Data for Fish Stock Assessment Obtained from the CMSY Algorithm for all Global FAO Datasets

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

a) Do you have any information regarding data collection by FAO for the elaboration of global catch datasets?

b) Do you know that FAO global catch datasets have underestimated catches because the do not take into account for the illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing which correspond to a significant percentage.

c) I think it is a very interesting application of the CMSY algorithm with the FAO catch global dataset which allows an estimation of stock reference points for all global fisheries reported by FAO major fishing area for almost 5000 fish stocks. However, I recomend a better analysis and description of the possible sources of error and noise.

Author Response

Thank you for theses comments, here the responses:

 a)    Do you have any information regarding data collection by FAO for the elaboration of global catch datasets? 

The following sentence has been added: “The FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department provides global fish catch data from landing and bycatch reported by countries. Reported catch has to follow the Coordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics handbook [3]to ensure data consistency.”

b)    Do you know that FAO global catch datasets have underestimated catches because the do not take into account for the illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing which correspond to a significant percentage.

You are right, by definition, illegal catches are not reported in bottom-up inventories. The following sentences have been added to highlight this point:

“If unintentional catch (by-catch and discards) should be reported, FAO data do not inventory illegal and undeclared fishing activities. Actual catch may be significantly higher than FAO values, but they cannot be assessed with the available data. Illegal fishing is therefore not addressed by stock parameters provided in this work and might introduce non-quantifiable errors in values.”

c) I think it is a very interesting application of the CMSY algorithm with the FAO catch global dataset which allows an estimation of stock reference points for all global fisheries reported by FAO major fishing area for almost 5000 fish stocks. However, I recomend a better analysis and description of the possible sources of error and noise.

Thank you for this advice, the article has been modified accordingly:

-       The purpose of the classification addressing the possible sources of errors and noise is now mentioned in the summary, as well as the confidenceintervals: “The accuracy of the assessments is qualitatively determined through a classification which addresses the potential bias on the results and quantitatively by the confidenceintervals of stock parameters.” 

-       Unreported catch and corresponding bias are now mentioned (see previous point)

-       The end of the article is now “A fish stock (i.e. a population in ecology) is defined by a given species in a specific habitat. With the FAO dataset, the stock is defined by an ASFIS-species in a FAO area. This could lead to additional inconsistencies between FAO-based stock parameters and real (but not available) values. The stock parameters have to be used accordingly and with caution, but a special attention in the qualitative classification has been devotedto multi-stock datasets, when several caught species or several associated habitats are merged into a unique available FAO dataset. See Hélias et al. [1] for more details.”

We hope that with these changes, the manuscript fulfils expectations.

Reviewer 2 Report

The descriptions of the data and results are clear and sound. Therefore, the readers can easity understand the meaning of the online data and result by reading this descriptive paper. Two general comments are provided as follows;

Three affiliations are provided. So,  the superscript "1, 2 ,3" shall be used not only just "1".  

I am not sure if the reference can be cited in the abstract. Maybe it is allowed in this journal or in the data form paper.

Author Response

Review report #2

The descriptions of the data and results are clear and sound. Therefore, the readers can easity understand the meaning of the online data and result by reading this descriptive paper. Two general comments are provided as follows;

Three affiliations are provided. So,  the superscript "1, 2 ,3" shall be used not only just "1".  

Thank you, fixed

I am not sure if the reference can be cited in the abstract. Maybe it is allowed in this journal or in the data form paper.

I am wondering the same thing, but I think that is useful to have this ref in the abstract (because all this work is based on it). If it is not possible, the ref in bracket can easily be removed without changing the meaning of the sentence. Of course, I will let the editor decide.