Stock Assessment Using the LBB Method for Portunus trituberculatus Collected from the Yangtze Estuary in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the part of the article entitled ‘General description of the LBB method’ presents the grounds for estimating of parameter (Wc_opt), which was used for calculating of a proxy for the relative biomass. However, it is not quite clean what computation are original and what are adopted from citing literature, in part from Froese et al. (2018) work.  

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1：In the part of the article entitled ‘General description of the LBB method’ presents the grounds for estimating of parameter (Wc_opt), which was used for calculating of a proxy for the relative biomass. However, it is not quite clean what computation are original and what are adopted from citing literature, in part from Froese et al. (2018) work.

Response 1: Thank you for your concern on our manuscript sincerely. We have revised the manuscript according the reviewer’s comments and all the modifications are marked in blue. Because of the difficulty of data collection and availability on marine species, there have been few assessments of marine species, especially in China's waters. Therefore, we used the LBB method, which can be used in data-poor fisheries management. The purpose was to evaluate the size structure of stocks for the swimming crabs in this sea area via the derived fisheries reference points such as B/B0 and B/BMSY, which could be used as the theoretical foundations for managers to take corresponding measures for rationally utilizing of the biological resources. Thus, the method we adopted was mainly based on the literature (Froese et al., 2018) and the guidance of the invertors (Rainer Froese and Daniel Pauly) of the method. The data is original. We analyze our data using LBB method, and the analysis process including grouping of body length, prior input and results are original.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear all,

I read with interest the study of Yue et al. that is consider for publication at your journal.

Though that the manuscript seems to present important findings regarding the stock assessment of an important crab fishery in China, the manuscript suffers from some serious flaws that need to be addressed before any consideration for publication. Allow me to present my points of criticism.

Firstly, I strongly recommend that the article should be edited by a native English speaker.

Introduction

It lacks information and requires further additions:

1. The species biology and ecology
2. The landings and the annual production of aquaculture units, these data can be easily accessed through the FAO sites
3. The reader gets the feeling that this is the only study available regarding the species’ fishery and stock assessment in the region. However, there are several available. Comparisons should made. This will benefit the discussion section as well, please see my comments bellow.

Materials and Methods

1. The sampling methodology should be described better and more detailed
2. Lines 53-54, these are results
3. The carapace width measurements should be described. For instance, Kampouris et al. 2020 provide a detailed measuring protocol regarding portunid crabs.
4. Lines 54-55. Based on which criteria? Further description is required.

Results

1. This section lacks supporting text. A couple of figures and tables, without any text, are not acceptable for scientific purposes.
2. Lines 117-119. I am not sure what these are. Perhaps these were copied and pasted

Discussion

There is no discussion section. I am guessing that the authors at the lines 127-139 are trying to discuss their results. If the journal offers the choice to merge the results and the discussion sections, then the third section should be named as “Results and Discussion”.

Furthermore, the authors are not actually offer a valid criticism of their findings and it seems -to me at least, that this paragraph is more suitable for the introduction part.

References

Consistency is needed. Authors should check the journal’s requirements.

References that need to be considered before resubmission:

Hui, M., Shi, G., Sha, Z., Liu, Y. and Cui, Z., 2019. Genetic population structure in the swimming crab, Portunus trituberculatus and its implications for fishery management. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 99:  891–899.

Kampouris, T.E., Kouroupakis, E.  and Batjakas, I.E., 2020. Morphometric Relationships of the Global Invader Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, 1896 (Decapoda, Brachyura, Portunidae) from Papapouli Lagoon, NW Aegean Sea, Greece. With Notes on Its Ecological Preferences. Fishes, 5(1), 5.

Liu, Y., Liu, R., Ye, L., Liang, J., Xuan, F. and Xu, Q. 2009. Genetic differentiation between populations of swimming crab Portunus trituberculatus along the coastal waters of the East China Sea. Hydrobiologia, 618: 125-137.

Panhwar, S.K., Dong, Z.Y., Zhenghua, L., Rashid, S., Zhouting, H., Ai, G. and Ping, W. 2018. Population dynamics and fishery of swimming crab Portunus trituberculatus in the Zhejiang fishing area. The Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences, 28(6): 1641-1647.

Wang, Y., Ye, T., Wang, X. and Zhou, C. 2017. Impact of Main Factors on the Catch of Portunus trituberculatus in the Northern East China Sea. Pakistan J. Zool.,49(1): 13-17.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: Dear all, I read with interest the study of Yue et al. that is consider for publication at your journal. Though that the manuscript seems to present important findings regarding the stock assessment of an important crab fishery in China, the manuscript suffers from some serious flaws that need to be addressed before any consideration for publication. Allow me to present my points of criticism.Firstly, I strongly recommend that the article should be edited by a native English speaker.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your constructive comments on our manuscript. We have revised our MS according to the reviewer’s suggestions carefully. Also we marked all the modifications in red color. For the language: Our MS have been edited by a native English speaker according to the journal’s polishing service.

 

Point 2：

Introduction

It lacks information and requires further additions:

1. The species biology and ecology

2. The landings and the annual production of aquaculture units, these data can be easily accessed through the FAO sites

3. The reader gets the feeling that this is the only study available regarding the species’ fishery and stock assessment in the region. However, there are several available. Comparisons should made. This will benefit the discussion section as well, please see my comments bellow.

 

Response 2: For Introduction:

1. We added the description on the species biology and ecology (Line 34-35).

2. We added the data about landings and the annual production of aquaculture units obtained from China fishery statistics yearbook (Line 36-46).

3. We added the comparison with other research about the stock assessments on fishery resources using traditional method (Line 47-51). In addition, we added the detail comparison in the discussion section.

 

Point 3：

Materials and Methods

1. The sampling methodology should be described better and more detailed

2. Lines 53-54, these are results

3. The carapace width measurements should be described. For instance, Kampouris et al. 2020 provide a detailed measuring protocol regarding portunid crabs.

4. Lines 54-55. Based on which criteria? Further description is required.

 

Response 3: For materials and methods:

1. We added the detail description on sampling methodology (Line 65). We measured all the target species (235) that were caught.

2. We moved the content on lines 53-54 in the previous version to the results section (Line 125-126).

3. We added the description on the carapace width measurements (Line 67-69).

4. We added the reference numbered14 and 15 in the text (Line 66 and 69).

 

Point 4：Results

1. This section lacks supporting text. A couple of figures and tables, without any text, are not acceptable for scientific purposes.

2. Lines 117-119. I am not sure what these are. Perhaps these were copied and pasted

 

Response 4: For Results:

1. We have added the supporting text and improved descriptions on the figure and tables (Line 131-136).

2. We are so sorry to the error. We have deleted this content.

 

Point 5：Discussion

There is no discussion section. I am guessing that the authors at the lines 127-139 are trying to discuss their results. If the journal offers the choice to merge the results and the discussion sections, then the third section should be named as “Results and Discussion”.

 

Furthermore, the authors are not actually offer a valid criticism of their findings and it seems -to me at least, that this paragraph is more suitable for the introduction part.

 

Response 5: For Dicussion:

We added the discussion section (Line 147-179). In this section, we added the compared our results with the other researches, and put forward the advantages and availability of LBB method.

 

Point 6：References

Consistency is needed. Authors should check the journal’s requirements.

References that need to be considered before resubmission:

 

Hui, M., Shi, G., Sha, Z., Liu, Y. and Cui, Z., 2019. Genetic population structure in the swimming crab, Portunus trituberculatus and its implications for fishery management. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 99:  891–899.

 

Kampouris, T.E., Kouroupakis, E.  and Batjakas, I.E., 2020. Morphometric Relationships of the Global Invader Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, 1896 (Decapoda, Brachyura, Portunidae) from Papapouli Lagoon, NW Aegean Sea, Greece. With Notes on Its Ecological Preferences. Fishes, 5(1), 5.

 

Liu, Y., Liu, R., Ye, L., Liang, J., Xuan, F. and Xu, Q. 2009. Genetic differentiation between populations of swimming crab Portunus trituberculatus along the coastal waters of the East China Sea. Hydrobiologia, 618: 125-137.

 

Panhwar, S.K., Dong, Z.Y., Zhenghua, L., Rashid, S., Zhouting, H., Ai, G. and Ping, W. 2018. Population dynamics and fishery of swimming crab Portunustrituberculatus in the Zhejiang fishing area. The Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences, 28(6): 1641-1647.

 

Wang, Y., Ye, T., Wang, X. and Zhou, C. 2017. Impact of Main Factors on the Catch of Portunus trituberculatus in the Northern East China Sea. Pakistan J. Zool.,49(1): 13-17.

 

Response 6: For Refernces

We have improved the consistency of references and added the new references suggested by reviewer to our MS.

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper is a study on the estimation of resources of important marine species using a new method, and it is a study of significance from the viewpoint of fisheries science. However, there seems to be insufficient discussion on the background of the study and interpretation of the results. Please refer to the comments in the text of the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

 

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Point 1: The abbreviated name “P. trituberculatus”appeared in the Abstract should be deleted and spelling error existed in the scientific name of “P.trituberculatus”

Response 1: Thank you for your constructive comments on our manuscript sincerely. We have revised the MS according to the reviewer’s suggestions. And all the modifications are marked in yellow. We deleted the “P.trituberculatus” in the Abstract section. And we added a space between “P.” and “trituberculatus”, this modification was completed all over the MS.

Point 2: Please add the author and year after the scientific name of the species.

Response 2: We added the author and year after the scientific name of the species (Line 34)

Point 3: I think the authors need to elaborate a little more on the impact of human activities on this kind of resource. I think the authors should cite similar studies from other parts of China and/or other countries.

Response 3: We added the impact of human activities on this kind of resource and cited the similar studies in this section (Line 36-42).

Point 4: It is necessary to explain what kind of resource estimation was carried out in the past and the problems of the conventional methods.

Response 4: We explained what kind of resource estimation was carried out in the past and the problems of the conventional methods (Line 47-51).

Point 5: Please cite the literatures used to identify the species.

Response 5: We cited the literatures used to identify the species (Line 66).

Point 6: Careless mistake (Line 117-119) ?

Response 6: We deleted the error in line 117 -119.

Point 7: Spelling error of “juvenile P.trituberculatus”

Response 7: We revised the content in line 143.

Point 8: In this paper, it seems that the effectiveness of LBB has not been sufficiently verified. Has there been no estimation of the abundance of this species previously? Is LBB effective for any taxa? Please explain in detail the significance of using LBB by comparing it with other resource estimation methods.

Response 8: We added the discussion section (Line 186-210). In this section, we compared our results with the other researches, and put forward the advantages and availability of LBB method (Line 166-174). We also explained in detail the significance of using LBB by comparing it with other resource estimation methods.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear editor,

The manuscript of Yue et al. at the present form is well written and it is worth to be published. I am glad that authors took into account all of my considerations and remarks, that improved the article. I wish to thank them for the collaboration. 

I only have two minor points to address.

Lines 68-69: please change from “…posteriormost lateral spines, Kampouris et al. provide a detailed measuring protocol regarding portunid crabs in 2020[15].”, to “…posteriormost lateral spines, following Kampouris et al. 2020 [15].”

Line 167: “…Beverton et al used the size…”, please add the year of publication

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: Lines 68-69: please change from “…posteriormost lateral spines, Kampouris et al. provide a detailed measuring protocol regarding portunid crabs in 2020[15].”, to “…posteriormost lateral spines, following Kampouris et al. 2020 [15].”

Response 1: Thank you very much for your constructive comments. We have revised our MS according to the reviewer’s suggestions carefully marked in pink color (Line 68) .

 

Point 2：Line 167: “…Beverton et al used the size…”, please add the year of publication.

Response 2: We added the year of publication for the cited reference in the pink color (Line 167).

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for considering my comments. I think the manuscript has been corrected without any problems. I believe that this paper is worthy of publication in Applied Sciences.

Author Response

 

Thank you so much for your comments and suggestions for our MS. I’m so sorry that the web browser on my computer turned on automatic translation mode for websites. Due to my negligence, the responses to reviewer 3 comments in first round were changed into Chinese. I will send them in English again. We are grateful for your reminding and consideration for my careless mistake.

 

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Point 1: The abbreviated name “P. trituberculatus” appeared in the Abstract should be deleted and spelling error existed in the scientific name of “P.trituberculatus”

Response 1: Thank you for your constructive comments on our manuscript sincerely. We have revised the MS according to the reviewer’s suggestions. And all the modifications are marked in yellow. We deleted the “P.trituberculatus” in the Abstract section. And we added a space between “P.” and “trituberculatus”, this modification was completed all over the MS.

Point 2: Please add the author and year after the scientific name of the species.

Response 2: We added the author and year after the scientific name of the species (Line 34)

Point 3: I think the authors need to elaborate a little more on the impact of human activities on this kind of resource. I think the authors should cite similar studies from other parts of China and/or other countries.

Response 3: We added the impact of human activities on this kind of resource and cited the similar studies in this section (Line 36-42).

Point 4: It is necessary to explain what kind of resource estimation was carried out in the past and the problems of the conventional methods.

Response 4: We explained what kind of resource estimation was carried out in the past and the problems of the conventional methods (Line 47-51).

Point 5: Please cite the literatures used to identify the species.

Response 5: We cited the literatures used to identify the species (Line 66).

Point 6: Careless mistake (Line 117-119) ?

Response 6: We deleted the error in line 117 -119.

Point 7: Spelling error of “juvenile P.trituberculatus”

Response 7: We revised the content in line 143.

Point 8: In this paper, it seems that the effectiveness of LBB has not been sufficiently verified. Has there been no estimation of the abundance of this species previously? Is LBB effective for any taxa? Please explain in detail the significance of using LBB by comparing it with other resource estimation methods.

Response 8: We added the discussion section (Line 186-210). In this section, we compared our results with the other researches, and put forward the advantages and availability of LBB method (Line 166-174). We also explained in detail the significance of using LBB by comparing it with other resource estimation methods.