Influences of Global Warming on the Larval Survival and Transport of Snow Crab (Chionoecetes opilio) in the Sea of Japan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I really enjoyed reading your manuscript. It's interesting and well presented! Of course the combination of different scenarios and time points and geographical areas make it a rather complicated read at times, but you are doing a good job at describing the results and particularly summarising it in the conclusion.
The language is good, easy to follow and the graphics are very clear and well drawn!
I would be interested to see some of the limitations that you state at the end addressed in future studies, but I understand that it is beyond the scope of this paper.
I only have one point:
Line 251 “were also run”. ‘also’ compared to what? This is the first line of the discussion and it reads like methodology or results. Maybe rewrite this or add another first sentence that introduces the discussion better.
Author Response
Please find our point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments in an uploaded file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper uses model simulation to project the survivorship of snow crab larvae in the Sea of Japan in the past, present and future under six scenarios for future climate change (global warming). It concludes that changes in ocean currents will affect distribution of settled larvae somewhat, but that temperature variation is projected to pay a greater role. Specifically lower temperatures in some regions will, according to the model, favor greater survival. The authors nonetheless conclude that the harvestable resource of snow crabs may not increase owing to unaddressed variables such as predator-prey relationships.
The most striking conclusion of the paper is that under future warming scenarios, survivoship of a marine species--in this case one with significant economic implications--is projected to increase rather than decrease in the study area. Most studies of the species impact of global warming indicate adverse affects of warming on survivorship within any particular latitude band. This simulation study is notable because it suggests the opposite.
As presented, however, the paper is difficult to follow, at least for this reader. Terminology does not appear consistent throughout with standard usages, confusing this reader. For example, control groups are described also as experimental groups; the six warming scenarios are not clearly documented; and above all, the way in which the model operates to project temperature and current is not explicit, leaving the reader unable to evaluate its veracity.
The paper could be improved, perhaps to the standard of publication, by dividing it into conventional sections (Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion) with, if the authors think necessary, a Conclusion section. A document of supplementary materials is needed in which the six climate scenarios are spelled out in detail and the operation of the model is likewise detailed at least to the level that readers can evaluate it confidently. Otherwise the reader is not able to judge the veracity of the results.
I am left with the perplexing question of how sea surface temperature could decrease under future the projected global warming scenarios, leading to the projected increase in survivorship. It would help if the authors could explain this apparent anomaly.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please find our point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments in an uploaded file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have responded constructively to every critique made earlier, including general comments and point-by-point responses. This paper is now suitable for publication.
