Copepod Diel Vertical Distribution in the Open Southern Adriatic Sea (NE Mediterranean) under Two Different Environmental Conditions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is an original research in the South Adriatic Sea, interesting and well written about the mesozooplankton community and the DVM under two different scenarios: June and February and 24 h cycle (6 times).
The abstract is well written, summarizing the results obtained inside, maybe can slightly be reduced.
The introduction it is nicely written where the authors show the state of the art of the copepod DVM and its main generalities in the Mediterranean as in others tropical and temperate worldwide latitudes, as well as the authors have a good knowledge of the study area in relation to the main goal of the ms which is clear defined
Material and methods is very clear the three different paragraphs. The sampling strategy was well designed with the 6 times in June and February. Besides, i would like to be clarified why the authors used a 250 µm mesh instead the 200 µm mesh, which is more used these days.
Results are well explained. Nevertheless in Figure 2 B it would be better to introduce both seasons instead only February, or at least to indicate why it was only one season in the figure.
In Figure 5 what was the criterion of the species presented because some of them indicated in the text were not shown in the figure. Clarify in the text
Discussion is good too and has been well reported
Below I include clear details for the authors to be corrected.
The abstract could be reduced and synthesize more. In line 17, I do not understand the word despite in the phrase. For me is unclear.
Methods are well indicated all the information behind.
Why in Figure 2 is not showed the meteorological conditions in June and only February in presented?
Line 152 correct the name Saphirrina by Sapphirina and the genus are not going in cursive
Results
Line 229 it should be written June instead July and include the units of Oxygen concentrations
Line 231 -3 as super index
Line 337 data not shown (P. abdominalis)
Line 339 E. acuta it should be indicated that this specie is not shown as well as Monacilla typica or S. longicornis or T. mayumbaensis
The symbols in Figure 6 are very small and difficult to see
In the discussion
Line 488 please explain better here is not shown any biomass just only abundance
Line 497 explain better the phrase
Line 616 explain better the concept o biomass here
Line 622 Change N. minor for other species since I do not believe is a deep copepod
References
At least (11) I did not find, please check it and maybe others
Figures
Figure 2B I would include the two seasons
Figure 5 indicate in the caption the criteria of the species included
Figure 6 the symbols are too small
Author Response
We thank reviewer for the important suggestions. The specific answers to the comments are listed below.
Point 1: The abstract is well written, summarizing the results obtained inside maybe can slightly be reduced.
Response 1: change was made.
The introduction it is nicely written where the authors show the state of the art of the copepod DVM and its main generalities in the Mediterranean as in others tropical and temperate worldwide latitudes, as well as the authors have a good knowledge of the study area in relation to the main goal of the ms which is clear defined
Point 2: Material and methods is very clear the three different paragraphs. The sampling strategy was well designed with the 6 times in June and February. Besides, i would like to be clarified why the authors used a 250 µm mesh instead the 200 µm mesh, which is more used these days.
Response 2: This is a general problem, because one mesh size cannot cover all of copepod and zooplankton size fractions in total. We emphasized this problem in the discussion (Lines 455-465) and we are aware of the underestimation of smaller copepod taxa. On the other hand, since the South Adriatic is an oligotrophic system and samples were taken in the open/deep sea with huge depth ranges, the coarser net with larger diameter allowed us to catch larger copepod species that can contribute significantly in such areas. Furthermore, the study of the mesh size effects on mesozooplankton community in the South Adriatic (Miloslavić et al., 2014) showed little or no significant difference in species richness and biodiversity between samples collected with different mesh sizes.
Point 3: Results are well explained. Nevertheless in Figure 2 B it would be better to introduce both seasons instead only February, or at least to indicate why it was only one season in the figure.
Response 3: we added an explanation in the Results.
Point 4: In Figure 5 what was the criterion of the species presented because some of them indicated in the text were not shown in the figure. Clarify in the text
Response 4: Response 18: we added the criteria, which are also mentioned in the first sentence of the chapter.
Discussion is good too and has been well reported.
Below I include clear details for the authors to be corrected.
Point 5: The abstract could be reduced and synthesize more. In line 17, I do not understand the word despite in the phrase. For me is unclear.
Response 5: the revision was made.
Methods are well indicated all the information behind.
Point 6: Why in Figure 2 is not showed the meteorological conditions in June and only February in presented?
Response 6: Meteorological conditions are important during winter isothermy when cold and dry Bura wind causes deep convection. The strength and duration of the wind in combination with low temperature influences the depth of the convection. During summer thermal-stratified conditions these effects are not present that is the reason why June meteorological conditions were not shown. We explained this better in the Results.
Point 7: Line 152 correct the name Saphirrina by Sapphirina and the genus are not going in cursive
Response 7: change was made
Results
Point 8: Line 229 it should be written June instead July and include the units of Oxygen concentrations
Response 8: changes were made
Point 9: Line 231 -3 as super index
Response 9: change was made
Point 10: Line 337 data not shown (P. abdominalis)
Line 339 E. acuta it should be indicated that this specie is not shown as well as Monacilla typica or S. longicornis or T. mayumbaensis
Response 10: we indicated that species were not shown in Figure.
Point 11: The symbols in Figure 6 are very small and difficult to see
Response 11: we enlarged the symbols in Figure 6.
In the discussion
Point 12: Line 488 please explain better here is not shown any biomass just only abundance
Response 12: change was made
Point 13: Line 497 explain better the phrase
Response 13: change was made
Point 14: Line 616 explain better the concept o biomass here
Response 14: change was made
Point 15: Line 622 Change N. minor for other species since I do not believe is a deep copepod
Response 15: the two of the copepod species have the same abbreviation: Nannocalanus minor and Neomormonilla minor. In this case we refer to Neomormonilla minor, which is a deep sea copepod, and was found up to the surface layer in February samples. We replaced the abbreviation with the full name of the species to avoid confusion. The change was also made in Figure 6. We thank reviewer for the important notice.
References
Point 16: At least (11) I did not find, please check it and maybe others
Response 16: we used Zotero program and additionally all citations were manually checked.
Figures
Point 17: Figure 2B I would include the two seasons
Response 17: we explained better in text why the only one season is included
Point 18: Figure 5 indicate in the caption the criteria of the species included
Response 18: we added the criteria, which are also mentioned in the first sentence of the chapter.
Point 19: Figure 6 the symbols are too small
Response 19: we enlarged the symbols in Figure 6.
Reviewer 2 Report
There are many areas where the context and English usage could be improved. Line 24 migrants = migrant
Line36 vertical migration = vertically migrating
Line50 permanence = presence
Line 51 ascent = ascend
Line 59 In =In the
Line 65 omit i.e.
Line 74 including eleven = including an eleven
The first two paragraphs in the Materials and Methods section shoul be moved to the Introduction
Line 524 found = find
Author Response
We thank reviewer for the important suggestions. The specific answers to the comments are listed below.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Point 1: There are many areas where the context and English usage could be improved. Line 24 migrants = migrant
Response 1: we additionally hired a native English speaker to edit us our manuscript, the changes were made through the manuscript
Point 2: Line36 vertical migration = vertically migrating
Response 2: change was made
Point 3: Line50 permanence = presence
Response 3: change was made
Point 4: Line 51 ascent = ascend
Response 4: after English editing we left ascent
Point 5: Line 59 In =In the
Response 5: change was made
Point 6: Line 65 omit i.e.
Response 6: change was made
Point 7: Line 74 including eleven = including an eleven
Response 7: change was made
Point 8: The first two paragraphs in the Materials and Methods section should be moved to the Introduction
Response 8: We are of the opinion that the description of the research area is very important for the interpretation of our results so we have put it as a separate chapter of Material and Methods. If it is possible we would like to leave it that way because then the introduction would be too long and thematically separate from biological knowledge. Certainly, if the reviewer insists, we will listen to her/his advice.
Point 9: Line 524 found = find
Response 9: change was made
