Biodiversity Conservation and Survival Factors of Charophyte Algal Communities in Protected High-Mountain Lakes of Kaçkar Mountains National Park (Rize, Turkey)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

It was a pleasure to review your manuscript  conservation-3340693. It is well written, high quality study, presenting first data on the benthic Charophyta flora of 13 lakes and one pond located in the Kaçkar Mountains National Park. This comprehensive study explores biodiversity and bioindication elements relative to the habitat and environmental aspect. This is of high relevance for the conservation of these unique and fragile habitats.

My suggestion is to publish this manuscript after minor revision. I only have few minor technical suggestions, please see the pdf attached.

Best regards,

Reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you and Reviewer 1 for comments. Please find the Responses to each comment below.

With best regards,

Prof Sophia Barinova

Corresponding author

Response: Dear Reviewer 1, Thank you for your comments. We corrected our ms regarding your mentions in the pdf file.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents valuable research on the biodiversity of Charophyta in the high-mountain lakes of Kaçkar Mountains National Park, contributing to our understanding of freshwater ecosystems in Turkey. However, several areas require improvement to enhance the quality of the study. 

 (1) The sampling methods are described adequately, but there is a lack of detail regarding the sampling frequency and the rationale behind the chosen dates. More information on seasonal variations in algal communities would strengthen the methodology section.

(2) The use of statistical analyses, such as RDA and similarity analysis, is appropriate. However, the manuscript should provide more details on the statistical methods used, including assumptions, software versions, and specific parameters. This would allow for better reproducibility of the results.

(3) The results section is comprehensive but could be better organized. Consider separating the findings into distinct subsections for physical-chemical properties, floristic composition, and bioindicators. This would improve readability and allow readers to follow the results more easily.

(4) Figures and tables are referenced throughout the text, but some figures (e.g., Figures 2, 4, and 5) lack sufficient explanation in the text. Ensure that each figure is adequately described and its relevance to the findings is clearly articulated.

(5) The discussion section should more critically evaluate the implications of the findings. While the authors mention the sensitivity of charophyte flora to environmental changes, there is limited exploration of how these findings relate to broader ecological theories or conservation strategies.

(6) The conclusion summarizes the findings well but could be strengthened by suggesting specific conservation actions or future research directions based on the results. This would provide a more actionable outcome from the study.

(7) The reference list is extensive but should be updated to include more recent studies, particularly those published in the last five years. This would enhance the manuscript's relevance and demonstrate engagement with current research trends.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you and Reviewer 2 for comments. Please find the Responses to each comment below.

With best regards,

Prof Sophia Barinova

Corresponding author

 

Responses to Reviewer 2 Round 1

(1) The sampling methods are described adequately, but there is a lack of detail regarding the sampling frequency and the rationale behind the chosen dates. More information on seasonal variations in algal communities would strengthen the methodology section.

Response: “The summer months are the best time to reach high mountain lakes. In addition, the temperature and light contribute greatly to the development of the algal flora.” This sentences added.

(2) The use of statistical analyses, such as RDA and similarity analysis, is appropriate. However, the manuscript should provide more details on the statistical methods used, including assumptions, software versions, and specific parameters. This would allow for better reproducibility of the results.

Response: Using statistical programs assessed the version numbers in MM section as wellas added p-value of analysis.

(3) The results section is comprehensive but could be better organized. Consider separating the findings into distinct subsections for physical-chemical properties, floristic composition, and bioindicators. This would improve readability and allow readers to follow the results more easily.

Response: The Results section is divided into the parts of our analysis with numbers 3.1-3.4.

(4) Figures and tables are referenced throughout the text, but some figures (e.g., Figures 2, 4, and 5) lack sufficient explanation in the text. Ensure that each figure is adequately described and its relevance to the findings is clearly articulated.

Response: Description of each figures 2, 4, and 5 devoted to results and given in full with the figures caption.

(5) The discussion section should more critically evaluate the implications of the findings. While the authors mention the sensitivity of charophyte flora to environmental changes, there is limited exploration of how these findings relate to broader ecological theories or conservation strategies.

Response: Because increasing biodiversity is the factor of the conservation efficiency in the protected area, we also find the variable – intraspecific variation that can be indicator of the conservation efficiency if it value is greater. Sentences added to Abstract, Introduction, Results and Conclusion sections.

(6) The conclusion summarizes the findings well but could be strengthened by suggesting specific conservation actions or future research directions based on the results. This would provide a more actionable outcome from the study.

Response: Added.

(7) The reference list is extensive but should be updated to include more recent studies, particularly those published in the last five years. This would enhance the manuscript's relevance and demonstrate engagement with current research trends.

Response: The list of cited references contains 14 publications from the last 5 years. This is 19% of the entire list. Our list is very rich in books and articles from previous years used for species identification. Since our diversity was high, we mention more solid handbooks in our list. Therefore, the percentage of publications from the last five years is reduced. But we cannot exclude solid handbooks that were used by us.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I have carefully reviewed the manuscript titled "Biodiversity and Survival Factors of Charophyte Algal Communities in Protected High-Mountain Lakes of Kaçkar Mountains National Park (Rize, Turkey)" submitted to your journal. My evaluation focused on the abstract, methods, and results sections.

The manuscript provides a detailed analysis of the physicochemical properties of various lakes, comparisons of algal communities within these lakes, and the impact of environmental factors on algal biodiversity. The data presentation through figures and tables in the results section is notably effective and supports the findings well.

However, one of my expertise is in botany, with limited exposure to environmental studies. Therefore, I may not be fully qualified to assess the novelty of the research or its alignment with the journal's thematic focus. Assuming these aspects meet the journal's standards, I believe the manuscript would be suitable for publication after minor revisions.

I recommend the following minor revisions:

1. Enhance the clarity and readability of the writing. Consider having a native English speaker review the text for language improvements.

2. Ensure the formatting aligns with the journal's guidelines for consistency throughout the document.

3. It would be advantageous to include supplementary materials in an appendix to maintain the main text's clarity and conciseness, especially since the current Supplementary Materials section is marked as "Not applicable."

In conclusion, pending confirmation of the study's novelty and relevance to the journal, and with the suggested minor revisions, I recommend the manuscript for acceptance. I appreciate the opportunity to review this work and am eager to see its contribution to the field.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you and Reviewer 3 for comments. Please find the Responses to each comment below.

With best regards,

Prof Sophia Barinova

Corresponding author

Responses

1. Enhance the clarity and readability of the writing. Consider having a native English speaker review the text for language improvements.

Response: Significant changes have been made in English by the Editors. And we made the suggested changes to the text.

2. Ensure the formatting aligns with the journal's guidelines for consistency throughout the document.

Response: We are sure. Because we wrote the article according to the journal's template.

3. It would be advantageous to include supplementary materials in an appendix to maintain the main text's clarity and conciseness, especially since the current Supplementary Materials section is marked as "Not applicable."

Response: Done

In conclusion, pending confirmation of the study's novelty and relevance to the journal, and with the suggested minor revisions, I recommend the manuscript for acceptance. I appreciate the opportunity to review this work and am eager to see its contribution to the field.

Response: Thank you for your comments. All relevant changes were made.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 

thank you for your interesting study on the unique biodiversity of charophyte algal communities in protected high-mountain lakes of Kaçkar Mountains National Park (Rize, Turkey). The tremendous work you have done on Charophyta species identification is impressive. The results of the study are certainly needed to monitor the water quality and ecosystem health of lakes in the Kachkar Mountains National Park, as well as to understand the impact of local and global impacts, such as road construction, acid rain, toxic air pollutants and climate change, on aquatic ecosystem change.  It is a rare variant of the submitted manuscripts, when the materials are perfectly outlined and arranged in accordance with the requirements of the journal. A manuscript for publication in your journal may be accepted as submitted.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you and Reviewer 4 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, 

thank you for your interesting study on the unique biodiversity of charophyte algal communities in protected high-mountain lakes of Kaçkar Mountains National Park (Rize, Turkey). The tremendous work you have done on Charophyta species identification is impressive. The results of the study are certainly needed to monitor the water quality and ecosystem health of lakes in the Kachkar Mountains National Park, as well as to understand the impact of local and global impacts, such as road construction, acid rain, toxic air pollutants and climate change, on aquatic ecosystem change.  It is a rare variant of the submitted manuscripts, when the materials are perfectly outlined and arranged in accordance with the requirements of the journal. A manuscript for publication in your journal may be accepted as submitted.

Response: Dear Reviewer 4, Thank you very much for your comments.

With best regards,

The authors.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Article

Biodiversity and survival factors of charophyte algal communities in protected high-mountain lakes of Kaçkar Mountains National Park (Rize, Turkey) Bülent Şahin 1 and Sophia Barinova*2

 

The words in red must be blackened for final editing.

 

In line 34-5, wash oils from roads are missing as a factor of risk. There are many papers on their toxicity effect on amphibians' mortality for example.

 

Some of the graphs (Figure 6) were made using Excel (rather a statistical program) and are not suitable for publication. Also, the axes are identical although not the titles- it should be clarified.

 

The English is level is not bad. But here and there, as in line 239: "supports this situation" which is less scientific. Instead for instance, I recommend on:  consistent with the results…

 

The RDA analysis are lacking the p values. Where is the results table?

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you and Reviewer 5 for comments. Please find the Responses to each comment below.

With best regards,

Prof Sophia Barinova

Corresponding author

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The words in red must be blackened for final editing.

Response: OK.

In line 34-5, wash oils from roads are missing as a factor of risk. There are many papers on their toxicity effect on amphibians' mortality for example.

Response: The oil wash is not relevant to the high-mountain protected area.

Some of the graphs (Figure 6) were made using Excel (rather a statistical program) and are not suitable for publication. Also, the axes are identical although not the titles- it should be clarified.

Response: Figures 6 and 7 were constructed in Excel for the different indicator properties of the revealed charophyte species in the National Park. So, the description for each palett is given in details in the Figure caption. It is trivial exposure of bioindicator analysis results.

The English is level is not bad. But here and there, as in line 239: "supports this situation" which is less scientific. Instead for instance, I recommend on:  consistent with the results…

Response: Significant changes have been made in English by the Editors.

The RDA analysis are lacking the p values. Where is the results table?

Response: p value added.