Mapping and Assessing Commercial Fisheries Services in the Lithuanian Part of the Curonian Lagoon

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The relationship between distinctive characteristics of the fishing areas and corresponding commercial catches and Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) are analyzed. Total catch values and CPUE are derived from commercial fishery records. Statistical analysis is used to assess the impact of habitats on both catch and CPUE of commercial fish species, the percentage of different bottom sediment types and average depth in each of the individually allocated fishing squares used as explanatory variables. Distance-based redundancy analysis allowed to use non-Euclidean dissimilarity indices. Fisheries data distribution map showed that CPUE unequally distributed in the Curonian lagoon. Highest CPUE values estimated in the Central-Eastern part of lagoon. Western part of lagoon has lower CPUE values. Both total catch and CPUE appeared not to be related to the type of bottom habitats on statistically, while being spatially correlated in-between. However, the salinity and water residence time calculated using the 3D hydraulic circulation model were statistically significant.

Remarks.

1. In the Formula (1) k_i is missing.
2. The authors use terms "estimate", "assessment", "evaluation". However, the results seem to be just descriptive. The maps are interesting and useful, but which specific quantitative estimations and evaluations are made? Which recommendations can be deduced? I recommend to describe it in the Conclusion in more details.

Author Response

1. We added additional formula to calculate CPUE values for fyke nets, which was used but was missing in the text. 
2. We consider the calculation of CPUE, catches per FS also is considered as quantitative analysis, however, we have removed several instances of ‘assessed’ and ‘evaluated’ from the manuscript. The conclusion section was rewritten to clarify the content and shortened according to your recommendations. 
   
   Thank you very much for your very qualified and professional remarks and comments, which have helped to improve our manuscript significantly.  
   
   

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The contents of the paper are potentially interesting and useful for fisheries management. However, the paper requires substantial editing to improve the English. I have flagged a few instances where the language is particularly problematic, but it is an ongoing trend through the document. This makes it difficult for the reader to understand exactly what is being described and what is being done. As such it dilutes the scientific usefulness of the document. I understand for many scientists English is not a first language, but the document is being presented in English and so needs to be significantly improved to be effective. In addition I have made several comments on the content of the paper. Issues such as a lack of description of the Environmental factors used in the analysis need to be improved. Also there seem to be several instances where contradictory statements are made, but this could just be due to the lack of clarity/precision in the English.  Overall the paper is interesting and has utility, but some work is required before it should be published. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We have followed all you suggestions and comments inserted in the  manuscript text directly, fixing the logical inconsistencies and clarifying the manuscript. An extensive language revision was done to whole manuscript, clarifying the ambiguous statements and improving overall style. All edits done using the ‘track changes’ option in MSWord

Thank you very much for your very qualified and professional remarks and comments, which have helped to improve our manuscript significantly.  

Author Response File: Author Response.docx