Fish Composition and Diversity of Four Coral Reefs in the South China Sea Based on Hand-Line Catch

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review for the paper "Fish composition and diversity for four coral reefs in the South China Sea based on hand-line catch" by Yuanjie Li, Zuozhi Chen and Jun Zhang submitted to "Journal of Marine Science and Engineering".

 

 

General comment.

 

Coral reef lagoons harbor numerous, diverse biota, which differs both qualitatively and quantitatively from those in the adjacent waters. Unique fish assemblages are found in association with coral reefs especially in tropic and sub-tropic seas. Despite recent advances in studying organisms inhabiting coral reefs many issues are needed to be solved. The authors studied ichthyofauna of four coral reefs in the South China Sea drawing special attention to composition and diversity indices. They also compared their data with other regions and found spatial differences. Using the cluster analysis and non-metric multi-dimensional scaling they revealed spatial changes in fish assemblages. The authors hypothesized that the composition of the ichthyofauna was related to habitat complexity and anthropogenic disturbance while the diversity of fish was mainly driven by island topography. Standard methods to collect fish were used in the study. The data were treated statistically with Cluster analysis, comparisons were done with ANOVA. To asses the diversity of ichthyofauna, a relevant set of indices was used. Main results are illustrated with relevant Figures and Tables. Discussion is focused on the main findings. New data expand our knowledge about the fish assemblages inhabiting coral reefs in the South China Sea.

 

Specific remarks.

 

1) Title. Consider replacing "Fish composition and diversity for four coral reefs in the South China Sea based on hand-line catch" with "Fish composition and diversity of four coral reefs in the South China Sea based on the hand-line catch".

 

2) L14-15. Consider replacing "Total 5 orders, 21 families, 45 generaand 121 species of fish , dominated by the Perciformes (78.5%)" with "A total of 5 orders, 21 families, 45 genera and 121 species of fish were recorded with Perciformes (78.5%) being the most diverse".

 

3) L15-16. Consider replacing "The highest number (5) of dominant species on Chenhang Island and the lowest (2) on Zhubi Reef" with "The highest number (5) of dominant species was found near Chenhang Island since the lowest (2) number was detected on Zhubi Reef".

 

4) L17. Replace 'Shanno–Wiener' with 'Shannon–Wiener'.

 

5) L21-24. The sentence seems to be speculative because the authors did not investigate the direct influence of habitat complexity and anthropogenic disturbance on the fish assemblages. I suggest rephrasing the sentence as follows: Our results led us to hypothesize that the habitat complexity and level of anthropogenic disturbance were the main factors affecting the composition of reef-dwelling fish on each coral reef. Topography seems likely was responsible for most variation in the spatial pattern of fish diversity.

 

6) L125. Please, describe how data were standardized.

 

7) Section 2.2 Please, indicate the total number of catches analyzed in the paper.

 

8) L98-101. Please, indicate a device to weigh fish.

 

9) L102, L181. 'Diversity index' should be replaced with 'Diversity indices'.

 

10) L143-145. Consider replacing 'The most species occurred at Qiliangyu Island had 60 species in 4 orders and 14 families; Meiji Reef had 53 species in 14 families and 4 orders, and Zhubi Reef had 49 species in 15 families and 5 orders; Chenhang Island had 38 species in 21 families and 5 orders' with 'The most species occurred at Qiliangyu Island where 60 species belonging to 4 orders and 14 families were recorded; Meiji Reef included 53 species belonging to 14 families and 4 orders, and Zhubi Reef encompassed 49 species from 15 families and 5 orders; 38 species from 21 families and 5 orders were registered near Chenhang Island'.

 

11) L146-147. Consider replacing 'Differences in fish composition between regions in May and September' with 'There were seasonal differences in fish composition between regions '.

 

12) L148-149. Consider replacing 'In Zhubi Reef, the number in May was equal to in September' with 'In Zhubi Reef, the number in May was equal to that in September'.

 

13) Table 2. Some Latin names of fish species are in ordinary font. This is not in accordance with the International nomenclature. Please, check the Table and all Latin names must be italicized. The same is relevant for Appendix A.

 

14) Section 3.5. The authors must provide more detailed description of fish assemblages including dominant taxa and diversity indices for each community.

 

15) L242-243. See Remark for L21-24. I recommend rephrasing this sentence.

 

16) L 316-318. Consider replacing 'Differences in H' values across islands suggest that topographic structure is the main cause of differences in spatial distribution' with 'Differences in H' values across islands suggest that topographic structure might be one of the main causes of differences in spatial distribution '.

 

17) I suggest providing a brief conclusion to highlight the main findings of the study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

This study was soley based upon the success of catching different fishes by hook and line. This is not a quantitative scientific method and is not comparable to fish diversity results from other studies using different methods. fishing is not reproducable or a reliable indicator of species presence. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript described the results of a fish sampling survey in the SCS. The results can contribute well to the existing data on local fish diversity knowledge. I do think there are some places in the writing that need to be edited for clarity and grammar before acceptance. Also, the multivariate analyses need to be clearly described in the methodology section.

Specific comments:

Page 2 line 53: Are there any previous data available on the fish biodiversity of study sites? Please declare.

Page 2 line 56: What is the current protection status of study sites? Are they included in MPAs? Please explain.

Page 3 line 91: I am assuming that by using “length” and “width”, the authors mean “total length (or shank length?)” and “Gape size” of the hooks. If so, please use the standard terms. Also, please add some details on the type of hooks (e.g. hook style, barbed/ or not).

Page 3 line 96: The use of animal bait (i.e. shrimp) may raise questions about biased sampling towards carnivorous fish (please see Harvey et al. 2007) which should be discussed in the manuscript.

Ref: Harvey, E. S., Cappo, M., Butler, J. J., Hall, N., & Kendrick, G. A. (2007). Bait attraction affects the performance of remote underwater video stations in assessment of demersal fish community structure. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 350, 245-254.

Page 3 line 100: The authors mentioned that standard length data have also been collected for sampled fish but it seems that no further statistical analyses have been performed.  

Page 4 line 117: Why did the authors prefer to apply the Shannon-Wiener on weight data? (and simply not on the abundance data). The index has been originally developed for discrete random variables (e.g. counts). I am not sure if it can also be applied on continuous data (e.g. weights). May the authors provide any reference for using the index on continuous data?

Page 4 line 121: The authors defined criteria for assigning communities to ordinal levels of similarity. May the authors provide any reference for using this criteria?

Page 4 line 124: which data was used for multivariate analyses? Presence/absence (P/A), abundance data, or weight data matrix? Here, I think that the authors should use strict terms rather than “to test the differences in diversity of fish assemblages”. I suggest to use “species composition” and “assemblage structure” for P/A and abundance data, respectively. 

Page 4 line 125: “The survey data were standardized.” How? Standardized to mean (i.e., normalized) or maximum?

Page 4 line 125: …to compare spatial differences. I suggest to use the term “spatio-temporal” instead since both temporal and spatial comparisons have been performed.  

Page 5 line 142: How many fish were sampled in total?

Page 8 line 199: I suggest to move the whole section “Fish diversity indices of different regions” to the DISCUSSION.

Page 10 line 212: Was the ANOSIM test used to test differences among priory defined seasons (or study sites) or groupings depicted by the cluster analyses? In the methodology section the authors mentioned that the test was used to assess differences among seasons and study sites but here, only one analysis result is presented. I also suggest to follow ANOSIM with SIMPER routine to identify which species is(are) the most responsible for the observed spatial or temporal differences.

Page 12 line 278: Chaetodontidae are obligatory coralivores. As such, lower diversity of Chaetodontidae may also be related to lower live coral cover in the examined study sites. May the authors provide data on the percent coverage of live coral cover in the study sites?

Appendix A: some species names are not valid and need to be cross-checked by WORMS.

References: Total number of citations in the text is 94 while 95 references are listed in the list.

Comments for author File: Comments.doc

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

perhaps this should be submitted to a fishing magazine for publication

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is now revised and all issues are addressed well.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc