Dissolved Methane Transport in the Tatar Strait and the Deepest Basin of the Japan (East) Sea from Its Possible Sources

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study examines dissolved methane distribution in water column and its lateral transportation with marine currents within the Tatar Strait system. It has been shown that the major source of dissolved methane are sediments of the western shelf of Sakhalin Island and Tatar Trough. In May-June (the early warm season) the West Sakhalin Current transports methane –rich water horizontally below the pycnocline the in the northern direction. The study is well-designed and implies a number of large-scale marine surveys with sufficient number of sampling stations. It is at the intersection of oceanology and gas geochemistry which is the obvious benefit of the study. The manuscript is clear and concise. However, as a reader, I think it is missing something in the text. Although there was a reference to the work, involving gas geochemistry data for the corresponding area (Shakirov et al., 2019), it would be great if authors mentioned the origin of the methane in the zones of its enrichment (microbial/thermogenic). It seems that a final phrase should be added to the Conclusion section demonstrating the significance of the observed methane transport in terms of carbon cycle and greenhouse gas emission. Small notes to the text can be found as comments in the attached pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time and providing thoughtful suggestions which we feel have improved the paper. Our response to the reviewer suggestions follows. We have made some major changes to the manuscript as a result of the suggestions. If you find that you have other suggestions, we would be grateful to hear from you.

With respect,

authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks to the author/s for their great effort. However, the study needs a major revision as considering the below comments.

1- The Abstract should be revised as; research question, hypothesis, methodology, also with quantitative results.

2- The Introduction could be written starting from novel literature as the year 2021 and 2022 maybe 2023 have to be added to introduction section.

3- The novelty of the study should be clear added to the last paragraph of the Introduction.

4- The Methodology should be concise and logical allowing interested researchers to be able to repeat your work. If needed, it could be provided with references.

5- The results and discussion are not presented well. In this context, results section has to be revised. It should be quantitative, discussed and compared with the results published in the literature, and speculations should be avoided.

6- Uncertainty of the results needs to be discussed, especially in the context of the main findings.

7- In addition to the main findings, the Conclusions section should indicate research gaps and research directions identified as the results of research presented.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time and providing thoughtful suggestions which we feel have improved the paper. Our response to the reviewer suggestions follows. We have made some major changes to the manuscript as a result of the suggestions. If you find that you have other suggestions, we would be grateful to hear from you.

With respect,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks to the authors. All the questions were answered. It can be accepted.