PONE-D-19-26135

Distinctive tasks of different cyanobacteria and associated bacteria in carbon as well as nitrogen fixation and cycling in a late stage Baltic Sea bloom

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Eigemann,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Both reviewers found your manuscript to be of value, and only minor revisions were recommended by one reviewer. Please note and respond to the list of minor revisions listed in the attached reviewer's responses.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Dec 08 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

O. Roger Anderson

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I found this to a very interesting study with a major contribution by NanoSIMS analysis. The methods appear to be applied skillfully and the data presentation is clear and well illustrated. The article is generally very well-written in good English.

Reviewer #2: In this manuscript Eigmann et al. used Nano-SIMS to evaluate carbon and nitrogen fixation within a late-stage cyanobacterial bloom in the Baltic Sea. Surprisingly, they found considerable nitrogen fixation within heterotrophic bacteria and Pseudanabaena, and little to no fixation among heterocystous species.

Although the study is limited to a single sample (?) – time-series observations during bloom formation and collapse would have been very interesting – I found the results and analysis compelling. There are numerous small errors that need to be corrected before publication.

Citation styles are mixed, and the bibliography is incomplete

Line 32 – suggest “by NanoSims”

Line 37 – “but were also” is confusing, aren’t these the same thing?

Line 41 – “mass” is an odd term to use here, suggest bloom

Line 43-45 – sentence starting “The onset of” is nonsensical, please revise

Line 46 – at not “with”

Line 48 – up to not “for”

Line 51 – the mention of eukaryotic phytoplankton is a distraction, as they are not the subject of this study

Line 54 – here and elsewhere, “therewith” is not a word

Line 65 – suggest incapable in place of “not capable”

Line 66 – remove “and hence depend on dissolved nitrogen sources” as this is self-evident

Line 67 – I’m not an expert on these strains but a quick search for “Pseudanabaena nitrogen fixation” returned lots of hits with evidence of nitrogen fixation.

Line 70 – estuary not “estuarine”

Line 76 – delete “technique”

Line 84 – I’m not familiar with light traps, but as described it doesn’t make much sense; the zooplankton are removed but how does this result in concentration of cyanobacteria? What was the in situ chlorophyll concentration?

Line 106 – standard methods call for a 0.2 um filter for bacterial collection. Do you think you adequately captured the heterotrophic population?

Line 176 – “specific cell metabolism” requires some further explanation

Line 194 – where not “whereof”

Line 212 – I’m not following the logic of this statement; do you mean absolute numbers of cyanobacteria were not available?

Line 213 – the meaning of “2x1” is not clear

Line 214 – suggest “carbon content of … ratio of…”

Line 222 – cite R before R Studio

Line 233 – cite vegan

Table 1 – given the different units this table is a little hard to follow. I suggest using an asterisk or other symbol to identify those lines that correspond to heterotrophs.

Line 295-296 – these two sentences seem to be in opposition…

Line 323 – “Anova” should be capitalized

Line 341 – confirm that these a r, not r2

Line 352 – use time not “the time”

Line 409 – P-value should not be hyphenated

Line 444 – Comparable not “comparably”

Line 447 – do you mean one order of magnitude rather than one dimension?

Line 451 – suggest consistent with not “congenial”

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Jeff Bowman

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Distinctive tasks of different cyanobacteria and associated bacteria in carbon as well as nitrogen fixation and cycling in a late stage Baltic Sea bloom

PONE-D-19-26135R1

Dear Dr. Eigemann,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

O. Roger Anderson

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript and carefully addressing the minor recommendations of the two reviewers.

Reviewers' comments: