{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028370221327967807, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0058350100603621734, 'mean_word_length': 5.4980392156862745, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reply to comment by Julian on “Spatial and temporal phosphorus distribution changes in a large wetland ecosystem”

[1] Before answering Mr. Julian’s comments, the authors would like to emphasize the fact that the ‘‘Spatial and Temporal Phosphorus Distribution Changes in a Large Wetland Ecosystem’’ paper is a scientific study aiming at presenting an original methodology to analyze data sets and to assess water quality total phosphorus (TP) levels and trends in a large ecosystem. This is not a regulatory or a policy driven paper aiming at assessing compliance with any more or less specific Floridian test. [2] We thank Mr. Julian for what reads as apparently regulatory-based comments on our article. We support Mr. Julian’s comments on the importance of data screening when compiling databases from different sources. However, we disagree with Mr. Julian’s interpretation that water quality thresholds, indicative of an ecological imbalance, should only be applied to specific regulatory-type data. Apart from taking an unusual regulatory twist in his comments, he is also making incorrect assumptions about our analysis suggesting that, as we compare water quality TP levels to two predetermined ecological thresholds (10 and 15 mg L ), we are improperly applying some regulatory tests. Rather, we are presenting a novel analytical method for compiling databases to create maps and assess spatial and temporal distribution of long-term and short-term changes of surface water TP in the Everglades. As explained below, the 10 mg L 1 level considered in our work is the currently broadly recognized ecological threshold––exceeding this value in the water column is, as generally agreed to, the cause of an ecological imbalance responsible for a major and broad ecological system change. Florida Everglades, being a historically phosphorus-limited eco-system, is particularly sensitive to increased and increasing crucial threshold phosphorus levels as reflected by those found in the water column. [3] While compiling the carefully selected data sets (from renown agencies or universities), the authors considered the uncertainties associated with a multiple year nutrient changes assessment in a large ecosystem linked to the fact that different agencies have different field sampling techniques and analytical methodologies, resulting in varied measurement related errors. Descriptions of the methodologies and protocols are reported in the cited original sources. The authors deem that it is outside the scope of this paper to explain these in detail or to question the integrity of the data originating from federal and state government funded projects (National Science Foundation Florida Coastal Everglades Long Term Ecological Research, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Florida Department of Environmental Protection and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) that followed strict quality assurance and quality control procedures before being published. [4] Other authors cited in our study have recognized the unique challenges of working with spatial and temporal environmental data and temporal trajectories of ecosystems properties, including different field protocols adopted for sampling design, density and total number of observations, positional accuracy of sampling locations, analytical methods, precision of laboratory measurements, and errors in statistical and/or geostatistical processing methods [Grunwald et al., 2008]. In our study, data were carefully scrutinized and flagged for the presence of outliers or duplicated records, and the appropriate exploratory analysis was conducted, prior to the geostatistical analysis. Data with flags and outliers outside three standard deviations were excluded from the analysis. In addition, in order to compare sampling events from different years and sources and to minimize bias due to different sampling densities and geospatial designs, we constrained the number of samples to only include sites located close to each other, following geostatistical procedures used in similar studies [Bruland et al., 2007; Grunwald et al., 2008]. [5] On another note, we commend Mr. Julian’s attempt to explain the regulatory framework highlighting the rigorous work performed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) while developing the Water Quality Based Effluent Limit (WQBEL) dated 2012. However, the current paper is not about the Stormwater Treatment Area (STA) discharge effluent limit but rather about the Everglades Protection Area (EvPA) water quality. [6] We understand that the four-part test specific to the EvPA is applied to stations codified into impacted and Everglades Foundation, Science Department, Palmetto Bay, Florida, USA. Department of Hydrology and Water Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA. College of Environment and Design, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA. BioMedware, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.