Case Studies Demonstrate That Common Carp Can Be Sustainably Reduced by Exploiting Source-Sink Dynamics in Midwestern Lakes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have minor remarks. As for me, the title is a bit redundant and may be shortened to: ”Stepwise control of invasive common carp by exploiting source-sink dynamics”.

Abstract, line 18: “adult carp populations” has to be substituted with “carp populations” in accordance to ecological meaning of the term “population”.

Line 89: please, correct font.

Lines 129-130, 137-138 with repeated statements about “these data has not been publishes before” seem to be redundant. As far as the authors present their data in a peer-reviewed journal without exact reference, the presented data are new.

The data on adult carp densities in Table 1 are the same for three of the lakes. Please, correct or provide explanations of accuracy of the method used.

Line 214. Is it necessary to prove that presented data had not been published earlier?

Table 2. Please, correct “Kohlmn” to “Kohlman”.

Lines 229, 230. Please, provide +/-SE for better illustration of the material. If possible, add also dispersions for data in Tables and on Figures. However, it is not critical due to review format of the manuscript.

Table 3. The first 3 lines describe the same method approach in the same years (2010-2011). Possibly, they may be combined. Additionally, the word “Seine” should be written with capital letter here.

Line 368. The word “might” is repeated.

Line 378. “benthic-feeding carps” may be better instead of “benthic feeding-carps”

Figure 8a, Figure 8b. Vertical line: “… of the Populations”.

Line 692. “source-sink dynamics” instead of “source sink dynamics”.

Lines 787, 812, 879, 885. The beginnings of surnames cut in my file. They have to be done as full.

My remarks may be regarded as recommendations. The authors are free to use or reject them.

Author Response

see attached please.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is well written, reporting a decade long of effort of bringing down carp to non-damaging level by exploiting source-sink dynamics in two Midwestern lakes. The approach is novel in term of managing invasive fish, and highly commended. The results in the Riley Chain (reducing carp density from 300 to 25kg/ha) was much clearer than those in the Phelan Chain of Lakes (from 177 to 100 kg/ha). The authors’ explained this due to the ecological complexity in the Phelan Chain compared to those in the Riley Chain. Also, Rise Marsh Lake has been identified as the source in the Riley Chain systems, however those in the Phelan Chain is not entirely clear. To give a better picture of the context and to highlight the results, I would suggest providing a table of water quality in both systems over time, including before and after the treatment. The key water quality may include water clarity, total phosphorous and species richness. A little bit of extra explanation on the mechanisms of aerating source lakes to reduce winter hypoxia and increase micro-predators would be appreciated.

A few minor comments:

Spell-out abbreviation on the first use, e.g. CPUE

Tidy up the references, e.g. typo (capital letter) of reference #4, 13, 38, 40

Lane 7   delete

Lane 29 quality

Author Response

please see attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx