Relative Growth and Size Structure of Achelous spinicarpus Stimpson, 1871 Associated with Shrimp Trawling in the State of Veracruz
, Rafael Chávez-López 2, Jesús Montoya-Mendoza 3, Horacio Vázquez-López 4 and Asela del Carmen RodrÃguez-Varela 5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors correctly followed our suggestions, hence we encourage acceptance of their manuscript
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
We want to thank the review provided to the manuscript, so there are no corrections to add to the document since they were solved in the previous review, we are attentive to any other comments that may arise after this review.
Thank you
Best regards
Reviewer 2 Report
Review
Paper title: Relative growth and size structure of Achelous spinicarpus Stimpson, 1871 associated with shrimp trawling in the state of Veracruz.
For the first time, the authors conducted a comprehensive study to reveal some morphometric characteristics and size-frequency distributions of a common brachyuran crab (Achelous spinicarpus) obtained as by-catch of shrimp trawls in the southwestern Gulf of Mexico. They compared their data to previous studies regarding the biology of this species. This information may have important implications for further research and management of the area.
All these reasons explain the relevance of the paper by Ángel Morán-Silva and co-authors submitted to "JMSE".
General scores.
The data presented by the authors are original and significant. The study is correctly designed and the authors used appropriate methods. In general, the statistical analyses are performed with good technical standards. We authors conducted careful work which may attract the attention of a wide range of specialists focused on crustacean biology and benthic ecology.
Recommendations.
The authors should add their affiliations.
Citations and references should be formatted according to Instructions for Authors.
The abstract should be shortened. Some details are redundant. For example, the authors may delete the following section (L 10-15): "Crabs were sexed, weighed and carapace width (CW) was recorded. Abundance, mean and standard deviation, by sex and depth interval, and sex ratio were determined. An ANOVA was applied to compare CW means by sex, depth intervals and fishing quadrants. The CW-weight relationship was obtained for the total number of individuals and for each sex; growth type was also determined. Length-frequency analyses by sex and overall were carried out. A total of 2377 crabs were collected, 1164 males and 713 females; 890 were from depth interval B, and 1487 were from depth interval C".
Table 1 (L 163 and column 3), L 167, L 173, Fig. 2 (Axis OY). Change “M:H” to “M:F”
L 167-171. The authors should use chi-square tests to compare statistically the observed sex ratios with the theoretical level 1:1 to confirm the bias towards males.
Figures 2–4. The authors should increase the font size and resolution.
L 207. The authors stated that "Maximum carapace width in A. spinicarpus varied between quadrants". However, there are no data concerning CW in different quadrants are presented in "Results". The authors should add this information or delete/revise the sentence.
L 254. The authors should provide some explanations for geographic variations in growth rates of A. spinicarpus.
L 276-284. This section should be moved to "Introduction" to explain the importance of this study.
Specific comments.
L 10. Change “carapace” to “their carapace”
L 15. Change “females; 890” to “females. Among them, 890”
L 21. Change “total” to “the total”
L 33. Change “Achelous spinicarpus Stimpson, 1871” to “The long-spined swimming crab Achelous spinicarpus Stimpson, 1871”
L 41. Change “decline” to “declines”
L 43. Change “The long-spined swimming crab A. spinicarpus is” to “Long-spined swimming crabs are”
L 62. Change “a population” to “populations”
L 71, 136, 185. Change “size frequency” to “size-frequency”
L 117. Change “a Vernier” to “vernier calipers”
L 165, 1173, 184, 192. Change “A. spinicarpus” to “Achelous spinicarpus”
L 175. Change “ratio was allometric negative” to “ratios was negative allometric”
L 264. Change “it was” to “the crabs were”
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
I want to thank the review, recommendations and specific comments that have been made to the manuscript entitled "Relative growth and size structure of Achelous spinicarpus Stimpson, 1871 associated with shrimp trawling in the state of Veracruz", which will improve the quality of the article to achieve its publication.
In this way, I inform you that every one of the recommendations and comments has been addressed in a timely manner, which are listed below.
Likewise, we attach the manuscript with the changes made and with the “Track change” function so that both the editors and you can follow the changes made to the manuscript.
We hope that the manuscript can be published after the adjustments and changes that have been suggested, and we are awaiting comments and observations on the new document.
As always, I appreciate your time and I am awaiting your response.
Kind regards
Response to Reviewer 1 Recommendations
Point 1: The authors should add their affiliations.
Response 1:
1 Laboratorio de Crustáceos, Facultad de Estudios Superiores Iztacala, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Los Reyes Iztacala, Tlalnepantla, Estado de México, 54090, México; cygamoran@gmail.com
2 Laboratorio de Ecología, Facultad de Estudios Superiores Iztacala, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Los Reyes Iztacala, Tlalnepantla, Estado de México, 54090, México
3 Tecnológico Nacional de México, Instituto Tecnológico de Boca del Río, Laboratorio de Investigación Acuícola Aplicada, Km 12 Carretera Veracruz-Córdoba, Boca del Río, Veracruz, 94290, México
4 Manejo de Recursos Naturales, Facultad de Estudios Superiores Iztacala, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Los Reyes Iztacala, Tlalnepantla, Estado de México, 54090, México
5 Laboratorio de Ecología de Peces Estuarinos, Facultad de Estudios Superiores Iztacala, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Los Reyes Iztacala, Tlalnepantla, Estado de México, 54090, México
* Correspondence: schazaro@gmail.com (C.-O.S.)
Point 2: Citations and references should be formatted according to Instructions for Authors.
Response 2:
Citations and references were formatted according to the instructions for the authors, changes are in the manuscript.
Point 3: The abstract should be shortened. Some details are redundant. For example, the authors may delete the following section (L 10-15): "Crabs were sexed, weighed and carapace width (CW) was recorded. Abundance, mean and standard deviation, by sex and depth interval, and sex ratio were determined. An ANOVA was applied to compare CW means by sex, depth intervals and fishing quadrants. The CW-weight relationship was obtained for the total number of individuals and for each sex; growth type was also determined. Length-frequency analyses by sex and overall were carried out. A total of 2377 crabs were collected, 1164 males and 713 females; 890 were from depth interval B, and 1487 were from depth interval C".
Response 3: According to the reviewer, the section (L 10-15) has been modified, being as follows:
Abundance, mean and standard deviation, by sex and depth interval, and sex ratio were determined. An ANOVA was applied to compare CW means, depth intervals and fishing quadrants. The CW-weight relationship was obtained, and growth type was also determined. Length-frequency analyses were carried out. A total of 2377 crabs were collected, 1164 males and 713 females.
Point 4: Table 1 (L 163 and column 3), L 167, L 173, Fig. 2 (Axis OY). Change “M:H” to “M:F”
Response 4: According to the reviewer, the section has been modified, and changed the table and Axis figure, changes are in the manuscript.
Point 5: L 167-171. The authors should use chi-square tests to compare statistically the observed sex ratios with the theoretical level 1:1 to confirm the bias towards males.
Response 5: According to the reviewer, the section Materials and Methods (L 133-135) has been modified, being as follows:
The overall sex ratio was determined by depth intervals and fishing quadrants and a chi-square test (a=0.05) was used to compare statistically the observed sex ratios with theorical level 1:1 to confirm the bias towards males (Sokal and Rholf 2003).
Results section:
in all cases highlighting that the abundance of males was higher than that of females (p <0.001), except for quadrant S1B (p > 0.073) and quadrant S6B (p > 0.072). Changes are in the manuscript.
Point 6: Figures 2–4. The authors should increase the font size and resolution.
Response 6: According to the observations, we have changed the font size and resolution of the figures.
Point 7: L 207. The authors stated that "Maximum carapace width in A. spinicarpus varied between quadrants". However, there are no data concerning CW in different quadrants are presented in "Results". The authors should add this information or delete/revise the sentence.
Response 7: According to the reviewer, the section has been modified, being as follows:
“No differences were found between the depth intervals for maximum carapace width in A. spinicarpus”
Point 8: L 254. The authors should provide some explanations for geographic variations in growth rates of A. spinicarpus.
Response 8: According to the reviewer, the section has been modified, being as follows:
“The growth and longevity of some decapods, in the case of A. spinicarpus, clearly depend on the latitude and local environmental conditions, as provided by Sanvicente-Añorve et al. [14]”.
Point 9: L 276-284. This section should be moved to "Introduction" to explain the importance of this study.
Response 9: According to the reviewer, the section has been moved to Introduction section (L 73)
Response to Reviewer 1 Specific Comments
Point 1: L 10. Change “carapace” to “their carapace”
Response 1: According to the reviewer, the section (L 10) has been modified”
Point 2: L 15. Change “females; 890” to “females. Among them, 890”
Response 2: According to the reviewer, the section (L 10-15) has been modified”
Point 3: L 21. Change “total” to “the total”
Response 3: We have changed the section: “the total”
Point 4: L 33. Change “Achelous spinicarpus Stimpson, 1871” to “The long-spined swimming crab Achelous spinicarpus Stimpson, 1871”
Response 4: We have changed to: The long-spined swimming crab Achelous spinicarpus Stimpson, 1871”
Point 5: L 41. Change “decline” to “declines”
Response 5: We have changed to: “declines”
Point 6: L 43. Change “The long-spined swimming crab A. spinicarpus is” to “Long-spined swimming crabs are”
Response 6: We have changed to: “Long-spined swimming crabs are”
Point 7: L 62. Change “a population” to “populations”
Response 7: We have changed to: “populations”
Point 8: L 71, 136, 185. Change “size frequency” to “size-frequency”
Response 8: We have changed to: “size-frequency” in all manuscript.
Point 9: L 117. Change “a Vernier” to “vernier calipers”
Response 9: We have changed to: “vernier calipers”
Point 10: L 165, 173, 184, 192. Change “A. spinicarpus” to “Achelous spinicarpus”
Response 10: We have changed to: “Achelous spinicarpus” in all sections of the manuscript.
Point 11: L 175. Change “ratio was allometric negative” to “ratios was negative allometric”
Response 11: We have changed to: “ratios were negative allometric”
Point 12: L 264. Change “it was” to “the crabs were”
Response 12: We have changed to: “the crabs were”
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Second review
Paper title: Relative growth and size structure of Achelous spinicarpus Stimpson, 1871 associated with shrimp trawling in the state of Veracruz.
We authors have considered my recommendations and revised the paper. I can recommend this paper for publication after a few text corrections as follows:
L 135. Change “with a vernier” to “with vernier”
L 155. Change “theorical level 1:1” to “a theoretical 1:1 ratio”
L 188. Change “M:H” to “M:F”
L 287. Change “as provided” to “as suggested”
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2
I am grateful for the last revision that has been made to the manuscript "Relative growth and size structure of Achelous spinicarpus Stmpson, 1871 associated whit shrimp trawling in the state of Veracruz", which will improve the quality of the article and comply with the quality standards of the JMSE.
I inform you that the four observations have been solved, the changes have been incorporated into the manuscript using the "Track change" function so that you can follow the changes in a more agile way.
I hope that the changes made to the manuscript will allow its publication.
Thanks for your time.
Kind regards
Response to Reviewer 2 Recommendations
Point 1: L 135. Change “with a vernier”
Response 1: According to the observations, we have changed to “with vernier”
Point 2: L 155. Change “theorical level 1:1”
Response 2: According to the observations, we have changed to “a theorical 1:1 ratio”
Point 3: L 188. Change “M:H”
Response 3: According to the observations, we have changed to “M:F”
Point 4: L 287. Change “as provided”
Response 4: According to the observations, we have changed to “as suggested”
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
The manuscript you presented sounds quite interesting. It was written in a quite clear manner and information provided are useful for the better understanding of the population dynamics and biological/fishery aspects of the investigated species Achelous spinicarpus. In my opinion the manuscript can be accepted after some minor changes.
See the follow points please.
Title, Line 3: no brackets in the scientific name of the species: Achelous spinicarpus Stimpson, 1871
Line 22: allometric negative or allometric positive?
Line 26: at the beginning of a sentence, write the full scientific name.
Line 33: no brackets in the authors’ scientific name, see comments for Line 3 (title).
Line 47: on “its” biology
Line 58: quote the work of Tiralongo et al., 2020 after Hajjej et al., 2016: Tiralongo F., Arculeo M., Yeo M.D., Kakou B.I., Adepo-Gourene A.B. (2020). First data on population structure and growth parameters of Ocypode cursor (Linnaeus, 1758) along the Mediterranean and Atlantic coast. CBM – Cahiers de Biologie Marine, 61(4): 405–413.
Line 147: change “organisms” with “crabs”
Line 148: see comments in Line 147, and follow it in all the manuscript.
Line 198: the same as in the title, follow it in all the manuscript.
Line 211: Consistent? Or in disagreement?
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear editor,
The present article entitled "RELATIVE GROWTH AND SIZE STRUCTURE OF Achelous spinicarpus (STIMPSON, 1871) ASSOCIATED WITH SHRIMP TRAWLING IN THE STATE OF VERACRUZ" pretends to describe some life history traits of a small portunid crab, considered one of the most important discarted species in a trawling shrimp fishery in the Gulf of Mexico.
The study of the companion species is of great relevance to understand the impact of a fishery, especially in trawling. Where discards are a large proportion of the catches.
The authors have made an effort to undertake the present work, however, I must be critical in several fundamental aspects.
1.- The sampling is based on a single month. This makes the present study not representative and cannot be used to describe population dynamics or the impact of a fishery. The minimum effort and sampling should be quarterly or quarterly. Preferably monthly.
2.- The sampling design around depth strata is not balanced. One of the deep layers is poorly described.
3.- The relative growth results have no biological significance. It is probably due to a failure of sampling (specimens with autonomy included in the analysis) or of data analysis. The results should be between 2.3 and 3.7.
Apart from the above, I have detected a certain degree of self-plagiarism. Authors should be careful about recycling text, even if it is their own.
Kind regards,
