Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors and Editor,

 

I extend my gratitude for affording me the opportunity to review the manuscript titled "Phytoplankton in the ecological assessment of the mining facilities influence on the Anabar River in the permafrost zone of the Arctic, Eastern Siberia, Russia." The article addresses a pertinent issue and introduces us to a remote region of Russia that requires further investigation. While I won't enumerate the merits of the paper, as they are already evident, I would like to draw attention to certain shortcomings that, in my view, warrant rectification.

 

1. Concerning the illustrative material, I note that the dimensions of the graphs are extremely small. In certain instances, the information on these graphs is unreadable. It is imperative to address this issue to ensure that readers can effectively comprehend your findings.

 

2. Regarding the geographic maps, I would advise against utilizing dark space imagery as a backdrop. Such formatting hampers legibility, including the discernment of river names. To enhance readability, opt for a background that doesn't obscure critical details.

 

3. Including coordinate grids on your maps is also of paramount importance. This will aid readers in precisely locating the studied area and enhance the ease of comprehension.

 

4. In Section 2, a notable omission is the absence of a detailed description of your research methodology. It is crucial to comprehensively outline how the study was conducted, thereby enabling other researchers to replicate your steps and validate your results.

 

5. Enhancing Section 4 could involve articulating the limitations of the study. This step will provide readers with a better understanding of the contextual framework of your results and their applicability.

 

6. Comparing the obtained data with other regions globally and within Russia is essential. This will facilitate an assessment of the uniqueness of your findings and their significance within the broader context of studies.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you and the Reviewer 1 for comments.

Please find the responses to each comment below.

With best regards,

Prof Sophia Barinova

Corresponding author

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors and Editor,

I extend my gratitude for affording me the opportunity to review the manuscript titled "Phytoplankton in the ecological assessment of the mining facilities influence on the Anabar River in the permafrost zone of the Arctic, Eastern Siberia, Russia." The article addresses a pertinent issue and introduces us to a remote region of Russia that requires further investigation. While I won't enumerate the merits of the paper, as they are already evident, I would like to draw attention to certain shortcomings that, in my view, warrant rectification.

1. Concerning the illustrative material, I note that the dimensions of the graphs are extremely small. In certain instances, the information on these graphs is unreadable. It is imperative to address this issue to ensure that readers can effectively comprehend your findings.

Response: The graphs dimension was defined by the technical Editor. From my side each graph can be enlarged but Editor is not recommended it because the resolution is high. Figures 1 and 9 are replaced.

2. Regarding the geographic maps, I would advise against utilizing dark space imagery as a backdrop. Such formatting hampers legibility, including the discernment of river names. To enhance readability, opt for a background that doesn't obscure critical details.

 Response: corrected, Figures replaced.

3. Including coordinate grids on your maps is also of paramount importance. This will aid readers in precisely locating the studied area and enhance the ease of comprehension.

 Response: corrected, Figures replaced.

4. In Section 2, a notable omission is the absence of a detailed description of your research methodology. It is crucial to comprehensively outline how the study was conducted, thereby enabling other researchers to replicate your steps and validate your results.

Response: added

5. Enhancing Section 4 could involve articulating the limitations of the study. This step will provide readers with a better understanding of the contextual framework of your results and their applicability.

Response: added

6. Comparing the obtained data with other regions globally and within Russia is essential. This will facilitate an assessment of the uniqueness of your findings and their significance within the broader context of studies.

 Response: represented, the references cited.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study aims to characterize the phytoplankton diversity and species richness dynamics along a river, conduct an ecological analysis with bioindicators, and identify environmental factors that affect the diversity of this group of aquatic organisms in the river. All these objectives are tried to be explained in maps.

The data obtained and presented are interesting; however, it is difficult to understand their results and discussions because there is no visible link between the spatial analysis and the data. In other words, the manuscript is not well organized and is difficult to understand. I recommend that the authors pay attention to the following major and minor comments:

Major

In methodology, the methods used are listed; however, the variables obtained through the methods are a mystery, and they appear suddenly in the results. I recommend specifying in the methods the variables used to determine the water chemistry, the biological variables, and the bioindicators, or at least say that they are listed in the appendices.

The principal problem in understanding the link between the spatial analysis and the data is due to the insufficient resolution of the maps. Please pay attention to the following: 1. Increase the size of the localization and the number of sampling points at each station. 2. Highlight the mainstream 3. If you divide the river into sections or watersheds on the maps, please specify the name of each section on the map (if you say in the text that the upper section of the river is the least contaminated, the reader can know to which section you are referring).

In the section on ecological mapping, according to the authors, the objective is "to show areas of the basin that contribute to water quality and phytoplankton diversity; basin maps were compiled based on Figure 1 over 4 variables". To do this, I recommend using the real value for each basin to have a better understanding of the gradient.

The cluster analysis is interesting and should be part of the section on ecological mapping. I recommend constructing a map to see if sampling stations more closely correlated are spatially close. The map should link Figure 10 and Figure 11 to help with a better understanding of the impact.

Minor:

Figure 1. improve the resolution of the image. The names of rivers and settlements are not visible. The sampling points and their labels are not visible (put in another color). What do the black lines mean? For a better understanding of the area, it would be convenient to identify the characteristics described in lines 90-113. Preferably, put in the corner of the figure a more general map of the location of the study area for international readers.

Line 124: 52 plankton algological samples. Specify if there were two per site.

Line 134: Which hydrogeochemical variables?

Lines 136-144: specify in all the techniques used what the objective was.

Line 156: "Water transparency has an anthropogenic character". support this statement.

Line 157: Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

Figure 3: On the figure caption, specify downstream if this is the case (it is difficult to know this because in the map the number of the sample sites is not visible).

 "WESI index" and "RDA" are not defined anywhere in the document.

Line 207: "negatively correlated" What is the correlation coefficient? Is it significant?

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you and the Reviewer 2 for comments.

Please find the responses to each comment below.

With best regards,

Prof Sophia Barinova

Corresponding author

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study aims to characterize the phytoplankton diversity and species richness dynamics along a river, conduct an ecological analysis with bioindicators, and identify environmental factors that affect the diversity of this group of aquatic organisms in the river. All these objectives are tried to be explained in maps.

The data obtained and presented are interesting; however, it is difficult to understand their results and discussions because there is no visible link between the spatial analysis and the data. In other words, the manuscript is not well organized and is difficult to understand. I recommend that the authors pay attention to the following major and minor comments:

Major

In methodology, the methods used are listed; however, the variables obtained through the methods are a mystery, and they appear suddenly in the results. I recommend specifying in the methods the variables used to determine the water chemistry, the biological variables, and the bioindicators, or at least say that they are listed in the appendices.

Response: added

The principal problem in understanding the link between the spatial analysis and the data is due to the insufficient resolution of the maps. Please pay attention to the following: 1. Increase the size of the localization and the number of sampling points at each station. 2. Highlight the mainstream 3. If you divide the river into sections or watersheds on the maps, please specify the name of each section on the map (if you say in the text that the upper section of the river is the least contaminated, the reader can know to which section you are referring).

Response: Added text on page 5 in the last paragraph. Figures 1 and 9 are reconstructed and replaced.

In the section on ecological mapping, according to the authors, the objective is "to show areas of the basin that contribute to water quality and phytoplankton diversity; basin maps were compiled based on Figure 1 over 4 variables". To do this, I recommend using the real value for each basin to have a better understanding of the gradient.

Response: Figures 1 and 9 were replaced that can give the clear understanding of the results presentation.

The cluster analysis is interesting and should be part of the section on ecological mapping. I recommend constructing a map to see if sampling stations more closely correlated are spatially close. The map should link Figure 10 and Figure 11 to help with a better understanding of the impact.

Response: Replacing the maps with clearer ones, we hope, will allow us to see the picture of changes more clearly. The stations are numbered and indicated both in figure 10 showing the similarity of the species composition, and in figure 11 showing the correlations of all the data obtained and respectively can be seen in Figures 1 and 9. Creating additional maps can only lead to duplication of information already provided.

Minor:

Figure 1. improve the resolution of the image. The names of rivers and settlements are not visible. The sampling points and their labels are not visible (put in another color). What do the black lines mean? For a better understanding of the area, it would be convenient to identify the characteristics described in lines 90-113. Preferably, put in the corner of the figure a more general map of the location of the study area for international readers.

Response: Changed the background to white, this should remove all issues related to illegibility of inscriptions / poor resolution, etc. Added a world map indicating our point on it. We consider it superfluous to indicate the sections of the river on the map, the description in the MIM clearly indicates the boundaries of the sections along the mouths of the rivers and other landmarks that are already on the map

Line 124: 52 plankton algological samples. Specify if there were two per site.

Response: In the first paragraph of section 2.2, the corresponding fragment was added

Line 134: Which hydrogeochemical variables?

Response: In the last paragraph of section 2.2, a corresponding fragment was added

Lines 136-144: specify in all the techniques used what the objective was.

Response: The methodological steps and aims were added at the end of the Introduction part.

Line 156: "Water transparency has an anthropogenic character". support this statement.

Response: added, rewritten.

Line 157: Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

Response: In the third paragraph of section 3.1, a corresponding fragment was added

Figure 3: On the figure caption, specify downstream if this is the case (it is difficult to know this because in the map the number of the sample sites is not visible).

Response: added, figures 1 and 9 were replaced.

"WESI index" and "RDA" are not defined anywhere in the document.

Response: added

Line 207: "negatively correlated" What is the correlation coefficient? Is it significant?

Response: added

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is publishable as it is at this time.