Checklist and Distribution of Calanoida (Crustacea: Copepoda) in Kazakhstan (Central Asia)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript on the Calanoida fauna of Kazakhstan is quite interesting for carcinologists. Information about distribution and biogeographically patterns of Calanoida fauna throug the different provinces of this sector of central Palearctic are very valuable for understanding of the dispersal ways and global diversity of Copepods. 
The text is well-written, in my opinion (but I being no English native speaker). However, small orthographical and stylistic errors still presented. Therefore, authors should carefully check the manuscript and make corrections. The «Introduction» is informative, giving a good insight about Calanoida fauna of Kazakhstan. 
I recommend a number of corrections to the manuscript.

Abstract
It is not clear what the authors mean when write in Abstract: "Findings of 26 species of Calanoida have been documented for the first time". In 2018 was published the book: Krupa, E.G., Dobrokhotova, O.V., Stuge, T.S. Fauna Calanoida (Crustacea, Copepoda) of Kazakhstan and Adjacent Territories; Etalon Print: Almaty, Kazakhstan, 2016; 208p, ISBN 978-601-80265-8-4., all mentioned 26 species  (except for Eurytemora caspica) were documented here or in earlier publications. The wording "documented for the first time" should be deleted.

Materials and Methods
Statistical analysis of data should be transfered in a separate section of  Materials and Methods. The graphical method used for illustration the similarities of the compared regions (Figure 2), in my opinion, is not informative enough. I recommend the authors use non-metric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) or cluster analysis based on the values of the Bray-Curtis index for the same purposes.

Results
1. In Table 3 important to indicate the ranges types of all species (endemic, cosmopolite, Central-Asian, etc.). Characteristic of the Calanoida fauna of Kazakhstan on the basis of species ranges should be added.
2. It is necessary to additionally explain how the potential possible number of species in the genera was estimated (Table 4)? It is intuitively clear that these are the species that are noted only in old literary sources and were not found by the authors of the manuscript themselves. But this needs to be formulated more well-defined. 
3. It will be good in the Results to describe in more details the Calanoida fauna changes on salinity and altitude gradients in Kazakhstan. Authors should  statistically demonstrate the change of fauna along these gradients with the presentation of specific values of heights and mineralization. Such information is very important for analyzing the distribution patterns of this taxonomic group.
4. It is not clear why on Figure 2 there is no comparison with the arid regions of Russia, although there is a comparison with another large country, China? At the same time, comparison with fauna of Russia is presence in Table 5. Similarity analysis of arid regions should include Russia too.
5. The type of graphic presentation of similarity between different regions (Figure 2) is not the most common and convenient, in my opinion. I recommend the authors use nMDS or cluster analysis (see recommendation to Materials and Methods).

Discussion

Information about ranges structure of Kazakhstan Calanoida and variability of their fauna on salinity and altitude gradients should be added.

Conclusion (and Abstract too) should be updated according to the changes in the Results and Discussion parts. 

I recommend this manuscript for publication in journal «Water» after minor revision.

Author Response

Dea reviewer,

We express our deep gratitude for your comments and suggestions regardin our manuscript. Please fnd our answers in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript by Krupa and Aubakirova is a synoptical contribute to the knowledge of the calanoid fauna of Kazachstan. 

Such a contribute is very important, since it makes available to a wide audience most information, which is nowadays mostly published in Russian and\or in grey literature, and thus is difficult to access for non-Russian readers.

Accordingly, I support its publication. The only "major" flaw of the manuscript is some confusion reported in the abstract. The species reported as "new for the country" or "new to Science" were actually already published, so that they cannot be claimed as "new" in the frame of present paper. Accordingly, the abstract needs to be slightly re-arranged.

In addition, according to the ICZN, the authorship of the species should be desirably followed by the year of description of each taxon. The authors might consider to amend the text accordingly.

I am attaching an annotated version of the pdf file, where a number of minor amendments and corrections is reported. Please, consider all of them carefully. If something is not clear, please do not hesitate to contact me again through the editorial board of the Journal. I will be happy to further provide my support, if needed.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

We express our deep gratitude for your comments and suggestions regarding our manuscript. Please find our response in the attachment.

Thank you again!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf