Pluridecadal Temporal Patterns of Tintinnids (Ciliophora, Spirotrichea) in Terra Nova Bay (Ross Sea, Antarctica)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study provides the community of tintinnids with 1988-2017 data and discussed temperature effect. It is a good research and effect of the global warming can only be recovered based on the big data. I still have some comments. 1. Authors only discussed the community. But I think the characters of lorica, like size, also can be affected by the climate change. I wish author can provide these data and do some analysis. 2. There seems no sites that are constantly sampled from 1988-2017, which also can explain the variation of the community. So authors should discuss it. minor comments: 1. No abbreviation in abstract. 2. Please use color for different sample years and different symbols for different location. like coast, off coast etc. 3. L181-182 reword 4. what is surface layer? <10m or <100m? in L187, it is =<100m, but L192 is =<10m. Usually, surface layer is =< 10m. 5. Fig.4 provide marks for significance. 6. L203-206, please provide the data of Salpingella separately, in the end of this paragraph. 7. L234 “like the genus Salpingella”

Author Response

REVIEWER n. 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study provides the community of tintinnids with 1988-2017 data and discussed temperature effect.

It is a good research and effect of the global warming can only be recovered based on the big data.

 

I still have some comments.

Point 1: Authors only discussed the community. But I think the characters of lorica, like size, also can be affected by the climate change. I wish author can provide these data and do some analysis.

Response 1: We agree with the reviewer in that tintinnids should be observed with great detail, but in this long series data was not possible to characterize tintinnids through a better morphological description of the lorica or molecular analysis.

 

Point 2: There seems no sites that are constantly sampled from 1988-2017, which also can explain the variation of the community. So authors should discuss it.

Response 2: Thank you for the observation, we have added a sentence (LINE 381-382)

 

minor comments:

Point 3: No abbreviation in abstract.

Response 3: we have changed TNB to Terra Nova Bay

Point 4: Please use color for different sample years and different symbols for different location. like coast, off coast etc.

Response 4: we have added Table S2 indicating where the samples were collected (onshore, intermediate, offshore).

Point 5: L181-182 reword

Response 5: we have changed the sentence (LINE 209-211).

Point 6: what is surface layer? <10m or <100m? in L187, it is =<100m, but L192 is =<10m. Usually, surface layer is =< 10m.

Response 6: We have checked and corrected (LINE 209-211).

Point 7: Fig.4 provide marks for significance.

Response 7: No significance was tested in Fig. 4.

Point 8: L203-206, please provide the data of Salpingella separately, in the end of this paragraph.

Response 8: We have rewritten the sentence (LINE 230-231).

Point 9: L234 “like the genus Salpingella”

Response 9: modified (LINE 259).

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript is valuable to be the baseline data of the Ross Sea Region Marine Protected Area. I recommend publication after major revision according to the following advice.

 

This manuscript ignored hydrobiological background (temperature, salinity, chlorophyll concentration, polynya dimension and position, etc.) of the investigation periods. This information might be found in other submissions to the special issue of the ‘Biodiversity of the Ross Sea Region’. However, I recommend the authors to present a short introduction of this information.

 

The years investigated in Figure 1 is different from that in Table S1: 1997/98 (1997), 2010 (absent) in Figure 1 (Table S1).  Figure 8 1998.

 

Line 103. Samples were collected at 3 to 5 depths. This statement is so simple. I would refer to know more details. What is the maximum depth? How about the distance between the sampling depth? How about the distribution in different watermass? What is your consideration to select this depth?

Line 40, in the introduction, TNB water column could be divided into an upper layer of about 150 m and a layer beneath. However, Figure 3, vertically, the tintinnids were divided into aphotic and photic zone with 200 m depth. I advise to be consistent.

 

Furthermore, in the paragraph line166 and 170 and other places (Figure 8) with average and SD, please add number of samples in the upper layer and lower layer (n=  ) to make it scientific.

 

Long term change study had high standard to the data. Figure 8: there are different stations in different years. Therefore, the long term trend is not convincible. If the authors insist this trend, please tell the readers that the data suffers from some limitation.

 

 

Line 417, tintinnids’s community -------tintinnid community.

 

 

The structure of the manuscript should be well configured to avoid paragraphs with one sentence such as line 84 and line 101.

 

 

Some latest references should be considered in the manuscript.

Wang C, Xu Z, Li H, Wang Y, Zhang W. 2022. Horizontal distribution of tintinnids (Ciliophora) in surface waters of the Ross Sea and polynya in the Amundsen Sea (Antarctic) during summer 2019/2020. Advances in Polar Science 33: 28-43.

Dolan JR et al. 2022. Tintinnid ciliates (Marine microzooplankton) of the Ross Sea. Polar Research 41: 8382.

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

This manuscript is valuable to be the baseline data of the Ross Sea Region Marine Protected Area. I recommend publication after major revision according to the following advice.

 

Point 1: This manuscript ignored hydrobiological background (temperature, salinity, chlorophyll concentration, polynya dimension and position, etc.) of the investigation periods. This information might be found in other submissions to the special issue of the ‘Biodiversity of the Ross Sea Region’. However, I recommend the authors to present a short introduction of this information. 

Response 1: We have provided a short introduction on the data available for the area (LINE 37-73).

 

Point 2: The years investigated in Figure 1 is different from that in Table S1: 1997/98 (1997), 2010 (absent) in Figure 1 (Table S1).  Figure 8 1998. 

Response 2: Many thanks for noticing the oversight. In Fig. 1 we changed 2010 to 2011, in Fig. 8 we added 1997-98 and 2011-12. In Table S1 we added 1998 and we inserted blank rows to distinguish the different campaigns.

 

Point 3: Line 103. Samples were collected at 3 to 5 depths. This statement is so simple. I would refer to know more details. What is the maximum depth? How about the distance between the sampling depth? How about the distribution in different watermass? What is your consideration to select this depth?

Response 3: We have included a sentence about the different sampling depths and the maximum depth (LINE 125-127). With the data we have, we are not able to assess the distribution of the different water masses.

 

Point 4: Line 40, in the introduction, TNB water column could be divided into an upper layer of about 150 m and a layer beneath. However, Figure 3, vertically, the tintinnids were divided into aphotic and photic zone with 200 m depth. I advise to be consistent.

Response 4: The subdivision made by Rusciano et al 2013 refers to the hydrological conditions in the TNB polynya. We subdivided into photic (< 200 m) and aphotic (> 200 m) layers because we collected few samples at 150-160 that we decided to include in the photic layer.

 

Point 5: Furthermore, in the paragraph line166 and 170 and other places (Figure 8) with average and SD, please add number of samples in the upper layer and lower layer (n=  ) to make it scientific.

Response 5: We have added the number of samples in each figure.

 

Point 6: Long term change study had high standard to the data. Figure 8: there are different stations in different years. Therefore, the long term trend is not convincible. If the authors insist this trend, please tell the readers that the data suffers from some limitation.

Response 6: We have added a sentence to explain the limitation (LINE 381-382).

 

Point 7: Line 417, tintinnids’s community -------tintinnid community. 

Response 7: We have changed it according to the reviewers’ comment (LINE 409).

 

Point 8: The structure of the manuscript should be well configured to avoid paragraphs with one sentence such as line 84 and line 101.

Response 8: We have changed it according to the reviewer’s comment.

 

Point 9: Some latest references should be considered in the manuscript.

Wang C, Xu Z, Li H, Wang Y, Zhang W. 2022. Horizontal distribution of tintinnids (Ciliophora) in surface waters of the Ross Sea and polynya in the Amundsen Sea (Antarctic) during summer 2019/2020. Advances in Polar Science 33: 28-43.

Dolan JR et al. 2022. Tintinnid ciliates (Marine microzooplankton) of the Ross Sea. Polar Research 41: 8382.

Response 9: Many thanks for the comment but we decided not to include the two manuscripts because we prepared the article before their publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Lines 281-282 must be Codonellopsis, please check    

Author Response

REVIEWER n. 3

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Point 1: Lines 281-282 must be Codonellopsis, please check   

Response 1: Many thanks for noticing the oversight. We have changed to Codonellopsis

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revision generally answered my questions and suggestions. I recommend accept in the present form. 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This MS investigated the long-term temporal pattern Tintinnids to investigate the effect of climate changes, and Tintinnids role in the Ross Sea ecosystem in the future. Pluridecadal study using Tintinnids is an interesting topic because Tintinnds play a significant role as indicator species of environmental variation or water mass. Since the long-term study on Tintinnids is the first time in this area, their importance and role should be derived through results and discussion. However, the data reported are too redundant, and the data were not well discussed or put in a larger ecological context. This MS has only a description of each figure & Table, and there is no discussion about why it came out. The discussion part did not discuss the results of this MS, but depends greatly on other references. Especially the discussion must be improved by writing it in a more precise and well-formulated manner. Therefore, there is a need to clarify the research highlight of this MS. Even if Tintinnids time series observation is very valuable in the Antarctic ecosystem study, this is a strictly descriptive study. From my point of view, it is not considered as a suitable manuscript in the journal "Diversity" for the following reasons:

- The long-term study of Tintinnids group is clearly interesting by itself. However, any part of the manuscript is clearly exposed to why the findings are important and/or relevant to be published. I think that authors should make an effort in order to make it clear to the readers.

- Most of the discussion parts seem a repeat of the results section more than proper discussion. Moreover, important conclusions made by authors are neither supported by its data nor by references. It is already widely known that the temporal and spatial variation of Tintinnids is affected by environmental variables and food type/size. However, the authors did not show any data related to environmental variables and prey, but only cited them as reference data. Therefore, statistical analysis based on environmental variables is required to fully comprehend the long-term study because environmental variables are such a crucial issue in comprehending the distribution pattern of ciliates.

- The authors should analyze the reasons of long-term changes in the Tintinnids group and succession in dominant species during the last 30years, and give future information on Tintinids according to environmental change in TNB based on these findings. I think these are the advantages of the long-term study.

- Although the manuscript has an ecological approach, it does not discuss the findings in an ecological context.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is devoted to the shift of tintinnid ciliates diversity in the Ross Sea during last 35 years. The results of the research are extrapolated from change in one major group of protists on the possible change of microplanktone community in the Antarctic region, which may be the outcome of the climate change. Though this problem, indeed, exists, the manuscript does not provide a comprehensive set of data.

The English language requires extensive revision, as many parts of the text are written in unclear way. The diversity of tintinnids, which are in fact a major group of marine ciliates is compressed into less than a dozen species, and the authors themselves are not convinced in identity of those. The species were identified just by two variable morphological features, and, of course, it was not reliable. 

I did not understand most of the figures, and their legends are out of any sense, for example Fig. 7. is entitled "Annual average abundance and Carbon content." Abundance of what? What is the interrelation of carbon content and divesity and abundance of tintinnids? It is just one example, there are numerous failures of this kind.

The results and discussion are chaotic, leaving the reader in uncertainty and suspense. There are too many criticisms to start addressing them one after another. Conclusions are very vague. My overall impression is that I read a confusing text of low quality, which is inappropriate as a scientific article.

Reviewer 3 Report

For all species and genera, please provide authorities and years since its first mention.

Intraspecific variation is common in ciliate protists, for that reason the division into three classes, for the calculation of biomass, of C. drygalskii is not appropriate, if the identity at the species level is confirmed. Please check and reorganize the data.

Were there any species at exactly 10 meters? How was it considered, in the surface layer or the intermediate layer? And, was there any species at exactly 200 meters? How was it considered, in the photic or aphotic zone? Usually, the ranges should not overlap, and in this manuscript, the species were categorized according to depths in the photic zone less than 200m, but the aphotic started at 200m, please check, and reorganize if the case.

Line 96            please provide the trademark of the microscope

Line 101                     must be cytoplasm instead of protoplasm

Line 107, 109             must be C. drygalskii instead of Cy. drygalskii

Lines 130, 132           Carbon with a capital letter, but not for figure legend, please check

Line 174          The results should be referred to as 12 taxa, corresponding to 9 species and 5 genera

For figure 4, please check the grammar: abbundance

Line 198          must be C. vanhöffeni instead of Cy. vanhöffeni

Line 200          must be 50 m instead of 50m

Line 201          must be apical region instead of anterior portion

Line 203          must be C. cristallina instead of Cy. cristallina

Line 204          must be C. nobilis instead of Cy. nobilis

Line 282          no capital for cluster

Lines 310-314             please provide references for synonymies

Figure 8A        please use italics for genera names

Line 406          must be naviculaefera

Line 410          must be Salpingella

Line 398          must be convallaria

Line 488          please check, must be Cymatocylis

Line 553          must be Biogeochemistry

Line 597          please check, must be atmosphere

Table 1           must be only Cymatocylis spp., Codonellopsis spp., Laackmanniella spp., Salpingella spp., without an author

Table 1           please check if Codonellopsis gaussi (Laackmann, 1907) and Codonellopsis glacialis (Laackmann, 1909)