.
2. All figures and tables must appear after they are first mentioned in the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The present study by Lu et al. addresses an important question about the relationship between wetland plant growth (here reeds) and phosphorous concentration through a spatial (a 47.8km transect) and temporal (monthly monitoring for 20 months) investigation from the Shuangtai estuary wetland.
Although the abstract is well written and attracted my interest, in line with the title, I did not find the quality of the presentation satisfactory to be accepted for publication.
This general comment and decision is supported by the following points:
. I find the present study rather poorly written with successive idea brought without clear and continuous structure.
. Figures are of poor quality. E.g. Fig. 1 is very small, difficult to read, the names of the different rivers are not reported (but mentioned in the text), and is very descriptive of the area without details about the watershed, which is key in such campaign to investigate the spatial and temporal variability in phosphorous concentration.
. “The goal is to understand the influence of wetland vegetation on the distribution of TP in soils.” However, the introduction of the current study nicely points at the different factors influencing TP in estuaries and coastal marshes. These different factors are not discussed. As it is presented, I have real difficulties to understand and decipher the influence of the distance from the nutrient source, the growth stages of the vegetation and sediment depth in the spatial and temporal variability of phosphorous concentration.
. Although the section 3 is labeled 3. Results and discussion, in my opinion discussion is absent. Results are clearly stated and described, however they are barely interpreted but this study definitely lacks discussion. Neither the spatial distribution nor the vertical distribution are discussed, whether related to local and national studies. Comparison could be made with extensive work done on nutrient cycling and depth profile from European and American marshes and estuaries, for instance. In a review about P retention in wetland ecosystems, Reddy et al., (1999) showed in preliminary years that “Phosphorus retention mechanisms reviewed include uptake and release by vegetation, periphyton and microorganisms; sorption and exchange reactions with soils and sediments; chemical precipitation in the water column; and sedimentation and entrainment. These mechanisms exemplify the combined biological, physical, and chemical nature of P retention in wetlands and streams.” None of these mechanisms are discussed with respect to the present data obtained by Lu et al.
. The selection of references could be improved. Although some references are relevant to the present study, most of the listed work is many decades old. Referencing does not have a strict structure: e.g., (Costanza R, D'Arge R, Groot R, et al. 1997), versus (C.R. Hill 1, J.S. Robinson 2012). Although this can be seen as details, it distracts the reader and highlights a lack of discipline throughout the writing. The mix of fonts also enhances this impression (e.g., lines 198 vs. 199, or 217 vs. 218).
I sincerely hope that my negative comments will help improve the present study, which dataset (monthly monitoring over 20 months associated with investigation with sediment depth) remains an asset and provides the originality of this study.
Best regards
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
this work is too easy without any deep analysis or discussion on the potential drivers of the spatiotemporal features of TP, how can the author get their answers just based on other's studies.
this study should provide the essential information on their sampling design, why they set these sites (with long distance away from rivers) and how to demonstrate their representative?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
please verify once again if all all abbreviations are explained when using them the first time, eg. line 39 - TP; line 96 - DASC, etc;
please also avoid lumping more than 3 references.
Author Response
请参阅附件。
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
well， even though most revisions were not responsed to my comments
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
