Evidence of the Anthropic Impact on a Crustacean Zooplankton Community in Two North Patagonian Lakes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have completed the revision of the ms by Norambuena et al. “Evidences of the anthropic impact on zooplankton community of two North Patagonian lakes”. In this ms the authors documented the anthropic impact on zooplankton community of two North Patagonian lakes. The topic is very interesting, and authors collected very valuable data. However, I have several comments regarding the paper, and I feel that it will need significant editing before being ready for publication. I outline several of my concerns below and have included an annotated PDF with several more comments. I hope these are useful for ms improvement.

After reading the manuscript, I found that the sampling design seems to be consistent. The authors analyzed heavy metals values in the studied lakes, which is very favorable to evaluate the "health" of the aquatic environment, and also to recommend management tools for the conservation of these lakes, and to decide if they are suitable for recreational use (Government decisions). However, I think that the authors should incorporate several changes to the ms in relation to the following topics:

-Throughout the manuscript they talk about zooplankton in general, but they only took samples of macrozooplankton/mesozooplankton. They should clarify that it is the largest size fraction or mention as crustaceans, even in the title of the ms.

- Check the wording of sentences, in some cases words and commas are missing.

- Review the abbreviations of the variables, since they are not consistent throughout the ms and the supplementary material.

- Avoid repeating information

 

Introduction

It would be necessary to include in the introduction, papers that evaluates the anthropic impact on alpha and beta diversity, mentioning why it is important to measure these ecological variables.

 

M&M

Since the authors took sampled with a 200-micron mesh, I strongly recommend specifying that only the largest size fraction of zooplankton was sampled.

In addition, I’m concern why authors did not take samples of the small fraction of zooplankton (rotifers, nauplii larvae, etc).

 

Results

I recommend not repeat information, for example the authors showed two PCAs with the same data, I recommend show only one Plot.

Data of one variable (KMnO4 concentration) are missing in the results, it is mention in Table 2, and also it appears in the supplementary material, but it is not mentioned in the Results section.

 

Discussion

In this section the authors compare physical and chemical values but there is no justification or reason why there are differences between measured values and those in the literature, there is no support in this regard. For example, the chla values found between both lakes are not compared, while in the introduction the authors develop this topic and mention something about eutrophication, etc.

 

Particularly, in paragraph 347-363, the authors compare CE, DO and Chla values measured in the present ms with data obtained from the literature, but they do not give any potential reason why this difference in values was observed. In addition, many results are reiterated, and little is discussed about these differences (eg, hydrological levels, year of sampling, time of year of sampling, area of the water body, type of basin of the lakes, surrounding environments, etc.). I recommend further discussion and not mentioning the obtained values ​​that were already mentioned in the results section.

 

Supplementary material

In the captions (of figures and tables) is necessary to mention that the Puerto Varas effluent corresponds to Lake Llanquihue; and mention if these data were obtained in the same sampling (March 2020) or if it was carried out prior to this study, in that case mention the source/authorship.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer #1: I have completed the revision of the ms by Norambuena et al. “Evidences of the anthropic impact on zooplankton community of two North Patagonian lakes”. In this ms the authors documented the anthropic impact on zooplankton community of two North Patagonian lakes. The topic is very interesting, and authors collected very valuable data. However, I have several comments regarding the paper, and I feel that it will need significant editing before being ready for publication. I outline several of my concerns below and have included an annotated PDF with several more comments. I hope these are useful for ms improvement.

We thank the comments and suggestions of the reviewer. We are grateful to the contribution of the reviewer and consider that all changes made, improved greatly the quality of the manuscript. Please found below the response of each suggestion.

After reading the manuscript, I found that the sampling design seems to be consistent. The authors analyzed heavy metals values in the studied lakes, which is very favorable to evaluate the "health" of the aquatic environment, and also to recommend management tools for the conservation of these lakes, and to decide if they are suitable for recreational use (Government decisions). However, I think that the authors should incorporate several changes to the ms in relation to the following topics:

-Throughout the manuscript they talk about zooplankton in general, but they only took samples of macrozooplankton/mesozooplankton. They should clarify that it is the largest size fraction or mention as crustaceans, even in the title of the ms.

Response: M&M were modified accordingly. We clarified that the zooplankton sampled belonged to the crustacean community, and the species collected included macro- and mesozooplankton. Please see line 141 and 143. In addition, the title of the manuscript was modified following the suggestions of the reviewer.

- Check the wording of sentences, in some cases words and commas are missing.

Response: The manuscript was thoroughly reviewed, and the text was greatly improved.

- Review the abbreviations of the variables, since they are not consistent throughout the ms and the supplementary material.

Response: The abbreviations in the text were revised and modified accordingly.  

- Avoid repeating information

Response: The manuscript was thoroughly reviewed, and the repeating information was removed as the suggestions of the reviewer.

• Comments and suggestions from the PDF file:
• Title

Response: The title was modified according to the reviewer suggestion.

• Abstract

Response: The abstract was modified, and English editing was performed to improve the understanding of the readers. Please see line 24, which was also changed according to the reviewer suggestions.

• Introduction: It would be necessary to include in the introduction, papers that evaluates the anthropic impact on alpha and beta diversity, mentioning why it is important to measure these ecological variables.

Response: We thank the suggestion made by the reviewer. The Introduction section in the manuscript was highly improved after the addition of references associated to ecological variables. Please see lines 90 to 97.

• Introduction: What type of origin? Volcanic, glaciar? And what about morphological variables of the studied lakes, for example area… etc.

Response: We thank the suggestion made by the reviewer. We included the origin of the lakes. Please see line 101.

• M&M: Since the authors took sampled with a 200-micron mesh, I strongly recommend specifying that only the largest size fraction of zooplankton was sampled. In addition, I’m concern why authors did not take samples of the small fraction of zooplankton (rotifers, nauplii larvae, etc).

Response: M&M were modified accordingly. We clarified that the zooplankton sampled belonged to the crustacean community, and the species collected included macro- and mesozooplankton. Please see line 141 and 143. In addition, the title of the manuscript was modified following the suggestions of the reviewer.

• Results: I recommend not repeat information, for example the authors showed two PCAs with the same data, I recommend show only one Plot. Data of one variable (KMnO4 concentration) are missing in the results, it is mention in Table 2, and also it appears in the supplementary material, but it is not mentioned in the Results section.

Response: We followed the recommendation of the reviewer and one PCA was removed. In addition, the mention of KMnO₄ variable was removed from the Table 2.

• Results: Only mean values appear in the table, where are the standard deviations?

Response: We thank the reviewer suggestion. The Table 3 was modified, and standard deviation was added for each variable.

• Results: Please place the units in such a way that it is understood to which variable it corresponds.

Response: We thank the reviewer suggestion. The Table 3 was modified, and units were added for each variable.

• Discussion: In this section the authors compare physical and chemical values but there is no justification or reason why there are differences between measured values and those in the literature, there is no support in this regard. For example, the chla values found between both lakes are not compared, while in the introduction the authors develop this topic and mention something about eutrophication, etc.

Response: The Discussion section was greatly improved following the suggestions of the reviewer. Please see line 437 to 462 for Ch-a results.

• Particularly, in paragraph 347-363, the authors compare CE, DO and Chla values measured in the present ms with data obtained from the literature, but they do not give any potential reason why this difference in values was observed. In addition, many results are reiterated, and little is discussed about these differences (eg, hydrological levels, year of sampling, time of year of sampling, area of the water body, type of basin of the lakes, surrounding environments, etc.). I recommend further discussion and not mentioning the obtained values ​​that were already mentioned in the results section.

Response: The Discussion section was greatly improved following the suggestions of the reviewer. The repeated information was removed. Please see lines 381 to 390 for TDS results, lines 402 to 418 for EC results, and lines 423 to 433 for DO results.

• Supplementary material: In the captions (of figures and tables) is necessary to mention that the Puerto Varas effluent corresponds to Lake Llanquihue; and mention if these data were obtained in the same sampling (March 2020) or if it was carried out prior to this study, in that case mention the source/authorship.

Response: The supplementary material was modified accordingly. Also, it was clarified in the M&M that the effluent sampling was performed at the same time as the water sampling. Please see line 132.

Reviewer 2 Report

Review for the paper "Evidences of the anthropic impact on zooplankton community of two North Patagonian lakes" by Juan-Alejandro Norambuena, Patricia Poblete-Grant, Jorge Beltrán, Patricio De Los Ríos-Escalante and Jorge G. Farías submitted to "Sustainability".

 

General comment.

 

Zooplankton assemblages represent the main base of any aquatic ecosystem. Their role in carbon fluxes and energy dynamics is obvious. In aquatic ecosystems, zooplankton animals have a great significance as predators and secondary producers. Planktonic animals are considered to be good indicators of environmental forcing from climatic fluctuations and various human activities. The authors investigated the community structure of zooplankton in two lakes with different levels of anthropogenic impacts. The authors found that Llanquihue Lake is characterized by higher total phosphorus, nitrogen, copper, iron, manganese, total dissolved solids, and conductivity than Icalma Lake with the latter being less Impacted by human activities. Environmental variables were declared to affect the zooplankton community in Llanquihue Lake. The present study contributes to our knowledge on the assessment of the water quality in water bodies using zooplankton as an indicator and may be interesting for environmentalists and ecologists dealing with monitoring aquatic ecosystems. Standard methods to collect samples and to treat the data were used in the study. Main results are illustrated with relevant Figures and Tables. Statistical methods are carefully described and used. Discussion is focused on the main findings but can be improved. The English is poor and should be revised.

 

Recommendations

L 23. The authors stated "three replicates" here, whereas "four replicates" are used in the rest text (for example, L 130). Please, clarify.

Fig. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6. The resolution and size of the figures must be increased. Also, the font must be enlarged for better presentation.

L 115. The authors should include information about the device used for water sampling.

L 160-161. This section "was used, contrasting with… richness (Ln (S'))" is difficult to understand. Please, rewrite.

L 199. "Average values ± standard deviation". There are no SDs in Table 3.

L 200. "Lower case letter indicates significant differences…". There are no lower case letters in Table 3. Please, specify.

L 215-216. "Moreover, Icalma sites…" This sentence is difficult to understand. Please, rewrite.

The authors use the term "specific abundance". I recommend using "total abundance" or "abundance". Otherwise, the authors should explain this term in detail.

L 249. "Capital letter". There are no capital letters on the figure.

Discussion. The authors should provide clear explanations for the patterns they found. For example, they should explain the differences registered between different water bodies instead of a simple enumeration of values found in different regions.

 

Specific remarks.

 

L 24. Consider replacing “Water samples were physicochemical characterized and zooplankton communities  were analyzed” to “Water samples were analyzed for physicochemical characteristics and zooplankton communities”

L 25. Consider deleting “In the latest,”

L 27. Consider replacing “the higher total phosphorus” to “higher total phosphorus”

L 28. Consider replacing “as compared with” to “as compared to”

L 40. Consider replacing “that the 54% of lakes in Asia and the Pacific, the” to “that 54% of lakes in Asia and the Pacific,”

L 44. Consider replacing “In fact, the Lake Benit, which” to “In fact, Lake Benit, which”

L 49. Consider replacing “bodies leading a rapid” to “bodies leading to a rapid”

L 54. Consider replacing “anthropogenic effect” to “anthropogenic effects”

L 57. Consider replacing “being classified between the 1980s and 1990s as oligotrophic  lakes” to “as oligotrophic  lakes in the 1980–1990s”

L 67. Consider replacing “to microalgae populations” to “with microalgae populations”

L 71. Consider replacing “This group of invertebrates are structured depending of” to “This group of invertebrates is structured depending on”

L 73. Consider replacing “that feeds of” to “that feeds on”

L 81. Consider replacing “according to it was” to “according to what was”

L 84. Consider replacing “evidences comprising increases of N and P levels as well as changes of” to “evidence comprising increases in N and P levels as well as changes in”

L 91. Consider replacing “zooplankton community” to “the zooplankton community”

L 97. Consider replacing “oligotrophic lake very low” to “oligotrophic lake with very low”

L 111. Consider replacing “Sampling of the two North Patagonian” to “Sampling in the two North Patagonian”

L 108. Consider replacing “Picture obtained by Google” to “Picture obtained from Google”

L 112. Consider replacing “period of highest abundance” to “period of the highest abundance”

L 116. Consider replacing “discharged directly waste water to” to “directly discharged waste water into”

L 123. Consider replacing “Sampling site” to “Sampling sites”

L 124. Consider replacing “Picture obtained by Google” to “Picture obtained from Google”

L 158. Consider replacing “in each sampling site” to “at each sampling site”

L 171. Consider replacing “will be accepted as” to “was set at”

L 184. Consider deleting “being this difference significant”

L 188. Consider replacing “in all sampling sites” to “at all sampling sites”

L 195. Consider replacing “showed high CE” to “showed a higher CE”

L 195. Consider replacing “compared to the other” to “compared to other”

L 197. Consider replacing “measured situ” to “measured in situ”

L 208. Consider replacing “at site I 2  was 6.30 µg L ^-1  ” to “at site I 2  (6.30 µg L ^-1)  ”

L 210. Consider replacing “associated to anthropization with” to “associated with anthropization”

L 211. Consider replacing “both lakes comprised” to “both lakes including”

L 222. Consider deleting “associated to the four sampling sites”

L 224. Consider replacing “indexes” to “indices”

L 227. Consider replacing “specific” to “species”

L 231. Consider replacing “within lake” to “within the same lake”

L 232. Consider deleting “under study”

L 236. Consider replacing “indexes” to “indices”

L 240. Consider replacing “a high diversity” to “high diversity”

L 255. Consider replacing “indexes” to “indices”

L 266. Consider replacing “is showed” to “is shown”

L 269. Consider replacing “correlated to” to “correlated with”

L 274. Consider replacing “highly and positive” to “highly and positively”

L 279. Consider replacing “are showed” to “are shown”

L 280. Consider replacing “Pearson” to “Pearson's”

L 297. Consider replacing “the others sites” to “other sites”

L 301. Consider replacing “ecological variables” to “environmental variables”

L 302. Consider replacing “The regression lineal” to “In the regression linear”

L 317. Consider replacing “to anthropogenic” to “with anthropogenic”

L 318. Consider replacing “were in accordance to” to “were in accordance with”

L 337. Consider replacing “located  in” to “located  in areas”

L 343. Consider replacing “reported by first time” to “reported these for the first time”

L 353. Consider replacing “by first  time” to “for the first time”

L 361. Consider replacing “higher than those” to “higher than”

L 371. Consider replacing “This was  showed” to “This was  shown”

L 374. Consider replacing “comparing the” to “compare the”

L 385. Consider replacing “the reported” to “the value reported”

L 388. Consider replacing “with greatly dominance” to “with great dominance”

L 390. Consider replacing “equilibrium on zooplankton community” to “equilibrium of the zooplankton community”

L 399. Consider replacing “lead by some degree” to “following by some degree”

L 405. Consider replacing “the evidences of the anthropization effect due to  the increases on” to “the evidence of the anthropization effect due to  the increases in”

L 431. Consider replacing “the higher levels” to “higher levels”

L 435. Consider replacing “indicated decreases on” to “indicated decreases in”

L 447. Consider replacing “contributes to the importance” to “contributing to the importance”

Author Response

Reviewer #2

General comment.

Zooplankton assemblages represent the main base of any aquatic ecosystem. Their role in carbon fluxes and energy dynamics is obvious. In aquatic ecosystems, zooplankton animals have a great significance as predators and secondary producers. Planktonic animals are considered to be good indicators of environmental forcing from climatic fluctuations and various human activities. The authors investigated the community structure of zooplankton in two lakes with different levels of anthropogenic impacts. The authors found that Llanquihue Lake is characterized by higher total phosphorus, nitrogen, copper, iron, manganese, total dissolved solids, and conductivity than Icalma Lake with the latter being less Impacted by human activities. Environmental variables were declared to affect the zooplankton community in Llanquihue Lake. The present study contributes to our knowledge on the assessment of the water quality in water bodies using zooplankton as an indicator and may be interesting for environmentalists and ecologists dealing with monitoring aquatic ecosystems. Standard methods to collect samples and to treat the data were used in the study. Main results are illustrated with relevant Figures and Tables. Statistical methods are carefully described and used. Discussion is focused on the main findings but can be improved. The English is poor and should be revised.

We are grateful to the suggestions and positive comments of the reviewer. We consider that the manuscript highly improved after the modifications suggested by the reviewer. In addition, the manuscript was thoroughly revised and English editing by a native speaker was performed. Please find a response for each suggestion which is detailed below.

L 23. The authors stated "three replicates" here, whereas "four replicates" are used in the rest text (for example, L 130). Please, clarify.

Response: The study design involved the use of four replicates. This was corrected in line 128 and overall the text.

Fig. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6. The resolution and size of the figures must be increased. Also, the font must be enlarged for better presentation.

Response: We thank the reviewer suggestion. All the figures were increased in their resolution and size. Also, fonts were increased to enhance the understanding of the readers.

L 115. The authors should include information about the device used for water sampling.

Response: The sampling method was better explained. Please see line 129.

• L 160-161. This section "was used, contrasting with… richness (Ln (S'))" is difficult to understand. Please, rewrite.

Response: The text was rewrote following the suggestions of the reviewer. Please see line 178 to 182.

• L 199. "Average values ± standard deviation". There are no SDs in Table 3.

Response: We thank the reviewer suggestion. The Table was modified, and standard deviation was added for each variable.

• L 200. "Lower case letter indicates significant differences…". There are no lower case letters in Table 3. Please, specify.

Response: The legend of each Table and Figure was thoroughly revised and modified accordingly.

• L 215-216. "Moreover, Icalma sites…" This sentence is difficult to understand. Please, rewrite.

Response: The line was modified accordingly, please see line 248.

• The authors use the term "specific abundance". I recommend using "total abundance" or "abundance". Otherwise, the authors should explain this term in detail.

Response: We thank to the reviewer for the suggestion. According to Krebs (1985), the term ni’ refers to the abundance of individuals belonging to particularly one species abundance which is denoted as “specific abundance”. On the other hand, the term Ni’ denoted all individuals grouped belonging to different species and knowledge as “total abundance”. Please see line 173 to 177.

• Krebs, C.H. Ecología: Estudio de la distribución y la abundancia; 3rd ed.; Pirámide: Madrid, 1985.

 

• L 249. "Capital letter". There are no capital letters on the figure.

Response: The legend of each Table and Figure was thoroughly revised and modified accordingly.

• The authors should provide clear explanations for the patterns they found. For example, they should explain the differences registered between different water bodies instead of a simple enumeration of values found in different regions.

Response: The Discussion section was highly improved. Repeated information was removed and factors affecting the data obtained was added to the discussion.

 

Specific remarks.

• L 24. Consider replacing “Water samples were physicochemical characterized and zooplankton communities were analyzed” to “Water samples were analyzed for physicochemical characteristics and zooplankton communities”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 24.

• L 25. Consider deleting “In the latest,”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 25.

• L 27. Consider replacing “the higher total phosphorus” to “higher total phosphorus”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 28.

• L 28. Consider replacing “as compared with” to “as compared to”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly to the reviewer suggestion, while after English editing the word was changed by “than”. Please see line 29.

• L 40. Consider replacing “that the 54% of lakes in Asia and the Pacific, the” to “that 54% of lakes in Asia and the Pacific,”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 41.

• L 44. Consider replacing “In fact, the Lake Benit, which” to “In fact, Lake Benit, which”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 45.

• L 49. Consider replacing “bodies leading a rapid” to “bodies leading to a rapid”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 50.

• L 54. Consider replacing “anthropogenic effect” to “anthropogenic effects”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 56.

• L 57. Consider replacing “being classified between the 1980s and 1990s as oligotrophic lakes” to “as oligotrophic lakes in the 1980–1990s”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 59.

• L 67. Consider replacing “to microalgae populations” to “with microalgae populations”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 70.

• L 71. Consider replacing “This group of invertebrates are structured depending of” to “This group of invertebrates is structured depending on”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 74.

• L 73. Consider replacing “that feeds of” to “that feeds on”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 76.

• L 81. Consider replacing “according to it was” to “according to what was”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 86.

• L 84. Consider replacing “evidences comprising increases of N and P levels as well as changes of” to “evidence comprising increases in N and P levels as well as changes in”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 88.

• L 91. Consider replacing “zooplankton community” to “the zooplankton community”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 104.

• L 97. Consider replacing “oligotrophic lake very low” to “oligotrophic lake with very low”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 110.

• L 111. Consider replacing “Sampling of the two North Patagonian” to “Sampling in the two North Patagonian”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 125.

• L 108. Consider replacing “Picture obtained by Google” to “Picture obtained from Google”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 122.

• L 112. Consider replacing “period of highest abundance” to “period of the highest abundance”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 126.

• L 116. Consider replacing “discharged directly waste water to” to “directly discharged waste water into”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 130.

• L 123. Consider replacing “Sampling site” to “Sampling sites”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 138.

• L 124. Consider replacing “Picture obtained by Google” to “Picture obtained from Google”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 139.

• L 158. Consider replacing “in each sampling site” to “at each sampling site”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 153.

• L 171. Consider replacing “will be accepted as” to “was set at”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 200.

• L 184. Consider deleting “being this difference significant”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 213.

• L 188. Consider replacing “in all sampling sites” to “at all sampling sites”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 217.

• L 195. Consider replacing “showed high CE” to “showed a higher CE”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 225.

• L 195. Consider replacing “compared to the other” to “compared to other”

Response: The text was revised and modified following the reviewer suggestion, while after English editing the text in the line was changed. Please see line 225.

• L 197. Consider replacing “measured situ” to “measured in situ”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 227.

• L 208. Consider replacing “at site I 2 was 6.30 µg L ” to “at site I2 (6.30 µg L ) ”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 240.

• L 210. Consider replacing “associated to anthropization with” to “associated with anthropization”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 243.

• L 211. Consider replacing “both lakes comprised” to “both lakes including”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 244.

• L 222. Consider deleting “associated to the four sampling sites”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 258.

• L 224. Consider replacing “indexes” to “indices”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 260.

• L 227. Consider replacing “specific” to “species”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 264.

• L 231. Consider replacing “within lake” to “within the same lake”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 267.

• L 232. Consider deleting “under study”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 268.

• L 236. Consider replacing “indexes” to “indices”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 272.

• L 240. Consider replacing “a high diversity” to “high diversity”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 276.

• L 255. Consider replacing “indexes” to “indices”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 291.

• L 266. Consider replacing “is showed” to “is shown”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 304.

• L 269. Consider replacing “correlated to” to “correlated with”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 308.

• L 274. Consider replacing “highly and positive” to “highly and positively”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 313.

• L 279. Consider replacing “are showed” to “are shown”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 317.

• L 280. Consider replacing “Pearson” to “Pearson's”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 318.

• L 297. Consider replacing “the others sites” to “other sites”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 337.

• L 301. Consider replacing “ecological variables” to “environmental variables”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 340.

• L 302. Consider replacing “The regression lineal” to “In the regression linear”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 342.

• L 317. Consider replacing “to anthropogenic” to “with anthropogenic”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 359.

• L 318. Consider replacing “were in accordance to” to “were in accordance with”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 361.

• L 337. Consider replacing “located in” to “located in areas”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 385.

• L 343. Consider replacing “reported by first time” to “reported these for the first time”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 383.

• L 353. Consider replacing “by first time” to “for the first time”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 384.

• L 361. Consider replacing “higher than those” to “higher than”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 438.

• L 371. Consider replacing “This was showed” to “This was shown”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 473.

• L 374. Consider replacing “comparing the” to “compare the”

Response: The text was revised and modified following the suggestions of the reviewer, while after the English editing the text in the line was changed. Please see line 476.

• L 385. Consider replacing “the reported” to “the value reported”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 487.

• L 388. Consider replacing “with greatly dominance” to “with great dominance”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 490.

• L 390. Consider replacing “equilibrium on zooplankton community” to “equilibrium of the zooplankton community”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 493.

• L 399. Consider replacing “lead by some degree” to “following by some degree”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 502.

• L 405. Consider replacing “the evidences of the anthropization effect due to the increases on” to “the evidence of the anthropization effect due to the increases in”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 512.

• L 431. Consider replacing “the higher levels” to “higher levels”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 549.

• L 435. Consider replacing “indicated decreases on” to “indicated decreases in”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 553.

• L 447. Consider replacing “contributes to the importance” to “contributing to the importance”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 567.

Reviewer 3 Report

This study provided essential information on the anthropogenic impact on water quality and zooplankton diversity, contributing to the importance of monitoring the health of these North Patagonia freshwater ecosystems. Overall, the article is well organized, and its presentation is good. However, some minor issues still need to be addressed:

 

(1)Sampling sites may be too few to analyze the zooplankton diversity;

(2)Many factors may influence the nutrient and heavy metal concentration conditions in North Patagonian Lakes, including natural and anthropogenic factors. How did you determine that these changes in the environmental variables resulted from the anthropogenic activities? The impact of human activities often requires a certain amount of time to intervene, and a single sampling data can only indicate the current environmental conditions of water quality.

(3)There are similar comments on the Zooplankton diversity as the nutrient and heavy metal concentration conditions in North Patagonian Lakes.

(4)The representativeness and uncertainty of the experimental data need to be further clarified.

(5)Many environmental variables were identified in this study. However, which one of the factors is the dominant factor that should be paid more attention to.

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer #3

This study provided essential information on the anthropogenic impact on water quality and zooplankton diversity, contributing to the importance of monitoring the health of these North Patagonia freshwater ecosystems.

Dear reviewer, we thank for your comments and your detailed review of the manuscript. Significant changes to the manuscript were made following your suggestions, as well as the English was edited by a native speaker. The details of your suggestions are explained below:

Overall, the article is well organized, and its presentation is good. However, some minor issues still need to be addressed:

(1) Sampling sites may be too few to analyze the zooplankton diversity;

Response: The sampling design was made following the studies performed by De Los Ríos et al. (2020) and De los Ríos-Escalante et al. (2011).

• De los Rios-Escalante, P.; Contreras, A.; Lara, G.; Latsague, M.; Esse, C. 2020. First reports of associations between spectral properties, chlorophyll, bacterial and zooplankton in two Chilean north Patagonian lakes (Villarrica and Caburgua, 38° S, Araucania region, Chile). J. King Saud Univ. - Sci., 32, 3167–3173.
• De los Ríos-Escalante, P., Hauenstein, E. and Romero-Mieres, M. 2011. Microcrustacean assemblages composition and environmental variables in lakes and ponds of the Andean region – South of Chile (37-39° S). Braz. J. Biol., 2011, vol. 71, no. 2, p. 353-358

(2) Many factors may influence the nutrient and heavy metal concentration conditions in North Patagonian Lakes, including natural and anthropogenic factors. How did you determine that these changes in the environmental variables resulted from the anthropogenic activities? The impact of human activities often requires a certain amount of time to intervene, and a single sampling data can only indicate the current environmental conditions of water quality.

Response: We thank the reviewer comment. Discussion section was improved in order to be focused on the isolation of the anthropogenic activity which tightly influence the observed changes of water quality. Please see lines 392-395, lines 417-423, and lines 444 to 469.

(3) There are similar comments on the Zooplankton diversity as the nutrient and heavy metal concentration conditions in North Patagonian Lakes.

Response: The novelty of our study was the use of modelling to explain the ecological variables variability. Moreover, we found that they were clearly associated with total nitrogen and cupper concentration, which might be a consequence of the aquaculture activity. Please see line 450 to 457.

(4) The representativeness and uncertainty of the experimental data need to be further clarified.

Response: The uncertainty of the experimental data was added in each variable corresponding to Table 3 (standard deviation).

(5) Many environmental variables were identified in this study. However, which one of the factors is the dominant factor that should be paid more attention to.

Response: Our study showed that the factors modulating the ecological variables were particularly the associative effect of the concentration of cupper, iron, total N, EC, and TDS. Moreover, the most repetitive predictor explaining the variability of ecological variables was total N.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor,

I have completed the revised version of the ms by Norambuena et al. “Evidences of the anthropic impact on zooplankton community of two North Patagonian lakes”. The authors satisfied my observations. However, I would suggest that the authors make the following changes:

M&M

Line 146: write “four” instead of “4”

Results

Line 334: delete “a” from “(Figure 6a)”

 

Discussion

Line 364: delete “(Table3)”

Lines 369-371: the word “pH” is missing, please add it.

Line 439: delete “(Table3)”

Line 450: delete “(Table5)”

Line 456: delete “(Figure 5)”

Line 461: delete “(Table3)”

Line 483: delete “(Table4)”

Line 498: delete “(Figure 3)”

Line 551: please add “crustacean” zooplankton species

Line 555: eliminate the abbreviations of the environmental variables, these were already mentioned earlier throughout the article.

Author Response

Reviewer #1:

I have completed the revised version of the ms by Norambuena et al. “Evidences of the anthropic impact on zooplankton community of two North Patagonian lakes”. The authors satisfied my observations. However, I would suggest that the authors make the following changes.

Dear reviewer, we thank for your comments and your detailed review of the manuscript. Significant changes to the manuscript were made following your suggestions. The details of your suggestions are explained below:

M&M.

• Line 146: write “four” instead of “4”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 146.

Results.

• Line 334: delete “a” from “(Figure 6a)”

Response: The text was modified according to the reviewer suggestion. Please see line 335.

Discussion.

• Line 364: delete “(Table3)”

Response: The text was revised and modified according to the reviewer suggestion. Please see line 365.

• Lines 369-371: the word “pH” is missing, please add it.

Response: The text was revised and modified according to the reviewer suggestion. Please see line 370.

• Line 439: delete “(Table3)”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 440.

• Line 450: delete “(Table5)”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 451.

• Line 456: delete “(Figure 5)”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 457.

• Line 461: delete “(Table3)”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 462.

• Line 483: delete “(Table4)”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 484.

• Line 498: delete “(Figure 3)”

Response: The text was revised and modified accordingly. Please see line 499.

• Line 551: please add “crustacean” zooplankton species

Response: The text was revised and modified according to the reviewer suggestion. Please see line 552.

• Line 555: eliminate the abbreviations of the environmental variables, these were already mentioned earlier throughout the article.

Response: The text was revised and modified according to the reviewer suggestion. Please see lines 555 and 556.

Reviewer 2 Report

Second review for the paper "Evidences of the anthropic impact on zooplankton community of two North Patagonian lakes" by Juan-Alejandro Norambuena, Patricia Poblete-Grant, Jorge Beltrán, Patricio De Los Ríos-Escalante and Jorge G. Farías submitted to "Sustainability".

 

The authors have significantly improved the paper but some text revisions are still required.

 

The authors should delete "the" in all cases when they report numerical values. For example, "the 64 tons" should be replaced by "64 tons"

L 241, 1108. Consider replacing “the Puerto Varas bay” to “Puerto Varas bay”

L 464. Consider replacing “balance of its community structure” to “balance in its community structure”

L 761. Consider replacing “which is” to “which are”

L 763. Consider replacing “increases on TDS is” to “increases in TDS are”

L 764. Consider replacing “associated to urban, industrial, and agricultural activities in watershed” to “associated with urban, industrial, and agricultural activities in watersheds”

L 765. Consider replacing “surrounded of” to “surrounded by”

L 769. were than. Please, specify "higher than" or "lower than"

L 781. Consider replacing “also contributed to the increases of” to “also be attributed to the increases in”

L 957. Consider replacing “might be diminish” to “might be diminished”

L 958. Consider replacing “source [41,42]. Furthermore, we found that increases of Ch-a  were positive related to increases of” to “sources [41,42]. Furthermore, we found that increases in Ch-a were positively related to increases in”

Author Response

Reviewer #2:

Second review for the paper "Evidences of the anthropic impact on zooplankton community of two North Patagonian lakes" by Juan-Alejandro Norambuena, Patricia Poblete-Grant, Jorge Beltrán, Patricio De Los Ríos-Escalante and Jorge G. Farías submitted to "Sustainability".

The authors have significantly improved the paper but some text revisions are still required.

We thank the comments and suggestions of the reviewer. We are grateful to the contribution of the reviewer and consider that all changes made, improved greatly the quality of the manuscript. Please found below the response of each suggestion:

• The authors should delete "the" in all cases when they report numerical values. For example, "the 64 tons" should be replaced by "64 tons"

Response: The text was revised and modified according to the reviewer suggestion. Please see lines 452, 166, 371, 374, 378, 386, 409, 410, 412, 413, 443, 444.

• L 241, 1108. Consider replacing “the Puerto Varas bay” to “Puerto Varas bay”

Response: The text was revised and modified according to the reviewer suggestion. Please see lines 132 and 524.

• L 464. Consider replacing “balance of its community structure” to “balance in its community structure”

Response: The text was revised and modified according to the reviewer suggestion. Please see line 282.

• L 761. Consider replacing “which is” to “which are”

Response: We were looking through the manuscript in the lines, however in all the cases where “which is” was used the text was describing to the LL4 site. So, we consider that using “which is” was correct.

• L 763. Consider replacing “increases on TDS is” to “increases in TDS are”

Response: The text was revised and modified according to the reviewer suggestion. Please see line 392.

• L 764. Consider replacing “associated to urban, industrial, and agricultural activities in watershed” to “associated with urban, industrial, and agricultural activities in watersheds”

Response: The text was revised and modified according to the reviewer suggestion. Please see line 392 and 393.

• L 765. Consider replacing “surrounded of” to “surrounded by”

Response: The text was revised and modified according to the reviewer suggestion. Please see line 394.

• L 769. were than. Please, specify "higher than" or "lower than"

Response: We thoroughly revised the text, however "lower or higher than" was always wrote in the overall text.

• L 781. Consider replacing “also contributed to the increases of” to “also be attributed to the increases in”

Response: The text was revised and modified according to the reviewer suggestion. Please see line 422.

• L 957. Consider replacing “might be diminish” to “might be diminished”

Response: The text was revised and modified according to the reviewer suggestion. Please see line 455.

• L 958. Consider replacing “source [41,42]. Furthermore, we found that increases of Ch-a were positive related to increases of” to “sources [41,42]. Furthermore, we found that increases in Ch-a were positively related to increases in”

Response: The text was revised and modified according to the reviewer suggestion. Please see line 456.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have made sufficient modifications to the comments, and I suggest that this paper be accepted without further modification.

Author Response

Reviewer #3:

The authors have made sufficient modifications to the comments, and I suggest that this paper be accepted without further modification.

We are grateful to the suggestions and positive comments of the reviewer. We consider that the manuscript highly improved after the modifications suggested by the reviewer.