Ecological Interdependence of Pollution, Fish Parasites, and Fish in Freshwater Ecosystems of Turkey
Ken Mackenzie
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The aim of this article is to review reports of pollution-related fish kills in Turkey and to examine the ecological relationships between fish, parasites and pollutants. This is the first such review to be conducted in Turkey and so is a potentially important contribution to the literature in this field. However, the presentation and organization of the article require major revision. There are two main problems: the poor standard of the English and the presentation. The following more specific comments are designed to assist the authors in revising the article.
Language. Find a native English speaker to review the English usage. To do this effectively, it would be desirable for the reviewer to sit down with the authors to ensure that their meanings and intentions are not changed.
Introduction and Background. It would be logical to complete the general overview of the topic before going on to describe what has been done in specific regions. For example, the second paragraph, referring to the Middle East, should be moved further on to just before that describing the situation in Turkey. Finally, the aims of the review should be clearly stated.
Table 1. The table legend must be translated into English. For each region, the reports should be organized in chronological order, preferably with oldest first. It is not possible to locate the references in column three in the reference list, so they must be allocated numbers.
Results and Discussion. The presentation in this large section is rather haphazard and it would benefit considerably from being reorganized and divided into subsections. Results and Discussion should be given separate sections, and Results further divided by subheadings such as Region, Type of Pollutant and Indicator Parasites. The Discussion could then bring the results from each subsection together and discuss them with reference to the relevant literature.
The data collected for this review form the basis for a useful review, so I hope that these suggestions will assist the authors to prepare an article that would be more acceptable for publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
Thank you very much for your time, sugestions and encouraging words about our work results.
The poor standard of English.
The English text was checked by an English teacher and corrected.
the second paragraph, referring to the Middle East, should be moved further on to just before that describing the situation in Turkey.
The required suggestion was done in the paper text.
Finally, the aims of the review should be clearly stated.
These texts are in the required place:
This paper intends to reveal the fish parasites role as aquatic ecosystems’ valuable bioindicators for the freshwater ecosystems’ key driver pollution related key stressor in Turkey and last but not least to highlight the interdependencies among Turkey’s freshwater ecosystems pollution, fish parasites, and fish. In this last aspect, the aim of this study is to draw attention to the pollution situation by associating it with the reported bioindication parasites in the freshwater where massive fish kills occurred in Turkey and highlight a potential interrelation among pollution-fish resilience decreasing, fish parasites facilitation by reduced fish biological status, fish ecological status decreasing because of the pollution and parasite synergistic effects.
The main aim of this article is to review reports of pollution-related fish kills in Turkey and to examine the ecological relationships between fish, parasites and pollutants. This is the first such review to be conducted in Turkey and so it can be a potentially important contribution to the literature in this field.
Table 1 related sugestions were done
The Results and Discussions related sugestions were done in the light of the reviewer useful reorganized of the data for a more acceptable form of the article for publication.
Thank you to the reviewer also for the professional and kindness of the approach of this review.
The authors
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a valuable review, summarizing the data on the occurrence of parasites in fish in water bodies with fish kills in Turkey. The authors assumed that various pollutants weaken the fish and indirectly contribute to fish death. It is a pity that they did not compile all the data on the occurrence of parasites in fish, because there are probably also water bodies in which no fish kills were found, and the fish living in them are heavily infected with parasites. The article contains a lot of data, but it requires some corrections and additions before publication.
In the Methods chapter it should be added that data from 44 water bodies were compiled and the collected data come from all years of research, regardless of the date of fish kill.
The Results and Discussion chapter contains some data that should be included in the Material and Methods chapter. This applies to the first paragraph on page 4. The first sentence of the second paragraph on page 4 is about research aim and must be transposed and combined with the sentence about aim at the end of the Introduction. The rest of the second paragraph on page 4 deals with methods and should be moved to chapter 2. The same with the paragraph below Fig. 2.
The overview of individual species of parasites is not very transparent. It is difficult for the reader to draw definite conclusions. Probably also for the authors, because the Conclusions did not contain any detailed data on the indicator role of individual species of parasites. So, these data should be also presented in the form of a synthetic table. If this description is to authenticate the claim that parasite species can be good bioindicators, I suggest preparing a list with the species names in the first column, and various environmental data for which a given species is a bioindicator in the following columns. These columns may concern, for example, heavy metals, organic pollution, industrial wastewater, domestic wastewater, runoff from agricultural drainage areas, water heating, etc. For each species in individual columns, low, medium and high prevalence can be marked with a plus, two or three pluses, respectively. A statistical canonical analysis (e.g. RDA) between the contaminants present in the water and the percentage of fish infected with each parasite would be better. However, this would require data on the concentrations of individual pollutants in water.
The conclusions are general. If the above analysis were carried out, it would then be possible to draw conclusions about which parasite is a good indicator of a specific contamination.
Conclusions in the second paragraph are unjustified, as data on fish infection in water bodies where fish kills did not occur have not been compiled. So parasites have not been shown to be a precursor to fish kills. Perhaps they are abundant in water bodies where fish kills will never occur.
The layout of References must be unified and adapted to the requirements of the journal.
There are many mistakes and typos in the manuscript which I find difficult to point out because no line numbering is provided.
E.g. page 1 below the title - 927rd Street is there. It's probably about 927th Street.
Page 1 second line from the bottom - there is pollution-parasites-fisk. It should be: pollution-parasites-fish.
Page 2, end of second paragraph. There is rpesent, and should be present.
Page 2, end of fourth paragraph. There it is: at the ecosystem end. What end of the ecosystem did the authors have in mind? After all, it is not fish, because they are eaten by many other predators.
P. 3 before Fig.1. There is no point in citing a video without translating it into English. This information is incomprehensible to an international recipient.
P. 4, 4th line below Fig. 2. There are two times streams. The second should be converted to rivers.
The last paragraph on page 4. The information contained therein repeats those contained in the second paragraph of this chapter. They should be combined.
P. 5. The title of Table 2 should be in English.
In the Table 1 header, instead of Records, I suggest Reference.
Point 11 in Table 1. There is D. crucifer. Since all other species names are not abbreviated, I suggest giving the full name here as well.
P. 8, 2nd line below Table 1. Instead of In addition, I propose Nevertheless.
P. 8, at the bottom of the fourth paragraph. There is: has been reported has been demonstrated. They mean the same thing, so one of them needs to be removed.
P. 8, bottom of 5th paragraph. There is: as mentioned in the text. What is the text about? Is it a text of this manuscript or a paper cited above? It's not clear.
P.9, 1st line. What is 7,40%? Was it supposed to be 7.4%?
P.9, the end of 3rd paragraph. There it is: Halmetoja et al. [94]. In item 94 there are Altan, A., and Soylu, E.
P. 9, beginning of 5th paragraph. There is twice “from”.
P. 9, middle of 7th paragraph. There is: 1.5% and 43.8% from Kars Stream [117], 18.7% and 7% from Devegecidi Dam Lake [118]. Why are two values given? Is it two different years or two different species of fish? This needs to be clarified.
P. 9, beginning of the last paragraph. There is: When the infection values of the parasite are examined in Turkey … What parasite are you talking about? Still about Bothriocephalus acheilognathi? If so, I suggest: this parasite.
P. 10, 2nd paragraph, 2nd line. There it is about waste. Is it really solid waste or is it wastewater? If the latter, the entire manuscript should be reviewed and corrected in many places.
P. 10, end of 2nd paragraph. Instead of “such” it should be “in such waterbodies as”.
P. 10, middle of 3rd paragraph. There is a repetition of Burgu et al. [113] in the same sentence.
P. 10, middle of 6th paragraph. There is: Ergasilus briani were recorded … Should be Ergasilus briani was recorded, and the name should be in italics.
The second sentence of the Conclusions is way too long. They should be divided into 3. Inside there is the word ovextending. What does it mean?
Second paragraph of the Conclusions. There is bio-ecolgic stresor. It should be bioecological stressor.
Middle of the 3rd paragraph of Conclusions. Instead of: should be used to identify pollution in Turkish freshwaters, I suggest: could be used to identify pollution in freshwaters.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
Thank you very much for your time, usefull sugestions, and kind approach and encouradgments!
In the Methods chapter it should be added that data from 44 water bodies were compiled and the collected data come from all years of research, regardless of the date of fish kill.
Done
The Results and Discussion chapter contains some data that should be included in the Material and Methods chapter. This applies to the first paragraph on page 4. The first sentence of the second paragraph on page 4 is about research aim and must be transposed and combined with the sentence about aim at the end of the Introduction. The rest of the second paragraph on page 4 deals with methods and should be moved to chapter 2. The same with the paragraph below Fig. 2.
A new texts distribution in the paper economy was done and the fluency of the ideas obtained accordingly to the sugestions.
The overview of individual species of parasites is not very transparent.......... However, this would require data on the concentrations of individual pollutants in water.
The study did not aquired such data related with concentrations of individual pollutants in water, so we have no possibility to add this original/personal or related official/accepted data unfortunatelly. The authors also belive that it is a synergic effect not a one cause to one specific contamination effect relation. We added this opinion at the conclusions.
It should be possible to draw conclusions about which parasite is a good indicator of a specific contamination.
There are no personal/original data or other official/accepted such data for the moment to can indicate individually which parasite is good indicator of a specific contamination. The authors also belive that it is a synergic effect not a one cause to one specific contamination effect relation. We added this opinion at the conclusions:
This type of study approach is at the beginning, opening new research field of interest, what is needed for the future is to can identify and indicate individually which parasite and in which ecologic circumstances is/are good indicator of a specific or for a complex case of contamination. It should be also stressed the fact that the interrelated causes and effects should create synergic situations and not one cause to one specific contamination effect relations.
Conclusions in the second paragraph are unjustified, as data on fish infection in water bodies where fish kills did not occur have not been compiled. So parasites have not been shown to be a precursor to fish kills. Perhaps they are abundant in water bodies where fish kills will never occur.
The conclusion was modified please see below adding the words potential/possible.
The mass fish kills were frequently reported in Turkey, but were usually explained only by pollution as a single accepted anthropogenic stressor. Together with pollution a suplimentary induced bio-ecolgic stressor, the qualitatively and quantitatively characteristics of the fish parasites associations variations should be assessed and monitored as potential/possible complex precursors indicators of fish communities structure degradation and freshwater ecosystems dreadful conditions appearance prognosis.
The layout of References must be unified and adapted to the requirements of the journal.
Done
There are many mistakes and typos in the manuscript which I find difficult to point out because no line numbering is provided.
Checked and done
The authors
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The standard of the English in this revision is greatly improved. Major concerns remain, however, regarding the presentation. Most of the results of this survey are actually in the Discussion and should be transferred to the Results section under sub-headings listing the types of pollutants and parasites found. The significance of these results should then be discussed under the same headings in the Discussion section. As it stands, the Conclusion repeats what has already been stated in the Introduction, whereas its purpose should be to bring together and summarize the main points relating specifically to the findings of this survey. Also, as pointed out in my first review, the references in the third column of Table 1 should be numbered, otherwise it is not possible for the reader to locate them in the reference list.
Other minor points are as follows.
1. Abstract: the second very long sentence in the second paragraph is very difficult to follow and should be rephrased.
2. The second paragraph of the section on Indicator Parasites on page 4 is a repeat of what has been stated in the Introduction and should be deleted.
3. Throughout the manuscript, where a species name is referred to more than once, only the initial of the genus name should be given after the first reference to the species.
As I said previously, I believe that the data collected for this review does form the basis for a useful paper. I hope that these further suggestions will assist the authors to prepare their findings in a form more acceptable for publication.
Author Response
The second paragraph of the section on Indicator Parasites on page 4 is a repeat of what has been stated in the Introduction and should be deleted.
The suggested paragraph was deleted.
as pointed out in my first review, the references in the third column of Table 1 should be numbered, otherwise it is not possible for the reader to locate them in the reference list.
The references in the third column of the Table 1 was numbered.
Throughout the manuscript, where a species name is referred to more than once, only the initial of the genus name should be given after the first reference to the species.
The suggestion was accomplished throughout the manuscript.
Most of the results of this survey are actually in the Discussion and should be transferred to the Results section under sub-headings listing the types of pollutants and parasites found. The significance of these results should then be discussed under the same headings in the Discussion section. As it stands, the Conclusion repeats what has already been stated in the Introduction, whereas its purpose should be to bring together and summarize the main points relating specifically to the findings of this survey.
Dear author we tried to follow all the reviewers sugestions but unfortunately this is impossible when the reviewers have opposite ideas and sugestions like in this cases
Abstract: the second very long sentence in the second paragraph is very difficult to follow and should be rephrased.
The standard of the English in this revision is greatly improved.
English language and style are fine/minor spell check required.
The English was checked by MDPI specialized service.
Conclusion repeats what has already been stated in the Introduction, whereas its purpose should be to bring together and summarize the main points relating specifically to the findings of this survey.
In the context in which this new pollution-parasites-fish triangle proposal to be used as a new tool/study direction for freshwater assessment, monitoring and management activities, we would very like to stress a litle more extensively the results and discussions in the final integrated conclusions.
The authors thank the reviewer for his/her time, interesting sugestions and encouragements in the respect of the study direction, this last element is very important for the authors, and we hope to be of the same interest for the paper readers.
All the best.
The authors
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors responded to all my comments. Most of the comments were included in the revised manuscript, with respect to the remaining ones, the authors explained why they cannot be included at the current stage of the problem recognition. The manuscript has benefited greatly from the changes and corrections made and can be published as it is.
Author Response
The authors responded to all my comments. Most of the comments were included in the revised manuscript, with respect to the remaining ones, the authors explained why they cannot be included at the current stage of the problem recognition. The manuscript has benefited greatly from the changes and corrections made and can be published as it is.
Thank you for your support and sugestions.
All the best.
The authors
