Spatiotemporal Distribution Characteristics of Copepods in the Water Masses of the Northeastern East China Sea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is to investigate the factors to control variation of seasonal waters on changes in the planktonic copepod community structure by using four seasons cruise in the northern ECS. The large amounts of data and scientific sampling procedures are the merits of this paper. The methodology and finding of water mass controlling copepods community structure were generally similar with other previous research, and I found the spatial and seasonal variation of phytoplankton size community were also included in the MS, however, their relationship with copepods were only mentioned in the correlation part. I think authors need to think how to organize the MS to describe the effect of both environment and phytoplankton size(prey) on copepods (as well as size of copepods if you have, probably by using multiple linear regression), this is very novel for the variation of zooplakton in nECS, and can contribute much for understanding the food web from phyto- to zoo- plankton. I understand this is very tough work, but the improvement of this will greatly light your paper.  Some of the minor changes are listed below.

1. in the A、B、C lines, the section figure were all plotted, and showed to tell the vertical structure, I recommend to combine the three lines to one section (such as 14 to 6 in one lined) for simplifying the descriptions.
2. please put the Table 5 to the supplements, and make the MS more readable.

Author Response

Reviewer #1 comments:

The manuscript is to investigate the factors to control variation of seasonal waters on changes in the planktonic copepod community structure by using four seasons cruise in the northern ECS. The large amounts of data and scientific sampling procedures are the merits of this paper. The methodology and finding of water mass controlling copepods community structure were generally similar with other previous research, and I found the spatial and seasonal variation of phytoplankton size community were also included in the MS, however, their relationship with copepods were only mentioned in the correlation part. I think authors need to think how to organize the MS to describe the effect of both environment and phytoplankton size(prey) on copepods (as well as size of copepods if you have, probably by using multiple linear regression), this is very novel for the variation of zooplakton in nECS, and can contribute much for understanding the food web from phyto- to zoo- plankton. I understand this is very tough work, but the improvement of this will greatly light your paper. Some of the minor changes are listed below. "Please see the attachment."

Dear Reviewer 1

We appreciate the time and effort in reviewing our manuscript and sending us your comments. We revised a problem with some writing expressions. We have added content that can support information on the effect of phytoplankton size on dominant species by reference of our previous studies (see line 355- line 361). Red colored text in manuscript indicates alterations we made in revised version of manuscript in response to each individual review comments. 

in the A、B、C lines, the section figure were all plotted, and showed to tell the vertical structure, I recommend to combine the three lines to one section (such as 14 to 6 in one lined) for simplifying the descriptions.

Response: We have revised the relevant part to reflect your comment (see Figure 2, 3).

 

please put the Table 5 to the supplements, and make the MS more readable.

Response: We have revised the relevant part to reflect your comment (see Supplementary Material S4).

Again, thank you for allowing us to strengthen our manuscript with your valuable comments and queries. We have worked hard to incorporate your feedback and hope that these revisions persuade you to accept our submission.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see my comments on the PDF file.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer comments:

 

Dear Reviewer 2

We appreciate the time and effort in reviewing our manuscript and sending us your comments. We revised a problem with some writing expressions. Blue colored text in manuscript indicates alterations we made in revised version of manuscript in response to each individual review comments.

 

Abstract

lines 23-25

the indicator species may explain the seasonal extension of the warm currents ? or the warm currents explain the  distribution pattern of the indicator species?

Response: We have revised the relevant part to reflect your comment (line 24-25).

 

Materials and Methods

L157 Why did you choose Pearson correlation? Before the correlation, did you test your data for normal distribution?

Response: We have revised the relevant part to reflect your comment (line 146-147).

 

Results

Since you have a lot of data I would suggest to create a table with higher-lower Chl values, with the station that were recorded, for each month. It would shorten the text and it would be easier for the reader to spot the differences among months.

Response: The table was added to the MS (see Table 2).

 

Discussion

L 358-359 why only with winter? isn't this something you should give answer to?

Response: We have revised the relevant part to reflect your comment (line 337-339).

 

L 366-367. I dont see how a negative strong relationship, for example A.pacifica, can suggest this. In general from your data I dont see this conclusion. Fοr your suggestion to make sence , warm water oceanic species should have correlation with temperature all year around.

Response: It was removed considering the context.

 

L 370. the positive correlation was notices in all seasons?

Response: We have revised the relevant part to reflect your comment (line 345-349).

 

L 386. please rephrase

Response: We have revised the relevant part to reflect your comment (line 371).

 

Again, thank you for allowing us to strengthen our manuscript with your valuable comments and queries. We have worked hard to incorporate your feedback and hope that these revisions persuade you to accept our submission.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is devoted to the spatiotemporal distribution of planktonic copepods in the northeastern East China Sea. The topic of the article is relevant and interesting. The text is well-written, in my opinion. However, small orthographical and stylistic errors are still presented. Therefore, authors should carefully check the manuscript and make some corrections.

I recommend such corrections to the manuscript.

1. The «Introduction» gives only short information about copepods as indicators of different types of water masses. It is necessary to describe in more detail the zooplankton assemblages of different water masses: species richness and quantitative characteristics. At the same time, the description of the study area (paragraph 2) should be moved to «Materials and Methods» section.

2. The main drawback of the «Materials and Methods» and «Results» sections, is the excess of Figures and Tables. The presented Figures partially overlap in meaning and there is no need to bring them in such an incredible amount. Due to the excess of Figures and Tables, the article greatly increases in volume, without acquiring more information content. Authors should choose only those methods of analysis that best illustrate their results, and another delete or leave in the Supplement. As an option, I suggest the following modification of Figures and Tables:

   Leave in the article: Figure 1; Table 1; Figure 3-5; Figure 7-8; Table 3.

   Deleting or Supplement: Figure 2 - delete; Figure 6 - in Supplement; Table 2 -in Supplement; on Figure 9, leave only nMDS, and the clusters should be deleted; Table 4 and Figure 10 delete or in Supplement.

   In accordance with the changed composition of Figures and Tables, it is necessary to rewrite the «Materials and Methods» and «Results» sections.
3. Table 5 should be deleted from Discussion section in Supplement. It would be interesting to assess statistically the similarity between species lists of zooplankton from different water masses according to different literature sources. Table 5 itself is very large and should not be present in the main text of the article.

I recommend this manuscript for publication in «Diversity» after major revision.

Author Response

Reviewer comments:

 

The article is devoted to the spatiotemporal distribution of planktonic copepods in the northeastern East China Sea. The topic of the article is relevant and interesting. The text is well-written, in my opinion. However, small orthographical and stylistic errors are still presented. Therefore, authors should carefully check the manuscript and make some corrections.

 

Dear Reviewer 3

We appreciate the time and effort in reviewing our manuscript and sending us your comments. We revised a problem with some writing expressions. Also in "Introduction" we have detailed the zooplankton assemblages of different water masses. In addition, figures and tables are left in the Supplement. Green colored text in manuscript indicates alterations we made in revised version of manuscript in response to each individual review comments.

 

Introduction

The «Introduction» gives only short information about copepods as indicators of different types of water masses. It is necessary to describe in more detail the zooplankton assemblages of different water masses: species richness and quantitative characteristics.

 

Response: The info was added to the text (line 42- line 52) as following:

“Changes in water masses generally cause a seasonal succession of zooplankton, fluctuations in abundance, and distribution of diverse community structures or species [2, 14]. Therefore, zooplankton have generally been used as indicators of water masses and ocean currents [4,5]. Changes in physical environmental factors such as temperature and salinity of marine ecosystems can lead to rapid changes in the species richness and quantitative characteristics of zooplankton [4,5]. Different water masses or currents vary in their extent of expansion according to the seasons, and when the different water masses meet each other, they mix or form a front. The seasonal influence of water masses acts as a major factor in changing the distribution pattern and community structure of zooplankton [15,16]. In the northeastern East China Sea (nECS), zooplankton are expected to distinctly define habitat characteristics in response to a variety of physical environmental variables.”

 

At the same time, the description of the study area (paragraph 2) should be moved to «Materials and Methods» section.

Response: Agree and moved (line 65-74).

 

The main drawback of the «Materials and Methods» and «Results» sections, is the excess of Figures and Tables. The presented Figures partially overlap in meaning and there is no need to bring them in such an incredible amount. Due to the excess of Figures and Tables, the article greatly increases in volume, without acquiring more information content. Authors should choose only those methods of analysis that best illustrate their results, and another delete or leave in the Supplement. As an option, I suggest the following modification of Figures and Tables:

Leave in the article: Figure 1; Table 1; Figure 3-5; Figure 7-8; Table 3.

 

Deleting or Supplement: Figure 2 - delete; Figure 6 - in Supplement; Table 2 -in Supplement; on Figure 9, leave only nMDS, and the clusters should be deleted; Table 4 and Figure 10 delete or in Supplement.

 

In accordance with the changed composition of Figures and Tables, it is necessary to rewrite the «Materials and Methods» and «Results» sections. Table 5 should be deleted from Discussion section in Supplement. It would be interesting to assess statistically the similarity between species lists of zooplankton from different water masses according to different literature sources. Table 5 itself is very large and should not be present in the main text of the article.

Response: We appreciate the Reviewer’s comments. We have revised the relevant part to reflect your comment. Unfortunately, we analyzed the zooplankton species that appeared mainly in the study area, and only added information on the list of species for different water masses.

Again, thank you for allowing us to strengthen our manuscript with your valuable comments and queries. We have worked hard to incorporate your feedback and hope that these revisions persuade you to accept our submission.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This version is greatly improved. I recommend it is accepted to publish in this journal.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you for revising your manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

After correcting of remarks the article is much better, in my opinion.                  I recommend this manuscript for publication in «Journal of Marine Science and Engineering».