Occurrence of the Freshwater Chrysophyte Poterioochromonas malhamensis in a High Arctic Marine Ecosystem
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
All suggestions and comments are in the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Thans for your careful and warmly comments of this ms. We really learn a lot from you. I think you really understand what we want to present. We have modified the paper acording to your coments and have answered them point to point. May be there are something still not so good. Please help us to correct them again.
Regards!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is not yet ready for publication. The bay water selected for this study is a good place to study the climate change and its changes to water. Anyhow, if there are samplings only from one July, the do not show the change. Different ice and snow particles with fresh water fall always to marine water and float on surface water before melting. This phenomenon is highest in spring and summer and it is increasing with climate change. Analyzing one algae will give answers how deep the fresh water can now reach but not the change.
Title: Do you mean as maine marine? The “type of freshwater mixotrophic chrysophyte” is very complicated. Don’t load so many explanations to title, which should be short. If you mean exactly “Poterioochromonas malhamensis” set it to the title. Instead of “in a summer situation”, “in summer” is more clear.
- First: Totally your reference system is incorrect. See all from home page:
- “ References: References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text (including table captions and figure legends) and listed individually at the end of the manuscript. We recommend preparing the references with a bibliography software package, such as EndNote, ReferenceManager or Zotero to avoid typing mistakes and duplicated references. We encourage citations to data, computer code and other citable research material. If available online, you may use reference style 9. below.
- Citations and References in Supplementary files are permitted provided that they also appear in the main text and in the reference list.
In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]. For embedded citations in the text with pagination, use both parentheses and brackets to indicate the reference number and page numbers; for example [5] (p. 10). or [6] (pp. 101–105).
The reference list should include the full title, as recommended by the ACS style guide. Style files for Endnote and Zotero are available.
References should be described as follows, depending on the type of work:
- Journal Articles:
1. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal NameYear, Volume, page range.”
Secondly: It is difficult to understand the results since the supplementary material is lacking and thus Table S1 and Fig S1 are not present. Anyhow, if there is material which clearly belongs to paper, present it as a part of paper – not in supplement! Articles can be read still after many years and if you print an article it not nice to detect that you cannot understand the content since some principle results are in supplementary material – not in article itself.
Thirdly: You have many unclear sentences.
L 22: The surface water was thicker than before in summer 2013. Do you mean the thickness of fresh surface water? Or do you mean specific weight? You analyzed this water only once in July 2013. You do not present any references showing the warming during the last 50 or even 10 years. Do you have any data about ice formation or melting in Ny-Ålesund (it is a small town with many research stations, including a Chinese) harbor? Or do you have some other climatic data from Ny-Ålesund? Refer those! Inform in line 59 if you worked there.
L 55 by grazing bacteria?
L 69 co-minge? is it mix?
Fig 1. The blueish lines from right sub figure to the left sub figure are not visible. Change the color of these lines to red and use thicker line! You have different color in water. Do they present the depths of water or something else? What is the water depth in reddish area?
Fig 2. TAW or ATW (is in Fig.)?
L 197 surface water layer?
L 206 reference: who have done these?
L 208 increasing melt? Do you have data to refer this? See comment in line 22.
Fig 3 the first red increasing line is marked with a letter, which is not clear (is it S?). If it is S and what does it mean? Salinity??
Fig 4. The pie-presentation for parts b and c is not good. Usually the sum of pie is 100 % but not here. Present those in bars as the present also the rest of the result!
L 303 biomass 2,000 mg/m2? is it 2.0 g/m2 in which water layers or in which water volume?
L 304 AF? HF? .
L 315 What we know about the situation for 50 years ago; I think there is data since world war II.
Your reference 21 is incorrect. Strom is the family name for the author. Suzanne is the given name. Refer Strom, S. L
Author Response
Thanks for your careful check of our paper. We really learn a lot from you. And we have answered the coments point to point. Still, we think it is not enough. For example, you asked us to modify the reference citing format. However, we think perhaps it is more apropriate to do it after acceptance or minor revision at least. Or I think maybe it is a waste of time if our paper is rejected. So, please forgive us not to correct the format. Thank you!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
All comments and suggestions are in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
尊敬的审稿人，
的发生Poterioochromonas malhamensis在高北极海洋生态系统
手稿已根据审稿人的建议进行了修订，并回答了提出的问题以澄清某些方面。我感谢作者在整个手稿中所做的更改。这是一个巨大的进步，我相信手稿几乎可以出版了。但是，我仍然认为还有一些地方可以改进：
回复：感谢您的积极评价。而且这次我们还是尽力修改了。
标题
我相信这样的标题更好，但仍然建议改为：“淡水金藻植物 Poterioochromonas malhamensis在高北极海洋生态系统中的发生”
Rply: OK. This time the title is changed to “Occurrence of the freshwater chrysophyte Poterioochromonas malhamensis in a high Arctic marine ecosystem” as your kindly suggestion, the prvious title was from the other Reviewer, who think it should be simple. But from our opinion, we also think it is much better to stress it is a freshwater chrysophyte, because not everyone knows what type of Poterioochromonas malhamensis. And the title now is much more attractive. Thanks !
Introduction
Line 84: I suggest changing to: “Protists with a size of <20 μm are the most abundant in July, representing >95% of the total abundance of autotrophic and heterotrophic plankton (Rokkan Iversen and Seuthe 2011).
Reply: We have changed it to your kindly suggestion.
Line 94: Correct to “This study is different from all the previous ones. Although it was accidental, it represents a new phenomenon, that consisted in a small freshwater mixotrophic phytoflagellate outcompeting the marine phytoplankton in Arctic coastal marine water. It is very interesting, and we confirmed the prevalence of this phytoflagellate with DNA boarding, characteristic pigment, and microscopic observation. Both biotic and abiotic aspects were analyzed to find the cause of the prevalence of a freshwater phytoflagellate in a marine environment.”
Reply: It is changed to what your advised. Thanks!
Materials and Methods
Line 106: Correct to: “Ten liters of seawater were…”
Reply: “was” is changed to “were” and the presentation is “Ten liters of seawater were…”now.
Line 113: I suggest changing to: “They were frozen at −20°C…”
Reply: Ok. “temperature of” is deleted this time.
Fig 1: In the end of caption, you should say what is the source of your map like: (adopted from Zhang et al. 2019).
Reply: This is added in the end of the caption of Fig.1. Thanks for telling.
Line 130: I would change to: “Both 3 and 0.2 μm filters were used for analysis.”
Reply: It is changed now.
Line 152: You have included here the different water masses. But you only mention them for the first time in the beginning of Results and Discussion part. So, I would suggest using here only: among samples of different water masses.
Reply: This sentence is added at the end of the sentence in line 152. So, now the presentation is changed as “SW included water depths of 0–10 m at the two outer stations (K1 and K2) and 0–20 m at the three inner stations (K3–K5) among samples of different water masses,” hopefully we sufficiently understanding what you mean.
Line 180: I suggest changing to: “Quantification and size measurement were conducted using an image analysis system…”
Reply: Now the presentation is changed “Quantification and size measurement were conducted using an image analysis systemPictures of microbes on the filters were taken with an epifluorescence microscope (Nikon 80i, Japan) with a charge-coupled device (CCD)”. Still, hopefully we understand what you mean. Thanks!
Line 194: You should put here what RDA means, not in the second time you mention it.
Reply: redudant analysis is added befere (RDA).
Results and Discussion
Fig 2: You have to change to TAW in the fig. 2, it is correct in the caption but not in the graph.
Reply: This time we change it to TAW in Fig.2. Thanks for your carefully checking.
Line 220: Correct to: “…with their maximum and minimum…”
Reply: We are sorry for the spelling erro. And now it is corrected. Thanks!
Line 274: Correct to: “This difference was probably due...”
Reply: Were is changed to was.
Line 276: Correct the word “total”.
Reply: It is corrected.
Line 281: I suggest changing to: “...that dominated the small…”
Reply: Now it is change to “It is the first time detecting P. malhamensis, a freshwater mixotrophic chrysophyte (ca. 8 μm; Zhang et al. 1996), ) thatdominated the small eukaryotic community in a summer in Kongsfjorden.”
Line 283: Correct the word “environment”.
Reply: It is corrected.
Line 281: I suggest changing to: “However, diatoms (<1% in relative DNA abundance) were rarely observed by the microscopy (biomass of 0–1.28 μgC/L). This confirmed there were high densities of P. malhamensis in Kongsfjorden.”
Reply: It is changed as your kind advice. Thanks!
Lines 327-238: You do not need to write AF and HF, if you are not using it later. So, I would suggest removing them.
Reply: Yes. Now they are deleted.
Line 337: I suggest changing to: “...further up the food web…”
Reply: Chain is changed to web.
Line 342: I suggest changing to: “…episode or a constant occurrence.”
Reply: Now the sentence is changed to “However, we are not sure the prevalence of P. malhamensis, a freshwater-originating phylotype, was only one episode or a constant occurrence.”
I am sorry, but I could not find the changes you have performed related to the next two points that I referred in the first revision:
Lines 203-206: I it is difficult to understand which physicochemical parameter corresponds to each p value. Improve the sentence.
Reply: Sorry this part was carelessly deleted. Now it is changed as “Their respecitve p values of were >0.05 (salinity), <0.0001 (nitrite), 0.00011 (phosphate), 0.0006 (silicate) and 0.02831 (nitrate). These values were lower than those in 2012 except for the value of phosphate.” Hopefully, this time we present them clearly.
Lines 211-225: All this paragraph does not seem a discussion of your results, but what has happened before with no connection with your data. I would try to discuss more your results.
Reply: Thanks for telling. This part has been rewritten. It is as “It is interesting that salinity has no obvious effects on distribution of this freshwater algae. Alghough no obvious changes happened to salinity between year 2012 and 2013, great differences were shown between the same maronutrient. So, the nutrient structure has changed a lot although little differences were shown only from data themselves. Nutrients is the fundation of an ecosystem, so, it means a potential change of ecological enviroment, which will ultimately change the whole marine ecosystem. However, we are not sure the prevalence of P. malhamensis，一种源自淡水的系统发育型，仅发生过一次或经常发生。所以，我们需要一个长期的监测。我们推测此类异常通常会在未来发生，因此它可能表明 Kongsjforden 存在明显的生态变化。”
最好的祝福！
张方代表所有作者
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is interesting since it is known the area covered by ice is reduced in the Arctic Sea and land areas near this sea.
Still, the English language could be corrected since in some cases the language is complicated.
In the correction parts correct µmol L-1 (-1 as superscript)!
Line 93. This study presents the first time that a small mixotrophic phytoflagellate outcompeted the marine phytoplankton in the coastal water of Kongsfjorden.
Fig 3 still the S is not visible. Change is slightly higher!
Fig 4: I still propose you to use bar presentations instead of pies! Your readers read it rapidly and do not guess your meanings.
Add to line 218: The supplementary material presents these physicochemical factors in water depths from 0 m up to 200 m in Kongsfjorden area in summer 2013.
If you present your own unpublished results you can use them and inform (own unpublished data).
The references!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The paper is interesting since it is known the area covered by ice is reduced in the Arctic Sea and land areas near this sea.
Still, the English language could be corrected since in some cases the language is complicated.
Reply: Thanks for your potive comments. We are sorry that there are still some language problems even we polished it by a so called native English speaker in the Wiley English Editing Company. However, the other reviewer has given us detailed suggestions on how to prensent and we have corrected them. So, We think it is much better now. Of course, if you think it is still not good enough, we will find another compony to polish the language. Thanks for your consideration.
In the correction parts correct µmol L-1 (-1 as superscript)!
Reply: OK. We have corrected them this time. Thanks for telling.
Line 93. This study presents the first time that a small mixotrophic phytoflagellate outcompeted the marine phytoplankton in the coastal water of Kongsfjorden.
Reply: Now the presentation is changed as “This study is different from all the previous ones because it presents the first time that a small mixotrophic phytoflagellate outcompeted the marine phytoplankton in the coastal water of Kongsfjorden.”
Fig 3 still the S is not visible. Change is slightly higher!
Reply: S is larger now.
Fig 4: I still propose you to use bar presentations instead of pies! Your readers read it rapidly and do not guess your meanings.
Reply: Sorry, as there are still bars to present the proportion of Poterioochromonas malhamensis, we are afraid that the readers will confused if we still use bars to present the averag values. So, we would like to keep as is but to explain it at the end of the caption by “The upper pie presents the average propertions of P. malhamensis at different water masses; and the lower pie presents the average propertions of P. malhamensis at different stations.” We think it is much better. Thanks for your advice.
Add to line 218: The supplementary material presents these physicochemical factors in water depths from 0 m up to 200 m in Kongsfjorden area in summer 2013.
Reply: OK. Now this sentence is added. Thanks for your advice.
If you present your own unpublished results you can use them and inform (own unpublished data).
Reply: Thanks for telling. Now we have changed it to own unpublished data.
The references!
Reply: Yes! This time we change the references to the format of Water.
Best regards!
Fang Zhang On behalf of all authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
