Effects of varied nitrate and phosphate supply on polysaccharidic and proteinaceous gel particle production during tropical phytoplankton bloom experiments

Engel, A.; Borchard, C.; Loginova, A.; Meyer, J.; Hauss, H.; Kiko, R.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-5647-2015

Articles | Volume 12, issue 19

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-5647-2015

© Author(s) 2015. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-5647-2015

© Author(s) 2015. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 12, issue 19

Research article

|

07 Oct 2015

Research article |

| 07 Oct 2015

Effects of varied nitrate and phosphate supply on polysaccharidic and proteinaceous gel particle production during tropical phytoplankton bloom experiments

A. Engel, C. Borchard, A. Loginova, J. Meyer, H. Hauss, and R. Kiko

Download

Final revised paper (published on 07 Oct 2015)
Preprint (discussion started on 30 Apr 2015)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC C2428: 'Reviewer comments', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 May 2015
- AC C3472: 'Response to Anonymous Referee #1', Anja Engel, 10 Jul 2015
RC C2709: 'Interactive comment from reviewer', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Jun 2015
- AC C3476: 'Response to Anonymous Referee #2', Anja Engel, 10 Jul 2015

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (24 Jul 2015) by Gerhard Herndl

AR by Anja Engel on behalf of the Authors (11 Aug 2015) Author's response

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (15 Aug 2015) by Gerhard Herndl

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (06 Sep 2015)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Suggestions for revision:

The authors have addressed all comments from the reviewers regarding the main manuscript body, however, I still think that the abstract places too much emphasis on the OMZs. Aspects on the OMZs have now been incorporated into the introduction, but as yet in the discussion it is only more explicitly mentioned in the conclusions and not yet really incorporated into the discussion as such.

I suggest that the abstract is reworded to decrease the emphasis on the OMZs by placing the first sentence somewhere later into the abstract, for example.

L65-69 with its current use of punctuation also remains unclear to the reader. The issues with the previous sentence have been dealt with, however, please reformulate also this sentence to make it clearer.

I was also surprised to see no comments to the suggested changes for the figures and tables that would improve their readability and also deal with some of their mistakes. A few things have been incorporated (largely within the figure captions), however, I would like to see either an explanation of why figures and tables were not adjusted as suggested or preferably, changes made.

Minor technical issues also remain, such as superfluous punctuation marks, etc. and the manuscript would benefit from a final very thorough check throughout.

Some of these corrections include (line numbers are for the manuscript with tracked changes):
L29: investigate
L97-99: keep as one paragraph
L142, 145,147: OMZs without the apostrophe for the plural version
L159: 01.10.2012/02.10.2012
L170: add something like “… from each MK at the surface and used for all further analyses. The MKs were…” since later it is unclear that the samples for nutrients, etc. are not separate samples taken from the mesocosms but subsamples from the 5.5-7 L you took each day… Remember also to use MK/MKs in your newly added changes.
L172: missing full-stop
L179: I suggest: In Experiment 1 (referred…) since you refer to Experiment 1 and 2 in your abstract but never reuse this numbering. This also applies to L189: “During Experiment 2 (referred to as …”
L188: double full-stop

L204: remove “were taken daily from each mesocosm” as it sounds like these were additional samples you took from mesocosms and not subsamples from the 10L beaker… Perhaps clarify this better.

L210 and L220f: Please provide the full name for TEP and CSP in line 210 and use only the abbreviation in line 220.

L229: Be aware that the line numbering and the formula are not well preserved in the pdf version and have merged.

L261: remove ‘of’
L266: NO3- and NO2-, i.e. add an ‘and’ and also the minus for nitrite
L296: of all mesocosms of that day or from that day not ‘at’
L297: mesocosm of the same day or from the same day, not ‘at’.
L333: cells
L336: remove particulate organic carbon as already defined earlier.
L512: proportion to the
L527: bacteria did not
L328 and L535: choose one way of writing centrepoint
L536: and 3 replicates
L567: of the varied nutrient concentrations/levels (or something like this) …
L634: contrast

References: please go through thoroughly to make sure all is correctly written and formatted, appropriate capitalization, sub- and superscripts, etc.

L733: strange numbers
L739: missing space DOM and
L861/L865: not bold
L968: CO2 with subscript
L990: should be under Chow as quoted in the manuscript.
L1003: Mar. Chem.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (10 Sep 2015) by Gerhard Herndl

AR by Anja Engel on behalf of the Authors (18 Sep 2015) Manuscript