the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 18 Nov 2024
Non-biting midges (Chironomidae) as a proxy for summer temperatures during the post-Holsteinian (MIS 11b) – a central European perspective
Abstract. Climatic and environmental changes during past interglacial periods can be investigated to improve our understanding of mechanisms governing the changes which are currently observed. Numerous proxies might be utilised to reconstruct various environmental parameters. For instance, pollen analysis indicates changes in vegetation as well as winter temperature fluctuations, while Chironomidae larvae head capsules are widely used to recreate summer thermal conditions. Non-biting midges remains indicate trophy and pH of water bodies as well. Nevertheless, they have been used mostly in the studies of the Holocene with hardly any Chironomid-inferred temperature reconstructions conducted for MIS 11 period. In this study we present the first quantitative summer temperature reconstruction for the post-Holsteinian (Marine Isotope Stage – MIS 11b) in Central Europe based on the analysis of fossil chironomid remains preserved in palaeolake sediments recovered at Krępa, southeastern Poland. The stratigraphic context for the chironomid-based summer temperature reconstruction is provided by pollen data, together allowing to compare our results in the context of climate development at the end of the Holsteinian Interglacial. Chironomidae assemblages at the Krępa site consist mainly of oligotrophic and mesotrophic species (e.g Corynocera ambigua-type, Chironomus anthracinus-type) with lower abundance of eutrophic species (e.g. Chironomus plumosus-type). The chironomid-based summer temperature reconstruction indicates July temperature ranging between 15,3 ॰C and 20,1 ॰C during the early post-Holsteinian. Temperature changes during the first stadial after the Holstein Interglacial period are also reflected by the pollen data, which, however, show a certain delay compared to the chironomids. In any case, results from Krępa prove that conducting Chironomidae analysis is even feasible for periods as early as the mid-Pleistocene, enhancing our understanding of the mechanisms that control present-day climatic and environmental changes. The additional element of this research is indicating sites within the Polish borders that were investigated so far – mostly on the basis of pollen analysis, occasionally Cladocera, isotopes, etc. – and might be new objects of studies based on Chironomid-inferred temperature reconstructions. However, bringing Chironomid analysis with particular emphasis of challenges of conducting it with the use of sediments older than Holocene is the primary aim of this publication. Data from the MIS 11 complex are unique. There are only 4 sites with pre-Late Glacial chironomid-based summer temperature reconstructions in Europe.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(1788 KB)
-
Supplement
(415 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1788 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(415 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3129', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Dec 2024
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Tomasz Polkowski, 14 Feb 2025
The manuscript by Polkowski et al. presents results of chironomid-inferred temperature reconstruction and vegetation changes during the Holsteinian interglacial from a site located in Poland (Krepa). The authors also present a literature review of sites covering the Holsteinian in Poland. The authors discuss in details the possible reasons of poor preservation or absence of chironomid remains in different parts of their record. Because chironomid-inferred temperature reconstructions are rare during this period, the results of the manuscript are valuable for the community. However, I have comments that should be discussed before acceptance of the manuscript for publication in Climate of the Past.
We thank the reviewer for the detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript and provide point-by-point answers to the issues raised.
Main comments:
- Right now, I am a bit sceptical about the chironomid inferred temperature reconstruction. First, the low concentration of chironomid remains makes it hard to reach 50 chironomid per sample. I understand that you merged some adjacent samples to reach higher numbers of chironomids but I think it would be very useful to indicate in Table 2 the number of chironomids in all the samples used for the temperature reconstruction since even after merging some samples still didn’t reach 50 head capsules. Also, I don’t understand why you decided to keep the sample at 1000 cm (see line 291) since this sample is surrounded by other samples and therefore could be merged. Finally, I don’t understand how you get 15 samples (see line 297) after merging since you write that 5 samples had at least 50 chironomids, 7 samples were merged and you kept the sample at 1000 cm alone: this is 13 samples and not 15. And in Figure 4, I only see 14 dots (which I assume are the samples) on the temperature reconstruction curve. This issue should be solved because at the it is confusing for the reader.
In the revised version, we will provide a modified Table 2 according to the reviewer’s suggestion. We will also address the other points raised in the comment. The number of samples was given mistakenly as 15 - there were 13 samples - it will be corrected in the revised version as well.
- I find it difficult, at the moment, to understand the relevance of the literature review of polish sites covering the Holsteinian interglacial since you do not use these sites in the discussion of your results. I understand that you made a literature review to show the readers that these sites could also be used in the future in the context of chironomid studies but it would be interesting to compare the results of some of these sites that looked at pollen or diatoms, molluscs or other aquatic indicators with the results (chironomid, pollen) you present for your study site. You could also add, in Supplement Table 2, the proxies analysed for each of the sites.
We admit that the literature review of the Polish sites is not really used in the discussion of our results and therefore doesn’t really contribute to the story of our manuscript as mentioned by the reviewer. Therefore, we decided to delete the entire paragraph on the Polish sites (former section 2.1 “Data compilation”) in the revised version of our manuscript. The related overview map (former Fig. 1) will, however, be modified and remain in the revised manuscript. It will be an integral part of a new Fig. 1 (now including also the lithological profile presented in previous Fig. 2) that will be part of a revised section 2.1 “Study area” (formerly section 2.3).
- I would suggest to work on the discussion because, at the moment, most of your interpretations are often not supported by any other publications. I would suggest trying to find publications supporting your interpretations especially in the section “1.2 Summer temperature and ecological reconstructions based on Chironomids from the Krępa site in relation to environmental change” which is very interesting. I would also suggest using more the pollen in the discussion as, if I understood correctly, these results are not published yet. It would be interesting to compare the vegetation changes at Krepa with other know records.
We will address these issues in the revised manuscript by adding references supporting our interpretations. Moreover, pollen-based results from Krępa will be compared with some more Central European pollen records.
- I don’t see the relevance of the section “1.1 Possible difficulties in climate reconstruction based on Chironomidae analysis during past interglacials” in the discussion. I understand that you want to show possible explanations for the low concentrations, or absence chironomids in some parts of your record. However, you don’t really make the link with your chironomid assemblages. In this section you mention species/morphotypes that are not present in your chironomid record, so they should probably not be mentioned there.Also, most of the studies you cite in this section worked with specific species so you should not write “-type” after the species names. My suggestion would be to restructure this section to discuss the possible causes of absence of chironomids in some parts of your record, which is very interesting, by linking them with your actual results.
We acknowledge the justified criticism raised by the reviewer regarding our admittedly rather weak attempt to explain the low concentrations / absence of chironomids in our record and regret that we did not provide a proper connection between our actual observations and the fairly theoretical description of ecological preferences of individual taxa provided in former section 4.1.1. Accordingly, we will restructure this section, now paying attention to a more proper connection of individual species preferences and our findings.
- I would suggest to work on the writing as it is sometimes difficult to understand what you want to say. You also sometimes use the wrong words such as “recreate” instead of “reconstruct”. Also please pay attention on the writing of Chironomidae, which should not be written in italic, and the morphotype/species spelling. The morphotypes should always be written with “-type”, which should not be in italic, and when you are referring to individual species don’t add “-type” after the species name.
We will address all these issues in the revised version of the manuscript.
Other specific comments
We appreciate the reviewer’s detailed suggestion for improvements listed below and will modify the revised manuscript accordingly where appropriate. If changes are not justified in our opinion, we provide an explanation.
Line 1: don’t write Chironomidae in italic but in regular font as it is a family name and family names are written in regular font.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 19: “utilised” → used
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 21: “Chironomidae” should not be written in italic as it is a family name but in the regular form “Chironomidae”. Please change it throughout the manuscript.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 21: “recreate summer thermal conditions” → reconstruct past summer air temperatures or infer past summer air temperatures.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 22: “Non-biting midges remains indicate trophy and pH of water bodies as well.” → Chironomid remains can also indicate changes in the trophic state or pH of water bodies.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 23: “MIS 11 period” → the MIS 11 period
Will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 26-28: “The stratigraphic context for the chironomid-based summer temperature reconstruction is provided by pollen data, together allowing to compare our results in the context of climate development at the end of the Holsteinian Interglacial.” → Please reformulate this sentence to make it easier to understand.
Will be corrected accordingly. We suggest the following:
The obtained pollen data provide (1) the stratigraphic context for the chironomid-based summer temperature reconstruction with respect to Glacial-Interglacial / Stadial-Interstadial boundaries and (2) the general framework for the climate development at the end of Holsteinian Interglacial.
Line 28: “species” → taxa. If you are talking about morphotypes you can not write species as several species can represent each morphotype. See also line 29.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 29: “e.g” → e.g.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 29: “Corynocera ambigua-type” → Corynocera ambigua. This one is not a morphotype but rather a species as indicated in the different training set available.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 29: “Chironomus anthracinus-type” → Chironomus anthracinus-type. The “-type” should not be formatted in italic but in regular font. This is the case for all the morphotypes. Please change this issue throughout the text.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 30: “July temperature” → July air temperature.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 30: “15,3 °C” → 15.3 °C. In English the decimals should be indicated with a dot and not a comma. Please change this throughout the manuscript. See also line 31.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 33: remove “even”.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 34-37: “The additional element of this research is indicating sites within the Polish borders that were investigated so far - mostly on the basis of pollen analysis, occasionally Cladocera, isotopes, etc. - and might be new objects of studies based on Chironomid-inferred temperature reconstructions.” → Please reformulate this sentence to make it easier to understand and precise which time interval was investigated in these sites.
This sentence will be deleted in line with the handling of main comment #2 (see above).
Line 37: “Chironomid” → chironomid. Please write chironomid without capital letter and check throughout the manuscript.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 37: “of challenges of” → on
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 42: “participation” → influence
Will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 44-46: “various scientific disciplines from the establishment of the boundary of the unit through the scale of human influence on the functioning of the natural environment in the Holocene throughout all scales starting from micro, through regional to global (Brondizio et al., 2016).” → Please reformulate this sentence.
Will be corrected accordingly. We suggest the following:
With respect to human impact during the Holocene, the so-called “Anthropocene” is presently widely debated across various scientific disciplines though its exact timing as well as the actual dimension of human influence on the environment are still debated (Brondizio et al., 2016).
Line 47: “has” → is
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 48: “i.a.” → i.e. Please check the spelling throughout the manuscript.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 49: “etc.” → remove
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 50: “climatic conditions change” → climatic condition changes
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 52: “water table depth” → water depth
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 54: “is a reconstruction tool for ocean pH” → can be used to reconstruct pH in the ocean
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 55: “vegetation migration” → remove migration
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 55: “can be used” → and can be used
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 56: “the activities of a human in the past” → past human activities
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 58: “Chironomidae remnants analysis allows the assessment of the water reservoir trophy and pH as well.” → The analysis of chironomid remains also allows the assessment of the trophic state or pH of freshwater ecosystems.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 61-63: “However, these reconstructions are not capable of giving unequivocal information about exact air temperature changes nor whether these changes and their pace are induced by natural causes or human activity” → Please rephrase this sentence.
Will be corrected accordingly. We suggest the following:
However, these reconstructions neither provide unequivocal information about air temperature changes nor allow to distinguish between the relative contribution of natural drivers and human impact to these changes.
Line 67: “Northern Europe” → Please be consistent in the spelling of Northern Europe throughout the manuscript. See Line 75 “northern Europe”.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 75: “southern European” → “southern Europe”
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 82: “In this research” → In the present study
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 83: “(Eggermont and Heiri, 2012)” → Here I would cite other references as examples of temperature reconstructions based on chironomids. For example: Bolland et al., 2021; Engels et al., 2008; Ilyashuk et al., 2022; Rigterink et al., 2024…
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 84: “recreate” → “reconstruct
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 90: “Nowiny Żukowskie site” → Here I would specify the location of the site by at least mentioning the country
Will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 93-94: “One of the exceptions is Hoxne site in eastern England (Horne et al., 2023).” → Here I would give more information about this study as it is covering the MIS 11 like your site. You could, for example, specify that they also did a temperature reconstruction based on chironomid.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 97-98: “We tested temperature reconstruction using the Swiss-Norwegian-Polish Training Set and presented the first Chironomid-inferred temperature reconstruction from Poland before the Last Glacial Period and even for the post-Holsteinian.” → Here we present the first chironomid-inferred July air temperature from Poland for the post-Holsteinian.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 104: “quaternary” → Quaternary
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 112: “The research covered sites located in Poland. Holsteinian (Mazovian) Interglacial has been included.” → The research included sites located in Poland and covering the Holsteinian (Mazovian) interglacial
This sentence will be deleted in line with the handling of main comment #2 (see above).
Line 114: “several sites located in western half of the country” → several sites located in the western half of the country
This sentence will be deleted in line with the handling of main comment #2 (see above).
Line 114: “area contained between” → remove “contained”
This sentence will be deleted in line with the handling of main comment #2 (see above).
Line 115: “The sites’ locations were” → The sites’ location are
This sentence will be deleted in line with the handling of main comment #2 (see above).
Line 117: “– it” → and therefore
This sentence will be deleted in line with the handling of main comment #2 (see above).
Lines 117-118: “location estimation tools” → What are these tools?
This sentence will be deleted in line with the handling of main comment #2 (see above).
Line 121: “Supplement Figure 2” → Supplement Figure 1”
Fig. 1 and its caption will be modified (please see our response to main comment #2 above).
Line 122: “Glaciation ranges based” → Glaciation ranges are based
Fig. 1 and its caption will be modified (please see our response to main comment #2 above).
Line 133: “while modern distribution limits of these taxa are located estimated further to the west” → remove “located”
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 152: “146 m amsl.” → 146 m asl
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 160: In this section “2.4” you already interpret the sediment of your site which does not really fit in the section “2. Data and methods” section. You could maybe add a paragraph in section “3. Results and interpretation” for the interpretation of the sediment?
Please see our response to the following comment, which is directly related.
Lines 161-187: In this section it would help to better link the first and second paragraph to better understand your interpretations of the sediment. For example: Because of the presence of laminated sandy silts and sandy-clayey silts the unit 2 is interpreted as a result of glaciolimnic sedimentation in a relatively shallow water body…
As suggested in this and the previous comment, we will combine the first and second paragraph for better comprehensibility and also move the combined paragraph from section 2 (previously “Data and methods”, now “Study site and methods”) to the very beginning of section 3 (“Results and interpretation”) in the revised version of our manuscript, then appearing as the first part of the new section 3.1 “Lithological description of the Krępa sediment succession and palaeoenvironmental interpretation”.
The paragraph will then read as follows:
The basal part of of the 23.8-m-long sediment core recovered from the Krępa sediment succession (Fig. 1) consists of a 2-m-thick layer of massive, light greyish brown sandy clays with a large number of Scandinavian rock fragments (unit 1), which is interpreted as glacial till. As indicated by its stratigraphic position and its petrographic characteristics (Drozd and Trzepla, 2007), this till was accumulated during the Elsterian glaciation (or Sanian 2 glaciation in Poland), which is considered to correspond to MIS 12. Directly above the till, a 0.6-m-thick layer of rhythmically laminated sandy silts and sandy-clayey silts is found (unit 2). These sediments are interpreted as the result of glaciolimnic sedimentation in a relatively shallow water body between blocks of dead ice during the recession of the Elsterian ice sheet. The glaciolimnic sediments of unit 2 gradually turn into a carbonate gyttja with small interlayers of carbonatic-minerogenic gyttja (unit 3), which was most likely deposited in the profundal of an already relatively deep lake. Between 11.87 and 7.6 m core depth, non-carbonatic organic-minerogenic gyttjas with a generally increasing mineral content towards the top are found (unit 4). The limnic sediments of unit 4 are related to the gradual shallowing of the lake, associated with its significant filling with sediments. At the same time, the systematic increase in mineral components in the sediments most probably reflects increased denudation and erosion in the catchment, likely related to a change towards colder climate conditions. The gyttja sequence of unit 4 is overlain by a 1.9-m-thick layer of massive clays (unit 5), which probably represent accumulation in a periglacial lake. The following 1.1-m-thick layer of fine- to medium-grained sands (unit 6) as well as the overlying 3.1-m-thick layer of rhythmically laminated sandy silts (unit 7) are interpreted as proglacial sediments of the transgressing Early Saalian (MIS 10) ice sheet. Above this succession, the profile is capped by a 1.5-m-thick layer of sandy morainic till with Scandinavian rock fragments (unit 8) related to the Early Saalian glaciation.
Lines 171-173: “The sediments of unit 2 are interpreted as the result of glaciolimnic sedimentation in a relatively shallow water body between blocks of dead ice during the recession of the Elsterian glacier. The glaciolimnic sediments gradually pass into limnic sediments (unit 3), which are interpreted to be deposited in the profundal of an already relatively deep lake.” → Did you take in consideration in your interpretation of the chironomid results these possible changes in water depth? This could have a strong influence on the chironomid assemblages and could potentially explain why sometimes the concentration of chironomids is very low or even you don’t find any chironomids in your samples.
We took the water level into account here. This is one of the hypotheses that we unfortunately can neither confirm nor deny. The problem is the lack of comparative data that we could refer to. Another difficulty is that with three analyses, such as: XRF, pollen and Chironomidae, we do not have certain information about the water level in the reservoir. It is also common in the literature not to write about the lack of individuals. Often in articles, fragments with low numbers or with the lack of remains of some proxy are simply not described. This makes it difficult to refer to the literature.
Line 190: In the section “2.5 Pollen analysis” please indicate the number of pollen samples analysed, the volume of sediment analysed and the batch number and number of Lycopodium spores per tablets that you used. It would also be good to indicate which identification keys/books were used if the pollen data are not already published which I assume is the case since you do not refer to any publications. It would also be good to indicated how the Local Pollen Assemblage Zones were determined. Did you use any statistics (optimal sum of squares partitioning, broken stick model) to divide the pollen record into zones? Also, if you did numerical analyses please indicate which software was used.
The requested information on the methodology (e.g. number of samples, information on Lycopodium spores, determination of local pollen assemblage zones) will be added in the revised manuscript. The pollen data are so far not published in a peer-reviewed manuscript but only part of PhD thesis - we added the respective reference.
Line 198: “in a shortened pollen diagram” → in a simplified pollen diagram
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 201: “The Holsteinian (Mazovian) commences” → The Holsteinian (Mazovian) starts
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 205: In the section “2.6 Chironomidae analysis” please indicate the number of samples analysed. How did you measure the volume of your samples? And why are you writing “approximately 1 cm3? As it seems that the chironomid remains in your samples were often damaged I think it would be good to specify how you counted them (halves, presence/absence of mandibles...). As you are dealing with very old chironomid remains, I think it would be valuable to add a plate with pictures of the main chironomid taxa present in your samples. Please indicate what was the KOH concentration used and how long did you leave your samples in heated KOH. Also indicate why you used a 212 μm and if at then end you combined the chironomid remains present in the 212 and 100 μm fractions. Please also indicate which microscope and which magnification was used for the identification of chironomid remains.
The information requested will be added in the revised manuscript. As long as the plate with the pictures of chironomids is concerned - according to the Chironomid-inferred reconstruction author, the differences between individuals found at Krępa and those from younger periods aren’t significant. The paragraph after proposed changes would read as follows:
Sediment samples for chironomid analysis were taken at 5–40 cm intervals (sample volume1 cm³ - measured with a plastic tube of 1 cm³ volume). Chemical preparation methods followed Brooks et al. (2007). The precipitate was initially heated (to 70°C) with 10% KOH for 15 minutes. The wet sediment was passed through 212 (to remove larger sediment particles) and 100 μm mesh sieves and subsequent residues were treated in an ultrasonic bath for 3 sec. The processed sediment was examined under a stereomicroscope (Zeiss Axio Lab A1) at 25× magnification. Chironomid head capsules from each sample were picked and mounted in Euparal. In case of HC damage, individuals were counted as one if more than half of a body was preserved. Identification of chironomid head capsules followed Wiederholm (1983), Schmid (1993), Klink and Moller Pillot (2003), Brooks et al. (2007) and Andersen et al. (2013). Ecological preferences of identified taxa are based mainly on Brooks et al. (2007), Brundin (1949), Brodersen and Lindegaard (1999b), Saether (1979).
I don’t think Brooks et al. (2007) is the best reference to find the ecological preferences of chironomid taxa. I would probably also look in other references such as Saether (1979), Brundin (1949), Brodin (1986), Janececk et al. (2017)...
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 209: “stereo binocular microscope” → stereomicroscope
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 210: “followed by” → followed
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 214: In the section “2.7 Mean July air temperature reconstruction” please indicate why you chose the Swiss-Norwegian-Polish training set and not other available training sets (Finnish, Russian, Swiss-Norwegian)? I assume it is probably because it contains lakes from Poland but it I think it would be good to specify it. Also did you calculated the nearest modern analogues for each of your fossil samples? And the goodness of fit? If so it would be good to mention it here as well as the software used for that. If not, I would recommend to calculate these diagnostic statistics that you could show in the Supplementary material (see Bolland et al., 2021). In this section it would also probably be good to mention how many samples (after merging) were used for the temperature reconstruction, as well as how the samples were merged.
The information requested will be included in the text. The proposed wording of the paragraph would be:
In order to reconstruct mean July air temperatures (Tjul) from the Krępa chironomid assemblage, the Swiss-Norwegian-Polish training set (SNP TS, Kotrys et al., 2020) was used. This choice was dictated by the higher temperature span of the TS compared to other available european TS (Finnish, Russian, Swiss-Norwegian) (Kotrys et al., 2020). The training set includes 357 lakes, 134 taxa, covers a temperature range between 3.5 and 20.1 °C. and uses the weighted averaging-partial least squares transfer function (WA-PLS). The RMSEP for this combined training set is 1.39°C, and the R2 is 0.91 (Kotrys et al., 2020). MinDC was also calculated. The temperature reconstruction was carried out using the C2 software (Juggins, 2007).
After merging, the total number of samples used for the Tjul reconstruction was 13.
Line 219: Please indicate the version of the software
Version of the C2 software used was 1.6.
Line 224: Please also mention the chironomids in the caption of the table. For the column dealing with the chironomids you could write: “Main features in the chironomid record” or replace “significant” with “significance”. Please also indicate the unit of the depth column.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 237-238: “Assemblages could indicate a deterioration of environmental conditions (Chironomus anthracinus-type and Corynocera ambigua-type).” → Could you explain your interpretation in more details and link it to other publications?
Paragraph will be modified. Proposed wording would be as follows:
Assemblages could indicate a wide range of environmental conditions (Chironomus anthracinus-type profundal species, tolerant to suboptimal condition and wide thermal spectrum (Brooks et al. 2007; Luoto et al. 2019) cold - Corynocera ambigua) (Brooks, 2006; Brooks et al., 2007))
Lines 239-240: “contains mainly cold-adapted and freeze-resistant species like Corynocera ambigua-type, Glyptotendipes pallens-type and Glyptotendipes severini-type, which are often associated with algae and diatoms or mine leaves (Tarkowska-Kukuryk, 2014).” → Actually, Glyptotendipes pallens-type and Glyptotendipes severini-type are often associated with relatively warm conditions (Heiri et al., 2011; Nazarova et al., 2015; Luoto, 2009; Kotrys et al., 2020).
The paragraph will be reformulated as follows:
KR-12b (1072.5-1122.5 cm) contains mainly cold-adapted species like Corynocera ambigua and species like Glyptotendipes pallens-type and Glyptotendipes severini-type, which are often associated with algae and diatoms or mine leaves, (Tarkowska-Kukuryk, 2014).
Lines 241-242: “LPAZ KR-12c (1022.5-1072.5 cm) is characterized by species highly resistant to difficult environmental conditions, i.a. Chironomus anthracinus-type, Corynocera ambigua-type and Glyptotendipes pallens-type.” → Please provide references to other publications to support your interpretation.
We added the following references:
Brodersen, K. P. and Lindegaard, C.: Mass occurance and sporadic distribution of Corynocera ambigua Zetterstedt (Diptera, Chironomidae) in Danish lakes. Neo- and palaeolimnological records, J. Paleolimnol., 22, 41–52, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008032619776, 1999.
Čerba, D., Koh, M., Vlaičević, B., Turković Čakalić, I., Milošević, D., and Stojković Piperac, M.: Diversity of Periphytic Chironomidae on Different Substrate Types in a Floodplain Aquatic Ecosystem, Diversity, 14, 264, https://doi.org/10.3390/d14040264, 2022.
Pillot, H. M.: 2 General Aspects of the Systematics, Biology and Ecology of the Chironomini, in: Chironomidae Larvae, Vol. 2: Chironomini, KNNV Publishing, 8–21, 2013.
Saether, O. A.: Chironomid communities as water quality indicators, Ecography, 2, 65–74, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.1979.tb00683.x, 1979.
Self, A. E., Brooks, S. J., Birks, H. J. B., Nazarova, L., Porinchu, D., Odland, A., Yang, H., and Jones, V. J.: The distribution and abundance of chironomids in high-latitude Eurasian lakes with respect to temperature and continentality: development and application of new chironomid-based climate-inference models in northern Russia, Quat. Sci. Rev., 30, 1122–1141, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2011.01.022, 2011.
After changes we propose wording of this sentence as follows:
LPAZ KR-12c (1022.5-1072.5 cm) is characterised by species highly resistant to difficult environmental conditions, i.e. Chironomus anthracinus-type - typical for nutrient rich condition with wide environmental tolerances (Seather 1979, Self et al. 2011), Corynocera ambigua-type - wide thermal tolerance (Brodersen & Lindegaard 1999) and Glyptotendipes pallens-type -tolerate better winter condition, living in wide range of substrates (Moller Pilot 2013, Cerba et al. 2022).
Lines 243-246: “During LPAZ KR-13b (877.5-244 967.5 cm) the number of Chironomidae gradually increased with indicators of progressive eutrophication (e.g. Chironomus plumosus-type and Dicrotendipes nervosus-type (Iwakuma and Yasuno, 1981)) and cold oligotrophic but post-eutrophic environments (Corynocera ambigua-type)(Brooks et al., 2007) occurring more frequently.” → I would suggest to reformulate this sentence as it is hard to understand what you want to say here. Is there an increase of taxa indicator of eutrophication and then, after, an increase of oligotrophic indicators? Or they both increase at the same time?
This fragment of the text will be reformulated. The proposed version would be:
During LPAZ KR-13b (877.5-967.5 cm) the number of HC with indicators of progressive eutrophication (e.g. Chironomus plumosus-type and Dicrotendipes nervosus-type (Iwakuma and Yasuno, 1981)) gradually increased. However, cold oligotrophic species (Corynocera ambigua-type) (Brooks et al., 2007) still occurred frequently.
Line 254: “inhabiting shallow Arctic” → inhabiting shallow arctic.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 279-282: “Both Chironomus anthracinus-type and Corynocera ambigua-type are species found in stratified lakes (e.g., Saether, 1979; Heiri, 2004). As we can see, both species can be called resistant to unfavorable environmental conditions. They have a fairly wide range of conditions in which they occur today and can even withstand long periods of anaerobic conditions in lake reservoirs.” → Please provide a reference to a publication explaining that Corynocera ambigua is tolerant to anaerobic conditions.
Sentences will be rephrased as follows:
The appearance of Chironomus anthracinus-type and Glyptotendipes pallens-type may indicate the onset of eutrophication. Both Chironomus anthracinus-type and Corynocera ambigua-type are species found in stratified lakes (e.g., Saether, 1979; Heiri, 2004). As we can see, both species can be called resistant to unfavorable environmental conditions. They have a fairly wide range of conditions in which they occur today.
Line 290: “Chironomidae subfossil larvae were obtained from a total of 30 samples from the lacustrine sediments.” → Please specify the sedimentary units of the samples.
All samples were obtained from gyttja sediment (Unit 4 in Fig. 2 in the preprint version of the manuscript). We propose new wording of this sentence as follows:
Chironomidae subfossil larvae were obtained from a total of 30 samples from the lacustrine sediments - entirely from gyttja sediments (Unit 4) (Fig. 1). - number of the figure changed due to merging figure 1 and 2
Lines 290-291: “Samples that contained significantly fewer than 50 head capsules were merged except for a solitary sample at 1000 cm core depth.” → Please explain why you kept a solitary sample at 100 cm. Because to me it seems that this sample is surrounded by other samples on the diagram of Figure 4 and therefore could have merged with other samples.
Keeping a solitary sample at 1000 cm instead of merging it with the remaining clusters was dictated by the differences with the species composition between this particular solitary sample and samples below. Moreover, the number of head capsules was considered sufficient (even though slightly below 50) to avoid merging in this case.
Lines 294-295: “were included in the reconstruction because the test of the reconstruction showed acceptable results.” → Please which test did you perform.
This part will be reformulated as it was unclear - no statistical test was performed. At the initial stage of Chironomidae analysis, the performance of the reconstruction was checked - including or excluding the solitary sample from 1000 cm depth. Including this sample seemed to give acceptable results (which was assessed based on the knowledge and experience of reconstruction’s author).
This sentence after corrections would read as follows:
After merging, sample clusters at 975 cm, 1080 cm, 1120 cm and 1125 cm core depth still did not reach 50 head capsules, but nonetheless, these samples and the one from 1000 cm core depth were included in the reconstruction as preliminary results seemed credible in terms of obtained temperature values
Lines 296-297: “After merging, the total number of samples used for the Tjul reconstruction was 15.” → From your explanation just above, I understood that you used 5 samples with sufficient amount of chironomids, 7 merged samples and 1 solitary sample to calculate the temperature reconstruction. And these are 13 samples, not 15. Please modify the text where it is necessary.
Will be corrected accordingly - total number of samples after merging is 13.
Line 310: “(MinDC”) → How did you calculate the dissimilarity? Please indicate that in the section “2.7 Mean July air temperature reconstruction”
MinDC was calculated with the use of C2 software.
Lines 325-326: “to reconstruct the average July palaeotemperature quantitatively” → to quantitatively reconstruct July air temperature.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 326: “the trophy of the reservoir” → the trophic state of the reservoir.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 327: “Training sets were also created” → Training sets are also available.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 453-545: “These data indicate that summer temperature maximum during the post-Holsteinian period was even slightly higher than indicated in the Polish training set (17-20°C)(Kotrys et al., 2020).” → Please reformulate this sentence as it is unclear to me what you want to say.
This sentence will be reformulated as follows:
These data indicate that summer temperature maximum during the post-Holsteinian period is consistent with the temperature range of the Polish training set (3.5-20.0°C)(Kotrys et al., 2020)
Lines 470-472: “Considering the dominance of herbs and dwarf shrubs in the pollen spectrum, the limiting factor for the development of forest communities was more likely connected to low winter temperatures as summer temperatures were still relatively high. → Please develop your interpretation and support it with other publications.
This issue will be addressed in the revised manuscript and supported with other publications - see also comment #Lines 480-481. We will add the following references:
Harrington, C. A. and Gould, P. J.: Tradeoffs between chilling and forcing in satisfying dormancy requirements for Pacific Northwest tree species, Front. Plant Sci., 6, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00120, 2015.
Heide, O. M.: Daylength and thermal time responses of budburst during dormancy release in some northern deciduous trees, Physiol. Plant., 88, 531–540, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1993.tb01368.x, 1993.
Körner, C. and Paulsen, J.: A world-wide study of high altitude treeline temperatures, J. Biogeogr., 31, 713–732, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2003.01043.x, 2004.
Kramer, K.: A modelling analysis of the effects of climatic warming on the probability of spring frost damage to tree species in The Netherlands and Germany, Plant Cell Environ., 17, 367–377, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.1994.tb00305.x, 1994.
Kramer, K.: Phenotypic plasticity of the phenology of seven European tree species in relation to climatic warming, Plant Cell Environ., 18, 93–104, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.1995.tb00356.x, 1995.
Nienstaedt, H.: Chilling requirements in seven Picea species, Silvae Genet, 16, 65–68, 1967.
Line 474: “In the following” → Following zone?
Will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 480-481: “Summer temperatures during this period reached only 15°C, but the limiting factor for vegetation development still remained the winter temperatures.” → Here again I would suggest developing your interpretation and refer to other publications.
Summer temperatures determined from Chironomidae during this period reached only 15°C, but the limiting factor for vegetation development still remained the winter temperatures. This can be concluded from pollen analysis. Winter temperatures have a strong effect on plants, influencing their growth and budding (Nienstaedt, 1967; Heide, 1993; Kramer, 1994, 1995; Harrington and Gould, 2015, Körner and Paulsen, 2004).
Line 482: “being equivalent” → corresponding
Will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 483-484: “As the pollen record during stadials is mostly controlled by wind-pollinated overproducers such as Poaceae and the long-distance transport of tree pollen (mostly Pinus)” → Here you need a reference.
Following references will be added:
Jankovská, V.: Late Glacial and Holocene history of Plešné Lake and its surrounding
landscape based on pollen and palaeoalgological analyses, Biologia, 61, 371-385, 2006.
Hjelmroos, M.: Evidence of long-distance transport of Betula pollen, Grana, 30(1), 215-228,
1991.
We also modified the paragraph that it reads as follows:
The observed increase in non-arboreal pollen (NAP), predominantly from Poaceae, reflects vegetation contractions driven by lower temperatures and/or reduced humidity, which constrained the growth of pioneer tree species (Kousis et al., 2018). The presence of Betula and Pinus pollen during MIS 11a is most likely explained by the long-distance transport (Hjelmroos, 1991; Jankovská, 2006) rather than evidence of local tree populations. Consequently, the pollen record does not serve as a reliable indicator of the temperature increase inferred from Chironomidae data.
Figures and Tables
Figure 2: I don’t understand what “Clay, Silt, Sand, Gravel” at the bottom of the figure represent. Also, there is no unit for the numbers between the units and the sediment profile. I assume the unit is meters but I think it should be indicated on the figure. “glaciolimnic sedimentation” at the top of the figure → Glaciolimnic sedimentation with a capital “G” to be consistent with the other sediment types.
“Clay, Silt, Sand, Gravel” at the bottom of Fig. 2 refer to the predominant grain size of the individual units. The numbers along the sediment profile indeed refer to the profile depth in meters. The figure will be corrected according to the suggestions.
Table 1: Depth of KR-4 is overlapping with depth of KR-3. I suggest to add a column specifying the Marine Isotope Stage of each Local Pollen Assemblage Zone. What is the difference between “No Chironomidae” and “No individuals of Chironomidae”? Please specify it, in the caption of the table, if there is a difference. Please check the writing of the depths (the decimals should be indicated with a dot and not a comma in English): see for example “KR-8 1497,5 – 1647.5”. For LAPZ KR-12b, I would suggest to change “high contents of Chironomus anthracinus-type” to “relatively high abundances of Chironomus anthracinus-type”. Also for the same LAPZ you probably forgot words in the second sentence describing the Chironomidae: “The number of Glyptotendipes pallens-type and Glyptotendipes severini-type.” For LAPZ KR-13a, you write that “on average 450 individuals per sample” but in the Figure 4 the maximum sum of chironomid in samples is around 80. Why is that? I would also suggest condensing the table because it is on 9 pages now. You could, for example, reduce the space between each LAPZ and shorten the description of the pollen results.
Will be corrected accordingly. Table 1 will be transformed into text to improve the content layout and presentation
Figure 3: I think it would be good to have a horizontal line (or dotted line) on the diagram for each zones so that it is easier for the reader to see the differences between the zones. For the lithology it would probably be good to followed the same code as in Figure 2. Please specify the type of spores shown in the diagram (Fern? Fungal?). Please also write the unit of the different pollen types, which I assume is percentage, and for Pediastrum (number of remains?). If possible, it would be good to specify what is included in “Other thermophilic”, “Other AP”, “Other NAP”.
Fig. 3 will be modified according to the suggestions. The specification of what is included in “Other thermophilic”, “Other AP” and “Other NAP” will be provided in the figure caption.
Table 2: I would suggest to add the number of chironomids per sample in the table so that the readers know which samples might be problematic because they have “too low” numbers of chironomids.
Table 2 will be corrected accordingly.
Figure 4: Why the chironomids from LAPZ-14 are not shown on the diagram? Based on Table 1, the abundance of chironomids is very low in this zone but you still found two Chironomus plumosus-type so I think it would be good to also show them on the diagram. Also, in this figure the y axis unit is in meters whereas it is in centimeters in Figure 3 and in Table 2. Please be consistent in all figures and tables. Add “Chironomid diagram” in the caption of the figure as you also show the abundances of chironomid and not only the temperature reconstruction. Please indicate what the grey bars indicate on the temperature reconstruction curve (I assume they are the errors?). I would suggest, if possible, to have a better quality of the figure because when zooming on it the names become a bit fuzzy. Please specify the units of the x axes (percentages, counts, °C). “sume” → “Sum” or “Total chironomids”. Please also mention and explain what “MJAT °C” in the text or in the caption of the figure.
Fig. 4 and the caption will be modified according to the suggestions.
Supplement table 2: Why are some references in brackets? See for example “Barkowice Mokre”.
Supplementary Table 2 will be deleted in the revised manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3129-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Tomasz Polkowski, 14 Feb 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3129', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Jan 2025
The manuscript egusphere-2024-3129 presents the first Chironomidae-inferred mean July air temperature reconstruction for the post-Holsteinian (MIS-11b) period. The reconstruction is unique, as few studies use Chironomidae as a palaeoclimatic proxy for periods older than the Eemian Interglacial. The research is valuable, and the authors provide interesting data interpretations, referencing a wide range of relevant literature. The manuscript is well-structured, although the entire review in Section 4.1.1 partly repeats information provided earlier in the text. In this paper, it is unnecessary to extensively review the ecology of Chironomidae and their subfossil deposition in sediments. This content is out of context and should be removed from the manuscript. It could be published separately as a review paper in another journal, rather than in Climate of the Past.
A significant challenge for climate reconstructions based on Chironomidae subfossils from such ancient sediments is the speciation rate and potential changes in the species' environmental preferences represented by morphotypes over such a long timescale. Another issue is the zoogeographical context that influences assemblage composition. Due to successive glacial-interglacial cycles up to the present day, when the SNP TS was conducted, species ranges have changed multiple times, affecting regional faunal composition. Can we assume that the morphotypes of subfossils collected from the Krępa post-Holsteinian sediments represent the same species as in the SNP TS? This issue should be briefly discussed in the context of Section 4.1.1. The authors refer to the “actuality of geological processes,” but can we make a similar assumption for the climatic preferences of species after such a long time? This is a central issue for climatic reconstructions from such ancient subfossils.
As the authors note, Chironomidae have short life cycles, which suggests a fast rate of phylogenetic processes. I agree that temperature reconstructions from such old sediments are possible and reliable, but they should be treated with caution when compared to those from the Holocene, Weichselian, or Eemian periods.
Chironomidae are present in only a short section of the Krępa sediments, whereas pollen is ample throughout the entire core. I wonder how a pollen-inferred temperature reconstruction would compare in this case. Would it confirm the chironomid-inferred July air temperatures or not? I leave this question to the authors for consideration. It could be an interesting addition, though the midge-based reconstruction from the post-Holsteinian is already highly unique and sufficient for a strong paper in Climate of the Past.
The authors indicate in Section 2.1 that they reviewed 80 sites with Holsteinian sequences in Poland in Table 1, but the table contains different content. I could not locate this data compilation in the manuscript. The text is already lengthy, so I suggest saving this subject for another paper. Additionally, I recommend reducing the manuscript’s length by 20% by deleting Section 4.1.1 and moving Table 1 to the supplementary materials.
The manuscript’s English requires substantial revision by a native speaker fluent in ecology. I also suggest the following minor comments:
Lines 1-3: The title should be rephrased to be more compact and maybe focused on temperature more than Chironomidae. The paper does not refer to the "central European perspective".
In the whole text, lines 1, 21, 23, 28, 33, 54-58, 58-59, 82, 95, 97, 103, Table 1, 227, 228, 230, 231, 233, 237, 244, 247, 289, 290, 319, 321, 325, 331, 334, 351, 357, 359, 362, 364, 373, 388, 389, 390, 392, 395, 398, 401, 430, 435, 441, 495, 461, 475, 491, 493, 494, 507, 509, 514, 515, 520, 521 and elsewhere – Chironomidae is a Family name and according to taxonomic nomenclature it should be written in the regular font, not italics. The chironomid/chironomids is an informal name like a dog, a fox, or a cat, and should be written starting from the small, not a capital letter.
Lines 18, 34, 101, 103, 104, 106, 107, 344, 345, 348, 515, 516, and in many other places please change the personal mood of the sentence to impersonal.
Lines 18-19: This sentence is complex and hard to read. Please use shorter sentences all over the text.
Line 20: Pollen can be used for quantitative reconstructing of the annual temperature, the temperature of the warmest month, the temperature of the coldest month, as well as precipitation and vegetational season duration.
Line 21: Please change “recreate” to ‘reconstruct’.
Lines 22, 326, and elsewhere: Please change "trophy" to "trophic state" in the text.
Line 23: “..of the Holocene” - please add ‘and Late Weichselian’.
Lines 30, and 31: In English decimals should be written with '.' not ','. Please change here and elsewhere in the text.
Line 32: How do you know, if there is no quantitative temperature reconstruction inferred from the pollen?
Line 34: I'm not sure the word 'enhancing' well fits in this context, could you use some other?
Lines 34-37: This sentence is hard to read. Please rephrase. Also according to the taxonomic codex, Cladocera should be written here and elsewhere with the regular font.
Lines 37-38: Please rephrase the sentence.
Line 38: Maybe it is better to refer to research than data.
Line 39: I suggest to discuss them wider in the 'Discussion' chapter.
Line 41: Please change the words 'numerously' and 'triggered' to some others. They don't fit the context.
Line 42: Maybe 'gives' would be better than "creates"?
Lines 43-46: This sentence is long and hard to read, please rephrase.
Lines 47-49: From 11,500 years (cal ?) BP there is only one Marine Isotope Stage - MIS 1.
Lines 49-51. Please try to write this sentence in more simple words. Please change "species structure" to 'structure of the communities.
Line 52: Please change "requirements" to 'preferences' and delete "table", just stay with 'water depth'.
Line 54: Foraminifera should start with a capital letter as this is the higher taxa name.
Lines 54-58: This sentence is too long and hard to read. Please cut it to a few shorter sentences.
Lines 58-59: The word "remnants" does not fit the context, better use 'subfossils' or 'head capsules' instead.
Lines 61-63: This sentence is hard to read, please rephrase. The word "pace" does not fit to the context.
Line 66: Once you explained the abbreviation MIS in line 24, later on in the text you can use it without referring to the full name "Marine Isotope Stage". Just write MIS.
Line 84: The Word "recreate" does not fit the context.
Line 88: Maybe 'analysed' would be better than "conducted" in this case.
Maybe I am wrong but I think there is no sense of connection between sentences in line 94 and lines 95-96.
Line 100: Maybe 'brings the' would be better than "gives" in this case?
Line 104: Should Quaternary start here from a capital letter?
Line 105: Please change "ecological requirements" to 'species ecological preferences'.
Line 107: Please delete the phrase "on the map".
Line 114: Please change "they are focused" to 'they aggregate'.
Line 199: What method was used for pollen zonation?
Section 2.6: Please give the total number of Chironomidae head capsules.
Line 211: Please change "Pillot" to 'Moller Pillot' as it is a double surname.
Table 1: Please, move Table 1 to the supplements. Please change in the table and everywhere in the text (i.e. line 479) “dominance” to ‘domination’, also in scientific papers word “significance” is restricted to statistical significance, please change in Table 1 and elsewhere to ‘clear’, or ‘distinct’ or ‘substantial’, etc. At line 410 maybe to 'lower impact' or 'smaller impact'.
Tab. 1 KR-11b: Please give space between "percentages" and "and".
Tab. 1 KR-12a section Chironomidae - please replace "amounts" with 'number'.
Tab. 1 KR-12b section Chironomidae: please change "content" to 'share', also next sentence about G. pallens-type and G. severini-type is not complete - What do you mean?
Tab. 1 KR-13b section Chironomidae - please change the font in "occur" to regular.
Lines 234-235: Delete "remains of" from "remains of head capsules", also change "," to '.' in "1222,5 cm". It should be '1222.5 cm'.
Line 237: Please change "amounts" to 'number' 'populations' or 'abundance'.
Lines 239-240: G. pallens-type and G. severini-type are warm stenotherms. Please rephrase the sentence.
Line 246: Please add space between "(Corynocera ambigua-type)" and "(Brooks et al., 2007)".
Line 247: Please change "amount" to 'abundance' or 'number'.
Line 247: Please add 'stenotherm' between "warm" and "species".
Lines 255-256: Please change "has a growth period" to 'larvae develop'.
Lines 259, 282, 326, 327, 353, 358, 385, 389, 414: Please change here and elsewhere in the text "reservoir" to 'lake'/'lakes/water body/water bodies' (at line 389 to ‘bottom’).
Line 260: Please change 'number' to 'abundance'. Also, it should be 'has been shown'.
I think that sentence in lines 273-274 is unnecessary. I suggest to delete it.
Please move the paragraph from lines 290-297 to the section 2.7.
Fig. 4: Please indicate in the figure caption whether Chironomidae are presented in the percent shares or counted numbers of specimens. Also, if you want to be super-correct give Tanytarsini indet. in the regular font. The figure presents not only the mean July air temperature reconstruction but also a stratigraphic diagram of the Chironomidae assemblages.
Line 320: Please change " and an important element of" to 'conducted in'.
Line 321: Please change "order" to 'suborder' (!).
Line 325: Please delete: "the diversity of", and "centuries".
Line 340: Please change "amount" to 'number'.
Lines 346, 348, and elsewhere: Please keep American or British English throughout the whole text.
Sentence at lines 358-360: Meaning unclear, please rephrase. Maybe "attract" is used inadequately and should be replaced by another word, but then still, the sentence needs to be rephrased.
Line 361: What do you mean by the "remote habitats"?
Line 374: Chaoboridae and Ceratopogonidae are the Family names and should be given in regular font, not italics.
Line 379: Please delete "the amount of".
Line 385: "morphological" - do you mean bathymetry?
Sentence at lines 392-393: Do you mean living larvae of Chironomidae or rather head capsules (subfossils)? If you mean the subfossils then you can't refer to "behaviour", rather you mean redeposition processes.
Lines 401-402: Please add 'subfossils of' before "multivoltine" and change "being" to 'can be'.
Line 403: Maybe 'parameters' would be more suitable than "properties".
Lines 405-408: Please cut the sentence to a few shorter ones, also "extinction" seems to be a bit too big word in this context.
Line 413: Please delete "and the bottom of the reservoir".
Line 418: Please add 'waters at' before "cold", also for whom favourable? And from what is more favourable? The anaerobic environments, peat bogs, and aquatic habitats in deserts and cold regions are usually less favourable for chironomids than i.e. lakes with good oxygen conditions, and neutral pH that is localised in temperate regions.
Sentence at lines 418-419: Meaning unclear.
Line 419: I am not sure if the word "properties" is properly used in this sentence.
Line 426: "sites" - do you mean 'samples'?
Paragraphs at the lines 425-429 and 438-444 should be moved to the section 2.6.
Line 439: "functional" - do you mean 'functioning'?
Line 441: Please change "macroremians" to 'subfossils'.
The section 4.1.2 is dedicated mostly to the comparison of Chironomidae-inferred summer temperatures with the interpretation of pollen data. Please change the title of the section focusing more on pollen-based reconstructions.
Line 454: Please add space between "...C)" and "(Kotrys...".
Lines 486-487: Something is missing in this sentence, please rephrase.
Lines 507-508: I recommend comparing the trend in the temperature with trends in Chironomidae assemblages reflected by some ordination analysis - i.e. plotting temperatures against DCA/PCA Ax 1 and Ax 2 values. PCA can be very easily calculated in C2.
Line 508: Please delete the sentence "They are an environmental indicator." It is redundant.
Line 518: Please change "abundantly" to 'with higher concentration'.
Line 746: Please change "Pillot" to "Moller Pillot" as it is a double surname. Also, he is cited usually as H. K. M.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3129-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Tomasz Polkowski, 14 Feb 2025
The manuscript egusphere-2024-3129 presents the first Chironomidae-inferred mean July air temperature reconstruction for the post-Holsteinian (MIS-11b) period. The reconstruction is unique, as few studies use Chironomidae as a palaeoclimatic proxy for periods older than the Eemian Interglacial. The research is valuable, and the authors provide interesting data interpretations, referencing a wide range of relevant literature.
The manuscript is well-structured, although the entire review in Section 4.1.1 partly repeats information provided earlier in the text. In this paper, it is unnecessary to extensively review the ecology of Chironomidae and their subfossil deposition in sediments. This content is out of context and should be removed from the manuscript. It could be published separately as a review paper in another journal, rather than in Climate of the Past. A significant challenge for climate reconstructions based on Chironomidae subfossils from such ancient sediments is the speciation rate and potential changes in the species' environmental preferences represented by morphotypes over such a long timescale. Another issue is the zoogeographical context that influences assemblage composition. Due to successive glacial-interglacial cycles up to the present day, when the SNP TS was conducted, species ranges have changed multiple times, affecting regional faunal composition. Can we assume that the morphotypes of subfossils collected from the Krępa post-Holsteinian sediments represent the same species as in the SNP TS? This issue should be briefly discussed in the context of Section 4.1.1. The authors refer to the “actuality of geological processes,” but can we make a similar assumption for the climatic preferences of species after such a long time? This is a central issue for climatic reconstructions from such ancient subfossils. As the authors note, Chironomidae have short life cycles, which suggests a fast rate of phylogenetic processes. I agree that temperature reconstructions from such old sediments are possible and reliable, but they should be treated with caution when compared to those from the Holocene, Weichselian, or Eemian periods. Chironomidae are present in only a short section of the Krępa sediments, whereas pollen is ample throughout the entire core. I wonder how a pollen-inferred temperature reconstruction would compare in this case. Would it confirm the chironomid-inferred July air temperatures or not? I leave this question to the authors for consideration. It could be an interesting addition, though the midge-based reconstruction from the post-Holsteinian is already highly unique and sufficient for a strong paper in Climate of the Past.
We thank the reviewer for the detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript and provide point-by-point answers to the issues raised. With respect to the issues raised here briefly, we will address them as follows:
We will restructure section 4.1.1, now paying attention to a more proper connection of individual species preferences and our findings. However, we would rather try to better integrate this part with the remaining part of the discussion than entirely delete it from the revised manuscript.
Responding on the issue considering the influence of speciation rate / changing environmental preferences through time - We believe it can be applied to any multi-proxy analysis in post-Holsteinian sediments. The applicability of temperature reconstruction is determined using various statistical methods, including canonical correspondence analysis (CCA). Relationships between chronomid communities and summer temperature using the cross-correlation coefficient differentiation (DCCA) on square-root transformed data in CANOCO v. 4.5 (ter Braak and Sˇmilauer 2002).
Also the range of analogy of fossil communities to contemporary communities using Modern Analog Technique (MAT) (Birks et al. 1990). By marking individuals, we can determine that the same morphologically similar individuals still occur in the same area as in the Holocene (Płóciennik et al. 2023).
For example, we can give the rate of speciation of the tribe Tanytarsini. Subfossil individuals are from Palaeogene (Eocene/Oligocene ~ 40–45 Ma), Fenno-Sarmatia: 4 species, 3 genera). Currently there are 187 species of 16 genera recorded in Europe. Speciation within the Tanytarsini is mainly ecological and geographic isolation (Giłka 2011). The second factor confirming the applicability of the analysis is its correlation with the results from other multi-proxy analyses. If the results create a coherent whole of factors and their responses with the results from the analyses of pollen, Cladocera, diatoms, Ostracoda, or macroremains, then they confirm the results and applicability of the method. Of course, we can assume that each organism undergoes speciation, but each of these organisms has a different life cycle length. Therefore, here we can assume that this speciation would occur at a different rate. This is a very interesting aspect. That is why it is so important to use other analyses, especially for such old sediments, but with just a few sites investigated we can see that this can be a big challenge, because the sediment is periodically poor in any remains.
As far as pollen-inferred temperature reconstruction is concerned - The pollen data from Krępa site are (at the moment) published only as a part of Artur Górecki’s (co-author of this manuscript) However, as Chironomid-inferred summer temperature reconstruction is the core of this publication, pollen-based reconstruction seems to be out of the scope of this paper and will be the part of the separate publication.
The authors indicate in Section 2.1 that they reviewed 80 sites with Holsteinian sequences in Poland in Table 1, but the table contains different content. I could not locate this data compilation in the manuscript. The text is already lengthy, so I suggest saving this subject for another paper. Additionally, I recommend reducing the manuscript’s length by 20% by deleting Section 4.1.1 and moving Table 1 to the supplementary materials.
We will completely remove the entire section 2.1 as the presentation of the other Polish sites will not be a part of the revised manuscript anymore. As stated in the general comment before, section 4.1.1 will be reduced and integrated with the remaining part of the discussion but not entirely deleted.
The manuscript’s English requires substantial revision by a native speaker fluent in ecology. I also suggest the following minor comments:
Lines 1-3: The title should be rephrased to be more compact and maybe focused on temperature more than Chironomidae. The paper does not refer to the "central European perspective".
We will delete “central European perspective” from the title and rephrase it as follows:
A chironomid-based summer temperature reconstruction for the post-Holsteinian (MIS 11b) from the Krępa palaeolake sediments, eastern Poland
or:
Non-biting midges (Chironomidae) as a proxy for summer temperatures during the post-Holsteinian (MIS 11b) - an eastern Poland perspective
In the whole text, lines 1, 21, 23, 28, 33, 54-58, 58-59, 82, 95, 97, 103, Table 1, 227, 228, 230, 231, 233, 237, 244, 247, 289, 290, 319, 321, 325, 331, 334, 351, 357, 359, 362, 364, 373, 388, 389, 390, 392, 395, 398, 401, 430, 435, 441, 495, 461, 475, 491, 493, 494, 507, 509, 514, 515, 520, 521 and elsewhere – Chironomidae is a Family name and according to taxonomic nomenclature it should be written in the regular font, not italics. The chironomid/chironomids is an informal name like a dog, a fox, or a cat, and should be written starting from the small, not a capital letter.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 18, 34, 101, 103, 104, 106, 107, 344, 345, 348, 515, 516, and in many other places please change the personal mood of the sentence to impersonal.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 18-19: This sentence is complex and hard to read. Please use shorter sentences all over the text.
We will check the entire text with respect to comprehensiveness and will shorten / simplify sentences where possible and necessary.
Line 20: Pollen can be used for quantitative reconstructing of the annual temperature, the temperature of the warmest month, the temperature of the coldest month, as well as precipitation and vegetational season duration.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 21: Please change “recreate” to ‘reconstruct’.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 22, 326, and elsewhere: Please change "trophy" to "trophic state" in the text.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 23: “..of the Holocene” - please add ‘and Late Weichselian’.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 30, and 31: In English decimals should be written with '.' not ','. Please change here and elsewhere in the text.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 32: How do you know, if there is no quantitative temperature reconstruction inferred from the pollen?
The pollen data from Krępa site are (at the moment) published only as a part of Artur Górecki’s (co-author of this manuscript) However, as Chironomid-inferred summer temperature reconstruction is the core of this publication, pollen-based reconstruction seems to be out of the scope of this paper and will be the part of the separate publication.
Line 34: I'm not sure the word 'enhancing' well fits in this context, could you use some other?
This will be changed to “improving”.
Lines 34-37: This sentence is hard to read. Please rephrase. Also according to the taxonomic codex, Cladocera should be written here and elsewhere with the regular font.
We will completely remove this sentence as the presentation of the other Polish sites will not be a part of the revised manuscript anymore.
Lines 37-38: Please rephrase the sentence.
We will completely remove this sentence as the presentation of the other Polish sites will not be a part of the revised manuscript anymore.
Line 38: Maybe it is better to refer to research than data.
We will completely rewrite the abstract of the revised manuscript.
Line 39: I suggest to discuss them wider in the 'Discussion' chapter.
We will completely rewrite the abstract of the revised manuscript.
Line 41: Please change the words 'numerously' and 'triggered' to some others. They don't fit the context.
This will be corrected. We suggest the following:
Earth’s history is characterized by repeated climate fluctuations, which had until present only natural causes and were not driven by humans.
Line 42: Maybe 'gives' would be better than "creates"?
This will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 43-46: This sentence is long and hard to read, please rephrase.
This will be corrected. We suggest the following:
With respect to human impact during the Holocene, the so-called “Anthropocene” is presently widely debated across various scientific disciplines though its exact timing as well as the actual dimension of human influence on the environment are still debated (Brondizio et al., 2016).
Lines 47-49: From 11,500 years (cal ?) BP there is only one Marine Isotope Stage - MIS 1.
The complete sentence will be rewritten. We suggest the following:
For the Holocene, which corresponds to Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 1 and covers the last 11,500 years (Mayewski et al., 2017), there is an large number of environmental archives, e.g. lacustrine and marine sediments, ice cores, trees, and speleothems, that provide material for palaeoecological analyses.
Lines 49-51. Please try to write this sentence in more simple words. Please change "species structure" to 'structure of the communities.
This will be corrected. We suggest the following:
The sensitivity of some groups of organisms to changing hydrological or climatic conditions allows to reconstruct past events that directly affected the abundance of these organisms or the structure of their communities (Battarbee, 2000).
Line 52: Please change "requirements" to 'preferences' and delete "table", just stay with 'water depth'.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 54: Foraminifera should start with a capital letter as this is the higher taxa name.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 54-58: This sentence is too long and hard to read. Please cut it to a few shorter sentences.
This will be corrected. We suggest the following:
Foraminifera can be used to reconstruct ocean pH (Foster and Rae, 2016; Roberts et al., 2018). Pollen can provide information about vegetation migration (Ralska-Jasiewiczowa et al., 2004; Kupryjanowicz et al., 2018), past human activity (Chevalier et al., 2020) or palaeoclimate variability (e.g. Rylova and Savachenko, 2005; Hrynowiecka and Winter, 2016). Chironomids can be be used to infer past summer air temperatures (Eggermont and Heiri, 2012) as well as changes in the trophic state and pH of water bodies (Płóciennik, 2005).
Lines 58-59: The word "remnants" does not fit the context, better use 'subfossils' or 'head capsules' instead.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 61-63: This sentence is hard to read, please rephrase. The word "pace" does not fit to the context.
This will be corrected. We suggest the following:
However, these reconstructions neither provide unequivocal information about air temperature changes nor allow to distinguish between the relative contribution of natural drivers and human impact to these changes.
Line 66: Once you explained the abbreviation MIS in line 24, later on in the text you can use it without referring to the full name "Marine Isotope Stage". Just write MIS.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 84: The Word "recreate" does not fit the context.
We will replace “recreate” by “reconstruct”.
Line 88: Maybe 'analysed' would be better than "conducted" in this case.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Maybe I am wrong but I think there is no sense of connection between sentences in line 94 and lines 95-96.
We suggest to completely restructure the entire paragraph on other MIS 11 sites in Europe.
Line 100: Maybe 'brings the' would be better than "gives" in this case?
We will replace “gives” by “sheds”.
Line 104: Should Quaternary start here from a capital letter?
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 105: Please change "ecological requirements" to 'species ecological preferences'.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 107: Please delete the phrase "on the map".
We will completely remove the entire section 2.1 as the presentation of the other Polish sites will not be a part of the revised manuscript anymore.
Line 114: Please change "they are focused" to 'they aggregate'.
We will completely remove the entire section 2.1 as the presentation of the other Polish sites will not be a part of the revised manuscript anymore.
Line 199: What method was used for pollen zonation?
The method used was CONISS cluster analysis function. This paragraph after remormulating would read as follows:
Overall, the outcomes of the palynological analysis are depicted in a shortened pollen diagram (Fig. 3), divided into 14 Local Pollen Assemblage Zones (LPAZ). Pollen diagrams were plotted using R studio, based on the package riojaPlot (Juggins 2022). Pollen diagrams were generated using R Studio with the riojaPlot package (Juggins, 2022). Local pollen zones were established using the CONISS cluster analysis function within riojaPlot and were visually adjusted if necessary.
Section 2.6: Please give the total number of Chironomidae head capsules.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 211: Please change "Pillot" to 'Moller Pillot' as it is a double surname.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Table 1: Please, move Table 1 to the supplements. Please change in the table and everywhere in the text (i.e. line 479) “dominance” to ‘domination’, also in scientific papers word “significance” is restricted to statistical significance, please change in Table 1 and elsewhere to ‘clear’, or ‘distinct’ or ‘substantial’, etc. At line 410 maybe to 'lower impact' or 'smaller impact'.
The information contained so far in Table 1 will be integrated in the main text as a new section 3.2 “Regional and local vegetation changes during the end of Holsteinian Interglacial and Early Saalian at the Krępa site.”
Tab. 1 KR-11b: Please give space between "percentages" and "and".
The information contained so far in Table 1 will be integrated in the main text, the suggested changes will be made accordingly.
Tab. 1 KR-12a section Chironomidae - please replace "amounts" with 'number'.
The information contained so far in Table 1 will be integrated in the main text, the suggested changes will be made accordingly.
Tab. 1 KR-12b section Chironomidae: please change "content" to 'share', also next sentence about G. pallens-type and G. severini-type is not complete - What do you mean?
The information contained so far in Table 1 will be integrated in the main text, the suggested changes will be made accordingly.
Tab. 1 KR-13b section Chironomidae - please change the font in "occur" to regular.
The information contained so far in Table 1 will be integrated in the main text, the suggested changes will be made accordingly.
Lines 234-235: Delete "remains of" from "remains of head capsules", also change "," to '.' in "1222,5 cm". It should be '1222.5 cm'.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 237: Please change "amounts" to 'number' 'populations' or 'abundance'.
According to the suggestion, “amounts” will be changed to “numbers”.
Lines 239-240: G. pallens-type and G. severini-type are warm stenotherms. Please rephrase the sentence.
We suggest to correct this paragraph as follows:
KR-12b (1072.5-1122.5 cm) contains mainly cold-adapted species like Corynocera ambigua and species like Glyptotendipes pallens-type and Glyptotendipes severini-type, which are often associated with algae and diatoms or mine leaves, (Tarkowska-Kukuryk, 2014). LPAZ KR-12c (1022.5-1072.5 cm) is characterised by species highly resistant to difficult environmental conditions, i.e. Chironomus anthracinus-type - typical for nutrient rich condition with wide environmental tolerances (Seather 1979, Self et al. 2011), Corynocera ambigua-type - wide thermal tolerance (Brodersen & Lindegaard 1999) and Glyptotendipes pallens-type -tolerate better winter condition, lifing in wide range of substrates (Moller Pilot 2013, Cerba et al. 2022).
Line 246: Please add space between "(Corynocera ambigua-type)" and "(Brooks et al., 2007)".
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 247: Please change "amount" to 'abundance' or 'number'.
According to the suggestion, “amount” will be changed to “number”.
Line 247: Please add 'stenotherm' between "warm" and "species".
This will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 255-256: Please change "has a growth period" to 'larvae develop'.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 259, 282, 326, 327, 353, 358, 385, 389, 414: Please change here and elsewhere in the text "reservoir" to 'lake'/'lakes/water body/water bodies' (at line 389 to ‘bottom’).
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 260: Please change 'number' to 'abundance'. Also, it should be 'has been shown'.
According to the suggestion, this will be changed to:
The abundance of Corynocera ambigua-type has been shown to correlate with the content….
I think that sentence in lines 273-274 is unnecessary. I suggest to delete it.
As suggested, the sentence will be deleted.
Please move the paragraph from lines 290-297 to the section 2.7.
As suggested, the paragraph will be moved to the results section.
Fig. 4: Please indicate in the figure caption whether Chironomidae are presented in the percent shares or counted numbers of specimens. Also, if you want to be super-correct give Tanytarsini indet. in the regular font. The figure presents not only the mean July air temperature reconstruction but also a stratigraphic diagram of the Chironomidae assemblages.
The figure will be corrected as suggested. As we will combine Fig.1 and 2 of our initial submission into one figure, the figure numbering will shift and Fig. 4 will be Fig. 3 in the revised manuscript.
Line 320: Please change " and an important element of" to 'conducted in'.
This will be changed accordingly.
Line 321: Please change "order" to 'suborder' (!).
This will be changed accordingly.
Line 325: Please delete: "the diversity of", and "centuries".
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 340: Please change "amount" to 'number'.
This will be changed accordingly.
Lines 346, 348, and elsewhere: Please keep American or British English throughout the whole text.
In the revised manuscript we will use British English and will thoroughly check the entire text.
Sentence at lines 358-360: Meaning unclear, please rephrase. Maybe "attract" is used inadequately and should be replaced by another word, but then still, the sentence needs to be rephrased.
This will be corrected. We suggest the following:
Large lakes like the one that existed at the Krępa site have a greater variety of habitats and are thus characterized by a higher biodiversity of Chironomidae (Allen et al., 1999; Heino, 2000; Tarr et al., 2005). Moreover, such lakes are more resilient to droughts and other extreme events. In contrast, small lakes with less diverse and isolated habitats reveal a reduced species diversity and dispersal (Roberts, 2003).
Line 361: What do you mean by the "remote habitats"?
We will correct this sentence. Please see our response to the comment above.
Line 374: Chaoboridae and Ceratopogonidae are the Family names and should be given in regular font, not italics.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 379: Please delete "the amount of".
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 385: "morphological" - do you mean bathymetry?
This will be corrected according to the suggestion.
Sentence at lines 392-393: Do you mean living larvae of Chironomidae or rather head capsules (subfossils)? If you mean the subfossils then you can't refer to "behaviour", rather you mean redeposition processes.
The complete sentence will be rewritten. We suggest the following:
Another factor limiting the preservation of Chironomidae head capsules in the sediment is mechanical stress that can cause damage to the head capsules.
Lines 401-402: Please add 'subfossils of' before "multivoltine" and change "being" to 'can be'.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 403: Maybe 'parameters' would be more suitable than "properties".
This will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 405-408: Please cut the sentence to a few shorter ones, also "extinction" seems to be a bit too big word in this context.
The complete sentence will be rewritten accordingly. We suggest the following:
A decrease in the water level may also lead to the disappearance of chironomid larvae with subsequent changes in the groupings from lacustrine to semi-terrestrial and terrestrial communities (Płóciennik et al., 2015, 2020). Moreover, droughts may cause the vanishing of larvae (Buck, 1965; Berglund and Digerfeldt, 1970; Delettre, 1988; Jackson and Mclachlan, 1991; Rohrig et al., 2004).
Line 413: Please delete "and the bottom of the reservoir".
This will be corrected accordingly. Moreover, we will change “soil” into “sediment”.
Line 418: Please add 'waters at' before "cold", also for whom is favourable? And from what is more favourable? The anaerobic environments, peat bogs, and aquatic habitats in deserts and cold regions are usually less favourable for chironomids than i.e. lakes with good oxygen conditions, and neutral pH that is localised in temperate regions.
This will be corrected accordingly. The thing we wanted to express was that these environments are favourable for Chironomidae remains, not for its reproduction. Therefore, we propose the following wording of the sentence:
Moist and anaerobic environments such as ditches, peat bogs or cold climate or desert conditions are more favourable for the preservation of chitinous remains
Sentence at lines 418-419: Meaning unclear.
This sentence will be rewritten. We suggest the following:
Clay sediments are better for the preservation of chitinous remains than hydrated sediments or aquatic environments.
Line 419: I am not sure if the word "properties" is properly used in this sentence.
We will replace “properties” by “characteristics”.
Line 426: "sites" - do you mean 'samples'?
“samples” is correct; we will accordingly replace “sites”.
Paragraphs at the lines 425-429 and 438-444 should be moved to the section 2.6.
The first paragraph will be moved to the methods section according to the suggestion. However, we are convinced that the second paragraph better fits the discussion section.
Line 439: "functional" - do you mean 'functioning'?
That is correct. We will replace “functional” by “functioning”.
Line 441: Please change "macroremians" to 'subfossils'.
This will be corrected accordingly.
The section 4.1.2 is dedicated mostly to the comparison of Chironomidae-inferred summer temperatures with the interpretation of pollen data. Please change the title of the section focusing more on pollen-based reconstructions.
This will be corrected accordingly. We suggest the following:
Chironomid-inferred reconstructions from the Krępa site in relation to pollen-based reconstructions.
Line 454: Please add space between "...C)" and "(Kotrys...".
This will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 486-487: Something is missing in this sentence, please rephrase.
We will delete the complete sentence.
Lines 507-508: I recommend comparing the trend in the temperature with trends in Chironomidae assemblages reflected by some ordination analysis - i.e. plotting temperatures against DCA/PCA Ax 1 and Ax 2 values. PCA can be very easily calculated in C2.
The plot will be placed in the revised manuscript. It will include such values as: DCA (Detrended Correspondence Analysis), ANN 66%, ANN 13% and temperature. The obtained trial plot shows that trends in the temperature and Chironomidae assemblages trends seems to be consistent with each other.
Line 508: Please delete the sentence "They are an environmental indicator." It is redundant.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 518: Please change "abundantly" to 'with higher concentration'.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 746: Please change "Pillot" to "Moller Pillot" as it is a double surname. Also, he is cited usually as H. K. M.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3129-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Tomasz Polkowski, 14 Feb 2025
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3129', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Dec 2024
The manuscript by Polkowski et al. presents results of chironomid-inferred temperature reconstruction and vegetation changes during the Holsteinian interglacial from a site located in Poland (Krepa). The authors also present a literature review of sites covering the Holsteinian in Poland. The authors discuss in details the possible reasons of poor preservation or absence of chironomid remains in different parts of theirrecord. Because chironomid-inferred temperature reconstructions are rare during this period, the results of the manuscript are valuable for the community. However, I have comments that should be discussed before acceptance of the manuscript for publication in Climate of the Past.
Main comments
- Right now, I am a bit sceptical about the chironomid inferred temperature reconstruction. First, the low concentration of chironomid remains makes it hard to reach 50 chironomid per sample. I understand that you merged some adjacent samples to reach higher numbers of chironomids but I think it would be very useful to indicate in Table 2 the number of chironomids in all the samples used for the temperature reconstruction since even after merging some samples still didn’t reach 50 head capsules. Also, I don’t understand why you decided to keep the sample at 1000 cm (see line 291) since this sample is surrounded by other samples and therefore could be merged. Finally, I don’t understand how you get 15 samples (see line 297) after merging since you write that 5 samples had at least 50 chironomids, 7 samples were merged and you kept the sample at 1000 cm alone: this is 13 samples and not 15. And in Figure 4, I only see 14 dots (which I assume are the samples) on the temperature reconstruction curve. This issue should be solved because at the it is confusing for the reader.
- I find it difficult, at the moment, to understand the relevance of the literature review of polish sites covering the Holsteinian interglacial since you do not use these sites in the discussion of your results. I understand that you made a literature review to show the readers that these sites could also be used in the future in the context of chironomid studies but it would be interesting to compare the results of some of these sites that looked at pollen or diatoms, molluscs or other aquatic indicators with the results (chironomid, pollen) you present for your study site. You could also add, in Supplement Table 2, the proxies analysed for each of the sites.
- I would suggest to work on the discussion because, at the moment, most of your interpretations are often not supported by any other publications. I would suggest trying to find publications supporting your interpretations especially in the section “1.2 Summer temperature and ecological reconstructions based on Chironomids from the Krępa site in relation to environmental change” which is very interesting. I would also suggest using more the pollen in the discussion as, if I understood correctly, these results are not published yet. It would be interesting to compare the vegetation changes at Krepa with other know records.
- I don’t see the relevance of the section “1.1 Possible difficulties in climate reconstruction based on Chironomidae analysis during past interglacials” in the discussion. I understand that you want to show possible explanations for the low concentrations, or absencechironomids in some parts of your record. However, you don’t really make the link with your chironomid assemblages. In this section you mention species/morphotypes that are not present in your chironomid record, so they should probably not be mentioned there.Also, most of the studies you cite in this section worked with specific species so you should not write “-type” after the species names. My suggestion would be to restructure this section to discuss the possible causes of absence of chironomids in some parts of your record, which is very interesting, by linking them with your actual results.
- I would suggest to work on the writing as it is sometimes difficult to understand what you want to say. You also sometimes use the wrong words such as “recreate” instead of “reconstruct”. Also please pay attention on the writing of Chironomidae, which should not be written in italic, and the morphotype/species spelling. The morphotypes should always be written with “-type”, which should not be in italic, and when you are referring to individual species don’t add “-type” after the species name.
Other specific comments
Line 1: don’t write Chironomidae in italic but in regular font as it is a family name and family names are written in regular font.
Line 19: “utilised” → used
Line 21: “Chironomidae” should not be written in italic as it is a family name but in the regular form “Chironomidae”. Please change it throughout the manuscript.
Line 21: “recreate summer thermal conditions” → reconstruct past summer air temperatures or infer past summer air temperatures.
Line 22: “Non-biting midges remains indicate trophy and pH of water bodies as well.” → Chironomid remains can also indicate changes in the trophic state or pH of water bodies.
Line 23: “MIS 11 period” → the MIS 11 period
Lines 26-28: “The stratigraphic context for the chironomid-based summer temperature reconstruction is provided by pollen data, together allowing to compare our results in the context of climate development at the end of the Holsteinian Interglacial.” → Please reformulate this sentence to make it easier to understand.
Line 28: “species” → taxa. If you are talking about morphotypes you can not write species as several species can represent each morphotype. See also line 29.
Line 29: “e.g” → e.g.
Line 29: “Corynocera ambigua-type” → Corynocera ambigua. This one is not a morphotype but rather a species as indicated in the different training set available.
Line 29: “Chironomus anthracinus-type” → Chironomus anthracinus-type. The “-type” should not be formatted in italic but in regular font. This is the case for all the morphotypes. Please change this issue throughout the text.
Line 30: “July temperature” → July air temperature.
Line 30: “15,3 °C” → 15.3 °C. In English the decimals should be indicated with a dot and not a comma. Please change this throughout the manuscript. See also line 31.
Line 33: remove “even”.
Lines 34-37: “The additional element of this research is indicating sites within the Polish borders that were investigated so far - mostly on the basis of pollen analysis, occasionally Cladocera, isotopes, etc. - and might be new objects of studies based on Chironomid-inferred temperature reconstructions.” → Please reformulate this sentence to make it easier to understand and precise which time interval was investigated in these sites.
Line 37: “Chironomid” → chironomid. Please write chironomid without capital letter and check throughout the manuscript.
Line 37: “of challenges of” → on
Line 42: “participation” → influence
Lines 44-46: “various scientific disciplines from the establishment of the boundary of the unit through the scale of human influence on the functioning of the natural environment in the Holocene throughout all scales starting from micro, through regional to global (Brondizio et al., 2016).” → Please reformulate this sentence.
Line 47: “has” → is
Line 48: “i.a.” → i.e. Please check the spelling throughout the manuscript.
Line 49: “etc.” → remove
Line 50: “climatic conditions change” → climatic condition changes
Line 52: “water table depth” → water depth
Line 54: “is a reconstruction tool for ocean pH” → can be used to reconstruct pH in the ocean
Line 55: “vegetation migration” → remove migration
Line 55: “can be used” → and can be used
Line 56: “the activities of a human in the past” → past human activities
Line 58: “Chironomidae remnants analysis allows the assessment of the water reservoir trophy and pH as well.” → The analysis of chironomid remains also allows the assessment of the trophic state or pH of freshwater ecosystems.
Lines 61-63: “However, these reconstructions are not capable of giving unequivocal information about exact air temperature changes nor whether these changes and their pace are induced by natural causes or human activity” → Please rephrase this sentence.
Line 67: “Northern Europe” → Please be consistent in the spelling of Northern Europe throughout the manuscript. See Line 75 “northern Europe”.
Line 75: “southern European” → “southern Europe”
Line 82: “In this research” → In the present study
Line 83: “(Eggermont and Heiri, 2012)” → Here I would cite other references as examples of temperature reconstructions based on chironomids. For example: Bolland et al., 2021; Engels et al., 2008; Ilyashuk et al., 2022; Rigterink et al., 2024...
Line 84: “recreate” → “reconstruct
Line 90: “Nowiny Żukowskie site” → Here I would specify the location of the site by at least mentioning the country
Lines 93-94: “One of the exceptions is Hoxne site in eastern England (Horne et al., 2023).” → Here I would give more information about this study as it is covering the MIS 11 like your site. You could, for example, specify that they also did a temperature reconstruction based on chironomid.
Lines 97-98: “We tested temperature reconstruction using the Swiss-Norwegian-Polish Training Set and presented the first Chironomid-inferred temperature reconstruction from Poland before the Last Glacial Period and even for the post-Holsteinian.” → Here we present the first chironomid-inferred July air temperature from Poland for the post-Holsteinian.
Line 104: “quaternary” → Quaternary
Line 112: “The research covered sites located in Poland. Holsteinian (Mazovian) Interglacial has been included.” → The research included sites located in Poland and covering the Holsteinian (Mazovian) interglacial
Line 114: “several sites located in western half of the country” → several sites located in the western half of the country
Line 114: “area contained between” → remove “contained”
Line 115: “The sites’ locations were” → The sites’ location are
Line 117: “– it” → and therefore
Lines 117-118: “location estimation tools” → What are these tools?
Line 121: “Supplement Figure 2” → Supplement Figure 1”
Line 122: “Glaciation ranges based” → Glaciation ranges are based
Line 133: “while modern distribution limits of these taxa are located estimated further to the west” → remove “located”
Line 152: “146 m amsl.” → 146 m asl
Line 160: In this section “2.4” you already interpret the sediment of your site which does not really fit in the section “2. Data and methods” section. You could maybe add a paragraph in section “3. Results and interpretation” for the interpretation of the sediment?
Lines 161-187: In this section it would help to better link the first and second paragraph to better understand your interpretations of the sediment. For example: Because of the presence of laminated sandy silts and sandy-clayey silts the unit 2 is interpreted as a result of glaciolimnic sedimentation in a relatively shallow water body...
Lines 171-173: “The sediments of unit 2 are interpreted as the result of glaciolimnic sedimentation in a relatively shallow water body between blocks of dead ice during the recession of the Elsterian glacier. The glaciolimnic sediments gradually pass into limnic sediments (unit 3), which are interpreted to be deposited in the profundal of an already relatively deep lake.” → Did you take in consideration in your interpretation of the chironomid results these possible changes in water depth? This could have a strong influence on the chironomid assemblages and could potentially explain why sometimes the concentration of chironomids is very low or even you don’t find any chironomids in your samples.
Line 190: In the section “2.5 Pollen analysis” please indicate the number of pollen samples analysed, the volume of sediment analysed and the batch number and number of Lycopodium spores per tablets that you used. It would also be good to indicate which identification keys/books were used if the pollen data are not already published which I assume is the case since you do not refer to any publications. It would also be good to indicated how the Local Pollen Assemblage Zones were determined. Did you use any statistics (optimal sum of squares partitioning, broken stick model) to divide the pollen record into zones? Also, if you did numerical analyses please indicate which software was used.
Line 198: “in a shortened pollen diagram” → in a simplified pollen diagram
Line 201: “The Holsteinian (Mazovian) commences” → The Holsteinian (Mazovian) starts
Line 205: In the section “2.6 Chironomidae analysis” please indicate the number of samples analysed. How did you measure the volume of your samples? And why are you writing “approximately 1 cm3? As it seems that the chironomid remains in your samples were often damaged I think it would be good to specify how you counted them (halves, presence/absence of mandibles...). As you are dealing with very old chironomid remains, I think it would be valuable to add a plate with pictures of the main chironomid taxa present in your samples. Please indicate what was the KOH concentration used and how long did you leave your samples in heated KOH. Also indicate why you used a 212 μm and if at then end you combined the chironomid remains present in the 212 and 100 μm fractions. Please also indicate which microscope and which magnification was used for the identification of chironomid remains. I don’t think Brooks et al. (2007) is the best reference to find the ecological preferences of chironomid taxa. I would probably also look in other references such as Saether (1979), Brundin (1949), Brodin (1986), Janececk et al. (2017)...
Line 209: “stereo binocular microscope” → stereomicroscope
Line 210: “followed by” → followed
Line 214: In the section “2.7 Mean July air temperature reconstruction” please indicate why you chose the Swiss-Norwegian-Polish training set and not other available training sets (Finnish, Russian, Swiss-Norwegian)? I assume it is probably because it contains lakes from Poland but it I think it would be good to specify it. Also did you calculated the nearest modern analogues for each of your fossil samples? And the goodness of fit? If so it would be good to mention it here as well as the software used for that. If not, I would recommend to calculate these diagnostic statistics that you could show in the Supplementary material (see Bolland et al., 2021). In this section it would also probably be good to mention how many samples (after merging) were used for the temperature reconstruction, as well as how the samples were merged.
Line 219: Please indicate the version of the software
Line 224: Please also mention the chironomids in the caption of the table. For the column dealing with the chironomids you could write: “Main features in the chironomid record” or replace “significant” with “significance”. Please also indicate the unit of the depth column.
Line 237-238: “Assemblages could indicate a deterioration of environmental conditions (Chironomus anthracinus-type and Corynocera ambigua-type).” → Could you explain your interpretation in more details and link it to other publications?
Lines 239-240: “contains mainly cold-adapted and freeze-resistant species like Corynocera ambigua-type, Glyptotendipes pallens-type and Glyptotendipes severini-type, which are often associated with algae and diatoms or mine leaves (Tarkowska-Kukuryk, 2014).” → Actually, Glyptotendipes pallens-type and Glyptotendipes severini-type are often associated with relatively warm conditions (Heiri et al., 2011; Nazarova et al., 2015; Luoto, 2009; Kotrys et al., 2020).
Lines 241-242: “LPAZ KR-12c (1022.5-1072.5 cm) is characterized by species highly resistant to difficult environmental conditions, i.a. Chironomus anthracinus-type, Corynocera ambigua-type and Glyptotendipes pallens-type.” → Please provide references to other publications to support your interpretation.
Lines 243-246: “During LPAZ KR-13b (877.5-244 967.5 cm) the number of Chironomidae gradually increased with indicators of progressive eutrophication (e.g. Chironomus plumosus-type and Dicrotendipes nervosus-type (Iwakuma and Yasuno, 1981)) and cold oligotrophic but post-eutrophic environments (Corynocera ambigua-type)(Brooks et al., 2007) occurring more frequently.” → I would suggest to reformulate this sentence as it is hard to understand what you want to say here. Is there an increase of taxa indicator of eutrophication and then, after, an increase of oligotrophic indicators? Or they both increase at the same time?
Line 254: “inhabiting shallow Arctic” → inhabiting shallow arctic.
Lines 279-282: “Both Chironomus anthracinus-type and Corynocera ambigua-type are species found in stratified lakes (e.g., Saether, 1979; Heiri, 2004). As we can see, both species can be called resistant to unfavorable environmental conditions. They have a fairly wide range of conditions in which they occur today and can even withstand long periods of anaerobic conditions in lake reservoirs.” → Please provide a reference to a publication explaining that Corynocera ambigua is tolerant to anaerobic conditions.
Line 290: “Chironomidae subfossil larvae were obtained from a total of 30 samples from the lacustrine sediments.” → Please specify the sedimentary units of the samples.
Lines 290-291: “Samples that contained significantly fewer than 50 head capsules were merged except for a solitary sample at 1000 cm core depth.” → Please explain why you kept a solitary sample at 100 cm. Because to me it seems that this sample is surrounded by other samples on the diagram of Figure 4 and therefore could have merged with other samples.
Lines 294-295: “were included in the reconstruction because the test of the reconstruction showed acceptable results.” → Please which test did you perform.
Lines 296-297: “After merging, the total number of samples used for the Tjul reconstruction was 15.” → From your explanation just above, I understood that you used 5 samples with sufficient amount of chironomids, 7 merged samples and 1 solitary sample to calculate the temperature reconstruction. And these are 13 samples, not 15. Please modify the text where it is necessary.
Line 310: “(MinDC”) → How did you calculate the dissimilarity? Please indicate that in the section “2.7 Mean July air temperature reconstruction”
Lines 325-326: “to reconstruct the average July palaeotemperature quantitatively” → to quantitatively reconstruct July air temperature.
Line 326: “the trophy of the reservoir” → the trophic state of the reservoir.
Line 327: “Training sets were also created” → Training sets are also available.
Lines 453-545: “These data indicate that summer temperature maximum during the post-Holsteinian period was even slightly higher than indicated in the Polish training set (17-20°C)(Kotrys et al., 2020).” → Please reformulate this sentence as it is unclear to me what you want to say.
Lines 470-472: “Considering the dominance of herbs and dwarf shrubs in the pollen spectrum, the limiting factor for the development of forest communities was more likely connected to low winter temperatures as summer temperatures were still relatively high. → Please develop your interpretation and support it with other publications.
Line 474: “In the following” → Following zone?
Lines 480-481: “Summer temperatures during this period reached only 15°C, but the limiting factor for vegetation development still remained the winter temperatures.” → Here again I would suggest developing your interpretation and refer to other publications.
Line 482: “being equivalent” → corresponding
Lines 483-484: “As the pollen record during stadials is mostly controlled by wind-pollinated overproducers such as Poaceae and the long-distance transport of tree pollen (mostly Pinus)” → Here you need a reference.
Figures and Tables
Figure 2: I don’t understand what “Clay, Silt, Sand, Gravel” at the bottom of the figure represent. Also, there is no unit for the numbers between the units and the sediment profile. I assume the unit is meters but I think it should be indicated on the figure. “glaciolimnic sedimentation” at the top of the figure → Glaciolimnic sedimentation with a capital “G” to be consistent with the other sediment types.
Table 1: Depth of KR-4 is overlapping with depth of KR-3. I suggest to add a column specifying the Marine Isotope Stage of each Local Pollen Assemblage Zone. What is the difference between “No Chironomidae” and “No individuals of Chironomidae”? Please specify it, in the caption of the table, if there is a difference. Please check the writing of the depths (the decimals should be indicated with a dot and not a comma in English): see for example “KR-8 1497,5 – 1647.5”. For LAPZ KR-12b, I would suggest to change “high contents of Chironomus anthracinus-type” to “relatively high abundances of Chironomus anthracinus-type”. Also for the same LAPZ you probably forgot words in the second sentence describing the Chironomidae: “The number of Glyptotendipes pallens-type and Glyptotendipes severini-type.” For LAPZ KR-13a, you write that “on average 450 individuals per sample” but in the Figure 4 the maximum sum of chironomid in samples is around 80. Why is that? I would also suggest condensing the table because it is on 9 pages now. You could, for example, reduce the space between each LAPZ and shorten the description of the pollen results.
Figure 3: I think it would be good to have a horizontal line (or dotted line) on the diagram for each zones so that it is easier for the reader to see the differences between the zones. For the lithology it would probably be good to followed the same code as in Figure 2. Please specify the type of spores shown in the diagram (Fern? Fungal?). Please also write the unit of the different pollen types, which I assume is percentage, and for Pediastrum (number of remains?). If possible, it would be good to specify what is included in “Other thermophilic”, “Other AP”, “Other NAP”.
Table 2: I would suggest to add the number of chironomids per sample in the table so that the readers know which samples might be problematic because they have “too low” numbers of chironomids.
Figure 4: Why the chironomids from LAPZ-14 are not shown on the diagram? Based on Table 1, the abundance of chironomids is very low in this zone but you still found two Chironomus plumosus-type so I think it would be good to also show them on the diagram. Also, in this figure the y axis unit is in meters whereas it is in centimeters in Figure 3 and in Table 2. Please be consistent in all figures and tables. Add “Chironomid diagram” in the caption of the figure as you also show the abundances of chironomid and not only the temperature reconstruction. Please indicate what the grey bars indicate on the temperature reconstruction curve (I assume they are the errors?). I would suggest, if possible, to have a better quality of the figure because when zooming on it the names become a bit fuzzy. Please specify the units of the x axes (percentages, counts, °C). “sume” → “Sum” or “Total chironomids”. Please also mention and explain what “MJAT °C” in the text or in the caption of the figure.
Supplement table 2: Why are some references in brackets? See for example “Barkowice Mokre”.
References
Bolland, A., Kern, O.A., Allstädt, F.J., Peteet, D., Koutsodendris, A., Pross, J., Heiri, O., 2021. Summer temperatures during the last glaciation (MIS 5c to MIS 3) inferred from a 50,000-year chironomid record from Füramoos, southern Germany. Quat. Sci. Rev. 264, 107008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2021.107008.
Brodin, Y. W. (1986). The postglacial history of Lake Flarken, southern Sweden, interpreted from subfossil insect remains. Internationale Revue der Gesamten Hydrobiologie und Hydrographie, 71(3), 371-432. https://doi.org/10.1002/iroh.19860710313.
Brundin, L., 1949. Chironomiden und andere Bodentiere der südschwedischen Urgebirgsseen: Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der bodenfaunistischen Charakterzüge schwedischer oligotropher Seen. In: Carl Blom, Lund (Eds.), Intitut of Freshwater Research, Drottningholm.
Engels, S., Bohncke, S.J.P., Bos, J.A.A., Brooks, S.J., Heiri, O., Helmens, K.F., 2008. Chironomid-based palaeotemperature estimates for northeast Finland during oxygen isotope stage 3. J. Paleolimnol. 40, 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10933-007-9133-y.
Heiri, O., Brooks, S.J., Birks, H.J.B., Lotter, A.F., 2011. A 274-lake calibration data-set and inference model for chironomid-based summer air temperature reconstruction in Europe. Quat. Sci. Rev. 30, 3445–3456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2011.09.006.
Ilyashuk, E.A., Ilyashuk, B.P., Heiri, O., Spötl, C., 2022. Summer temperatures and environmental dynamics during the middle würmian (MIS 3) in the eastern Alps: multi-proxy records from the Unterangerberg palaeolake, Austria. Quat. Sci. Adv. 6, 100050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qsa.2022.100050.
Janecek, B., Moog, O., Orendt, C., 2017. Diptera: chironomidae (Non-Biting midges). In: Fauna Aquatica Austriaca, p. 111p. Wien, Austria.
Kotrys, B., Płóciennik, M., Sydor, P., and Brooks, S. J.: Expanding the Swiss-Norwegian chironomid training set with Polish data, Boreas, 49, 89–107, https://doi.org/10.1111/bor.12406, 2020.
Luoto, T.P., 2009. Subfossil Chironomidae (Insecta: Diptera) along a latitudinal gradient in Finland: development of a new temperature inference model. J. Quat. Sci. 24, 150–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/jqs.1191.
Nazarova, L., Self, A.E., Brooks, S.J., van Hardenbroek, M., Herzschuh, U., Diekmann, B., 2015. Northern Russian chironomid-based modern summer temperature data set and inference models. Global Planet. Change 134, 10–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2014.11.015.
Rigterink, S., Krahn, K. J., Kotrys, B., Urban, B., Heiri, O., Turner, F., Pannes, A., and Schwalb, A.: Summer temperatures from the Middle Pleistocene site Schöningen 13 II, northern Germany, determined from subfossil chironomid assemblages, Boreas, bor.12658, https://doi.org/10.1111/bor.12658, 2024.
Sæther, O.A., 1979. Chironomid communities as water quality indicators. Holarct. Ecol. 2, 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.1979.tb00683.x.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3129-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Tomasz Polkowski, 14 Feb 2025
The manuscript by Polkowski et al. presents results of chironomid-inferred temperature reconstruction and vegetation changes during the Holsteinian interglacial from a site located in Poland (Krepa). The authors also present a literature review of sites covering the Holsteinian in Poland. The authors discuss in details the possible reasons of poor preservation or absence of chironomid remains in different parts of their record. Because chironomid-inferred temperature reconstructions are rare during this period, the results of the manuscript are valuable for the community. However, I have comments that should be discussed before acceptance of the manuscript for publication in Climate of the Past.
We thank the reviewer for the detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript and provide point-by-point answers to the issues raised.
Main comments:
- Right now, I am a bit sceptical about the chironomid inferred temperature reconstruction. First, the low concentration of chironomid remains makes it hard to reach 50 chironomid per sample. I understand that you merged some adjacent samples to reach higher numbers of chironomids but I think it would be very useful to indicate in Table 2 the number of chironomids in all the samples used for the temperature reconstruction since even after merging some samples still didn’t reach 50 head capsules. Also, I don’t understand why you decided to keep the sample at 1000 cm (see line 291) since this sample is surrounded by other samples and therefore could be merged. Finally, I don’t understand how you get 15 samples (see line 297) after merging since you write that 5 samples had at least 50 chironomids, 7 samples were merged and you kept the sample at 1000 cm alone: this is 13 samples and not 15. And in Figure 4, I only see 14 dots (which I assume are the samples) on the temperature reconstruction curve. This issue should be solved because at the it is confusing for the reader.
In the revised version, we will provide a modified Table 2 according to the reviewer’s suggestion. We will also address the other points raised in the comment. The number of samples was given mistakenly as 15 - there were 13 samples - it will be corrected in the revised version as well.
- I find it difficult, at the moment, to understand the relevance of the literature review of polish sites covering the Holsteinian interglacial since you do not use these sites in the discussion of your results. I understand that you made a literature review to show the readers that these sites could also be used in the future in the context of chironomid studies but it would be interesting to compare the results of some of these sites that looked at pollen or diatoms, molluscs or other aquatic indicators with the results (chironomid, pollen) you present for your study site. You could also add, in Supplement Table 2, the proxies analysed for each of the sites.
We admit that the literature review of the Polish sites is not really used in the discussion of our results and therefore doesn’t really contribute to the story of our manuscript as mentioned by the reviewer. Therefore, we decided to delete the entire paragraph on the Polish sites (former section 2.1 “Data compilation”) in the revised version of our manuscript. The related overview map (former Fig. 1) will, however, be modified and remain in the revised manuscript. It will be an integral part of a new Fig. 1 (now including also the lithological profile presented in previous Fig. 2) that will be part of a revised section 2.1 “Study area” (formerly section 2.3).
- I would suggest to work on the discussion because, at the moment, most of your interpretations are often not supported by any other publications. I would suggest trying to find publications supporting your interpretations especially in the section “1.2 Summer temperature and ecological reconstructions based on Chironomids from the Krępa site in relation to environmental change” which is very interesting. I would also suggest using more the pollen in the discussion as, if I understood correctly, these results are not published yet. It would be interesting to compare the vegetation changes at Krepa with other know records.
We will address these issues in the revised manuscript by adding references supporting our interpretations. Moreover, pollen-based results from Krępa will be compared with some more Central European pollen records.
- I don’t see the relevance of the section “1.1 Possible difficulties in climate reconstruction based on Chironomidae analysis during past interglacials” in the discussion. I understand that you want to show possible explanations for the low concentrations, or absence chironomids in some parts of your record. However, you don’t really make the link with your chironomid assemblages. In this section you mention species/morphotypes that are not present in your chironomid record, so they should probably not be mentioned there.Also, most of the studies you cite in this section worked with specific species so you should not write “-type” after the species names. My suggestion would be to restructure this section to discuss the possible causes of absence of chironomids in some parts of your record, which is very interesting, by linking them with your actual results.
We acknowledge the justified criticism raised by the reviewer regarding our admittedly rather weak attempt to explain the low concentrations / absence of chironomids in our record and regret that we did not provide a proper connection between our actual observations and the fairly theoretical description of ecological preferences of individual taxa provided in former section 4.1.1. Accordingly, we will restructure this section, now paying attention to a more proper connection of individual species preferences and our findings.
- I would suggest to work on the writing as it is sometimes difficult to understand what you want to say. You also sometimes use the wrong words such as “recreate” instead of “reconstruct”. Also please pay attention on the writing of Chironomidae, which should not be written in italic, and the morphotype/species spelling. The morphotypes should always be written with “-type”, which should not be in italic, and when you are referring to individual species don’t add “-type” after the species name.
We will address all these issues in the revised version of the manuscript.
Other specific comments
We appreciate the reviewer’s detailed suggestion for improvements listed below and will modify the revised manuscript accordingly where appropriate. If changes are not justified in our opinion, we provide an explanation.
Line 1: don’t write Chironomidae in italic but in regular font as it is a family name and family names are written in regular font.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 19: “utilised” → used
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 21: “Chironomidae” should not be written in italic as it is a family name but in the regular form “Chironomidae”. Please change it throughout the manuscript.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 21: “recreate summer thermal conditions” → reconstruct past summer air temperatures or infer past summer air temperatures.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 22: “Non-biting midges remains indicate trophy and pH of water bodies as well.” → Chironomid remains can also indicate changes in the trophic state or pH of water bodies.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 23: “MIS 11 period” → the MIS 11 period
Will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 26-28: “The stratigraphic context for the chironomid-based summer temperature reconstruction is provided by pollen data, together allowing to compare our results in the context of climate development at the end of the Holsteinian Interglacial.” → Please reformulate this sentence to make it easier to understand.
Will be corrected accordingly. We suggest the following:
The obtained pollen data provide (1) the stratigraphic context for the chironomid-based summer temperature reconstruction with respect to Glacial-Interglacial / Stadial-Interstadial boundaries and (2) the general framework for the climate development at the end of Holsteinian Interglacial.
Line 28: “species” → taxa. If you are talking about morphotypes you can not write species as several species can represent each morphotype. See also line 29.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 29: “e.g” → e.g.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 29: “Corynocera ambigua-type” → Corynocera ambigua. This one is not a morphotype but rather a species as indicated in the different training set available.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 29: “Chironomus anthracinus-type” → Chironomus anthracinus-type. The “-type” should not be formatted in italic but in regular font. This is the case for all the morphotypes. Please change this issue throughout the text.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 30: “July temperature” → July air temperature.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 30: “15,3 °C” → 15.3 °C. In English the decimals should be indicated with a dot and not a comma. Please change this throughout the manuscript. See also line 31.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 33: remove “even”.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 34-37: “The additional element of this research is indicating sites within the Polish borders that were investigated so far - mostly on the basis of pollen analysis, occasionally Cladocera, isotopes, etc. - and might be new objects of studies based on Chironomid-inferred temperature reconstructions.” → Please reformulate this sentence to make it easier to understand and precise which time interval was investigated in these sites.
This sentence will be deleted in line with the handling of main comment #2 (see above).
Line 37: “Chironomid” → chironomid. Please write chironomid without capital letter and check throughout the manuscript.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 37: “of challenges of” → on
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 42: “participation” → influence
Will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 44-46: “various scientific disciplines from the establishment of the boundary of the unit through the scale of human influence on the functioning of the natural environment in the Holocene throughout all scales starting from micro, through regional to global (Brondizio et al., 2016).” → Please reformulate this sentence.
Will be corrected accordingly. We suggest the following:
With respect to human impact during the Holocene, the so-called “Anthropocene” is presently widely debated across various scientific disciplines though its exact timing as well as the actual dimension of human influence on the environment are still debated (Brondizio et al., 2016).
Line 47: “has” → is
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 48: “i.a.” → i.e. Please check the spelling throughout the manuscript.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 49: “etc.” → remove
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 50: “climatic conditions change” → climatic condition changes
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 52: “water table depth” → water depth
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 54: “is a reconstruction tool for ocean pH” → can be used to reconstruct pH in the ocean
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 55: “vegetation migration” → remove migration
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 55: “can be used” → and can be used
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 56: “the activities of a human in the past” → past human activities
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 58: “Chironomidae remnants analysis allows the assessment of the water reservoir trophy and pH as well.” → The analysis of chironomid remains also allows the assessment of the trophic state or pH of freshwater ecosystems.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 61-63: “However, these reconstructions are not capable of giving unequivocal information about exact air temperature changes nor whether these changes and their pace are induced by natural causes or human activity” → Please rephrase this sentence.
Will be corrected accordingly. We suggest the following:
However, these reconstructions neither provide unequivocal information about air temperature changes nor allow to distinguish between the relative contribution of natural drivers and human impact to these changes.
Line 67: “Northern Europe” → Please be consistent in the spelling of Northern Europe throughout the manuscript. See Line 75 “northern Europe”.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 75: “southern European” → “southern Europe”
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 82: “In this research” → In the present study
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 83: “(Eggermont and Heiri, 2012)” → Here I would cite other references as examples of temperature reconstructions based on chironomids. For example: Bolland et al., 2021; Engels et al., 2008; Ilyashuk et al., 2022; Rigterink et al., 2024…
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 84: “recreate” → “reconstruct
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 90: “Nowiny Żukowskie site” → Here I would specify the location of the site by at least mentioning the country
Will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 93-94: “One of the exceptions is Hoxne site in eastern England (Horne et al., 2023).” → Here I would give more information about this study as it is covering the MIS 11 like your site. You could, for example, specify that they also did a temperature reconstruction based on chironomid.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 97-98: “We tested temperature reconstruction using the Swiss-Norwegian-Polish Training Set and presented the first Chironomid-inferred temperature reconstruction from Poland before the Last Glacial Period and even for the post-Holsteinian.” → Here we present the first chironomid-inferred July air temperature from Poland for the post-Holsteinian.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 104: “quaternary” → Quaternary
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 112: “The research covered sites located in Poland. Holsteinian (Mazovian) Interglacial has been included.” → The research included sites located in Poland and covering the Holsteinian (Mazovian) interglacial
This sentence will be deleted in line with the handling of main comment #2 (see above).
Line 114: “several sites located in western half of the country” → several sites located in the western half of the country
This sentence will be deleted in line with the handling of main comment #2 (see above).
Line 114: “area contained between” → remove “contained”
This sentence will be deleted in line with the handling of main comment #2 (see above).
Line 115: “The sites’ locations were” → The sites’ location are
This sentence will be deleted in line with the handling of main comment #2 (see above).
Line 117: “– it” → and therefore
This sentence will be deleted in line with the handling of main comment #2 (see above).
Lines 117-118: “location estimation tools” → What are these tools?
This sentence will be deleted in line with the handling of main comment #2 (see above).
Line 121: “Supplement Figure 2” → Supplement Figure 1”
Fig. 1 and its caption will be modified (please see our response to main comment #2 above).
Line 122: “Glaciation ranges based” → Glaciation ranges are based
Fig. 1 and its caption will be modified (please see our response to main comment #2 above).
Line 133: “while modern distribution limits of these taxa are located estimated further to the west” → remove “located”
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 152: “146 m amsl.” → 146 m asl
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 160: In this section “2.4” you already interpret the sediment of your site which does not really fit in the section “2. Data and methods” section. You could maybe add a paragraph in section “3. Results and interpretation” for the interpretation of the sediment?
Please see our response to the following comment, which is directly related.
Lines 161-187: In this section it would help to better link the first and second paragraph to better understand your interpretations of the sediment. For example: Because of the presence of laminated sandy silts and sandy-clayey silts the unit 2 is interpreted as a result of glaciolimnic sedimentation in a relatively shallow water body…
As suggested in this and the previous comment, we will combine the first and second paragraph for better comprehensibility and also move the combined paragraph from section 2 (previously “Data and methods”, now “Study site and methods”) to the very beginning of section 3 (“Results and interpretation”) in the revised version of our manuscript, then appearing as the first part of the new section 3.1 “Lithological description of the Krępa sediment succession and palaeoenvironmental interpretation”.
The paragraph will then read as follows:
The basal part of of the 23.8-m-long sediment core recovered from the Krępa sediment succession (Fig. 1) consists of a 2-m-thick layer of massive, light greyish brown sandy clays with a large number of Scandinavian rock fragments (unit 1), which is interpreted as glacial till. As indicated by its stratigraphic position and its petrographic characteristics (Drozd and Trzepla, 2007), this till was accumulated during the Elsterian glaciation (or Sanian 2 glaciation in Poland), which is considered to correspond to MIS 12. Directly above the till, a 0.6-m-thick layer of rhythmically laminated sandy silts and sandy-clayey silts is found (unit 2). These sediments are interpreted as the result of glaciolimnic sedimentation in a relatively shallow water body between blocks of dead ice during the recession of the Elsterian ice sheet. The glaciolimnic sediments of unit 2 gradually turn into a carbonate gyttja with small interlayers of carbonatic-minerogenic gyttja (unit 3), which was most likely deposited in the profundal of an already relatively deep lake. Between 11.87 and 7.6 m core depth, non-carbonatic organic-minerogenic gyttjas with a generally increasing mineral content towards the top are found (unit 4). The limnic sediments of unit 4 are related to the gradual shallowing of the lake, associated with its significant filling with sediments. At the same time, the systematic increase in mineral components in the sediments most probably reflects increased denudation and erosion in the catchment, likely related to a change towards colder climate conditions. The gyttja sequence of unit 4 is overlain by a 1.9-m-thick layer of massive clays (unit 5), which probably represent accumulation in a periglacial lake. The following 1.1-m-thick layer of fine- to medium-grained sands (unit 6) as well as the overlying 3.1-m-thick layer of rhythmically laminated sandy silts (unit 7) are interpreted as proglacial sediments of the transgressing Early Saalian (MIS 10) ice sheet. Above this succession, the profile is capped by a 1.5-m-thick layer of sandy morainic till with Scandinavian rock fragments (unit 8) related to the Early Saalian glaciation.
Lines 171-173: “The sediments of unit 2 are interpreted as the result of glaciolimnic sedimentation in a relatively shallow water body between blocks of dead ice during the recession of the Elsterian glacier. The glaciolimnic sediments gradually pass into limnic sediments (unit 3), which are interpreted to be deposited in the profundal of an already relatively deep lake.” → Did you take in consideration in your interpretation of the chironomid results these possible changes in water depth? This could have a strong influence on the chironomid assemblages and could potentially explain why sometimes the concentration of chironomids is very low or even you don’t find any chironomids in your samples.
We took the water level into account here. This is one of the hypotheses that we unfortunately can neither confirm nor deny. The problem is the lack of comparative data that we could refer to. Another difficulty is that with three analyses, such as: XRF, pollen and Chironomidae, we do not have certain information about the water level in the reservoir. It is also common in the literature not to write about the lack of individuals. Often in articles, fragments with low numbers or with the lack of remains of some proxy are simply not described. This makes it difficult to refer to the literature.
Line 190: In the section “2.5 Pollen analysis” please indicate the number of pollen samples analysed, the volume of sediment analysed and the batch number and number of Lycopodium spores per tablets that you used. It would also be good to indicate which identification keys/books were used if the pollen data are not already published which I assume is the case since you do not refer to any publications. It would also be good to indicated how the Local Pollen Assemblage Zones were determined. Did you use any statistics (optimal sum of squares partitioning, broken stick model) to divide the pollen record into zones? Also, if you did numerical analyses please indicate which software was used.
The requested information on the methodology (e.g. number of samples, information on Lycopodium spores, determination of local pollen assemblage zones) will be added in the revised manuscript. The pollen data are so far not published in a peer-reviewed manuscript but only part of PhD thesis - we added the respective reference.
Line 198: “in a shortened pollen diagram” → in a simplified pollen diagram
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 201: “The Holsteinian (Mazovian) commences” → The Holsteinian (Mazovian) starts
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 205: In the section “2.6 Chironomidae analysis” please indicate the number of samples analysed. How did you measure the volume of your samples? And why are you writing “approximately 1 cm3? As it seems that the chironomid remains in your samples were often damaged I think it would be good to specify how you counted them (halves, presence/absence of mandibles...). As you are dealing with very old chironomid remains, I think it would be valuable to add a plate with pictures of the main chironomid taxa present in your samples. Please indicate what was the KOH concentration used and how long did you leave your samples in heated KOH. Also indicate why you used a 212 μm and if at then end you combined the chironomid remains present in the 212 and 100 μm fractions. Please also indicate which microscope and which magnification was used for the identification of chironomid remains.
The information requested will be added in the revised manuscript. As long as the plate with the pictures of chironomids is concerned - according to the Chironomid-inferred reconstruction author, the differences between individuals found at Krępa and those from younger periods aren’t significant. The paragraph after proposed changes would read as follows:
Sediment samples for chironomid analysis were taken at 5–40 cm intervals (sample volume1 cm³ - measured with a plastic tube of 1 cm³ volume). Chemical preparation methods followed Brooks et al. (2007). The precipitate was initially heated (to 70°C) with 10% KOH for 15 minutes. The wet sediment was passed through 212 (to remove larger sediment particles) and 100 μm mesh sieves and subsequent residues were treated in an ultrasonic bath for 3 sec. The processed sediment was examined under a stereomicroscope (Zeiss Axio Lab A1) at 25× magnification. Chironomid head capsules from each sample were picked and mounted in Euparal. In case of HC damage, individuals were counted as one if more than half of a body was preserved. Identification of chironomid head capsules followed Wiederholm (1983), Schmid (1993), Klink and Moller Pillot (2003), Brooks et al. (2007) and Andersen et al. (2013). Ecological preferences of identified taxa are based mainly on Brooks et al. (2007), Brundin (1949), Brodersen and Lindegaard (1999b), Saether (1979).
I don’t think Brooks et al. (2007) is the best reference to find the ecological preferences of chironomid taxa. I would probably also look in other references such as Saether (1979), Brundin (1949), Brodin (1986), Janececk et al. (2017)...
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 209: “stereo binocular microscope” → stereomicroscope
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 210: “followed by” → followed
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 214: In the section “2.7 Mean July air temperature reconstruction” please indicate why you chose the Swiss-Norwegian-Polish training set and not other available training sets (Finnish, Russian, Swiss-Norwegian)? I assume it is probably because it contains lakes from Poland but it I think it would be good to specify it. Also did you calculated the nearest modern analogues for each of your fossil samples? And the goodness of fit? If so it would be good to mention it here as well as the software used for that. If not, I would recommend to calculate these diagnostic statistics that you could show in the Supplementary material (see Bolland et al., 2021). In this section it would also probably be good to mention how many samples (after merging) were used for the temperature reconstruction, as well as how the samples were merged.
The information requested will be included in the text. The proposed wording of the paragraph would be:
In order to reconstruct mean July air temperatures (Tjul) from the Krępa chironomid assemblage, the Swiss-Norwegian-Polish training set (SNP TS, Kotrys et al., 2020) was used. This choice was dictated by the higher temperature span of the TS compared to other available european TS (Finnish, Russian, Swiss-Norwegian) (Kotrys et al., 2020). The training set includes 357 lakes, 134 taxa, covers a temperature range between 3.5 and 20.1 °C. and uses the weighted averaging-partial least squares transfer function (WA-PLS). The RMSEP for this combined training set is 1.39°C, and the R2 is 0.91 (Kotrys et al., 2020). MinDC was also calculated. The temperature reconstruction was carried out using the C2 software (Juggins, 2007).
After merging, the total number of samples used for the Tjul reconstruction was 13.
Line 219: Please indicate the version of the software
Version of the C2 software used was 1.6.
Line 224: Please also mention the chironomids in the caption of the table. For the column dealing with the chironomids you could write: “Main features in the chironomid record” or replace “significant” with “significance”. Please also indicate the unit of the depth column.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 237-238: “Assemblages could indicate a deterioration of environmental conditions (Chironomus anthracinus-type and Corynocera ambigua-type).” → Could you explain your interpretation in more details and link it to other publications?
Paragraph will be modified. Proposed wording would be as follows:
Assemblages could indicate a wide range of environmental conditions (Chironomus anthracinus-type profundal species, tolerant to suboptimal condition and wide thermal spectrum (Brooks et al. 2007; Luoto et al. 2019) cold - Corynocera ambigua) (Brooks, 2006; Brooks et al., 2007))
Lines 239-240: “contains mainly cold-adapted and freeze-resistant species like Corynocera ambigua-type, Glyptotendipes pallens-type and Glyptotendipes severini-type, which are often associated with algae and diatoms or mine leaves (Tarkowska-Kukuryk, 2014).” → Actually, Glyptotendipes pallens-type and Glyptotendipes severini-type are often associated with relatively warm conditions (Heiri et al., 2011; Nazarova et al., 2015; Luoto, 2009; Kotrys et al., 2020).
The paragraph will be reformulated as follows:
KR-12b (1072.5-1122.5 cm) contains mainly cold-adapted species like Corynocera ambigua and species like Glyptotendipes pallens-type and Glyptotendipes severini-type, which are often associated with algae and diatoms or mine leaves, (Tarkowska-Kukuryk, 2014).
Lines 241-242: “LPAZ KR-12c (1022.5-1072.5 cm) is characterized by species highly resistant to difficult environmental conditions, i.a. Chironomus anthracinus-type, Corynocera ambigua-type and Glyptotendipes pallens-type.” → Please provide references to other publications to support your interpretation.
We added the following references:
Brodersen, K. P. and Lindegaard, C.: Mass occurance and sporadic distribution of Corynocera ambigua Zetterstedt (Diptera, Chironomidae) in Danish lakes. Neo- and palaeolimnological records, J. Paleolimnol., 22, 41–52, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008032619776, 1999.
Čerba, D., Koh, M., Vlaičević, B., Turković Čakalić, I., Milošević, D., and Stojković Piperac, M.: Diversity of Periphytic Chironomidae on Different Substrate Types in a Floodplain Aquatic Ecosystem, Diversity, 14, 264, https://doi.org/10.3390/d14040264, 2022.
Pillot, H. M.: 2 General Aspects of the Systematics, Biology and Ecology of the Chironomini, in: Chironomidae Larvae, Vol. 2: Chironomini, KNNV Publishing, 8–21, 2013.
Saether, O. A.: Chironomid communities as water quality indicators, Ecography, 2, 65–74, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.1979.tb00683.x, 1979.
Self, A. E., Brooks, S. J., Birks, H. J. B., Nazarova, L., Porinchu, D., Odland, A., Yang, H., and Jones, V. J.: The distribution and abundance of chironomids in high-latitude Eurasian lakes with respect to temperature and continentality: development and application of new chironomid-based climate-inference models in northern Russia, Quat. Sci. Rev., 30, 1122–1141, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2011.01.022, 2011.
After changes we propose wording of this sentence as follows:
LPAZ KR-12c (1022.5-1072.5 cm) is characterised by species highly resistant to difficult environmental conditions, i.e. Chironomus anthracinus-type - typical for nutrient rich condition with wide environmental tolerances (Seather 1979, Self et al. 2011), Corynocera ambigua-type - wide thermal tolerance (Brodersen & Lindegaard 1999) and Glyptotendipes pallens-type -tolerate better winter condition, living in wide range of substrates (Moller Pilot 2013, Cerba et al. 2022).
Lines 243-246: “During LPAZ KR-13b (877.5-244 967.5 cm) the number of Chironomidae gradually increased with indicators of progressive eutrophication (e.g. Chironomus plumosus-type and Dicrotendipes nervosus-type (Iwakuma and Yasuno, 1981)) and cold oligotrophic but post-eutrophic environments (Corynocera ambigua-type)(Brooks et al., 2007) occurring more frequently.” → I would suggest to reformulate this sentence as it is hard to understand what you want to say here. Is there an increase of taxa indicator of eutrophication and then, after, an increase of oligotrophic indicators? Or they both increase at the same time?
This fragment of the text will be reformulated. The proposed version would be:
During LPAZ KR-13b (877.5-967.5 cm) the number of HC with indicators of progressive eutrophication (e.g. Chironomus plumosus-type and Dicrotendipes nervosus-type (Iwakuma and Yasuno, 1981)) gradually increased. However, cold oligotrophic species (Corynocera ambigua-type) (Brooks et al., 2007) still occurred frequently.
Line 254: “inhabiting shallow Arctic” → inhabiting shallow arctic.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 279-282: “Both Chironomus anthracinus-type and Corynocera ambigua-type are species found in stratified lakes (e.g., Saether, 1979; Heiri, 2004). As we can see, both species can be called resistant to unfavorable environmental conditions. They have a fairly wide range of conditions in which they occur today and can even withstand long periods of anaerobic conditions in lake reservoirs.” → Please provide a reference to a publication explaining that Corynocera ambigua is tolerant to anaerobic conditions.
Sentences will be rephrased as follows:
The appearance of Chironomus anthracinus-type and Glyptotendipes pallens-type may indicate the onset of eutrophication. Both Chironomus anthracinus-type and Corynocera ambigua-type are species found in stratified lakes (e.g., Saether, 1979; Heiri, 2004). As we can see, both species can be called resistant to unfavorable environmental conditions. They have a fairly wide range of conditions in which they occur today.
Line 290: “Chironomidae subfossil larvae were obtained from a total of 30 samples from the lacustrine sediments.” → Please specify the sedimentary units of the samples.
All samples were obtained from gyttja sediment (Unit 4 in Fig. 2 in the preprint version of the manuscript). We propose new wording of this sentence as follows:
Chironomidae subfossil larvae were obtained from a total of 30 samples from the lacustrine sediments - entirely from gyttja sediments (Unit 4) (Fig. 1). - number of the figure changed due to merging figure 1 and 2
Lines 290-291: “Samples that contained significantly fewer than 50 head capsules were merged except for a solitary sample at 1000 cm core depth.” → Please explain why you kept a solitary sample at 100 cm. Because to me it seems that this sample is surrounded by other samples on the diagram of Figure 4 and therefore could have merged with other samples.
Keeping a solitary sample at 1000 cm instead of merging it with the remaining clusters was dictated by the differences with the species composition between this particular solitary sample and samples below. Moreover, the number of head capsules was considered sufficient (even though slightly below 50) to avoid merging in this case.
Lines 294-295: “were included in the reconstruction because the test of the reconstruction showed acceptable results.” → Please which test did you perform.
This part will be reformulated as it was unclear - no statistical test was performed. At the initial stage of Chironomidae analysis, the performance of the reconstruction was checked - including or excluding the solitary sample from 1000 cm depth. Including this sample seemed to give acceptable results (which was assessed based on the knowledge and experience of reconstruction’s author).
This sentence after corrections would read as follows:
After merging, sample clusters at 975 cm, 1080 cm, 1120 cm and 1125 cm core depth still did not reach 50 head capsules, but nonetheless, these samples and the one from 1000 cm core depth were included in the reconstruction as preliminary results seemed credible in terms of obtained temperature values
Lines 296-297: “After merging, the total number of samples used for the Tjul reconstruction was 15.” → From your explanation just above, I understood that you used 5 samples with sufficient amount of chironomids, 7 merged samples and 1 solitary sample to calculate the temperature reconstruction. And these are 13 samples, not 15. Please modify the text where it is necessary.
Will be corrected accordingly - total number of samples after merging is 13.
Line 310: “(MinDC”) → How did you calculate the dissimilarity? Please indicate that in the section “2.7 Mean July air temperature reconstruction”
MinDC was calculated with the use of C2 software.
Lines 325-326: “to reconstruct the average July palaeotemperature quantitatively” → to quantitatively reconstruct July air temperature.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 326: “the trophy of the reservoir” → the trophic state of the reservoir.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Line 327: “Training sets were also created” → Training sets are also available.
Will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 453-545: “These data indicate that summer temperature maximum during the post-Holsteinian period was even slightly higher than indicated in the Polish training set (17-20°C)(Kotrys et al., 2020).” → Please reformulate this sentence as it is unclear to me what you want to say.
This sentence will be reformulated as follows:
These data indicate that summer temperature maximum during the post-Holsteinian period is consistent with the temperature range of the Polish training set (3.5-20.0°C)(Kotrys et al., 2020)
Lines 470-472: “Considering the dominance of herbs and dwarf shrubs in the pollen spectrum, the limiting factor for the development of forest communities was more likely connected to low winter temperatures as summer temperatures were still relatively high. → Please develop your interpretation and support it with other publications.
This issue will be addressed in the revised manuscript and supported with other publications - see also comment #Lines 480-481. We will add the following references:
Harrington, C. A. and Gould, P. J.: Tradeoffs between chilling and forcing in satisfying dormancy requirements for Pacific Northwest tree species, Front. Plant Sci., 6, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00120, 2015.
Heide, O. M.: Daylength and thermal time responses of budburst during dormancy release in some northern deciduous trees, Physiol. Plant., 88, 531–540, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1993.tb01368.x, 1993.
Körner, C. and Paulsen, J.: A world-wide study of high altitude treeline temperatures, J. Biogeogr., 31, 713–732, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2003.01043.x, 2004.
Kramer, K.: A modelling analysis of the effects of climatic warming on the probability of spring frost damage to tree species in The Netherlands and Germany, Plant Cell Environ., 17, 367–377, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.1994.tb00305.x, 1994.
Kramer, K.: Phenotypic plasticity of the phenology of seven European tree species in relation to climatic warming, Plant Cell Environ., 18, 93–104, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.1995.tb00356.x, 1995.
Nienstaedt, H.: Chilling requirements in seven Picea species, Silvae Genet, 16, 65–68, 1967.
Line 474: “In the following” → Following zone?
Will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 480-481: “Summer temperatures during this period reached only 15°C, but the limiting factor for vegetation development still remained the winter temperatures.” → Here again I would suggest developing your interpretation and refer to other publications.
Summer temperatures determined from Chironomidae during this period reached only 15°C, but the limiting factor for vegetation development still remained the winter temperatures. This can be concluded from pollen analysis. Winter temperatures have a strong effect on plants, influencing their growth and budding (Nienstaedt, 1967; Heide, 1993; Kramer, 1994, 1995; Harrington and Gould, 2015, Körner and Paulsen, 2004).
Line 482: “being equivalent” → corresponding
Will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 483-484: “As the pollen record during stadials is mostly controlled by wind-pollinated overproducers such as Poaceae and the long-distance transport of tree pollen (mostly Pinus)” → Here you need a reference.
Following references will be added:
Jankovská, V.: Late Glacial and Holocene history of Plešné Lake and its surrounding
landscape based on pollen and palaeoalgological analyses, Biologia, 61, 371-385, 2006.
Hjelmroos, M.: Evidence of long-distance transport of Betula pollen, Grana, 30(1), 215-228,
1991.
We also modified the paragraph that it reads as follows:
The observed increase in non-arboreal pollen (NAP), predominantly from Poaceae, reflects vegetation contractions driven by lower temperatures and/or reduced humidity, which constrained the growth of pioneer tree species (Kousis et al., 2018). The presence of Betula and Pinus pollen during MIS 11a is most likely explained by the long-distance transport (Hjelmroos, 1991; Jankovská, 2006) rather than evidence of local tree populations. Consequently, the pollen record does not serve as a reliable indicator of the temperature increase inferred from Chironomidae data.
Figures and Tables
Figure 2: I don’t understand what “Clay, Silt, Sand, Gravel” at the bottom of the figure represent. Also, there is no unit for the numbers between the units and the sediment profile. I assume the unit is meters but I think it should be indicated on the figure. “glaciolimnic sedimentation” at the top of the figure → Glaciolimnic sedimentation with a capital “G” to be consistent with the other sediment types.
“Clay, Silt, Sand, Gravel” at the bottom of Fig. 2 refer to the predominant grain size of the individual units. The numbers along the sediment profile indeed refer to the profile depth in meters. The figure will be corrected according to the suggestions.
Table 1: Depth of KR-4 is overlapping with depth of KR-3. I suggest to add a column specifying the Marine Isotope Stage of each Local Pollen Assemblage Zone. What is the difference between “No Chironomidae” and “No individuals of Chironomidae”? Please specify it, in the caption of the table, if there is a difference. Please check the writing of the depths (the decimals should be indicated with a dot and not a comma in English): see for example “KR-8 1497,5 – 1647.5”. For LAPZ KR-12b, I would suggest to change “high contents of Chironomus anthracinus-type” to “relatively high abundances of Chironomus anthracinus-type”. Also for the same LAPZ you probably forgot words in the second sentence describing the Chironomidae: “The number of Glyptotendipes pallens-type and Glyptotendipes severini-type.” For LAPZ KR-13a, you write that “on average 450 individuals per sample” but in the Figure 4 the maximum sum of chironomid in samples is around 80. Why is that? I would also suggest condensing the table because it is on 9 pages now. You could, for example, reduce the space between each LAPZ and shorten the description of the pollen results.
Will be corrected accordingly. Table 1 will be transformed into text to improve the content layout and presentation
Figure 3: I think it would be good to have a horizontal line (or dotted line) on the diagram for each zones so that it is easier for the reader to see the differences between the zones. For the lithology it would probably be good to followed the same code as in Figure 2. Please specify the type of spores shown in the diagram (Fern? Fungal?). Please also write the unit of the different pollen types, which I assume is percentage, and for Pediastrum (number of remains?). If possible, it would be good to specify what is included in “Other thermophilic”, “Other AP”, “Other NAP”.
Fig. 3 will be modified according to the suggestions. The specification of what is included in “Other thermophilic”, “Other AP” and “Other NAP” will be provided in the figure caption.
Table 2: I would suggest to add the number of chironomids per sample in the table so that the readers know which samples might be problematic because they have “too low” numbers of chironomids.
Table 2 will be corrected accordingly.
Figure 4: Why the chironomids from LAPZ-14 are not shown on the diagram? Based on Table 1, the abundance of chironomids is very low in this zone but you still found two Chironomus plumosus-type so I think it would be good to also show them on the diagram. Also, in this figure the y axis unit is in meters whereas it is in centimeters in Figure 3 and in Table 2. Please be consistent in all figures and tables. Add “Chironomid diagram” in the caption of the figure as you also show the abundances of chironomid and not only the temperature reconstruction. Please indicate what the grey bars indicate on the temperature reconstruction curve (I assume they are the errors?). I would suggest, if possible, to have a better quality of the figure because when zooming on it the names become a bit fuzzy. Please specify the units of the x axes (percentages, counts, °C). “sume” → “Sum” or “Total chironomids”. Please also mention and explain what “MJAT °C” in the text or in the caption of the figure.
Fig. 4 and the caption will be modified according to the suggestions.
Supplement table 2: Why are some references in brackets? See for example “Barkowice Mokre”.
Supplementary Table 2 will be deleted in the revised manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3129-AC1
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3129', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Jan 2025
The manuscript egusphere-2024-3129 presents the first Chironomidae-inferred mean July air temperature reconstruction for the post-Holsteinian (MIS-11b) period. The reconstruction is unique, as few studies use Chironomidae as a palaeoclimatic proxy for periods older than the Eemian Interglacial. The research is valuable, and the authors provide interesting data interpretations, referencing a wide range of relevant literature. The manuscript is well-structured, although the entire review in Section 4.1.1 partly repeats information provided earlier in the text. In this paper, it is unnecessary to extensively review the ecology of Chironomidae and their subfossil deposition in sediments. This content is out of context and should be removed from the manuscript. It could be published separately as a review paper in another journal, rather than in Climate of the Past.
A significant challenge for climate reconstructions based on Chironomidae subfossils from such ancient sediments is the speciation rate and potential changes in the species' environmental preferences represented by morphotypes over such a long timescale. Another issue is the zoogeographical context that influences assemblage composition. Due to successive glacial-interglacial cycles up to the present day, when the SNP TS was conducted, species ranges have changed multiple times, affecting regional faunal composition. Can we assume that the morphotypes of subfossils collected from the Krępa post-Holsteinian sediments represent the same species as in the SNP TS? This issue should be briefly discussed in the context of Section 4.1.1. The authors refer to the “actuality of geological processes,” but can we make a similar assumption for the climatic preferences of species after such a long time? This is a central issue for climatic reconstructions from such ancient subfossils.
As the authors note, Chironomidae have short life cycles, which suggests a fast rate of phylogenetic processes. I agree that temperature reconstructions from such old sediments are possible and reliable, but they should be treated with caution when compared to those from the Holocene, Weichselian, or Eemian periods.
Chironomidae are present in only a short section of the Krępa sediments, whereas pollen is ample throughout the entire core. I wonder how a pollen-inferred temperature reconstruction would compare in this case. Would it confirm the chironomid-inferred July air temperatures or not? I leave this question to the authors for consideration. It could be an interesting addition, though the midge-based reconstruction from the post-Holsteinian is already highly unique and sufficient for a strong paper in Climate of the Past.
The authors indicate in Section 2.1 that they reviewed 80 sites with Holsteinian sequences in Poland in Table 1, but the table contains different content. I could not locate this data compilation in the manuscript. The text is already lengthy, so I suggest saving this subject for another paper. Additionally, I recommend reducing the manuscript’s length by 20% by deleting Section 4.1.1 and moving Table 1 to the supplementary materials.
The manuscript’s English requires substantial revision by a native speaker fluent in ecology. I also suggest the following minor comments:
Lines 1-3: The title should be rephrased to be more compact and maybe focused on temperature more than Chironomidae. The paper does not refer to the "central European perspective".
In the whole text, lines 1, 21, 23, 28, 33, 54-58, 58-59, 82, 95, 97, 103, Table 1, 227, 228, 230, 231, 233, 237, 244, 247, 289, 290, 319, 321, 325, 331, 334, 351, 357, 359, 362, 364, 373, 388, 389, 390, 392, 395, 398, 401, 430, 435, 441, 495, 461, 475, 491, 493, 494, 507, 509, 514, 515, 520, 521 and elsewhere – Chironomidae is a Family name and according to taxonomic nomenclature it should be written in the regular font, not italics. The chironomid/chironomids is an informal name like a dog, a fox, or a cat, and should be written starting from the small, not a capital letter.
Lines 18, 34, 101, 103, 104, 106, 107, 344, 345, 348, 515, 516, and in many other places please change the personal mood of the sentence to impersonal.
Lines 18-19: This sentence is complex and hard to read. Please use shorter sentences all over the text.
Line 20: Pollen can be used for quantitative reconstructing of the annual temperature, the temperature of the warmest month, the temperature of the coldest month, as well as precipitation and vegetational season duration.
Line 21: Please change “recreate” to ‘reconstruct’.
Lines 22, 326, and elsewhere: Please change "trophy" to "trophic state" in the text.
Line 23: “..of the Holocene” - please add ‘and Late Weichselian’.
Lines 30, and 31: In English decimals should be written with '.' not ','. Please change here and elsewhere in the text.
Line 32: How do you know, if there is no quantitative temperature reconstruction inferred from the pollen?
Line 34: I'm not sure the word 'enhancing' well fits in this context, could you use some other?
Lines 34-37: This sentence is hard to read. Please rephrase. Also according to the taxonomic codex, Cladocera should be written here and elsewhere with the regular font.
Lines 37-38: Please rephrase the sentence.
Line 38: Maybe it is better to refer to research than data.
Line 39: I suggest to discuss them wider in the 'Discussion' chapter.
Line 41: Please change the words 'numerously' and 'triggered' to some others. They don't fit the context.
Line 42: Maybe 'gives' would be better than "creates"?
Lines 43-46: This sentence is long and hard to read, please rephrase.
Lines 47-49: From 11,500 years (cal ?) BP there is only one Marine Isotope Stage - MIS 1.
Lines 49-51. Please try to write this sentence in more simple words. Please change "species structure" to 'structure of the communities.
Line 52: Please change "requirements" to 'preferences' and delete "table", just stay with 'water depth'.
Line 54: Foraminifera should start with a capital letter as this is the higher taxa name.
Lines 54-58: This sentence is too long and hard to read. Please cut it to a few shorter sentences.
Lines 58-59: The word "remnants" does not fit the context, better use 'subfossils' or 'head capsules' instead.
Lines 61-63: This sentence is hard to read, please rephrase. The word "pace" does not fit to the context.
Line 66: Once you explained the abbreviation MIS in line 24, later on in the text you can use it without referring to the full name "Marine Isotope Stage". Just write MIS.
Line 84: The Word "recreate" does not fit the context.
Line 88: Maybe 'analysed' would be better than "conducted" in this case.
Maybe I am wrong but I think there is no sense of connection between sentences in line 94 and lines 95-96.
Line 100: Maybe 'brings the' would be better than "gives" in this case?
Line 104: Should Quaternary start here from a capital letter?
Line 105: Please change "ecological requirements" to 'species ecological preferences'.
Line 107: Please delete the phrase "on the map".
Line 114: Please change "they are focused" to 'they aggregate'.
Line 199: What method was used for pollen zonation?
Section 2.6: Please give the total number of Chironomidae head capsules.
Line 211: Please change "Pillot" to 'Moller Pillot' as it is a double surname.
Table 1: Please, move Table 1 to the supplements. Please change in the table and everywhere in the text (i.e. line 479) “dominance” to ‘domination’, also in scientific papers word “significance” is restricted to statistical significance, please change in Table 1 and elsewhere to ‘clear’, or ‘distinct’ or ‘substantial’, etc. At line 410 maybe to 'lower impact' or 'smaller impact'.
Tab. 1 KR-11b: Please give space between "percentages" and "and".
Tab. 1 KR-12a section Chironomidae - please replace "amounts" with 'number'.
Tab. 1 KR-12b section Chironomidae: please change "content" to 'share', also next sentence about G. pallens-type and G. severini-type is not complete - What do you mean?
Tab. 1 KR-13b section Chironomidae - please change the font in "occur" to regular.
Lines 234-235: Delete "remains of" from "remains of head capsules", also change "," to '.' in "1222,5 cm". It should be '1222.5 cm'.
Line 237: Please change "amounts" to 'number' 'populations' or 'abundance'.
Lines 239-240: G. pallens-type and G. severini-type are warm stenotherms. Please rephrase the sentence.
Line 246: Please add space between "(Corynocera ambigua-type)" and "(Brooks et al., 2007)".
Line 247: Please change "amount" to 'abundance' or 'number'.
Line 247: Please add 'stenotherm' between "warm" and "species".
Lines 255-256: Please change "has a growth period" to 'larvae develop'.
Lines 259, 282, 326, 327, 353, 358, 385, 389, 414: Please change here and elsewhere in the text "reservoir" to 'lake'/'lakes/water body/water bodies' (at line 389 to ‘bottom’).
Line 260: Please change 'number' to 'abundance'. Also, it should be 'has been shown'.
I think that sentence in lines 273-274 is unnecessary. I suggest to delete it.
Please move the paragraph from lines 290-297 to the section 2.7.
Fig. 4: Please indicate in the figure caption whether Chironomidae are presented in the percent shares or counted numbers of specimens. Also, if you want to be super-correct give Tanytarsini indet. in the regular font. The figure presents not only the mean July air temperature reconstruction but also a stratigraphic diagram of the Chironomidae assemblages.
Line 320: Please change " and an important element of" to 'conducted in'.
Line 321: Please change "order" to 'suborder' (!).
Line 325: Please delete: "the diversity of", and "centuries".
Line 340: Please change "amount" to 'number'.
Lines 346, 348, and elsewhere: Please keep American or British English throughout the whole text.
Sentence at lines 358-360: Meaning unclear, please rephrase. Maybe "attract" is used inadequately and should be replaced by another word, but then still, the sentence needs to be rephrased.
Line 361: What do you mean by the "remote habitats"?
Line 374: Chaoboridae and Ceratopogonidae are the Family names and should be given in regular font, not italics.
Line 379: Please delete "the amount of".
Line 385: "morphological" - do you mean bathymetry?
Sentence at lines 392-393: Do you mean living larvae of Chironomidae or rather head capsules (subfossils)? If you mean the subfossils then you can't refer to "behaviour", rather you mean redeposition processes.
Lines 401-402: Please add 'subfossils of' before "multivoltine" and change "being" to 'can be'.
Line 403: Maybe 'parameters' would be more suitable than "properties".
Lines 405-408: Please cut the sentence to a few shorter ones, also "extinction" seems to be a bit too big word in this context.
Line 413: Please delete "and the bottom of the reservoir".
Line 418: Please add 'waters at' before "cold", also for whom favourable? And from what is more favourable? The anaerobic environments, peat bogs, and aquatic habitats in deserts and cold regions are usually less favourable for chironomids than i.e. lakes with good oxygen conditions, and neutral pH that is localised in temperate regions.
Sentence at lines 418-419: Meaning unclear.
Line 419: I am not sure if the word "properties" is properly used in this sentence.
Line 426: "sites" - do you mean 'samples'?
Paragraphs at the lines 425-429 and 438-444 should be moved to the section 2.6.
Line 439: "functional" - do you mean 'functioning'?
Line 441: Please change "macroremians" to 'subfossils'.
The section 4.1.2 is dedicated mostly to the comparison of Chironomidae-inferred summer temperatures with the interpretation of pollen data. Please change the title of the section focusing more on pollen-based reconstructions.
Line 454: Please add space between "...C)" and "(Kotrys...".
Lines 486-487: Something is missing in this sentence, please rephrase.
Lines 507-508: I recommend comparing the trend in the temperature with trends in Chironomidae assemblages reflected by some ordination analysis - i.e. plotting temperatures against DCA/PCA Ax 1 and Ax 2 values. PCA can be very easily calculated in C2.
Line 508: Please delete the sentence "They are an environmental indicator." It is redundant.
Line 518: Please change "abundantly" to 'with higher concentration'.
Line 746: Please change "Pillot" to "Moller Pillot" as it is a double surname. Also, he is cited usually as H. K. M.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3129-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Tomasz Polkowski, 14 Feb 2025
The manuscript egusphere-2024-3129 presents the first Chironomidae-inferred mean July air temperature reconstruction for the post-Holsteinian (MIS-11b) period. The reconstruction is unique, as few studies use Chironomidae as a palaeoclimatic proxy for periods older than the Eemian Interglacial. The research is valuable, and the authors provide interesting data interpretations, referencing a wide range of relevant literature.
The manuscript is well-structured, although the entire review in Section 4.1.1 partly repeats information provided earlier in the text. In this paper, it is unnecessary to extensively review the ecology of Chironomidae and their subfossil deposition in sediments. This content is out of context and should be removed from the manuscript. It could be published separately as a review paper in another journal, rather than in Climate of the Past. A significant challenge for climate reconstructions based on Chironomidae subfossils from such ancient sediments is the speciation rate and potential changes in the species' environmental preferences represented by morphotypes over such a long timescale. Another issue is the zoogeographical context that influences assemblage composition. Due to successive glacial-interglacial cycles up to the present day, when the SNP TS was conducted, species ranges have changed multiple times, affecting regional faunal composition. Can we assume that the morphotypes of subfossils collected from the Krępa post-Holsteinian sediments represent the same species as in the SNP TS? This issue should be briefly discussed in the context of Section 4.1.1. The authors refer to the “actuality of geological processes,” but can we make a similar assumption for the climatic preferences of species after such a long time? This is a central issue for climatic reconstructions from such ancient subfossils. As the authors note, Chironomidae have short life cycles, which suggests a fast rate of phylogenetic processes. I agree that temperature reconstructions from such old sediments are possible and reliable, but they should be treated with caution when compared to those from the Holocene, Weichselian, or Eemian periods. Chironomidae are present in only a short section of the Krępa sediments, whereas pollen is ample throughout the entire core. I wonder how a pollen-inferred temperature reconstruction would compare in this case. Would it confirm the chironomid-inferred July air temperatures or not? I leave this question to the authors for consideration. It could be an interesting addition, though the midge-based reconstruction from the post-Holsteinian is already highly unique and sufficient for a strong paper in Climate of the Past.
We thank the reviewer for the detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript and provide point-by-point answers to the issues raised. With respect to the issues raised here briefly, we will address them as follows:
We will restructure section 4.1.1, now paying attention to a more proper connection of individual species preferences and our findings. However, we would rather try to better integrate this part with the remaining part of the discussion than entirely delete it from the revised manuscript.
Responding on the issue considering the influence of speciation rate / changing environmental preferences through time - We believe it can be applied to any multi-proxy analysis in post-Holsteinian sediments. The applicability of temperature reconstruction is determined using various statistical methods, including canonical correspondence analysis (CCA). Relationships between chronomid communities and summer temperature using the cross-correlation coefficient differentiation (DCCA) on square-root transformed data in CANOCO v. 4.5 (ter Braak and Sˇmilauer 2002).
Also the range of analogy of fossil communities to contemporary communities using Modern Analog Technique (MAT) (Birks et al. 1990). By marking individuals, we can determine that the same morphologically similar individuals still occur in the same area as in the Holocene (Płóciennik et al. 2023).
For example, we can give the rate of speciation of the tribe Tanytarsini. Subfossil individuals are from Palaeogene (Eocene/Oligocene ~ 40–45 Ma), Fenno-Sarmatia: 4 species, 3 genera). Currently there are 187 species of 16 genera recorded in Europe. Speciation within the Tanytarsini is mainly ecological and geographic isolation (Giłka 2011). The second factor confirming the applicability of the analysis is its correlation with the results from other multi-proxy analyses. If the results create a coherent whole of factors and their responses with the results from the analyses of pollen, Cladocera, diatoms, Ostracoda, or macroremains, then they confirm the results and applicability of the method. Of course, we can assume that each organism undergoes speciation, but each of these organisms has a different life cycle length. Therefore, here we can assume that this speciation would occur at a different rate. This is a very interesting aspect. That is why it is so important to use other analyses, especially for such old sediments, but with just a few sites investigated we can see that this can be a big challenge, because the sediment is periodically poor in any remains.
As far as pollen-inferred temperature reconstruction is concerned - The pollen data from Krępa site are (at the moment) published only as a part of Artur Górecki’s (co-author of this manuscript) However, as Chironomid-inferred summer temperature reconstruction is the core of this publication, pollen-based reconstruction seems to be out of the scope of this paper and will be the part of the separate publication.
The authors indicate in Section 2.1 that they reviewed 80 sites with Holsteinian sequences in Poland in Table 1, but the table contains different content. I could not locate this data compilation in the manuscript. The text is already lengthy, so I suggest saving this subject for another paper. Additionally, I recommend reducing the manuscript’s length by 20% by deleting Section 4.1.1 and moving Table 1 to the supplementary materials.
We will completely remove the entire section 2.1 as the presentation of the other Polish sites will not be a part of the revised manuscript anymore. As stated in the general comment before, section 4.1.1 will be reduced and integrated with the remaining part of the discussion but not entirely deleted.
The manuscript’s English requires substantial revision by a native speaker fluent in ecology. I also suggest the following minor comments:
Lines 1-3: The title should be rephrased to be more compact and maybe focused on temperature more than Chironomidae. The paper does not refer to the "central European perspective".
We will delete “central European perspective” from the title and rephrase it as follows:
A chironomid-based summer temperature reconstruction for the post-Holsteinian (MIS 11b) from the Krępa palaeolake sediments, eastern Poland
or:
Non-biting midges (Chironomidae) as a proxy for summer temperatures during the post-Holsteinian (MIS 11b) - an eastern Poland perspective
In the whole text, lines 1, 21, 23, 28, 33, 54-58, 58-59, 82, 95, 97, 103, Table 1, 227, 228, 230, 231, 233, 237, 244, 247, 289, 290, 319, 321, 325, 331, 334, 351, 357, 359, 362, 364, 373, 388, 389, 390, 392, 395, 398, 401, 430, 435, 441, 495, 461, 475, 491, 493, 494, 507, 509, 514, 515, 520, 521 and elsewhere – Chironomidae is a Family name and according to taxonomic nomenclature it should be written in the regular font, not italics. The chironomid/chironomids is an informal name like a dog, a fox, or a cat, and should be written starting from the small, not a capital letter.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 18, 34, 101, 103, 104, 106, 107, 344, 345, 348, 515, 516, and in many other places please change the personal mood of the sentence to impersonal.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 18-19: This sentence is complex and hard to read. Please use shorter sentences all over the text.
We will check the entire text with respect to comprehensiveness and will shorten / simplify sentences where possible and necessary.
Line 20: Pollen can be used for quantitative reconstructing of the annual temperature, the temperature of the warmest month, the temperature of the coldest month, as well as precipitation and vegetational season duration.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 21: Please change “recreate” to ‘reconstruct’.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 22, 326, and elsewhere: Please change "trophy" to "trophic state" in the text.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 23: “..of the Holocene” - please add ‘and Late Weichselian’.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 30, and 31: In English decimals should be written with '.' not ','. Please change here and elsewhere in the text.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 32: How do you know, if there is no quantitative temperature reconstruction inferred from the pollen?
The pollen data from Krępa site are (at the moment) published only as a part of Artur Górecki’s (co-author of this manuscript) However, as Chironomid-inferred summer temperature reconstruction is the core of this publication, pollen-based reconstruction seems to be out of the scope of this paper and will be the part of the separate publication.
Line 34: I'm not sure the word 'enhancing' well fits in this context, could you use some other?
This will be changed to “improving”.
Lines 34-37: This sentence is hard to read. Please rephrase. Also according to the taxonomic codex, Cladocera should be written here and elsewhere with the regular font.
We will completely remove this sentence as the presentation of the other Polish sites will not be a part of the revised manuscript anymore.
Lines 37-38: Please rephrase the sentence.
We will completely remove this sentence as the presentation of the other Polish sites will not be a part of the revised manuscript anymore.
Line 38: Maybe it is better to refer to research than data.
We will completely rewrite the abstract of the revised manuscript.
Line 39: I suggest to discuss them wider in the 'Discussion' chapter.
We will completely rewrite the abstract of the revised manuscript.
Line 41: Please change the words 'numerously' and 'triggered' to some others. They don't fit the context.
This will be corrected. We suggest the following:
Earth’s history is characterized by repeated climate fluctuations, which had until present only natural causes and were not driven by humans.
Line 42: Maybe 'gives' would be better than "creates"?
This will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 43-46: This sentence is long and hard to read, please rephrase.
This will be corrected. We suggest the following:
With respect to human impact during the Holocene, the so-called “Anthropocene” is presently widely debated across various scientific disciplines though its exact timing as well as the actual dimension of human influence on the environment are still debated (Brondizio et al., 2016).
Lines 47-49: From 11,500 years (cal ?) BP there is only one Marine Isotope Stage - MIS 1.
The complete sentence will be rewritten. We suggest the following:
For the Holocene, which corresponds to Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 1 and covers the last 11,500 years (Mayewski et al., 2017), there is an large number of environmental archives, e.g. lacustrine and marine sediments, ice cores, trees, and speleothems, that provide material for palaeoecological analyses.
Lines 49-51. Please try to write this sentence in more simple words. Please change "species structure" to 'structure of the communities.
This will be corrected. We suggest the following:
The sensitivity of some groups of organisms to changing hydrological or climatic conditions allows to reconstruct past events that directly affected the abundance of these organisms or the structure of their communities (Battarbee, 2000).
Line 52: Please change "requirements" to 'preferences' and delete "table", just stay with 'water depth'.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 54: Foraminifera should start with a capital letter as this is the higher taxa name.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 54-58: This sentence is too long and hard to read. Please cut it to a few shorter sentences.
This will be corrected. We suggest the following:
Foraminifera can be used to reconstruct ocean pH (Foster and Rae, 2016; Roberts et al., 2018). Pollen can provide information about vegetation migration (Ralska-Jasiewiczowa et al., 2004; Kupryjanowicz et al., 2018), past human activity (Chevalier et al., 2020) or palaeoclimate variability (e.g. Rylova and Savachenko, 2005; Hrynowiecka and Winter, 2016). Chironomids can be be used to infer past summer air temperatures (Eggermont and Heiri, 2012) as well as changes in the trophic state and pH of water bodies (Płóciennik, 2005).
Lines 58-59: The word "remnants" does not fit the context, better use 'subfossils' or 'head capsules' instead.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 61-63: This sentence is hard to read, please rephrase. The word "pace" does not fit to the context.
This will be corrected. We suggest the following:
However, these reconstructions neither provide unequivocal information about air temperature changes nor allow to distinguish between the relative contribution of natural drivers and human impact to these changes.
Line 66: Once you explained the abbreviation MIS in line 24, later on in the text you can use it without referring to the full name "Marine Isotope Stage". Just write MIS.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 84: The Word "recreate" does not fit the context.
We will replace “recreate” by “reconstruct”.
Line 88: Maybe 'analysed' would be better than "conducted" in this case.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Maybe I am wrong but I think there is no sense of connection between sentences in line 94 and lines 95-96.
We suggest to completely restructure the entire paragraph on other MIS 11 sites in Europe.
Line 100: Maybe 'brings the' would be better than "gives" in this case?
We will replace “gives” by “sheds”.
Line 104: Should Quaternary start here from a capital letter?
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 105: Please change "ecological requirements" to 'species ecological preferences'.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 107: Please delete the phrase "on the map".
We will completely remove the entire section 2.1 as the presentation of the other Polish sites will not be a part of the revised manuscript anymore.
Line 114: Please change "they are focused" to 'they aggregate'.
We will completely remove the entire section 2.1 as the presentation of the other Polish sites will not be a part of the revised manuscript anymore.
Line 199: What method was used for pollen zonation?
The method used was CONISS cluster analysis function. This paragraph after remormulating would read as follows:
Overall, the outcomes of the palynological analysis are depicted in a shortened pollen diagram (Fig. 3), divided into 14 Local Pollen Assemblage Zones (LPAZ). Pollen diagrams were plotted using R studio, based on the package riojaPlot (Juggins 2022). Pollen diagrams were generated using R Studio with the riojaPlot package (Juggins, 2022). Local pollen zones were established using the CONISS cluster analysis function within riojaPlot and were visually adjusted if necessary.
Section 2.6: Please give the total number of Chironomidae head capsules.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 211: Please change "Pillot" to 'Moller Pillot' as it is a double surname.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Table 1: Please, move Table 1 to the supplements. Please change in the table and everywhere in the text (i.e. line 479) “dominance” to ‘domination’, also in scientific papers word “significance” is restricted to statistical significance, please change in Table 1 and elsewhere to ‘clear’, or ‘distinct’ or ‘substantial’, etc. At line 410 maybe to 'lower impact' or 'smaller impact'.
The information contained so far in Table 1 will be integrated in the main text as a new section 3.2 “Regional and local vegetation changes during the end of Holsteinian Interglacial and Early Saalian at the Krępa site.”
Tab. 1 KR-11b: Please give space between "percentages" and "and".
The information contained so far in Table 1 will be integrated in the main text, the suggested changes will be made accordingly.
Tab. 1 KR-12a section Chironomidae - please replace "amounts" with 'number'.
The information contained so far in Table 1 will be integrated in the main text, the suggested changes will be made accordingly.
Tab. 1 KR-12b section Chironomidae: please change "content" to 'share', also next sentence about G. pallens-type and G. severini-type is not complete - What do you mean?
The information contained so far in Table 1 will be integrated in the main text, the suggested changes will be made accordingly.
Tab. 1 KR-13b section Chironomidae - please change the font in "occur" to regular.
The information contained so far in Table 1 will be integrated in the main text, the suggested changes will be made accordingly.
Lines 234-235: Delete "remains of" from "remains of head capsules", also change "," to '.' in "1222,5 cm". It should be '1222.5 cm'.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 237: Please change "amounts" to 'number' 'populations' or 'abundance'.
According to the suggestion, “amounts” will be changed to “numbers”.
Lines 239-240: G. pallens-type and G. severini-type are warm stenotherms. Please rephrase the sentence.
We suggest to correct this paragraph as follows:
KR-12b (1072.5-1122.5 cm) contains mainly cold-adapted species like Corynocera ambigua and species like Glyptotendipes pallens-type and Glyptotendipes severini-type, which are often associated with algae and diatoms or mine leaves, (Tarkowska-Kukuryk, 2014). LPAZ KR-12c (1022.5-1072.5 cm) is characterised by species highly resistant to difficult environmental conditions, i.e. Chironomus anthracinus-type - typical for nutrient rich condition with wide environmental tolerances (Seather 1979, Self et al. 2011), Corynocera ambigua-type - wide thermal tolerance (Brodersen & Lindegaard 1999) and Glyptotendipes pallens-type -tolerate better winter condition, lifing in wide range of substrates (Moller Pilot 2013, Cerba et al. 2022).
Line 246: Please add space between "(Corynocera ambigua-type)" and "(Brooks et al., 2007)".
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 247: Please change "amount" to 'abundance' or 'number'.
According to the suggestion, “amount” will be changed to “number”.
Line 247: Please add 'stenotherm' between "warm" and "species".
This will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 255-256: Please change "has a growth period" to 'larvae develop'.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 259, 282, 326, 327, 353, 358, 385, 389, 414: Please change here and elsewhere in the text "reservoir" to 'lake'/'lakes/water body/water bodies' (at line 389 to ‘bottom’).
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 260: Please change 'number' to 'abundance'. Also, it should be 'has been shown'.
According to the suggestion, this will be changed to:
The abundance of Corynocera ambigua-type has been shown to correlate with the content….
I think that sentence in lines 273-274 is unnecessary. I suggest to delete it.
As suggested, the sentence will be deleted.
Please move the paragraph from lines 290-297 to the section 2.7.
As suggested, the paragraph will be moved to the results section.
Fig. 4: Please indicate in the figure caption whether Chironomidae are presented in the percent shares or counted numbers of specimens. Also, if you want to be super-correct give Tanytarsini indet. in the regular font. The figure presents not only the mean July air temperature reconstruction but also a stratigraphic diagram of the Chironomidae assemblages.
The figure will be corrected as suggested. As we will combine Fig.1 and 2 of our initial submission into one figure, the figure numbering will shift and Fig. 4 will be Fig. 3 in the revised manuscript.
Line 320: Please change " and an important element of" to 'conducted in'.
This will be changed accordingly.
Line 321: Please change "order" to 'suborder' (!).
This will be changed accordingly.
Line 325: Please delete: "the diversity of", and "centuries".
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 340: Please change "amount" to 'number'.
This will be changed accordingly.
Lines 346, 348, and elsewhere: Please keep American or British English throughout the whole text.
In the revised manuscript we will use British English and will thoroughly check the entire text.
Sentence at lines 358-360: Meaning unclear, please rephrase. Maybe "attract" is used inadequately and should be replaced by another word, but then still, the sentence needs to be rephrased.
This will be corrected. We suggest the following:
Large lakes like the one that existed at the Krępa site have a greater variety of habitats and are thus characterized by a higher biodiversity of Chironomidae (Allen et al., 1999; Heino, 2000; Tarr et al., 2005). Moreover, such lakes are more resilient to droughts and other extreme events. In contrast, small lakes with less diverse and isolated habitats reveal a reduced species diversity and dispersal (Roberts, 2003).
Line 361: What do you mean by the "remote habitats"?
We will correct this sentence. Please see our response to the comment above.
Line 374: Chaoboridae and Ceratopogonidae are the Family names and should be given in regular font, not italics.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 379: Please delete "the amount of".
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 385: "morphological" - do you mean bathymetry?
This will be corrected according to the suggestion.
Sentence at lines 392-393: Do you mean living larvae of Chironomidae or rather head capsules (subfossils)? If you mean the subfossils then you can't refer to "behaviour", rather you mean redeposition processes.
The complete sentence will be rewritten. We suggest the following:
Another factor limiting the preservation of Chironomidae head capsules in the sediment is mechanical stress that can cause damage to the head capsules.
Lines 401-402: Please add 'subfossils of' before "multivoltine" and change "being" to 'can be'.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 403: Maybe 'parameters' would be more suitable than "properties".
This will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 405-408: Please cut the sentence to a few shorter ones, also "extinction" seems to be a bit too big word in this context.
The complete sentence will be rewritten accordingly. We suggest the following:
A decrease in the water level may also lead to the disappearance of chironomid larvae with subsequent changes in the groupings from lacustrine to semi-terrestrial and terrestrial communities (Płóciennik et al., 2015, 2020). Moreover, droughts may cause the vanishing of larvae (Buck, 1965; Berglund and Digerfeldt, 1970; Delettre, 1988; Jackson and Mclachlan, 1991; Rohrig et al., 2004).
Line 413: Please delete "and the bottom of the reservoir".
This will be corrected accordingly. Moreover, we will change “soil” into “sediment”.
Line 418: Please add 'waters at' before "cold", also for whom is favourable? And from what is more favourable? The anaerobic environments, peat bogs, and aquatic habitats in deserts and cold regions are usually less favourable for chironomids than i.e. lakes with good oxygen conditions, and neutral pH that is localised in temperate regions.
This will be corrected accordingly. The thing we wanted to express was that these environments are favourable for Chironomidae remains, not for its reproduction. Therefore, we propose the following wording of the sentence:
Moist and anaerobic environments such as ditches, peat bogs or cold climate or desert conditions are more favourable for the preservation of chitinous remains
Sentence at lines 418-419: Meaning unclear.
This sentence will be rewritten. We suggest the following:
Clay sediments are better for the preservation of chitinous remains than hydrated sediments or aquatic environments.
Line 419: I am not sure if the word "properties" is properly used in this sentence.
We will replace “properties” by “characteristics”.
Line 426: "sites" - do you mean 'samples'?
“samples” is correct; we will accordingly replace “sites”.
Paragraphs at the lines 425-429 and 438-444 should be moved to the section 2.6.
The first paragraph will be moved to the methods section according to the suggestion. However, we are convinced that the second paragraph better fits the discussion section.
Line 439: "functional" - do you mean 'functioning'?
That is correct. We will replace “functional” by “functioning”.
Line 441: Please change "macroremians" to 'subfossils'.
This will be corrected accordingly.
The section 4.1.2 is dedicated mostly to the comparison of Chironomidae-inferred summer temperatures with the interpretation of pollen data. Please change the title of the section focusing more on pollen-based reconstructions.
This will be corrected accordingly. We suggest the following:
Chironomid-inferred reconstructions from the Krępa site in relation to pollen-based reconstructions.
Line 454: Please add space between "...C)" and "(Kotrys...".
This will be corrected accordingly.
Lines 486-487: Something is missing in this sentence, please rephrase.
We will delete the complete sentence.
Lines 507-508: I recommend comparing the trend in the temperature with trends in Chironomidae assemblages reflected by some ordination analysis - i.e. plotting temperatures against DCA/PCA Ax 1 and Ax 2 values. PCA can be very easily calculated in C2.
The plot will be placed in the revised manuscript. It will include such values as: DCA (Detrended Correspondence Analysis), ANN 66%, ANN 13% and temperature. The obtained trial plot shows that trends in the temperature and Chironomidae assemblages trends seems to be consistent with each other.
Line 508: Please delete the sentence "They are an environmental indicator." It is redundant.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 518: Please change "abundantly" to 'with higher concentration'.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Line 746: Please change "Pillot" to "Moller Pillot" as it is a double surname. Also, he is cited usually as H. K. M.
This will be corrected accordingly.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3129-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Tomasz Polkowski, 14 Feb 2025
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 871 | 103 | 25 | 999 | 48 | 24 | 33 |
- HTML: 871
- PDF: 103
- XML: 25
- Total: 999
- Supplement: 48
- BibTeX: 24
- EndNote: 33
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Tomasz Polkowski
Agnieszka Gruszczyńska
Bartosz Kotrys
Artur Górecki
Anna Hrynowiecka
Marcin Żarski
Mirosław Błaszkiewicz
Jerzy Nitychoruk
Monika Czajkowska
Stefan Lauterbach
Michał Słowiński
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1788 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(415 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
The manuscript by Polkowski et al. presents results of chironomid-inferred temperature reconstruction and vegetation changes during the Holsteinian interglacial from a site located in Poland (Krepa). The authors also present a literature review of sites covering the Holsteinian in Poland. The authors discuss in details the possible reasons of poor preservation or absence of chironomid remains in different parts of theirrecord. Because chironomid-inferred temperature reconstructions are rare during this period, the results of the manuscript are valuable for the community. However, I have comments that should be discussed before acceptance of the manuscript for publication in Climate of the Past.
Main comments
Other specific comments
Line 1: don’t write Chironomidae in italic but in regular font as it is a family name and family names are written in regular font.
Line 19: “utilised” → used
Line 21: “Chironomidae” should not be written in italic as it is a family name but in the regular form “Chironomidae”. Please change it throughout the manuscript.
Line 21: “recreate summer thermal conditions” → reconstruct past summer air temperatures or infer past summer air temperatures.
Line 22: “Non-biting midges remains indicate trophy and pH of water bodies as well.” → Chironomid remains can also indicate changes in the trophic state or pH of water bodies.
Line 23: “MIS 11 period” → the MIS 11 period
Lines 26-28: “The stratigraphic context for the chironomid-based summer temperature reconstruction is provided by pollen data, together allowing to compare our results in the context of climate development at the end of the Holsteinian Interglacial.” → Please reformulate this sentence to make it easier to understand.
Line 28: “species” → taxa. If you are talking about morphotypes you can not write species as several species can represent each morphotype. See also line 29.
Line 29: “e.g” → e.g.
Line 29: “Corynocera ambigua-type” → Corynocera ambigua. This one is not a morphotype but rather a species as indicated in the different training set available.
Line 29: “Chironomus anthracinus-type” → Chironomus anthracinus-type. The “-type” should not be formatted in italic but in regular font. This is the case for all the morphotypes. Please change this issue throughout the text.
Line 30: “July temperature” → July air temperature.
Line 30: “15,3 °C” → 15.3 °C. In English the decimals should be indicated with a dot and not a comma. Please change this throughout the manuscript. See also line 31.
Line 33: remove “even”.
Lines 34-37: “The additional element of this research is indicating sites within the Polish borders that were investigated so far - mostly on the basis of pollen analysis, occasionally Cladocera, isotopes, etc. - and might be new objects of studies based on Chironomid-inferred temperature reconstructions.” → Please reformulate this sentence to make it easier to understand and precise which time interval was investigated in these sites.
Line 37: “Chironomid” → chironomid. Please write chironomid without capital letter and check throughout the manuscript.
Line 37: “of challenges of” → on
Line 42: “participation” → influence
Lines 44-46: “various scientific disciplines from the establishment of the boundary of the unit through the scale of human influence on the functioning of the natural environment in the Holocene throughout all scales starting from micro, through regional to global (Brondizio et al., 2016).” → Please reformulate this sentence.
Line 47: “has” → is
Line 48: “i.a.” → i.e. Please check the spelling throughout the manuscript.
Line 49: “etc.” → remove
Line 50: “climatic conditions change” → climatic condition changes
Line 52: “water table depth” → water depth
Line 54: “is a reconstruction tool for ocean pH” → can be used to reconstruct pH in the ocean
Line 55: “vegetation migration” → remove migration
Line 55: “can be used” → and can be used
Line 56: “the activities of a human in the past” → past human activities
Line 58: “Chironomidae remnants analysis allows the assessment of the water reservoir trophy and pH as well.” → The analysis of chironomid remains also allows the assessment of the trophic state or pH of freshwater ecosystems.
Lines 61-63: “However, these reconstructions are not capable of giving unequivocal information about exact air temperature changes nor whether these changes and their pace are induced by natural causes or human activity” → Please rephrase this sentence.
Line 67: “Northern Europe” → Please be consistent in the spelling of Northern Europe throughout the manuscript. See Line 75 “northern Europe”.
Line 75: “southern European” → “southern Europe”
Line 82: “In this research” → In the present study
Line 83: “(Eggermont and Heiri, 2012)” → Here I would cite other references as examples of temperature reconstructions based on chironomids. For example: Bolland et al., 2021; Engels et al., 2008; Ilyashuk et al., 2022; Rigterink et al., 2024...
Line 84: “recreate” → “reconstruct
Line 90: “Nowiny Żukowskie site” → Here I would specify the location of the site by at least mentioning the country
Lines 93-94: “One of the exceptions is Hoxne site in eastern England (Horne et al., 2023).” → Here I would give more information about this study as it is covering the MIS 11 like your site. You could, for example, specify that they also did a temperature reconstruction based on chironomid.
Lines 97-98: “We tested temperature reconstruction using the Swiss-Norwegian-Polish Training Set and presented the first Chironomid-inferred temperature reconstruction from Poland before the Last Glacial Period and even for the post-Holsteinian.” → Here we present the first chironomid-inferred July air temperature from Poland for the post-Holsteinian.
Line 104: “quaternary” → Quaternary
Line 112: “The research covered sites located in Poland. Holsteinian (Mazovian) Interglacial has been included.” → The research included sites located in Poland and covering the Holsteinian (Mazovian) interglacial
Line 114: “several sites located in western half of the country” → several sites located in the western half of the country
Line 114: “area contained between” → remove “contained”
Line 115: “The sites’ locations were” → The sites’ location are
Line 117: “– it” → and therefore
Lines 117-118: “location estimation tools” → What are these tools?
Line 121: “Supplement Figure 2” → Supplement Figure 1”
Line 122: “Glaciation ranges based” → Glaciation ranges are based
Line 133: “while modern distribution limits of these taxa are located estimated further to the west” → remove “located”
Line 152: “146 m amsl.” → 146 m asl
Line 160: In this section “2.4” you already interpret the sediment of your site which does not really fit in the section “2. Data and methods” section. You could maybe add a paragraph in section “3. Results and interpretation” for the interpretation of the sediment?
Lines 161-187: In this section it would help to better link the first and second paragraph to better understand your interpretations of the sediment. For example: Because of the presence of laminated sandy silts and sandy-clayey silts the unit 2 is interpreted as a result of glaciolimnic sedimentation in a relatively shallow water body...
Lines 171-173: “The sediments of unit 2 are interpreted as the result of glaciolimnic sedimentation in a relatively shallow water body between blocks of dead ice during the recession of the Elsterian glacier. The glaciolimnic sediments gradually pass into limnic sediments (unit 3), which are interpreted to be deposited in the profundal of an already relatively deep lake.” → Did you take in consideration in your interpretation of the chironomid results these possible changes in water depth? This could have a strong influence on the chironomid assemblages and could potentially explain why sometimes the concentration of chironomids is very low or even you don’t find any chironomids in your samples.
Line 190: In the section “2.5 Pollen analysis” please indicate the number of pollen samples analysed, the volume of sediment analysed and the batch number and number of Lycopodium spores per tablets that you used. It would also be good to indicate which identification keys/books were used if the pollen data are not already published which I assume is the case since you do not refer to any publications. It would also be good to indicated how the Local Pollen Assemblage Zones were determined. Did you use any statistics (optimal sum of squares partitioning, broken stick model) to divide the pollen record into zones? Also, if you did numerical analyses please indicate which software was used.
Line 198: “in a shortened pollen diagram” → in a simplified pollen diagram
Line 201: “The Holsteinian (Mazovian) commences” → The Holsteinian (Mazovian) starts
Line 205: In the section “2.6 Chironomidae analysis” please indicate the number of samples analysed. How did you measure the volume of your samples? And why are you writing “approximately 1 cm3? As it seems that the chironomid remains in your samples were often damaged I think it would be good to specify how you counted them (halves, presence/absence of mandibles...). As you are dealing with very old chironomid remains, I think it would be valuable to add a plate with pictures of the main chironomid taxa present in your samples. Please indicate what was the KOH concentration used and how long did you leave your samples in heated KOH. Also indicate why you used a 212 μm and if at then end you combined the chironomid remains present in the 212 and 100 μm fractions. Please also indicate which microscope and which magnification was used for the identification of chironomid remains. I don’t think Brooks et al. (2007) is the best reference to find the ecological preferences of chironomid taxa. I would probably also look in other references such as Saether (1979), Brundin (1949), Brodin (1986), Janececk et al. (2017)...
Line 209: “stereo binocular microscope” → stereomicroscope
Line 210: “followed by” → followed
Line 214: In the section “2.7 Mean July air temperature reconstruction” please indicate why you chose the Swiss-Norwegian-Polish training set and not other available training sets (Finnish, Russian, Swiss-Norwegian)? I assume it is probably because it contains lakes from Poland but it I think it would be good to specify it. Also did you calculated the nearest modern analogues for each of your fossil samples? And the goodness of fit? If so it would be good to mention it here as well as the software used for that. If not, I would recommend to calculate these diagnostic statistics that you could show in the Supplementary material (see Bolland et al., 2021). In this section it would also probably be good to mention how many samples (after merging) were used for the temperature reconstruction, as well as how the samples were merged.
Line 219: Please indicate the version of the software
Line 224: Please also mention the chironomids in the caption of the table. For the column dealing with the chironomids you could write: “Main features in the chironomid record” or replace “significant” with “significance”. Please also indicate the unit of the depth column.
Line 237-238: “Assemblages could indicate a deterioration of environmental conditions (Chironomus anthracinus-type and Corynocera ambigua-type).” → Could you explain your interpretation in more details and link it to other publications?
Lines 239-240: “contains mainly cold-adapted and freeze-resistant species like Corynocera ambigua-type, Glyptotendipes pallens-type and Glyptotendipes severini-type, which are often associated with algae and diatoms or mine leaves (Tarkowska-Kukuryk, 2014).” → Actually, Glyptotendipes pallens-type and Glyptotendipes severini-type are often associated with relatively warm conditions (Heiri et al., 2011; Nazarova et al., 2015; Luoto, 2009; Kotrys et al., 2020).
Lines 241-242: “LPAZ KR-12c (1022.5-1072.5 cm) is characterized by species highly resistant to difficult environmental conditions, i.a. Chironomus anthracinus-type, Corynocera ambigua-type and Glyptotendipes pallens-type.” → Please provide references to other publications to support your interpretation.
Lines 243-246: “During LPAZ KR-13b (877.5-244 967.5 cm) the number of Chironomidae gradually increased with indicators of progressive eutrophication (e.g. Chironomus plumosus-type and Dicrotendipes nervosus-type (Iwakuma and Yasuno, 1981)) and cold oligotrophic but post-eutrophic environments (Corynocera ambigua-type)(Brooks et al., 2007) occurring more frequently.” → I would suggest to reformulate this sentence as it is hard to understand what you want to say here. Is there an increase of taxa indicator of eutrophication and then, after, an increase of oligotrophic indicators? Or they both increase at the same time?
Line 254: “inhabiting shallow Arctic” → inhabiting shallow arctic.
Lines 279-282: “Both Chironomus anthracinus-type and Corynocera ambigua-type are species found in stratified lakes (e.g., Saether, 1979; Heiri, 2004). As we can see, both species can be called resistant to unfavorable environmental conditions. They have a fairly wide range of conditions in which they occur today and can even withstand long periods of anaerobic conditions in lake reservoirs.” → Please provide a reference to a publication explaining that Corynocera ambigua is tolerant to anaerobic conditions.
Line 290: “Chironomidae subfossil larvae were obtained from a total of 30 samples from the lacustrine sediments.” → Please specify the sedimentary units of the samples.
Lines 290-291: “Samples that contained significantly fewer than 50 head capsules were merged except for a solitary sample at 1000 cm core depth.” → Please explain why you kept a solitary sample at 100 cm. Because to me it seems that this sample is surrounded by other samples on the diagram of Figure 4 and therefore could have merged with other samples.
Lines 294-295: “were included in the reconstruction because the test of the reconstruction showed acceptable results.” → Please which test did you perform.
Lines 296-297: “After merging, the total number of samples used for the Tjul reconstruction was 15.” → From your explanation just above, I understood that you used 5 samples with sufficient amount of chironomids, 7 merged samples and 1 solitary sample to calculate the temperature reconstruction. And these are 13 samples, not 15. Please modify the text where it is necessary.
Line 310: “(MinDC”) → How did you calculate the dissimilarity? Please indicate that in the section “2.7 Mean July air temperature reconstruction”
Lines 325-326: “to reconstruct the average July palaeotemperature quantitatively” → to quantitatively reconstruct July air temperature.
Line 326: “the trophy of the reservoir” → the trophic state of the reservoir.
Line 327: “Training sets were also created” → Training sets are also available.
Lines 453-545: “These data indicate that summer temperature maximum during the post-Holsteinian period was even slightly higher than indicated in the Polish training set (17-20°C)(Kotrys et al., 2020).” → Please reformulate this sentence as it is unclear to me what you want to say.
Lines 470-472: “Considering the dominance of herbs and dwarf shrubs in the pollen spectrum, the limiting factor for the development of forest communities was more likely connected to low winter temperatures as summer temperatures were still relatively high. → Please develop your interpretation and support it with other publications.
Line 474: “In the following” → Following zone?
Lines 480-481: “Summer temperatures during this period reached only 15°C, but the limiting factor for vegetation development still remained the winter temperatures.” → Here again I would suggest developing your interpretation and refer to other publications.
Line 482: “being equivalent” → corresponding
Lines 483-484: “As the pollen record during stadials is mostly controlled by wind-pollinated overproducers such as Poaceae and the long-distance transport of tree pollen (mostly Pinus)” → Here you need a reference.
Figures and Tables
Figure 2: I don’t understand what “Clay, Silt, Sand, Gravel” at the bottom of the figure represent. Also, there is no unit for the numbers between the units and the sediment profile. I assume the unit is meters but I think it should be indicated on the figure. “glaciolimnic sedimentation” at the top of the figure → Glaciolimnic sedimentation with a capital “G” to be consistent with the other sediment types.
Table 1: Depth of KR-4 is overlapping with depth of KR-3. I suggest to add a column specifying the Marine Isotope Stage of each Local Pollen Assemblage Zone. What is the difference between “No Chironomidae” and “No individuals of Chironomidae”? Please specify it, in the caption of the table, if there is a difference. Please check the writing of the depths (the decimals should be indicated with a dot and not a comma in English): see for example “KR-8 1497,5 – 1647.5”. For LAPZ KR-12b, I would suggest to change “high contents of Chironomus anthracinus-type” to “relatively high abundances of Chironomus anthracinus-type”. Also for the same LAPZ you probably forgot words in the second sentence describing the Chironomidae: “The number of Glyptotendipes pallens-type and Glyptotendipes severini-type.” For LAPZ KR-13a, you write that “on average 450 individuals per sample” but in the Figure 4 the maximum sum of chironomid in samples is around 80. Why is that? I would also suggest condensing the table because it is on 9 pages now. You could, for example, reduce the space between each LAPZ and shorten the description of the pollen results.
Figure 3: I think it would be good to have a horizontal line (or dotted line) on the diagram for each zones so that it is easier for the reader to see the differences between the zones. For the lithology it would probably be good to followed the same code as in Figure 2. Please specify the type of spores shown in the diagram (Fern? Fungal?). Please also write the unit of the different pollen types, which I assume is percentage, and for Pediastrum (number of remains?). If possible, it would be good to specify what is included in “Other thermophilic”, “Other AP”, “Other NAP”.
Table 2: I would suggest to add the number of chironomids per sample in the table so that the readers know which samples might be problematic because they have “too low” numbers of chironomids.
Figure 4: Why the chironomids from LAPZ-14 are not shown on the diagram? Based on Table 1, the abundance of chironomids is very low in this zone but you still found two Chironomus plumosus-type so I think it would be good to also show them on the diagram. Also, in this figure the y axis unit is in meters whereas it is in centimeters in Figure 3 and in Table 2. Please be consistent in all figures and tables. Add “Chironomid diagram” in the caption of the figure as you also show the abundances of chironomid and not only the temperature reconstruction. Please indicate what the grey bars indicate on the temperature reconstruction curve (I assume they are the errors?). I would suggest, if possible, to have a better quality of the figure because when zooming on it the names become a bit fuzzy. Please specify the units of the x axes (percentages, counts, °C). “sume” → “Sum” or “Total chironomids”. Please also mention and explain what “MJAT °C” in the text or in the caption of the figure.
Supplement table 2: Why are some references in brackets? See for example “Barkowice Mokre”.
References
Bolland, A., Kern, O.A., Allstädt, F.J., Peteet, D., Koutsodendris, A., Pross, J., Heiri, O., 2021. Summer temperatures during the last glaciation (MIS 5c to MIS 3) inferred from a 50,000-year chironomid record from Füramoos, southern Germany. Quat. Sci. Rev. 264, 107008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2021.107008.
Brodin, Y. W. (1986). The postglacial history of Lake Flarken, southern Sweden, interpreted from subfossil insect remains. Internationale Revue der Gesamten Hydrobiologie und Hydrographie, 71(3), 371-432. https://doi.org/10.1002/iroh.19860710313.
Brundin, L., 1949. Chironomiden und andere Bodentiere der südschwedischen Urgebirgsseen: Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der bodenfaunistischen Charakterzüge schwedischer oligotropher Seen. In: Carl Blom, Lund (Eds.), Intitut of Freshwater Research, Drottningholm.
Engels, S., Bohncke, S.J.P., Bos, J.A.A., Brooks, S.J., Heiri, O., Helmens, K.F., 2008. Chironomid-based palaeotemperature estimates for northeast Finland during oxygen isotope stage 3. J. Paleolimnol. 40, 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10933-007-9133-y.
Heiri, O., Brooks, S.J., Birks, H.J.B., Lotter, A.F., 2011. A 274-lake calibration data-set and inference model for chironomid-based summer air temperature reconstruction in Europe. Quat. Sci. Rev. 30, 3445–3456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2011.09.006.
Ilyashuk, E.A., Ilyashuk, B.P., Heiri, O., Spötl, C., 2022. Summer temperatures and environmental dynamics during the middle würmian (MIS 3) in the eastern Alps: multi-proxy records from the Unterangerberg palaeolake, Austria. Quat. Sci. Adv. 6, 100050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qsa.2022.100050.
Janecek, B., Moog, O., Orendt, C., 2017. Diptera: chironomidae (Non-Biting midges). In: Fauna Aquatica Austriaca, p. 111p. Wien, Austria.
Kotrys, B., Płóciennik, M., Sydor, P., and Brooks, S. J.: Expanding the Swiss-Norwegian chironomid training set with Polish data, Boreas, 49, 89–107, https://doi.org/10.1111/bor.12406, 2020.
Luoto, T.P., 2009. Subfossil Chironomidae (Insecta: Diptera) along a latitudinal gradient in Finland: development of a new temperature inference model. J. Quat. Sci. 24, 150–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/jqs.1191.
Nazarova, L., Self, A.E., Brooks, S.J., van Hardenbroek, M., Herzschuh, U., Diekmann, B., 2015. Northern Russian chironomid-based modern summer temperature data set and inference models. Global Planet. Change 134, 10–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2014.11.015.
Rigterink, S., Krahn, K. J., Kotrys, B., Urban, B., Heiri, O., Turner, F., Pannes, A., and Schwalb, A.: Summer temperatures from the Middle Pleistocene site Schöningen 13 II, northern Germany, determined from subfossil chironomid assemblages, Boreas, bor.12658, https://doi.org/10.1111/bor.12658, 2024.
Sæther, O.A., 1979. Chironomid communities as water quality indicators. Holarct. Ecol. 2, 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.1979.tb00683.x.