Physical and Biochemical Responses to Sequential Tropical Cyclones in the Arabian Sea
, Fajin Chen 2, Shuwen Zhang 1,*, Jiayi Pan 3, Adam T. Devlin 3, Hao Ning 2 and Weiqiang Zeng 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper presents solid research on physical and biochemical responses to sequential tropical cyclones in the Arabian Sea. The paper is well structured and written. The result analysis and discussions are promising. I recommend the paper be accepted and published after making a few minor edits (mostly about formatting).
General: In all equations, usually it’s normal to use italic font for variables.
General: There should be a space between ‘Figure’ and its number. Please double check this in the manuscript.
Page 5, Line 149: ‘Tab1’ may be removed?
Page 5, Line 178-180: Maybe use ‘{’ for the three different conditions
Page 6, Line 192: Format issue for first line
Page 6, Line 203: ‘0’ should be subscript
Page 6, Line 205: Maybe no need to repeat ‘Figure. 1’ many times in the same paragraph
Page 10, Line 315: extra space
Page 10, Line 321: add space after ‘2’
Page 11, Line 352: add space after ‘4’
Page 11, Line 379: add space after ‘1’
Page 13, Line 409: remove ‘.’
Page 14, Line 457: ‘Discussion’ is redundant???
Page 16, Line 513: ‘Combined with’ or ‘Combing’?
Page 16, Line 536-541: The font of this paragraph is different from the rest of the manuscript. There is an extra ‘Conclusions’ in line 541.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I found the paper by Wang et al. very well written and very informative. It seems that this paper is already at a second round of review.
I am not an in-depth specialist of this subfield, but the contents are clearly exposed, and the scientific conclusions sound.
My only complaint is about the descriptive-only approach of the paper. I ask the authors to propose, at least, and in no more than an additional section or paragraph, a sketch (and only a sketch) of a mathematical model in the form output=model(inputs)that could relate the phytoplankton blooms (output) to a set of causal parameters (inputs) where model can be determined by a regression or some kind of neural network, or anything pertinent.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The proposed study analyzes the physical and biological impact of the passage of a tropical cyclone. I is an interesting work but it is written in an incomprehensible mode, the quality of the figure is very low and there are many grammatical errors. All this is not allowed an adequate evaluation of the card. I suggest re-evaluating the papers after major reviews.
generale suggestions
1) The quality of the figures is extremely low. It is impossible to analyze.
In these conditions the figures are not representative. The first figure I do not understand what it is.
All the other figures are deformed and it is not easy to read them. If they are not fully improved the card cannot be revised. In figure 3 the images are very small and it is not clear what they represent. In general, the figures need to be improved, fonts larger, labels more descriptive and visible, figures larger.
2) The as of the figures are very short. In this way the reader not only does not understand what the figure is, but does not even have an accurate description. It is essential to expand yours a lot.
3) I suggest having the article reviewed by a native speaker. Many terms are wrong.
4) I will be happy to review the article when these points are resolved, so that you have a clearer view of the quality of the article.
5) The authors used CMEMS modeling data, I suggest to expand the description of this dataset.
6) Are there grammatical errors in the images, for example in figure 13 "turbluent" I suppose it is "turbulent"?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
A study of the dominant phytoplankton biomass processes in response to two TCs in the North Indian ocean is presented.
Authors must clearly highlight in the introductory section the aims of their study and, above all, the importance of remote sensing data and processing in this research.
In a subsequent paragraph (named, for example, Related work ") recent research in related literature should be presented.
In paragraph 2.4 "methods" the methods adopted must be described in a more structured way. I suggest adopting a description by phases or processes in order to sequentially highlight the methods adopted in this study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors, thanks for the revisions made. More tips below:
1) Figure 1 is unclear. It is also in "16:9" format. That is, it is stretched horizontally (you can also see from the fonts on the image, they are squashed). The writings on this figure are almost illegible. I have seen the supplementary material, but in the figure it retains the same problems: squeezed horizontally, very small fonts and signs (stars and dots), it is generally not readable, unclear. It should absolutely be improved.
2) Figure 3. Again, the figure proposed in the supplementary material does not change much. In this figure it is not possible to interpret the data. I suggest you divide it into 2-3 figures or much larger panels. In this way it is not representative of the data you are displaying and the reader does not derive any benefit from this figure.
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.
We have redrawn Figures 1 and 3
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors took into account all my suggestions, correctly structuring the introductory section and describing in depth the proposed method. I consider this paper publishable in the current form.
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.
During the first round of review, the manuscript was reviewed by American Journal Experts (https://www.aje.com/). This manuscript, titled "Physical and biochemical responses to sequential tropical cyclones in the Arabian Sea," was edited for grammar, phrasing, and punctuation.
If the manuscript still has English writing problems, please give your valuable comments and suggestions
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 rPearson (rsubindexPearson) that made a clear difference by R**2 …so if you made his observation my recommendation will be use rPearsoncrit.
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.
