Assessment of Fish Health: Seasonal Variations in Blood Parameters of the Widely Spread Mediterranean Scorpaenid Species, Scorpaena porcus
, Sanja Matić-Skoko 2, Rozelindra Čož-Rakovac 3, Ivančica Strunjak-Perović 3, Blanka Beer Ljubić 4 and Natalija Topić Popović 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The title of the article should be more specific like this: Assessment of fish and aquatic ecosystem health: seasonal variations of blood parameters of the widely spread Mediterranean scorpaenid species, Scorpaena porcus.
Abstract, Line 16: Latin name of the black scorpionfish should be added.
Abstract: some words should be added what conclusion can be made based on obtained results concerning assessment of fish and aquatic ecosystem health (according to the title of the article).
Keywords: some keywords like “baseline values, health, seasons” are too general and should be replaced by more specific words.
Results, line 131-132: it is important to show data which support this important conclusion that “.. no significant differences were found in blood parameter values between females and males….”.
Discussion: I suggest to add one paragraph (at least) to compare blood parameters between Scorpaena porcus and other Mediterranean fishes.
Conclusion, line 242: “.. in Scorpaena porcus” should be added after “…parameters”.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Ferri et al. investigated annual changes in blood parameters in black scorpionfish, S. porcus, for different seasons. About half of the 15 blood parameters showed seasonal differences, and some of them correlated with body sizes. Although this study provided valuable information, explanations of background, objective and occlusion are ambiguous. These should be clarified before publication.
Major comments
- I cannot understand what the “aquatic ecosystem health” means ? (e.g., Title and Introduction). Also, I cannot understand the term “health status” (e.g, line 245). Authors measured blood parameters, but are there any established criteria to separate health and non-health status ? If so, please explain them based on previous literature. Otherwise, authors should remove the term “ecosystem health” overall in the manuscript.
- Are absolute values of 15 blood parameters are comparable to those of other literatures or not ? There are several studies using same fish species (Line 49). Thus, authors can discuss it to validate reliabilities of present assays.
- Annual changes. This study investigated samples collected for only one year. In research of wild animals, quantitative data should be collected for several years. I am not going to reject this work just for this reason, but authors should carefully consider this by comparing with results in previous literatures as I pointed in the Major comment 2.
Minor comments
・Line 190-192. When is the spawning period of S. porcus ? I cannot understand “Most of the parameters have increased corresponding to the spawning period.”, because some parameters have higher values in summer whereas others have higher values in winter.
・Figure 1. It is recommended that box-and-whisker diagrams be used to precisely represent individual variations. Also, drawing lines between different seasons is inaccurate if it cannot be proven that they originate from the same genetic population.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors responded to my comments properly.
