Assessing the Extinction Risk of Heterocypris incongruens (Crustacea: Ostracoda) in Climate Change with Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review
Paper title: Assessing the Extinction Risk of Heterocypris incongruens (Crustacea: Ostracoda) in Climate Change with Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis.
The authors simulated the egg bank dynamics of different clonal lineages of the freshwater ostracod Heterocypris incongruens from Northern and Southern Italy under different climatic regimes: current and possible (after climate change). They investigated the potential role of different factors under climate change on the extinction rates of different clones and predicted the colonization of northern habitats by southern clones due to a shift in environmental conditions. The results of this study may have important implications for the management of freshwater bodies as well as modeling and forecasting ecological systems.
All these reasons explain the relevance of the paper by Nicolò Bellin and co-authors submitted to "Water".
General scores.
The data presented by the authors are original and significant. All conclusions are justified and supported by the results. The study is correctly designed and technically sounds. In general, the statistical analyses are performed with good technical standards. We authors conducted careful work which will attract the attention of a wide range of specialists focused on the aquatic monitoring, modeling and exploration.
Specific comments.
L 43-44. This sentence is the same as above (L 41-42).
L 58. Change “local extinction” to “to local extinction”
L 65. Change “maximum” to “a maximum”
L 66. Change “minimum” to “a minimum”
L 78. Change “varies depending” to “vary depending”
L 95. Change “importance factors” to “importance of factors”
L 117. Change “because, usually, the climate is defined” to “because the climate usually is defined”
L 119. Change “platform” to “the platform of”
L 120-121. Change “a period of time of 30 years” to “a 30-year period”. The authors suggested a 30-year period but the period from 2020 to 2050 includes 31 years. Please, check
L 152. Change “in term” to “in terms”
L 157. Change “seems unaffected” to “seems to be unaffected”
L 198. Change “probability” to “the probability”
L 217. Change “probability” to “the probability”
L 226. Change “probability” to “the probability”
L 228. Change “Probability” to “The probability”
L 229. Change “data with” to “data with the”
L 267. Change “In panel (A) is reported” to “Panel (A) shows”
L 269. Change “In panel (B) is reported” to “Panel (B) shows”
L 270. Change “y-axes” to “y-axis”
L 271. Change “y-axes” to “y-axis”
L 313. Change “were computed” to “computed”
L 313. Change “hatching” to “the hatching”
L 317. Change “main effect” to “the main effect”
L 317-318. Change “main effect” to “the main effect”
L 323. Change “first” to “the first”
L 332. Change “total” to “the total”
L 337. Change “Total” to “The total”
L 346. Change “hatching” to “the hatching”
L 352-356. I suggest deleting these two sentences.
L 356. Change “the population” to “population”
L 361. Change “Difference” to “The difference”
L 370. Change “winter months” to “the winter months”
L 376. Change “probability” to “the probability”
L 386. Change “high production” to “the high production”
L 409. Change “number of resting eggs produced per female (Y) was” to “numbers of resting eggs produced per female (Y) were”
L 417. Change “considered an” to “considered a”
L 423. Change “work found” to “work demonstrated”
L 430. " Daphnia" should be italicized.
L 431. Change “a "very wet"” to “"very wet"”
L 433. Change “create a mismatch which” to “creates a mismatch that”
L 443. Change “less” to “fewer”
L 453. Change “probability” to “the probability”
L 463. Change “is independent” to “are independent”
L 471. Change “egg bank” to “an egg bank”
L 484. Change “an hydroperiod” to “a hydroperiod”
L 486. Change “work” to “study”
L 487-488. " H. incongruens" should be italicized.
L 495-505. Should be formatted as "5. Conclusion"
L 608. "Siphonophanes grubii" should be italicized.
L 612. "Heterocypris incongruens" should be italicized.
L 625. "Heterocypris incongruens" should be italicized.
L 626. "Heterocypris incongruens" should be italicized.
L 627. "Heterocypris incongruens" should be italicized.
L 629. "Heterocypris" should be italicized.
L 632. "Heterocypris incongruens" should be italicized.
L 634. " Heterocypris barbara" should be italicized.
L 636. "Heterocypris incongruens" should be italicized.
L 683. "Heterocypris incongruens" should be italicized.
L 692. " Colias butterflies" should be italicized.
L 703. "Heterocypris incongruens" should be italicized.
L 707. " Branchipus schaefferi" should be italicized.
L 712. " Heterocypris barbara" should be italicized.
L 715. " Daphnia-Simocephalus" should be italicized.
Author Response
Paper title: Assessing the Extinction Risk of Heterocypris incongruens (Crustacea: Ostracoda) in Climate Change with Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis.
The authors simulated the egg bank dynamics of different clonal lineages of the freshwater ostracod Heterocypris incongruens from Northern and Southern Italy under different climatic regimes: current and possible (after climate change). They investigated the potential role of different factors under climate change on the extinction rates of different clones and predicted the colonization of northern habitats by southern clones due to a shift in environmental conditions. The results of this study may have important implications for the management of freshwater bodies as well as modeling and forecasting ecological systems.
All these reasons explain the relevance of the paper by Nicolò Bellin and co-authors submitted to "Water".
General scores.
The data presented by the authors are original and significant. All conclusions are justified and supported by the results. The study is correctly designed and technically sounds. In general, the statistical analyses are performed with good technical standards. We authors conducted careful work which will attract the attention of a wide range of specialists focused on the aquatic monitoring, modeling and exploration.
Specific comments.
L 43-44. This sentence is the same as above (L 41-42). Sorry, we deleted L 43-44.
L 58. Change “local extinction” to “to local extinction”. We did it.
L 65. Change “maximum” to “a maximum” We did it.
L 66. Change “minimum” to “a minimum” We did it.
L 78. Change “varies depending” to “vary depending” We did it.
L 95. Change “importance factors” to “importance of factors” We did it.
L 117. Change “because, usually, the climate is defined” to “because the climate usually is defined” We did it.
L 119. Change “platform” to “the platform of” We did it.
L 120-121. Change “a period of time of 30 years” to “a 30-year period”. The authors suggested a 30-year period but the period from 2020 to 2050 includes 31 years. Please, check. We considered 30 years of simulation, we rephrased.
srL 152. Change “in term” to “in terms” We did it.
L 157. Change “seems unaffected” to “seems to be unaffected” We did it.
L 198. Change “probability” to “the probability” We did it.
L 217. Change “probability” to “the probability” We did it.
L 226. Change “probability” to “the probability” We did it.
L 228. Change “Probability” to “The probability” We did it.
L 229. Change “data with” to “data with the” We did it.
L 267. Change “In panel (A) is reported” to “Panel (A) shows” We did it.
L 269. Change “In panel (B) is reported” to “Panel (B) shows” We did it.
L 270. Change “y-axes” to “y-axis” We did it.
L 271. Change “y-axes” to “y-axis” We did it.
L 313. Change “were computed” to “computed” We did it.
L 313. Change “hatching” to “the hatching” We did it.
L 317. Change “main effect” to “the main effect” We did it.
L 317-318. Change “main effect” to “the main effect” We did it.
L 323. Change “first” to “the first” We did it.
L 332. Change “total” to “the total We did it.”
L 337. Change “Total” to “The total” We did it.
L 346. Change “hatching” to “the hatching” We did it.
L 352-356. I suggest deleting these two sentences. We did it.
L 356. Change “the population” to “population” We did it.
L 361. Change “Difference” to “The difference” We did it.
L 370. Change “winter months” to “the winter months” We did it.
L 376. Change “probability” to “the probability” We did it.
L 386. Change “high production” to “the high production” We did it.
L 409. Change “number of resting eggs produced per female (Y) was” to “numbers of resting eggs produced per female (Y) were” We did it.
L 417. Change “considered an” to “considered a” We did it.
L 423. Change “work found” to “work demonstrated” We did it.
L 430. " Daphnia" should be italicized. We did it.
L 431. Change “a "very wet"” to “"very wet"” We did it.
L 433. Change “create a mismatch which” to “creates a mismatch that” We did it.
L 443. Change “less” to “fewer” We did it.
L 453. Change “probability” to “the probability” We did it.
L 463. Change “is independent” to “are independent” We did it.
L 471. Change “egg bank” to “an egg bank” We did it.
L 484. Change “an hydroperiod” to “a hydroperiod” We did it.
L 486. Change “work” to “study” We did it.
L 487-488. " H. incongruens" should be italicized. We did it.
L 495-505. Should be formatted as "5. Conclusion" We did it.
L 608. "Siphonophanes grubii" should be italicized. We did it.
L 612. "Heterocypris incongruens" should be italicized. We did it.
L 625. "Heterocypris incongruens" should be italicized. We did it.
L 626. "Heterocypris incongruens" should be italicized. We did it.
L 627. "Heterocypris incongruens" should be italicized. We did it.
L 629. "Heterocypris" should be italicized. We did it.
L 632. "Heterocypris incongruens" should be italicized. We did it.
L 634. " Heterocypris barbara" should be italicized. We did it.
L 636. "Heterocypris incongruens" should be italicized. We did it.
L 683. "Heterocypris incongruens" should be italicized. We did it.
L 692. " Colias butterflies" should be italicized. We did it for Colias.
L 703. "Heterocypris incongruens" should be italicized. We did it.
L 707. " Branchipus schaefferi" should be italicized. We did it.
L 712. " Heterocypris barbara" should be italicized. We did it.
L 715. " Daphnia-Simocephalus" should be italicized. We did it.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
No comments
Author Response
Thank you for your comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
[Water] Manuscript ID: water-1230794
Title: Extinction risk of H. incongruens
Referee’s Report
An interesting ms and one which I think makes a nice contribution to the science of predicting the effects of climate change. I have put a number of specific points below, but the only other comment I would make would be to put in some clear statements about the covariance among factors/cues. I was surprised not to see some sort of multivariate analysis (e.g. something like the PRIMER BEST routine) where this might be tested and this might also be a stronger way of highlighting the strongest and most influential factors. I did also find the various Figures quite difficult to read and even confusing in places – see comments below, and perhaps some concluding Table or even a few bullet-points in the Discussion might help simplify what is quite a complicated picture.
A couple of style points in that the practice is to write in the 3rd person rather than ‘we’, and an apostrophe is needed for phrases such as ‘species’ response’.
|
Line |
Comment |
|
11 |
. . .resting eggs have been evolved . . . ? The eggs don’t evolve |
|
45 |
Organisms, such as crustaceans, that live . . . . |
|
113 |
Need some ref(s) for these studies |
|
179,182 |
Two slightly different definitions of H (and D) are given here: a fraction is not the same as a rate. Clarify. |
|
271-3 |
Why is the CV important enough to be included in this Fig? Not mentioned in accompanying text so ?? |
|
292-6 (and text) |
Do we need both A and B since they essentially say the same thing? Does ‘insignificant’ mean ‘not significant’ (statistical definition)? Does ‘0.2’ mean exactly 0.2 or 0.4< but >0.01 ? |
|
351-366 |
This belongs better in Intro and a couple of sentences - if needed – would suffice here |
|
377-384 |
Is this not simply re-stating Results? |
|
387-90 |
Is this speculation or based on Results? Justify. |
|
410 et seq |
This is an interesting discussion around reproductive output: are all eggs the same size/calorific content? Is there any qualitative difference in eggs (?lipid?) across the various types? |
|
430 |
Daphnia (ital.) |
|
431 |
a |
|
435 |
Which less accurate cue? Not clear exactly what you mean here. It’s the detection which is less accurate not the cue? |
|
440 |
S clones (see line 437) (see also lines 451, 453 and others) |
|
456-8 |
Can this sentence by clarified? Are you saying that single factors (one single factor?) become(s) more important and interactions less? See also comment above about multivariate analyses and covariance |
|
501-3 |
Are you saying the eggs themselves move? Re-word? |
Author Response
Referee’s Report
An interesting ms and one which I think makes a nice contribution to the science of predicting the effects of climate change. I have put a number of specific points below, but the only other comment I would make would be to put in some clear statements about the covariance among factors/cues. I was surprised not to see some sort of multivariate analysis (e.g. something like the PRIMER BEST routine) where this might be tested and this might also be a stronger way of highlighting the strongest and most influential factors. I did also find the various Figures quite difficult to read and even confusing in places – see comments below, and perhaps some concluding Table or even a few bullet-points in the Discussion might help simplify what is quite a complicated picture.
Altough the multivariate framework is a powerful tool to investigate the factors importance, we used the sensitivity analysis methods to highligth the overall behaviour of the model. The sensitivity analysis methods are particular suited for law driven models. These particular methods allow
- To dentify noninfluential factors in the model output (factor fixing Morris method)
- To quantify and highlight the strength of interactions between factors in particular region of the model output (in our case extinction rate).
- To quantify the importance, in the model output, of a single factor and the higher level interaction terms among factors, using variance based partioning method (Sobol’).
This analysis help to disentangle the nature of the response over the whole factor space with re-sampling tecqniques.
(Saltelli et al., 2004; Marino et al., 2008; Saltelli et al., 2010, Convertino et al., 2014)
A couple of style points in that the practice is to write in the 3rd person rather than ‘we’, and an apostrophe is needed for phrases such as ‘species’ response’.
Thank you for the suggestion, we checked and did it.
|
Line |
Comment |
|
11 |
. . .resting eggs have been evolved . . . ? The eggs don’t evolve We rephrased |
|
45 |
Organisms, such as crustaceans, that live. We changed. |
|
113 |
Need some ref(s) for these studies We added the ref. study |
|
179,182 |
Two slightly different definitions of H (and D) are given here: a fraction is not the same as a rate. Clarify. We changed. |
|
271-3 |
Why is the CV important enough to be included in this Fig? Not mentioned in accompanying text so ?? Please, note that in the text (Lines 133-134) we reported that: “To assess the hydroperiod unpredictability, we used the coefficient of variation of water balance [33].” |
|
292-6 (and text) |
Do we need both A and B since they essentially say the same thing? Please, note that panels A and B refers to present and climate change conditions, respectively. Moreover, actually they do nor say the same thing. Does ‘insignificant’ mean ‘not significant’ (statistical definition)? Actually, insignificant is used in regionalised sensitivity analysis according to Saltelli et al. (2004). Does ‘0.2’ mean exactly 0.2 or 0.4< but >0.01 ? According to the comment above, we produced an heatmap to better highlight the result. |
|
351-366 |
This belongs better in Intro and a couple of sentences - if needed – would suffice here See above, we deleted two sentences. |
|
377-384 |
Is this not simply re-stating Results? Yes, it is. In our opinion, restating results makes the discussion clearer. |
|
387-90 |
Is this speculation or based on Results? Justify. It is our consideration based on the result of the factor fixing. |
|
410 et seq |
This is an interesting discussion around reproductive output: are all eggs the same size/calorific content? Is there any qualitative difference in eggs (?lipid?) across the various types? We do not have any data on caloric content and qualitative differences among the eggs of different clones. Our consideration is based only on the number / proportion of resting eggs produced by each clone. |
|
430 |
Daphnia (ital.) We did it |
|
431 |
a We did it |
|
435 |
Which less accurate cue? Not clear exactly what you mean here. It’s the detection which is less accurate not the cue? Sorry, you are right, we change accordingly. |
|
440 |
S clones (see line 437) (see also lines 451, 453 and others). We used the terms S clones, or winter clones or southern clones L to refer, collectively, to clone S1 and clone S2, or to clone W1 and clone W2 or to clonal lineages L from Lampedusa. |
|
456-8 |
Can this sentence by clarified? Are you saying that single factors (one single factor?) become(s) more important and interactions less? See also comment above about multivariate analyses and covariance According to global sensitivity analysis (GSA), in climate change conditions, the importance of single factors and the reduction of interaction among factors were observed. |
|
501-3 |
Are you saying the eggs themselves move? Re-word? We re-word the sentence: “Southern winter clonal lineages L, showing intermediate extinction rates, should successfully colonize northern temporary ponds, by passive migration as resting eggs.” |
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
