the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 01 Feb 2021
A database of net zooplankton of the Far East seas and adjacent Pacific Ocean waters
Abstract. This article describes the unique database of zooplankton collected by the large Juday net in 1984–2013 in the Chukchi, Bering, Okhotsk, Japan seas and the North Pacific Ocean: the sources and extent of the information contained therein, its benefits and drawbacks, the first operating experience and prospects. The information in this database has already been used to quantify the inventory of marine biological resources and appraise the waters of the North Pacific. In particular, in 2016, five tabular reference books were created and printed containing the species composition, occurrence and abundance of zooplankton in the surveyed area. The data is aggregated by species, developmental stages, size fractions, regions, vertical layers of water, light and dark time of day, four seasons of the year and perennial periods. This information has recently been verified, corrected, translated into English and from text to digital format to increase its availability to the scientific community worldwide (Volvenko, 2021 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4448646). The substantial volume and high quality of the collated data, along with the information presented in reference books and previously published data on macrofauna and the nutrition of common fish and squid, will enable the next important steps to be taken to understand the Far Eastern seas and the Pacific – one of the most productive and economically important regions of the world ocean. The scope of application of this data is fundamental to the management of marine resources, aquaculture development, nature conservation, and assessment of the damage of various anthropogenic factors on nature.
- Preprint
(1000 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(255 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2021-29', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Mar 2021
General Comments:
This preprint describes a database of net zooplankton of the Far East Seas and adjacent Pacific Ocean Waters. It presents a consequent database with a significative special and time coverage in the North Western Pacific Ocean. Nevertheless, the database cannot be opened with usual pc softwares since it is specified (page 9) that the minimum database configuration is a Microsoft Access file. Consequently, I cannot open the database to check available informations. My review is therefore based on files which were readable to me (.txt, .xlsx) and do not allow to statuate on the possibility for this database to be studied. General commentaries downhere have been made while reading the article associated to the database and are not sufficient to statuate on a decision for final publication
The presented data are a consequent dataset about zooplankton communities. To my knowledge, there is no such dataset in this area. However, the methodology used for collecting samples is close to standard methods (plankton net, sampling depth…). The authors could maybe discuss the relevance of the chosen plankton net (Juday net) in comparison to other nets currently used elsewhere in the world (e.g. WP2, bongo…). The methodology used to build the database is described but it lacks a table summarize all informations available in the database. The dataset is accessible via the given DOI link but as mentionned upward, it can only be read with access which is a problem.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-29-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1 - Author interactive comment on “A database of net zooplankton of the Far East seas and adjacent Pacific Ocean waters” by Igor V. Volvenko', Igor Volvenko, 29 Mar 2021
Dear Editors,
I would like to thank the Anonymous Referee for the high appraisal of the work I have done. He writes, "The presented data are a consequent dataset about zooplankton communities. To my knowledge, there is no such dataset in this area". That is why I undertook this work in the hope of making such a unique dataset available to the world community.
The Referee proposes to supplement the manuscript with a discussion of the relevance of Juday net choice in comparison to other nets currently used elsewhere in the world. I believe that this would unnecessarily increase the size of the article for two reasons:
1) Neither I nor my colleagues-planktonologists chose this particular net. We were confronted with a fait accompli – for more than 40 years in TINRO plankton samples have been taken according to a single method using the Juday net.
2) Comparison of the catchability of different plankton nets has been described in an extensive literature (see some references at the end of the comment). This is a separate topic, not directly related to the dataset described in the article. Moreover, the data described in the manuscript have already been recalculated per unit volume – cubic meter – and the differential catchability rates used for the recalculation are shown in the tables.
Now about the main question raised by the author of the review. This is the format for presenting data.
At link https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4448646 the tables summarizing all information are available in the generally accepted CSV format, which allows them to be imported into any database. Each CSV file contains data for one marine area in accordance with links to one of five reference books: Ber.csv – Bering Sea data (how some of the information from this file looks like in printed form – in the guide to the Bering Sea – can be found in a Supplement to the manuscript), Okh.csv – the Sea of Okhotsk data, Jap.csv – the Sea of Japan data, PGB.csv – Peter the Great Bay data, Pac.csv – Pacific Ocean data. The same data is combined in the Excel book Data.xlsx, where a separate sheet corresponds to each reservoir. Shapefiles with polygons of the standard regions by which data is summarized are available at the same link. The polygons accompanied with information about surface areas and water volumes in each. Standard shapefiles are easily imported into any modern GIS. Those who want to receive initial information in the MS Access format should contact the VNIRO or TINRO directorate, since they are copyright holders (and I am only the author of the database and co-author of reference books, which I noticed at the end of my manuscript).
Once again, I thank the Referee for the time and work in reviewing my manuscript, and I enclose the promised list of references, which, if necessary, can easily be increased many times over. It is up to the editors to decide whether they should be added to the manuscript. I understand that this is an important topic. Perhaps it requires a literature review. However, then it should be a separate review article and probably in a more specialized planktonology journal.
Dolganova N.T., Kidokoro H. Compared catch efficiency of different plankton nets in the Japan sea // PICES. - XII Annual Meeting. - Abstr. - Seoul, Republic of Korea. - 2003. - Р. 72.
Fraser J.H. Standardization of zooplankton sampling // Zooplankton sampling. - P.: UNESCO, 1968. - P. 147-174.
Gorbatenko K.M., Dolganova N.T. Comparid catch efficiency of different types of plankton nets in the Far East Seas // Izv. TINRO. - 2006. - V. 146. - P. 213-225.
Gorbatenko K.M., Dolganova N.T. Comparing the catch efficiency with different types of plankton nets in the high production zones of the Pacific Ocean // Oceanology. - 2007. V. 47. - P. 205-212.
Kulikova E.B. Comparative catchability of several types of plankton nets // Proceedings of the Institute of Oceanology of the USSR Academy of Sciences. - 1954. - V. 11. - P. 233-237.
Mikheev V.N. Age structure of populations of common species of copepods in the Peruvian upwelling. Comparison of fishing gear // Oceanology. - 1977. - V. 17. - P. 511-516.
Musaeva E.I., Nezlin N.P. Comparison of different fishing gear for zooplankton based on materials from the Bering Sea // Oceanology. - 1995. - V. 35. - P. 942-946.
Piskunov I.B. Comparative characteristics of zooplankton in catches of four different types of plankton nets // Izv. TINRO. - 2003. - V. 133. - P. 240-244.
Rudyakov Yu.A., Zeitlin V.B. Size distribution of pelagic organisms according to the combined net and bathometric data // Oceanology. - 1988. - V. 28. - P. 171-174.
Shushkina E.A., Vinogradov M.E. Comparison of zooplankton concentrations determined from the data of various nets, bottles and observations from underwater vehicles used in the Black Sea expeditions of the IO RAS. In: Complex studies of the north-eastern part of the Black Sea. - Moscow: Nauka, 2002. - P. 458-468.
Shushkina E.A., Vinogradov M.E., Lukasheva T.A. et al. Comparative use of various plankton fishing gear in monitoring long-term changes in the Black Sea communities // Oceanology. - 2003. - V. 43. - P. 744-750.
Volkov A.F., Efimkin A.Ya., Kuznetsova N.A., Slabinsky A.M. Description of the Bering Sea plankton population in the autumn of 2003 (the results of the BASIS joint Russian-Japanese-U.S. expedition) // Izv. TINRO. - 2004. - V. 139. - P. 282-307.
Best regards,
Volvenko I.V.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1 - Author interactive comment on “A database of net zooplankton of the Far East seas and adjacent Pacific Ocean waters” by Igor V. Volvenko', Igor Volvenko, 29 Mar 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2021-29', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 May 2021
The paper of Volvenko describes a data set composed by an extensive collection of zooplankton records that have been gathered over the years (1986-2013) by the Russian Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography in several regions around the North Pacific Ocean. The data were previously published in Russian reports and used in a couple of papers recently published in English (Volvenko, 2018, Volvenko, 2020), one of which summarizing the spatio-temporal distribution of total zooplankton and of the main zooplanktonic groups (Volvenko, 2018).
As far as the database is concerned, it would have been really valuable having access to the raw zooplankton records, as this would have allowed recovering information on zooplankton composition and abundance at fine spatio-temporal scales.
The link provided instead (Volvenko, 2021) gives access to a dataset in which zooplankton records are aggregated over large geographical regions and over multiple years. This dataset appears to be substantially similar (if not the same) already published by the author in recent years.
Apart from the limited originality of the data, the paper of Volvenko lacks of clarity and proper structure, while it is characterized by numerous inconsistencies.
Some paragraphs of the introduction (see lines 49-67) should have been rather included in the methods, as they describes sampling procedures and the way in which the data were organized.
The database structure described in the text and in Fig.4 does not match the data provided. Therefore, one wonders why this figure would be needed. On the contrary the headers of the columns in the excel file with the data (Volvenko, 2021) are not always clear. For instance, what does “Ind./m^3 sem” or “Mg/m^3 sem” mean? What does a “whole time” periodicity mean?
Neither the text in the method session or the figures (i.e. Fig. 2 and Fig.4) clarify whether the original records, either counts or weight, were collected for individual taxa or for total zooplankton, or for both.
Besides, the procedure adopted to correct individuals’ abundance and weights is very confusing (lines 137-145). The author seems to assume that the average biomass of a defined species would be constant over time (which is not necessarily true as the elemental composition of a species can significantly vary according to the seasonal period and to its physiological stage) and based on this assumption recalculates the abundance of a species with weights > 20% of the long-term mean (lines 140-145).
Other inconsistencies are in the discussion. For example it is mentioned that “the ocean area 11 was left practically understudied”, while based on Fig. 5 this is a region with permanent monitoring, with numerous zooplankton records (in the excel file, 2573 records are available in regions 11).
In conclusion, considering that the data set is already published elsewhere and that the article does not enable the reader to fully understand the data, their possible use from other users other than the author seems unlikely.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-29-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Igor Volvenko, 13 May 2021
Author interactive comment on “A database of net zooplankton of the Far East seas and adjacent Pacific Ocean waters” by Igor V. Volvenko
Dear Editors,
I would like to thank the Anonymous Referee 2 for many comments and recommendations for improving my manuscript. I shell answer all the comments (hereinafter in quotes) in the order they appear in the review:
- “It would have been really valuable having access to the raw zooplankton records”
Yes of course. However, I wrote in the manuscript (lines 402-411) that I am not the owner of the raw data, as well as where to go to get it. The copyright holder forbids me to publish raw data, but allows to publish processed data. And this is much better than nothing. The data in these dataset enable evaluation of zooplankton biological resources of the Far Eastern seas and the North-West Pacific and their variability in space and time. The publication of similar processed data on the macrofauna of this region received recognition and even was awarded the prestigious international award in 2015 https://meetings.pices.int/awards/POMA_Award/POMA-recipients/2015-POMA.
- “This dataset appears to be substantially similar (if not the same) already published by the author in recent years”
In the manuscript (lines 203-214, 381-394) I wrote that earlier dataset was published in the form of five reference books only on paper in a very small circulation, only in Russian and with outdated names of many taxa. Therefore, I digitized all the textual information, translated it into English, corrected taxonomic errors, collected it into a single dataset, supplemented it with cartographic and morphometric information about the regions over which the data were averaged. In addition, in the manuscript, for the first time, I publish generalized information about how exactly all this data was collected and processed. The dataset itself is published in the Zenodo repository (https://zenodo.org/record/4448646#.YJtUCrUzbGg) with access open for the review period, which is a prerequisite for the ESSD journal.
- “The paper of Volvenko lacks of clarity and proper structure”
The manuscript consists of the following sections: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Data availability, Conclusions and References (lines 25-35). I believe that using just such a structure is a common practice for scientific articles.
- “Some paragraphs of the introduction (see lines 49-67) should have been rather included in the methods, as they describes sampling procedures”
I agree and can do so if the journal editors deem it necessary and allow me to submit an improved version of the manuscript. I originally left information about sampling in the Introduction because I wanted to devote Materials and Methods to collecting, storing and processing numerical (digital) data. I leave this issue to the discretion of the ESSD editors.
- “Fig.4 … one wonders why this figure would be needed”
Fig. 4 shows the structure of the database from which the published dataset is obtained. If the editors of ESSD consider this information unnecessary, then I will remove this figure from the manuscript and thereby reduce the size of the publication. However, the one who receives the raw data from the copyright holder (see comment 1) will not understand anything about it without this figure. (Its presence is necessary and sufficient for understanding the raw data).
- “What does “Ind./m^3 sem” or “Mg/m^3 sem” mean?”
SEM is a common abbreviation for Standard Error of Mean, Ind. - number of individuals, Mg. - their biomass in milligrams, m^3 - cubic meter. These standard designations are explained at their first mention on lines 169-174, 215-218. See also the Supplement tables where ‘Average’ represented as ‘mean ± sem’. In the dataset, mean and sem are in separate columns.
- 7. “What does a “whole time” periodicity mean?”
In the dataset, the first variable “Time period” (column 1) can take on the values of one of four seasons and one of four multi-year periods over which the data is summarized. It also allows you to select the 'whole time' value. Then we will see the results of calculations of the occurrence and abundance of plankton without subdivision into seasons and periods, i.e. throughout the total dataset collected in 1986-2013. This is described on lines 235-253. See also examples in the Supplement tables.
- “Neither the text in the method session or the figures (i.e. Fig. 2 and Fig.4) clarify whether the original records … were collected for individual taxa or for total zooplankton, or for both”
The original records were collected for each taxonomic group of animals at each stage of development or size group in each fraction. This is indicated in the text on lines 103-104, 169-171, 218-221. See also Tables 2, 3 and all Supplementary Tables. In Fig. 2, this can be seen from the fifth line of the heading of the form, where it is written: Species, Length and names of three fractions. From the captions to Fig. 4, it can be seen that for each station there is a density and biomass of organisms by fractions (FRCOD), species (COD1), size groups or developmental stages (COD2).
- “Besides, the procedure adopted to correct individuals’ abundance and weights is very confusing (lines 137-145). The author seems to assume that the average biomass of a defined species would be constant over time (which is not necessarily true as the elemental composition of a species can significantly vary according to the seasonal period and to its physiological stage)”
The used average individual biomass was different for different size groups and developmental stages. Anyone can check this from the dataset. Data on seasonal differences in average weights have been collected in recent years, but it have not yet been verified and processed. When such information becomes available, I can recalculate all tables and publish the updated dataset. I guess this can only be done in the next 2-3 years.
- “It is mentioned that “the ocean area 11 was left practically understudied”, while based on Fig. 5 this is a region with permanent monitoring, with numerous zooplankton records (in the excel file, 2573 records are available in regions 11)”
I ask everyone to check the dataset and make sure there are 2573 records available for the Bering Sea region 11 and none at all for the Pacific Ocean region 11. This can also be seen by comparing Fig. 3 and Fig. 5.
- “The data … possible use from other users other than the author seems unlikely”
Real numbers contradict this assumption of the Referee: in four months, my dataset from Zenodo website was downloaded more than 110 times, the manuscript of the article on the ESSD website, according to Metrix, was read more than 540 times and downloaded as a pdf-file about 160 times. It is understood that some people download the article to read it offline at any time, but no one downloads the data unless intend to use it.
In conclusion, once again, I sincerely thank the Referee for the work and time spent on a detailed critical analysis of my manuscript. I hope that I was able to comprehensively answer all of his comments. In this regard, I would like to know the editor's opinion on whether I need to prepare a revised version of the manuscript, and which of the above corrections are needed and which are not.
Best regards,
Volvenko I.V.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Igor Volvenko, 13 May 2021
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2021-29', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Mar 2021
General Comments:
This preprint describes a database of net zooplankton of the Far East Seas and adjacent Pacific Ocean Waters. It presents a consequent database with a significative special and time coverage in the North Western Pacific Ocean. Nevertheless, the database cannot be opened with usual pc softwares since it is specified (page 9) that the minimum database configuration is a Microsoft Access file. Consequently, I cannot open the database to check available informations. My review is therefore based on files which were readable to me (.txt, .xlsx) and do not allow to statuate on the possibility for this database to be studied. General commentaries downhere have been made while reading the article associated to the database and are not sufficient to statuate on a decision for final publication
The presented data are a consequent dataset about zooplankton communities. To my knowledge, there is no such dataset in this area. However, the methodology used for collecting samples is close to standard methods (plankton net, sampling depth…). The authors could maybe discuss the relevance of the chosen plankton net (Juday net) in comparison to other nets currently used elsewhere in the world (e.g. WP2, bongo…). The methodology used to build the database is described but it lacks a table summarize all informations available in the database. The dataset is accessible via the given DOI link but as mentionned upward, it can only be read with access which is a problem.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-29-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1 - Author interactive comment on “A database of net zooplankton of the Far East seas and adjacent Pacific Ocean waters” by Igor V. Volvenko', Igor Volvenko, 29 Mar 2021
Dear Editors,
I would like to thank the Anonymous Referee for the high appraisal of the work I have done. He writes, "The presented data are a consequent dataset about zooplankton communities. To my knowledge, there is no such dataset in this area". That is why I undertook this work in the hope of making such a unique dataset available to the world community.
The Referee proposes to supplement the manuscript with a discussion of the relevance of Juday net choice in comparison to other nets currently used elsewhere in the world. I believe that this would unnecessarily increase the size of the article for two reasons:
1) Neither I nor my colleagues-planktonologists chose this particular net. We were confronted with a fait accompli – for more than 40 years in TINRO plankton samples have been taken according to a single method using the Juday net.
2) Comparison of the catchability of different plankton nets has been described in an extensive literature (see some references at the end of the comment). This is a separate topic, not directly related to the dataset described in the article. Moreover, the data described in the manuscript have already been recalculated per unit volume – cubic meter – and the differential catchability rates used for the recalculation are shown in the tables.
Now about the main question raised by the author of the review. This is the format for presenting data.
At link https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4448646 the tables summarizing all information are available in the generally accepted CSV format, which allows them to be imported into any database. Each CSV file contains data for one marine area in accordance with links to one of five reference books: Ber.csv – Bering Sea data (how some of the information from this file looks like in printed form – in the guide to the Bering Sea – can be found in a Supplement to the manuscript), Okh.csv – the Sea of Okhotsk data, Jap.csv – the Sea of Japan data, PGB.csv – Peter the Great Bay data, Pac.csv – Pacific Ocean data. The same data is combined in the Excel book Data.xlsx, where a separate sheet corresponds to each reservoir. Shapefiles with polygons of the standard regions by which data is summarized are available at the same link. The polygons accompanied with information about surface areas and water volumes in each. Standard shapefiles are easily imported into any modern GIS. Those who want to receive initial information in the MS Access format should contact the VNIRO or TINRO directorate, since they are copyright holders (and I am only the author of the database and co-author of reference books, which I noticed at the end of my manuscript).
Once again, I thank the Referee for the time and work in reviewing my manuscript, and I enclose the promised list of references, which, if necessary, can easily be increased many times over. It is up to the editors to decide whether they should be added to the manuscript. I understand that this is an important topic. Perhaps it requires a literature review. However, then it should be a separate review article and probably in a more specialized planktonology journal.
Dolganova N.T., Kidokoro H. Compared catch efficiency of different plankton nets in the Japan sea // PICES. - XII Annual Meeting. - Abstr. - Seoul, Republic of Korea. - 2003. - Р. 72.
Fraser J.H. Standardization of zooplankton sampling // Zooplankton sampling. - P.: UNESCO, 1968. - P. 147-174.
Gorbatenko K.M., Dolganova N.T. Comparid catch efficiency of different types of plankton nets in the Far East Seas // Izv. TINRO. - 2006. - V. 146. - P. 213-225.
Gorbatenko K.M., Dolganova N.T. Comparing the catch efficiency with different types of plankton nets in the high production zones of the Pacific Ocean // Oceanology. - 2007. V. 47. - P. 205-212.
Kulikova E.B. Comparative catchability of several types of plankton nets // Proceedings of the Institute of Oceanology of the USSR Academy of Sciences. - 1954. - V. 11. - P. 233-237.
Mikheev V.N. Age structure of populations of common species of copepods in the Peruvian upwelling. Comparison of fishing gear // Oceanology. - 1977. - V. 17. - P. 511-516.
Musaeva E.I., Nezlin N.P. Comparison of different fishing gear for zooplankton based on materials from the Bering Sea // Oceanology. - 1995. - V. 35. - P. 942-946.
Piskunov I.B. Comparative characteristics of zooplankton in catches of four different types of plankton nets // Izv. TINRO. - 2003. - V. 133. - P. 240-244.
Rudyakov Yu.A., Zeitlin V.B. Size distribution of pelagic organisms according to the combined net and bathometric data // Oceanology. - 1988. - V. 28. - P. 171-174.
Shushkina E.A., Vinogradov M.E. Comparison of zooplankton concentrations determined from the data of various nets, bottles and observations from underwater vehicles used in the Black Sea expeditions of the IO RAS. In: Complex studies of the north-eastern part of the Black Sea. - Moscow: Nauka, 2002. - P. 458-468.
Shushkina E.A., Vinogradov M.E., Lukasheva T.A. et al. Comparative use of various plankton fishing gear in monitoring long-term changes in the Black Sea communities // Oceanology. - 2003. - V. 43. - P. 744-750.
Volkov A.F., Efimkin A.Ya., Kuznetsova N.A., Slabinsky A.M. Description of the Bering Sea plankton population in the autumn of 2003 (the results of the BASIS joint Russian-Japanese-U.S. expedition) // Izv. TINRO. - 2004. - V. 139. - P. 282-307.
Best regards,
Volvenko I.V.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1 - Author interactive comment on “A database of net zooplankton of the Far East seas and adjacent Pacific Ocean waters” by Igor V. Volvenko', Igor Volvenko, 29 Mar 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2021-29', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 May 2021
The paper of Volvenko describes a data set composed by an extensive collection of zooplankton records that have been gathered over the years (1986-2013) by the Russian Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography in several regions around the North Pacific Ocean. The data were previously published in Russian reports and used in a couple of papers recently published in English (Volvenko, 2018, Volvenko, 2020), one of which summarizing the spatio-temporal distribution of total zooplankton and of the main zooplanktonic groups (Volvenko, 2018).
As far as the database is concerned, it would have been really valuable having access to the raw zooplankton records, as this would have allowed recovering information on zooplankton composition and abundance at fine spatio-temporal scales.
The link provided instead (Volvenko, 2021) gives access to a dataset in which zooplankton records are aggregated over large geographical regions and over multiple years. This dataset appears to be substantially similar (if not the same) already published by the author in recent years.
Apart from the limited originality of the data, the paper of Volvenko lacks of clarity and proper structure, while it is characterized by numerous inconsistencies.
Some paragraphs of the introduction (see lines 49-67) should have been rather included in the methods, as they describes sampling procedures and the way in which the data were organized.
The database structure described in the text and in Fig.4 does not match the data provided. Therefore, one wonders why this figure would be needed. On the contrary the headers of the columns in the excel file with the data (Volvenko, 2021) are not always clear. For instance, what does “Ind./m^3 sem” or “Mg/m^3 sem” mean? What does a “whole time” periodicity mean?
Neither the text in the method session or the figures (i.e. Fig. 2 and Fig.4) clarify whether the original records, either counts or weight, were collected for individual taxa or for total zooplankton, or for both.
Besides, the procedure adopted to correct individuals’ abundance and weights is very confusing (lines 137-145). The author seems to assume that the average biomass of a defined species would be constant over time (which is not necessarily true as the elemental composition of a species can significantly vary according to the seasonal period and to its physiological stage) and based on this assumption recalculates the abundance of a species with weights > 20% of the long-term mean (lines 140-145).
Other inconsistencies are in the discussion. For example it is mentioned that “the ocean area 11 was left practically understudied”, while based on Fig. 5 this is a region with permanent monitoring, with numerous zooplankton records (in the excel file, 2573 records are available in regions 11).
In conclusion, considering that the data set is already published elsewhere and that the article does not enable the reader to fully understand the data, their possible use from other users other than the author seems unlikely.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-29-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Igor Volvenko, 13 May 2021
Author interactive comment on “A database of net zooplankton of the Far East seas and adjacent Pacific Ocean waters” by Igor V. Volvenko
Dear Editors,
I would like to thank the Anonymous Referee 2 for many comments and recommendations for improving my manuscript. I shell answer all the comments (hereinafter in quotes) in the order they appear in the review:
- “It would have been really valuable having access to the raw zooplankton records”
Yes of course. However, I wrote in the manuscript (lines 402-411) that I am not the owner of the raw data, as well as where to go to get it. The copyright holder forbids me to publish raw data, but allows to publish processed data. And this is much better than nothing. The data in these dataset enable evaluation of zooplankton biological resources of the Far Eastern seas and the North-West Pacific and their variability in space and time. The publication of similar processed data on the macrofauna of this region received recognition and even was awarded the prestigious international award in 2015 https://meetings.pices.int/awards/POMA_Award/POMA-recipients/2015-POMA.
- “This dataset appears to be substantially similar (if not the same) already published by the author in recent years”
In the manuscript (lines 203-214, 381-394) I wrote that earlier dataset was published in the form of five reference books only on paper in a very small circulation, only in Russian and with outdated names of many taxa. Therefore, I digitized all the textual information, translated it into English, corrected taxonomic errors, collected it into a single dataset, supplemented it with cartographic and morphometric information about the regions over which the data were averaged. In addition, in the manuscript, for the first time, I publish generalized information about how exactly all this data was collected and processed. The dataset itself is published in the Zenodo repository (https://zenodo.org/record/4448646#.YJtUCrUzbGg) with access open for the review period, which is a prerequisite for the ESSD journal.
- “The paper of Volvenko lacks of clarity and proper structure”
The manuscript consists of the following sections: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Data availability, Conclusions and References (lines 25-35). I believe that using just such a structure is a common practice for scientific articles.
- “Some paragraphs of the introduction (see lines 49-67) should have been rather included in the methods, as they describes sampling procedures”
I agree and can do so if the journal editors deem it necessary and allow me to submit an improved version of the manuscript. I originally left information about sampling in the Introduction because I wanted to devote Materials and Methods to collecting, storing and processing numerical (digital) data. I leave this issue to the discretion of the ESSD editors.
- “Fig.4 … one wonders why this figure would be needed”
Fig. 4 shows the structure of the database from which the published dataset is obtained. If the editors of ESSD consider this information unnecessary, then I will remove this figure from the manuscript and thereby reduce the size of the publication. However, the one who receives the raw data from the copyright holder (see comment 1) will not understand anything about it without this figure. (Its presence is necessary and sufficient for understanding the raw data).
- “What does “Ind./m^3 sem” or “Mg/m^3 sem” mean?”
SEM is a common abbreviation for Standard Error of Mean, Ind. - number of individuals, Mg. - their biomass in milligrams, m^3 - cubic meter. These standard designations are explained at their first mention on lines 169-174, 215-218. See also the Supplement tables where ‘Average’ represented as ‘mean ± sem’. In the dataset, mean and sem are in separate columns.
- 7. “What does a “whole time” periodicity mean?”
In the dataset, the first variable “Time period” (column 1) can take on the values of one of four seasons and one of four multi-year periods over which the data is summarized. It also allows you to select the 'whole time' value. Then we will see the results of calculations of the occurrence and abundance of plankton without subdivision into seasons and periods, i.e. throughout the total dataset collected in 1986-2013. This is described on lines 235-253. See also examples in the Supplement tables.
- “Neither the text in the method session or the figures (i.e. Fig. 2 and Fig.4) clarify whether the original records … were collected for individual taxa or for total zooplankton, or for both”
The original records were collected for each taxonomic group of animals at each stage of development or size group in each fraction. This is indicated in the text on lines 103-104, 169-171, 218-221. See also Tables 2, 3 and all Supplementary Tables. In Fig. 2, this can be seen from the fifth line of the heading of the form, where it is written: Species, Length and names of three fractions. From the captions to Fig. 4, it can be seen that for each station there is a density and biomass of organisms by fractions (FRCOD), species (COD1), size groups or developmental stages (COD2).
- “Besides, the procedure adopted to correct individuals’ abundance and weights is very confusing (lines 137-145). The author seems to assume that the average biomass of a defined species would be constant over time (which is not necessarily true as the elemental composition of a species can significantly vary according to the seasonal period and to its physiological stage)”
The used average individual biomass was different for different size groups and developmental stages. Anyone can check this from the dataset. Data on seasonal differences in average weights have been collected in recent years, but it have not yet been verified and processed. When such information becomes available, I can recalculate all tables and publish the updated dataset. I guess this can only be done in the next 2-3 years.
- “It is mentioned that “the ocean area 11 was left practically understudied”, while based on Fig. 5 this is a region with permanent monitoring, with numerous zooplankton records (in the excel file, 2573 records are available in regions 11)”
I ask everyone to check the dataset and make sure there are 2573 records available for the Bering Sea region 11 and none at all for the Pacific Ocean region 11. This can also be seen by comparing Fig. 3 and Fig. 5.
- “The data … possible use from other users other than the author seems unlikely”
Real numbers contradict this assumption of the Referee: in four months, my dataset from Zenodo website was downloaded more than 110 times, the manuscript of the article on the ESSD website, according to Metrix, was read more than 540 times and downloaded as a pdf-file about 160 times. It is understood that some people download the article to read it offline at any time, but no one downloads the data unless intend to use it.
In conclusion, once again, I sincerely thank the Referee for the work and time spent on a detailed critical analysis of my manuscript. I hope that I was able to comprehensively answer all of his comments. In this regard, I would like to know the editor's opinion on whether I need to prepare a revised version of the manuscript, and which of the above corrections are needed and which are not.
Best regards,
Volvenko I.V.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Igor Volvenko, 13 May 2021
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,198 | 663 | 105 | 1,966 | 339 | 74 | 85 |
- HTML: 1,198
- PDF: 663
- XML: 105
- Total: 1,966
- Supplement: 339
- BibTeX: 74
- EndNote: 85
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
