Prediction and Analysis of Sturgeon Aquaculture Production in Guizhou Province Based on Grey System Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the peer-reviewed manuscript ‘Prediction and analysis of sturgeon aquaculture production in Guizhou Province based on grey system model’ by Yi Wang and co-authors, the results of prediction and evaluation of sturgeon aquaculture production dynamics in Guizhou Province are demonstrated.

The topic of the article is topical and of interest to a wide range of both specialists in the field and interested readers. The increase in the world's population dictates the need for rapid development of agriculture and increase in food production. Aquaculture has an important role to play in the development of agriculture. Aquaculture as a technological process can guarantee transparency and controllability of production, which serves as a basis for increased safety and environmental friendliness.     

The paper is written in good scientific language, well-illustrated and contains a sufficient number of relevant references. The authors use an interesting and relevant approach to data prediction (Grey System Model). However, I would like to clarify some issues that arose during the review.

 

Main question: As far as I can tell from the description of the Guizhou Province in section 2. Is this about sturgeon farming in natural ponds? Otherwise, it is not clear to me why a detailed geomorphological description of the area is given. I request clarification on this point. I ask the authors to indicate the total area of existing ponds (natural/artificial) for sturgeon rearing and preferably the total volume of water in cubic metres.

I will explain my interest: in sturgeon farming, a precise calculation of the sturgeon stocking density is necessary. There should be no more than 50 kg of fish per cubic metre of water. Exceeding this limit can cause water quality to deteriorate, resulting in an unpleasant odour in the sturgeon meat, slow growth and the risk of disease outbreaks. This can lead to mass mortality of sturgeon and significant financial losses. This manuscript presents the results of calculations with a trend for a significant increase in sturgeon production from about 30000 tonnes in 2023 to 180000 tonnes in 2032. I would like to see how well this projection matches the area/volume of existing water basins or how much they could potentially be expanded. The calculations given seem excessive without the evidence base to support this possibility from the existing water resources of Guizhou Province.

And secondly, it would be interesting to take into account such a limiting factor of sturgeon production as potential changes in consumer demand for this species. How realistic is it to expand the marketing channels from the current ones (perhaps the authors can supplement the article with such data) to the potentially projected one of 180000t.

The main recommendation is to try to take these data into account in the calculations or to point out some limitations of the approach used. It would also be useful to expand the introductory section to include the full range of factors limiting sturgeon aquaculture.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

i have attached the comments 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made significant improvements to the manuscript and have also answered all the reviewer's questions. The article can be published in its present form.

Author Response

Thank you sincerely for your positive feedback and constructive evaluation of our work. We deeply appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript, as well as your encouraging comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author

I appreciate you taking the time to review the earlier feedback and make the required changes. Although the article has improved as a result of your revisions, I suggest improving the paper's general coherence and structure.Furthermore, numerous grammatical mistakes and linguistic irregularities still need to be fixed.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing the article, as well as your constructive suggestions to improve its quality. In response to your comments, we have thoroughly checked and revised the manuscript to address the grammatical mistakes and linguistic irregularities you identified. Additionally, I have restructured the paper to enhance its overall coherence and logical flow, ensuring that the content is presented in a clear and organized manner. We have highlighted all the revisions in the modified version of manuscript.