Biodiversity of Diatoms as Indicators of Water Quality and Landscape Sustainable Dynamics in the Zarafshan River, Uzbekistan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

For the whole manuscript: English must be improved. For example, expressions like  ”it was found that”(line14), ”It should be noted”(line 49) must be replaced. Lines 56-61: please rephrase (change the order of the words). ”discuss” instead of ” can talk about” (line 72). Rephrase ”Further on the riverbed is flat,” (line 121). Rephrase ”most changing” (line191) etc. etc. It goes on and on: a major revision of English must be made, throughout the manuscript!

 

line 12, Abstract: replace or delete ”some”

line 57: ”trophic state” instead of ”water body nutrition” (please consider this change throughout the manuscript)

lines 37-86, Introduction: The entire introduction must be re-structured, in a funnel-type introduction: please present the general aspects first (water quality/algal communities), then zoom in on the Asian context.

line 82: ”Kulmatov et al.” instead of ”R. Kulmatov”

line 86: please state the importance of the present study

 

lines 98, 99, Figure1: The first figure, picturing the Zarafshan National Park, is out of context. Its location is not clear. Please insert a map to indicate its position.

line 135: please explain what UzHYDROMET is

 

lines 132-152: Chapter 2.2 Material: I understand from the text that all data from the present paper are taken from other articles. Is this information compatible? What methods were used to sample diatoms in these previous studies? What were the periods sampled? Is the sampling effort the same? (or some sites were sampled more times than others?) All these questions must be addressed here. 

 

lines 167-168: please rephrase, the sentence is not clear

line 173: ” were collected for seven stations only in period 2009-2015” - this should be placed in ”Material and methods”.

lines 176-177: ”TSS, TDS  and COD” should be explained one time in the text, and then used as abbreviations

lines 185-189, Figure 2: please explain the colour code used for the heat map

line 196, Figure 3: explain the abbreviations used in the graph

line 207 ”Diploneis ovalis and Odontidium hyemale”:  all species and genus names must be written with italics

 

lines 212-226: Table 2 and Figure 4 are based on the same data. Chose one or the other to depict in the manuscript. In Figure 4 caption, explain ”Poly.”

line 239: ” Watanabe”: please give citation

 

lines 300-305, Figure 9; lines 316-320, Figure 10; and line 503: use 1-12 for sampling sites, like in all tables/figures of the manuscript, instead of St.1 - St12

lines 330-331: Figure 11: explain ”WESI cross 5” and ”WESI cross 6”. Unclear. You calculated WESI only for sampling sites 5 and 6? Then, how can you plot these values for stations 2,3 etc.?

lines 349-350: Figure 12: the sampling sites are not visible in the picture

line 353: delete ”according to Sumita”, it was presented in Material and methods

lines 382-386: redundant. These are results. Please delete or replace with discussions

lines 387-395: redundant. These are results. Please delete or replace with discussions. You need to compare your results (already presented in Chapter Results) with other studies, from other catchment areas.

line 459: what CCA?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English must be improved.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you and Reviewer 1 for your comments.

Please find the responses to each comment below.

With best regards,

Prof Sophia Barinova

Corresponding author

 

Rev 1 Round 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

For the whole manuscript: English must be improved. For example, expressions like  ”it was found that”(line14), 

Response: done

”It should be noted”(line 49) must be replaced.

Response: done

Lines 56-61: please rephrase (change the order of the words).

Response: done

 ”discuss” instead of ” can talk about” (line 72).

Response: done

Rephrase ”Further on the riverbed is flat,” (line 121).

Response: done

Rephrase ”most changing” (line191) etc. etc.

Response: done

 It goes on and on: a major revision of English must be made, throughout the manuscript!

Response: we are tried, thank you

line 12, Abstract: replace or delete ”some”

Response: done

line 57: ”trophic state” instead of ”water body nutrition” (please consider this change throughout the manuscript)

Response: done

lines 37-86, Introduction: The entire introduction must be re-structured, in a funnel-type introduction: please present the general aspects first (water quality/algal communities), then zoom in on the Asian context.

Response: done

line 82: ”Kulmatov et al.” instead of ”R. Kulmatov”

Response: done

строка 82: «Кулматов и др.» вместо «Р. Кулматов»

line 86: please state the importance of the present study

Response: added

lines 98, 99, Figure1: The first figure, picturing the Zarafshan National Park, is out of context. Its location is not clear. Please insert a map to indicate its position.

Response: Figure 1 replaced

line 135: please explain what UzHYDROMET is

Response: Hydrometeorological Service Center (Uzgidromet) under the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan

lines 132-152: Chapter 2.2 Material: I understand from the text that all data from the present paper are taken from other articles. Is this information compatible? What methods were used to sample diatoms in these previous studies? What were the periods sampled? Is the sampling effort the same? (or some sites were sampled more times than others?) All these questions must be addressed here. 

Response: added in Material section. It were two PhD work that doing practically in parallel under supervision of prof K. Alimjanova with the same methods bu in different parts of the river.

lines 167-168: please rephrase, the sentence is not clear

Response: done

line 173: ” were collected for seven stations only in period 2009-2015” - this should be placed in ”Material and methods”.

Response: corrected

lines 176-177: ”TSS, TDS  and COD” should be explained one time in the text, and then used as abbreviations

Response: done

lines 185-189, Figure 2: please explain the colour code used for the heat map

Response: The color of the cells varies from blue to red depending on the value of the proportion of each variable value in the overall distribution.

line 196, Figure 3: explain the abbreviations used in the graph

Response: We follow with your recommendation above about these abbreviations that were explained for the first mention.

line 207 ”Diploneis ovalis and Odontidium hyemale”:  all species and genus names must be written with italics

Response: done

lines 212-226: Table 2 and Figure 4 are based on the same data. Chose one or the other to depict in the manuscript. In Figure 4 caption, explain ”Poly.”

Response: Table 2 deleted, and text shortened.

line 239: ” Watanabe”: please give citation

Response: added

lines 300-305, Figure 9; lines 316-320, Figure 10; and line 503: use 1-12 for sampling sites, like in all tables/figures of the manuscript, instead of St.1 - St12

Response: We are forced to use a combination of alphabetic and numeric symbols for the JASP program, since when using only numerical names of stations, the program automatically sets a combination with letters, which turns out to be irrelevant. The captions to the figures provided a decoding (St.).

lines 330-331: Figure 11: explain ”WESI cross 5” and ”WESI cross 6”. Unclear. You calculated WESI only for sampling sites 5 and 6? Then, how can you plot these values for stations 2,3 etc.?

Response: explanation added. We calculated WESI for each station, but the river meanders in its middle reaches and flows in one branch through station 5 and in the second branch through station 6, then merging. The dynamics of the WESI index values ​​can be traced along the entire river through the southern branch with orange color and through the northern branch with blue color.

lines 349-350: Figure 12: the sampling sites are not visible in the picture

Response: figure replaced with two new constructed maps.

line 353: delete ”according to Sumita”, it was presented in Material and methods

Response: done

lines 382-386: redundant. These are results. Please delete or replace with discussions

Response: replaced

lines 387-395: redundant. These are results. Please delete or replace with discussions. You need to compare your results (already presented in Chapter Results) with other studies, from other catchment areas.

Response: revised

line 459: what CCA?

Response: deleted, misprint.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English must be improved.

Response: English was checked by native speaker.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript describes biodiversity of diatoms as indicators of water quality and land-scape sustainable dynamics in the Zarafshan river, Uzbekistan.

Mayor reemarks.

Manuscript is difficilt to read. Thera are too many results presented, but only few regarding the main title of this manuscript...biodiversity of diatoms as indicators oq WQ... Manuscript should be better organised with better representation of data and explanations of the results. In section 2.2 put if only abudance was calculated and/or mass. In section 2.3. describe how you calculated WESI, and RPI, put equations and explain them. In Results present some hraphical representaion of environmental parameters and diatom communities on the same figure....

Minor/moderate remarks:

Row 74: Put also analysis of the literature for some others similar researches done on other locations in the world.

Row 80: Briefly describe literature 12-20.

Row 135: Present table with data (hydrochemical and diatoms) with their time span, time frequency of sampling etc...

Row 172-177: Represent results graphicaly.

Figure 3: Where are stations 1, 10, 11 and 12? Explain. Why you have only represent COD, TSS and TDS? Why not WESI and RPI and some other physiochemical parameters? Explain why are COD, TSS and TDS crtical variables?

Row 199-2023: Show graphicaly representation of abundance ...

Figure 5: Explain how you difined (calculated) data on f), g), h) and i)?

Explain Figures 6, 7 and 8.

Explain how WESI and RPI were calculated. Put proper references.

On figure 12 mark stations.

Row 336: Explain Alpha-HCCG.

Row 382: Describe references 18 and 20.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you and Reviewer 2 for your comments.

Please find the responses to each comment below.

With best regards,

Prof Sophia Barinova

Corresponding author

 

 

Rev 2 Round 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript describes biodiversity of diatoms as indicators of water quality and land-scape sustainable dynamics in the Zarafshan river, Uzbekistan.

Mayor reemarks.

Manuscript is difficilt to read. Thera are too many results presented, but only few regarding the main title of this manuscript...biodiversity of diatoms as indicators oq WQ... Manuscript should be better organised with better representation of data and explanations of the results.

Response: text and figures explanation corrected

In section 2.2 put if only abudance was calculated and/or mass. In section

Response: abundance scores for phytoperiphytonic communities were calculated as score of representation of each species cells in wet preparate slide 20x20 mm, cited the method as [26].

2.3. describe how you calculated WESI, and RPI, put equations and explain them.

Response: done

In Results present some hraphical representaion of environmental parameters and diatom communities on the same figure....

Response: chemical and biological data have different sets of stations that did not help to compare it. In this purpose we done graphs and comparison calculated in statistical programs.

Minor/moderate remarks:

Row 74: Put also analysis of the literature for some others similar researches done on other locations in the world.

Response: added

Row 80: Briefly describe literature 12-20.

Response: done

Row 135: Present table with data (hydrochemical and diatoms) with their time span, time frequency of sampling etc...

Response: done in MM section description from which sources chemical and biological data come. So, Appendix Table A1 presents the average values. Appendix A Table A2 presents the integrated species list for entire river.

Row 172-177: Represent results graphicaly.

Response: The Table A1 chemical data are presented graphically on the Figures 2 and 3.

Figure 3: Where are stations 1, 10, 11 and 12? Explain. Why you have only represent COD, TSS and TDS? Why not WESI and RPI and some other physiochemical parameters? Explain why are COD, TSS and TDS crtical variables?

Response: Figure 3 constructed for chemical variables only. It was defined by UzHydromet in seven monitoring stations only. This monitoring net in Uzbekistan did not include any biological variables to monitoring. WESI and RPI are not physiochemical parameters but integral indices. COD, TSS and TDS are crtical variables because they values are dramatically changed down the river. Text corrected.

Row 199-2023: Show graphicaly representation of abundance ...

Response: It is represented in Figure 4 as a sum of scores.

Figure 5: Explain how you difined (calculated) data on f), g), h) and i)?

Response: as sum of species-indicators of each group for the Upper, Middle, and Lower sections of entire river on the base of Appendix A Tables A2. Given in the caption of Figure 5.

Explain Figures 6, 7 and 8.

Response: description done

Explain how WESI and RPI were calculated. Put proper references.

Response: description, references, and equations done

On figure 12 mark stations.

Response: Figure 12 replaced with two new constructed maps.

Row 336: Explain Alpha-HCCG.

Response: alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane, α-HCH; DDT insecticide also described in the first mention.

Row 382: Describe references 18 and 20.

Response: done

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of English language required.

Response: English was checked by native speaker.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Ms. Ref. No.: land-3216120

Title: Biodiversity of diatoms as indicators of water quality and landscape sustainable dynamics in the Zarafshan river, Uzbekistan

 

The water quality evaluation of transboundary river is of great importance. This topic is well-chosen. Combing hydro chemical properties, nutrients, and diatoms to indicate water quality is promising for environmental ecological restoration and protection. However, the current manuscript doesn’t provide significant novel insights in this research field, and the current writing exhibited this work more resembles a case study without much interest for international readers. In addition, I am not sure whether this topic falls well into the scope of the journal Land.

Here are some comments based on my personal impressions.

 

Major comments:

It’s not clear to me how this research contributed to this research field. Can you please provide more explanation and justify the significance and importance of this research? The current introduction part in the manuscript could be more concise. The Table A2 is a lot of work, please explain how do you used and applied it, and what’s the significance of this contribution for other researchers.

The removal of some points needs more explanation. Some figures could be combined into one. In addition, the figures are not of good quality. Please refer to the specific comments.

I’m also doubtful about the boundaries of areas shown in Fig. 12. How are they defined? Are sampling sites adequately representative?

 

Specific comments:

Page 2, line 97: The river is high: do you mean “the water level is high”?

Page 3, lines 98-105: if possible, please specify the latitude and longitude in the sampling map or in the corresponding description phrases. Another suggestion for the map is to reorder the subfigures: now the top and bottom part are all zoomed from the map, but you can rearrange the three subfigures: to start with the national map, then the map of the river and sampling sites, at last the Zarafshan National Park. Rearranging these three maps by their zoom scales will allow readers to better understand the scenario. In addition, it would be easier for readers to understand the scenario if all mentioned rivers, regions, cities are marked on the map, and the different river parts could be assigned with different colors.

Page 6, lines 185-189: there’s no legend for the heatmap, making the figure difficult to read. The “proportion of the number in the entire distribution” is not understood. Are data normalized or of the same magnitude?

Page 9-10, lines 284-294: In your figures 6, 7, and 8, why samples 1, 8, 10-12 were not included? If the reasons are explained in Page 10 Lines 307-314, then please consider move it in front of these figures.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some paragraphs are tedious.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you and Reviewer 3 for your comments.

Please find the responses to each comment below.

With best regards,

Prof Sophia Barinova

Corresponding author

The water quality evaluation of transboundary river is of great importance. This topic is well-chosen. Combing hydro chemical properties, nutrients, and diatoms to indicate water quality is promising for environmental ecological restoration and protection. However, the current manuscript doesn’t provide significant novel insights in this research field, and the current writing exhibited this work more resembles a case study without much interest for international readers. In addition, I am not sure whether this topic falls well into the scope of the journal Land.

Response: Not only have we added a justification at the end of the introduction, but we have also strengthened the results of applying new methods of ecological mapping, which have allowed us to determine critical parameters of water pollution in the river and to identify areas of its catchment area, thereby putting chemical and biological data on the landscape. A complete list of diatoms with indicator properties of each species has been compiled for the first time, and the methods applied can be recommended for introducing biological indicators into the monitoring system of Uzbekistan.

Here are some comments based on my personal impressions.

Major comments:

It’s not clear to me how this research contributed to this research field. Can you please provide more explanation and justify the significance and importance of this research? The current introduction part in the manuscript could be more concise. The Table A2 is a lot of work, please explain how do you used and applied it, and what’s the significance of this contribution for other researchers.

Response: We added text in different parts of ms as well as replaced Figure 12 with two new constructed maps that it a new approach for basinal assessment of water quality. It helps to determine critical parameters of water pollution in the river and to identify areas of its catchment area, thereby putting chemical and biological data on the landscape. A complete list of diatoms with indicator properties of each species has been compiled for the first time, and the methods applied can be recommended for introducing biological indicators into the monitoring system of Uzbekistan. Introduction also revised.

The removal of some points needs more explanation. Some figures could be combined into one. In addition, the figures are not of good quality. Please refer to the specific comments.

Response: the figure quality will be updated by technical editor assistant when the main corrections will be accepted.

I’m also doubtful about the boundaries of areas shown in Fig. 12. How are they defined? Are sampling sites adequately representative

Response: Figure 12 replaced with two maps of better quality. The sampling points are the same as in the Uzbekistan water quality monitoring (Stations 2-7 and 9) that enriched by stations in the upper boundary (1) as well as stations between 7 and 9 and after 9 in the lower reaches after settlements and factories. 

Specific comments:

Page 2, line 97: The river is high: do you mean “the water level is high”?

Response: corrected

Page 3, lines 98-105: if possible, please specify the latitude and longitude in the sampling map or in the corresponding description phrases. Another suggestion for the map is to reorder the subfigures: now the top and bottom part are all zoomed from the map, but you can rearrange the three subfigures: to start with the national map, then the map of the river and sampling sites, at last the Zarafshan National Park. Rearranging these three maps by their zoom scales will allow readers to better understand the scenario. In addition, it would be easier for readers to understand the scenario if all mentioned rivers, regions, cities are marked on the map, and the different river parts could be assigned with different colors.

Response: latitude and longitude in the sampling points are given in Table 1. Figure 1 replaced.

Page 6, lines 185-189: there’s no legend for the heatmap, making the figure difficult to read. The “proportion of the number in the entire distribution” is not understood. Are data normalized or of the same magnitude?

Response: corrected

Page 9-10, lines 284-294: In your figures 6, 7, and 8, why samples 1, 8, 10-12 were not included? If the reasons are explained in Page 10 Lines 307-314, then please consider move it in front of these figures.

Response: corrected

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some paragraphs are tedious.

Response: English was revised and corrected.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have corrected and accepted most of the reviewers' comments. Manuscript is much better now. There are a few more minor remarks.

1. Figures 1, 6, 7, 8 and 10 are very difficult to "see" (low resolution).

2. Maybe you can put some part of the description of Figure 5 in the text where you explain Figure 5 so that the name of Figure 5 is not so long...

3. From the previous review report:

In Results present some hraphical representaion of environmental parameters and diatom communities on the same figure....

Response: chemical and biological data have different sets of stations that did not help to compare it. In this purpose we done graphs and comparison calculated in statistical programs.

Please mention this response in manuscript. Say that chemical and biological data have different sets of stations that can't be compared... Explain. And write how and what statistical programs have you used.

4. Figure 11, can you also represent RPI graphically?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

None.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you and Reviewer 2 for your comments.

Please find the responses to each comment below.

With best regards,

Prof Sophia Barinova

Corresponding author

 

The authors have corrected and accepted most of the reviewers' comments. Manuscript is much better now. There are a few more minor remarks.

1. Figures 1, 6, 7, 8 and 10 are very difficult to "see" (low resolution).

RESPONSE: The figures will be better quality in the final version of ms with help with the technical support of the publisher.

2. Maybe you can put some part of the description of Figure 5 in the text where you explain Figure 5 so that the name of Figure 5 is not so long...

RESPONSE: The rules of the journal require that each figure be self-contained and have a transcript of all the data presented in it. Thus, half a page of text is devoted to the description of the figure, and a full transcript of the data shown is also given. The same is given in the corresponding table of the Appendix.

3. From the previous review report:

In Results present some hraphical representaion of environmental parameters and diatom communities on the same figure....

Response: chemical and biological data have different sets of stations that did not help to compare it. In this purpose we done graphs and comparison calculated in statistical programs.

Please mention this response in manuscript. Say that chemical and biological data have different sets of stations that can't be compared... Explain. And write how and what statistical programs have you used.

RESPONSE: In ms inserted: As a result, we have a set of hydrochemical data from state monitoring stations (2-7, 9) for analysis, as well as a set of biological data from stations 1-12, which we collected not only at state monitoring stations, but also in the upper reaches of the river near the border with Tajikistan, in the intervals between hydrochemical stations, and in the lower reaches of the river. Thus, biological data cover the river with a denser and more continuous network of monitoring stations. Both hydrochemical and biological data were analyzed with the following statistical programs:

 

3. Figure 11, can you also represent RPI graphically?

RESPONSE: RPI is one number for each parameter, and all indices for the specified parameters cannot be displayed graphically because the unit of measurement for each variable is different.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My previous comments were all well-replied, and the quality of the manuscript improved significantly with the efforts of authors.

I have no more comments or suggestions.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you and Reviewer 3 for your comments.

Please find the responses to each comment below.

With best regards,

Prof Sophia Barinova

Corresponding author

 

 

My previous comments were all well-replied, and the quality of the manuscript improved significantly with the efforts of authors.

I have no more comments or suggestions.

RESPONSE: Thank you very much.