RETRACTED: Environmental Conditions and the Fish Stocks Situation in the Black Sea, between Climate Change, War, and Pollution

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author,

Here are my comments on the peer-reviewed manuscript. I hope the author will consider taking them into account when preparing the publication for good readership.

General appraisal:

I consider the content of this article to be important and interesting, but the way it is presented is very unfriendly to the reader. All results obtained by the author should be presented in the results chapter and the applied methods should be presented in the "Materials and methods" chapter. It is not clear what was researched by the author in this article. Very poor literature was presented in the manuscript.

 

It is not clear what the author's research looked like, what exactly was examined. It is also not clarified whether this is a review of the literature and published data. Many of the data presented are approximate data - on what basis such data are presented - this should be explained so that the reader has no doubts as to the reliability of the presented results.

 

The title of the manuscript - I believe it is too general and does not reflect the content of the manuscript.

  The work does not present the goal - it should be clearly defined.

The content in the chapters is too much mixed up, e.g.

1. Abstract

There is information about the situation of dolphins - however, no research was conducted on these mammals, ? the results are presented, which are quoted after other authors, this should be thoroughly presented and explained.

  2. Materials and Methods -

- there should be no results in this chapter - please move them to the "results" chapter

- descriptions are insufficient, such as line146: "Figure 1-a, marks the water depth, and Figure 1-b the number of monitoring vessels, according to 2020 report"- these sentences can be omitted and instead, the basic morphometric parameters of the analyzed reservoir.

- it was not specified what tests were performed, what measurements were made, what data was used from available sources. - this type of information should be included in the "Methods".

It is not clear in what period the research was conducted, why, for example, only March 2021 results are presented (Figure 2. Air parameters for March 2021: (a) Wind direction). Lack of precision in the description of the figures, e.g. Figure 2a - the result is shown for one day, not for a month

Table 5. Average concentrations of nutrients - the results are given without units - it is necessary to specify the period from which these results come from - it should be clearly written, precisely. This table should be in Chapter 3, not Chapter 2. Similarly, all other tables with results should be in Chapter Results - this is generally accepted and easy for the reader to analyze - this should be corrected.

The results chapter contains data from published materials - it is not clear and understandable - it should be precisely discussed what exactly the author examined and what comes from literature data.

 

Specific comments:

the general mess in the text needs to be sorted out - in this form it is unacceptable for a scientific journal.

Table 5. IUCN Red List for Black Sea. . - should be "Table 6".

All presented results must be precisely discussed (so that the reader does not have any doubts). Table 5 Average concentrations of nutrients– missing units schould be added; but also why an abbreviation like TN and TIN was taken - (TN usually stands for Total nitrogen in the literature) - maybe better would be: N-NO2 and N-NO3, it seems more understandable/ useful

The fish species are shown - it's very interesting but why was this division between anadromous fish and Demersal fish chosen?

Table 5 (6) is presented. IUCN Red List for Black Sea - why is the literature reference not given - why is the species Alosa immaculata not listed there? - this is unclear and a precise description of this and other tables given in the text should be given. moreover, in the table instead of "fish" - there should be "species name"

 

Figure 8.  -  the letter „e” is missing under the photo; Figure 9. Fish species in the Black Sea: (a) Diamond sturgeon or Danube sturgeon (b) Small spotted catshark; (c) Sturgeron; (d) Starry sturgeon - in scientific works it is necessary to use taxonomic names in Latin - this should be stated there.

Table 4. Main sources of seawater pollution - why such a division of "types" was used here; what's the difference between: Persistent organic , Biologic , Microbial

TABLE 4 - “Exotic species” – this is not precise - as the text refers to fish species - it can be expected that table 4 also refers to exotic fish species. However, the text shows that it is not about fish but about other groups - please specify it because it cannot be so chaotic/ not precized in scientific work.

- chemical compound names are spelled incorrectly – e.g.“ fluorane(b)benzo (b)”

Table 1. Average recorded values of PAH in 2020.- is this data from the literature? should there be a citation?

- Taxa names in Latin must be correctly entered in the manuscript, Lines 646-647 there is Sturgeron – should be Sturgeon

 

Material and methods are mixed with results.

 

Line 173: „POP particles”- What does it mean? schould be explained ?

 

Line  279 “Table 5 illustrates the nutrient discharge situation in 2019”- it is not clear whether these are the author's own data, - citations schould be addedr - there are more examples of this type of text placed in the wrong place. This should be corrected.“

 

Table 5. IUCN Red List for Black Sea.- should be Table 5.- line 640

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your appreciation.

I made major changes in the paper's structure, chapters, and explanations, and I hope the paper is now improved.

Next, I will mention the made corrections, based on your remarks:

1. I changed the title; now I hope it is clearer, and in close connection with the content of the paper;
2. I corrected the English; I asked an authorized translator to improve the English;
3. I practically rewrote the paper’s Abstract; I described strictly the paper’s content;
4. I modified the structure of the main chapters 2 and 3, Materials and Methods and Results. I have restructured the Materials and Methods chapter and I moved all the results to the chapter intended for them;
5. I modified the chapter Discussions;
6. I corrected the reporting periods everywhere in the paper;
7. I have corrected all the phrases you mentioned;
8. For all graphs, I presented what they represent, the monitoring period, and the significance of parameters;
9. I presented the measurement methods and the used equipment, as long as the paper does not become too long;
10. In Table 5, I filled the measure units. I also modified the notations used according to your recommendations;
11. I moved all the tables with measurements to the Results chapter, as you recommend. I have completed where you specified what measurements are realized by our team and where are the reports of some riparian states;
12. I have corrected Table 5 - it becomes Table 6. I have also corrected in the Description of the table contents, that only some species from the "Red List: IUNC for the Black Sea" are mentioned; the most threatened species;
13. I classified the fish into 2 classes because they behave differently to environmental changes
14. I have added the names of sturgeons in Latin to Figure 9;
15. For Table 4, I explained in the text what I mean regarding the exotic species;
16. I modified the text regarding Table 1;
17. I corrected all the mistakes mentioned by you in English, and I have explained all the abbreviations;
18. I enlarged the figures to make them clearer;
19. I attached new references;
    
    

I hope that I have answered all the observations you made and now the paper is clearer and acceptable for publication,

Thank you,

Best regards,

Reviewer 2 Report

On account of the manuscript WATER-2184422, entitled “Current situation of seawater and fish stocks in the Black Sea, between climate change, war, and pollution” by Victorita Radulescu, the authors investigated the growth of algae in the northern area of the Black Sea which invasive species of vegetation and marine fauna affecting the local fish reserve and the populations of dolphins and seals. The topic is important to better understanding of the current situation of the current situation of seawater and fish stocks in the Black Sea. After careful consideration, I feel that this manuscript is to be published after improvement of some major shortcomings. Details of my comments are as follows:

 

1) The view point of this research is interesting, and the authors got interesting results. Several revisions are, however, required before publication. The first one is in the contents of ‘Abstract’. The present Abstract was not informative. Abstract should include background, purpose of the research, principal results and major conclusions in a summarized way. In addition, due to separation of the Abstract from the major article, it must be a key to lead readers to evoke a spirit of challenge to contact with the contents of the report. Therefore, the authors are strongly encouraged to improve the Abstract for enhancement of the novelty and better understanding of the results.

 

2) Another notable aspect is in the novelty of the research. The experiment and the results were elaborate. On the other hand, novelty of the present study is not so clear. Although the authors mentioned the aim of this study, the new aspect or view point of this research was not stated in the manuscript. The authors are better to mention the novel aspects and/or viewpoints which surpass the previous researches in the manuscript clearly.

 

 

3) Quality of the present Figures are, unfortunately, not sufficient for publication. The size of the Figures is generally small and difficult to read. In addition, resolution of Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 are not sufficient for publication. The authors are strongly encouraged to show conspicuous and attractive Figures for enhancement of visualization and better understanding of the results.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your appreciation.

I made major changes in the paper’s structure, chapters, and explanations, and I hope the paper is now improved.

Next, I will mention the made corrections, based on your remarks:

1. I changed the title; now I hope it is clearer, and in close connection with the content of the paper;
2. I corrected the English; I asked an authorized translator to improve the English;
3. I practically rewrote the paper’s Abstract; I described strictly the paper’s content;
4. I modified the structure of the main chapters 2 and 3, Materials and Methods and Results. I have restructured the Materials and Methods chapter and I moved all the results to the  chapter intended for them;
5. I modified the chapter Discussions;
6. For all graphs, I presented what they represent, the monitoring period, and the significance of parameters;
7. I moved all the tables with measurements to the Results chapter.
8. I have corrected Table 5 - it becomes Table 6. I have also corrected in the Description of the table contents, that only some species from the "Red List: IUNC for the Black Sea" are mentioned; the most threatened species;
9. I enlarged the figures to make them clearer;
10. I attached new references;
    
    

I hope that I have answered all the observations you made and now the paper is clearer and acceptable for publication,

Thank you,

Best regards,

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The current manuscript entitled “Current situation of seawater and fish stocks in the Black Sea,  between climate change, war, and pollution” by Victorita Radulescu emphasized on impact of current environmental challenges caused by three major factors i.e., climate change, war, and pollution. Combinedly, these three factors have contributed to enormous negative consequences in the recent few years. In fact, the author has chosen the topic wisely and drafted the manuscript focusing on the impact of selected factors on water life near the Romanian coastline of the Black sea. After a careful reading, I found this manuscript appropriate for publication in water but certain problems must be resolved before consideration. I suggest a major revision. My specific comments are:

1.      The title needs to be revised with specific emphasis on the selected region.

2.      The abstract should be rewritten focusing on the major problem, objectives of the study, findings, and their usefulness.

3.      In recent times, COVID has also contributed significantly to the increase/decrease of seawater fish stocks. Also, while considering the March 2021 period, how it was different from current or past situations in terms of selected parameters (air, water, climate)?

4.      Sources of data given in tables/figures must be mentioned under their footers/captions.

5.      I have a major concern about the data given in tables/charts. It should be from a consistent period. Some data was from 2014, some from 2017, some from 2020, some from March 2021, and some from 2014. Any specific reason for not choosing a uniform period for all parameters? Also, why the author did not compare all parameters with previous data?

6.      Some readings even don’t have mention dates/years.

7.      The reports must be cited from which the data is derived.

8.      The article is poorly referenced and most of the claims are baseless. I couldn’t recommend the current version for consideration until this major flaw is not resolved. Please provide valid citations for each claim made and also provide sources of data included.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your appreciation.

I made major changes in the paper's structure, chapters, and explanations, and I hope the paper is now improved.

Next, I will mention the made corrections, based on your remarks:

1. I changed the title; now I hope it is clearer, and in close connection with the content of the paper;
2. I corrected the English; I asked an authorized translator to improve the English;
3. I practically rewrote the paper’s Abstract; I described strictly the paper’s content;
4. I modified the structure of the main chapters 2 and 3, Materials and Methods and Results.
5. I have restructured the Materials and Methods chapter and I moved all the results to the   chapter intended for them;
6. I modified the chapter Discussions;
7. I corrected the reporting periods everywhere in the paper;
8. For all graphs, I presented what they represent, the monitoring period, and the significance of parameters;
9. I presented the measurement methods and the used equipment, as long as the paper does not become too long;
10. In Table 5, I filled the measure units. I also modified the notations used according to your recommendations;
11. I moved all the tables with measurements to the Results chapter, as you recommend. I have completed where you specified what measurements are realized by our team and where are the reports of some riparian states;
12. I have corrected Table 5 - it becomes Table 6. I have also corrected in the Description of the table contents, that only some species from the "Red List: IUNC for the Black Sea" are mentioned; the most threatened species;
13. I modified the text regarding Table 1;
14. I corrected all the mistakes and I have explained all the abbreviations;
15. I enlarged the figures to make them clearer;
16. I attached new references;
    
    

I hope that I have answered all the observations you made and now the paper is clearer and acceptable for publication,

Thank you,

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The research presented by Radulescu was very interesting and relevant, especially with the external factors that are affecting the Black Sea ecosystem. Although the author summarized the most important results obtained from different campaigns at sea, the manuscript must be improved in most of the sections:

1)      The abstract needs to be improved after line 15. It is recommended to provide specific information about the results found by the author and their respective implication than general sentences.

2)      The introduction should provide a relevant background with the right sequence. Currently, it is very difficult to follow the manuscript and there is not connection between paragraphs. In addition is recommended to include in the introduction the gap of knowledge that will be covered with this research and the scope of the manuscript.  

3)      Materials and methods section need to be improved drastically. The author also included theoretical information, results and discussion in this section. The study area must be described in detail in this section using a map. The methods and materials used by the author to collect and analyze the respective samples during the different campaigns must be explained in detail. It is recommended to add: the number of collected samples, how they were treated and analyzed, the equipment used for the respective analysis, the statistical method to analyze differences, etc. In addition, if the author decides to use the figures presented in the materials and methods section, it is very important to modify them to see clearly the respective graph, axis, legend and specify if the were made by the author or taken from other articles.

4)      Line 300 and 306. The water balance equations contain some typos and the author need to make the respective corrections.

5)      Results section needs to be modified. The author needs to move table 1, 2 and 3 to this results section. On the other hand, the author explained in detail the current situation of fish and stocks and capture in this section but this topic was not described in the methodology or materials and method sections. The respective information needs to be included. Moreover, the author needs to clarify if the information presented in the results section was collected during the campaigns or taken from other articles.

6)      The discussion section needs to be improved. It is important to analyze all of the variables that were collected and analyzed by the author to provide a strong discussion of the respective results.

7)      There are several typos that need to be corrected and acronyms that need to be defined before they are used in the manuscript (i.e . F₁, F_y, NATO, EU, etc) .

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your appreciation.

I made major changes in the paper’s structure, chapters, and explanations, and I hope the paper is now improved.

Next, I will mention the made corrections, based on your remarks:

1. I changed the title; now I hope it is clearer, and in close connection with the content of the paper;
2. I corrected the English; I asked an authorized translator to improve the English;
3. I practically rewrote the paper’s Abstract; I described strictly the paper’s content;
4. I modified the structure of the main chapters 2 and 3, Materials and Methods and Results. I have restructured the Materials and Methods chapter and I moved all the results to the   chapter intended for them;
5. I corrected the reporting periods everywhere in the paper;
6. I modified the chapter Discussions;
7. I have corrected all the notations used in the equations; now all of the notations are explained;
8. For all graphs, I presented what they represent, the monitoring period, and the significance of parameters;
9. I moved all the tables with measurements to the Results chapter, as you recommend. I have completed where you specified what measurements are realized by our team and where are the reports of some riparian states;
10. I have corrected Table 5 - it becomes Table 6. I have also corrected the Description of the table contents, that only some species from the "Red List: IUNC for the Black Sea" are mentioned; the most threatened species;
11. I modified the text regarding Table 1;
12. I have explained all the abbreviations;
13. I enlarged the figures to make them clearer;
14. I attached new references;
    
    

I hope that I have answered all the observations you made and now the paper is clearer and acceptable for publication,

Thank you,

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

1. Abstract is not sound, revise the abstract and highlight the key findings

2. Lack of literature in introduction section, kindly refer recent and worldwide research article, and compare the difference between present research scope and how it will more helpful for researcher community

3. Fig.2a is not clearly described. Kindly rewrite it

4. Time interval, 2015-2020 has been considered in the present study. I feel that, if you increase the time interval like 10 years, it could be more accurate and effective to study the status and changes in the current environment

5. Fig 5b is not clear. Kindly describe it clearly and improve the image quality with good legends

6. What is the recommendation of the current pollution status in the study area 

7. Add recommendation and future scope of the present study. 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your appreciation.

I made major changes in the paper’s structure, chapters, and explanations, and I hope the paper is now improved.

Next, I will mention the made corrections, based on your remarks:

1. I changed the title; now I hope it is clearer, and in close connection with the content of the paper;
2. I corrected the English; I asked an authorized translator to improve the English;
3. I practically rewrote the paper’s Abstract; I described strictly the paper’s content;
4. I modified the structure of the main chapters 2 and 3, Materials and Methods and Results.
5. I have restructured the Materials and Methods chapter and I moved all the results to the   chapter intended for them;
6. I corrected the reporting periods everywhere in the paper;
7. I modified the chapter Discussions;
8. I have corrected all the notations used in the equations; now all of the notations are explained;
9. For all graphs, I presented what they represent, the monitoring period, and the significance of parameters;
10. I moved all the tables with measurements to the Results chapter, as you recommend. I have completed where you specified what measurements are realized by our team and where are the reports of some riparian states;
11. I have corrected Table 5 - it becomes Table 6. I have also corrected in the Description of the table contents, that only some species from the "Red List: IUNC for the Black Sea" are mentioned; the most threatened species;
12. I modified the text regarding Table 1;
13. I have explained all the abbreviations;
14. I enlarged the figures to make them clearer;
15. I attached new references;
    
    

I hope that I have answered all the observations you made and now the paper is clearer and acceptable for publication,

Thank you,

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

On account of the manuscript WATER-2184422R1, entitled “Environmental conditions and the fish stocks situation in the Black Sea, between climate change, war, and pollution” by Victorita Radulescu, the author revised the manuscript appropriately according to the Reviewers comments. After careful consideration, I made a decision that the manuscript is acceptable for publication in its present form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your appreciation.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The author has made necessary changes according to my suggestions. I recommend acceptance in current form. Thank you.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your appreciation.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The author did a great job addressing most of the comments and improving the quality of the manuscripts. Two things to take in consideration:

Line 302: there is a typo in the equation. A minus (-) is missing between the two main terms

Please the method and the equipment that was used to analyze the PAHs

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your appreciation.

 

I made the recommended corrections:

1. It is my mistake in the formula, I am sorry. I corrected and marked it in blue.
2. I modified the references. I removed some online cited documents and added some articles from journals. Changes are marked in blue.
3. I added in paragraph 2.1.2. Pollutants in the bottom sediments, subparagraph A. Content of PAH- Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon, the method in which PAH concentrations were determined and the equipment used. The additional comments are also marked in blue.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

After discuss about the results, you should add the conclusion section to conclude the research findings and keynote 

In conclusion section, add the social benefits and present form of pollution status, remedial measure to follow in the study area

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your appreciation.

1. I made some changes in the paper marked in blue.
2. I supplemented the bibliographic references with some papers published or presented at conferences instead of citations from specialized online sites.
3. As you recommended, I added a paragraph on Conclusions. I briefly mentioned the objectives achieved in the paper, and some methods of reducing air, sediment, and seawater pollution. I also underlined some social advantages of restoring fish stocks in the area, some of them with significant economic effects, but also the advantages brought by maintaining a healthy ecosystem for attracting tourists to the Romanian or Bulgarian coast.

I hope that now the paper is clearer and can be published.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx