Research on the Impact of Different Photovoltaic Fishery Models on Climate and Water Environment in Aquaculture
and Yuanliang Duan 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript presents a timely and relevant contribution on the impact of photovoltaic fishery models on climate and water environments in aquaculture areas. The topic is important and of high interest, particularly given the increasing integration of renewable energy systems with food production.
That said, I believe the paper would benefit from additional detail in two areas:
-
Methodology of measurements – While the study reports the use of IoT devices and sampling campaigns (Sections 2.2–2.3), the description of the monitoring protocol is relatively brief. More information on calibration procedures, accuracy of instruments, sampling frequency justification, and quality control methods would enhance the transparency and reproducibility of the research.
-
Analysis of results – The results section provides many descriptive statistics and comparisons between PFM-fixed, PFM-flexible, and TPM systems. However, a more in-depth discussion of the ecological mechanisms (e.g., links between reduced light intensity, dissolved oxygen levels, and plankton biomass changes) would help to strengthen the conclusions. Additionally, including a more systematic statistical treatment (beyond the P < 0.05 threshold, e.g., effect sizes, variance explanations) would allow the findings to be more robust and useful for future studies.
-
Figures – Several figures are too small in their current format, making it difficult for the reader to clearly interpret patterns or extract conclusions. Enlarging and improving their readability would significantly strengthen the presentation of results.
Overall, the paper is interesting and addresses a major issue. I recommend that the authors address the above points in a revised version, after which the manuscript would be suitable for publication.
Author Response
The manuscript presents a timely and relevant contribution on the impact of photovoltaic fishery models on climate and water environments in aquaculture areas. The topic is important and of high interest, particularly given the increasing integration of renewable energy systems with food production.
That said, I believe the paper would benefit from additional detail in two areas:
Methodology of measurements – While the study reports the use of IoT devices and sampling campaigns (Sections 2.2–2.3), the description of the monitoring protocol is relatively brief. More information on calibration procedures, accuracy of instruments, sampling frequency justification, and quality control methods would enhance the transparency and reproducibility of the research.
Answer: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. These recommendations have significantly improved the manuscript. The models of the meteorological instrument and pH meter have been included in the manuscript to ensure the reliability of the meteorological data. Measures such as five-point sampling and sample fixation have been adopted to ensure that the pond plankton samples are representative and the data are accurate. Regarding the sampling and monitoring frequency, this study is conducted on a quarterly basis, with the middle month of each quarter serving as the sampling time point to represent the samples of each quarter. Daily monitoring is carried out during the weak light in the morning and afternoon and the strong light at noon, consisting of three stages to make the samples more representative (line 107-108, line 120-125, line 127-130).
Analysis of results – The results section provides many descriptive statistics and comparisons between PFM-fixed, PFM-flexible, and TPM systems. However, a more in-depth discussion of the ecological mechanisms (e.g., links between reduced light intensity, dissolved oxygen levels, and plankton biomass changes) would help to strengthen the conclusions. Additionally, including a more systematic statistical treatment (beyond the P < 0.05 threshold, e.g., effect sizes, variance explanations) would allow the findings to be more robust and useful for future studies.
Answer: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. These recommendations have significantly improved the manuscript. We introduced new references to conduct a more in-depth analysis of the relationship among light, DO and plankton, in order to enrich the discussion section of this paper. Regarding the experimental treatment methods, we are very grateful for the suggestions from the reviewers. However, due to the copyright issue of the analysis software, our team can only perform one-way analysis of variance for the time being (line 370-377).
Figures – Several figures are too small in their current format, making it difficult for the reader to clearly interpret patterns or extract conclusions. Enlarging and improving their readability would significantly strengthen the presentation of results.
Answer: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. These recommendations have significantly improved the manuscript. We corrected it (in Figures 1 and 2)
Overall, the paper is interesting and addresses a major issue. I recommend that the authors address the above points in a revised version, after which the manuscript would be suitable for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments on the manuscript
This study explored the environmental impacts resulting from photovoltaic power generation and the fishing industry. The paper analyzed the effects of the photovoltaic fishery model on the climate and water environment of fish farming areas. This paper is highly relevant to this special issue. The paper has a clear structure, a reasonable experimental design, and reliable results. It holds practical significance for the development of the photovoltaic fishery model and addresses some research gaps in this field. However, I still have some suggestions. Please review them carefully and make any necessary revisions.
Introduction Section
Lines 89-90: It is inappropriate for PFM-fixed and PFM-flexible to appear here. They should be defined in the Materials and Methods section 2.1 (lines 95-96).
Materials and Methods Section
Lines 130-131: The meanings of P > 0.05 and P < 0.01 should be explained in more detail.
Results Section
Line 166: The units for each indicator should be added to the table or placed in other appropriate locations.
Notes in Table 1, Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3.
It is suggested to modify "PFM-fixed represents photovoltaic fishery mode (fixed support structures). PFM-flexible represents photovoltaic fishery mode (flexible support structures)." to "PFM-fixed represents photovoltaic fishery mode with fixed support structures. PFM-flexible represents photovoltaic fishery mode with flexible support structures."
The pictures in Figures 1 and 2 should be arranged in alphabetical order. Refer to the style of Figure 3 for guidance.
Line 189: Spaces should be used to separate numbers and characters. Please review the entire text. For example, (P = 0.000-0.027) should be used instead of (P = 0.000 - 0.027).
Conclusions
The statements may lead to misunderstandings and should be reviewed carefully. Based on the research findings, PFM can significantly reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the pond's surface, and can affect the temperature of the water and the air, as well as altering air humidity. PFM-flexible has a smaller impact on the climate, and the air humidity is higher compared to PFM-fixed, which may result in higher maintenance costs in the later stages than those associated with PFM-fixed.
Author Response
This study explored the environmental impacts resulting from photovoltaic power generation and the fishing industry. The paper analyzed the effects of the photovoltaic fishery model on the climate and water environment of fish farming areas. This paper is highly relevant to this special issue. The paper has a clear structure, a reasonable experimental design, and reliable results. It holds practical significance for the development of the photovoltaic fishery model and addresses some research gaps in this field. However, I still have some suggestions. Please review them carefully and make any necessary revisions.
Introduction Section
Lines 89-90: It is inappropriate for PFM-fixed and PFM-flexible to appear here. They should be defined in the Materials and Methods section 2.1 (lines 95-96).
Answer: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. We corrected it (line 95-97).
Materials and Methods Section
Lines 130-131: The meanings of P > 0.05 and P < 0.01 should be explained in more detail.
Answer: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. We corrected it (line 134-136).
Results Section
Line 166: The units for each indicator should be added to the table or placed in other appropriate locations.
Answer: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. We corrected it (in Table 1).
Notes in Table 1, Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3.
It is suggested to modify "PFM-fixed represents photovoltaic fishery mode (fixed support structures). PFM-flexible represents photovoltaic fishery mode (flexible support structures)." to "PFM-fixed represents photovoltaic fishery mode with fixed support structures. PFM-flexible represents photovoltaic fishery mode with flexible support structures."
Answer: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. We corrected it (line 172-174, line 184-186, line 269-270, line 299-300).
The pictures in Figures 1 and 2 should be arranged in alphabetical order. Refer to the style of Figure 3 for guidance.
Answer: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. We corrected it (in Figures 1 and 2).
Line 189: Spaces should be used to separate numbers and characters. Please review the entire text. For example, (P = 0.000-0.027) should be used instead of (P = 0.000 - 0.027).
Answer: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. We corrected all of them.
Conclusions
The statements may lead to misunderstandings and should be reviewed carefully. Based on the research findings, PFM can significantly reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the pond's surface, and can affect the temperature of the water and the air, as well as altering air humidity. PFM-flexible has a smaller impact on the climate, and the air humidity is higher compared to PFM-fixed, which may result in higher maintenance costs in the later stages than those associated with PFM-fixed.
Answer: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. We corrected it (line 391-396).
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article addresses the topic of the impact of renewable energy and the sustainable development of aquaculture. It also provides a specific focus on a comprehensive comparison of fixed support structures (PFM-fixed) and flexible support structures (PFM-flexible) in regulating climate and water environments. The study offers applied conclusions for practitioners and policymakers regarding the strengths and weaknesses of flexible and fixed photovoltaic systems.
- However, several aspects should be improved before publication:
Literature Review: The current review includes some outdated sources (e.g., from 1998, 2009, 2013, 2014). It is recommended to include more recent works (2022–2024) on floating photovoltaics and aquaculture–climate interactions to strengthen the state-of-the-art background. - Figures: Some figures, especially those illustrating seasonal variations [Rows 286–288], are overloaded and difficult to interpret. Simplification or redesign would improve readability and clarity.
- Discussion: The Discussion section is mostly descriptive. A deeper critical analysis is recommended, as well as the addition of a comparison table with findings from other relevant studies to highlight similarities and differences.
- Conclusions: While the conclusions are consistent with the results, they remain general. It is recommended to provide more specific practical guidelines, for example, under which conditions flexible systems are preferable and when fixed systems are more suitable.
Author Response
The article addresses the topic of the impact of renewable energy and the sustainable development of aquaculture. It also provides a specific focus on a comprehensive comparison of fixed support structures (PFM-fixed) and flexible support structures (PFM-flexible) in regulating climate and water environments. The study offers applied conclusions for practitioners and policymakers regarding the strengths and weaknesses of flexible and fixed photovoltaic systems.
However, several aspects should be improved before publication:
Literature Review: The current review includes some outdated sources (e.g., from 1998, 2009, 2013, 2014). It is recommended to include more recent works (2022–2024) on floating photovoltaics and aquaculture–climate interactions to strengthen the state-of-the-art background.
Answer: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. These recommendations have significantly improved the manuscript. We have incorporated the latest references to strengthen the background of the introduction. However, there are very few studies on PFM related to climate, so we have supplemented with 3 more papers (line 78-82).
Figures: Some figures, especially those illustrating seasonal variations [Rows 286–288], are overloaded and difficult to interpret. Simplification or redesign would improve readability and clarity.
Answer: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. These recommendations have significantly improved the manuscript. We corrected it (in Figures 1 and 2)
Discussion: The Discussion section is mostly descriptive. A deeper critical analysis is recommended, as well as the addition of a comparison table with findings from other relevant studies to highlight similarities and differences.
Answer: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. These recommendations have significantly improved the manuscript. There are too few studies related to this research, but we still included some critical discussion content. Additionally, a table was added to clearly present the related studies for this research (line 335-338, in Table 2).
Conclusions: While the conclusions are consistent with the results, they remain general. It is recommended to provide more specific practical guidelines, for example, under which conditions flexible systems are preferable and when fixed systems are more suitable.
Answer: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. These recommendations have significantly improved the manuscript. We have added the relevant information (line 396-397).
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the updated manuscript.
After reviewing the new version of the manuscript, the following conclusions can be drawn:
- The introduction and literature review are now better supported by recent sources (2022–2024), which strengthens the state-of-the-art background.
- The Discussion includes a deeper critical analysis and a comparison table with relevant studies—this increases transparency in benchmarking the results.
- In the Conclusions, guidance was added on the conditions under which fixed or flexible systems are preferable.
Overall, the manuscript has gained the necessary analytical depth and is ready for publication.
