Paleoecological Environmental Assessment and Research Laboratory (PEARL), Department of Biology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
PLoS One. 2021 Aug 3;16(8):e0254481. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254481. eCollection 2021.
Gajewski offers a formal comment on Griffiths et al. (2017), a paper that explored how microclimates and their varying ice cover regimes on lakes and ponds in Arctic regions modified the diatom assemblage responses to recent warming. One of Gajewski's main criticisms is that the microclimate classification scheme used in Griffiths et al. (2017) is merely anecdotal; a claim which ignores the value of observational evidence and misunderstands the frequency that each site was visited or surveyed. We clarify that the study sites were visited multiple times via recurrent aerial surveys and ground observations dating back to the 1970s, which supports our microclimate classification scheme. Many of Gajewski's claims regarding climate, catchment characteristics, and ice melting properties from field locations he has not visited were refuted by veteran Arctic scientists with long-term field experience in these regions. In addition, Gajewski makes several criticisms concerning radioisotopic dating, core chronology, sediment mixing, diagenesis, and preservation of bioindicators that relate more to general paleolimnological assumptions than to conclusions reached by Griffiths et al. (2017). Research from the 1980s and 1990s, when scientific consensus on these issues was first reached, readily show that the methodologies and data interpretation of Griffiths et al. (2017) are sound. We appreciate the opportunity to expound on the finer details of the Griffiths et al. (2017) paper, work based on field research by the study's co-authors spanning almost three decades, with additional observations from colleagues dating back to the 1970s. We address Gajewski's criticisms with relevant literature, expert statements, and a few clarifying comments.
加耶夫斯基对格里菲斯等人(2017 年)的论文提出了正式评论,该论文探讨了北极地区湖泊和池塘的微气候及其变化的冰盖制度如何改变硅藻组合对最近变暖的反应。加耶夫斯基的主要批评之一是,格里菲斯等人(2017 年)使用的微气候分类方案仅仅是轶事;这一说法忽略了观测证据的价值,也误解了每个地点被访问或调查的频率。我们澄清说,研究地点通过反复的航空调查和地面观测进行了多次访问,这些观测可以追溯到 20 世纪 70 年代,这支持了我们的微气候分类方案。许多加耶夫斯基关于他没有访问过的野外地点的气候、集水区特征和冰融化特性的说法,都被在这些地区拥有长期野外经验的资深北极科学家所驳斥。此外,加耶夫斯基还对放射性同位素测年、核心年代学、沉积物混合、成岩作用和生物指标的保存提出了一些批评,这些批评更多地与一般古湖泊学假设有关,而不是与格里菲斯等人(2017 年)得出的结论有关。20 世纪 80 年代和 90 年代的研究表明,这些问题的科学共识首次达成,很明显,格里菲斯等人(2017 年)的方法和数据解释是合理的。我们很荣幸有机会详细阐述格里菲斯等人(2017 年)的论文,这些工作基于研究合著者近 30 年来的实地研究,此外还有同事从 20 世纪 70 年代开始的额外观测。我们用相关文献、专家声明和一些澄清评论来处理加耶夫斯基的批评。