Species Diversity of Benthic Marine Diatoms from a Natural Protected Area in Cuba

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

What is the purpose of sediment analyses done only in July 2022, if you say that there is a lot of variation due to tides? Are the observed communities somehow connected to the sediment type ?

What is the reason to separate the different replicates from one site as different samples (including in the dendrograms). It would be the same if during water quality assessment we consider the 5 replicas sampled (i.e. the five different boulders) from the same site as different samples.

Explain why you used both Jaccard and Bray-Curtis similarity. In the presence of abundance data, I would stick to Bray-Curtis, showing only those dendrograms. Why not adding SIMPER, which can help show which taxa contribute to the similarity (or dissimilarity) between the samples in each season. You can also try PERMANOVA to explore for possible dissimilarities between the samples – both between the samples from each season and in between the different seasons.

Try to get more in depth in the different cluster groups defined in the dendrograms. What is the difference and similarity between those groups of samples? Actually, on the dendrograms on Figs 6 and 7, I see defined large groups having lower percentage of similarity than those percentage stated in the text. For instance, on Fig. 6A, there is one sample that is quite separated from all other samples (with a similarity of ca 67% to all the rest), and a second large group of all other samples, with several subgroups, each of them having different levels of similarity. Similarly, on Fig. 7A, there are actually two large groups of samples with a similarity of 65%, and in any of those groups there are several sub-groups. Get fuller and correct reading of the dendrograms and correct the text. Add more information for the reasons of this separation.

It is also worth knowing which taxa were present only in November, which only in July, which taxa altered their abundances with the season (if any), which taxa were found during both seasons. Now taxa are mostly given as numbers, but providing more information about the specific species will enrich the paper.

The discussion for the high number of Mastogloia taxa can be expanded. Try to find information for the number of Mastogloia taxa reported in other large studies of the marine benthos around the globe. Refer also to other genera showing specific biogeographical patterns (e.g. Muelleria, even if the latter is not marine, it is still a diatom genus).

Amphora copulata is a well-known catch-all taxon, and several other taxa are already known to be misidentified earlier as A. copulata. Amphora proteus is another species with many infra-specific taxa and how many of the records of A. proteus indeed represent A. proteus is questionable. I think that, if stating that these taxa are common for both the Atlantic and Pacific benthos (lines 436-438), you should add that uncertainty exists about the identifications of these taxa in the discussion. It is doubtful that they are so common. Considering that they might have been misidentified.

I am amazed and intrigued that the most abundant taxa in your study are all relatively large-celled species (436-438). Did you have small-celled taxa in the study and is there any explanation for the mass observations of large species, considering the sampled habitats (sediments) and life-forms of diatoms?

Many statements in the discussion are based on comparisons with other studies of yours. This makes the discussion to look a bit “shallow”. Are there any other studies with which you can make comparisons or find similarities/parallels, or contradictions?

Other comments in the text file, incl. linguistic ones. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English must improved. Some sentence were difficult to understand. There are many parasitic words (thus, thereafter, etc) used very often. Try to shorten the sentences, too. Some of them are extremely long. 

Author Response

PLEASE SEE ATTACHEMENT

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have done a great job When analyzing the structure of the diatom community, I recommend that the authors add the ecological and geographical characteristics of the species under study and analyze them from this point of view. For example, what percentage are cosmopolitan species? What is the distribution of taxa in relation to the salinity and pH of the environment?

Can the authors analyze the structure of the diatom community based on the saprobicity indicators of the studied species?

Could the authors tell us a little bit about the ecological role of diatoms in the ecosystem under study?

 

Author Response

PLEASE SEE ATTACHEMENT

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I can understand that you do not make to make additional efforts at present adding more analyses. But, I do not agree fully with all your statements. It could be the language (which still should be improved). 

I would like to see a better explanation of the dendrograms. I do not understand your estimation for the percentage of similarity between the seasons, since seasons were not compared statistically. Suddenly, there is a comparison between the two seasons with exact percentage, and it is unclear where it comes from. 

Still, for Mastogloias, is hard to find in the text the citations you said you gave. Actually, I don't see a problem with Mastogloias (as you called it) , except that it is not the only genus showing some regional/latitude affinity.

Finally, there are some parts in the discussion, with which I do not fully agree. This applies for the "widely distributed taxa". Indeed, you cannot solve this problem in this paper. But the problem should be addressed. Not simply stating that these are widely distributed taxa in the Atlantic and Pacific littorals. Because: we all know that their past records are doubtful. Claiming that these are widely distributed taxa is not fully correct and only adds more confusion.  

Then, the addressed taxonomical problems, including about A. graeffeana and A. graeffei, where the cited work is incorrect. There are three taxa A. graeffei, two of them were synomysized by Hendey (not Wachnicka & Gaiser, as you give in the text). If you discuss these problems, you must give correct information for which A. graeffei you are talking about.  

Finally, this is a floristic paper, and apart of adding more taxa to the list if taxa from some area, it should also pay attention to the current floristic and taxonomic problems. 

These are some examples. 

Comments in the text. 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

While there is some improvement, some sentences are still not clear and linguistically the paper still needs improvement. Especially in discussion. 

Author Response

PLEASE SEE ATTACHED FILE

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have done a lot of work and made the necessary corrections.

Author Response

REVIEWER #2:

THE AUTHORS HAVE DONE A LOT OF WORK AND MADE THE NECESSARY CORRECTIONS

AUTHOR´S REPLY

WE APPRECIATE THE OPINION OF REVIEWER #2