Microalgae, in Spatial Assessment of the Drainage Basin, Influences on the Ecosystem of Lake Agmon, Israel

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer 1 report

The reviewed paper presented interesting results of the assessment of the Lake Agmon microalgae as ecological indicators. In the study, the methods of phycology, hydrobiology, and ecology were used. The authors performed a detailed statistical analysis of the data. The conclusions are supported by the results and discussion.  The references list contains the important references on the studied topic. The manuscript is very clear.

 

I recommend the manuscript for publication with minor revision.

Remarks to the authors.

Major comments:

1. In figure 1 and further in the MS, you listed the sampling sites 1,2,3,4,5, 7,9,10. I understand, that it could be the stationary stations. But for the readers, it is a sites number in this investigation, and the numbers from 1 to 8 will be more clear.
2. What do the yellow dots without numbers in figure 1 mean?
3. I think you should give the list of the species even as supplementary data. Without it, the manuscript loses its biological sense.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1, thanks a lot for your comments. Ms has been corrected according to the comments. 

The reviewed paper presented interesting results of the assessment of the Lake Agmon microalgae as ecological indicators. In the study, the methods of phycology, hydrobiology, and ecology were used. The authors performed a detailed statistical analysis of the data. The conclusions are supported by the results and discussion.  The references list contains the important references on the studied topic. The manuscript is very clear.

I recommend the manuscript for publication with minor revision.

Remarks to the authors.

Major comments:

In figure 1 and further in the MS, you listed the sampling sites 1,2,3,4,5, 7,9,10. I understand, that it could be the stationary stations. But for the readers, it is a sites number in this investigation, and the numbers from 1 to 8 will be more clear.

Response: corrected map in Figure 1, Number of station in Appendix A, Tables and across the text

What do the yellow dots without numbers in figure 1 mean?

Response: corrected map in Figure 1,

I think you should give the list of the species even as supplementary data. Without it, the manuscript loses its biological sense.

Response: It is so sorry that the Reviewer do not received Appendix A where all species list is given with the ecological preferences of each species and distribution over sampling stations.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript discusses in detail the generation of a database for the LAke Agmon flora. Since the data has to be reviewed periodically, the authors cite two such previous recordings and consider this study as a follow-up of the earlier ones. The methodologies are described in good detail and the data is presented in an organized manner. The discussion is eloquent, emphasizing the need for such studies and the relevance of the results. In summary, this study is well designed, executed, and written.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2, thanks a lot for your comments.

Reviewer 2 report 1 Response

This manuscript discusses in detail the generation of a database for the LAke Agmon flora. Since the data has to be reviewed periodically, the authors cite two such previous recordings and consider this study as a follow-up of the earlier ones. The methodologies are described in good detail and the data is presented in an organized manner. The discussion is eloquent, emphasizing the need for such studies and the relevance of the results. In summary, this study is well designed, executed, and written.

Response:

Thank you very much for your report.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript entitled "Microalgae in spatial assessment of the drainage basin influences on the ecosystem of the Lake Agmon, Israel" refers to interesting aspects concerning microalgae and environmental indicators in dry and wet seasons during 2011-2018 in the protected ornithological object. The Agmon Lake is a unique ecosystem of regional and international importance, thus, the knowledge about biodiversity of such area is also important. However, the major revision should be done.

 

Detailed main comments

1. The subsection “1.1. Description of study area” should be placed in 2. Materials and Methods as 2.1. Description of study area.
2. Please clarify the sampling procedures and methods for physicochemical analysis give them in one place, i.e. in the section 2. Materials and Methods by creating the subsection 2.2. Please revise the sub-section 3.1. Chemical variables in the section 3. Results.
3. The section “Results” should contain only the description of results. Please avoid the citation of references.
4. Figure 4 – please indicate the axis X and colors in the caption of this figure.
5. Figure 6 – please indicate the codes V1, V2,.…. and areas 1 and 2 7. Figure in the caption of this figure.
6. Figure 7 a, b, c, d, e, f, g and h – please unify the scale of temperatures and pH in the graphs characteristic for each color.
7. Figure 8 a-h – the same as for figure 7 (above).
8. The citing of Tables and Figures in the section “Discussion” are unnecessary. Some parts in “Discussion” are the repetition from the section “Results”. I suggest to re-written this section.
9. Where is Figure 9? Why it was cited only in the section “Discussion”.
10. Appendix A was unavailable for review.
11. Intensive English correction should be made by native.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3, thanks a lot for your comments. Ms has been corrected according to the comments.

Reviewer 3 report 1 Responses

The manuscript entitled "Microalgae in spatial assessment of the drainage basin influences on the ecosystem of the Lake Agmon, Israel" refers to interesting aspects concerning microalgae and environmental indicators in dry and wet seasons during 2011-2018 in the protected ornithological object. The Agmon Lake is a unique ecosystem of regional and international importance, thus, the knowledge about biodiversity of such area is also important. However, the major revision should be done.

Detailed main comments

1. The subsection “1.1. Description of study area” should be placed in 2. Materials and Methods as 2.1. Description of study area.

Response: corrected as recommended

 

1. Please clarify the sampling procedures and methods for physicochemical analysis give them in one place, i.e. in the section 2. Materials and Methods by creating the subsection 2.2. Please revise the sub-section 3.1. Chemical variables in the section 3. Results.

Response: corrected

 

 

1. The section “Results” should contain only the description of results. Please avoid the citation of references.

Response: excluded

 

1. Figure 4 – please indicate the axis X and colors in the caption of this figure.

Response: Figure 4 replaced with x-axis name – Station. The color of the cells varies from blue to red according to the proportion of the number in the entire distribution.

 

 

1. Figure 6 – please indicate the codes V1, V2,.…. and areas 1 and 2 7. Figure in the caption of this figure.

Response: added

 

 

 

1. Figure 7 a, b, c, d, e, f, g and h – please unify the scale of temperatures and pH in the graphs characteristic for each color.

Response: it cannot possible to do because the program do it automatically.

 

 

 

 

1. Figure 8 a-h – the same as for figure 7 (above).

Response: it cannot possible to do because the program do it automatically

 

 

 

1. The citing of Tables and Figures in the section “Discussion” are unnecessary. Some parts in “Discussion” are the repetition from the section “Results”. I suggest to re-written this section.

Response: Tables and Figures in the section “Discussion” are removed. Discussion part corrected

 

 

 

1. Where is Figure 9? Why it was cited only in the section “Discussion”.

Response: Figure 9was firstly corrected as 8b but in regard of the Reviewer question 8 is removed from the text in the Discussion part.

 

 

1. Appendix A was unavailable for review.

Response: Appendix A was applied to the journal site as a part of paper submission. It is so sorry but only the journal editor can send it to the reviewer.

 

 

1. Intensive English correction should be made by native.

Response: One of the authors, Professor Thomas Smith, a Native American, checked the English on the article.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript was corrected according to suggestions given i n the review.

I do not have any additional comments.