Nitrogen and Phosphorous Retention in Tropical Eutrophic Reservoirs with Water Level Fluctuations: A Case Study Using Mass Balances on a Long-Term Series
, Martín Merino-Ibarra 2,*, Jorge A. Ramírez-Zierold 3, Sergio F. Castillo-Sandoval 2, Gloria Vilaclara-Fatjó 4, Andrea P. Guzmán-Arias 1, Miroslav Macek 4, Rocío J. Alcántara-Hernández 5, Salvador Sánchez-Carrillo 6, Patricia M. Valdespino-Castillo 7, Arantxa Sacristán-Ramírez 8, José G. Quintanilla-Terminel 1, Emiliano Monroy-Ríos 1, Julio Díaz-Valenzuela 1, Julio A. Lestayo-González 1, Oscar A. Gerardo-Nieto 2 and Roberto González-De Zayas 9
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review for the paper "Nitrogen and phosphorous mass balances show tropical eutrophic reservoirs behave as variable but persistent sinks of both elements: a case study using a long-term series to assess the effect of water level fluctuations" by Mariel Barjau-Aguilar, Martín Merino-Ibarra, Jorge A Ramírez-Zierold, Sergio F Castillo-Sandoval, Gloria Vilaclara-Fatjó, Andrea P Guzmán-Arias, Miroslav Macek, Rocío J Alcántara-Hernández, Salvador Sánchez-Carrillo, Patricia M Valdespino-Castillo, Arantxa Sacristán-Ramírez, José G Quintanilla-Termine, Emiliano Monroy-Ríos, Julio Díaz-Valenzuela, Julio A Lestayo-González, Oscar A Gerardo-Nieto, and Roberto González- De Zayas submitted to "Water".
General comment.
Nitrogen inputs to ecosystems have been increasing all over the world, stemming from food and energy production activities supporting the growing population. The changing nitrogen cycle and associated abundance of reactive nitrogen in the environment have been linked to many concerns, including the deterioration of air quality related to particulate matter and ground level ozone, disruption of forest ecosystem processes, acidification of lakes and streams, and degradation of coastal waters including high-profile water quality issues such as eutrophication, hypoxia, and harmful algal blooms. In this context, the role of denitrification is of utmost importance, as it is the only mechanism by which reactive forms of N in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems are transformed back into dinitrogen gas, which is the dominant component of the earth's atmosphere. Understanding factors controlling denitrification and its rates over space and time is crucial for quantifying the effects of human activity on the N cycle, and for managing and mItIgating the severe environmental consequences associated with N pollution. The authors used a long-term data set to complete a mass balance assessment for nitrogen and phosphorous in an important tropical eutrophic reservoir, Valle de Bravo, Mexico. The authors demonstrated the role of this water body in sinking nitrogen and phosphorous. They detected 3 periods with low, high and low water level variations and showed close correlations between N and P fluxes and water level changes. I think that this report expands our knowledge regarding the biogeochemistry of tropical water bodies and may be interesting for scientists dealing with hydrology and modeling of P and N budgets to reveal eutrophication patterns in aquatic systems. The authors used an adequate dataset and methods to collect the samples. Statistical methods seem to be valid and correctly used. The main results are illustrated with relevant Figures. Discussion is focused on the main findings. I recommend this paper for publication after minor revisions.
Main concerns.
The map of the study area (Fig. S1) should be presented in the main text, not in the supplementary material.
L 106-111. This text is more suitable for the Introduction section.
Specific remarks.
L 55. Consider replacing “Harrison et al. 2009b; Wollheim et al. 2008)” with “[9,10])”
L 72. Consider replacing “here use” with “we applied”
L 85. Consider replacing “mean surface area” with “a mean surface area”
L 90. Consider replacing “due to is” with “due to its”
L 89. Consider replacing “As many other” with “Like many other”
L 92. Consider replacing “nutrient” with “nutrients”
L 94. Consider replacing “Water arrives to” with “Water arrives in”
L 99. Consider replacing “VB is as a” with “VB is a”
L 104. Consider replacing “However, the effect” with “However, the effects”
L 107. Consider replacing “reservoirs” with “reservoir's”
L 115. Consider replacing “data base” with “database”
L 119. Consider replacing “drift buoy” with “drifting buoy”
L 125. Consider replacing “Using a” with “Using”
L 128. Consider replacing “until its analysis” with “until the analysis”
L 152. Consider replacing “since there no” with “since no”
L 177. Consider replacing “concentration” with “concentrations”
L 212. Consider replacing “Throughout the full” with “Throughout the whole”
L 216. Consider replacing “the rivers” with “the rivers' ”
L 226. Consider replacing “water-level patters” with “water-level periods”
L 238. Consider replacing “particularly during” with “particularly between”
L 251. Consider replacing “were also significant” with “was also significant”
L 253. Consider replacing “arriving to” with “arriving in”
L 255. Consider replacing “the full sampling period” with “the whole sampling period”
L 262. Consider replacing “Dashed line in top” with “The dashed line in the top”
L 273. Consider replacing “important” with “pronounced”
L 276. Consider replacing “those of during” with “those during”
L 288. Consider replacing “N loading to” with “N loading in”
L 303. Consider replacing “panel show” with “panel shows”
L 307. Consider replacing “The corresponds to a linear regression of this trend, together with its” with “They correspond to linear regressions together with their”
L 324. Consider replacing “related with” with “related to”
L 340. Consider replacing “associated to” with “associated with”
L 346. Consider replacing “is clearly stablished” with “is clearly established”
L 368. Consider replacing “higher that” with “higher than”
L 379. Consider replacing “activities on” with “activities in”
L 384. Consider replacing “base” with “basis”
L 386. Consider replacing “ecosystem,” with “ecosystem and”
L 408. Consider replacing “is about” with “is”
L 411. “with”. A citation seems to be missing here.
L 415. Consider replacing “asses” with “assess”
L 421. Consider replacing “for the full” with “for the whole”
L 422. Consider replacing “improvements on” with “improvements in”
L 425. Consider replacing “full water column” with “entire water column”
L 427. Consider replacing “as other” with “as others”
L 433. Consider replacing “fluxwas” with “flux was”
L 437. Consider replacing “among the years” with “over the years”
L 449. “Nostocales” should be italicized
L 452. Consider replacing “the increase of turbulence” with “an increase in turbulence”
L 454. “Cyclotella ocellata” should be italicized
L 458. Consider replacing “cladocerans and copepods assemblages” with “cladoceran and copepod assemblages”
L 465. Consider replacing “creating” with “creates”
L 473. Consider replacing “in water column” with “in the water column”
L 487. Consider replacing “The bigger decrease” with “The higher decrease”
L 491. Consider replacing “arise” with “raise”
L 496. Consider replacing “decrease on” with “decrease in”
L 511. Consider replacing “during a period the period” with “during the period”
Author Response
Review Report Form 1
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Review for the paper "Nitrogen and phosphorous mass balances show tropical eutrophic reservoirs behave as variable but persistent sinks of both elements: a case study using a long-term series to assess the effect of water level fluctuations" by Mariel Barjau-Aguilar, Martín Merino-Ibarra, Jorge A Ramírez-Zierold, Sergio F Castillo-Sandoval, Gloria Vilaclara-Fatjó, Andrea P Guzmán-Arias, Miroslav Macek, Rocío J Alcántara-Hernández, Salvador Sánchez-Carrillo, Patricia M Valdespino-Castillo, Arantxa Sacristán-Ramírez, José G Quintanilla-Termine, Emiliano Monroy-Ríos, Julio Díaz-Valenzuela, Julio A Lestayo-González, Oscar A Gerardo-Nieto, and Roberto González- De Zayas submitted to "Water".
General comment.
Nitrogen inputs to ecosystems have been increasing all over the world, stemming from food and energy production activities supporting the growing population. The changing nitrogen cycle and associated abundance of reactive nitrogen in the environment have been linked to many concerns, including the deterioration of air quality related to particulate matter and ground level ozone, disruption of forest ecosystem processes, acidification of lakes and streams, and degradation of coastal waters including high-profile water quality issues such as eutrophication, hypoxia, and harmful algal blooms. In this context, the role of denitrification is of utmost importance, as it is the only mechanism by which reactive forms of N in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems are transformed back into dinitrogen gas, which is the dominant component of the earth's atmosphere. Understanding factors controlling denitrification and its rates over space and time is crucial for quantifying the effects of human activity on the N cycle, and for managing and mitigating the severe environmental consequences associated with N pollution. The authors used a long-term data set to complete a mass balance assessment for nitrogen and phosphorous in an important tropical eutrophic reservoir, Valle de Bravo, Mexico. The authors demonstrated the role of this water body in sinking nitrogen and phosphorous. They detected 3 periods with low, high and low water level variations and showed close correlations between N and P fluxes and water level changes. I think that this report expands our knowledge regarding the biogeochemistry of tropical water bodies and may be interesting for scientists dealing with hydrology and modeling of P and N budgets to reveal eutrophication patterns in aquatic systems. The authors used an adequate dataset and methods to collect the samples. Statistical methods seem to be valid and correctly used. The main results are illustrated with relevant Figures. Discussion is focused on the main findings. I recommend this paper for publication after minor revisions.
General Response.
Dear reviewer, thank you for your kind and complete appreciation of our work, as well as for the precise and very useful suggestions, we feel the paper improved significantly with them.
Main concerns.
Point 1. The map of the study area (Fig. S1) should be presented in the main text, not in the supplementary material.
Response 1. We fully understand the reviewers concern, and have therefore now presented both Figure 1 and the study area in the main text instead of in the supplementary material
Point 2. L 106-111. This text is more suitable for the Introduction section.
Response 2. We agree, and have replaced this text in the Introduction section
Point 3. Specific remarks.
Response 3. We are thankful for these detailed suggestions on typing or grammatical errors, and have made the corrections suggested, except when indicated below.
L 55. Consider replacing “Harrison et al. 2009b; Wollheim et al. 2008)” with “[9,10])”
L 72. Consider replacing “here use” with “we applied”
L 85. Consider replacing “mean surface area” with “a mean surface area”
L 90. Consider replacing “due to is” with “due to its”
L 89. Consider replacing “As many other” with “Like many other”
L 92. Consider replacing “nutrient” with “nutrients”
L 94. Consider replacing “Water arrives to” with “Water arrives in”
L 99. Consider replacing “VB is as a” with “VB is a”
L 104. Consider replacing “However, the effect” with “However, the effects”
L 107. Consider replacing “reservoirs” with “reservoir's”
L 115. Consider replacing “data base” with “database”
L 119. Consider replacing “drift buoy” with “drifting buoy”
L 125. Consider replacing “Using a” with “Using”
L 128. Consider replacing “until its analysis” with “until the analysis”
L 152. Consider replacing “since there no” with “since no”
L 177. Consider replacing “concentration” with “concentrations”
L 212. Consider replacing “Throughout the full” with “Throughout the whole”
L 216. Consider replacing “the rivers” with “the rivers' ”
L 226. Consider replacing “water-level patters” with “water-level periods”
Response 3. L 226. We have preferred to retain “water-level patters”
L 238. Consider replacing “particularly during” with “particularly between”
L 251. Consider replacing “were also significant” with “was also significant”
L 253. Consider replacing “arriving to” with “arriving in”
Response 3. L 253. We have preferred to retain “arriving to”
L 255. Consider replacing “the full sampling period” with “the whole sampling period”
L 262. Consider replacing “Dashed line in top” with “The dashed line in the top”
L 273. Consider replacing “important” with “pronounced”
L 276. Consider replacing “those of during” with “those during”
L 288. Consider replacing “N loading to” with “N loading in”
Response 3. L 288. We have preferred to retain “N loading to”
L 303. Consider replacing “panel show” with “panel shows”
L 307. Consider replacing “The corresponds to a linear regression of this trend, together with its” with “They correspond to linear regressions together with their”
L 324. Consider replacing “related with” with “related to”
L 340. Consider replacing “associated to” with “associated with”
L 346. Consider replacing “is clearly stablished” with “is clearly established”
L 368. Consider replacing “higher that” with “higher than”
L 379. Consider replacing “activities on” with “activities in”
L 384. Consider replacing “base” with “basis”
L 386. Consider replacing “ecosystem,” with “ecosystem and”
L 408. Consider replacing “is about” with “is”
L 411. “with”. A citation seems to be missing here.
Response 3. L 411. We are thankful for pointing out this incongruency. We have added the text that had been left out, son now the line makes sense.
L 415. Consider replacing “asses” with “assess”
L 421. Consider replacing “for the full” with “for the whole”
L 422. Consider replacing “improvements on” with “improvements in”
L 425. Consider replacing “full water column” with “entire water column”
L 427. Consider replacing “as other” with “as others”
L 433. Consider replacing “fluxwas” with “flux was”
L 437. Consider replacing “among the years” with “over the years”
L 449. “Nostocales” should be italicized
L 452. Consider replacing “the increase of turbulence” with “an increase in turbulence”
L 454. “Cyclotella ocellata” should be italicized
L 458. Consider replacing “cladocerans and copepods assemblages” with “cladoceran and copepod assemblages”
L 465. Consider replacing “creating” with “creates”
L 473. Consider replacing “in water column” with “in the water column”
L 487. Consider replacing “The bigger decrease” with “The higher decrease”
L 491. Consider replacing “arise” with “raise”
L 496. Consider replacing “decrease on” with “decrease in”
L 511. Consider replacing “during a period the period” with “during the period”
Submission Date
13 May 2022
Date of this review
23 May 2022 08:05:21
Authors revision
23 June 2022
We are very thankful to the reviewer for the precise and very useful suggestions, we feel the paper improved significantly with them.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The research paper has some innovative and key findings, which may significantly contribute into the scholarly literature. However, there are some major issues, which need to be corrected before it reaches to the standard of publication.
1. The abstract does not work well. An abstract should address these concerns: what are you trying to do, why, what you found and what is the significance of your findings. Should be more outcome oriented. Please avoid the abbreviations in the abstract. Rewrite and improve.
2. In Introduction section, the review of literature needs more updating with more recent references/works as to have a clear and concise state of the art analysis. This should more clearly show the knowledge gaps identified and link them to the paper goals.
3. The novelty and contribution are missing in the paper. Please properly describe in the introduction section.
4. The notations used should be rechecked.
5. The writing is recommended to be improved.
6. The conclusion section is missing in the manuscript. Please add it.
Author Response
Review Report Form 1
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Review for the paper "Nitrogen and phosphorous mass balances show tropical eutrophic reservoirs behave as variable but persistent sinks of both elements: a case study using a long-term series to assess the effect of water level fluctuations" by Mariel Barjau-Aguilar, Martín Merino-Ibarra, Jorge A Ramírez-Zierold, Sergio F Castillo-Sandoval, Gloria Vilaclara-Fatjó, Andrea P Guzmán-Arias, Miroslav Macek, Rocío J Alcántara-Hernández, Salvador Sánchez-Carrillo, Patricia M Valdespino-Castillo, Arantxa Sacristán-Ramírez, José G Quintanilla-Termine, Emiliano Monroy-Ríos, Julio Díaz-Valenzuela, Julio A Lestayo-González, Oscar A Gerardo-Nieto, and Roberto González- De Zayas submitted to "Water".
General comment.
Nitrogen inputs to ecosystems have been increasing all over the world, stemming from food and energy production activities supporting the growing population. The changing nitrogen cycle and associated abundance of reactive nitrogen in the environment have been linked to many concerns, including the deterioration of air quality related to particulate matter and ground level ozone, disruption of forest ecosystem processes, acidification of lakes and streams, and degradation of coastal waters including high-profile water quality issues such as eutrophication, hypoxia, and harmful algal blooms. In this context, the role of denitrification is of utmost importance, as it is the only mechanism by which reactive forms of N in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems are transformed back into dinitrogen gas, which is the dominant component of the earth's atmosphere. Understanding factors controlling denitrification and its rates over space and time is crucial for quantifying the effects of human activity on the N cycle, and for managing and mitigating the severe environmental consequences associated with N pollution. The authors used a long-term data set to complete a mass balance assessment for nitrogen and phosphorous in an important tropical eutrophic reservoir, Valle de Bravo, Mexico. The authors demonstrated the role of this water body in sinking nitrogen and phosphorous. They detected 3 periods with low, high and low water level variations and showed close correlations between N and P fluxes and water level changes. I think that this report expands our knowledge regarding the biogeochemistry of tropical water bodies and may be interesting for scientists dealing with hydrology and modeling of P and N budgets to reveal eutrophication patterns in aquatic systems. The authors used an adequate dataset and methods to collect the samples. Statistical methods seem to be valid and correctly used. The main results are illustrated with relevant Figures. Discussion is focused on the main findings. I recommend this paper for publication after minor revisions.
General Response.
Dear reviewer, thank you for your kind and complete appreciation of our work, as well as for the precise and very useful suggestions, we feel the paper improved significantly with them.
Main concerns.
Point 1. The map of the study area (Fig. S1) should be presented in the main text, not in the supplementary material.
Response 1. We fully understand the reviewers concern, and have therefore now presented both Figure 1 and the study area in the main text instead of in the supplementary material
Point 2. L 106-111. This text is more suitable for the Introduction section.
Response 2. We agree, and have replaced this text in the Introduction section
Point 3. Specific remarks.
Response 3. We are thankful for these detailed suggestions on typing or grammatical errors, and have made the corrections suggested, except when indicated below.
L 55. Consider replacing “Harrison et al. 2009b; Wollheim et al. 2008)” with “[9,10])”
L 72. Consider replacing “here use” with “we applied”
L 85. Consider replacing “mean surface area” with “a mean surface area”
L 90. Consider replacing “due to is” with “due to its”
L 89. Consider replacing “As many other” with “Like many other”
L 92. Consider replacing “nutrient” with “nutrients”
L 94. Consider replacing “Water arrives to” with “Water arrives in”
L 99. Consider replacing “VB is as a” with “VB is a”
L 104. Consider replacing “However, the effect” with “However, the effects”
L 107. Consider replacing “reservoirs” with “reservoir's”
L 115. Consider replacing “data base” with “database”
L 119. Consider replacing “drift buoy” with “drifting buoy”
L 125. Consider replacing “Using a” with “Using”
L 128. Consider replacing “until its analysis” with “until the analysis”
L 152. Consider replacing “since there no” with “since no”
L 177. Consider replacing “concentration” with “concentrations”
L 212. Consider replacing “Throughout the full” with “Throughout the whole”
L 216. Consider replacing “the rivers” with “the rivers' ”
L 226. Consider replacing “water-level patters” with “water-level periods”
Response 3. L 226. We have preferred to retain “water-level patters”
L 238. Consider replacing “particularly during” with “particularly between”
L 251. Consider replacing “were also significant” with “was also significant”
L 253. Consider replacing “arriving to” with “arriving in”
Response 3. L 253. We have preferred to retain “arriving to”
L 255. Consider replacing “the full sampling period” with “the whole sampling period”
L 262. Consider replacing “Dashed line in top” with “The dashed line in the top”
L 273. Consider replacing “important” with “pronounced”
L 276. Consider replacing “those of during” with “those during”
L 288. Consider replacing “N loading to” with “N loading in”
Response 3. L 288. We have preferred to retain “N loading to”
L 303. Consider replacing “panel show” with “panel shows”
L 307. Consider replacing “The corresponds to a linear regression of this trend, together with its” with “They correspond to linear regressions together with their”
L 324. Consider replacing “related with” with “related to”
L 340. Consider replacing “associated to” with “associated with”
L 346. Consider replacing “is clearly stablished” with “is clearly established”
L 368. Consider replacing “higher that” with “higher than”
L 379. Consider replacing “activities on” with “activities in”
L 384. Consider replacing “base” with “basis”
L 386. Consider replacing “ecosystem,” with “ecosystem and”
L 408. Consider replacing “is about” with “is”
L 411. “with”. A citation seems to be missing here.
Response 3. L 411. We are thankful for pointing out this incongruency. We have added the text that had been left out, son now the line makes sense.
L 415. Consider replacing “asses” with “assess”
L 421. Consider replacing “for the full” with “for the whole”
L 422. Consider replacing “improvements on” with “improvements in”
L 425. Consider replacing “full water column” with “entire water column”
L 427. Consider replacing “as other” with “as others”
L 433. Consider replacing “fluxwas” with “flux was”
L 437. Consider replacing “among the years” with “over the years”
L 449. “Nostocales” should be italicized
L 452. Consider replacing “the increase of turbulence” with “an increase in turbulence”
L 454. “Cyclotella ocellata” should be italicized
L 458. Consider replacing “cladocerans and copepods assemblages” with “cladoceran and copepod assemblages”
L 465. Consider replacing “creating” with “creates”
L 473. Consider replacing “in water column” with “in the water column”
L 487. Consider replacing “The bigger decrease” with “The higher decrease”
L 491. Consider replacing “arise” with “raise”
L 496. Consider replacing “decrease on” with “decrease in”
L 511. Consider replacing “during a period the period” with “during the period”
Submission Date
13 May 2022
Date of this review
23 May 2022 08:05:21
Authors revision
23 June 2022
We are very thankful to the reviewer for the precise and very useful suggestions, we feel the paper improved significantly with them.
Review Report Form 2
Open Review
( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The research paper has some innovative and key findings, which may significantly contribute into the scholarly literature. However, there are some major issues, which need to be corrected before it reaches to the standard of publication.
General Response:
Dear reviewer,
thank you very much for your review and suggestions on our manuscript water-1746894. We are glad you found it may contribute through its innovative and key findings, and also for outlining the issues you found. We have fully revised the manuscript following your review, to attend all the issues pointed out. Please find enclosed our detailed responses to your main concerns.
Main concerns
Point 1. The abstract does not work well. An abstract should address these concerns: what are you trying to do, why, what you found and what is the significance of your findings. Should be more outcome oriented. Please avoid the abbreviations in the abstract. Rewrite and improve.
Response 1. We are thankful for the observation and the guidelines to improve our abstract. We have rewritten it following the outline suggested and orienting it more to the outcome. We have also avoided any abbreviations in the abstract in the revised manuscript.
Point 2. In the Introduction section, the review of literature needs more updating with more recent references/works as to have a clear and concise state of the art analysis. This should more clearly show the knowledge gaps identified and link them to the paper goals.
Response 2. We totally agree, we have updated our literature search and found very recent (2020-2022) new references (3,5,7,8,9,10,11 and 26) that are now included in the manuscript, and which were very helpful for better outlining the state of the art, and to link our paper goals with the knowledge gaps identified. We have fully rewritten the Introduction section following this concern.
Point 3. The novelty and contribution are missing in the paper. Please properly describe in the introduction section.
Response 3. We are also thankful for this observation, which we have considered while rewriting the Introduction, and also in the abstract and the conclusion section.
Point 4. The notations used should be rechecked.
Response 4. We are thankful for this particularly important observation. We have revised and rechecked the notations throughout the full manuscript, and corrected all the unit notation mistakes we found both in the text and in the figures, including the following:
- We replaced “Kg” with “kg”
- We replaced “g m-2y-1” with “g m-2 y-1” and verified the spaceing between unit notations throughout the manuscript.
- We replaced the correlation coefficients “R” with “r” in Figure 6.
- We added the legends of “Net sedimentation” and “Net N atmospheric flux” in figures 4 and 5 which were missing.
- We corrected the units of the figure 8 caption, and lines 473 and 474, that must be “g m-2 y-1” instead of “Kg m-2 y-1”.
Point 5. The writing is recommended to be improved.
Response 5. We understand this recommendation, which matches with the several punctual writing details identified by reviewer 1. We tried our best to attend to the recommendations of both reviewers to improve the writing of the manuscript.
Point 6. The conclusion section is missing in the manuscript. Please add it.
Response 6. We are thankful to the reviewer for making us realize that our finding were perhaps not properly pointed out in the conclusion, therefore we have rewritten and extended this section.
Submission Date
13 May 2022
Date of this review
23 May 2022 08:05:21
Authors revision
25 June 2022
We are very thankful to the reviewer for his important and useful comments. We find that the paper improved significantly after addressing them.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Good work. I have no further comment.
Author Response
We are very thankful to the reviewer for your very useful suggestions, we feel the paper improved significantly with them.
