Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) Reinvasion and Population Expansion in Lake Winona: A Modified Urban Floodplain Lake in Minnesota, USA

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the paper" Common Carp Reinvasion and Population Expansion in Lake Winona, a Modified Urban Floodplain Lake". Recent trends show a marked increase in Common Carp reinvasion and population growth in Lake Winona, leading to heightened ecological disruption and challenges in managing this modified urban floodplain ecosystem. The paper has a great impact on science society. Despite efforts to eliminate Common Carp from Lake Winona after a 1973 reclamation, their population has resurged, with current densities posing significant ecological risks, necessitating urgent management actions. Typo errors and grammatical mistakes are there. With the following comments, I recommend minor revisions.  

1. Rewrite the abstract part

2. Line 36: Add more latest citations and rewrite the sentences. 

3. Line 93-102: The paragraph incorrectly suggests that the bluegill population entirely prevented successful carp spawning, overlooking the possibility of some carp reproduction. Additionally, it implies that the removal of traps and barriers was solely due to clogging, without considering other potential contributing factors. Explain with justification and citation. 

4. Add the error bar in Figure 5

5. Authors are suggested to delete some highly non-related references.

6. Add some practical application in the concluding remarks.

7. Rewrite Line no 213 to 216.   

 

2. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this manuscript presents an interesting and timely study on the reinvasion and population expansion of common carp in Lake Winona. The authors provide valuable data on carp abundance, biomass, and condition in different basins of the lake, as well as insights into potential management approaches. The study has several strengths, but there are also some areas that could be improved.

 

Strengths:

1. The study addresses an important issue of invasive species management in urban lakes.

2. The long-term dataset (2005-2021) provides a robust basis for analysis.

3. The authors present a comprehensive assessment of carp population dynamics in the lake.

4. The discussion effectively contextualizes the findings within broader ecological and management implications.

5. The recommendations for future management steps are practical and well-reasoned.

 

Weaknesses:

1. The introduction could benefit from a more thorough review of recent literature on carp management techniques.

2. The methods section lacks some details on statistical analyses.

3. Some of the figures could be improved for clarity.

4. The discussion could be strengthened by comparing the results more explicitly to other similar studies.

 

Grammatical errors and suggestions by section:

Abstract:

- Line 16: Change "versus" to "compared to"

- Line 20: Consider rephrasing "1.5 times higher than that of all carp killed" to "1.5 times greater than the biomass of all carp killed"

Introduction:

- Line 26: "continents" should be capitalized if referring to specific continents

- Line 30: "waterfowl use in rivers" should be "waterfowl use of rivers"

- Line 35: "even while sustaining" could be changed to "while still sustaining" for clarity

- Line 36: "systems where predators" could be "systems in which predators" for improved formality

- Line 41: "recruit successfully" should be "reproduce successfully"

- Line 41: Change "mass" to "masses"

 

Study area and history:

- Line 60: "170 years" should be "170 years ago" or provide a specific time frame

- Line 61: Consider rephrasing "rerouting of urban storm sewers" to "rerouting urban storm sewers"

- Line 74: "Into the mid-1960s" could be changed to "Up until the mid-1960s" for clarity

- Line 80: "cleanups of 100,000 kg of dead fish" could be "cleanups involving 100,000 kg of dead fish"

- Line 95: "controlled winter freeze-out" could be explained briefly for readers unfamiliar with the term

 

Methods:

- Line 117-119 has different size font.

- Line 127: Consider rephrasing "all carp encountered were tallied" to "all encountered carp were counted"

- Line 146: Change "wet masses" to "wet mass"

- Line 152: The equation should be on a separate line and centered for better readability

 

Results:

- Line 160: "trap net and gill net data do not indicate" could be "trap net and gill net data did not indicate"

- Line 171: "translated to" could be "corresponded to"

- Line 191-192: Change "weights" to "weight"

- Line 220: "probably recruit into" could be "likely recruit into"

- Line 237: "any young carp recruiting" could be "any young carp recruitment"

 

Discussion:

- Line 280: "tissue toughness" could benefit from a brief explanation or citation

- Line 291: "Whether or not this current situation can continue" could be rephrased to "The sustainability of this current situation"

- Line 301: "a harbinger of change" could be "an indicator of change"

 

References:

- Ensure consistency in journal abbreviations and formatting across all references

- Some references (e.g., 29, 56) appear to be websites and should be formatted accordingly with access dates

 

Tables and Figures:

- Figure 3: Consider adding error bars if data is available

- Figure 6: Consider adding a note explaining the significance of the difference between basins. Also size of this figure is not good. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

refer to the Comments for authors

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Recommendation to the authors.

The manuscript aims to evaluate the current condition of the European carp (Cyprinus carpio) population in Lake Winona. The authors use a combination of historical data collected using trap and gill nets, as well as recent field sampling conducted through electrofishing to achieve this goal. The study provides an analysis of the carp population dynamics within the lake, highlighting several key findings that contribute to our understanding of the species' impact on the ecosystem.

However, the manuscript contains a few weaknesses that are listed below and are inside of the manuscript:

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.  Responses are listed to each comment on the PDF.  However, those changes are NOT present on that PDF, instead only in the Word file submitted as the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting the revised version of the manuscript. After reviewing the changes made in response to my previous comments, I see that the authors have addressed a few of the concerns raised. The revisions have improved the quality of the paper.

 

The authors have incorporated the few requested modifications. I find that the revised manuscript is now suitable for publication, and I have no further major comments at this stage.

Best regards, 

Reviewer