Application of Probiotics for Environmentally Friendly and Sustainable Aquaculture: A Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript provides a review of the application of probiotics in aquaculture. The functions of microbial communities in aquatic animals and methods of probiotic administration are reviewed from the perspective of aquaculture, and the censoring tests of probiotics are reviewed from the perspective of research on probiotics. The manuscript has innovations and a clear writing route, and the reviewed contents are comprehensive, which can provide the basis for probiotic research in aquaculture.
The purpose of this review is clear to some extent, and the reviewed content is comprehensive. However, we found some formatting and writing problems that could be remedied by careful revision. Therefore, these should be resolved before acception.
Detailed comments:
Q1: For the introduction part, this manuscript is recommended to reflect aquaculture’s environmental friendliness and sustainability as much as possible.
Q2: The abstract is suggested to be revised to a more detailed language, such as data presentation.
Q3: “Adequate price and economic policies in creating nutritious diets should enable aquatic foods to have an important role in nourishing the global population and improving global nutrition and health” seems to be no connection with the context or the main topic of this manuscript.
Q4: The second line of the fifth paragraph of the introduction, a space is redundant before “There”, please delete it and modify similar errors in the full text.
Q5: “1. The microbiome of aquatic animals and its functioning” is suggested to be rechecked. The serial number of the title may be “2”.
Q6: The three working ways of pathogen antagonism of probiotics are suggested to be expressed using another form rather than single paragraphs.
Q7: In the latter paragraph of “Q6”, please provide supplementary references to support the conclusions when describing the benefits for aquaculture of probiotics.
Q8: Fig.1 needs to remove the shadow and express the content more clearly.
Q9: Please remove the white line and undesirable elements from Fig.2.
Q10: “Methods of probiotic administration” is suggested to check the content of the headings.
Q11: The content of the “Screening and testing of novel probiotics” is recommended to reflect environmentally friendly and sustainable aquaculture as much as possible.
Q12: The substance of “Scientific and technical novelties in probiotics research” needs to be further segmented to review the novel technologies in probiotic research.
Q13: The first paragraph of “Scientific and technical novelties in probiotics research” must adjust the font size.
Q14: Table 1 is recommended to summarize the table to illustrate the application of macrogenomics in microbiological research.
Q15: The References with many errors must be reformatted, including the title and content.
Author Response
Detailed comments:
Q1: For the introduction part, this manuscript is recommended to reflect aquaculture’s environmental friendliness and sustainability as much as possible.
Done.
Q2: The abstract is suggested to be revised to a more detailed language, such as data presentation.
Done.
Q3: “Adequate price and economic policies in creating nutritious diets should enable aquatic foods to have an important role in nourishing the global population and improving global nutrition and health” seems to be no connection with the context or the main topic of this manuscript.
Emitted.
Q4: The second line of the fifth paragraph of the introduction, a space is redundant before “There”, please delete it and modify similar errors in the full text.
Done.
Q5: “1. The microbiome of aquatic animals and its functioning” is suggested to be rechecked. The serial number of the title may be “2”.
Corrected.
Q6: The three working ways of pathogen antagonism of probiotics are suggested to be expressed using another form rather than single paragraphs.
Done.
Q7: In the latter paragraph of “Q6”, please provide supplementary references to support the conclusions when describing the benefits for aquaculture of probiotics.
Done.
Q8: Fig.1 needs to remove the shadow and express the content more clearly.
Done.
Q9: Please remove the white line and undesirable elements from Fig.2.
Done.
Q10: “Methods of probiotic administration” is suggested to check the content of the headings.
Done.
Q11: The content of the “Screening and testing of novel probiotics” is recommended to reflect environmentally friendly and sustainable aquaculture as much as possible.
Done. (As much as possible.)
Q12: The substance of “Scientific and technical novelties in probiotics research” needs to be further segmented to review the novel technologies in probiotic research.
Tried to do it but failed.
Q13: The first paragraph of “Scientific and technical novelties in probiotics research” must adjust the font size.
Done.
Q14: Table 1 is recommended to summarize the table to illustrate the application of macrogenomics in microbiological research.
Sorry, I could not understand this recommendation.
Q15: The References with many errors must be reformatted, including the title and content.
I was promised to receive help from the Editors to make reformatting the References.
Thanks for helping me to make better work.
Reviewer 2 Report
Although this manuscript provides more valuable information, it still needs major revision.
Here are my concerns.
1. This manuscript does not have line numbers to facilitate review.
2. The main conclusions need to be written in the abstract section.
3. “Probiotics’ beneficial role in aquaculture is multifaceted”, Please expand on the content of “multifaceted”.
4. The preamble should not only introduce the EU strategy, please refer to 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2009.02.012 and 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157384.
5. At the end of the introduction section, please indicate the innovations of this manuscript.
6. The second part of the serial number is wrongly written.
7. The font size in part 5 is not the same.
8. The conclusion does not capture the focus of the whole text and needs to be revised.
Author Response
- This manuscript does not have line numbers to facilitate review.
Sorry.
- The main conclusions need to be written in the abstract section.
The Abstract was rewritten.
- “Probiotics’ beneficial role in aquaculture is multifaceted”, Please expand on the content of “multifaceted”.
Corrected.
- The preamble should not only introduce the EU strategy, please refer to 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2009.02.012 and 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157384.
Corrected.
- At the end of the introduction section, please indicate the innovations of this manuscript.
Sorry but I think a Review is not about innovations. Anyway, this MS remains without any.
- The second part of the serial number is wrongly written.
Corrected.
- The font size in part 5 is not the same.
Corrected.
- The conclusion does not capture the focus of the whole text and needs to be revised.
Revised.
Thanks for helping me to make better work.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The author's revisions did not satisfy me, especially the fourth and fifth points. The author needs to take the suggestions made below seriously.I will reconsider the manuscript after the author has revised it.
Please refer to the comments I made during my first review.
Author Response
Dear Sir,
Please see my answers to your concerns, as follows:
- The main conclusions need to be written in the abstract section.
I've tried to correct the Abstract.
- “Probiotics’ beneficial role in aquaculture is multifaceted”, Please expand on the content of “multifaceted”.
This sentence was rewritten.
- The preamble should not only introduce the EU strategy, please refer to 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2009.02.012 and 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157384.
Corrected.
- At the end of the introduction section, please indicate the innovations of this manuscript.
Sorry, but I am still convinced that the main point of a Review article is not innovations. If it is, my MS is really missing that, and I can't correct this fault.
- The second part of the serial number is wrongly written.
Corrected.
- The font size in part 5 is not the same.
Corrected.
- The conclusion does not capture the focus of the whole text and needs to be revised.
It was revised, at least I tried to do my best.
