Analysis of Spring Community Structure and Evaluation of Ecological Niche in Tangshan Marine Ranching, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

 

Thank you for the interesting paper, I read your paper with great interest and have the below major issues to query or suggest:

1. I wonder why more data was not collected in the past 5 years since 2017, is there a reason for the lack of more data collection? In short, you do not have replicates of experiment and observation to ensure that these are not once off observations.
2. It is unclear to me why the Tangshan marine ranch is important habitat to the Chinese marine ecosystem. Can you please explain somewhere in the Introduction or Materials and Methods section why you are studying this area.
3. Why is spring only data used? What about other seasons of the year? Thus, I am very concerned that your sample of one year and season is too small.
4. Only one reference is used in the whole Discussion, can you please compare your results to other previous studies. I am sure there must be results from other region in the world. I think your assertions need to be backed up by referencing previous research.
5. Figures 6 and 7 can be plotted side by side for easier comparison and for saving space.

All the best with the revision.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of the manuscript # sustainability-1719922

Community structure analysis and niche study of fishery organisms in Tangshan marine ranch in spring

 

General comments

This is an interesting manuscript, bringing important information on the community structure of fishery organisms in marine ranches in China. I suggest that several modifications must be carried out in the manuscript before its acceptance for publication

Specific comments:

Scientific names must be in italics and followed by the author of the species in the first citation of the species in the manuscript.

Specific comments

Title

I suggest including the name of the country in the title

Abstract

Micro biological community or macro biological community?

The names of the phylla of the studies species must be included: Chordata, Chordata, Arthropoda etc…

M & M

Water characteristics should be more detailed

A detailed characterization of the reefs area and the out side of the reef area must be provided

Introduction

I am not sure the structure of the sentence line 46-49 is correct. Please check it

Results

The technical terms must be revised

In the cluster analysis the identification of the branches must be more clear with larger letters

“53 species of organisms” should be replace by 53 species from distinct animal groups…

The species should be assigned to theirs specific phylla: Chordatta, Arthopods, Molusca etc end also related to the orders and classes

Conclusions

I would suggest bringing more precise information to the conclusion more specifically about the periodicity of the stockings release.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. This work pays more attention to analysis and niche differences of biological community structure study in Tangshan marine ranch in spring. The work helps the reader understand the aquaculture policies in the coastal areas in China.  

1. Figure1. shown that the JW sites are outside the artificial reef area. I want to know Why are the JW 1-6 concentrated compared with JW7-12 scattered contrast points? 
2. Fig. 4 and Fig 5 shown the result of the cluster of the inside and outside of the reef area. It’s recommended point out which one is inside? Another one is outside. 
3. This work wishes to contribute to the research of marine ranch on biological community structure. Each coastal area may have different biological communities and ecosystems. We can find star species suitable for local culturing through investigation and research, which can be used as a reference for local breeding decisions.
4. It is recommended to add a conclusion or remark after the discussion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has been significantly improved