We are very grateful for the detailed review of our manuscript you provided and attention taken to address these errors. We agree with your comments and we have responded point by point below. Your comments are in bold text and our responses in plain italics. To clarify the manuscript, we have follo...
| Other Authors: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Text |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.646.4910 http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/8/C4583/2011/bgd-8-C4583-2011-supplement.pdf |
| Summary: | We are very grateful for the detailed review of our manuscript you provided and attention taken to address these errors. We agree with your comments and we have responded point by point below. Your comments are in bold text and our responses in plain italics. To clarify the manuscript, we have followed your suggestion to split the paper in two parts as mentioned in the introductive general answer to referees. Thanks to the separation into two manuscripts, one on the impact of freshening on primary production and biomass (M1) and the other focused on the distribution of phytoplankton determined by optical microscopy and HPLC (M2). In fact, we're allowed to bring a more detailed and accurate description of the species specific data obtained by light microscopy. Particular care has been taken to make the figures more clear and legible. Abbreviations, too many in the first draft, were reduced in number and reported in a table (Table 1, M1) for easy reading. More literature was considered as the work of Shimada's group on Pacific waters or of Tremblay's group on the impact of light and nutrients on the Arctic Ocean productivity. English has been corrected with the help of an English speaking person. The greatest draw back is the English. Now, as I do not have English as my mother |
|---|