Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments

This study is generally well written, although the English should be checked in places. For instance, avoid starting sentences with ‘And’ (L83, L163 etc…). Also, check for typos (for ex: L396). The study is interesting and well within the stated aims. Few clarifications are needed (detailed below) and Figure quality within the main document has to be improved.

 

Introduction

L46 – Delete ‘It has been proved that’

L49 – Link distant ecosystems – cite relevant studies illustrating this point. For ex:

‘Aerobiology Over Antarctica – A New Initiative for Atmospheric Ecology’ D.A. Pearce

‘Characterisation of Arctic bacterial communities in the air above Svalbard’ L. Cuthbertson

L53 – Moreover, some of pathogenic…

Methods

2.3 – This section is unclear. At this point, I’m unsure if sampling was conducted at the same site on each of the 3 days, the number of samples per sites and the total number of samples. Clarify.

L164 – How was the lack of contamination concluded? Was a specific package used, or laboratory techniques? Clarify.

L193-194 – What is meant by resampling and how was it done?

Results

3.1 – The table reference is incorrect.

Discussions

L408 – What does this mean?  ‘Cunninghamia lanceolata (Lamb.) Hook [63]’.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

this manuscript is written straight forward and needs only a small improvement.

Line 61 to 69: here a more global overview should be given and the American continent may be included

Line 109: what do the authors mean by “without any vegetation”?

Line 193: “needs” should be changed to “needed”

Figure 2: “a”, “b” and “C” should be explained

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx