Enhanced microbial nitrogen transformations in association with macrobiota from the rocky intertidal

Pfister, Catherine A.; Altabet, Mark A.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-193-2019

Articles | Volume 16, issue 2

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-193-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-193-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 16, issue 2

Research article

|

18 Jan 2019

Research article |

| 18 Jan 2019

Enhanced microbial nitrogen transformations in association with macrobiota from the rocky intertidal

Catherine A. Pfister and Mark A. Altabet

Download

Final revised paper (published on 18 Jan 2019)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 17 May 2018)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Reviewer comments on bg-2018-198', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Jun 2018
- AC1: 'Responses to Reviewer 1 and 2', Catherine Pfister, 29 Jul 2018
RC2: 'Comments for bg-2018-198', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Jul 2018
- AC2: 'Response to Reviewer 2', Catherine Pfister, 06 Aug 2018

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (07 Aug 2018) by Clare Woulds

AR by Catherine Pfister on behalf of the Authors (08 Aug 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (10 Sep 2018) by Clare Woulds

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (23 Sep 2018)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

bg-2018-198 "Enhanced microbial nitrogen transformations in association with　intertidal macrobiota" by Catherine A. Pfister, Mark A. Altabet

The present version of manuscript has been improved. However, some minor point in data presentation should be revised before publishing in Biogeoscinece.

General point:
The rates per unit volume in this manuscript is useful only under the experimental condition. In abstract authors stated that Mussels, their shells from which tissue had been removed, and Prionitis all elevated ammonium oxidation and nitrate reduction by two orders of magnitude over seawater alone (Lines 19-21). If biomass in a chamber becomes to one part in a hundred equal parts, the rates in the chamber with macrobiota or messel shells will be similar level to seawater alone. Thus description in Lines 19-21 is meaningless information for readers without explaining detail of the experimental setup, although the results is clear evidence obtained from the experiments in this manuscript. Similarly, the sentence in conclusion (Lines 474-476) is less informative for readers because the magnitude has meaning only in the experimental condition. Instead, author should refer discussion in section 4.1 in conclusion.
I agree that it is difficult to determine the biomass of microbes on the surface of shell, bioball and ceramic ring. And I agree that it is appropriate to compare the rates per unit volume among different experimental settlings under limited condition. However, generality of evidence obtained from limited condition is less. Thus authors should increase generality and applicability of their results.

Specific points:
1) Lines 143-152: SD of dry mass or wet mass should be presented. Because the variation of the rates per unit volume includes variation of biomass and individual difference and errors, it is needed to clarify the contribution of variation of biomass to total variation.
2) Lines 228-230: In some statistical analysis, log-transformed values were used. Add reason why data was transformed and its criterion.
3) Section 4.1: Estimated rates in a square meter should be presented with error (SD or SE). Errors of the rates per dry (or wet) mass can be estimated.
4) Figure 1: The values using mussel shells are presented separately from those using whole of mussels.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (16 Oct 2018)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (22 Oct 2018) by Clare Woulds

AR by Catherine Pfister on behalf of the Authors (03 Nov 2018)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (28 Nov 2018) by Clare Woulds

Dear DR Pfister

Thank you for revising your manuscript. I am happy with the changes to the discussion, but I am still not happy with the way that the data are presented. Please could you make the following changes before I make a final decision on your manuscript:

1) The 'rates' that you have added to the abstract and conclusions are in fact not rates, as you have not specified the timescale over which the stated amounts of N transformation occurred. Please add a temporal element to these values (i.e. report them in nmol per g wet biomass per h).

2) The rates that have been added to the abstract and conclusions should also be reported and discussed in the results and discussion sections (respectively). Consider using a tables(s), and/or additional figures. The abstract and conclusion sections should only contain a summary of findings presented in the main body of the paper.

3) The presentation of your figures does not yet meet publication standards. Firstly, the axis labels sometimes lack units (there are examples of this in all figures - the label 'ammonium oxidation' or 'nitrate reduction' is insufficient, it is necessary to provide units (nmol per L?). If you are just providing a change in concentration over the course of your incubation, then please make sure that the duration of the incubation is at least stated in the caption. Alternately, consider presenting all the data as rates (i.e. normalised to time as well).

3) The visual presentation of figures 1 and 4 needs to be improved. In figure 1 I would discourage the use of colours, but consider making the data point markers larger. Please also tidy the legend so that it does not overlap the edge of the plot. In figure 4, the labels 'seawater', bioballs' and 'prionitis' could be given just once at the top of each stack of figures. This would make the figure less cluttered. If you had light greyscale shading in vertical zones with the 'seawater', bioballs' and 'prionitis' labels at the top, you could also get rid of colours in this figure. Please also enlarge this figure, so that the y axes are not so compressed.

I would like to stress that these changes are to ensure that your data presentation meets the appropriate professional standards, therefore please take particular care to fully accommodate them.

Best regards,

Clare Woulds

Hide

AR by Catherine Pfister on behalf of the Authors (02 Dec 2018)

ED: Publish as is (08 Jan 2019) by Clare Woulds

AR by Catherine Pfister on behalf of the Authors (08 Jan 2019)

Download

Article (1121 KB)
Full-text XML

Short summary

Microbial assemblages on host plants and animals are an increasingly recognized biological phenomenon. We present evidence that microbes in association with mussels and seaweeds are contributing greatly to nitrogen cycling in coastal marine areas, often many times that of the microbes that are simply free-living in seawater. The addition of dissolved organic carbon increased nutrient uptake by microbes, suggesting that coastal species enhance microbial metabolism through resource provisioning.