Habitat Shift for Plankton: The Living Side of Benthic-Pelagic Coupling in the Mar Piccolo of Taranto (Southern Italy, Ionian Sea)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors, I would like to see major revision to improve the quality of the manuscript. The followings are my comments and suggestions.
Title:
The title is not clear. "Benthic-pelagic coupling" for what? The title must be modified with a clear scientific topic or research question.
Abstract
1. The objective of this study and the conclusion of this work are missing.
2. It seems that your research question and your experimental / survey approaches are too vague to provide interesting information yo readers.
3. The results are not clearly presented.
4. The abstract needs to be rewritten with a clear and logic structure
Introduction
1. The research objective and scientific question of this study are not clear enough.
2. I would like to suggest setting a hypothesis or hypotheses for testing.
Materials and Method
1. The map quality is low. Please provide a clear map or revise the map with clear land and ocean ecosystem distinction (such as using different color). You should add a scale and a compass.
2. The Experimental design and Sampling Procedures seem not to be well structured in these two sections. Revise them with a logic structure.
3. Data Analysis is missing. A detail introduction of data analysis must be provided. That can be related to the suggested hypotheses.
Results
- Tables 2 and 3 that show raw data should be moved to appendix.
- Figures 3-10 seems not helpful to provide useful information to readers to clearly understand your results' patterns.
- Overall, the results are poorly presented.
Discussion
1. In Discussion: the first paragraph should introduce your main finding of this study.
2. Then, following parts are discussion of different topics with subtitles.
Conclusion: A Conclusion section should be added.
It would be better to have a paragraph for solid conclusion of this study, that is related to your research / scientific question.
Author Response
Please see the attachment for the point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Review of Benthic-pelagic coupling in the Mar Piccolo of Taranto (southern Italy, Mediterranean Sea): data for Resurrection Ecology. submitted to Water.
This paper by Rubino and Belmonte describes phyto- and zoo-plankton population of the water column, sediment traps, inverted, and sediment core, too asses the contribution of cysts to the sediment and cyst germination to the living plantkon population. A winter and summer time period were compared. Quite a comprehensive sampling regime is used. The purpose of this study is to determine the contribution of cysts in the sediment bank to pelagic population.
This determination the contribution of cysts to the pelagic population is a difficult undertaking and it is clear the authors have attempted to account for differences in sampling methods but the methods, and in particular the calculation and analysis is not well described, and I am unclear how the differences are taken into account.
general comments:
the discussion is not as well written as the rest of the manuscript, I found some aspects difficult to follow. Careful consideration of the language is needed.
The title doesn't really suit the manuscript, it is not just 'data for Resurrection Ecology' but a plankton population study.
A style issue: I don't think dot-points should be used in the discussion. As used here towards the end of the conclusion of the discussion.
Future research: single-cell sequencing would assist in linking the identity of cysts to pelagic species.
Figure 10b and c is blank.
Lines 212 - 217: some more details on the method for calculating the measurment unit would be helpful. This is a bit vague and I'm not clear if it accounts for the difficulties in the differences between the sediment samples and pelagic samples.
Details are missing in the methods for the volume of the Niskin Bottles and plankton tows.
Figure 1 is unclear for anyone not familiar with the area. Colour or shading of the land or ocean would help to differentiate the land.
Author Response
Please see the attachment for the point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
In my opinion, the Authors have done an excellent job on a subject that is still little addressed and referring to a basin that has high peculiarities from an ecological, morphological and oceanographic point of view.
However, the main observations are:
1. a greater detail in the description of the study area in relation to the ecological aspects. In the text Authors reported about dystrophic crises occurring cyclically and Figure 1 shows that there are mussel farms in the area, but there are no details about it. In my opinion it can help to better understand the importance of understanding the exchange flows between the benthos and the pelagic.
2. the supplementary materials are loaded but are not visible from reviewer and many results are reported in the suppl. mat. For this reason, the work must be reviewed. It is also necessary to review the figures that are often not clearly visible or are empty.
Small revisions, comments, suggestions are reported in the attached text.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment for the point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
- The new title is much better.
- I suggest that authors can link to title "Habitat shift for plankton: the living side of benthic-pelagic coupling with data for Resurrection Ecology" and the parts of Introduction (Paragraphs 2, 3, 4) to build a conceptual model / framework as a new figure for this study. The conceptual model / framework figure for this project can be added at the end of the introduction.
- With the new conceptual framework, your conclusion can also link to the main points / processes in the framework for strengthening your findings and summary.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments so much.
We have revised our manuscript according to your comments.
Please check the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The new revision now has a good shape for publication.
