Review Reports - Age and Growth of Phoxinus grumi Berg, an Endemic Fish in the Turpan Basin

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author-s;

Here are some of my comments.

I recommend reviewing reference 18 in the references section, as it appears incomplete. Addressing any missing or inaccurate details will strengthen the overall quality of the document.
Lines 101-102 indicate that growth was analysed using length-based regression analysis. However, since ages are already read, it may be more appropriate to utilise the age-length relationship analysis for this investigation. This observation could benefit from further clarification to avoid any ambiguity.
On lines 111-122, grumi should be written in italics.
Since otolith-based age estimation was performed in this study, the use of 10% formaldehyde fixation, as pointed out in Line 118, may introduce bias that affects otolith readability. Prolonged exposure to formaldehyde has been well-known to alter otolith structure, opacity, and increment clarity, potentially complicating accurate age determination. This issue may be particularly important considering the relatively small body size of the specimens examined in the present study, as formaldehyde penetration into tissues may occur more rapidly in small-bodied fish, thereby increasing the likelihood of effects on otolith readability. The authors should therefore clarify the duration of fixation.
In lines 156-157, the statistical methodology requires clarification. The purpose of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test is not clearly stated. The authors should explicitly indicate whether the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to assess normality. The authors may also consider omitting the phrase "and significance analysis, respectively" in that sentence, as the subsequent sentences (Lines 161-162) provide a clear explanation of other applied statistical procedures.
In the “2. Materials and Methods” in the part “2.5 Growth equation”:

The growth modelling procedure needs further clarification. The authors should explain why they chose a length-frequency approach (the Ford equation was derived from length-frequency data, line 172) rather than directly applying the von Bertalanffy growth model to age-length data obtained from otolith readings. Additionally, they should provide more details on the least-squares fitting procedure, including whether linear or nonlinear fitting was used. In Figure 4, the length variable is continuous; however, the graph is presented as if it were discrete. This means that the data for each group (gender unspecified, male, and female) could be plotted separately as histograms and then combined into a single graph. I believe there is no need to show the total in this case.

In my view, the weight distribution illustrated in Figure 5 may not be essential to the article. The authors might consider removing this figure from the article. However, if the authors prefer to include it, I would recommend reworking the graph to align with the suggestions in Figure 4.
Although sex determination was successfully performed for some individuals within the same length range— including those of medium and near-medium lengths—many individuals could not be accurately sexed. This raises the question: why is there such a high level of uncertainty in sex determination, despite samples being collected from the same time period and environment?
The authors should change the sentence "3.3 Frequency distributions of age" to "3.3 Length-Weight Relationship" on line 228.
The equations for the Length-Weight Relationship for females and males in rows 231 and 232 should be removed, as they are also presented in Figure 7.
Figure 8 does not add value and should be eliminated. Instead, I recommend including a third variable for individuals with undetermined gender in Figure 7, using an empty circle pattern. It is also essential to incorporate the LW equation for clarity and completeness.
Growth parameters were calculated using values for back-calculated body length (mm), which is not explicitly stated in the materials and methods section. The methodology should more clearly distinguish between length-frequency analyses and back-calculated age-based growth estimation.
Back-calculated lengths were used to estimate growth parameters, but their reliability was not validated. The authors should report the relationship between otolith radius and body length and compare observed versus back-calculated length-at-age values. Without this, the growth estimates remain uncertain.
The authors used the term ‘inflexion point age’ in the discussion, which requires clarification. The authors should clearly define in the Materials and Methods section how the inflexion point was determined.
The results section presents the Von Bertalanffy growth curve, the growth rate and acceleration values for grumi Berg, and accompanying graphs. However, the discussion section lacks any biological evaluation of growth rate and acceleration. I believe that incorporating meaningful assessments on these topics would greatly enhance the article.

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to you for the thorough and thoughtful evaluation of our manuscript entitled “Age and Growth of Phoxinus grumi Berg, an Endemic Fish in the Turpan Basin” (Manuscript ID:animals-4330402). The constructive comments and suggestions have been invaluable in helping us to substantially improve the clarity, rigour, and overall quality of this work. We have carefully revised the manuscript to address every concern raised. Our detailed, point-by-point responses to each comment are provided below for your kind consideration. All changes in the revised manuscript are clearly indicated, and the corresponding line numbers are noted for convenience.

We remain deeply appreciative of the opportunity to strengthen our work and hope that the revisions now meet the expectations of the reviewers and the editorial board.

Point-by-Point Response to the Reviewers’ Comments:

Thank you for pointing this out. We have carefully checked the reference list and note that the originally cited Reference 18 has been renumbered as Reference 20 in the revised manuscript. The missing information has been completed accordingly, and the corrected reference is now presented as follows: Zale, A.V.; Parrish, D.L.; Sutton, T.M. Conducting fisheries investigations. In Fisheries Techniques, 3rd ed.; Zale, A.V., Parrish, D.L., Sutton, T.M., Eds.; American Fisheries Society: Bethesda, MD, USA, 2012; pp. 1–31.https://doi.org/10.47886/9781934874295.ch1.We appreciate the reviewer’s careful observation. (Lines 548–550)
Thank you for this helpful comment. We agree that the original wording could lead to ambiguity regarding the growth analysis approach. In the revised manuscript, we clarified that age estimation was conducted using otolith annuli analysis, followed by the back-calculation of body length from otolith radius measurements. We further specified that the growth parameters were estimated using back-calculated length-at-age data rather than a simple length-based regression approach. This revision has been made to more accurately describe the age–length relationship analysis used in this study. (Lines 116–119)
We have corrected the formatting of “grumi” to italics throughout the relevant lines (131) as requested.
We thank the reviewer for this important methodological concern. In the revised manuscript, we have added the fixation duration: Specimens were fixed and preserved in a 10% formaldehyde solution and subsequently transported to the laboratory for immediate processing. We also acknowledge the potential effect of formaldehyde on otolith readability in small-bodied fish and have added a statement in the Discussion (or Limitations) addressing this point. We note that in our study, otoliths remained readable for age estimation, but we agree that future studies should consider alternative fixatives (e.g., ethanol) for otolith-based aging.(Lines 136–138)
We have revised the statistical methods section as suggested. Specifically, we now state: “A two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was performed to determine whether the body length and body weight distributions differed between female and male individuals.” We have also removed the ambiguous phrase “and significance analysis, respectively” from the sentence.(Lines 192–193)
Thank you for this important comment. We have revised the “Growth equation” section in the Materials and Methods to further clarify the growth modelling procedure. In the revised manuscript, we now explicitly state that the growth parameters were estimated using back-calculated body length-at-age data derived from otolith annuli measurements rather than from a length-frequency analysis approach. We also clarified that the Ford–Walford transformation was used only as a linearization procedure for estimating the initial parameters of the von Bertalanffy growth model. In addition, details regarding the least-squares fitting procedure have been added, including clarification of the regression method used for model fitting. The figure presentation has also been revised according to the reviewer’s suggestion.(Lines 210–214)
Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We carefully considered the reviewer’s recommendation regarding Figure 5. As body weight distribution provides supplementary information on population structure and growth characteristics, we decided to retain this figure in the revised manuscript. Following the reviewer’s suggestion, Figure 5 has been thoroughly revised and reformatted to improve its clarity and consistency with Figure 4.(Lines247、256)
Thank you for this valuable comment. We agree that further clarification regarding the uncertainty in sex determination was necessary. In this species, gonadal development is not entirely synchronized among individuals of similar size, and some individuals remain at immature or resting stages despite having comparable body lengths. During these stages, gonadal characteristics are often poorly differentiated, which hinders reliable sex determination. In addition, because part of the sampling was conducted near the breeding season, post-spawning gonadal regression further reduced the distinguishability of sexual characteristics in some individuals. Therefore, specimens with insufficiently developed or ambiguous gonadal characteristics were conservatively classified as “undetermined sex”. The relevant explanation has been added to the revised manuscript(lines 138–146).
We have corrected the section title as requested (line 272now reads “3.3 Length-Weight Relationship”).
We have removed the Length-Weight Relationship for females and malesfrom the text to avoid redundancy. The information is fully presented in Figure 7.(Lines 285)
Thank you for this constructive comment. In response, Figure 8 has been removed as suggested. We have revised Figure 7 to include individuals with undetermined gender, which are now indicated using open-circle symbols to distinguish them from male and female specimens. Additionally, the corresponding length–weight (LW) equations have been incorporated into the figure to improve the clarity, completeness, and interpretability of the results.(Lines285)
Thank you for this important comment. We have revised the Materials and Methods section to more clearly distinguish between length-frequency analysis and age-based growth estimation. In the revised manuscript, we now explicitly state that the von Bertalanffy growth parameters were estimated using back-calculated body length data derived from annulus measurements, whereas length-frequency analysis was used only to describe population size structure. This clarification has been added to improve the methodological transparency and avoid potential misunderstanding.
Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have revised the manuscript to further validate the reliability of the back-calculated growth estimates. In the revised version, the relationship between otolith radius and body length is now reported using linear regression analysis. Furthermore, observed and back-calculated length-at-age values were statistically compared using paired-samples t-tests to evaluate the consistency of the back-calculation procedure. The results showed no significant difference between observed and back-calculated values, supporting the reliability of the growth estimates. The relevant descriptions and validation results have been added to the Materials and Methods and Results sections.(Lines180-184)
Thank you for pointing this out. We have added a detailed explanation in the Materials and Methods section (Lines 220–223) to clarify the definition and determination of the inflection point age. The revised text now explains that the inflection point age corresponds to the maximum body weight growth rate and was estimated from the body weight growth equation derived from the von Bertalanffy growth model.
Thank you for this insightful comment. In the revised manuscript, we substantially expanded the discussion regarding the biological significance of the growth rate and growth acceleration patterns observed in grumiBerg. Specifically, we added interpretations related to rapid juvenile growth, age-related declines in growth rate, energy allocation trade-offs between somatic growth and reproduction, and ontogenetic transitions reflected by the growth acceleration curve. We also incorporated relevant references concerning life-history strategies, biphasic growth, and ecological adaptation in fishes to strengthen the biological interpretation of the results.(Lines 372-396)

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction

Lines 57–60: The discussion on climate change and irrigation pressure is beneficial. It would be better with more recent references on desert freshwater biodiversity conservation.

Lines 63–75: The biological description of *P. Grumi Berg* is informative. Some sentences are too long and hard to read.

Lines 85–98: The reason for choosing otolith analysis and the von Bertalanffy model is clear. It would help to explain why otoliths are better than scales or vertebrae for this species.

Materials and Methods

Lines 108–113: Was the sampling effort the same for all sites and seasons?

Lines 115–119: Only 116 out of 527 otoliths were successfully analyzed. This might cause sampling bias, so it needs to be discussed.

Lines 124–137: More information on age-reading precision, such as repeated readings or inter-reader agreement, would make age determination more reliable.

Lines 142–145: Why was the linear regression model chosen despite R² values?

Results

Lines 194–195: Many specimens (136) were classified by sex. How did this affect the interpretation of sex ratio?

Lines 216–223: The success rate for age determination was 85%. What might be the reasons for age determination in some samples?

Lines 234–238: The explanation of "growth" and "allometric growth" needs to be clearer to avoid confusion about population-level growth patterns.

Lines 274–281: The growth performance index (Φ) was different for males and females. Are these values realistic or influenced by sample size imbalance?

Lines 291–314: Figure 11 is adequate. The quality and axis labels need improvement.

Discussion

Lines 340–355: The discussion on sex-growth differences is interesting, but some interpretations on reproductive investment need more supporting references.

Lines 356–362: The high Φ value for males needs critical discussion.

Lines 376–385: The conclusion that the population has "reproductive potential and efficiency" might be overstated and needs to be moderated.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is straightforward to understand. It has a lot of valuable scientific information. It is better if someone checks the English language used in the manuscript. This would make the text easier to read. The sentences would make more sense. Some of the sentences are too long. The descriptions of the figures are not clear enough. The manuscript needs some work on making the sentences clearer. The manuscript contains scientific information and is generally easy to understand.

Author Response

We remain deeply appreciative of the opportunity to strengthen our work and hope that the revisions now meet the expectations of the reviewers and the editorial board.

Point-by-Point Response to the Reviewers’ Comments:

We thank the reviewer for the constructive suggestion. We have now added several recent references on desert freshwater biodiversity conservation, including Tonkin et al. (2026) and Timis-Gansac et al. (2025). These have been incorporated at lines 59–63 to strengthen the context of climate change and irrigation pressure.
Thank you for your valuable comment. We have revised this section by shortening several long sentences and improving the overall readability and logical flow of the biological description of P. grumi Berg. Specifically, the original long sentence describing taxonomy and morphological characteristics was divided into multiple concise sentences to enhance clarity and readability. The revised text can be found in the corresponding section of the manuscript.(Lines 372-396)
Thank you for this insightful comment. In the revised manuscript, we further clarified why otoliths were selected for age determination in this study. Specifically, we added an explanation that, compared with scales and vertebrae, otoliths are metabolically inert and less affected by resorption, regeneration, and environmental influences, thus providing more stable and reliable annuli for age estimation. We also emphasized that in small-bodied cyprinid fishes such as P. grumi Berg, scales often exhibit indistinct annuli and vertebral annuli can be difficult to interpret consistently, whereas otoliths generally provide clearer growth increments and higher precision in age determination.(Lines 99-106)
Thank you for this valuable comment. We have clarified the sampling design in the revised manuscript. Specifically, we added a statement indicating that all surveys were conducted at the same sampling sites using identical fishing gear and standardized sampling duration throughout the study period to ensure comparable sampling effort among sites and seasons.(Lines 126-128)
Thank you for this important comment. In the revised manuscript, we added a discussion regarding the relatively low success rate of otolith age determination and its potential influence on sampling bias. Specifically, we clarified that many otoliths were excluded because they were damaged during preparation or exhibited severely blurred annuli that prevented reliable interpretation. We also acknowledged that, despite the use of blind readings and CV-based precision evaluation, the relatively low number of successfully analyzed otoliths may have affected the representativeness of the estimated age structure and growth parameters. Therefore, the results were interpreted cautiously, and future studies with improved otolith preparation techniques and larger effective sample sizes were recommended.(Lines 464-473)
Thank you for this valuable suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we added additional information regarding age-reading precision to improve the reliability of age determination. Specifically, we clarified that two readers independently conducted blind otolith readings based on unified interpretation criteria. Furthermore, age-reading precision was evaluated using the Coefficient of Variation (CV) method recommended by Campana (2001). Samples with damaged or severely blurred otoliths were excluded from successful age determination.(Lines 166-170)
Thank you for this valuable comment. In the present study, several candidate regression models were evaluated and compared. Although the fitting performance of different models varied, the linear regression model yielded the highest R² value among the tested models and showed the best agreement with the observed data trend. Therefore, it was selected as the most appropriate model for subsequent analysis and interpretation.
Thank you for this valuable comment. In the revised manuscript, we added a discussion regarding the potential influence of incomplete sex determination on sex ratio estimation. Specifically, we clarified that sex determination was unsuccessful for 136 specimens, which may have affected the representativeness and accuracy of the estimated female-to-male ratio. Therefore, the sex ratio results should be interpreted with caution.(Lines 460-463)
Thank you for this valuable comment. In the revised manuscript, we added an explanation regarding unsuccessful age determination. Specifically, samples with damaged otoliths or severely blurred annuli were classified as unsuccessful age readings, as these conditions prevented reliable interpretation of growth increments and accurate age estimation.(Lines 282-284)
Thank you for this insightful comment. In the revised manuscript, we clarified the distinction between general growth patterns and allometric growth to avoid potential misunderstanding. Specifically, we revised the description of the length–weight relationship and emphasized that “allometric growth” in this study refers to the proportional relationship between body length and body weight, rather than age-related or population-level growth patterns.(Lines 282-284)
Thank you for this insightful comment. In the revised manuscript, we added a discussion regarding the potential influence of unequal sample sizes between males and females on the estimated growth performance index (Φ). Although sex-specific differences in Φ values were observed, we acknowledged that sampling imbalance may have affected parameter estimation to some extent. Therefore, we clarified that these sex-specific differences should be interpreted with caution.(Lines 435-437)
Thank you for this helpful comment. The figure has been replaced with a higher-resolution version, and the axis labels and legend have been improved for better clarity and readability. In the revised manuscript, this figure is now presented as Figure 10 due to changes in figure numbering.(Lines 349)
Thank you for this valuable comment. In the revised manuscript, we retained the original discussion and added additional supporting references related to reproductive investment, energy allocation, and sex-specific life-history strategies in fishes. These additions strengthen the interpretation of the observed growth differences between male and female P. grumi Berg.(Lines 416-419)
Thank you for this insightful comment. In the revised manuscript, we expanded the discussion regarding the unusually high Φ value observed in males. Specifically, we added a critical discussion noting that the growth performance index is highly sensitive to the estimation of von Bertalanffy growth parameters, particularly L∞ and K. We also acknowledged that differences in sample size and potential uncertainty in parameter estimation may have contributed to the elevated male Φ value. Therefore, we clarified that the observed sex-specific differences should be interpreted cautiously.(Lines 429-437)
Thank you for this valuable comment. In the revised manuscript, we moderated the interpretation regarding reproductive potential and population status to avoid overstatement. Specifically, we replaced definitive statements with more cautious expressions such as “may indicate relatively strong reproductive capacity” and removed overly strong conclusions regarding population increase. We also clarified that the current findings primarily reflect population structure and growth characteristics rather than direct measurements of reproductive efficiency.(Lines 476-482)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The manuscript presents valuable baseline information on the age and growth characteristics of Phoxinus grumi Berg, an endemic and protected fish species from the Turpan Basin. The study is relevant for conservation biology and contributes important biological data for a poorly studied species.

The manuscript is generally well structured, and the sampling effort is adequate. The use of otoliths for age determination and the application of the von Bertalanffy growth model are appropriate for the objectives of the study. The figures and tables are informative and support the presented results.

However, several issues should be addressed before publication:

The English language requires substantial editing throughout the manuscript to improve clarity, grammar, and scientific readability. Numerous sentences are difficult to follow and contain grammatical inconsistencies.
Some methodological descriptions require clarification. In particular:
- The criteria for successful versus unsuccessful age determination should be explained in more detail.
- More information should be provided regarding age-reading validation and precision.
- The rationale for pooling sexes in some analyses while separating them in others should be clarified.
Statistical interpretation should be revised carefully. In Section 3.3, the statement that ANCOVA indicated significant differences “suggesting isometric growth” appears confusing and should be reconsidered. Isometric versus allometric growth should be interpreted directly from the b coefficient and its statistical comparison to 3.
Several equations and symbols require formatting corrections and consistency checks. Some equations contain spacing or typographical issues.
The Discussion section would benefit from a more critical comparison with similar studies on related Phoxinus species and from a more cautious interpretation of population trends and reproductive potential.
Some references and citations should be checked for formatting consistency.

Overall, the study is interesting and potentially suitable for publication after revision.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Substantial English editing.

Author Response

We remain deeply appreciative of the opportunity to strengthen our work and hope that the revisions now meet the expectations of the reviewers and the editorial board.

Point-by-Point Response to the Reviewers’ Comments:

Thank you for this valuable comment. We have carefully revised the English language throughout the manuscript to improve clarity, grammar, sentence structure, and overall scientific readability. In addition, the manuscript has been thoroughly edited to improve the consistency and fluency of the scientific presentation.
Thank you for these valuable comments. We have revised the Materials and Methods section to provide a more detailed description of the age determination procedure and its validation. In the revised manuscript, we now clearly define the criteria used for successful and unsuccessful age determination. Specifically, otoliths with clear and distinguishable annuli that could be consistently interpreted were considered successfully aged, whereas otoliths with unclear, incomplete, or unreadable annuli were excluded from further analysis. In addition, information regarding age-reading validation and precision has been added. Age readings were independently repeated to evaluate the consistency of the age estimates, and the coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated to assess the precision and reproducibility of the age determination procedure. These revisions were made to improve the methodological transparency and reliability of the study.(Lines 166-170)
Thank you for this valuable comment. We have revised the manuscript to clarify the rationale for pooling sexes in some analyses while analyzing them separately in others. In the revised manuscript, we now specify that sex-specific analyses were conducted when significant differences between males and females were detected, whereas data were pooled when no significant sex-related differences were observed. Corresponding explanations have been added to the relevant sections to improve the clarity and consistency of the analytical approach.(Lines 305-306)
Thank you for this important comment. We agree that the previous interpretation could be misleading. In the revised manuscript, the statistical interpretation has been carefully reconsidered and clarified. Specifically, ANCOVA results are now used only to describe differences between male and female length–weight relationships, whereas the determination of isometric or allometric growth is based directly on the b coefficient and its statistical comparison with the theoretical value of 3. The corresponding text in Section 3.3 has been revised accordingly.(Lines 267-282)
Thank you for this valuable comment. We have carefully reviewed all equations and mathematical symbols throughout the manuscript and corrected the formatting inconsistencies, spacing issues, and typographical errors. In addition, the presentation of equations and symbols has been standardized to improve clarity and consistency throughout the manuscript.
Thank you for this insightful comment. In the revised manuscript, we expanded the Discussion section by incorporating a more critical comparison between P. grumi Berg and related Phoxinus species, particularly with respect to growth characteristics and growth performance indices. In addition, we moderated the interpretation of population trends and reproductive potential by using more cautious language and acknowledging the limitations associated with sampling scope and parameter estimation. These revisions were intended to provide a more balanced and scientifically rigorous interpretation of the results.
Thank you for this valuable comment. We have carefully reviewed all references and in-text citations throughout the manuscript and corrected formatting inconsistencies to ensure compliance with the journal’s citation style. The reference list and citation formatting have been standardized for improved consistency and accuracy.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Here are my comments.

In Figures 4 and 5, changing the y-axis title to "Number of individuals (and)" would provide a clearer, more precise expression. Since the data used in these graphs (length and weight) are continuous, there should be no spaces between the columns. The authors should have combined the columns by increasing their width. Also, in these graphs, undetermined values are shown in black, which is a bit tiring on the eyes. Instead, they could have filled the columns with empty (white) cells or with a lighter colour and a different pattern.
The term "undetermined" is replaced with "unknown" on lines 239, 248, and 261. These should be changed to "undetermined."
The term "undetermined" is misspelt as "undermined" on the graph in Figure 7 and also on line 276; this should be corrected.
In Figure 9, the X-axis label must be 'otolith' instead of 'otolish'.
Finally, I have an evaluation regarding the section titled 4.1 Population Structure and Size Trends. Lines 357-359 indicate that the smallest and largest individuals sampled in this study are smaller than those previously recorded, which suggests a decreasing trend in the species’ size. However, this observation may be influenced by the selectivity of the sampling tools or the characteristics of the sampling areas. To draw a definitive conclusion, a larger sample size and a comparison of the species’ average length with earlier recorded data would be necessary. Based on the current findings, asserting a decreasing trend in the species’ size seems premature. Therefore, I recommend the authors remove the phrase "size trends" from the title and the sentence on lines 357-359. However, if the authors feel confident in their argument, they may choose to keep it as is; I leave that decision to them.

Author Response

We remain deeply appreciative of the opportunity to strengthen our work and hope that the revisions now meet the expectations of the reviewers and the editorial board.

Point-by-Point Response to the Reviewers’ Comments:

We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. We have revised Figures 4 and 5 as follows:

The y-axis title has been changed to “Number of individuals (ind)” to improve clarity.
The histogram columns have been adjusted: spaces between columns have been removed, and column width has been increased to better represent continuous data (length and weight).
The graphical representation of undetermined individuals has been modified using a lighter and more distinguishable pattern to improve visual presentation.

We apologize for this inconsistency. We have corrected lines 239, 248, and 261 (now lines 258, 262 and 272) by replacing “unknown” with “undetermined” throughout the text.
We thank the reviewer for catching this typographical error. The misspelling “undermined” has been corrected to “undetermined” in Figure 7 (the graph label) and at line 276 (now line 286 and 288) in the manuscript.
We apologize for this mistake. The x-axis label in Figure 9 has been corrected from “otolish” to “otolith”. The corrected figure has been updated in the manuscript.
Thank you for this insightful comment. We agree that the available data are insufficient to support a definitive conclusion regarding a long-term decrease in body size. As suggested, the observed differences between the present study and previous reports may be influenced by sampling gear selectivity, sampling locations, and sample size. Therefore, we have revised the subsection title by removing the phrase “Size Trends”(now line 357)and deleted the statement suggesting a decreasing trend in body size. The relevant paragraph has been rewritten to emphasize that the observed differences should be interpreted cautiously and that additional long-term monitoring data and comparisons with historical population size distributions are needed before drawing conclusions about temporal changes in body size. We believe these revisions have improved the scientific rigor and objectivity of the manuscript(now line 369-373).