A Sustainability Analysis of the Small Demersal Fish Used in the Surimi Industry in Indonesia Using the Length-Based Spawning Potential Ratio
, Nimmi Zulbainarni 1, Zenal Asikin 1, Slamet Budijanto 2 and Marimin Marimin 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors used a large amount of rich data for their research work, but some question need to be addressed.
1.Some of the terminology in abstract section is unclear, for example, fishing pressures, 1.3 to 5.0.
2.Line 13-16: “Since 2018, Indonesia's surimi industry has grown due to rising demand from foreign buyers, but export values have declined since 2022” and “The recent study aimed to ......”, sentence presentation overlap.
3.Research findings or revelations need to be articulated in abstract section.
4.Line 93-95: “In conclusion, this study emphasizes the main contribution stressed in this section: understanding small demersal fish stock sustainability in the Java Sea. Subsequently, our next section will underline that this contribution will be achieved by providing empirical data on species status and sustainability challenges using the LB-SPR method.” The relevant statement seems like it should be at the end of the article.
5.Line 99-104: In addition, the study emphasizes fisheries management policies, but obtaining relevant management measures from this analysis is unconvincing.
6.Line 106-107: Supplements basic statistical descriptions of data and analytical mapping tools.
7.Figure 2: Fish photo sources need to be added. Were tests for normality and homogeneity of variance of the data done? Are there relevant results in the supplementary material?
8.Three lines need to be added to Table 2.
9.Line 228-230: Italics are required for fish terms in Figure 4.
10.Line 240: Abbreviation first letter. “N. tambuloides” (Use italics). Check the full manuscript.
11.Line 243, 248 and Figure 5: Use italics: p < 0.05 and R-squared values.
12.Line 266: “N. tambuloides” (Use italics). Check the full manuscript.
13.Line 322-324: “These low SPR values underscore the urgent need for stricter fishing regulations to rebuild these species' reproductive potential and ensure long-term sustainability. Achieving the 30% target SPR is essential to maintaining ecological balance and supporting the fishing industry.” Lack of relevant evidence to support it.
14.Line 333: “According to the above results, ......” The description is unclear.
15.Line 387: “N. tambuloides” (Use italics).
16.Supplementary Files need to be categorized and related to the text.
Author Response
We thank the reviewers for these very insightful and important comments.
We have answered all your comments in the word file that we sent along with the manuscript that we have revised.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral comments
This paper tries to examine the sustainability of small demersal fish stocks in Indonesia's Java Sea, a crucial raw material source for the local surimi industry. By applying the Length-Based Spawning Potential Ratio (LB-SPR) method to four species, the study assesses fishing pressure, maturity levels, and reproductive capacity. The findings highlight significant overfishing and high proportions of immature fish being caught, indicating a threat to long-term population viability. The research concludes with recommendations for improved fisheries management, including size limits and seasonal closures, to ensure the sustainability of both the fish stocks and the surimi industry.
The objective of the manuscript, in general, is interesting from a fisheries management perspective, particularly given the importance of small demersal fish stocks in Indonesia. However, the manuscript requires substantial improvements to meet publication standards. The manuscript should become acceptable for publication pending suitable major revision considering the comments appended below.
More specific comments:
Title and Keywords: effectively communicate several key aspects of the study.
Abstract provides a good overview of the study, covering its motivation, methods, and key findings regarding the sustainability of small demersal fish for the surimi industry in Indonesia. However, some details should be added to potentially improve the abstract for greater clarity, specificity, and impact. Please emphasize the severity of the SPR findings against the reference point. This can be done by rephrasing the SPR finding to explicitly mention the 20% limit reference point and how many (or which) species fell below it. Please also strengthen the link between findings and implications for the industry/communities. For example, after stating the findings of high fishing pressure, low SPR, and immature catches, add a sentence explicitly linking these to the threat to the surimi industry and livelihoods. Please check.
Material and methods:
The primary limitation explicitly identified and discussed by the authors is the small coverage of the study area, specifically stating that the sampling was conducted at a single surimi factory rather than broader landing stations. This sampling method limitation, acknowledged by the authors, means the results might be most representative of the portion of the catch directed to the surimi industry rather than the entire fish stock dynamics across the whole Java Sea fishing area.
Results & Discussion:
Figures & Table:
Table 3: lists the unit for the Exploitation rate (F/M) as "%". However, the values provided (0.69, 0.73, 0.74, 0.51) are clearly ratios, not percentages. If they were percentages, they would represent extremely low exploitation (e.g., 0.69% of M), which contradicts the paper's findings of high fishing pressure. So, I think the unit should likely be dimensionless, or the values in Table 3 should be presented as percentages (e.g., 69%, 73%, 74%, 51%).
Figure 5: The caption lists the four species and their corresponding panel labels. It correctly lists Nemipterus tambuloides as (A) and Pentaprion longimanus as (B). However, it lists Upeneus sulphureus as (C) and then lists Priacanthus tayenustayenus as (C) as well. This is a presentational typo in the Figure 5 caption, where Priacanthus tayenus is incorrectly labeled as (C) instead of (D).
- The authors do suggest future research should investigate the broader ecological consequences and methods for more accurate assessments, including improving the LB-SPR method. The significance of broader sampling is critical for a truly representative stock assessment of FMA712. Its absence is the root of the major limitation. So, please try to strengthen the recommendation for future studies to conduct broader sampling across multiple landing sites and utilizing data from various fishing gears to obtain a more comprehensive and representative dataset for the stock assessment. This is essential for verifying if the low SPR values observed at the factory are indicative of the entire FMA712 stock status.
- The authors used the LB-SPR method, appropriate for data-limited fisheries. They report Confidence Intervals for some key outputs (SL50, SL95, F/M), which is good practice. However, they also suggest that Line 377 – 378: "Improving the LB-SPR method will provide more accurate population assessments" in the future. Sensitivity analysis is a common tool to understand how uncertainties in input parameters affect model outputs like SPR. The absence of a formal sensitivity analysis doesn't invalidate the findings from the current data, but it means the sensitivity of the SPR estimate to variations in assumed or estimated parameters (like M/k or selectivity shape) isn't fully explored within the paper. Therefore, please try to add a brief discussion in the limitations section about the inherent uncertainties in parameters estimated for data-limited assessments (like growth and mortality derived from ELEFAN I) and acknowledging that sensitivity analysis could further quantify the robustness of the SPR estimates. This could also be framed as a direction for future methodological work.
- More cautious and precise language should be taken when discussing the SPR findings. The conclusions about SPR and overexploitation should be explicitly contextualized as being representative of the fish entering the specific surimi factory, rather than necessarily reflecting the average condition of the entire stock. You can also enhance the discussion of how the documented sampling bias (size-based sorting) specifically impacts the interpretation of the SPR value and its relevance to the management of the entire FMA712 stock. Perhaps this suggesting that the SPR estimates represent a "worst-case scenario" or the status of the "surimi-bound component" of the stock in FMA712, rather than the overall stock status. Also, moving the discussion of the sampling limitation from the implications/recommendations section to a more prominent location, such as the Materials and Methods or early in the Discussion, to frame the results appropriately from the outset.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We thank the reviewers for these very insightful and important comments.
We have answered all your comments in the word file that we sent along with the manuscript that we have revised.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made detailed revisions, although the authors need to check the full text again regarding minor issues such as italicization of species names, e.g., Line 582-583.
Author Response
We thank the reviewers for these very insightful and important comments.
We have answered all your comments in the word file that we sent along with the manuscript that we have revised.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors successfully responded to most of my comments, and the manuscript has been greatly improved based on my first review and the other reviewers recommendations.
Author Response
We thank the reviewers for these very insightful and important comments.
We have answered all your comments in the word file that we sent along with the manuscript that we have revised.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
