Scientific Methods to Understand Fish Population Dynamics and Support Sustainable Fisheries Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1 - The literature coverage is extensive, and the review is well-ordered and readable. 

2 - The methods will be familiar to fisheries professionals.  Open access will make the paper available to resource managers without complete fisheries backgrounds.

3 - There is an issue with the selection of English vocabulary here and there.  Also, there are some points where clarification is needed, such as lines 41-42, where it is not clear what the percentages refer to.  The technical issues are minor. The paper is generally well-edited and organized. 

4 - For the intended audience, more detailed examples of using the methods in actual management would help.  Adding discussion of successful applications to overexploitation would enhance understanding. Due to restrictions on article length, a short section on this in a developing nation context would further support the arguments. 

5 - A suggestion (for future consideration) is for the authors to consider writing an open-access e-book with more concrete examples of field applications, perhaps with an African focus. Then circulate this to resources agencies. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors present a very detailed and sound approach on how assess fish populations in a way that sustainable fisheries can take place. As we know fish stocks are scarce and the proper assessment and protection of fich stocks is needed more than ever. Simplified appraoches commonly being used are not adequate and more integrative approaches are needed and required. The authors present a thorough review of existing assessment methods and discuss how they can be integrated.

The paper provides an important reference for reseachers and managers interested in the assessement of fish stocks from an integrated prespective.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall comment

This manuscript relatively well describes the scientific methods to understand fish population dynamics and support sustainable fisheries management in Africa and well organized.  However, the paper makes many statements that seem unnecessary and too long, but it is not clear why.  The objectives and hypothesis of the study are not clearly stated, which makes the discussion difficult to follow.  While I am generally positive about the manuscript, I think there are four major points which should be issued (or at least clarified) by the authors; as well as some minor comments which I hope will help improving the manuscript.

Major comments

• You should state objective and hypothesis of the study more clearly (line 110~118) and repetition statement about importance of fisheries should be fastened and shortened.
• Length-weight relationships (LWRs) are generally used to estimate the weight of a fish for a corresponding length, and this can then be applied to determine fish stocks and population assessments such as those involving information regarding the fish growth type and the determination of fish growth conditions. However, the paper doesn’t contain this concern.  I suggest you including LWRs in the part of dynamics in fish population size and life history traits.  Please see the Froese (2006)’s paper.  Full reference information is below.

Froese, R. (2006). Cube law, condition factor and weight–length relationships: history, meta‐analysis and recommendations. Journal of applied ichthyology, 22(4), 241-253.

Minor comments

Please check the journal format again.

• Line 13: SDGs --> SDG
• Line 56-57: various forms --> please provide examples for types of form.
• Line 96: necessary data --> please provide examples for necessary data.
• Line 109: However --> Nowadays or Fortunately, Author used however in upper sentence
• Line 130: fully or over-exploited --> fully over-exploited
• Line 141: urbanization and dam --> urbanization, dam
• Line 180-182: Please rephrase the sentence
• Line 194-195: please rephrase the sentence
• Line 250-252: please rephrase the sentence
• Figure 1: please provide reference number or information
• Figure 3: please separate figure and table or delete table. It is repetition.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has been improved following the reviewer' comments.