Exploring Water Quality as a Determinant of Small-Scale Fisheries Vulnerability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Water quality is a crucial factor in determining the health of coastal ecosystems. It directly impacts the growth and survival of aquatic species, as well as the livelihoods of small-scale fisheries communities. The paper explores the coping and adaptive responses of fisher communities and assesses their potential in creating viable small-scale fisheries. By understanding and addressing these vulnerabilities, it is possible to foster knowledge and support the transition of small-scale fisheries communities towards viability. This article attempts to provide a literature review of the past decades on the impact of water quality on fisheries in the study area. However, the lack of crucial data may render it difficult to draw effective conclusions. The absence or discontinuity of annual meteorological data, water quality data, and fish catch data may result in erroneous conclusions. In general, meteorological data from meteorological departments or water quality data from ecological departments are publicly available. Additionally, remote sensing methods can be utilized to obtain regional environmental, meteorological, hydrological, and water quality data. Therefore, the acquisition of comprehensive, detailed, and measured data, as well as the revelation of stable and reliable conclusions, are crucial for a paper to be accepted.

 

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate Reviewer 1's insightful feedback on our paper. We acknowledge the significance of water quality in coastal ecosystems and its direct influence on aquatic species, small-scale fisheries, and community livelihoods. Reviewing your comment, we fully comprehend the importance of robust and comprehensive data in ensuring the validity of our findings and conclusions. While our paper does present a secondary literature review approach, we encountered challenges in collecting empirical data due to the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic and the limited availability of open data sources. It is true that accessing meteorological, water quality, and fish catch data is fundamental to conducting accurate and impactful research. We share your concern regarding the absence of certain data sources and the potential impact on our conclusions. Our continuous efforts to reach out to governmental and non-governmental agencies were indeed hampered by the pandemic-related disruptions and the constraints on data availability. We also acknowledge the potential utility of remote sensing methods for obtaining regional environmental, meteorological, hydrological, and water quality data. However, it's worth mentioning that such methods, while valuable, may have limitations in capturing the specific context and nuances of the study area.

While the ideal scenario would involve the acquisition of comprehensive and measured data, we believe our paper's value lies in synthesizing the existing literature and highlighting the importance of addressing water quality impact on small-scale fisheries viability, especially in the context of limited data availability. We genuinely appreciate your thoughtful comments and insights, which will undoubtedly contribute to improving the quality and robustness of our paper. Your feedback serves as a catalyst for us to enhance the clarity and contextualization of our research findings that are to be conducted in person. Challenges are addressed from Lines 832-851. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Journal: Sustainability

Manuscript ID: 2549506

Title: Exploring Water Quality as a Determinant of Small-Scale Fisheries Vulnerability

Dear Editor,

I have read the manuscript entitled " Exploring Water Quality as a Determinant of Small-Scale Fisheries Vulnerability " submitted to Sustainability.

In this study, the authors aimed to provide an overview of the stressors that lead to water quality vulnerability of SSF fishing communities in Chilika Lagoon. The study was prepared comprehensively and a detailed literature review was conducted. With the increasing impacts of climate change, coastal ecosystems are expected to be deeply affected. This study is important in terms of providing a basis for future studies. It is also believed that this study would be beneficial to many researchers, climate scientists, local administrators, and other decision-makers.

 The paper is well written and can be considered for publication with minor revision.

* The authors should revise several typos. “Line 59, Line 166 etc.”

* The format of the tables needs to be reorganized.

* Reproduce Figure 1 instead of taking it from a source.

* The statements in lines 122 to 148 are not necessary. Please explain in a very short sentence.

* Why are the data on water quality variables given for the period 1950-2015? This should be clarified. “Line 295”.

* Why were the data used in this study taken from different studies? Can't more recent data be accessed?

* Is it possible to give some qualitative conclusion in the results section?

 

* The shortcomings of the study can also be given in the conclusion section.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

We greatly appreciate the reviewer's valuable feedback, which has enriched the quality and clarity of the manuscript. The manuscript has been revised to address these concerns and provide a more comprehensive and transparent presentation of the study's methodology and findings.

Typos are corrected; Figures are improvised; There are only 2 tables: 1- that lists all the drivers and 2- with states the impacts. So, it is listed in order. Lines 122-148 are summarized in Lines 125-136.

Line 295: Clarification on Data Period: We appreciate the reviewer's inquiry about the data on water quality variables spanning the years 1950 to 2015. The data's temporal range was selected based on the availability of historical records from past studies that were relevant to the scope of this review. To clarify this aspect, a note has been added to the manuscript at Line 2280, explaining that the chosen time span aligns with the historical data availability and the relevant context for the study.

While more recent data would indeed be ideal, it's important to note that the study focused on a secondary literature review due to constraints posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and limited access to open data sources. Efforts were made to engage governmental and non-governmental agencies for data, but unfortunately, responses were not forthcoming. This challenge has been acknowledged, and the limitations associated with the data collection process are now clearly mentioned in the manuscript (Line 286).

Qualitative insights have been integrated into the results section where appropriate. This addition enhances the comprehensiveness of our findings and enriches the discussion on the subject matter.

Reviewer's recommendation to include the study's shortcomings in the conclusion section has also been heeded. The conclusion now includes a thoughtful discussion on the limitations of the study from Lines 832-851.  

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is a review investigating the critical role of water quality for sustainable small-scale fisheries (SSF). Social-ecological indicators related to water quality degradation were used and the Chilika lagoon in India served as a case study.

In my opinion, the writing manner is very effective in uptake of key points of each research item, and the way the manuscript is presented is good.

Introduction is proper in terms of content and extent. The background provides useful literature review.

Methodology is sound and presented in detail.

Results are explanatory, well-discussed and supported by figures.

References are adequate and current.

The English language is proper, easy to understand. Overall, a good read! It fits into aims and scope of the journal. I recommend this paper for publication in Sustainability journal following some minor revision.

I provide some comments below:

There is no Graphical abstract!

The Abstract is far long than a maximum of 200 words recommended.

Figure 1. is not discussed within the main text.

Where are the Figures 3, 4 and 10? From Figure 2 it jumps to 5, and from 9 to 11.

Reference [49] is not discussed within the main text.

Please keep spaces between words and figures Figure5 (row 358) and between phrases (row 119).

Write chemical formulas in the same style everywhere! NO2- (row 421).

…(PRISMA) flow diagram (Figure 2) was employed to guide the 132 literature selection process, resulting in 87(?) articles that met the inclusion criteria (rows 132-133). Total no. of References used in the Review is 75 (as in Fig. 2)!

Alignment is different: left (rows 137-148; 513-586; 679-698), the rest justified.

Is recommended to use negative exponents all over g l^-1 instead of g/l.

Table 2 is not defined (page 18).

Author Contributions do not appear at the end of the paper (Back Matter).

Author Response

Thank you so much Reviewer for your very valuable feedback.

We apologize for the oversight in not providing a graphical abstract. We will promptly create and include a graphical abstract that succinctly conveys the key findings and contributions of the paper. Can you please give some suggestions or examples on how to create an appropriate graphical abstract for this kind of study?

We acknowledge that the abstract exceeded the recommended maximum of 200 words. We revised the abstract (180 words) to ensure it adheres to the specified word limit while effectively summarizing the paper's scope and outcomes.

We appreciate the reviewer's feedback regarding Figure 1 which is now mentioned within the main text.

We apologize for the wrong figures. This is corrected by renumbering these figures in the appropriate sections and ensuring that their content aligns with the surrounding text.

Reference [49] is corrected and added to the main text.

We corrected formatting throughout the manuscript, including providing appropriate spaces between words, figures, and phrases.

We also corrected the style of chemical formulas.

We apologize for the discrepancy in the total number of references used in the review process. The PRISMA flow diagram in Figure 2 is revised to accurately reflect the count of articles that met the inclusion criteria.

We improvised the consistent alignment throughout the manuscript, opting for a unified alignment style to enhance readability.

Modified units to a consistent style.

We apologize for the absence of a definition for Table 2. We rectified this on page 18.

We appreciate the reviewer's input regarding the author contributions section. We added the "Author Contributions" section in the paper to provide proper credit and transparency.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Considering that I have already provided specific opinions before, please make your own judgment by the editor.