Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, the optimal FAD locations determined through utilization of marine geospatial data was studied. It is a very meaningful work. The results of the study can provide an important scientific basis for the safe management of FAD, sustainable exploitation of fishery resources and social development in Gorontalo Province. However, there are still some issues that need to be considered and refined before the manuscript is accepted for publication.

 

1. Line 52, for the first appearance of FAD, the full name needs to be given, and then the abbreviation needs to be proposed. In the Materials and Methods section, the necessary description of the form, size, and material of the FAD is needed, because these parameters affect the force of the currents on the FAD.

2. Line 68, as currents are the main influencing factor of FAD, the authors should give some information about the currents in the study area.

3. Line 161, how were the chlorophyll data obtained?

4. Line 164, the authors mention the May 2021 chart, what about the other months? Are there seasonal differences?

5. The latitude and longitude of the same FAD in Table 2 and Table 4 are the same, but the units are not uniform and need to be converted, also, can these two tables be combined into one?

6. Line 198, the on-situ observation methods of currents need to be described; is there a difference between the water depth measured by currents and the actual water depth placed by FAD?

7. Table 5, it is recommended that the observed stations be placed in figure 5 for the reader to visualize.

8. The data corresponding to point and time in Table 6 need to be adjusted.

9. Line 232, Figure 7 should be Figure6? Similarly, figure8 in L268 and Figure9 in L287, please check.

10. Line 312-319, are these fishery catch data cited by the authors, is it the entire catch from FAD? If partially, it needs to be stated how much of it is from FAD so that the importance of FAD to local fisheries can be more favorably illustrated.

11. Line 395, ‘There are 3 categories of site suitability for FAD deployment’, which are also covered in Figure 6 (Line 235) in the text, and the method and range of their assignment are suggested to be stated in the Materials and Methods.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract - Besides being detrimental to the fishermen, loss of FADs is also detrimental to the environment and should be mentioned. 

Line 31, change so it can be seen to thus

Line 48, improve/rewrite sentence

Line 52, consider improving sentence and using aggregate rather than collect fish

Improve sentence in line 53/54

Sentence starting line 57 is too long and should be improved

line 66 insert of before fishermen

Consider using the term fishers instead of fishermen throughout

Line 77 add reference

Line 81 add reference to the regulations

Paragraph starting line 81 is not clear about whether the authors are  explaining the methodology or giving suggestions which should not be in this section.

Line 101 use observed instead of obtained

Sentence starting line 109 is unclear

Should analysis be the discussion section?

Please include proposals with the conclusion

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscirpt classified the optimal FADs with geospatial date, which have some potential value to fish catches. However, authors just mentioned FADs are use of fish aids, but without detailed the FADs, we can speculate it in direct field, like a kind of sonar, special fish net or special lights. We hope authors would specify the FADs to many inexperenced reader. Additionally, the section of introduction just talked about the applicability, but without analysing the deficiency, so that we can very hard to grasp the meaning of this study. As mentioned by authors, the layout of some FADs are not suitable, how to adjusted them to a better locations or how many FADs should be cancelled after conducting this study, all of which should be clarified.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have revised and improved the manuscript. It is a very rewarding work. It is recommended to be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Species scientific names should be in italic.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The responses and revision meet my concern, so that I agree the publication in this form.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx