Fishery Resource Evaluation in Shantou Seas Based on Remote Sensing and Hydroacoustics
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please, try to improve the introduction and discussion sections.
Please provide some details on the Fish Per Unit Area (FPUA) and Fish Per Cubic Meter (FPCM) data source and calculation method. Which is the source of observed values of fish density?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I consider the basic premise, method developed and questions asked by this study as valuable and interesting. The authors outlined a novel method of a triangular source of information; telephone survey, in-situ survey and recall survey, in order to evaluate the recreational fishery in the Marche region in Italian coasts. Recreational fishery is lack of studies in the multi-gear and multi-species Mediterranean fisheries and its impact on the fish resources are gradually triggers the interest of the fisheries' community.
The strength of the study is the novelty and broad usefulness of this approach. The methodological approach and the statistical methods are valid and correctly applied to the data. Results and data interpretation are coherent and well presented. Tables and figures are also well presented and titled. The discussion is detailed enough and the scope of the ms very well presented with high quality of reference and examples. There are certain minor issues of the study that need to be addressed before publication.
The introduction needs restructuring. I think that the paragraph in the lines 42-56 should be moved before the line 73, as this paragraph is between two paragraphs with the same meaning (fish biology).
Also, in the introduction and in the lines 71-72 please give more details on this sentence/argument. Are these srudies based on pelagic fisheries or in the same studied area?
In the discussion in lines 265-266 a reference is needed to support your argument on spawning activity.
The paragraph in the lines 323-328 should be moved into the conclusions, as each of the sentences that this paragraph includes are repeated in the conclusions.
Lines 327-328, which are these extra data and analyses that in future studies will you need? Please be more specific.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript examines the fisheries resources in the Shantou-Taiwan shoal using acoustic and remote sensing data. Through the concept is interesting, the work is very regional and applied. In the introduction more emphasis needs to be placed on the global novelty of the work? Has this approach not been conducted anywhere else? If so, what unique contribution have you accomplished? A new method? Information about fish movement that what not previously known? Furthermore, the paper does not link the acoustic data to the environmental remote sensing data in a convincing manner. The GAMs seems to have been conducted for the entire area, but spatial variation in the abundance of pelvic fish has been discussed. The authors should actually apply the GAM spatial and that way link it up to the acoustic data. For example, in the conclusion (Line 340) the authors state that the central and eastern parts of the study area had higher values of density. If the GAM analysis was done in this area, what would that analysis show? Also, the conclusion state that acoustic data was combined with real-item remote sensing data. The RS data was not real time, maybe concurrent and there is no evidence that these two data sets were linked.
There are some English language issues throughout which need to be corrected. Lines 73-83 are better suited under the Study Area section, which is currently only one sentence.
Area where the results are reported should be quantified, e.g., Line 183 in stead of relatively larger use numbers Lines 175 to 179 is an incomplete sentence.
Line 196 - what is that variances function. Software specific functions should not be discussed in a manuscript instead only the methods or methodology. What does the variance function do?
Line 228. These are not results and are speculation only without any references. This should be moved to the discussion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
please see the comments from the attached pdf
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This work is written in poor English, both grammar and style. There are many
grammatical errors and the style of the English in many parts is colloquial in-
stead of professional.
Regardless, I read the ms. and it is clear to me that the research presented
is valuable and interesting. First, the strategy of combining satellite data for
environmental variables and hydroacoustic surveys for fish density is a sound approach. Second, the area of study is relatively unknown so the connection there between small pelagic fish density and environmental drivers is a valuable contribution to marine ecology. Third, technical procedures connected to hydroacoustic surveying seemed to have been executed with sufficiently high degree of competence and the environmental satellite data came from a reliable sources so the ms. provides valuable new data to science for analysis.
For further review, see the attached review document.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
请参阅附件
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I read the 2nd version of the ms. and I concluded that the authors have not dealt well with my points in the review. The ms. is still in poor English style and does not provide a scientific justification for their research. Hydro-acoustics is not a new technique as they claim and simpy using hydro-acoustics to assess a stock of fish does not merit a scientific publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
