Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Marking Juvenile Takifugu obscurus Otoliths with Strontium
, Feng Zhao 1,2,3, Qing Ye 4, Wangjiao Hu 1 and Chao Song 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Line 23-31 Unnecessary part for abstract. It must be corrected.
Line 142 – 143 This statement is not clear. Is this your own or the usual procedure? In any case, it should be explained and be part of the material and methods.
Line 252-263 This part must be explained in some way because it is inconclusive for the application of the method you used. For example, you mentioned three freshwater fish and a big difference in the concentration of strontium that should be used.
Line 263-264 How fishermen will be informed when the fish are safe to use? Please add this part as a conclusion for this statement
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
General comments
The submission by Feng et al. aims to explain the use of Sr marking in Takifugu obscurus otoliths. The manuscript is not written in a standard scientific language. The method that the authors employed lacks clarity despite otolith marking using Sr is a well-established procedure. It is not also clear how the authors convert their LA-ICPMS data to concentrations. The obscurity of the methods that the authors used made their results unreliable and erroneous.
The following specific points should also be addressed by the authors:
Specific comments
Abstract
Please include the broader implication of the findings of the study.
Introduction
The introduction is very short and lacks coherence. It also fails to set a premise for the entire study. I would normally expect objectives and hypothesis to be included in the last bits of this section.
Methods
Line 74: What is breeding plant?
Line 75: Please include the size of the fish you used?
Line 76: What cooperative? There no mention of the word ‘cooperative’ before this line.
Line 79: Please explain why you choose these concentration levels.
Line 88-89: It is not clear what the authors want to explain here.
Line 90: Please include the exact amount of Sr solution you added after 50% water replacement.
Line 92: “…cultured as usual…”, again, it`s not clear what the authors want to say here.
Line 94: “…by the first method…”, again, it`s not clear what the authors want to say here.
Line 101-109: Please replace this section with a paragraph written in standard scientific language.
Line 120-121: Please replace the word ‘fatness’ with a more appropriate term.
Results
Fish sampling was done every two days throughout the experimental period. But the results are presented for samples taken on the 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th day. Why?
What was the size of otoliths across all sampling days?
Why did the authors use mm for values on the x axes of figures 1 and 2? Distance from the core makes sense when written in micro meters.
Discussion
What is the broader implication of the study?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript offers an interesting study with a simple experimental design. I have provided specific comments about my concerns regarding novelty and the importance of this study as they arise in the manuscript.
General comments:
1. Does this method impact fish physiology?
2. Can this method be applied to migratory fishes which move across salinity gradients?
Specific comments:
1. Title: “Evaluation on the effectiveness….” should be “Evaluation of the effectiveness…..”
2. Abstract: A statement on the utility of this method should be included at the end of abstract.
3. Line 100: What is meant by first method of GB5009.268-2016?
4.Line 120: Why word fatness was used instead of condition factor? Please give any specific reason otherwise mention condition factor which is a more commonly used term.
5.Line 128: Do high concentration of Sr (72 mg/L) result in fish death?
6. The authors have not given any information on the swimming and feeding behaviours as a test to check the safety of the treatments. This information is critical and should be included in the manuscript.
7. The authors are suggested to give a more critical and extensive discussion on how Sr marking will be beneficial for stock enhancement and subsequently the fishery industry.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I have no further comments on the submission. It can be published now.
