Lotic Environment Affects Morphological Characteristics and Energy Metabolism of Juvenile Grass Carp Ctenopharyngodon idella

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract

This section is well prepared, I only recommend to include the most important data of the study.

Include the full name before abbreviation “AMPK-PGC-1α-NRF-22 1”.

Introduction

This section is well prepared.

Material and Methods

When you indicate that feeding was at apparent satiety, how did you control that feeding did not affect the ability to enhance catabolic pathways and consequently energy production by glycolysis, Krebs cycle and oxidative phosphorylation?

Line 90 said “2.3. Sample” change it for “2.3 Sampling”

Results

Please, correct table 1 I couldn’t see it.

The regressions shown in Figure 1 between PC1 and Ucrit, SMR and MMR, although indicating a positive correlation, also show an extremely low correlation coefficient, so I would recommend analyzing the presence of extreme data by means of Dixon's Q test to improve the R2 values.

What are you plotting in Figure 1 a, c, and e? Mean and SEM?

Discussion

This section is well prepared, I would like to make few reflection questions in terms of aquaculture industry application.

Considering your results, what would be the positive or negative effects of applying lotic environments in grass carp culture?

How would the feed conversion rate be modified by increasing the swimming speed of the fish?

What would be the effect of applying 2 or 4 BI s-1 on grass carp production costs?

Conclusion

This section is well prepared; however, I would like the authors to recommend, based on their results, what would be the most appropriate speed for grass carp culture?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper deals with the dependence of morphology and swimming performance and energetics from the lotic conditions in grass carp. Moreover, it analyses the involvement of the AMPK-PCG1α-NRF1 signalling pathway in muscle adaptation to changing water flow. 
The aim is interesting, and the experimental approach is sound.

However, there are some major criticisms to rise, and that must be solved before publication:

    1. the main and most important is the description of aims, methods and results: English usage is bad, the text is full of grammar and spelling mistakes, and broken sentences. Some sections are cryptic and confusing. The paper requires careful re-writing and checked by an English expert.
    2. Some points in Materials and Methods:
    par. 2.2: duration of exposure to changing water speed is mentioned in results but not reported here. Although referring to Zhang (2021), a brief description of the swimming setup should be given.
    par. 2.4: it is not clear if swimming performance and oxygen consumption or measured simultaneously. 
3. Results, par. 3.4: the description of results is somewhat confusing. 
4. The Discussion is lengthy; however, no specific issues can be raised, apart from several confusing paragraphs for wrong English usage.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

table page 5 is incomplete

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx