Spatial and temporal variability in the response of phytoplankton and prokaryotes to B-vitamin amendments in an upwelling system

Joglar, Vanessa; Prieto, Antero; Barber-Lluch, Esther; Hernández-Ruiz, Marta; Fernández, Emilio; Teira, Eva

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-2807-2020

Articles | Volume 17, issue 10

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-2807-2020

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

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-2807-2020

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

Articles | Volume 17, issue 10

Research article

|

26 May 2020

Research article |

| 26 May 2020

Spatial and temporal variability in the response of phytoplankton and prokaryotes to B-vitamin amendments in an upwelling system

Vanessa Joglar, Antero Prieto, Esther Barber-Lluch, Marta Hernández-Ruiz, Emilio Fernández, and Eva Teira

Download

Final revised paper (published on 26 May 2020)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 22 Aug 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 of ‘Spatial and temporal variability in the response of phytoplankton and bacterioplankton to B-vitamin amendments in an upwelling system’ by Joglar et al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Sep 2019
- AC1: 'Response to referee 1', Vanessa Joglar, 24 Oct 2019
- AC2: 'Final Response to Referee1', Vanessa Joglar, 13 Nov 2019
RC2: 'Comments to Authors', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Oct 2019
- AC3: 'Final response to referee2', Vanessa Joglar, 13 Nov 2019

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (26 Nov 2019) by Koji Suzuki

AR by Vanessa Joglar on behalf of the Authors (29 Nov 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (04 Dec 2019) by Koji Suzuki

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (17 Dec 2019)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

While the authors have successfully addressed many of my specific comments, they have not addressed the global issue of the manuscript being vague and unspecific to the point where it is not clear that the data matches the conclusions the authors are making. It’s very possible they do match, but the way the manuscript is written, it is not currently clear. The manuscript still suffers from major flaws that prevent it to be published in its current form. Most concerning of which is the lack of specificity that the authors use in their language. It is impossible for the reader to know exactly what results the authors are referring to.

For example: throughout the manuscript the authors use phytoplankton biomass and chlorophyll concentration interchangeably (e.g., ln 321,355). The authors measured chlorophyll concentration, not biomass. It is strongly established that Chlorophyll concentration to cellular carbon (biomass) ratios are highly variable in phytoplankton, especially across seasonal changes in light and nutrient concentration (which is the context for the authors experiments). It is not valid to say that phytoplankton biomass is being estimated by chlorophyll concentration. I do think that measuring chlorophyll concentration is a valid method of tracking phytoplankton, but the authors need to be specific throughout the manuscript about what they are actually measuring, and make sure that the conclusions they are making can be supported by their actual data. Reporting changes in chlorophyll concentration have a dramatically different physiological and ecological implications than reporting changes in biomass. I can’t be sure what they mean with the manuscript in its current form.

In sum, this manuscript has a lot of potential. I was (and am) excited to see this experiment, and I do think the data should eventually be published. However, as it stands currently, the authors have not done their due diligence making sure that the manuscript is clear, specific, and ready for publication.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (08 Jan 2020)

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (15 Jan 2020)

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (23 Jan 2020) by Koji Suzuki

AR by Anna Mirena Feist-Polner on behalf of the Authors (02 Mar 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (16 Mar 2020) by Koji Suzuki

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (25 Mar 2020)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (02 Apr 2020) by Koji Suzuki

AR by Vanessa Joglar on behalf of the Authors (03 Apr 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (22 Apr 2020) by Koji Suzuki

AR by Vanessa Joglar on behalf of the Authors (27 Apr 2020) Author's response Manuscript

Download

Article (7761 KB)
Full-text XML

Short summary

Coastal marine ecosystems are among the most ecologically and economically productive areas providing a large fraction of ecosystem goods and services to human populations, and B vitamins have long been considered important growth factors for phytoplankton. Our findings indicate that the responses of microbial plankton to B-vitamin supply are mainly driven by the bacterial community composition and that microbial plankton in this area seems to be well adapted to cope with B-vitamin shortage.