Could Deep-Sea Fisheries Contribute to the Food Security of Our Planet? Pros and Cons
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper is dealing with solutions to mitigate undernourishment proposing different approach - pathways of the fish riches of deep seas providing review of best practice model projects that deal with uncertainties in this respect. So, this paper is very good because it deals with very important issues and enriches knowledge in this area.
Awareness campaigns to raise question of deep see fisheries within wither audience, to include different stakeholders but also civic organisations dealing with issues of climate change. The author has to consider customers and flow of information about deep fisheries sustainability risks. There are big portion of consumers which have to be informed about problems trough different market-based systems including labelling.
In the policy recommendation part visualisation of recommendations – from international to national level and level of civic organisations and customers that are keen to bay food in a way to contribute to the sustainability of Planet.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your review report and encouraging comments. Following your comments we have extended the last section by discussion on the role of consumers and multi-stakeholder approach:
"The authors recommend management of the global mesopelagic fish riches within the framework of an independent body based on the model of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) with global consumers as a central stakeholder within this body. This, in combination with the certification of the sustainability-certification of the seafood, could contribute to more inclusive and considerate deep-sea fishery models. To this end, we suggest the extension of the activities of the global multi-stakeholder Fishery Improvement Project (FIP) that deals with the environmental sustainability of fisheries to the realm of mesopelagic zone too."
In addition, we have substantially improved the manuscript through English proofreading and revision of abstract. Also, based on the comments of other four reviewers, we have substantially revised the paper and rewritten some parts.
With thanks and kind regards,
Authors
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is well written. The review is well organized and comprehensibly described. The references are adequate and refer to the manuscript.
There are some typing errors such as line 395 "he findings on the paper" please check and correct it.
Also please check again the English language for all the manuscript.
I recommend the publication after a minor revision.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for your kind review report and your encouraging words! The manuscript has been proofread by a native speaker and substantially imoroved. Your comment on line 395 "he findings on the paper" has been considered and the typo has been fixed.
With thanks and kind regards,
Authors
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper reviews the role and possibility of deep-sea fisheries on as a solution for food security issues. It is generally well written and there are only a few minor comments for the authors. It is commendable that the authors discussed the issue in depth from different perspectives.
1) Please check the format for references according to journal's guidelines.
line 82 or line 452, year is n.d?
please check line 457 too, for alignment.
2) Abstract: Would be good to add a sentence to summarize this review at the end of the abstract.
3) Line 53-54, Please rephrase.
4) line 119-120, please recheck the sentence.
5) The information regarding the mesopelagic fisheries is scarce, would be good for the authors to organize and tabulate the information. For examples, size, species and populations of the fishes. Similarly, good to tabulate the pros and cons.
6) line 267, small fish eaten whole have higher nutrients per weight than big fish. Please elaborate this sentence with a cited reference.
7) line 395, please recheck the conclusion.
8) line 435, did the author mean "extent"?
9) Plant protein is given high emphasis nowadays as a source of protein, how sustainable is this deep-sea fisheries as compared to the protein from plant sources, to solve the food security issue?
Minor syntax errors. Please check through the entire mansucript.
Author Response
Comment 1: Please check the format for references according to journal's guidelines.
line 82 or line 452, year is n.d?
please check line 457 too, for alignment.
Response to Comment #1: The respective year information has been found and added to the references.
Comment #2: Abstract: Would be good to add a sentence to summarize this review at the end of the abstract.
Response to Comment #2: The Abstract has been augmented in accordance with your comment: "The review concludes that due to the essential role of the mesopelagic zone in the global biological carbon pump and complex interaction patterns between pelagic and mesopelagic species exploitation of the fish riches of the mesopelagic zone must be based on more comprehensive data and rigorous analyses. In the face of the current uncertainty on the respective mechanisms, the authors endorse an international moratorium on deep-sea fisheries and/or rather small-scale exploitation of mesopelagic biomass."
Comment #3: Line 53-54, Please rephrase.
Response to Comment #3: Thank you for this comment. The sentence has been reformulated as follows: "Large-scale biomass estimates are rather scant and the importance of mesopelagic fish on the ecosystem and carbon sequestration are overwhelmingly underresearched [7]."
Comment #4: line 119-120, please recheck the sentence.
Response to Comment #4: Following your comment, the sentence has been reformulated:
"The authors stated that fishing in the South China Sea, including the Gulfs of Thailand and Tonkin in the western Pacific Ocean is still one of the main economic activities for the coastal communities living there. It provides not only livelihood but also employment and products for trade. Marine fish contributes to 15 to 65 percent of animal protein in this area. One of the main downsides of fishing in the South China Sea remains the over-capitalization, especially in China, Taiwan, the Philippines and Thailand, as attempts to limit fishing have failed and fisheries remain mostly unrestricted. The global demand in line with poor governance may lead to a decline in marine resources and costs for society."
Comment #5: line 267, small fish eaten whole have higher nutrients per weight than big fish. Please elaborate this sentence with a cited reference.
Response to Comment #5: Thank you for this comment. We have added a reference [34,35]:
[34] Byrd., K. A., Pincus, L., Pasqualino, M. M., Muzofa, F., Cole, S. M. (2021). Dried small fish provide nutrient densities important for the first 1000 days. Maternal & Child Nutrition 17(4), e13192. https://doi.org/10.1111/mcn. 13192
[35] Kadouch, J. (2020). Eat small fish and start skipping the big ones. Medium, Nov. 19, 2020. Available online at https://medium.com/in-fitness-and-in-health/eat-the-little-fish-skip-the-big-ones-7e20b44bc482
Comment #6: line 395, please recheck the conclusion.
Response to Comment #6: Thank you for this comment. We have substantially revsed and rewritten this section. Also, a number of typographic mistakes have been fixed.
Comment #7: line 435, did the author mean "extent"?
Response to Comment #7: Thank you for this comment. Yes, we have corrected this typographic mistake.
Comment #8: Plant protein is given high emphasis nowadays as a source of protein, how sustainable is this deep-sea fisheries as compared to the protein from plant sources, to solve the food security issue?
Response to Comment #8: Thank you for this important comment. We have extended the discussion and indicated that before getting a full picture on the environmental effects of mesopelagic fisheries cultivation of plant protein-rich crops and entomophagy (the practice of eating insects) are more sound options in terms of food and nutrition security and also global environmental effects.
Reviewer 4 Report
A nice piece of work however the analysis part is – for me – missing. The work is purely descriptive and that is the reason I do not consider that as complete for publication.
I have provided some feedback and I would appreciate if you could take my comments into consideration to improve your work!
In the introduction the topic of interest is well explained and the rationale behind the present study is shown. Relevant information is provided following a structured and logical pattern which allows the purpose of the review to be clearly evident to the reader. Although the introduction sets the scene for the next review, in the next parts you provide valuable information deriving from studies but more detail is needed in the description of the methods employed. How did these authors conclude to these findings? What were the methods and data used? What were the limitations of those studies and how these have been accounted in other studies?
Regarding the organization, themes are fairly connected in the literature review and the paper is logically ordered and explained to the reader. There are clear transitions between the sections, so they link together.
The work is narrative but it would benefit if you had applied a systematic review or a map to ensure that the validity of the process and to be able to state that ‘ these are the studies conducted up to now’ and be based on their findings for policy implications and recommendations. Otherwise you have to show that your search did not miss important work conducted on the topic.
A well constructed discussion has been presented where you compare and contrast the findings with relevant literature, and you justify your results. In the conclusion you show the main highlights, and policies have been proposed. However you have not clearly stated the limitations of your work as well as you have to propose specific research to be conducted in the future.
You have managed to use a variety of relevant, appropriate, and current sources.
Please make sure you check the citation style used along the text as there are several errors.
Please do not leave space in line 119
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Great thanks for your review report and encouraging and also critical comments. Following your comments on citation style, I have unified the citation style to the one, which is required by the journal guidelines. I have also merged the paragraphs following your comment on line 119.
In the following, I will provide detailed responses to your valuable comments.
Comment 1: How did these authors conclude to these findings? What were the methods and data used? What were the limitations of those studies and how these have been accounted in other studies?
Response to Comment 1: We added a new section that elaborates on the employed methodology. This is Section 2.
Comment 2: Based on the systematic analysis of the mentioned sources the authors will try to derive policy recommendations for the futures of the explorations and exploitations of the twilight zone.
Response to Comment 2: "Based on the systematic analysis of the mentioned sources the authors will try to derive policy recommendations for the futures of the explorations and exploitations of the twilight zone. "
Comment 3: A well constructed discussion has been presented where you compare and contrast the findings with relevant literature, and you justify your results. In the conclusion you show the main highlights, and policies have been proposed. However you have not clearly stated the limitations of your work as well as you have to propose specific research to be conducted in the future.
Response to Comment 3: Thank you for this valuable comment. We have changed the title of Section 5 from "Policy implications" to "Policy implications and limitations"
As central limutations the mentioned section elaborates on the reported issues:
"The central limitation of the study is that the findings of this review paper do not elaborate on the data based scenarios of the exploitation of the fish biomass of the deep-seas. In addition to this, the presented paper has not proposed an applied model for a decision-support system for international organizations, such as FAO or Marine Stewardship Council. In the follow-up studies, the authors will try to analyze scenarios under different governance scenarios proposed in Chiambretto and Stahn [42]. Furthermore, the assessment of the strength of inferior incentives for the exploitation of the deep-sea fish biomass should be assessed within a game theory framework proposed by Daniel Heyen [43] in the context of the governance and interaction patterns of global solar engineering."
Reviewer 5 Report
Ref: Reviewers Comments for Manuscript – “Could deep-sea fisheries contribute to the food security of our planet? Pros and Cons.”
The manuscript is poorly formatted although it contains good topical information on the potential of exploring deep sea fish to address food security. However, it was indicated that the type of this manuscript is an original article but from what is presented herein, this seems to be a review paper. There is no section to show how this study was designed, how data was collected and analysed. There are no tables or figures to show summary of findings that can inform a reader better on this subject. If it’s a scoping or systematic review. This should have been shown as findings of the study from literature searches and well presented in an easy to interpret format.
In addition, the following sections were highlighted in the reviewer’s report.
- Abstract – Edit the first statement for clarity especially the last part “This contributes to the vulnerability of large swaths of the population, population, especially children under five years 10 old extremely vulnerable to diseases and even death in the least developed countries”.
- Introduction – Check and correct in-text citations format in the manuscript.
L25: If fish low cost protein, at least globally especially compared to other protein sources?
L30 – ‘This however, led to fish’ - However, this has led to fish…….
Line 33 – ‘is involved’? Revise for clarity
Line 43-44 – “Fisheries analyses, even within a socioeconomic framework, often lack concerns of food supply, food security, nutrition security and human welfare, as they are primarily concerned with economic efficiencies.” This statement is not clear, needs re-phrasing and should be cited.
L47-48 – “When drawing policy implications toward greater economic efficiency and fish harvesting patterns, improved food security and reducing poverty should be addressed”. This statement is not clear and needs to be re-phrased.
L50-51 – “In recent years, there has been increased interest in the opportunities of the mesopelagic zone, as a new way to sustainably meet the needs of the increasing human population”. This statement to be cited to show studies that have been done to support this fact.
L55 – ‘Involved’ change to ‘that exists’
Line 71 - ‘the state of fisheries resources is not well’- rephrase for clarity.
L76 -In the following, what?
L190-194 - Scientific names of species should be italicized.
- Methodology and design/structure – No section on how this study was conducted.
- Results and discussion - Sections are missing.
- References – Poorly formatted. Add DOIs for each article and website links to the reports including dates accessed.
Minor grammatical errors need to be addressed for clarity.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your precious time and review report that helped us considerably to improve the submitted manuscript. In the following, we try to address your comments.
Comment #1: The manuscript is poorly formatted although it contains good topical information on the potential of exploring deep sea fish to address food security.
Response to Comment #1: Thank you for this comment. We have adjusted the formatting to the guidlines of the journal. This holds also for the citations' style.
Comment #2: However, it was indicated that the type of this manuscript is an original article but from what is presented herein, this seems to be a review paper.
Response to Comment #2: Thank you for this comment. The submitted paper is a review paper. We have submitted paper as a Review. It is also indicated in the MDPI-Plattform. We have already asked the managing editor to clarify, why is was indicated that the paper is not a review paper.
Comment #3: Abstract – Edit the first statement for clarity especially the last part “This contributes to the vulnerability of large swaths of the population, population, especially children under five years 10 old extremely vulnerable to diseases and even death in the least developed countries”.
Response to Comment #3: The statement has been reformulated as follows: "Hundreds of millions of people on the planet are affected by malnourishment. This contributes to the vulnerability of large swaths of the population. Especially children under five years old and adolescent girls are disproportionately vulnerable to diseases and even death in the least developed countries."
Comment #4: L25: If fish low cost protein, at least globally especially compared to other protein sources?
Response to Comment #4: The sentence and the whole paragraph has been reformulated following your and other five reviewers' comments. The statement on low-cost protein has been deleted because indication of low-cost could lead to false conclusions. It is only low-cost protein for coastal communities in developing countries.
Comment #5 & 6: L30 – ‘This however, led to fish’ - However, this has led to fish…
Line 33 – ‘is involved’? Revise for clarity
Response to Comment #5 & 6: The paragraph has been reformulated differently as a result of proofreading as follows:
"Anthropogenic pressure on the natural environment inevitably rises, leading to global concerns regarding food security and biodiversity loss, showing the conflict between environmental costs and short-term economic benefits [5]. Climate change will also have an effect on the ocean environment and the capacities of fisheries, with its degree of influence on productivity and species composition unclear [3]."
Comment #7: Line 43-44 – “Fisheries analyses, even within a socioeconomic framework, often lack concerns of food supply, food security, nutrition security and human welfare, as they are primarily concerned with economic efficiencies.” This statement is not clear, needs re-phrasing and should be cited.
Response to Comment #7: Thank you for this comment. The sentence has been reformulated and a reference [36] has been added: "The conventional fishery management models focus mostly on purely economic aspects and ignores the issues of food and nutrition security, and human welfare [36]."
Comment #8: L47-48 – “When drawing policy implications toward greater economic efficiency and fish harvesting patterns, improved food security and reducing poverty should be addressed”. This statement is not clear and needs to be re-phrased.
Response to Comment #8: The sentence has been re-phrased as follows: "Against the backdrop of the significance of mesopelagic zone for the biological carbon pump and its potential contribution to resilience of food security, the question of mesopelagic fishery management must be analysed from the lens of socio-ecological economics."
Comment #9: L50-51 – “In recent years, there has been increased interest in the opportunities of the mesopelagic zone, as a new way to sustainably meet the needs of the increasing human population”. This statement to be cited to show studies that have been done to support this fact.
Response to Comment #9: We added a reference to a recent paper in Resources, Conservation and Recycling that elaborates on these papers:
Deep-sea fisheries as resilient bioeconomic systems for food and nutrition security and sustainable development
A Gatto, ER Sadik-Zada, S Özbek, H Kieu, NTN Huynh Resources, Conservation and Recycling 197, 106907
Comment #10: L55 – ‘Involved’ change to ‘that exists’
Response to Comment #10: The knowledge gaps that exist, as well as international policies and governments that may not be sufficient enough in managing a new kind of commercial fishery with these unique characteristics, might lead to grave socio-economic and ecological repercussions [8].
Comment #11: Line 71 - ‘the state of fisheries resources is not well’- rephrase for clarity.
Response to Comment #11: The sentence has been rephrased.
Comment #12: L76 -In the following, what?
Response to Comment #12: The sentence has been rephrased.
Comment #13: L190-194 - Scientific names of species should be italicized.
Response to Comment #13: The scientific names have been italicized.
Comment #14: Methodology and design/structure – No section on how this study was conducted.
Response to Comment #14: We have added a methodology section.
Comment #15: Results and discussion - Sections are missing.
Response to Comment #15: The last two sections elaborate on the implocations of the review paper. The submitted paper is a review paper. We have submitted paper as a Review. It is also indicated in the MDPI-Plattform.
Comment #16: References – Poorly formatted. Add DOIs for each article and website links to the reports including dates accessed.
Response to Comment #16: We fixed this shortcoming and unified the citation style. In most cases the DOI numbers and for Working papers of reports without DOI numbers the respective URLS have been added.
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Thank you very much for considering my comments!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your encouraging comments. We have proofread the paper and added two Scopus-based tables now.
With kind regards
Authors
Reviewer 5 Report
The manuscript has been revised according to the comments sent, I am ok with the revision.
Author Response
Great Thanks!
