A Selected Review of Impacts of Ocean Deoxygenation on Fish and Fisheries
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study, based on the title, focuses on the socio-economic impact deriving from ocean deoxygenation. However, I find in the introduction that the socio-economic impact is less reported compared to fisheries, marine ecosystem services, etc.
Also, in line 67, the authors reported that the socio-economic impact would be included in the review which sounds to be focused on fish and fisheries.
Maybe a change in this sentence will re-align the intention with the title. In addition, there is no section devoted to the "emphasis on socio-economics" that could help the reader in identifying the analysis of this specific sub-topic.
Although the leak of literature belonging to the socio-economic impacts, as explained by the authors I would suggest trying to identify a better balance for socio-economic impacts.
Figure 3 appears as a qualitative graphic report of the main variables in ocean deoxygenation; I think it can be improved, with more details on how to read the figure.
Appendix A is not presented in the manuscript. This could facilitate the role and comprehension of the table.
Author Response
Point 1: The study, based on the title, focuses on the socio-economic impact deriving from ocean deoxygenation. However, I find in the introduction that the socio-economic impact is less reported compared to fisheries, marine ecosystem services, etc. In addition, there is no section devoted to the "emphasis on socio-economics" that could help the reader in identifying the analysis of this specific sub-topic. Although the leak of literature belonging to the socio-economic impacts, as explained by the authors I would suggest trying to identify a better balance for socio-economic impacts.
Response 1: We thank you for your comments. We have taken your point into serious consideration and have made adjustments to the title to ensure it accurately reflects the content of the paper. The revised title is now "A selected review of impacts of ocean deoxygenation on fish and fisheries"
Point 2: Also, in line 67, the authors reported that the socio-economic impact would be included in the review which sounds to be focused on fish and fisheries. Maybe a change in this sentence will re-align the intention with the title.
Response 2: We will revise this sentence to: "We conducted a literature review on ocean deoxygenation and its anticipated impacts on fish, fisheries, marine ecosystem services."
Point 3: Figure 3 appears as a qualitative graphic report of the main variables in ocean deoxygenation; I think it can be improved, with more details on how to read the figure.
Response 3: We will add more details to read well this figure as follow:
"Figure 3. Impact of ocean deoxygenation on marine ecosystem services: synthesized literature on societal impacts. The schematic diagram depicts the consequences of ocean deoxygenation on different levels of organizations interconnected, including marine fish ecosystems, fishery, fisheries, and ultimately, marine ecosystem services."
Point 4: Appendix A is not presented in the manuscript. This could facilitate the role and comprehension of the table.
Response 4: It is presented in the first sentence of 5.1 the impacts on marine fisheries section (line 227).
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is a review of the causes of the deoxygenation and its effects on fish and fisheries. The approach is very original and it is very useful to understand the specific problematic.
The paper is structured into 6 paragraphs, including introduction and Conclusions. The methodology applied is very clear. The introduction explains appropriately the aim of the paper.
Also the conclusions are very consistent with the issues considered in the paper. The tables, the figures are very clear. The authors point out that only the social sciences account only for the 2%. In my opinion, this is a very crucial point that the authors can emphasize better
Author Response
Point 1: The authors point out that only the social sciences account only for the 2%. In my opinion, this is a very crucial point that the authors can emphasize better.
Response 1: We thank you for your comments. We will add a sentence that emphasize the lack of social science studies in the conclusion section in line 367. The sentence will be: "The current knowledge gap between natural science and social science in relation to ocean deoxygenation, with only 2% of studies focusing on societal impacts, can be attributed to the intricate and multifaceted nature of the associated impacts."
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper aims to present crucial considerations and pathways for future research on ocean deoxygenation. It reviews the causes of deoxygenation and its impact on fish dynamics and marine ecosystems. The natural science aspect of the analysis examines the responses of fish to deoxygenation, changes in habitat, and alterations to the food-web. The identification of potential impacts of deoxygenation on human society is constrained by the interplay of other climate stressors. In my opinion, this article is well-summarized, its structure and language are also fluent and smooth, it is an article worth recommending for publication in this issue.
Author Response
We thank you for your comments.
Reviewer 4 Report
General Comments
1. The manuscript provides a literature review of the trend in ocean deoxygenation as climate change progresses in perspective with other climate change stressors. The authors build on their concise overview with an appropriate summary of recent studies (Table A1) evaluating the environmental impacts of deoxygenation and the consequences for human societies as a basis for planning more quantitative approaches to future investigations of the economic impacts of climate change and uncertainties. I found the manuscript logical, scientifically sound, and highly readable and recommend publication following the minor corrections suggested below.
Specific comments
1. Line 266, I suggest altering “ecosystem” to ‘an ecosystem’.
2. Line 268, I suggest altering “human society” to ‘human societies’.
3. In Table A1, column headed “Environmental Impact”, line 2, I suggest altering from “coral on the based” to ‘coral based’.
4. In Table A1, the information in the row for the study “Torres et al. (2021)” is unnecessarily duplicated.
5. In Table A1, column headed “Environmental Impact” in the row for Clarke et al. (2020), the expression “move into shallower” needs altering to ‘move shallower’ or ‘move into shallower waters’.
.
Author Response
Points from the reviewer
1.Line 266, I suggest altering “ecosystem” to ‘an ecosystem’.
2.Line 268, I suggest altering “human society” to ‘human societies’.
3. In Table A1, column headed “Environmental Impact”, line 2, I suggest altering from “coral on the based” to ‘coral based’.
4. In Table A1, the information in the row for the study “Torres et al. (2021)” is unnecessarily duplicated.
5. In Table A1, column headed “Environmental Impact” in the row for Clarke et al. (2020), the expression “move into shallower” needs altering to ‘move shallower’ or ‘move into shallower waters’.
Responses to points
- We altered it to 'an ecosystem'
- We altered it to 'human societies'
- We altered it to 'coral based'
- The duplicated contented has been removed.
- We altered it to 'move into shallower waters'
We thank you for your comments.
