Seasonal Variation in the Epibenthic Feeding Habits of Hilsa Shad (Tenualosa ilisha) in the Upper Meghna River Estuary, Bangladesh

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is very descriptive and I think it will be appreciated as a report. It is written without any mistakes. In the future, it will be interesting to clarify the relationship between Hilsa and the ecology of other species inhabiting this estuary, and to understand the importance of Hilsa in the ecosystem as a whole. In this regard, I would like to request to the authors to add information on Hilsa's ecological status. Are there no fish species other than human-being that eat Hilsa, or is Hilsa the top of the ecological pyramid?

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is very descriptive and I think it will be appreciated as a report. It is written without any mistakes. In the future, it will be interesting to clarify the relationship between Hilsa and the ecology of other species inhabiting this estuary, and to understand the importance of Hilsa in the ecosystem as a whole. In this regard, I would like to request to the authors to add information on Hilsa's ecological status. Are there no fish species other than human-being that eat Hilsa, or is Hilsa the top of the ecological pyramid?

Reply to reviewer:

Meghna River is the suitable habitat for at least 53 fin fishes where hilsa is not major contributor. However, the hilsa fishery plays a vital role in the employment of coastal fishers, earnings of foreign exchange, and poverty alleviation in Bangladesh. Please see added lines: 48-51.

Reviewer 2 Report

This study provides valuable insights into the feeding ecology of hilsa in the upper Meghna estuary. It underscores the importance of considering seasonal variation, size differences, and specific food preferences of different life stages when studying the dietary habits of this commercially important fish species. However, the manuscript has some issues that need to be addressed before considering for publication.

1- Consistency: The author should be consistent when presenting tables. All tables need to be in the same format to ease the flow. Consider fixing all tables from Table 1 to Table 6.

2- The introduction has a few redundant paragraphs. Please be concise and aim to the point. 

3- Most of the references are old. Try to update them or find some recent studies related to your work to include in your citations.

4- Figure#4 has two problems. The first is that the figure caption does not provide adequate information about the figure. Please provide a detailed explanation of your figure as stand-alone info. Second, why do you have shown only error bars for a) and not for b)?

5- The conclusion is very lengthy and confusing. Please rewrite it and be concise. 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study provides valuable insights into the feeding ecology of hilsa in the upper Meghna estuary. It underscores the importance of considering seasonal variation, size differences, and specific food preferences of different life stages when studying the dietary habits of this commercially important fish species. However, the manuscript has some issues that need to be addressed before considering for publication.

1- Consistency: The author should be consistent when presenting tables. All tables need to be in the same format to ease the flow. Consider fixing all tables from Table 1 to Table 6.

Reply to the reviewer:

Table 1 to Table 6 have been fixed in the manuscript following unique style (Landscape). Please see the corrected and deleted items in lines 113 to onward.

2- The introduction has a few redundant paragraphs. Please be concise and aim to the point. 

Reply to Reviewer

There are only 4 paragraphs, which lead very nicely to the main reasons and points of the study. However, minor corrections we have done. Please see lines 48-51.

3- Most of the references are old. Try to update them or find some recent studies related to your work to include in your citations.

Reply to reviewer

Old references include the very few that mention sand in the guts of Hilsa – an important but apparently overlooked point in more recent studies. Others are taxonomic papers that are not routinely updates, or that reference equations, such as Ivlev’s electivity. We included some recent studies relevant to our present study. Please see references and text.

 

4- Figure#4 has two problems. The first is that the figure caption does not provide adequate information about the figure. Please provide a detailed explanation of your figure as stand-alone info. Second, why do you have shown only error bars for a) and not for b)?

Reply to reviewer

Meaningful caption of the Figure 4 is written that show standard deviation of Figure 4 a and 4b. Please see Figure 4 in the text.

5- The conclusion is very lengthy and confusing. Please rewrite it and be concise. 

Reply to reviewer

I agree that the conclusion is lengthy and reducing it is reasonable. Accordingly, we rewrite it and reduce it as much as possible keeping the consistency of the message about tychopelagic forms in the diet comes through loud and clear. Please see the conclusion in the text.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors addressed all comments. I suggest accepting in the current form.