Freshwater Diversity of Zooplankton from Mexico: Historical Review of Some of the Main Groups^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments:

1. Abstract: please after mentioning the importance of such review, please the add clear objectives of the study - missing here 

2. In Introduction, authors mentioned the objectives of the study. However they have failed introduce the significance of the study. Why it is done ? 
3. Methods: very briefly written- what were the search term or words , what duration they have used ? 
4 results and discussion: needs more interpretation of the findings 

5. please add what Should be further studied? 

Thank you 

Author Response

We appreciate the comments from the reviewer, and we hope this new version suitable to be published. We double checked the English from this new version.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments:

1. Abstract: please after mentioning the importance of such review, please the add clear objectives of the study - missing here 

R: Done

2. In Introduction, authors mentioned the objectives of the study. However they have failed introduce the significance of the study. Why it is done ? 

R:  We included a paragraph

3. Methods: very briefly written- what were the search term or words , what duration they have used ? 

R: We included an example

4 results and discussion: needs more interpretation of the findings 

R: We included an explanation at the end of the manuscript

5. please add what Should be further studied? 

R: In the last paragraph, we included the need to increase the knowledge of the zooplankton taxa, this means to continue discovering its diversity, and the conservation of the freshwater ecosystems.

Thank you 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper gives a thorough overview of freshwater zooplankton studies in Mexico, including the history of researches and researchers, and amounts of publications and species of different groups. Also, the paper mentions challenges faced by Mexican zooplankton researchers, which might be also faced by researchers studying other organisms worldwide. It is a very meaningful paper to many taxonomists and ecologists studying Mexican zooplankton. However, since the author has such comprehensive understanding of the zooplankton in Mexican and has already collected many data, it might better if you can dig into the data further and see like the effect of amounts of researches on the diversity of zooplankton observed, or factors leading to the changes of invasive species, or effects of invasive species on local species, or effective ways to protect endangered species according to their ecological habit, etc. Comments about the figures and a few syntax errors are marked in the attached PDF.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

This paper gives a thorough overview of freshwater zooplankton studies in Mexico, including the history of researches and researchers, and amounts of publications and species of different groups. Also, the paper mentions challenges faced by Mexican zooplankton researchers, which might be also faced by researchers studying other organisms worldwide. It is a very meaningful paper to many taxonomists and ecologists studying Mexican zooplankton. However, since the author has such comprehensive understanding of the zooplankton in Mexican and has already collected many data, it might better if you can dig into the data further and see like the effect of amounts of researches on the diversity of zooplankton observed, or factors leading to the changes of invasive species, or effects of invasive species on local species, or effective ways to protect endangered species according to their ecological habit, etc. Comments about the figures and a few syntax errors are marked in the attached PDF.

R: We appreciate the comments of the reviewer. We included these aspects in the new version, we hope they will be enough to cover the points marked by him.

We reviewed the pdf and included the suggested corrections.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed most of the comments. They should have written it - where the changes have been done in the response file. 

Some final comments:

1. you can start the introduction using the statement below: 

In this revision of the Mexican freshwater zooplankton, we include data on rotifers, 53 copepods, cladocerans, protists, acari, and large branchiopods. Ostracods, 54 chironomids, and fish larvae were excluded.

2. Avoid short para

3. In last sentence, what is ' this new generation' 

 

Author Response

Replies to referees

The authors have addressed most of the comments. They should have written it - where the changes have been done in the response file. 

R: Thank you. We included in this a file with all changes made. Sorry for not including them before.

Some final comments:

1. you can start the introduction using the statement below: 

In this revision of the Mexican freshwater zooplankton, we include data on rotifers, 53 copepods, cladocerans, protists, acari, and large branchiopods. Ostracods, 54 chironomids, and fish larvae were excluded.

R: We do not understand this coment. We started the introduction with it:

“In this revision of the Mexican freshwater zooplankton, we include data on rotifers, copepods, cladocerans, protists, acari, and large branchiopods. Ostracods, chironomids, and fish larvae were excluded.”

2. Avoid short para

R: Sorry, we do not understand this point.

3. In last sentence, what is ' this new generation' 

R: We corrected it to: “This third generation will be able to continue expanding our knowledge of the zooplankton taxa in Mexico and help in the conservation of the freshwater ecosystems and their biota

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper looks well now. There are a few more problems which need to be addressed. In the Abstract and end of Introduction part, it says the objectives of the study is to “explain 1) how these contributions can be arranged in distinct historical periods and 2) how this knowledge has allowed the detection of exotic and threatened species”. The first one might be okay, but the second one seems to be not revealed in the paper. Many of the exotic species in 3.4 part were not mentioned in 3.1-3.3 parts. It seems that the main parts of the paper, namely 3.1-3.3 parts, mainly give an overview of the study history of zooplankton in Mexico and indicate problems in the research of zooplankton in Mexico.

 

Line 141-142: Periods should be changed to commas. Maybe like “…into three historical periods: the first comprising the XIX century to the 40’s decade in the XX century, the second period from the early ‘50s to the end of the ‘90s of the XX century, the third period starting from the year 2000 to date. The rise…”

 

Line 148: Maybe the title should also be revised to “Phase 1. Early studies dominated by foreign researchers…”

 

Line 281: A line break was missed.

Author Response

The paper looks well now. There are a few more problems which need to be addressed. In the Abstract and end of Introduction part, it says the objectives of the study is to “explain 1) how these contributions can be arranged in distinct historical periods and 2) how this knowledge has allowed the detection of exotic and threatened species”. The first one might be okay, but the second one seems to be not revealed in the paper. Many of the exotic species in 3.4 part were not mentioned in 3.1-3.3 parts. It seems that the main parts of the paper, namely 3.1-3.3 parts, mainly give an overview of the study history of zooplankton in Mexico and indicate problems in the research of zooplankton in Mexico.

R: Thank you for the observations. We corrected the last part of the section 3.3. We hope that this correction will help to clarify this point.

 

Line 141-142: Periods should be changed to commas. Maybe like “…into three historical periods: the first comprising the XIX century to the 40’s decade in the XX century, the second period from the early ‘50s to the end of the ‘90s of the XX century, the third period starting from the year 2000 to date. The rise…”

R: Corrected 

Line 148: Maybe the title should also be revised to “Phase 1. Early studies dominated by foreign researchers…”

 R: Corrected

Line 281: A line break was missed.

R: Corrected.