Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. In Title: incorrect scientific name

of Siberian sturgeon: bareii instead baerii

2. Fig. 3 - there is pure Siberian sturgeon 

  But not hybrid as in manuscript.

: 

Author Response

Response to Review Comments

(Manuscript ID: animals-2057421)

We are very thankful to the reviewers for their valuable and in-depth review of the manuscript. We have revised our paper as per the reviewer’s suggestions and comments. The author's response to specific comments/suggestions are as follows.

Response to Reviewer #1 Comments

1. In Title: incorrect scientific name of Siberian sturgeon: bareii instead baerii

Corrected in the revised manuscript.

2. Fig. 3 - there is pure Siberian sturgeon but not hybrid as in manuscript.

Corrected in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript, entitled 'Embryonic development and survival of Siberian sturgeon × Russian sturgeon (Acipenser bareii × Acipenser gueldenstaedtii) hybrids cultured in a RAS system', is described in an unclear manner. 

The Introduction section describes the context appropriately.

Update the materials and methods with a section on statistical analysis and include the materials used for the experiments.

 

Author Response

Response to Review Comments

(Manuscript ID: animals-2057421)

We are very thankful to the reviewers for their valuable and in-depth review of the manuscript. We have revised our paper as per the reviewer’s suggestions and comments. The author's response to specific comments/suggestions are as follows.

Response to Reviewer #2 Comments

Update the materials and methods with a section on statistical analysis and include the materials used for the experiments.

Response:

Based on our results we chose ordinary two-way ANOVA with main effects only repeated measures choices are only available when we enter replicate data into subcolumns. Our data contains no replicates and only a main effect model (with no interaction) can be fit. We added this information to MS (Material and Methods) and in Figure 5.

Reviewer 3 Report

I reviewed the article “Embryonic development and survival of Siberian sturgeon × Russian sturgeon (Acipenser bareii × Acipenser gueldenstaedtii) hybrids cultured in a RAS system” from Dorota Fopp-Bayat and colleagues. The paper reports the comparison between different sturgeon hybrids common in the global sturgeon aquaculture. In my opinion, the reported data support the performed trial. I think that the paper is acceptable for the publication after revision.

Therefore, I would like to suggest some improvements before the publication.

General comments:

Lines 13 – 25: Like a simple summary, I suggest to rewrite it using different words of the abstract, they are more or less the same.

Line 40: Please change keywords that are already reported in the title.

Line 44: Please change “in particular” to “mainly”

Line 57: If it is related to the aquaculture production I would like to suggest to change “phenomenon” to “procedures”

Line 78: Please add scientific name of Siberian sturgeons

Lines 85 – 90: Please rephrase it adding the data on the hybrids (lines 89 – 90) in the text

Line 95: Please change “they were” to “than”

Lines 96 – 97: Please change “in a total amount of 5 mg kg-1” to “(5 mg kg-1)”

Line 97: Please change “administered” to “treated”

Line 98: Please change “with” to “by”

Line 99 – 100: Please change “by analyzing the movement of” to “to evaluate the”

Line 112: Please put time point in brackets

Line 114: Why the authors used paraformaldehyde and not buffered formalin? Please explain

Line 115: Please delete “female” from the brackets

Lines 117 – 121: Please add more information on the used equipment (Manufacturer, City, Country)

Line 141: Please delete “3.2. Figures”

Figures: Please provide more clear figures (1-5) and improve the size of that to clear explain the differences

Lines 144 – 145: Please rephrase “Embryonic development of hybrids of ♀ Siberian sturgeon x Russian sturgeon] x ♂ Siberian sturgeon offspring (Group A).” to “Embryonic development of hybrids [♀ Siberian sturgeon x Russian sturgeon] x ♂ Siberian sturgeon offspring (Group A)”, the same in lines 148 - 149.

Lines 157 – 158: Please change “of ” to “between”.

Lines 225 – 230: Please rephrase this paragraph because to many times “sturgeon” is repeated

Line 230: Please change “experiment” to “trial”

Lines 240 – 242: Please report the accession number or reference about the Local Ethical Committee authorization

References: Please check and report the reference list according to the journal requirements.

Author Response

Response to Review Comments

(Manuscript ID: animals-2057421)

We are very thankful to the reviewers for their valuable and in-depth review of the manuscript. We have revised our paper as per the reviewer’s suggestions and comments. The author's response to specific comments/suggestions are as follows.

Response to Reviewer #3 Comments

I reviewed the article “Embryonic development and survival of Siberian sturgeon × Russian sturgeon (Acipenser bareii × Acipenser gueldenstaedtii) hybrids cultured in a RAS system” from Dorota Fopp-Bayat and colleagues. The paper reports the comparison between different sturgeon hybrids common in the global sturgeon aquaculture. In my opinion, the reported data support the performed trial. I think that the paper is acceptable for the publication after revision.

 

Therefore, I would like to suggest some improvements before the publication.

General comments:

Lines 13 – 25: Like a simple summary, I suggest to rewrite it using different words of the abstract, they are more or less the same.

Response: Simple summary was rewritted during suggestions. Line 40: Please change keywords that are already reported in the title.

Response: Corrected in the revised manuscript

 

Line 44: Please change “in particular” to “mainly”

Response: Corrected in the revised manuscript

 

Line 57: If it is related to the aquaculture production I would like to suggest to change “phenomenon” to “procedures”

Response: Corrected in the revised manuscript

 

Line 78: Please add scientific name of Siberian sturgeons

Response: Corrected in the revised manuscript

 

Lines 85 – 90: Please rephrase it adding the data on the hybrids (lines 89 – 90) in the text

Response: Corrected in the revised manuscript

 

Line 95: Please change “they were” to “than”

Response: Corrected in the revised manuscript

 

Lines 96 – 97: Please change “in a total amount of 5 mg kg^-1” to “(5 mg kg^-1)”

Response: Corrected in the revised manuscript

 

Line 97: Please change “administered” to “treated”

Response: Corrected in the revised manuscript

 

Line 98: Please change “with” to “by”

Response: Corrected in the revised manuscript

 

Line 99 – 100: Please change “by analyzing the movement of” to “to evaluate the”

Response: Corrected in the revised manuscript

 

Line 112: Please put time point in brackets

Response: Corrected in the revised manuscript

 

Line 114: Why the authors used paraformaldehyde and not buffered formalin? Please explain

Response:

Usually, we use 4% paraformaldehyde for embryo fixation. We fix it according to our laboratory protocol that has been used for many years. But, 4% paraformaldehyde can substitute 10% formalin (it's almost the same).

 

Line 115: Please delete “female” from the brackets

Response: Corrected in the revised manuscript

 

Lines 117 – 121: Please add more information on the used equipment (Manufacturer, City, Country)

Response: Corrected in the revised manuscript

 

Line 141: Please delete “3.2. Figures”

Response: Corrected in the revised manuscript

 

Figures: Please provide more clear figures (1-5) and improve the size of that to clear explain the differences

Response: Corrected in the revised manuscript

 

Lines 144 – 145: Please rephrase “Embryonic development of hybrids of ♀ Siberian sturgeon x Russian sturgeon] x ♂ Siberian sturgeon offspring (Group A).” to “Embryonic development of hybrids [♀ Siberian sturgeon x Russian sturgeon] x ♂ Siberian sturgeon offspring (Group A)”, the same in lines 148 - 149.

Response: Corrected in the revised manuscript

 

Lines 157 – 158: Please change “of ” to “between”.

Response: Corrected in the revised manuscript

 

Lines 225 – 230: Please rephrase this paragraph because to many times “sturgeon” is repeated

Response: Corrected in the revised manuscript

The text was rephrased according to Reviewers’ suggestions.

Line 230: Please change “experiment” to “trial”

Response: Corrected in the revised manuscript

 

Lines 240 – 242: Please report the accession number or reference about the Local Ethical Committee authorization

Response: Corrected in the revised manuscript

 

The numer of Local Ethical Committee authorization was included in the text of manuscript.

Local Ethical Committee authorization 75/2012

References: Please check and report the reference list according to the journal requirements.

Response: Corrected in the revised manuscript