Population-specific responses in physiological rates of <i>Emiliania huxleyi</i> to a broad CO<sub>2</sub> range

Zhang, Yong; Bach, Lennart T.; Lohbeck, Kai T.; Schulz, Kai G.; Listmann, Luisa; Klapper, Regina; Riebesell, Ulf

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-3691-2018

Articles | Volume 15, issue 12

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-3691-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-3691-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 15, issue 12

Research article

|

19 Jun 2018

Research article |

| 19 Jun 2018

Population-specific responses in physiological rates of Emiliania huxleyi to a broad CO₂ range

Yong Zhang, Lennart T. Bach, Kai T. Lohbeck, Kai G. Schulz, Luisa Listmann, Regina Klapper, and Ulf Riebesell

Download

Final revised paper (published on 19 Jun 2018)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 21 Feb 2018)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'review', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Mar 2018
- AC1: 'Reply to comments on bg-2018-47', Yong Zhang, 20 Apr 2018
RC2: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Mar 2018
- AC2: 'Reply to comments on bg-2018-47', Yong Zhang, 20 Apr 2018

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (25 Apr 2018) by Katja Fennel

AR by Yong Zhang on behalf of the Authors (26 Apr 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (26 Apr 2018) by Katja Fennel

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (10 May 2018)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

General comments
Overall I think that the manuscript is very close to being ready; I only have a few comments. The new schematic diagram helps but it is not quite clear to me yet, I would add more details. The conclusions and global extrapolations could be worked a little bit more, they basically only cite the Paasche paper. The PIC: POC ratio results were a great addition!

Technical comments
Line 47: suggest deleting or changing this last phrase, not a very good conclusive phrase and this is related to understanding the implications of your findings and global impacts. Perhaps you can say accounting for this variability is important to understand how or whether Ehux might adapt to rising CO2 levels.

Line 137 and 147: it does sound like you try to hold your TA constant, I don’t understand why you said you didn’t in your response to my first review….

Line 237: perhaps I would add “as expected” and add citations

Line 258-265: why do you think that there are differences in some sensitivity constants but not in rates?

Line 323: suggest you rephrase to “this illustrates how adaptation to local temperature can …” I would delete “nicely”, unnecessary.

Line 338: add comma after “fashion,”

Line 340-343: your conclusion is based on the assumption that temperature doesn’t change but temperature will increase perhaps even faster than CO2 and this might have a greater impact. Plus, there could be interactions between temperature and CO2…

Line 363: delete “at increasing temperatures” or change to “and increasing temperatures”

Line 367: please elaborate

Line 370-72: consider more implications

Line 392-95: I disagree, this is just a simple correlation, it doesn’t say anything about dominance of strains. My take is that higher growth rate, means larger population and so, greater production.

Line 395-96: again, the conclusions need more work

Line 408: I would say something like: in this case, we only studied the effects of rising CO2 but future studies should take into account simultaneous effects from other interacting factors such as light and temperature variability.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (11 May 2018) by Katja Fennel

AR by Yong Zhang on behalf of the Authors (19 May 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (04 Jun 2018) by Katja Fennel

AR by Yong Zhang on behalf of the Authors (05 Jun 2018) Manuscript

Download

Article (1639 KB)
Full-text XML

Short summary

To compare variations in physiological responses to pCO₂ between populations, we measured growth, POC and PIC production rates at a pCO₂ range from 120 to 2630 µatm for 17 strains of the coccolithophore Emiliania huxleyi from the Azores, Canary Islands, and Norwegian coast near Bergen. Optimal pCO₂ for growth and POC production rates and tolerance to low pH was significantly higher for the Bergen population than the Azores and Canary Islands populations.

Population-specific responses in physiological rates of Emiliania huxleyi to a broad CO2 range

Download

Interactive discussion

Peer-review completion

Population-specific responses in physiological rates of Emiliania huxleyi to a broad CO₂ range