Remote Sensing and Argo Float Observations Reveal Physical Processes Initiating a Winter-Spring Phytoplankton Bloom South of the Kuroshio Current Near Shikoku

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed all remaining concerns.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

We appreciate your advice very much; you have provided valuable comments and constructive suggestions to improve our manuscript. Your help has been acknowledged in our manuscript.

 

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors...This version looks better.

Only a few small suggestions mainly regarding its figures.

Please mark in Figure 1 which is panel a and which is panel b as well as include in the figure caption the description of both panels.

Also consider a better resolution in your figures 3 and 4,  possibly with panels of the same size and most likely a better rearrangement of them not as a list

a

b

c

d

and maybe 

a     b

c     d

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript addresses phytoplankton bloom which affects our natural environment at the global scale. The manuscript claims to figure out the hypothesis which best explains winter-spring phytoplankton bloom in the study area. This manuscript presents important data and findings. However, these finding could have been presented in a better way to support or diverge from the hypothesis being analyzed. My comments on this work are as follows. 

1. The title is not making a complete sense. A possible suggestion: “Remote sensing and Argo float observations reveal Physical processes initiating a winter-spring phytoplankton bloom south of the Kuroshio current near Shikoku”
2. Some detail about periodic bloom events in Shikoku in the introduction section would be great.
3. Line-17

In its first occurrence, an abbreviation should be explained (Chl-a)

4. Line-20

“Results show that higher (lower)….

What is the logic behind presenting an information in this way? Higher than what? Deeper than what?

Similar language has been used in line 270. This way of writing may confuse a reader.

5. Result and conclusion of this study is based on chl-a concentration determined using bio-argo method. However, as authors have mentioned in line204, this method is overestimating the concentration compared to the satellite observation. At least present the exponential function which was used for chl-a concentration adjustment.
6. Can we present a bigger figure for Figure 3, using the entire horizontal space to make it comprehensible?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

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

Dear Authors

this is my 3 round review. Your manuscript present a changes and looks better. However i note that you have some discussion/result in methodology. My recommendations is that you need move these lines in a discussion section. 

Please you need to make an evaluation about:

1.- "good correlation" (please check the IOCCG 2018 and 2019 references)

2.- use the linear equations like support by correlation coefficient (see my comment in line 258)

By another hand you Discussion not show changes, and the previous round i made the observation that you need add a discussion about the limitation and pros and cons to use a different spatial scale satellite products and in situ products.

Please you manuscript show potential...and this version is better ...but need observed some points more..

My specific observation are:

Line 91 is Chl-a = (Chl-91 a_fluorescence - Dark_Chl_a) Scale_Chl-a; Scale_Chl-a=0.0073; Dark_Chl-a=48. a equation? Please write in equation format and if you use more equation please add a equation number

Line 100 add space between concentration and (mg/m3)

Same line change (I0(einstein/m²/day)) add space .

Line 102 and 103 say The spatial and temporal resolutions of satellite products are daily and 1/24o, respectively. The spatial resolution of the GLOBAL products is 4 km…Satellite data were generated for three merging techniques (simple averaging, weighted averaging, GSM mode)  [17,18] ….you can rewrite

We use a Daily multisensory composite in GLOBAL 4 Km pixel size resolution. The multisensory imagery merging was building fallow the [17, 18]. consideration

Please check these lines with the lines 108-110 please re-write combination these ides

Same observation to line 112-113

Line 110 the http://hermes.acri.fr/ use the Hu et al [19] algorithm? Please check

Line 114 the Morel Algorithm  1997 no is to made a multisensory imagery….please you can update by Robert Frouin o Lee  kd 490 papers  

 Line 114-115 delete It is one indicator of the turbidity of  the water column

Line 114 you say “The number of matchups with in situ is significant [24]”. Is a result in methodology? Also, the reference 24 is no find could you add the doi. I not understand about the number of matchup….please check this test and you need take you decision based on a significance statistical test by the Pearson correlation coefficient and in matchup plot…please check the ioccg handbook … 

Lines 119 to 133 may be need move to discussion, however you need weigh what is the principal goal of the paragraph. Remember you are in methodology

Line 156 and 157 have different font size

Same line could you can change you ¼ degree to Km?

Line 160 you say …were extracted …do you use the 3x3 pixel boxes? (that is a regular approached (check the Mati Karu papers).

Line 166to 154 these are result and you are in methodology section.....please move this paragraph to result an please made a deep discussion about these result

Line 244 to 252 you are in methodology and this paragraph looks like discussion. Please move to discussion section

Line 256 change alpha critical values by Rcrit = 0.12(alpha = 0.05, n= 263). On this observation please consider use r_Pearson (rsubindexPearson) that made a clear difference by R**2 …so if you made his observation my recommendation will be use r_Pearsoncrit.

Line 257 IOCCG reports (you can see 2019 and 2018) recommend a god association values >0.7 to made association between Chla in situ vs Chla satellite …you report a <0.7… so please support you word “line 255 correlated well”

Line 258..why do you report a linear model? In fact what is you independent variable? Chla? Please note that you only need a correlation coefficient…when the factor order no change the result (check the Pearson coefficient algorithm…please erase the linear model that no have use or if you have the idea to keep ..please need be clear what is your goal to used..Chlainsitu=bo+b1Chlasat is not equal that Chlasat=bo+b1Chlainsitu…

Line 259 if the figure S4 is important…please consider add to the manuscript

Line 298….you say “which demonstrated a good correlation (R=0.54, alpha critical 298 values=0.12, alpha=0.05, n=263)”…please check the comment made in line 256 257.

In the two previous round I made the request that you need made a deep discussion about the made the comparation in different spatial scale….This new manuscript version the discussion section not have any change   

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has improved due to comments from other reviewers and I am satisfied with the changes authors have made. I only have a couple of small comments, these are in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Wang and co-authors have responded to my initial comments. The paper however requires further work to improve clarity in several sections and grammar throughout. The authors responses to initial comments are generally sufficient but one issue was only partially addressed. I maintain that this could be a useful contribution to the literature but the current structure of the paper needs attention .

Comments:

Title: The title appears grammatically incorrect. May I suggest “Physical processes initiating a Winter-spring phytoplankton bloom south of the Kuroshio Current from Remote Sensing and Argo float observations”

Line 18/19: Grammar

L32: Missing word (…increase in grazing…)

L87-90: Rewrite for clarity and simplicity

L92: The chl-a calibration equation seems to be incomplete or incorrectly written

L99-118: Valuable information has been added but the text is difficult to read and needs rewriting for clarity and simplicity. Data sources and reprocessing versions may best be presented in a table.

L119-133: There is information here that is unnecessary and/or relates to work undertaken by the data providers and not necessarily by the authors. I can’t tell if this has been added in response to another reviewers comments but it requires editing for clarity and simplicity.

L138: Grammar

L146-148: Sentence is unclear due to use of jargon and/or complex identification of model sources

L159: Unnecessary capitalization of wind

L179: Figures suggest that the mixed layer is associated with a standard deviation but this is not clear form the method description, not is it clear how different the two mixed layer estimates are or which may be more appropriate

L216-219: Unnecessary information on what the World Ocean Atlas is. If the authors wish to compare and contrast WOA13 and WOA18 for the study region (i.e. number of new profiles added to WOA18 compared to WOA13 then so be it, but this is irrelevant otherwise).

L264-270: Very unclear. Suggest rewrite for clarity

L332:’ DRH hypothesis’ is inaccurate terminology (technically this becomes ‘dilution recoupling hypothesis hypothesis’ when the abbreviation is spelt out in full)

Results and Discussion: The results section is very short whilst the discussion is overly long. The balance of results in the Results section and results in the Discussion is not quite right but I can see why the authors have pursued this approach.

Section 4.3: I appreciate the authors response but I maintain that this section is poorly integrated into the manuscript and could be better exploited elsewhere.

Eddies: As noted previously the argo float was trapped within an anticyclonic eddy. The new Figure S1 is a great addition and confirms this but also shows that the no comparable features were present in the immediate surrounding area. This reinforces my previous question (still unanswered) about the suitability of extrapolating results from within an eddy to a more general setting.  More specifically, physical conditions within the eddy would have included significant downwelling which would not have been representative of open waters and thus raises more fundamental questions about whether the DRH is limited to the eddy at the time of observation only or whether it is appropriate to consider the DRH representative of blooms south of the Kuroshio more generally. This is not addressed.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author

I read you reply file...

However I note that this manuscript version is very dirty. You have a several finger error, numeration errors, references errors . You not take your time to read this version.  And in this conditions the manuscript is not neat enough to be published in RS. This version does not show the sufficient care that a Q1 magazine deserves

The most disappointing thing for me was what is shown on lines 135 to 138 where you show one more time your strong confusion between Pearson Correlation Coefficient and Determination Coefficient (Check my first round observation). I believe that you are clear between the difference   

Same line also you say a good correlation ..please check my comments in 3 round…you need add a alpha values and critical values and n …My filling to read this line its that all you work and all my review are in the trash can.

I read only 500 lines, but those were enough to make my decision.

In the attached file you will find some specific observations

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

L101: Equation is still missing multiplication sign i.e. Chl-a = Fluorescence – Dark * scale

General corrections for grammar required throughout - mainly in recently edited text

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

We appreciate your advice very much; you have provided valuable comments and constructive suggestions to improve our manuscript. Your help has been acknowledged in our manuscript.

Chl-a = (Fluorescence _Chl-a- Dark _Chl-a) * Scale _Chl-a; Scale _Chl-a=0.0073; Dark _Chl-a=48  (1)

In addition, we have modified the grammar of the manuscript.