Seasonal Trends in Water Retention of Atlantic Sea Cucumber (Cucumaria frondosa): A Modeling Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. It is recommended to relocate the computational methodology described in Sections 3.1-3.3 to the "Methods" section for better structural coherence.

2. The sampled data indicate that small-sized sea cucumbers (≤150g) account for 14.1% of the total sample, while medium/large-sized ones constitute 85.9%, it may be beneficial to apply the water loss/weight ratio calculation to verify whether this approach mitigates size-related discrepancies.

3. The y-axis labeling in Figure 7 could be refined to include more detailed descriptors.

4. Regarding Figure 10, could you please clarify in the legend whether the round black dots represent results of statistical difference analysis?

5. Sections 3.5 and 3.6 appear to be omitted in the current manuscript. Please confirm whether these sections require reinstatement or if subsequent subsection numbering should be adjusted accordingly.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

On behalf of the authors Heather Burke, Juran Goyali, Wade Murphy, Deepika Dave and myself, I would like to thank you for taking the time to read and provide comments on our manuscript entitled “Seasonal Trends in Water Retention of Atlantic sea cucumber (Cucumaria frondosa): A Modeling Approach”. We found them to be of great help during the revision process.

I list your comments below followed by our responses in red. Line numbers are per the revised manuscript with Track Changes shown.

Pete

Comment 1: It is recommended to relocate the computational methodology described in Sections 3.1-3.3 to the "Methods" section for better structural coherence.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out, we agree with this comment. Therefore, Sections 3.1-3.3 (Lines 274-306) have been moved to Sections 2.2-2.4 (Lines 226-269) in the revised manuscript. Please note: “Section 2.1. Equipment” was relocated to Appendix A.1 as suggested by another reviewer.

Comment 2: The sampled data indicate that small-sized sea cucumbers (≤150g) account for 14.1% of the total sample, while medium/large-sized ones constitute 85.9%, it may be beneficial to apply the water loss/weight ratio calculation to verify whether this approach mitigates size-related discrepancies. 

Response 2: Agree. We have added the estimated total water loss at each lapsed time interval (Lines 535-541) to our revised manuscript. Our results confirm that the 23% allowance underestimated water content and showed good correlation with the revised water loss deduction of 34%.

Comment 3: The y-axis labeling in Figure 7 could be refined to include more detailed descriptors.

Response 3: Agree. We have relabeled the y-axis for Figure 7 “Number of Sea Cucumbers Sampled” (Line 351) in the revised manuscript. We have similarly updated the y-axis for Figures 4 (Line 330), 5 (Lines 337), 6 (Lines 344) and 8 (Lines 358) to be consistent.

Comment 4: Regarding Figure 10, could you please clarify in the legend whether the round black dots represent results of statistical difference analysis?

Response 4: Agree. We have added additional descriptions for the whiskers and black dots in the caption for Figure 10 (Lines 427-434). We have also made similar updates to the caption for Figure 3 (Lines 314-321).

Comment 5: Sections 3.5 and 3.6 appear to be omitted in the current manuscript. Please confirm whether these sections require reinstatement or if subsequent subsection numbering should be adjusted accordingly.

Response 5: Agree, Section 3.7 was misnumbered and should have been Section 3.5 in the original manuscript. We have updated section 3.7 to Section 3.2 (Line 366) in the revised manuscript in accordance with this comment and changes to the manuscript identified in Comment #1 above.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-executed and clearly written manuscript that addresses an important and practical issue in sea cucumber fisheries management. The authors have conducted a thorough and methodological study, combining extensive field sampling with appropriate statistical modeling to reassess water retention estimates in Cucumaria frondosa. The findings are highly relevant for regulatory policy and industry practice, and the manuscript is presented in a clear and structured manner. With a few minor revisions to improve clarity and figure presentation, the manuscript will make a valuable contribution to the literature and is suitable for publication.

Specific comments

•  (Figure 1): Label the “Western Bank” and “Eastern Bank” directly on the map. Define any acronyms (e.g., EEZ, NAFO) in the caption for clarity. Also add the map in materials and methods section.

•  (Figures 4–8): Include standard deviation/error bars where applicable, or at least report sample sizes (n) in the figure or caption to improve interpretability.

•  Break down the multi-step procedures in Section 2.2.1 into a clearly structured list. This will improve readability and reproducibility.

•  Ensure all captions are self-explanatory. Include sample sizes, define abbreviations, and briefly describe visuals (e.g., clarify cut types in Figure 2).

•  Consider combining into a multi-panel figure (figures 4-8) or, at minimum, standardize formatting (axes, labels, bins) to improve comparability and visual consistency.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

On behalf of the authors Heather Burke, Juran Goyali, Wade Murphy, Deepika Dave and myself, I would like to thank you for taking the time to read and provide comments on our manuscript entitled “Seasonal Trends in Water Retention of Atlantic sea cucumber (Cucumaria frondosa): A Modeling Approach”. We found them to be of great help during the revision process.

I list your comments below followed by our responses in red. Line numbers are per the revised manuscript with Track Changes shown.

Pete

Comment 1: This is a well-executed and clearly written manuscript that addresses an important and practical issue in sea cucumber fisheries management. The authors have conducted a thorough and methodological study, combining extensive field sampling with appropriate statistical modeling to reassess water retention estimates in Cucumaria frondosa. The findings are highly relevant for regulatory policy and industry practice, and the manuscript is presented in a clear and structured manner. With a few minor revisions to improve clarity and figure presentation, the manuscript will make a valuable contribution to the literature and is suitable for publication.

Response 1: Thank you for this comment.

Specific comments

Comment 2: (Figure 1): Label the “Western Bank” and “Eastern Bank” directly on the map. Define any acronyms (e.g., EEZ, NAFO) in the caption for clarity. Also add the map in materials and methods section.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out, we agree with the revisions to the figure and caption. Therefore, we have updated the labelling of the Eastern and Western Banks, and we also labelled the St. Pierre and Miquelon (SMP) Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in Figure 1 (Line 47) of the revised manuscript. We have also ensured that abbreviations in the Figure 1 caption (SPM, EEZ and GADM) have been defined (Lines 48-53) in the revised manuscript. However, we believe that the map (Figure 1) should remain in the Introduction because it primarily defines where the sea cucumber fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador takes place and not how the sampling work was performed.

Comment 3: (Figures 4–8): Include standard deviation/error bars where applicable, or at least report sample sizes (n) in the figure or caption to improve interpretability.

Response 3: Agree. Therefore, we have added the total number counted in each caption and placed the number counted for each bar above the bar (Figures 4-8, Lines 330-364) in the revised manuscript. However, these figures report the total number of sea cucumbers counted for each size bin, or size bin and facet in the case of Figures 5-8, standard deviation or error bars are not applicable.

Comment 4: Break down the multi-step procedures in Section 2.2.1 into a clearly structured list. This will improve readability and reproducibility.

Response 4: Agree. Therefore, Section 2.2.1, now Section 2.1.1 in the revised manuscript at the request of another reviewer, has been updated into a structured list (Lines 125-152). For consistency, Sections 2.1.2 (Lines 174-196) and 2.1.3 (Lines 199-219) in the revised manuscript have also been updated into structured lists. Please note that the equipment list (formerly Section 2.1) has been moved to Appendix A.1 and updated into a structured list in the revised manuscript.

Comment 5: Ensure all captions are self-explanatory. Include sample sizes, define abbreviations, and briefly describe visuals (e.g., clarify cut types in Figure 2).

Response 5: Agree. Therefore, we have updated the Figure 2 caption in the revised manuscript to clarify both cut types (Lines 221-223). We have also added white space between the figures to ensure readers can clearly identify the two pictures and fully spelled out Left and Right in the caption. We have also reviewed all figure and table captions within the document and have updated many to clarify our meaning.

Comment 6: Consider combining into a multi-panel figure (figures 4-8) or, at minimum, standardize formatting (axes, labels, bins) to improve comparability and visual consistency.

Response 6: Agree. Therefore, we did review and standardize the formatting of Figures 4-8 (Lines 330-364), improve the name of the vertical axis on each, and we made changes to the size of most of these figures to make them more legible. As mentioned above, we also added the n-values to each figure. However, Figures 4-8 remain separate figures to keep them legible.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the document is well-structured. Its strengths lie in the consistent and logical organization of the research, highlighting the results with appropriate and precise technical language. The findings are clear and easily identifiable. 

I believe that the initial text in the Methodology (lines 102 to 117) could be omitted or included in supplementary data (Data Availability Statement), as its reading is somewhat cumbersome. While the mention of the calibration rigor of the equipment is valid and clearly articulated, the information becomes dense. It could be better placed within additional information.

Although the problem statement regarding the global overexploitation of species is clear, it tends to be repetitive (Introduction lines 39,40 and 53 to 55). When reading about sea cucumber cultivation, most articles introduce this same topic, making it redundant. It would be beneficial to reduce this well-known information and instead focus on the significance of sea cucumbers in the local context, addressing not only ecological aspects but also economic ones, as is effectively done later in the document. Additionally, it is important to consider the fixed deduction of 23% of weight due to water retention, which is a crucial factor in fisheries management and serves as a practical motivation to update figures, taking into account new unloading technologies and improved analysis for its determination.

Regarding the methodology, it is precise; the stratification by size adds depth to the analysis, and the extensive study period enhances the robustness and thoroughness of the research. The results and discussion are coherent, featuring well-defined statistics and relevant information about harvesting technologies, which aid in formulating sound and robust technical recommendations for the marketing of the species. These findings will serve as a strong tool for updating policies and regulations concerning the commercialization of sea cucumbers in the region, as well as for determining the most effective methods for harvesting sea cucumbers to achieve better production yields.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

On behalf of the authors Heather Burke, Juran Goyali, Wade Murphy, Deepika Dave and myself, I would like to thank you for taking the time to read and provide comments on our manuscript entitled “Seasonal Trends in Water Retention of Atlantic sea cucumber (Cucumaria frondosa): A Modeling Approach”. We found them to be of great help during the revision process.

I list your comments below followed by our responses in red. Line numbers are per the revised manuscript with Track Changes shown.

Pete

Comment 1: Overall, the document is well-structured. Its strengths lie in the consistent and logical organization of the research, highlighting the results with appropriate and precise technical language. The findings are clear and easily identifiable. 

Response 1: Thank you for this comment.

Comment 2: I believe that the initial text in the Methodology (lines 102 to 117) could be omitted or included in supplementary data (Data Availability Statement), as its reading is somewhat cumbersome. While the mention of the calibration rigor of the equipment is valid and clearly articulated, the information becomes dense. It could be better placed within additional information.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out, we agree that Section 2.1 becomes dense and may be cumbersome for some readers. We did feel it belonged in the article and not in the supplementary data, therefore, we moved the equipment section to Appendix A.1 (Lines 589-617) and referenced it in Section 2.1 (Line 124; formerly Section 2.2) in the revised manuscript. We have also updated the format of Appendix A.1 to be a structured list to help make it easier to read.

Comment 3: Although the problem statement regarding the global overexploitation of species is clear, it tends to be repetitive (Introduction lines 39,40 and 53 to 55). When reading about sea cucumber cultivation, most articles introduce this same topic, making it redundant. It would be beneficial to reduce this well-known information and instead focus on the significance of sea cucumbers in the local context, addressing not only ecological aspects but also economic ones, as is effectively done later in the document. Additionally, it is important to consider the fixed deduction of 23% of weight due to water retention, which is a crucial factor in fisheries management and serves as a practical motivation to update figures, taking into account new unloading technologies and improved analysis for its determination.

Response 3: Agree. We have removed Lines 39-40 and Lines 53-55 are reduced to “Overfishing of traditional stock [7,8]” in the revised manuscript to help inform some readers of potentially why there is a sea cucumber fishery in Canada (See lines 39-46 and 55-59 for the restructured introduction).

Comment 4: Regarding the methodology, it is precise; the stratification by size adds depth to the analysis, and the extensive study period enhances the robustness and thoroughness of the research. The results and discussion are coherent, featuring well-defined statistics and relevant information about harvesting technologies, which aid in formulating sound and robust technical recommendations for the marketing of the species. These findings will serve as a strong tool for updating policies and regulations concerning the commercialization of sea cucumbers in the region, as well as for determining the most effective methods for harvesting sea cucumbers to achieve better production yields.

Response 4: Thank you for this comment.