Reproductive Biology of Yellowfin Tuna (Thunnus albacares) in Tropical Western and Central Pacific Ocean

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title - could be shortened, overly detailed.

Abstract - 

18-19. Suggest "... biometric and spatiotemporal factors, ...".

24.  "middle" of what?

26.  "end, beginning, and middle" are subjective.  Suggest month ranges.

Introduction - 

35.  Omit "species".

55.  Suggest "spawning season".

Materials and Methods -

124-145.  Maturity grading probably best in a table.

General Methods comment - Should be some information presented to assure readers that using baited hooks is appropriate (i.e., not a significantly biased gear) for the analyses you undertake.  

Results - 

188-189.  So 920 fish were collected, but only 756 sampled?  Curious why the remaining 194 fish weren't.  Should disclose.

190-191.  If you looked at gonads, which ID sex, then how could males and females be indistinguishable?  This is unclear.  Also, be careful with the word "populations", unless you are certain that your sample is composed of multiple populations.

191-206 (and throughout results).  This all could be streamlined to improve readability.  Suggest avoiding saying "X showed Y", or "Figure x shows Y".  Just state the observation and reference your figures and tables parenthetically.  Instead of "X for males was Y and ranged from A to B.  X for females was Y and ranged from A to B.", say "X for male and female fish was Y(range), and Z(range), respectively", or something to that effect.

219.  Same as previous comment ... no need to say "middle" just state the FL range.

224.  Suggest "significant and positively".

239.  Discussionary.

243. "glandular"?

249-251. Discussionary.

Discussion -

273-275. Result information.

279-282.  So why?  Did the other publications discuss potential reasons (gear bias?)?  Is this a worsening trend?  Should readers be concerned?  

295.  What is "gender heterosexuality"?

Overall discussion comment - the discussion is largely reiteration of each result, followed by a shallow comparisons to past studies.  I think the discussion needs some significant work, focusing on three key changes, namely (1) removal of the reiteration of results, (2) placing the findings in deeper context to past studies, and (3) providing implication and application of this work.

Best of luck publishing your work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The present work presents the ‘Reproductive biology of yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) in tropical western and central Pacific Ocean’ based on a sample of 756 individuals analysed during almost one year. Therefore, one of the main concerns to establish the reproductive cycle of the species in the WCPO is that the study time period (May-March) did not cover one complete year. Although methods and statistical analyses seem appropriate, the manuscript requires a major improvement. I think that authors should make an effort to make it more clear not only regarding the goals but also when presenting the results and improving the Discussion.

In addition to check carefully the Journal’s Instructions, specific suggestions and comments/corrections are included in the attached pdf.

Due to a major revision is recommended, citations and references list have not been cross-checked by the reviewer.

ABSTRACT: it is a presentation of results, but it should be totally revised to produce an actual summary of the study, with the most important findings and conclusions.

KEYWORDS: they should be better selected and not repeated from the title.

INTRODUCTION: please revise comments in the pdf.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: many issues found. For example:

·       - I do not understand if an adhoc survey was designed or if scientific observers in a commercial boat were in charge of samplings. And, what is “processing weight”? Do you mean “Processed weight”? If so, is it just gutted or anything else? If gutted, please, change by “Gutted” or “Eviscerated” weight throughout the text.

·       - Even the study period is not clear between M&M and the Results represented in Figures.

·       - Length-Weight relationships (LWRs), if presented in Results, should be introduced in M&M section.

Please, revise carefully all the comments in the pdf, and make it clearer and easier to read.

RESULTS: (see details and comments in the pdf)

Figure 3: results (LWRs) were not introduced in M&M

Figure 4: what do represent boxplots in c and d? Add this info in the caption

Figure 6: use the same format than in the previous ones

DISCUSSION: Some introduction should be added (see pdf). In addition, I recommend avoiding subsections. Finally, the last conclusion does not match with the aim of the manuscript. It should be previously rised in Introduction.

Apart from the comments/corrections in the pdf, some general points should be addressed:

1.       Figures have to be improved.

2.       Figure captions must be revised and they should include the necessary info.

3.       Replace fork length by FL throughout the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

While there is improvement, I do recommend some further revisions.  Namely:

1.  My general comment on the first review concerning the appropriateness/representativeness of baited hook sampling for the purposes of this study was addressed in the author responses, but not in the paper itself.  I would add this to the manuscript.

2.  There is still a "result" material in the discussion.  For example, line 236-238, 249, 257-259, and 308-311.  Unless it is a post-hoc analysis or interpretive, statistics belong in the results, not the discussion.  I suggest combing the discussion are removing all results.

Best wishes for the publication of your manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Much of the revision required has been addressed. However, some shortfalls are still present in the manuscript.

Please, revise carefully the comments, suggestions and corrections in attached pdf.

In addition:

- Replace "gender" by "sex"

-Map should include a more general allocation for the presented study area.

- Dots only representing 0 or 1 values drawn in Figure 6 don't make sense. Authors should represent the mature vs immature individuals averaged by length class.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Minor issues may be improved. Check the pdf attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf