Foraminiferal community response to seasonal anoxia in Lake Grevelingen (the Netherlands)

Richirt, Julien; Riedel, Bettina; Mouret, Aurélia; Schweizer, Magali; Langlet, Dewi; Seitaj, Dorina; Meysman, Filip J. R.; Slomp, Caroline P.; Jorissen, Frans J.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-1415-2020

Articles | Volume 17, issue 6

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-1415-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-1415-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 17, issue 6

Research article

|

20 Mar 2020

Research article |

| 20 Mar 2020

Foraminiferal community response to seasonal anoxia in Lake Grevelingen (the Netherlands)

Julien Richirt, Bettina Riedel, Aurélia Mouret, Magali Schweizer, Dewi Langlet, Dorina Seitaj, Filip J. R. Meysman, Caroline P. Slomp, and Frans J. Jorissen

Download

Final revised paper (published on 20 Mar 2020)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 01 Oct 2019)
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 bg-2019-382', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Oct 2019
- AC1: 'Authors answer to referee's comments', Julien Richirt, 02 Dec 2019
- AC2: 'Track changes - Manuscript and Supplementary Material', Julien Richirt, 02 Dec 2019
RC2: 'Comments to the Author #Manuscript ID: bg-2019-382', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Nov 2019
- AC1: 'Authors answer to referee's comments', Julien Richirt, 02 Dec 2019
- AC3: 'Track changes - Manuscript and Supplementary Material', Julien Richirt, 02 Dec 2019

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (17 Dec 2019) by Hiroshi Kitazato

AR by Julien Richirt on behalf of the Authors (17 Dec 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (08 Jan 2020) by Hiroshi Kitazato

RR by Laurie M. Charrieau (24 Jan 2020)

RR by Helena Filipsson (27 Jan 2020)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Dear Dr Hiroshi Kitazato,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read the revised version of Richirt et al's MS resubmitted to Biogeosciences. I have read the revised version, the comments from the two reviewers and the response letters and I think the authors have done a good job revising the MS. However I have a few comments of more technical nature, which I hope the authors correct before publication.

The introduction and the aim are now well described, however, I lack a map of the study site. In particular, since this study is very much focused on one particular area.
On row 162, there should be one centimetre, to make clearer it was 0-1 cm that was studied.

row 191-195 can be excluded, it doesn't move the text forward that the authors highlight that molecular data for E. magellancium is lacking. One only wonders why they didn't do the analyses then.

rows 197-205 could be shortened, the Elphidiu discussion is already in Darling et al., 2016 and no need to be repeated here.

The paragraph regarding size distribution should be shortened, in particular since the data is only reported as SI. Also figure 1 should be moved to SI1. There is no point to have the first 1 showing methods that are now moved to SI. I fully recognize the work that has been put into all those measurements.

In the result section, I recommend to decrease the significant figures and avoid decimal numbers. What does 1.1 specimens/10 cc or 449.9 mean? it makes more sense to present 1 and 450 specimens /10cc. The same holds for per cent. The should be a space between the number and %.
Is Table 1 necessary?, the sampling date can be included in table 2.
In Table 2, including the unit in the header row and only present numbers (exclude % unit). In table 2 it is unnecessary to include 100% in the final column, I would also no call it total assemblage as it is total concentration.

In the SI table 3, the total concentration needs to be included or the total number of counted foraminifera for each sample.

I'm looking forward to seeing the MS in print as it includes some very interesting data from low O2 environments.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (28 Jan 2020) by Hiroshi Kitazato

AR by Julien Richirt on behalf of the Authors (06 Feb 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (10 Feb 2020) by Hiroshi Kitazato

AR by Julien Richirt on behalf of the Authors (17 Feb 2020) Manuscript

Download

Article (10339 KB)
Full-text XML

Short summary

The paper presents the response of benthic foraminiferal communities to seasonal absence of oxygen coupled with the presence of hydrogen sulfide, considered very harmful for several living organisms. Our results suggest that the foraminiferal community mainly responds as a function of the duration of the adverse conditions. This knowledge is especially useful to better understand the ecology of benthic foraminifera but also in the context of palaeoceanographic interpretations.