Comparison of the Feeding Characteristics of Chub Mackerel Scomber japonicus in Jeju Island and the Yellow Sea of Korea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript provides data on the comparison of the feeding characteristics of the chub mackerel Scomber japonicus in Jeju Island and the Yellow Sea of Korea. However, since the feeding characteristics of the S. japonicus species have been studied before, it has lost its original study feature.

-Some recently published articles on the feeding ecology and stomach contents of S. japonicus are presented below. What are the plus features of this article compared to other articles?

 

Chen, Y.; Hu, G.; Zhao, Z.; Chen, X.; Liu, B. Feeding Habits of Scomber japonicus Inferred by Stable Isotope and Fatty Acid Analyses. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 1335. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12081335

Kim D, Seong G, Kang D, Jin S, Soh H, Baeck G. Research Article: Feeding habits of chub mackerel, Scomber japonicus (Houttuyn, 1782) in the South Sea of Korea. IJFS 2023; 22 (2) :352-367

URL: http://jifro.ir/article-1-5183-en.html

 

-Were stomach content samples obtained from commercial fisheries or were both methods used?

-Even if the fish die, stomach digestion continues for a certain period of time, in which case the stomach contents must be taken immediately. How long did it take to take stomach content samples?

Author Response

Thank you for your review. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The migration route of the studied population is not clear , for example if it linked to the population in the northeast coastal waters off Japan and that in the east and Yellow Sea.

In addition, the discussion section is too long to understand the major content of each paragraph. It suggested to create a subtitle for different issues that you want to discuss.

General speaking, it is a good paper worthy to publish after minor revision.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Good 

Author Response

Thank you for your review. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The absence of spring data is recognized, yet it remains a restriction.  Future research should focus on year-round sampling.

 Individuals <19.3 cm were not included, potentially ignoring early life-stage eating trends.

 While prey were identified to species level whenever possible, several categories (e.g., "Unidentified Pisces") may benefit from DNA identification approaches.

 Some sentences are too long or complex.  A language modification for clarity and conciseness would increase readability.

 Some figures (such as Figures 4–8) may benefit from more informative captions.

Consider giving raw stomach content data or summary tables as additional information to improve transparency and reproducibility.

 Trophic levels are determined using %IRI, which may overemphasize dominant prey while ignoring nutritional diversification.  Consider employing stable isotope analysis or gut content DNA barcoding to improve trophic placement.

P letter in P value should be capitalized and italic along the whole manuscript.

 The PERMANOVA interaction term (Area × Size) is reported as not significant (P = 0.008), but the p-value is < 0.05.  The interaction should be regarded significant and discussed appropriately.

In the manuscript, "chub mackerel" and "S. japonicus" are used interchangeably without context.  Species names should be defined once and used consistently.

 Samples were gathered using both big and small purse seines, however gear selectivity is not addressed.  Please include the gear type as a covariate in statistical models or standardize sampling procedures.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some sentences are too long or complex.  A language modification for clarity and conciseness would increase readability.

Author Response

Thank you for your review. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The respons given to the questions were found appropriate

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Satisfied in the present form.