Fish Welfare in the Ornamental Trade: Stress Factors, Legislation, and Emerging Initiatives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of fishes-3583012: “Fish Welfare in the Ornamental Trade: Stress Factors, Legislation, and Emerging Initiatives”

“Fish Welfare in the Ornamental Trade: Stress Factors, Legislation, and Emerging Initiatives” is a well written manuscript, with very relevant/appropriate and timely subject matter for publication in the Fishes. This is an interesting synthesis of information that I enjoyed reading.

The authors review and reflect on a grossly underrepresented body of research and knowledge addressing fish welfare in the “ornamental trade”. The paper draws the reader’s attention to a practice that presents significant welfare challenges - from fish capture and transportation to the kind and quality of the care provided at their final destinations. As the author’s note “Stressors such as inadequate water quality, improper handling, and overcrowding compromise the health and welfare of fish, often worsened by a lack of understanding among those in the trade and hobbyists alike.”  The aspect of this review of particular interest to me was their emphasis on the “absence of strong legislation and supervision”, that serves as a major hindrance to “the practical improvement of animal welfare in this trade, leaving many fish vulnerable to poor and stressful conditions.” It was encouraging/enlightening to learn of the emerging initiatives aimed at growing recognition of needs to improve welfare practices in the ornamental fish trade. The authors succinctly summarize these efforts, facilitating the reader’s ability to then “dive down the rabbit hole” with references to further info, thus making an impactful contribution themselves towards raising public awareness of the issue; calling for research efforts aimed towards establishing improved, scientifically well- founded, guidelines for proper welfare. As the authors state in their conclusions “it is crucial to develop targeted legislation, promote education across all levels of the trade, and encourage a shift in perception—recognizing ornamental fish as sentient pets deserving of the same care and respect as other companion animals” – an issue and initiative in much need of better broadcasting to the masses. The Fishes readership would make a solid contribution to that end.     

Overall, this paper makes a valuable contribution to the literature. I therefore feel this MS is worthy of publication in Fishes provided the authors address some minor, non-substantive grammatical issues highlighted below:

1. Italicize genus and species names throughout
2. Pg 2, Lines 46-47: “Furthermore, under a painful situation, zebrafish (Danio rerio) show motivation to stay in unfavourable environment containing analgesics”. This sentence needs to be re-written for improved clarity of expression.
3. Pg 2, Lines 88-90: “This fact highlights the urgent need for further studies investigating welfare issues in the ornamental fish trade, especially considering that there are much more species under this trade than used as food fishes in aquaculture industry.” This awkwardly-phrased sentence should be re-written for improved clarity of expression.
4. Pg 3, Lines 93-94: “Over than 125 countries 93 participate in this trade underscoring its global nature (Raja et al. 2019). Since the 1970s, 94 ornamental fish trade has growing by 14% annually”. Again, this sentence needs to be rephrased for improved clarity of expression, as it may be interpreted multiple ways as currently written.
5. Pg 5, Line 175: “if the fish they are taking home dies, they can only buy another one.” Change to “if their new fish dies, they can always buy another”
6. Pg 5-6, Lines 214-216: “Despite that, several studies have identified the main physical, physiological, and behavioural individual indicators that may aggregated to assess fish welfare practically in production settings” This sentence needs to be re-written for improved clarity of expression. Such as . . . “That said, several studies have identified/described specific physical, physiological, and behavioural indicators that may be useful in efforts to assess welfare . . .”
7. Pg 6, Lines 236-239: “Secondly, there is a huge diversity of species that are marketed in the ornamental fish trade, which is much higher in terms of number of species than in the production chains. Whereas hundreds of species are farmed around the world, thousands of them are commercialized as ornamental fish, which makes OWIs’ establishment and 239 control more difficult.” This is another sentence in need of rephrasing for improved clarity of expression, as it is awkwardly worded and may be interpreted multiple ways as currently written.
8. Pg 9, Lines 341-343: “Despite the fact that fish welfare in the ornamental trade is mostly neglected so far with a clear lack of information, as argued here, nowadays there are some initiatives trying to help changing this scenario”. This sentence needs to be re-written for improved clarity of expression.
9. The authors begin too many of their sentences throughout the discussion with the phrase “Despite that . . .”

All in all, a well-structured, well-written, succinct and thoughtful MS.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We are glad that you found our paper interesting and worthy of publication. Thank you also for your constructive comments. We have revised the entire manuscript taking your suggestions into account, as well as those from the other reviewers. We believe the manuscript has been significantly improved as a result.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper would benefit from further critical analysis to ascertain the key messages. 

Detailed comments below:

Line 36 – Initially I was concerned that the first thing I read here is that fishes are referred to as ‘mammals’. However, I realised after reading again that it’s appears to be a language issue. ‘As mammals’ should read ‘Like mammals’.

Line 40 – ‘in a painful situation’. This should be rewritten, for example, ‘in a situation where pain is inflicted on them, it has been observed that fishes express….’ or similar.

Line 47 – Similarly, in this sentence here ‘in a painful situation’ needs a rewrite.

Line 48/49 – I’m not sure that this sentence is expressing what it’s meant to. Is it possible that the authors mean that ‘zebrafish are increasingly used as models pain research, for example to investigate such behaviours/disorders’ (or similar)?

Line 73/74 – ‘food fish’ would be a more standard term to use here; replace ‘mainly’ with ‘primarily’. On another note, there are more recent papers that could be cited here, for example:

• Frontiers | Fish welfare in farms: potential, knowledge gaps and other insights from the fair-fish database
• Frontiers | Improving welfare assessment in aquaculture

I do note that the first one is first authored by the same author of this current submission. So, this may be relevant to the self-citation policy of the journal.

Line 89/90 – ‘especially considering that there are much more species under this trade than used as food fishes in aquaculture industry’ – please correct.

Line 104/105 – I wonder if this paper could add some value here: https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cobi.14359?utm_source=chatgpt.com

L 117 – A schematic presenting the different phases would be a useful illustration to support the discussion here.

L 137 – Rewrite ‘Such stocking densities can be detrimental in different ways depending on the species’ (which stocking density or is it just the level of stocking?)

L152 – Remove ‘in this trade’

L131 – paragraph beginning here – There is quite a bit of repetition in this paragraph, ‘stressors’, ‘stress’, etc. I suggest to reduce word count here and make better use of the Figure 1.

Figure 1 – I would recommend providing a bit more detail in the caption to make this figure standalone. Is this presenting all phases of the trade?

L165 – ‘many general people’? Do you mean ‘the public’? Remove ‘basically’

L166 – Replace ‘’the last case’ with ‘This’.

L168 – ‘aquaria’ (used here) or ‘aquariums’ (used earlier in the text) – Please be consistent.

L174/175 – ‘By visiting ornamental fish stores, it is not difficult to find people mentioning that if the fish they are taking home dies, they can only buy another one.’ – It is unclear who visited the stores. Also, please correct the grammar.

L186–189 – I’m surprised to the change to recommend terminologies here as this section is about ornamental fish trade phases. However, I don’t mind if the authors want explore recommendations on terminologies. If this is the case through then it might be worth considering a section that clearly makes a case for this recommendation and provides a little more background information.

L193 – 207 - Are these global fish fairs? Would there be any literature on this as evidence? Are there any case studies?

L203-206 – ‘a critical stance’ – What would this entail? What guidelines are available?

L225 – ELISA methods should be referenced appropriately and spell out in full at first mention.

L228 – need consistency in species names throughout the paper, e.g. common name (scientific name).

L268 – Can a reference as an example of such manual be included?

L278 – 279 – Are Goldstein’s recommendation manual and Goldstein (2001) the same document?

L282 – Highlight the differences of different treatments for different species of fish

L294 – Figure 2 should be made reference to throughout the text where relevant.

L301-303 – ‘Therefore, there are important gaps regarding the promotion of welfare practices at all stages of the ornamental fish trade, including breeding, sale, transportation and maintenance.’ – The phases of the ornamental fish trade named here are inconsistent with those named in Figure 1.

L312 – It might flow better if ‘lack of information’ was a separate section from ‘legislation’.

L339 – Section 5 would benefit from a bit more discussion of the critical needs for such initiatives rather than just talking about existing initiatives.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I would recommend undertaking a full grammar check. I have included some specific notes on this in the detailed comments.

Author Response

Thank you for all your constructive comments! We have revised the entire manuscript taking your suggestions into account, as well as those from the other reviewers. We believe the manuscript has been significantly improved as a result.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript’s discussion of stocking densities, handling, and transport stressors is primarily qualitative. To enhance policy relevance and practical utility, it should incorporate quantitative data and species-specific guidelines supported by empirical evidence. Although UK and US regulatory frameworks are mentioned, the comparative legislative analysis provided (section 4) is superficial. For a more comprehensive evaluation, the manuscript should expand its scope to include detailed comparisons with other international jurisdictions, such as the EU, Australia, and Canada, clearly identifying legislative strengths and gaps to highlight best practices. Practical welfare interventions—such as sodium chloride treatments and anesthetic use (e.g., clove oil) during transport—are crucial for ornamental trade stakeholders, yet the manuscript insufficiently integrates recent empirical studies. It is recommended to explicitly incorporate current findings, particularly those involving Siamese fighting fish (Betta splendens), detailing effective concentrations and their documented physiological impacts. Further specific comments addressing these issues have been provided in the attached PDF file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for all your constructive comments. We have revised the entire manuscript taking your suggestions into account, as well as those from the other reviewers. We believe the manuscript has been significantly improved as a result.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing all of the reviewer comments. The manuscript now reads much better.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some grammatical errors still remain. 

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your positive feedback and for pointing out the remaining grammatical issues. As we have substantially revised the manuscript based on the new suggestions of other Reviewer, including significant changes to the text, we would prefer to await the editor’s guidance regarding the need for further English language editing in this new version of the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you to the authors for addressing most of my previous comments. The introduction still places considerable emphasis on the fish pain debate and analgesia, which could be condensed to make room for a more timely discussion of the ornamental fish trade. This would allow the authors to highlight key welfare concerns earlier, such as the high species diversity and mortality during transport. Bringing some of the contextual background currently in Section 2 into the introduction would also help better frame the review. The phrase “pain hypothesis or other human inherent reasons” (line 40) is unclear and would benefit from rewording for clarity. Section 2 would benefit from clearer organization. A brief opening paragraph explaining the structure, perhaps distinguishing trade phases from broader stressors like water quality or stocking density, would help readers follow the discussion more easily.

The section on legislation is relevant but currently too narrowly focused on the UK and US. Given the international scope of the ornamental trade, it would strengthen the manuscript to include welfare policies in key exporting countries (e.g., Indonesia, Thailand, Russia, France, Singapore, Brazil), or at least acknowledge the absence of such regulations if applicable. Including references to international frameworks like CITES and OIE guidelines would also be valuable. Citing specific laws or directives (e.g., the US Animal Welfare Act or relevant EU regulations) would make this section more precise and avoid sounding anecdotal. The point about existing laws often targeting invasive species or disease rather than welfare is important. However, this argument could be more persuasive if supported with examples, such as the U.S. Lacey Act. When discussing policy gaps, referencing specific analyses or legislation would add credibility.

Section 4, which discusses NGO and industry initiatives, is a good addition but could be strengthened by evaluating their effectiveness. It would help to consider whether these programs have shown measurable impact or been widely adopted. If such evidence is lacking, stating that explicitly would highlight areas for future research. Questions around scalability, visibility, or consumer influence could also enrich this section.

Regarding terminology, the suggestion to replace “ornamental fish” with “pet fish” is thoughtful. That said, this idea could be introduced earlier, perhaps in the introduction or conclusion, if the authors consider it central to their message. Additionally, the use of terms like “pet tutors” may be confusing to some readers; more standard terms like “pet owners” or “caregivers” would be clearer and more widely accepted in academic writing.

Lastly, I would gently remind the authors to maintain a professional tone when responding to reviewers. Informal expressions such as “Ok” or “Yes” should be avoided in written responses.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable and constructive feedback. We have carefully revised the entire manuscript in light of your suggestions, as well as those provided by the other reviewers. We believe these revisions have substantially improved the quality of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to the authors for making the significant revisions in accordance with my previous comments. The manuscript has been much improved. There are just some minor typos and grammatical errors, which I believe will be addressed during the proofreading stage.