Reply to formal comment on Griffiths et al. (2017) submitted by Gajewski (2020).

• Published in: PLOS ONE
• Main Authors: Katherine Griffiths, Neal Michelutti, Marianne S V Douglas, John P Smol
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2021
• Subjects: Medicine; R; Science; Q; Arctic
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254481; https://doaj.org/article/2c57ab93b175410b85f81f20501ba968

Gajewski offers a formal comment on Griffiths et al. (2017), a paper that explored how microclimates and their varying ice cover regimes on lakes and ponds in Arctic regions modified the diatom assemblage responses to recent warming. One of Gajewski's main criticisms is that the microclimate classification scheme used in Griffiths et al. (2017) is merely anecdotal; a claim which ignores the value of observational evidence and misunderstands the frequency that each site was visited or surveyed. We clarify that the study sites were visited multiple times via recurrent aerial surveys and ground observations dating back to the 1970s, which supports our microclimate classification scheme. Many of Gajewski's claims regarding climate, catchment characteristics, and ice melting properties from field locations he has not visited were refuted by veteran Arctic scientists with long-term field experience in these regions. In addition, Gajewski makes several criticisms concerning radioisotopic dating, core chronology, sediment mixing, diagenesis, and preservation of bioindicators that relate more to general paleolimnological assumptions than to conclusions reached by Griffiths et al. (2017). Research from the 1980s and 1990s, when scientific consensus on these issues was first reached, readily show that the methodologies and data interpretation of Griffiths et al. (2017) are sound. We appreciate the opportunity to expound on the finer details of the Griffiths et al. (2017) paper, work based on field research by the study's co-authors spanning almost three decades, with additional observations from colleagues dating back to the 1970s. We address Gajewski's criticisms with relevant literature, expert statements, and a few clarifying comments.