Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments

 

This review, based on the fair-fish database, examines the animal welfare hazards associated with purse seine fishing when targeting four commercially significant small pelagic species: Atlantic herring, Peruvian anchoveta, Atlantic chub mackerel, and Atlantic mackerel. The authors systematically assess the welfare impacts across all stages of the fishing process, from prospection to stunning and slaughter, highlighting key concerns such as hypoxia, mechanical injuries from crowding and pumping, and the lack of humane killing protocols. The review also addresses bycatch, discarding issues, and environmental hazards like ghost fishing. Finally, the review critically evaluates existing challenges and proposes a comprehensive set of mitigation strategies, including operational improvements, gear modifications, and policy recommendations, to foster more humane and sustainable fishing practices.

 

The objective of the manuscript, in general, is interesting. However, the manuscript requires some improvements to meet publication standards. The manuscript should become acceptable for publication pending suitable minor revision considering the comments appended below.

 

More specific comments:

                                                                                                                                               

Introduction:

 

Page 2: "...fishes experience emotion-like states, expressing models like behaviour [7,8] and fear [6], for example, or stress responses to adverse events...". The phrase "models like behaviour" is unclear. Please revise.

 

Page 2 (Section 1.1): "The global demand for fishes and other aquatic animals for human consumption continues to rise rapidly, exerting increasing pressure on wild fish populations and the fishing methods used to catch them [13–15].". The phrase "rises rapidly" is qualitative. Please try to quantify the rise or use a more precise term related to global trends.

 

Page 2 (Section 1.2): "Furthermore, some welfare hazards are exacerbated by operational procedures during purse seining, like intensive crowding densities and pumping, which can cause significant trauma, particularly in large hauls exceeding 1,000 tonnes [37,38].". Please clarify why hauls over 1,000 tonnes exacerbate the issue.

 

Page 3 (Section 1.4): "...the Method Profile is organized around the sequential stages of fishing operations—from prospection and net setting through capture, hauling, removing fishes from the water, releasing them from the gear, sorting, (live) storage, and stunning and slaughter.". This sentence lists the stages, but it is not clear if these are the official categories used in the Fair-Fish Method Profile itself.

 

Material and methods:

 

The review lacks a dedicated section explaining the systematic review process. Please add a dedicated "2. Methods" section. This new section should detail the search strategy (databases, search terms, timeframe), inclusion/exclusion criteria for selecting source material, and the systematic process used to extract and categorize data from the Fair-Fish Method Profile and supporting literature into Tables and Figures.

 

Literature Review:

 

Page 4 (Section 2.1): "The capture of small pelagic species using purse seine nets involves a complex, multi-step process, with each stage presenting specific welfare hazards, which are summarized in Table 1.". The paper introduces Table 1 immediately, which summarizes the entire section. The text then reads like an elaboration on the table rather than a flowing review. Please create a full paragraph synthesizing the key mitigation challenges (e.g., scaling solutions, cost-benefit trade-offs) before diving into the stage-by-stage detail in the subsequent subsections.

 

Page 5 (Section 2.1.1): "...caution should be taken, as setting around fish schools may potentially stress fishes. For instance, it is plausible that factors such as forced swimming during enclosure in attempts to escape, increased contact with the net and conspecifics, rising fish density, and additional noise and vibration may act as hazards for small pelagic species.". This is an important gap the authors noted. The discussion should conclude by proposing a specific research method to address this lack of information, explicitly proposing a research priority.

 

Page 7 (Section 2.1.6): "Humane stunning and slaughter methods for the four investigated small pelagic species caught by purse seine remain largely unstandardized and poorly implemented [40]. Commonly used methods—such as asphyxiation through air exposure or immersion in ice slurry, causing hypothermia—often cause prolonged suffering and delayed unconsciousness [41].". The authors identify this as a "major welfare gap.". To strengthen the urgency, it needs to quantify the "prolonged suffering.". So, please add a specific quantification based on the literature if available.

 

Page 7 (Section 2.1.5 Storage): "Some pelagic species are kept alive in floating cages at sea... When stored on board in ice or ice water, injuries and stress caused by collisions and pressure inside the tanks are possible.". This section mixes live storage at sea (cages) and storage on board (tanks/ice) in a way that confuses the ideal pathway. Please reorder the discussion to prioritize the quickest path to death. First, state that the best practice is immediate stunning/slaughter (eliminating the need for storage). Then, discuss the two undesirable alternatives: 1) Short-term storage in tanks on board, and 2) Longer-term live storage in cages at sea. This reordering clarifies the preferred protocol.

 

Page 10 (Section 2.3 - Environmental hazards): The section on environmental hazards relies heavily on the Peruvian E. ringens purse seine fishery for numerical examples (fuel consumption, local impact ranking). The generalizability here is limited. Please briefly qualify the findings or add an acknowledgment that these are the best available data points to illustrate the problem's scope but are not necessarily representative of the C. harengus or Scomber fisheries.

 

Conclusion:

 

Page 17: "The review draws extensively from the fair-fish database's pioneering Method Profile, which offers an innovative and systematic framework integrating welfare science into fishery method assessments.". Briefly state what the Profile enables that traditional management does not.

 

Page 17: "The hauling and crowding phase of fishing seems to be the most critical catching step, although initial prospection, scooping/pumping fish on board, handling, and sorting present important welfare concerns, too.". Please synthesize the primary physiological consequence. State why it is the most critical step by including the key hazard.

 

Page 17: "Additionally, current practices for live storage and stunning and slaughter frequently fail to meet more humane standards, resulting in prolonged suffering.". Synthesize the main solution gap and reiterate the high-priority research need.

 

Page 17: "Therefore, the comprehensive adoption of operational strategies, gear improvements, species-specific handling during the whole fishing process, and stunning and slaughter protocols are fundamental.". Synthesize the collective benefit and briefly state the outcome of adopting these changes.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Summary: Thank you very much for your time and effort towards the improvement of this manuscript. We hold your valuable comments and suggestions in the greatest regards and believe they contributed greatly to improving the manuscript. Therefore, the manuscript has been thoroughly revised considering your comments and suggestions. Please find the detailed responses below as highlighted in bold. The clean version of the revised manuscript and the corresponding tracked changes version can be found in attached separate files. We also take this opportunity to raise an issue related to the reference management in our manuscript. It appears that during the journal’s internal copying or editing process, the Zotero field codes embedded in our original submission were removed. As a result, programs such as Word and LibreOffice no longer recognise the citations as Zotero-managed references. Consequently, when we attempt to insert a new reference, Zotero automatically assigns it as “[1]”, as if it were the first citation in a new document. Given this situation, we were unable at the moment to insert new references directly in the text, so it is because the new one is highlighted in yellow in the text. As far as we know, the only way to correctly incorporate any new reference would be to manually re-insert all citations throughout the manuscript. We are, of course, willing to do this if needed. However, we kindly request that this be postponed until the peer-review process is fully settled and the manuscript is formally accepted for publication, if that is the case, to avoid unnecessary duplication of work and reduce the risk of introducing errors. Thank you very much for your understanding.

General comments: 

This review, based on the fair-fish database, examines the animal welfare hazards associated with purse seine fishing when targeting four commercially significant small pelagic species: Atlantic herring, Peruvian anchoveta, Atlantic chub mackerel, and Atlantic mackerel. The authors systematically assess the welfare impacts across all stages of the fishing process, from prospection to stunning and slaughter, highlighting key concerns such as hypoxia, mechanical injuries from crowding and pumping, and the lack of humane killing protocols. The review also addresses bycatch, discarding issues, and environmental hazards like ghost fishing. Finally, the review critically evaluates existing challenges and proposes a comprehensive set of mitigation strategies, including operational improvements, gear modifications, and policy recommendations, to foster more humane and sustainable fishing practices.

The objective of the manuscript, in general, is interesting. However, the manuscript requires some improvements to meet publication standards. The manuscript should become acceptable for publication pending suitable minor revision considering the comments appended below.

Answer: Dear reviewer, we appreciate your clear understanding about the objective and the importance of this manuscript. We are elated that you found the manuscript useful and interesting. Following your detailed and useful comments, we have made specific changes to the manuscript with an explanation about the changes below each of your comments. We hope the revisions make this manuscript meet publication standards.

 

Minor comments: 

Introduction

Page 2: "...fishes experience emotion-like states, expressing models like behaviour [7,8] and fear [6], for example, or stress responses to adverse events...". The phrase "models like behaviour" is unclear. Please revise.

Answer: We beg your pardon. However, we suspect there seems to have been a misunderstanding. The alleged sentence reads as “For instance, behavioural and physiological indicators have revealed that fishes experience emotion-like states, expressing anxiety-like behaviour [7,8] and fear [6], for example, or stress responses to adverse events such as handling”. As such, we did not find any mention of the phrase “models like behaviour” in the submitted manuscript. 

Page 2 (Section 1.1): "The global demand for fishes and other aquatic animals for human consumption continues to rise rapidly, exerting increasing pressure on wild fish populations and the fishing methods used to catch them [13–15].". The phrase "rises rapidly" is qualitative. Please try to quantify the rise or use a more precise term related to global trends.

Answer: This is an excellent point. We wanted to make a generalised statement. However, we agree that the phrase "rises rapidly" is too subjective. Therefore, the revised sentence now reads as “Satiating the global demand for fishes and other aquatic animals exerts significant pressure on wild fish populations”. 

Page 2 (Section 1.2): "Furthermore, some welfare hazards are exacerbated by operational procedures during purse seining, like intensive crowding densities and pumping, which can cause significant trauma, particularly in large hauls exceeding 1,000 tonnes [37,38].". Please clarify why hauls over 1,000 tonnes exacerbate the issue.

Answer: We implied the welfare hazards are worsened with increasing crowding densities. However, we have now removed the statement “particularly in large hauls exceeding 1,000 tonnes” because the threshold crowding densities above which the welfare hazards are exacerbated vary across species according to Tenningen et al., 2019 (doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsz119). Therefore, we decided to omit the exact number to maintain the generalised nature of the introduction section.

Page 3 (Section 1.4): "...the Method Profile is organized around the sequential stages of fishing operations—from prospection and net setting through capture, hauling, removing fishes from the water, releasing them from the gear, sorting, (live) storage, and stunning and slaughter.". This sentence lists the stages, but it is not clear if these are the official categories used in the Fair-Fish Method Profile itself.

Answer: These categories mentioned here mirror the official categories on the method profile. To make this more clear, the revised sentence now reads as “Following and refining this principle, the Method Profile is organized around criteria mirroring the sequential stages of fishing operations—from prospection and net setting through capture, hauling, removing fishes from the water, releasing them from the gear, sorting, (live) storage, and stunning and slaughter.”  

Materials and methods

The review lacks a dedicated section explaining the systematic review process. Please add a dedicated "2. Methods" section. This new section should detail the search strategy (databases, search terms, timeframe), inclusion/exclusion criteria for selecting source material, and the systematic process used to extract and categorize data from the Fair-Fish Method Profile and supporting literature into Tables and Figures.

Answer: Thank you for this important comment! We have included a new sub-section 2.1 named “Methods” under “Literature review” explaining our methodology in more detail (cited below). For the Tables and Figures in the manuscript, they are a summary of the manuscript text and meant as a visualisation. Figure 3 goes beyond the scope of the Method Profile and displays the holistic approach recommended to tackle welfare in fisheries.

The new section 2.1 “Methods” reads as: “This review mainly draws from the Method Profile of the fair-fish database which contains the information from the four WelfareChecks of Clupea harengus, Engraulis ringens, Scomber colias, and Scomber scombrus. These WelfareChecks were created by different members of the fair-fish database team at different points in time (Engraulis ringens and Clupea harengus in 2023, Scomber colias in 2024, Scomber scombrus in 2025) and using different approaches, combining databases with search engines, snowballing, grey literature, websites, and YouTube videos. The databases used included Google scholar and Web of Science. We searched for the focus species (taxonomic name) and terms like “welfare”, “stress”, “injuries” in conjunction with the method, in this case “purse seine”. Since the topic of welfare in fisheries is still young and hence not many papers are directly focusing on it, we did not need to make a selection among papers as long as they fulfilled the criteria of covering the focus species, the method, and one or more welfare hazard(s) during one or more step(s) of the catching process. On the contrary, we broadened the search scope to include papers that cannot be regarded as representing a commercial fisheries context but are rather of a more experimental nature. When an article was deemed suitable, we then searched for and read relevant articles cited within that article. Also, we resorted to citing YouTube videos, as they came closest to displaying the realistic situation on board commercial vessels. And we included grey literature like conference papers or university theses, governmental or agency reports (NOAA, FAO), and websites. Lastly, since we could not find proof for a number of welfare hazards indeed imposing welfare consequences on the focus species (e.g., injuries following crowding), we drew our own conclusions based on empirical findings on similar species or rational inferences (e.g., YouTube videos). These knowledge gaps especially deserve attention by the scientific community.

We commonly view book chapters and reviews as serving as an introduction to a topic and a starting point to look for original papers. We try not, however, to refer to the papers cited within books and reviews secondarily. The only reasons to fall back to this option are if the original source is digitally unavailable or in a language no team member understands. Also, if chapters or reviews develop new ideas or results that go beyond the cited sources, we will cite them directly.

From the selected papers, we extracted information on the criteria outlined in section 1.4. The reader is kindly invited to visit https://fair-fish-database.net/db/methods/catch/purse-seines/ to find the bit-size information of the Overview and then navigate to the “Dossier” to discover the information extracted from the sources (complete with the references supporting the statements), assigned to the criterion structure, and specified for the target species that it belongs to.”

Literature review

Page 4 (Section 2.1): "The capture of small pelagic species using purse seine nets involves a complex, multi-step process, with each stage presenting specific welfare hazards, which are summarized in Table 1.". The paper introduces Table 1 immediately, which summarizes the entire section. The text then reads like an elaboration on the table rather than a flowing review. Please create a full paragraph synthesizing the key mitigation challenges (e.g., scaling solutions, cost-benefit trade-offs) before diving into the stage-by-stage detail in the subsequent subsections.

Answer: We are happy to insert a sentence in the (now) second paragraph of section 2 that lists the main potential mitigation measures. “The mitigators can include keeping hauling speed, crowding duration, and catch volumes low, minimizing handling, and stunning immediately when they get on board followed by slaughtering.” We are not sure, though, that this will satisfy your request, as Table 1 does not list mitigation challenges. Better clarity on what you had in mind would be appreciated. 

Page 5 (Section 2.1.1): "...caution should be taken, as setting around fish schools may potentially stress fishes. For instance, it is plausible that factors such as forced swimming during enclosure in attempts to escape, increased contact with the net and conspecifics, rising fish density, and additional noise and vibration may act as hazards for small pelagic species.". This is an important gap the authors noted. The discussion should conclude by proposing a specific research method to address this lack of information, explicitly proposing a research priority.

Answer: We agree with this comment. We have now concluded the discussion of this section with ideas to study the response of fishes to the mentioned hazards. The revised sentence now reads as  “For instance, incorporating innovative techniques like high-resolution sonar or camera technology in amalgamation with advanced artificial intelligence techniques enable individual fish recognition and tracking as well as behavioural assessment to record ethological responses of fish to the hazards of encircling. Further research might shine light on this.” As you rightly mentioned, this is a crucial gap that has been identified and discussed by us. However, due to a paucity of information about this hazard, we think that it could be imprudent to explicitly propose it as a research priority.

Page 7 (Section 2.1.6): "Humane stunning and slaughter methods for the four investigated small pelagic species caught by purse seine remain largely unstandardized and poorly implemented [40]. Commonly used methods—such as asphyxiation through air exposure or immersion in ice slurry, causing hypothermia—often cause prolonged suffering and delayed unconsciousness [41].". The authors identify this as a "major welfare gap.". To strengthen the urgency, it needs to quantify the "prolonged suffering.". So, please add a specific quantification based on the literature if available.

Answer: Thank you very much for this brilliant suggestion. We have added the sentence “A study on S. colias kept on ice reported activity even after 20 minutes or more of asphyxia and hypothermia, which was also evident by an elevation of physiological stress parameters like plasma cortisol and lactate [Carefish/catch report on purse seines].” Likewise, the reference number 41 (doi:10.1577/H07-010.1) in the cited sentence was removed as a citation as we feel the new reference that we have added supports our message of prolonged suffering more directly. Regarding this, we would like to raise an issue related to the reference management in our manuscript. As explained in the beginning of this letter, it appears that during the journal’s internal copying or editing process, the Zotero field codes embedded in our original submission were removed, and, as a consequence, programs such as Word and LibreOffice no longer recognise the citations as Zotero-managed references. Given this situation, we were unable at the moment to insert this new reference directly in the text, so it is because it is highlighted in yellow here and in the text. We opted to deal with this later, as this management would now imply much effort to manually re-do all the citations/references throughout the text. Thank you very much for your understanding. 

Page 7 (Section 2.1.5 Storage): "Some pelagic species are kept alive in floating cages at sea... When stored on board in ice or ice water, injuries and stress caused by collisions and pressure inside the tanks are possible.". This section mixes live storage at sea (cages) and storage on board (tanks/ice) in a way that confuses the ideal pathway. Please reorder the discussion to prioritize the quickest path to death. First, state that the best practice is immediate stunning/slaughter (eliminating the need for storage). Then, discuss the two undesirable alternatives: 1) Short-term storage in tanks on board, and 2) Longer-term live storage in cages at sea. This reordering clarifies the preferred protocol.

Answer: We appreciate your concern. To make the paragraph more understandable, we have made a minor revision to the beginning of the paragraph, which now reads as “In terms of storage, the caught pelagic species are either kept alive until landing or stored on board the fishing vessel. The former includes keeping the fish alive in floating cages at sea to maintain freshness prior to processing or sale – even for several weeks” We agree with you that the best practice is to stun and kill the captured fish immediately. However, this section is on welfare hazards and not on mitigation measures. Therefore, we divert your attention to section (now) 2.3.5 (formerly 2.2.5), where we have explicitly mentioned the importance of stunning the captured individuals immediately upon their arrival on the deck. Moreover, because we believe that the negative impacts of storage on small pelagic fishes may depend not only on duration but also on the conditions the individuals experience, we are not certain that short-term storage in onboard tanks should necessarily be considered a preferable protocol to longer-term live storage in sea cages in all cases. Therefore, we chose not to imply such a preference in our wording here. However, we are of course open to further discussion and clarification

Page 10 (Section 2.3 - Environmental hazards): The section on environmental hazards relies heavily on the Peruvian E. ringens purse seine fishery for numerical examples (fuel consumption, local impact ranking). The generalizability here is limited. Please briefly qualify the findings or add an acknowledgment that these are the best available data points to illustrate the problem's scope but are not necessarily representative of the C. harengus or Scomber fisheries.

Answer: You spotted this correctly - thank you for your comment. We now inserted a sentence pointing to the fact that our statement is based on a study for a particular region. Also, we added to our existing sentence that further research is needed to explore the situation for the four investigated small pelagic species. “Considering a dearth of findings pertaining to this issue, we report the best available findings from purse seine fisheries. We acknowledge, though, that further research is needed to evaluate the environmental burden of the four investigated small pelagic species captured with purse seines.”

Conclusion

Page 17: "The review draws extensively from the fair-fish database's pioneering Method Profile, which offers an innovative and systematic framework integrating welfare science into fishery method assessments.". Briefly state what the Profile enables that traditional management does not.

Answer: This is an excellent suggestion as it highlights another import feature of the fair-fish database’s Method Profile. However, the conclusion section already has a sentence that says “This structured approach fills a critical gap in traditional fisheries management, which has historically neglected fish welfare considerations despite growing scientific consensus on fish sentience and suffering.” Therefore, we feel adding another sentence prior to this one would make the conclusion section redundant. 

Page 17: "The hauling and crowding phase of fishing seems to be the most critical catching step, although initial prospection, scooping/pumping fish on board, handling, and sorting present important welfare concerns, too.". Please synthesize the primary physiological consequence. State why it is the most critical step by including the key hazard.

Answer: We agree with your suggestions. However, we must highlight that assessing welfare in fish necessitates a combination of physiological, behavioural, and physical assessments. Thus, we included all of these consequences of the most critical catching step, i.e. hauling and crowding. Likewise, we have also mentioned the important hazards associated with this crowding step. The new section now reads as “Prospection, scooping/pumping fish on board, handling, and sorting present grave welfare concerns. Probably the most critical catching step is hauling and crowding, though. Severe densities, lack of oxygen, and contact with the gear are the main hazards in this catching phase potentially leading to elevated cortisol levels, abnormal plasma electrolyte levels, asphyxia, panic behaviour, and injuries up to mortality.”

Page 17: "Additionally, current practices for live storage and stunning and slaughter frequently fail to meet more humane standards, resulting in prolonged suffering.". Synthesize the main solution gap and reiterate the high-priority research need.

Answer: We agree with you that the importance of immediate stunning and slaughtering and the lack thereof in commercial fishing operations needs to be highlighted and reiterated. We have made revisions to better highlight our point. The revised section now reads as “Additionally, current practices for live storage and stunning and slaughter frequently fail to meet more humane standards due to impediments like high catch quantities and lack of standardised protocols for live storage in addition to a lack of species-specific, automated, and scalable stunning and slaughter methods that are capable of handling such high catch throughput, resulting in prolonged suffering. Stunning and slaughtering immediately after getting individuals on board will not just reduce the welfare hazards related to the final step of the catching process but also help in ameliorating cumulative stressors of the adjoining steps like sorting, handling, and storing. This illustrates the importance of further research on stunning and slaughter protocols.”

Page 17: "Therefore, the comprehensive adoption of operational strategies, gear improvements, species-specific handling during the whole fishing process, and stunning and slaughter protocols are fundamental.". Synthesize the collective benefit and briefly state the outcome of adopting these changes.

Answer: Thank you for this suggestion which gave us the opportunity to refer to the beginning of the manuscript where we argued with the sentience of fishes being the starting point for our work. We now added a sentence reading as “It will contribute to decreasing welfare impacts during the capture of wild-caught aquatic species which have been shown to be sentient and therefore deserving of more consideration”.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript provides a comprehensive and timely review of welfare issues in purse seine fisheries targeting small pelagic species, leveraging the novel fair-fish database and its Method Profile framework. The topic is highly relevant, and the structured approach to identifying hazards and mitigation strategies is commendable. However, the manuscript requires major revisions to strengthen the methodological clarity, analytical depth, and practical applicability of the recommendations. Specific concerns include the need for a clearer description of the literature search and selection process, more critical analysis of the proposed mitigation measures, and improved integration of bycatch and environmental aspects into the welfare discussion.

• The paper lacks a detailed description of the literature search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and data extraction process. This limits reproducibility and transparency.
• The sections on bycatch and environmental impacts are informative but feel somewhat disconnected from the core welfare narrative. A more integrated approach is needed.
• Table 1 and Figure 1 are useful but could be better integrated into the text. Some terms are unclear without further explanation.

This review represents a valuable contribution to the emerging field of fish welfare in capture fisheries. With the suggested revisions, it has the potential to become a foundational reference for researchers, policymakers, and industry stakeholders.

 

Author Response

Summary: Thank you very much for your time and effort towards the improvement of this manuscript. We hold your valuable comments and suggestions in the greatest regards and believe they contributed greatly to improving the manuscript. Therefore, the manuscript has been thoroughly revised considering your comments and suggestions. Please find the detailed responses below as highlighted in bold. The clean version of the revised manuscript and the corresponding tracked changes version can be found in attached separate files. We also take this opportunity to raise an issue related to the reference management in our manuscript. It appears that during the journal’s internal copying or editing process, the Zotero field codes embedded in our original submission were removed. As a result, programs such as Word and LibreOffice no longer recognise the citations as Zotero-managed references. Consequently, when we attempt to insert a new reference, Zotero automatically assigns it as “[1]”, as if it were the first citation in a new document. Given this situation, we were unable at the moment to insert new references directly in the text, so it is because the new one is highlighted in yellow in the text. As far as we know, the only way to correctly incorporate any new reference would be to manually re-insert all citations throughout the manuscript. We are, of course, willing to do this if needed. However, we kindly request that this be postponed until the peer-review process is fully settled and the manuscript is formally accepted for publication, if that is the case, to avoid unnecessary duplication of work and reduce the risk of introducing errors. Thank you very much for your understanding.

General comments: 

The manuscript provides a comprehensive and timely review of welfare issues in purse seine fisheries targeting small pelagic species, leveraging the novel fair-fish database and its Method Profile framework. The topic is highly relevant, and the structured approach to identifying hazards and mitigation strategies is commendable. However, the manuscript requires major revisions to strengthen the methodological clarity, analytical depth, and practical applicability of the recommendations. Specific concerns include the need for a clearer description of the literature search and selection process, more critical analysis of the proposed mitigation measures, and improved integration of bycatch and environmental aspects into the welfare discussion.

Answer: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your kind and constructive comments about the manuscript. We have given serious consideration to each of your comments and have made revisions based on the suggestions. We are hopeful that the manuscript meets the high standards of publications following these revisions. 

1. The paper lacks a detailed description of the literature search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and data extraction process. This limits reproducibility and transparency.

Answer: Thank you for this important hint! We have now added a new section that dive into details on the literature search and selection under 2.1 “Methods”. 

2. The sections on bycatch and environmental impacts are informative but feel somewhat disconnected from the core welfare narrative. A more integrated approach is needed.

Answer: Thank you for this comment which helped us in improving the reading flow of the manuscript. We now added two introductory sentences at the beginning of the bycatch, discard, and environmental hazards section which read “So far, we have been dealing with the welfare of four small pelagic species caught with purse seine that are destined to be retained and landed. Now we direct our attention to species which are unintentionally affected by these purse seine fisheries and also decreased in welfare.” Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, we have mentioned the welfare hazards a couple of times and tried to link those hazards to the problems of bycatch, discards, and environmental impacts. For example, Figure 2 combines the main objective of the manuscript - which up to this point had been dealt with for four target species caught with purse seine fisheries - with welfare hazards for bycatch, discards, and other species in the environment. “Welfare hazards for target and non-target species through bycatch and discarding practices as well as hazards for the environment through purse seine fisheries of the four investigated small pelagic species C. harengus, E. ringens, S. colias, and S. scombrus.” 

3. Table 1 and Figure 1 are useful but could be better integrated into the text. Some terms are unclear without further explanation.

Answer: Thank you for this comment which will help us improve the reading flow. We added a sentence before Figure 1 and Table 1 explaining that details will follow in the adjoining sections (before Figure 2: “In the following sections, we will dive into the details of Figure 2 more closely.”; before Table 1: “We will take a closer look at both the hazards and the mitigators in the following sections.”). The reader then will also find descriptions and sources for all terms in the sub-sections. Further explanations on better integrating the table and this figure into our text or clarify potentially unclear terms would be appreciated.

4. This review represents a valuable contribution to the emerging field of fish welfare in capture fisheries. With the suggested revisions, it has the potential to become a foundational reference for researchers, policymakers, and industry stakeholders. 

Answer: We are exhilarated by this comment. As you rightly stated, we expect that this pioneering manuscript, if published, will guide the aforementioned parties towards practising and implementing welfare-friendly purse seining operations. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1、While the manuscript provides a structured overview of welfare hazards in purse seine fishing, it primarily synthesizes data from the fair-fish database and existing species profiles (WelfareChecks). This approach results in a review that feels more like a promotional extension of the database rather than a standalone critical analysis offering new insights or synthesizing broader literature. 
2、The reliance on the Method Profile from the fair-fish database, while innovative, limits the scope to four specific species (Clupea harengus, Engraulis ringens, Scomber colias, and Scomber scombrus) without sufficiently integrating or critically evaluating external studies. For instance, sections on mitigation strategies (e.g., Table 1) propose practical measures but lack quantitative evidence, comparative analyses, or validation from field trials. Additionally, the review does not adequately address potential biases in the database's data curation or how welfare hazards were categorized.
3、The manuscript focuses heavily on operational phases and hazards but provides limited discussion on broader ecological, economic, or regulatory implications. For example, while bycatch, discarding, and environmental impacts (e.g., ghost fishing) are mentioned, they are not explored in depth with supporting data or case studies. This results in an uneven balance, with some sections (e.g., prospection and setting) acknowledging gaps in research but not proposing robust alternatives. A more comprehensive review would benefit from interdisciplinary integration, such as linking welfare to sustainability metrics or policy frameworks.
4、 the literature review section repeats database-related content without advancing the narrative. Furthermore, the manuscript would benefit from enhanced visuals (e.g., diagrams of purse seine operations) and a more critical evaluation of conflicting evidence in the cited studies.

Author Response

Summary: Thank you very much for your time and effort towards the improvement of this manuscript. We hold your valuable comments and suggestions in the greatest regards and believe they contributed greatly to improving the manuscript. Therefore, the manuscript has been thoroughly revised considering your comments and suggestions. Please find the detailed responses below as highlighted in bold. The clean version of the revised manuscript and the corresponding tracked changes version can be found in attached separate files. We also take this opportunity to raise an issue related to the reference management in our manuscript. It appears that during the journal’s internal copying or editing process, the Zotero field codes embedded in our original submission were removed. As a result, programs such as Word and LibreOffice no longer recognise the citations as Zotero-managed references. Consequently, when we attempt to insert a new reference, Zotero automatically assigns it as “[1]”, as if it were the first citation in a new document. Given this situation, we were unable at the moment to insert new references directly in the text, so it is because the new one is highlighted in yellow in the text. As far as we know, the only way to correctly incorporate any new reference would be to manually re-insert all citations throughout the manuscript. We are, of course, willing to do this if needed. However, we kindly request that this be postponed until the peer-review process is fully settled and the manuscript is formally accepted for publication, if that is the case, to avoid unnecessary duplication of work and reduce the risk of introducing errors. Thank you very much for your understanding.

General comments: -

1. While the manuscript provides a structured overview of welfare hazards in purse seine fishing, it primarily synthesizes data from the fair-fish database and existing species profiles (WelfareChecks). This approach results in a review that feels more like a promotional extension of the database rather than a standalone critical analysis offering new insights or synthesizing broader literature. 

Answer: We thank you for acknowledging the value of the WelfareChecks. We are putting a lot of scientific effort into creating WelfareChecks - and now also Method profiles - in the fair-fish database. We are applying a comprehensive approach using sources from peer-reviewed papers to grey literature like YouTube videos, university theses, and governmental reports. (Please see the new section 2.1 Methods in the manuscript in which we detail our literature review process.). We do have an internal review process for the WelfareChecks involving experts in our team, but inviting external reviewers has failed in the past.  Therefore, we consider that although this review indeed displays data from the fair-fish database, it also represents a critical analysis that offers both new insights and synthesizes broader literatures. Despite a reader could find most information provided in this review by reading the purse seine Method profile in the database, as far as we know, there is no other scientific paper (that is, a source directed to the scientific community) synthesizing the welfare impacts of purse seine on some of the most important small pelagic species. Moreover, we are also not aware of the existence of another paper making recommendations and propositions for improvements in a holistic way as we did here in this review paper. The purpose of the manuscript at hand is to make the synthesized information from the purse seine Method Profile known in larger scientific circles and get feedback by the community through the peer-review process. 

2. The reliance on the Method Profile from the fair-fish database, while innovative, limits the scope to four specific species (Clupea harengus, Engraulisringens, Scombercolias, and Scomber scombrus) without sufficiently integrating or critically evaluating external studies. For instance, sections on mitigation strategies (e.g., Table 1) propose practical measures but lack quantitative evidence, comparative analyses, or validation from field trials. Additionally, the review does not adequately address potential biases in the database's data curation or how welfare hazards were categorized. 

Answer: We are sorry to hear that you view the selection of the four species as a limitation. These are among the most frequently caught small pelagic species worldwide. The process of researching the WelfareChecks and Method Profile for these species involved citing more than 120 sources which we deem a good representation of the available welfare sources for these species. For example, if there were validations from field trials available, we would have included them. We added a section “2.1 Methods” in which we explain better the process of literature search. For example, we direct the reader to the database itself where they can find the structured profile, the findings from the papers (complete with the reference), and the target species that the findings apply to.

The goal of this review was to list and give a general overview of the welfare hazards obtained through an objective reading of the existing literature and describe the potential mitigation measures. As such, a quantitative and a comparative analysis is beyond the scope of this review. Nevertheless, this review and our larger fair-fish database (WelfareChecks | catch and Method Profile) will act as a baseline for further comparative and meta-analytical studies. 

3. The manuscript focuses heavily on operational phases and hazards but provides limited discussion on broader ecological, economic, or regulatory implications. For example, while bycatch, discarding, and environmental impacts (e.g., ghost fishing) are mentioned, they are not explored in depth with supporting data or case studies. This results in an uneven balance, with some sections (e.g., prospection and setting) acknowledging gaps in research but not proposing robust alternatives. A more comprehensive review would benefit from interdisciplinary integration, such as linking welfare to sustainability metrics or policy frameworks.

Answer: You are correct in saying that the manuscript relies heavily on welfare hazards for the four investigated small pelagic species. This is the focus of the paper. We included bycatch, discards, and environmental hazards to give a complete picture of welfare hazards that go beyond the target species but impacts unintentionally caught or otherwise inflicted species (e.g., through fuel leaks and ghost fishing). We added one more sentence making the link between welfare and non-target species clearer (“So far, we have been dealing with the welfare of four small pelagic species caught with purse seine that are destined to be retained and landed. Now we direct our attention to species which are unintentionally affected by these purse seine fisheries and also decreased in welfare.”). What was available in terms of bycatch, discards, and environmental hazards for the four target species, we have included in the review. Everything going beyond that would collide with the scope of the paper.

On the topic of prospection and setting, we added our proposal of future research approaches (“For instance, incorporating innovative techniques like high-resolution sonar or camera technology in amalgamation with advanced artificial intelligence techniques enable individual fish recognition and tracking as well as behavioural assessment to record ethological responses of fish to the hazards of encircling. Further research might shine light on this.”).

“Interdisciplinary integration”: We would like to point you to the section of bycatch, discards, and environmental hazards in which we make the argument that reducing bycatch will benefit marine resources. In the concluding chapter on “Recommendations for Welfare and Environmental Improvements”, we try to integrate welfare with broader concerns like policy, stakeholder engagement, and economic incentives. This chapter is just meant to give a glimpse into what is possible in terms of welfare. It was not meant to dive deeper into these topics given that the main focus of the paper is the welfare of the four selected small pelagic species.

4. The literature review section repeats database-related content without advancing the narrative. Furthermore, the manuscript would benefit from enhanced visuals (e.g., diagrams of purse seine operations) and a more critical evaluation of conflicting evidence in the cited studies.

Answer: Thank you for this suggestion - we agree with the idea of having a diagram/figure of purse seine operations and added one as the new Figure 1. What concerns the other points, we believe we have answered most of them in the previous comments. We think that we are advancing the narrative by not just assembling the available knowledge base but synthesizing it in a critical evaluation and combining it with broader concerns like policy, stakeholder engagement, and economic incentives. On the topic of critical evaluation of conflicting evidence, a lack of sufficient studies impeded a proper comparative analysis. However, we believe we have presented the available evidence and evaluated it wherever possible. For example, we argued that electrical stunning - for now - cannot be recommended based on two conflicting studies. 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The concerns have been well addressed, and now it is suitable for publication.