Parental Effects and Reproductive Potential of Fish and Marine Invertebrates: Cross-Generational Impact of Environmental Experiences

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.       Title: The title should be heavily modified, as it is highly misleading at the moment. The MS is focused on reviewing the parental effects on offspring production, phenotype, survival, etc. Thus, the terms “transgenerational”, “stress”, “reproductive resilience” should be deleted.

2.       Title: Most examples mentioned in this MS refer to fishes. Examples on invertebrates are only mentioned twice in pages 9 & 10. The term “aquatic animals” is used frequently in the text and is misleading. In addition, similar terms (like “aquatic organisms”) are used in the MS even though the chosen references are focused on fishes. I suggest the authors focus solely on fishes and replace terms like “aquatic animals” and “aquatic organisms” with “fishes” throughout the MS

3.       Line 29: Replace “reproductive season” with “spawning season”

4.       Lines 30-31: Delete this sentence. It’s already mentioned in Lines 25-26

5.       Lines 36-39: Move to a more relevant section, e.g., to section 3

6.       Line 40: Delete the term “marine”. Similar research has been conducted on freshwater fishes as well. This applies to other occasions in the MS

7.       Line 60: Add the “environment” to the parameters influencing the parental effects

8.       Line 63: Remove the term “selection”. Inappropriate spawning site and/or timing might be forced to the fish and not be selected by them

9.       Line 67: Add references for “parental inheritance or indirect genetic effects”

10.   Line 68: Add references for “parental selection”

11.   Figure 1: I would suggest removing it. If authors choose to keep it, it should be modified, since it seems rather simplistic, and it doesn’t provide any additional information to the text. Also, on some occasions the term “indirect environmental effects” is used, while in others the term “environmental indirect effect”. There should be consistency throughout the MS

12.   Line 88 and 94: “….timing of the influence….”. Please rephrase

13.   Line 91: On some occasions the term “postzygotic postnatal” is used, while in others the term “postnatal postzigotics”. There should be consistency throughout the MS

14.   Lines 94-97: Check the spelling of the terms “prezigotics” and “postzigotics”. Also, in Lines 89-91, these terms are used in the singular

15.   Figure 2: I would suggest removing it. If authors choose to keep it, it should be modified, since it seems rather simplistic, and it doesn’t provide any additional information to the text

16.   Line 99: The authors mention “studies” but only refer to one. Additional references are needed or rewording

17.   Line 119: The >99% of offspring mortality – if accurate on some occasions – should be supported with relevant references. Also, there are other reasons that cause offspring mortality (e.g. predation, food availability, etc.) and should be mentioned as well

18.   Line 128: I would suggest using different or additional references here

19.   Line 137: References are needed

20.   Line 147: Check references, since both [55] and [56] refer to Menidia menidia

21.   Lines 144-152: Move this paragraph after the next one (“Beyond size….”). In addition, this paragraph should be extended, since there are two much larger paragraphs referring to maternal effects

22.   Line 157: Delete “younger”

23.   Line 157: I suggest replacing “primiparous” with “first-time spawners”

24.   Line 159: Replace “multiparous” with “iteroparous”

25.   Line 163: Replace “reproductive season” with “spawning season”. In case the authors refer to individuals, “season” should be replaced with “period”

26.   Line 164: If the authors refer to individuals, “period” is correct. Otherwise, it should be replaced with “season”

27.   Line 167: Add an explanation of the term “multiple spawners”

28.   Line 170-171: I suggest deleting this sentence. Prolonged spawning season may also be detrimental for fish populations, e.g., earlier onset of spawning (caused by climate change for instance) may lead to mis-match between the timing of the prey and the offspring

29.   Line 174: Reference [85] is not the most appropriate here

30.   Line 179: Replace “multiparous” with “repeat spawners”

31.   Lines 181 and 185: Delete “always”

32.    Line 190: Add references

33.   Line 191: Replace “is” with “are”

34.   Lines 191-194: I suggest deleting this paragraph

35.   Lines 205-209: References are needed

36.   Lines 229-236: This sentence is too long, and it should be rephrased

37.   Line 239: Delete the duplicate “of”

38.   Line 241: References are needed

39.   Lines 239-245: This example is more relevant in section 4

40.   Line 250: Delete “nevertheless”

41.   Line 251: Delete “the”

42.   Lines 251-254: Please, rephrase

43.   Lines 246-258: This paragraph doesn’t seem relevant to section 3

44.   Line 260: Replace “reproductive season” with “spawning season”

45.   Lines 259-265: This paragraph seems more relevant to section 4

46.   Line 275: Choose between “spatio-temporal” and “spatiotemporal” (as in Line 290)

47.   Line 295: References are needed

48.   Line 313: Intraspecific competition occurs for more resources than solely food

49.   Lines 317-320: I suggest removing this sentence and focus only on fishes

50.   Line 325: Reference is needed

51.   Line 335: I would suggest using another term instead of “anticipated”

52.   Line 340: “reproductive” or “spawning” season?

53.   Lines 346-362: This paragraph doesn’t seem relevant to section 4. Maybe another section focused on environmental influence on parental effects needs to be added

54.   Lines 346-362: Increased temperature had beneficial effect on the reproduction of other fish species (e.g., for lionfish in the Mediterranean Sea)

55.   Line 365: Not only in marine fishes

56.   Lines 383-392: I would suggest removing these examples and focus only on fishes

57.   Lines 392-396: One-sentence paragraphs should be avoided

58.   Lines 398-400: One-sentence paragraphs should be avoided

59.   Line 402: Replace “a source” with “sources”

60.   Line 414: Replace the term “reproductive”

61.   Line 418: “especifically”?

62.   Lines 425-434: I would suggest removing these examples and focus only on fishes

63.   Line 444: References are needed

64.   Line 460: “….resulted in a low survival rate of juveniles….”. Why did that happen? It would be nice to elaborate

65.   Lines 462-464: One-sentence paragraphs should be avoided

66.   Lines 487-495: This sentence is too long. It can also be omitted

67.   Lines 483-533: These paragraphs should be much shorter, since many pieces of information are repetitive

68.   References: 125 references seem too much, even for a review paper

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Very interesting MS that I think should be printed. However, before the final approval, the authors should pay attention to some important aspects - of course, it is difficult to cover all threads in such an extensive topic, but it is worth supplementing some important issues. My detailed comments are contained in the text. To see them all, open the file in Acrobat Reader. I believe the authors will have no trouble improving this work.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

First of all, we appreciate the time en effort delivered by the referee 2 to review this manuscript. Suggestions and comments have improved it significantly. We use the answer option within the comments in th pdf file to respond (open each comment to see the answer). Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Abstract. Written briefly, it presents the most important issues described in the article.

Introduction. Interesting description of the parental influence on male and female offspring. Interesting description of the positive influence of parents on the development of their offspring and the influence of environmental factors.

The authors describe the impact of environmental changes on the fate of the offspring in connection with the influence of parents.

 

 

It is described in the influence of the mother and father on the survival of the offspring and the mechanisms which determine it. The factors that have a positive and negative impact on the survival of the offspring were listed and described, such as: age, condition, size of females, number of females, spawning grounds type, age structure of the population, spawning length, food availability,

The influence of the environment on reproduction was described, such as the noise level, pollution,

The authors analyze the influence of the mother and father in connection with environmental factors on the development of the offspring. Such environmental factors as: salinity, temperature,

The authors compare the cases of fish species with the positive negative influence of elevated temperature on reproductive success in an interesting way.

The effects of endocrine disrupting pollutants on sexual maturation, gamete production and transport, sexual behavior, fertility, and pregnancy by altering the integrity of the aquatic animal reproductive system are also described.

It is interesting to describe the effects of fishing on the reproduction of aquatic organisms and the reduction of reproductive success.

Aquaculture, fish stocking and parasitic diseases also have a significant influence.

It is worth adding the problem of climate warming, the narrowing of the spawning date of salmonids (Heggberget et al. 1988), the occurrence of common spawning and undesirable hybridization, e.g. between salmon and sea trout (Elo et al. 1995; Delling et al. 2000), incorrectly conducted salmon restitution ( Garcia de Léaniz, Verspoor 1989), stocking rivers with older individuals (Jansson, Öst 1997).

Climate warming and extending the spawning date of some fish, oocyte degeneration due to high temperatures (Domagała et al. 2013), the spread of invasive species (Kirczuk et al. 2021)

Disturbed spawning behavior: escaping male salmon from the farm (Lund et al. 1991), aggressive behavior of prematurely maturing male salmon, which during spawning "sneak" and fertilize the eggs of female trout favor interspecific hybridization and the breakdown of interspecific barriers (Beall et al. 1997; Garcia-Vazquez et al. 2002).

Beall E., Moran P., Pendas A., Izquierdo J., Garcia-Vazquez E. 1997. L’hybridation dans les populations naturelles de Salmonidés dans le sud-ouest de L’Europe ET en milieu experimental. Bull. Fr. Pêche Piscic. 344/345, 271-285.

Domagała et al. Annual development cycle of gonads of Eurasian ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus L.) females from lower Odra River sections differing in the influence of cooling water / Józef Domagała, Lucyna Kirczuk, Małgorzata Pilecka-Rapacz. // Journal of Freshwater Ecology. 2013, vol. 28 iss. 3, s.423-437 DOI: 10.1080/02705060.2013.777855 2013

Elo K., Erkinaro J., Vuorinen J., Niemela E. 1995. Hybridization between Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and brown trout (S. trutta) in the Teno and Näätämö River Systems, northernmost Europe. Nordic. J. Freshw. Res. 70, 56-61.

Garcia de Léaniz C., Verspoor E. 1989. Natural hybridization between Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, and brown trout, Salmo trutta, in northern Spain. J. Fish Biol. 34, 41-46.

Heggberget T.G., Haukebo T., Mork J., Stahl G. 1988. Temporal and spatial segregation of spawning in sympatric populations of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., and brown trout, salmo trutta L. J. Fish Biol. V. 33. Nr 3. P. 347- 356.

Jansson H., Öst T. 1997. Hybridization between Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) in a restored section of the River Dalälven, Sweden. Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci., 54, 2033-2039

Kirczuk et al. Reproductive potential of stone moroko (Pseudorasbora parva, Temminck et Schlegel, 1846) (Teleostei: Cypriniformes: Gobionidae) inhabiting Central Europe. Animals.  10.3390/ani11092627

Lund R., A., Okland F., Hansen L. P. 1991. Farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in fisheries and Rivers in Norway. Aquacult., 98, 143-150.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I only found one editorial mistake. In the reference 74 please write the title using small letters.