Next Article in Journal
Destabilization Mechanism of Rainfall-Induced Loess Landslides in the Kara Haisu Gully, Xinyuan County, Ili River Valley, China: Physical Simulation
Previous Article in Journal
Possible Pollution of Surface Water Bodies with Tequila Vinasses
 
 
Systematic Review
Peer-Review Record

Lipid Prospection Based on the Cellular Size of Phytoplankton Communities from Tropical Freshwater Ecosystems: A Systematic Literature Review

Water 2023, 15(21), 3774; https://doi.org/10.3390/w15213774
by Jesús Bautista-Regil 1,*, Alberto J. Sánchez 1, Miguel Ángel Salcedo 1, Bertha Olivia Arredondo-Vega 2 and Violeta Ruiz-Carrera 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Water 2023, 15(21), 3774; https://doi.org/10.3390/w15213774
Submission received: 25 September 2023 / Revised: 17 October 2023 / Accepted: 23 October 2023 / Published: 28 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Topic Aquatic Environment Research for Sustainable Development)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article provides a very useful bibliographic review of the state of the art of studies of lipids in phytoplankton with different cell sizes in tropical freshwater ecosystems. It identifies the most problematic areas of research on which researchers should focus their efforts.
The authors tried to systematize the entire volume of publications in order to answer three important questions, namely:
1. What is the status of scientific studies on tropical freshwater phytoplankton?
  2. Is there sufficient scientific information focusing on the use of phytoplankton lipids by cell-size scale in tropical freshwater ecosystems?
  3. What are the lipids of phytoplankton that are associated with metabolic stress due to eutrophication in the tropical environment?
While the authors provided convincing information for the first two questions, the third question was virtually left unanswered, with the exception of general statements regarding this topic.
Although a bibliographic study such as this does not require a thorough scientific review of the factual material and the results of relevant research, it would still be desirable for the authors to provide at least meaningful examples of factual information in connection with the third question, if there are any facts. Adding this information to the article is desirable, but debatable. The reviewer leaves this to the discretion of the editor.
From the comments, it should also be noted that in the Introduction the purpose of the work should be formulated specifically and clearly. The abbreviation PRISMA must be deciphered in the Abstract.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review focuses on freshwater phytoplankton of the tropical region. It is in this region that most water bodies are eutrophic and hypereutrophic. Therefore, the review of data for these water bodies is very valuable. Screening the lipid composition of freshwater phytoplankton of eutrophic water bodies opens up the possibility of identifying potentially valuable bioproductors. I would like to note an excellent methodological approach to the analysis and systematisation of literature sources. The methodology is described in great detail, which will be very useful for all readers of Water.

But, the manuscript lacks the main scientific results obtained in the works included in the review. For example, in Fig. 6, it would be good to insert the lipid content for each taxon presented, if available in the literature source.

Below are some minor corrections in the text:

1. Latin names of species and genera are not italicised everywhere in the text, please italicise them on L. 159, 165, 195, 196, 202, 279, 280, 285.

2. On L. 196 is a misplaced dot.

3. On Fig. 7, the letter e is missing in the word aquaculture (top node).

On L. 285, misplaced dot before [66].

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did a good job on the article. An improved version of the article after its revision may be published.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All of my comments were addressed. The article is much improved.

I appreciated the added Table S5 and new column (Lipidic analysis reported)  in Table 3. This is really valuable information.

 

 

Back to TopTop