Seaweed-Associated Diatoms (Bacillariophyta) in Dokdo of South Korea: I. Subphyla Melosirophytina, Coscinodiscophytina, and Class Mediophyceae

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Evaluation of the manuscript titled: “Seaweed-associated diatoms voucher flora in Dokdo of South Korea: I. Subphyla Melosirophytina, Coscinodiscophytina and Class Mediophyceae”, by Park et al., submitted to the journal Diversity.

 

The current manuscript (ms.) shows the composition of diatoms (not necessarily “epibionts”) associated to seaweeds in a Korean island. The diversity seems moderate (at least in this ms.) and the descriptions of most species are brief, and in addition the very nice and informative illustrations complement very well the whole document, providing a general account of the diatoms in the study area.

The ms. should be approved but only when a few comments and points had been taken into account.

These points have been marked in the ANNOTATED ms. and are the following:

- The title and abstract include some higher taxonomic categories which should follow a classification. This was made in other parts of the ms.

- The keywords should be changed and follow the recommendations annotated.

- The exact locations and relevant information was given in the M & M section. Probably in the introduction, authors can mention a very synthetic data of the study area.

- A short description of the diatom cleaning method should be provided.

- Line 118 should be rewritten.

- Line 213: a suggested reference was given.

- It is strongly recommended to provide a brief DIAGNOSISI of the new species, apart from the description. Both terms are not the same.

- Legends of figures 7 and 8 are switched. They should be corrected.

- Line 743- A grammatical error should be corrected.

- The two new species described in this ms. should be discussed in the Discussion section.

- Many of the species involved in this study are known as “planktonic” rather than “epibionts”. The ecological or habit/realm characteristic should be stated for each species.

 

I hope that these comments may be useful to improve the final version of the manuscript.

Best wishes.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The current manuscript (ms.) shows the composition of diatoms (not necessarily “epibionts”) associated to seaweeds in a Korean island. The diversity seems moderate (at least in this ms.) and the descriptions of most species are brief, and in addition the very nice and informative illustrations complement very well the whole document, providing a general account of the diatoms in the study area.

The ms. should be approved but only when a few comments and points had been taken into account.

These points have been marked in the ANNOTATED ms. and are the following:

The title and abstract include some higher taxonomic categories which should follow a classification. This was made in other parts of the ms.

We added phylum name for diatoms in the title and abstract in Line 13.

 

The keywords should be changed and follow the recommendations annotated.

The keywords have been changed in Line 29.

 

The exact locations and relevant information was given in the M & M section. Probably in the introduction, authors can mention a very synthetic data of the study area.

The biodiversity of Dokdo was mentioned in the first paragraph in Introduction section, and the general feature on studying area was provided in Materials and Methods section.

 

A short description of the diatom cleaning method should be provided.

The brief cleaning method has been added in line 106-109.

 

Line 118 should be rewritten.

We have rewritten the sentence in line 119-122.

 

It is strongly recommended to provide a brief DIAGNOSISI of the new species, apart from the description. Both terms are not the same.

We provided a brief diagnosis for Ardissoneopsis dokdoensis. The other potential new species of Ardissonea is treated as affinity of Ardissonea formosa due to the lanceolate morphological characteristic is insufficient to suggest this species as a new to science. Until the additional evidence are revealed, we temporally retain as an affinity of Ardissonea formosa.

 

Legends of figures 7 and 8 are switched. They should be corrected.

Thank you for comment. We have changed.

 

Line 743- A grammatical error should be corrected.

We have changed in line 737.

 

The two new species described in this ms. should be discussed in the Discussion section.

Our study is focused on the providing the voucher flora of seaweed-associated diatoms in Dokdo. The discovery of new species was incidental to our main research, though it is also important. For the new species, we mentioned the reason of new species in taxonomic comment part in the taxonomic description section. Therefore, we have not discussed repeatedly in the discussion section.

 

Many of the species involved in this study are known as “planktonic” rather than “epibionts”. The ecological or habit/realm characteristic should be stated for each species.

As mentioned reviewer, some typical planktonic taxa are included in the present study, so we refrained using the term ‘epiphyte’, rather using ‘seaweed-associated’. It is exhausting and unnecessary to repeatedly mention the habitat characteristic for each species. Instead, we discussed the functional groups based on the habitat feature, most centric diatoms (Melosirophytina and Coscinodiscophytina) are typical planktonic and the rest diatom in the class Mediophyceae are typically periphytic taxa adhering to the surface directly by a mucous film or with a mucilaginous stalk.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses an important topic regarding the biodiversity of diatoms associated with seaweed in the Dokdo area. Given the ecological role of diatoms as primary producers and bioindicators, this study contributes valuable data to a relatively understudied area. The identification of over 130 diatom species, including newly reported taxa and potentially new species to science, is a significant finding. This highlights the diversity of diatom flora in Dokdo and the importance of ongoing monitoring for assessing the impact of environmental changes. Therefore, it is recommended to accept it after minor repairs, and the following are some suggestions, hoping to help revise the paper.

Newly recorded species, as well as those with uncertain taxonomic status, such as Ardissonea johii, Synedrosphenia cf. Gomphonema et al. suggested that molecular biology methods should be combined to further clarify its taxonomic status.

Some taxonomic comments and species descriptions are extensive, which may distract from the manuscript’s main findings. Consider including additional details in supplementary materials.

While the manuscript discusses the diversity of diatoms, it could further explore the ecological implications, such as the potential effects of climate change on the distribution of subtropical species now found in Dokdo.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is of good quality and logical clarity.

Author Response

The manuscript addresses an important topic regarding the biodiversity of diatoms associated with seaweed in the Dokdo area. Given the ecological role of diatoms as primary producers and bioindicators, this study contributes valuable data to a relatively understudied area. The identification of over 130 diatom species, including newly reported taxa and potentially new species to science, is a significant finding. This highlights the diversity of diatom flora in Dokdo and the importance of ongoing monitoring for assessing the impact of environmental changes. Therefore, it is recommended to accept it after minor repairs, and the following are some suggestions, hoping to help revise the paper.

 

Newly recorded species, as well as those with uncertain taxonomic status, such as Ardissonea johii, Synedrosphenia cf. Gomphonema et al. suggested that molecular biology methods should be combined to further clarify its taxonomic status.

We agree that it is premature to describe a new Ardissonea species with ambiguous evidence in our work. So, we retain the Ardissonea species as Ardissonea aff. formosa instead of describing the new species. In future work, we will decide whether is new or not throughout the molecular approach.

 

Some taxonomic comments and species descriptions are extensive, which may distract from the manuscript’s main findings. Consider including additional details in supplementary materials.

As mentioned reviewer, some of frequently reported species may distract the manuscript, but the main focus of our study is providing the voucher flora of seaweed-associated diatoms in Dokdo. Therefore, it is essential to including the identity of individual species in the main text.

 

While the manuscript discusses the diversity of diatoms, it could further explore the ecological implications, such as the potential effects of climate change on the distribution of subtropical species now found in Dokdo.

Ecological implication will be discussed when the series following this voucher floristic study are completed.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Below are some notes and comments on the text of the manuscript:

1) It seems to me that the abstract should be slightly modified. The abstract is the quintessence of concrete results and conclusions obtained in the presented article while studying marine diatom flora in Dokdo of South Korea. So, perhaps the first two sentences should not be shortened or removed, because this is a repetition of the general information given in the Introduction.

2) Line 35: it is noted that Dokdo island “is composed of granite”, but further (lines 91-92) it is written that “Dokdo island is a volcanic island and is geologically is mainly composed of basalt and andesite”. So, what is finally correct regarding the type of igneous rocks: granite (intrusive igneous rock) or basalt and andesite (extrusive igneous rocks)? And what is the age of these volcanic rocks?

3) When describing diatom taxa you give a rubric “World distribution”. It is probably necessary to check literature sources and databases again because it seems that the distribution of some taxa of centric diatoms appears to be wider. In particular, for example: Hyalodiscus ambiguous and H. scoticus have been also reported from Black Sea and Sea of Azov; Podosira hormoides has been also found from Black Sea, Sea of Azov, northern seas, and other regions; Podosira montagnei – from Caspian Sea and Baltic Sea; Asteromphalus heptactis - from the Atlantic (near Norway and Faroe Islands), Pacific Ocean, Sea of Japan; Actiniocyclus pruinosus – from the Southern Ocean, Actinocyclus subtilis – from Black Sea.

Author Response

1) It seems to me that the abstract should be slightly modified. The abstract is the quintessence of concrete results and conclusions obtained in the presented article while studying marine diatom flora in Dokdo of South Korea. So, perhaps the first two sentences should not be shortened or removed, because this is a repetition of the general information given in the Introduction.

We have changed the first two sentences.

 

2) Line 35: it is noted that Dokdo island “is composed of granite”, but further (lines 91-92) it is written that “Dokdo island is a volcanic island and is geologically is mainly composed of basalt and andesite”. So, what is finally correct regarding the type of igneous rocks: granite (intrusive igneous rock) or basalt and andesite (extrusive igneous rocks)? And what is the age of these volcanic rocks?

Thank you for the comment. According to Dokdo information system, the soil of Dokdo is composed of basalt and trachyte from volcanic activity. We have changed ‘granite’ to ‘basal and trachyte’ in Line 33.

 

3) When describing diatom taxa you give a rubric “World distribution”. It is probably necessary to check literature sources and databases again because it seems that the distribution of some taxa of centric diatoms appears to be wider. In particular, for example: Hyalodiscus ambiguous and H. scoticus have been also reported from Black Sea and Sea of Azov; Podosira hormoides has been also found from Black Sea, Sea of Azov, northern seas, and other regions; Podosira montagnei – from Caspian Sea and Baltic Sea; Asteromphalus heptactis - from the Atlantic (near Norway and Faroe Islands), Pacific Ocean, Sea of Japan; Actiniocyclus pruinosus – from the Southern Ocean, Actinocyclus subtilis – from Black Sea.

We have written the world distribution based on the literatures including the certain micrographs and description as much as possible. So, the references that only mentioned records without any voucher evidences has been excluded. In addition, on the taxa having a lot of records with the voucher images, we provided the records focused on the northwestern Pacific occurrences.