All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Congratulations! Now your munuscript is ready for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Anastazia Banaszak, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
I have read the revised manuscript, reviewers' comments, and the authors' responses. I found the comments were appropriately dealt with. I have no further comments.
no comment
no comment
no comment
.
.
.
Review of Revised version of PeerJ #85339
Eutrophication trends in the coastal region of the Great Tokyo area based on long-term trends of Secchi depth
The authors analyzed extensive data sets on water quality collected in Great Tokyo area to discuss the long-term trends of the Secchi depth. The manuscript of the background and methodology of this study is clearly written, and reasonable results are obtained. Additionally, the discussions provide important/valuable information for general readers of PeerJ.
The reviewers’ comments and suggestions are well incorporated in the revised version of the manuscript. Some points that have not been incorporated are reasonably explained by authors’ reply.
Just one thing the reviewer would like to point out is the journal name of Okada et al., 2007. The Japan Society of Civil Engineers recommend to use the English journal title as:
Journal of Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Ser. B
So, ‘Doboku Gakkai Ronbunshuu B’ in the References (Line 576-577) can be replaced the above.
I commend the authors for their extensive data set, compiled over many years of detailed fieldwork. The manuscript is clearly written in professional, unambiguous language. There is no apparent weakness. The reviewer carefully checked the text to find it should be accepted as it is.
The general comments from the two reviewers were positive and I agree with them.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
The manuscript by Akada, Kodama, and Yamaguchi involves a precious data set of Secchi depth derived from hard work, compiling data from continuous observations, and assessing the details of each area of Tokyo Bay and Sagami Bay. The content is also apparent; therefore, this paper is worth publishing in PeerJ with minor modifications.
Can increasing water temperatures be interpreted as an effect of global warming? To what extent does urban waste heat (e.g., from sewage treatment plants and power plant cooling water) have an impact? The manuscript described the water temperature increase as "warming" but partly as "global warming."
Is it not necessary to consider the meandering of the Kuroshio Current? And if necessary, is it reasonable to analyze the data for the entire period?
Line 102-104 The conclusion of Aoki et al. (2022) also suggests that the main factor of the oligotrophication in Tokyo Bay is the decrease in artificial loads. Therefore, writing them in parallel as two main factors can greatly mislead the reader.
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
.
.
.
See attachment.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.