Community-Managed Fish Sanctuaries for Freshwater Fishery Biodiversity Conservation and Productivity in Malawi
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
"Community-managed fish sanctuaries for freshwater fisheries biodiversity conservation and productivity in Malawi" aims to quantify and examine species richness and diversity of community-managed wildlife sanctuaries compared to areas outside the managed area between 2016-2019. Unfortunately, the manuscript requires significant editing and clarity to support many claims made in the discussion and conclusion sections of the document. The methods section requires restructuring and a great amount of detail to clearly indicate how data was analysed, and what parameters were selected to complete ecological indexes for evenness, biomass and comparisons of biodiversity. the results section does not provide any data or details of many of the analyses the authors suggest were made (which in turn, require further details in the methods) and do not provide any statistics or analytical graphs to support any assumptions made by the paper. Notably, the authors do not cite or refer to any of their graphs in the results (figure 4 and 5), but then state that "The results show a slight increase in biodiversity and abundance between the protected areas (sanctuaries) and fished areas outside of the sanctuaries, suggesting a beneficial and positive effect of fish sanctuaries on fish biodiversity and abundance" (pg 10), although there is no statistical or analytical indication in the presented data for this statement. I do not recommend this document for publication.
I provide multiple comments and suggestions on the attached PDF that should be considered by the authors.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We have extensively reviewed the report with respect to language and made necessary editing using existing capacity within our university.
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a very interesting paper that addresses a conservation issue in a thorough and clear way. The text is written in a clear and fluid way, the methodology is well explained, the results well presented. I have only one request to make to the authors before publication: accompany the scientific names of the fish species with the descriptor and date. This would be more correct from a nomenclatural point of view.
Author Response
We have revised the scientific names to include name of descriptor and date as recommended by the reviewer to conform to standard taxonomic nomenclature. Other detailed corrections are as below
Line 60 to 65. We have added the paragraph and references recommended by the reviewer
Line 132: We have added the reference Flitcort et al., 2019; Porter et al., 2022
Line 136: We have added the reference Baxter and Boon, 2020
We did not add the Porter et al reference because we were not able to access it. However, we feel that this omission does not affect our discussion.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Review of manuscript entitled, "Community-managed fish sanctuaries for freshwater fisheries biodiversity conservation and productivity in Malawi" [Paper Sustainability 2022, 14, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx].
OVERVIEW:
This manuscript presents a case study on the establishment of community managed fish sanctuaries in Malawi as an integrated fisheries conservation measure in Lake Malawi, Malombe, Chiuta and Chilwa. The study makes some interesting observations in a region not previously considered to any great extent. However, I found the paper often difficult to follow with some key areas of concern which I believe must be addressed before the manuscript is worthy of consideration for publication in Sustainability. The concerns are as follows:
SPECIFIC POINTS:
Introduction:
Please better express the differences between a fish reserve and a fish sanctuary. Are these concepts equal or different in your paper? And then, please be consistent throughout the paper.
Page 2, Paragraph 2, Li 2-3: Community based protected areas are also widely promoted in Africa to address gaps in biodiversity conservation [3].” – Please modify the sentence accordingly and move it to the end of the paragraph. Please improve your writing flow, so each line and idea leads smoothly into the next.
Page 2, Paragraph 2, Li 6: After the sentence „ … state laws; district bylaws; traditional sanctions; BVC bylaws; and other binding measures.” Please add a text with appropriate references:
Proposed text: „In many cases, well-preserved populations and communities of freshwater fish remained only in peripheral areas of reservoirs and river basins, where human pressure was low (e.g. Bylak & Kukuła 2018). The key is to identify and describe these most valuable freshwater areas for practical results, and protect species-rich habitats (Bylak & Kukuła 2022).” The benefit from installing sanctuaries/reserves in aquatic systems is well reported for successfully…
Page 4, Paragraph 2, Li 1-2: Please add appropriate reference to this statement: Flitcroft et al. 2019; Porter et al. 2022.
Page 4, Paragraph 2, Li 6: Please add appropriate references to this statement: Baxter & Boon 2020.
Page 4, Paragraph 3, Li 2: ‘in Malawi as an as an integrated’ – Please delete ‘as an’ (it is duplicated)
Page 10, Paragraph 1: „The results show a slight increase in biodiversity and abundance between the protected areas (sanctuaries) and fished areas outside of the sanctuaries, suggesting a beneficial and positive effect of fish sanctuaries on fish biodiversity and abundance. The variance of the mean biodiversity and abundance was high, reflecting on the high variation in performance between the sanctuaries.” – If authors want to uphold this conclusion, they should provide a better justification for this claim. The result of this analysis can also be interpreted in the opposite way i.e. the protection did not work very positively or the protected area was not of great value.
Discussion:
Consider when it is better to use the word "fish sanctuary" and when simply "fish reserve". Then, please be consistent throughout the paper.
References cited in my comments above, that should be cited in the revised paper:
1. Bylak & Kukuła 2018. Importance of Peripheral Basins: Implications for the Conservation of Fish Assemblages. DOI: 10.1002/aqc.2939
2. Flitcroft et al. 2019. Theory and Practice to Conserve Freshwater Biodiversity in the Anthropocene. DOI:10.1002/aqc.3187
3. Baxter & Boon 2020. Putting publication into practice: A summary of the impact of selected articles published in Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. DOI:10.1002/aqc.3467
4. Bylak & Kukuła 2020. Conservation of fish communities: Extending the 'Research Life Cycle' by Achieving Practical Effects. DOI: 10.1002/aqc.3396
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I have no more comments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
