Balancing Growth and Sustainability in China’s Carp Aquaculture: Practices, Policies, and Sustainability Pathways
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments on the manuscript with ID (sustainability-3647891-peer-review-v1)
Minor comments: -
1. Latin names present in the reference section should be written italic.
2. You should abbreviate the name of carp species after their first appearance in the text.
3. Line 113: (FAO, 2025) – should be included in the reference list.
Questions to be considered: -
Q1. What are the different culture systems employed for carp aquaculture in China, and what are their characteristics and regional prevalence?
Q2. How has the development of induced breeding technologies impacted carp aquaculture practices and production in China?
Q3. What are the typical stocking densities and growth rates achieved in different carp aquaculture systems in China?
Q4. Can you outline the integrated farming systems involving carp aquaculture that are practiced in China, and what are their benefits?
Q5. What role does the selection and breeding of improved carp varieties play in enhancing aquaculture productivity in China?
Q6. What specific policies have been implemented to promote carp farming in China?
Q7. What are the major environmental challenges associated with carp aquaculture in China?
Q8. What sustainable aquaculture practices are being adopted in China's carp aquaculture industry to mitigate environmental impacts?
Q9. What are the potential impacts of climate change on carp aquaculture in China, and what adaptation strategies are being considered or implemented?
The answers to the aforementioned questions will improve your paper. The authors should prepare a point-by-point response to them.
Author Response
Thank you for your review comments. Due to space limitations, our responses are detailed in the attached file.Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript provides a detailed review of carp aquaculture in China, covering its history, current practices, policy context, and sustainability issues. The authors document how centuries-old traditions and recent intensification have shaped the sector, analyze policy shifts toward ecological sustainability, and highlight the need to balance productivity with environmental protection and social equity. These insights are valuable not only for China’s aquaculture industry but also for global systems facing similar sustainability imperatives. I recommend this manuscript for publication in Sustainability, pending minor revisions.
Minor comments:
Define “carp aquaculture” at first use to clarify whether it refers strictly to Cyprinus carpio (common carp) or to all cyprinid species.
Abstract: specify the Tang Dynasty date range.
Line 167: “significantly contributes to … export revenue” [19,40] seems overstated if carp exports amount to ≈1 % of production; consider qualifying or rephrasing.
Introduction contains very detailed and interesting historical background, but the Introduction seems overloaded. Consider moving that material separately into a separate section to streamline the Introduction.
Manuscript is very lengthy (30 pp.), but I do not think that some sections could be omitted, all are important, I would recommend to consolidate or remove repetitive historical and policy points—especially where Discussion recaps facts already covered, it may make the reading easier and reduce redundancy.
Line 543: define “New Rural Cooperative Medical System (NRCMS)” only once; thereafter use the acronym alone.
Author Response
This manuscript provides a detailed review of carp aquaculture in China, covering its history, current practices, policy context, and sustainability issues. The authors document how centuries-old traditions and recent intensification have shaped the sector, analyze policy shifts toward ecological sustainability, and highlight the need to balance productivity with environmental protection and social equity. These insights are valuable not only for China’s aquaculture industry but also for global systems facing similar sustainability imperatives. I recommend this manuscript for publication in Sustainability, pending minor revisions.
Our response: Thank you for your positive assessment of our manuscript and your constructive feedback. We greatly appreciate your recognition of the work's value for both China's aquaculture sector and global sustainability efforts, and we are pleased that you recommend it for publication in Sustainability subject to minor revisions.
We have carefully considered your comments, and provided a detailed point-by-point response addressing each specific comment below.
Minor comments:
Define “carp aquaculture” at first use to clarify whether it refers strictly to Cyprinus carpio (common carp) or to all cyprinid species.
Our response: Thank you for your suggestion to define “carp aquaculture” at first use. We have reviewed the manuscript and believe the term is adequately defined in the introduction, where we state: “Among aquaculture’s diverse species, carps (Cyprinidae) represent the most commercially vital finfish group globally, accounting for one-third of total aquaculture production by volume [4]. Major species such as Chinese carps and Indian major carps are particularly prominent in Asian aquaculture systems, reflecting their historical and ongoing dominance in regional and global production [5,6].” We believe this clarifies that “carp aquaculture” refers to all cyprinid species. However, to ensure absolute clarity, we have added a brief explanatory note at the first use of the term in the Abstract, that carp aquaculture is “farming of species within the family Cyprinidae”.
Abstract: specify the Tang Dynasty date range.
Our response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have revised the text to specify the date range of the Tang Dynasty as 'Tang Dynasty (618–907 AD)'.
Line 167: “significantly contributes to … export revenue” [19,40] seems overstated if carp exports amount to ≈1 % of production; consider qualifying or rephrasing.
Our response: Thank you for highlighting the need for precision regarding the contribution of carp exports. We agree that stating the sector 'significantly contributes to export revenue' without qualification could be misleading given that carp exports specifically represent only ≈1% of production. We have revised the sentence on Line 167 (updated line number 210) as follows:
Original: "Emerging as the world’s largest producer and consumer of aquaculture products, the sector significantly contributes to GDP food security, and export revenue [19,40]."
Revised: "Emerging as the world’s largest producer and consumer of aquaculture products, the sector significantly contributes to GDP food security, and export revenue [19,51], although export revenue from carp remains limited."
Introduction contains very detailed and interesting historical background, but the Introduction seems overloaded. Consider moving that material separately into a separate section to streamline the Introduction.
Our response: Thank you for this constructive feedback. We agree that the Introduction was overloaded with extensive historical details that, while valuable, detracted from the main objectives and scope of the review. We have restructured the manuscript by moving all detailed historical content from the Introduction to a new dedicated subsection. We have created subsection 2.1 "Historical Evolution of Carp Aquaculture in China" within Section 2, which now comprehensively covers the historical development from ancient times (6000 BC) through modern transformations. We have also revised Section 2 title from "Overview of China's Carp Aquaculture" to "Historical Overview and Current Status of China's Carp Aquaculture" to better reflect the expanded scope that now includes both historical context and contemporary analysis. We also added a new paragraph as a concise summary of these developments in the Introduction, after removing all detailed historical content. Streamlined the Introduction to focus on establishing the research rationale, objectives, and significance while retaining only essential contextual information about aquaculture's global importance and China's current dominance.
Manuscript is very lengthy (30 pp.), but I do not think that some sections could be omitted, all are important, I would recommend to consolidate or remove repetitive historical and policy points—especially where Discussion recaps facts already covered, it may make the reading easier and reduce redundancy.
Our response: Thank you for your valuable comment. I appreciate your suggestion to consolidate or remove repetitive historical and policy points to reduce redundancy and improve readability. I have made the following revisions to address this issue:
We have consolidated repetitive historical and policy points throughout the manuscript. Especially in the discussion section, we have removed redundant recaps of facts already covered in previous sections. Instead, we replaced summary-oriented text with original syntheses, introducing three novel analytical frameworks, including institutional-technological co-evolution, sustainability transition paradox, and scale-integration dynamics. This shift ensures the Discussion now offers higher-level insights without repeating historical and policy facts.
Regarding the length of the manuscript, I would like to note that as a comprehensive review paper with over 200 references, it is necessary to provide a detailed analysis of the historical, policy, economic, environmental, and socioeconomic aspects of China's carp aquaculture industry. The 30-page length, including the extensive reference list, is appropriate for the scope and depth of this review.
Once again, thank you for your insightful comments.
Line 543: define “New Rural Cooperative Medical System (NRCMS)” only once; thereafter use the acronym alone.
Our response: Thank you for your insightful comment. I have carefully reviewed the text and confirmed that the second mention of "New Rural Cooperative Medical System (NRCMS)" has been removed. Now, after the initial definition, only the acronym "NRCMS" is used consistently throughout the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsA brief summary:
This MS by Song and Wang synthesizes the historical trajectory, technological advancements, policy frameworks, and sustainability challenges shaping China’s carp aquaculture sector. They show that to improve farming benefits and ensure ecological safety, farmers need to take a series of measures such as optimizing farming techniques, reducing farming costs, improving farming efficiency, strengthening environmental protection facilities, etc. In addition, the government also needs to increase support for aquaculture and guide farmers in adopting advanced technology to promote sustainable development of China's aquaculture industry.
- General concept comments.
Overall, I thought this was a good review related to carp aquaculture. I appreciated their approach and the time course involved in this work and think it add significant merit to their work. I show my advice as follows.
- Specific comments
In this review, the author most introduces overview, problems, measures, and sustainability challenges. I think the title “Carp aquaculture in China: practices, policies, and sustainability” is not enough to include these key points and cannot fully capture the reader's attention. I suggest change more suitable title.
Line 55 What does “BC” here mean?
Line 56 What does “B.C.” here mean?
Line 62 When Latin of the same species appears for the second time, abbreviations should be used. “Hypophthalmichthys nobilis” change to “H. nobilis”. This suggestion applies to the entire text.
Line 111 There are Figure 1a and 1b in Figure 1. The author should introduce them separately clearly such as Figure 1a and 1b, not only Figure 1 here.
Line 137 “Data source: [4]” change to “Data source from reference [4]”, the author should standardize writing.
Line 147 “Data source: [28]” change to “Data source from reference [28]”, the author should standardize writing.
Line 266 There are Figure 4a and 4b in Figure 4. The author should introduce them separately clearly such as Figure 4a and 4b, not only Figure 1 here.
Line 277 “Data source: [4]” change to “Data source from reference [4]”, the author should standardize writing.
Line 321 “Data source: [4]” change to “Data source from reference [4]”, the author should standardize writing.
Line 456 “Labor Structure and Workforce Challenges” The author introduce Child labor and Women. This problem exists in all aquaculture. I suggest the author should only introduce “Labor Structure and Workforce Challenges” closely related to carp aquaculture, not all the common phenomena that exist in aquaculture. This will broaden the scope of discussion and reduce the interest of the article to readers.
Finally, in References part: I noticed that the author cited many Chinese References, but did not annotate it. The author should label and explain them, such as “In Chinese” or “In Chinese with English abstract”. This is the basic citation standard.
Author Response
A brief summary: This MS by Song and Wang synthesizes the historical trajectory, technological advancements, policy frameworks, and sustainability challenges shaping China’s carp aquaculture sector. They show that to improve farming benefits and ensure ecological safety, farmers need to take a series of measures such as optimizing farming techniques, reducing farming costs, improving farming efficiency, strengthening environmental protection facilities, etc. In addition, the government also needs to increase support for aquaculture and guide farmers in adopting advanced technology to promote sustainable development of China’s aquaculture industry.
General concept comments.
Overall, I thought this was a good review related to carp aquaculture. I appreciated their approach and the time course involved in this work and think it add significant merit to their work. I show my advice as follows.
Our response: Thank you for your positive assessment of our manuscript and your constructive feedback. We have carefully considered your comments, and provided a detailed point-by-point response addressing each specific comment below.
Specific comments
In this review, the author most introduces overview, problems, measures, and sustainability challenges. I think the title “Carp aquaculture in China: practices, policies, and sustainability” is not enough to include thesekey points and cannot fully capture the reader’s attention. I suggest change more suitable title.
Our response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have carefully considered your feedback and have revised the title to better reflect the comprehensive content of the review. The new title is: "Balancing Growth and Sustainability in China’s Carp Aquaculture: Practices, Policies, and Sustainability Pathways." I believe this title more accurately captures the key aspects of the manuscript, including the overview, problems, measures, and sustainability challenges discussed in the review. We trust this change fully addresses your concern. Thank you again for your insightful comments.
Line 55 What does “BC” here mean?
Our response: We have clarified the dating notation. "BC" refers to "Before Christ," but we have now updated our manuscript to use the more contemporary academic convention of "BCE" (Before Common Era) and "CE" (Common Era) throughout for consistency and inclusivity.
Line 56 What does “B.C.” here mean?
Our response: We have clarified the dating notation. "B.C." refers to "Before Christ," but we have now updated our manuscript to use the more contemporary academic convention of "BCE" (Before Common Era) and "CE" (Common Era) throughout for consistency and inclusivity.
Line 62 When Latin of the same species appears for the second time, abbreviations should be used. “Hypophthalmichthys nobilis” change to “H. nobilis”. This suggestion applies to the entire text.
Our response: Thank you for your detailed comment. We have now standardized taxonomic abbreviations throughout the manuscript according to convention, that after the first full mention of a species, subsequent mentions use the abbreviated genus. This change has been applied comprehensively to all relevant species (e.g., Hypophthalmichthys nobilis change to H. nobilis).
Line 111 There are Figure 1a and 1b in Figure 1. The author should introduce them separately clearly such as Figure 1a and 1b, not only Figure 1 here.
Our response: Thank you for this observation. We have revised the text to explicitly reference both sub-figures: "China is the world's largest producer of farmed carp (Figure 1a and Figure 1b), accounting for..."
Line 137 “Data source: [4]” change to “Data source from reference [4]”, the author should standardize writing.
Our response: We appreciate the attention to detail. We have standardized all figure captions to consistently use "Data source from reference [4]" format throughout the manuscript, including the revision of Figure 1 to: "Data source from reference
Line 147 “Data source: [28]” change to “Data source from reference [28]”, the author should standardize writing.
Our response: We appreciate the attention to detail. We have standardized all figure captions to consistently use "Data source from reference [28]" format throughout the manuscript, including the revision of Figure 2 to: "Data source from reference
Line 266 There are Figure 4a and 4b in Figure 4. The author should introduce them separately clearly such as Figure 4a and 4b, not only Figure 1 here.
Our response: Thank you for this observation. We have revised the text to explicitly reference both sub-figures: "Exports are minimal, only ~50,000 tons annually, mostly live carp to Hong Kong (Figure 4a and Figure 4b), while domestic..."
Line 277 “Data source: [4]” change to “Data source from reference [4]”, the author should standardize writing.
Our response: We appreciate the attention to detail. We have standardized all figure captions to consistently use "Data source from reference [4]" format throughout the manuscript, including the revision of Figure 4 to: "Data source from reference
Line 321 “Data source: [4]” change to “Data source from reference [4]”, the author should standardize writing.
Our response: We appreciate the attention to detail. We have standardized all figure captions to consistently use "Data source from reference [4]" format throughout the manuscript, including the revision of Figure 5 to: "Data source from reference
Line 456 “Labor Structure and Workforce Challenges” The author introduce Child labor and Women. This problem exists in all aquaculture. I suggest the author should only introduce “Labor Structure and Workforce Challenges” closely related to carp aquaculture, not all the common phenomena that exist in aquaculture. This will broaden the scope of discussion and reduce the interest of the article to readers.
Our response: Thank you for this valuable feedback. We agree that the original section was too broad and included general aquaculture issues rather than focusing specifically on carp aquaculture labor challenges. We have significantly revised Section 5.2 to address your concerns. Now this section is more focused on carp-specific challenges, such as labor issues directly relevant to carp aquaculture operations, including family-based production models, demographic challenges, and sector-specific workforce trends. We added more specific data about carp farmer demographics and labor patterns while maintaining the discussion of women's roles within the carp farming context. We rewrite the paragraph on child labor to link this issue with carp aquaculture.
Finally, in References part: I noticed that the author cited many Chinese References, but did not annotate it. The author should label and explain them, such as “In Chinese” or “In Chinese with English abstract”. This is the basic citation standard.
Our response: Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have carefully checked the reference section and ensured that all Chinese references labelled as “In Chinese” or “In Chinese with English abstract” as suggested.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAlthough the article presents a broad and well-referenced review of carp aquaculture in China, it lacks an explicit methodological section. The absence of information regarding the search strategy, databases used, inclusion and exclusion criteria for sources, and the quality assessment of the studies limits the transparency and reproducibility of the review. It is recommended that the authors include, even briefly, a description of the methods used for literature selection. This addition would strengthen the academic credibility of the work and allow readers and researchers to better understand the scope and choices made in constructing the analysis.
The article presents a solid discussion on ecological and socioeconomic sustainability but lacks a structured approach based on ESG principles (environmental, social, and governance). The explicit incorporation of ESG indicators would bring greater clarity to the dimensions analyzed, allowing for international comparisons and increasing the article's usefulness for public managers and the private sector. Additionally, the aspect of animal welfare, widely discussed in modern aquaculture, is absent from the review. This is an essential component of social and ethical sustainability, especially considering the growing interest in welfare certifications and market demands. It is recommended to include a discussion on the regulatory and practical frameworks related to the welfare of farmed carp in China, as well as its interface with public policies and consumer perceptions.
Furthermore, the absence of animal welfare indicators and ESG criteria is a significant gap in the article and can be pointed out as an aspect that compromises the depth of the review in the social and ethical dimensions.
Author Response
Although the article presents a broad and well-referenced review of carp aquaculture in China, it lacks an explicit methodological section. The absence of information regarding the search strategy, databases used, inclusion and exclusion criteria for sources, and the quality assessment of the studies limits the transparency and reproducibility of the review. It is recommended that the authors include, even briefly, a description of the methods used for literature selection. This addition would strengthen the academic credibility of the work and allow readers and researchers to better understand the scope and choices made in constructing the analysis.
Our response: Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. This review is a narrative synthesis (not a systematic review or meta-analysis) focused on contextualizing China's carp aquaculture development through historical, technical, economic, and policy lenses. Our goal was to integrate diverse scholarly perspectives rather than quantify aggregated data. Therefore, a full methodology section is typically not required for this type of review. However, to improve transparency and reproducibility, we have inserted a short methodological statement in the Introduction and attached below (updated line number 67).
This review synthesizes literature through a narrative approach, drawing on historical records, policy documents, and contemporary studies to contextualize the evolution of China's carp aquaculture. Literature was identified via Web of Science, Google Scholar, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) using keyword combinations (e.g., variants of 'carp aquaculture China' paired with 'policy,' 'history,' 'production,' 'sustainability,' or 'value chain'). Priority was given to peer-reviewed articles in English and Chinese, as well as government reports, with emphasis placed on authoritative sources covering ecological, economic, and social dimensions. Production and trade statistics were primarily sourced from FAO FishStatJ and China's National Fishery Statistics Yearbooks.
The article presents a solid discussion on ecological and socioeconomic sustainability but lacks a structured approach based on ESG principles (environmental, social, and governance). The explicit incorporation of ESG indicators would bring greater clarity to the dimensions analyzed, allowing for international comparisons and increasing the article’s usefulness for public managers and the private sector.
Our response: Thank you for this valuable suggestion regarding the incorporation of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) principles. We recognize that ESG frameworks provide important structured approaches for sustainability assessment and appreciate you highlighting this analytical lens.
We have carefully considered integrating explicit ESG indicators into our analysis. While our current framework organizes the discussion around the three pillars of sustainability (environmental, social, and economic dimensions), we acknowledge that a more structured ESG approach could enhance clarity and facilitate international comparisons as you suggest.
Upon reflection, we believe our current approach is well-suited to this literature review for the following reasons: Our framework effectively captures ESG concerns across multiple sections - environmental impacts (Section 4), social dimensions including labor and equity (Section 5), and governance through policy frameworks (Section 2.3). Additionally, as a comprehensive literature review synthesizing diverse research domains, many of the studies we analyze were not originally structured around ESG metrics, making our sustainability framework more inclusive of the available literature.
However, we recognize the growing importance of ESG frameworks in aquaculture assessment. To address your suggestion, we have added a brief discussion highlighting how future research could benefit from applying structured ESG indicators to China's carp aquaculture sector, particularly for facilitating international comparisons and corporate sustainability assessments (updated line number 700).
We believe this addition strengthens the manuscript while maintaining our comprehensive sustainability approach. Thank you for this constructive feedback that has helped us better contextualize our work within contemporary sustainability frameworks.
Additionally, the aspect of animal welfare, widely discussed in modern aquaculture, is absent from the review. This is an essential component of social and ethical sustainability, especially considering the growing interest in welfare certifications and market demands. It is recommended to include a discussion on the regulatory and practical frameworks related to the welfare of farmed carp in China, as well as its interface with public policies and consumer perceptions. Furthermore, the absence of animal welfare indicators and ESG criteria is a significant gap in the article and can be pointed out as an aspect that compromises the depth of the review in the social and ethical dimensions.
Our response: Thank you for highlighting the important dimension of animal welfare in modern aquaculture sustainability. We acknowledge that this represents a significant gap in our current review and appreciate you bringing this critical aspect to our attention.
Upon thorough examination of the literature, we found that explicit regulatory frameworks and certification schemes focused specifically on carp welfare in China are indeed limited in mainstream policy and research analyses. Current national policies primarily emphasize food safety, pollution control, and resource efficiency, with minimal codification of welfare-specific practices for cyprinids. The adoption of international certification schemes incorporating welfare criteria remains limited in China's domestic carp sector, primarily appearing in export-oriented industries like tilapia and shrimp production.
We recognize this as a limitation of our review. This limitation is particularly significant given the growing global emphasis on ethical sustainability and welfare considerations in aquaculture. To address this gap, we have added a dedicated paragraph in Section 5.1 (Social Sustainability) that explicitly acknowledges the limited development of animal welfare frameworks in China's carp aquaculture and identifies this as a critical area for future policy development and research (updated line number 573):
Animal welfare considerations in China's carp aquaculture remain an emerging area with limited regulatory frameworks compared to Western standards. Current national policies prioritize food safety, pollution control, and resource efficiency [91,130], with limited codification of welfare-specific practices for cyprinids. The adoption of international certification schemes incorporating welfare criteria is primarily observed in export-oriented sectors like tilapia or shrimp [35] and has not significantly permeated the domestic carp market. Consumer awareness of animal welfare in aquaculture remains limited, with purchasing decisions primarily driven by price, freshness, and food safety rather than welfare certifications [181,182]. This gap represents an important frontier for social sustainability, particularly as global markets and ethical frameworks increasingly emphasize welfare.
Thank you for this valuable feedback that has helped us identify and acknowledge an important limitation while pointing toward necessary future research directions.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors paid great efforts to revise the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has made point-to-point revisions as requested by the reviewer, and I agree to publish according to the format requirements of the journal after appropriate editing and modifications.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCongratulations on the work and the effort to improve the article for publication.
