Commercial Quality, Biological Indices and Biochemical Composition of Queen Scallop Aequipecten opercularis in Culture
, Ante Žunec 2, Mauro Matešković 3, Petra Burić 2, Neven Iveša 2, Mauro Štifanić 2,4 and Jadranka Frece 4
Marcelo Barbosa Henriques
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The title of the manuscript showed the physiological evaluation, however, the study was not related in any way to the physiological study. So, the title needs to be modified to reflect the actual work.
The language is poor and many sentences are incomplete or hard to read, very long sentences, it could be revised by proofreading services.
The Latin names showed be italicized in the title and throughout the MS.
Whey the authors used the Spearman correlation, not person correlation, the data are quantitative.
The Seasonal difference is considered a random factor, did that considered in the statistical analysis?
The number less than ten written in the alphabet “4 seasons” could be “four seasons” throughout the MS.
Subtitle “3.3. Physiological and somatic indices”. Condition index is not physiological indices.
The abbreviation should be revised along the MS, it could be mentioned in full name in the abstract and one more time in the MS and abbreviate in the subsequent mentioning.
Table 1 is not necessary, you have to mention the p-value in the text and add different letters for the significant variables over the columns.
Table 5 and 6 could contain the Spearman correlation coefficient and p-value to show the relation, which could person correlation, is significant or not.
L 347: Nevertheless replaced by “in addition”.
L 348: This sentence is misleading “Although there is a decrease in condition index and meat yield depending on the breeding period,” could be deleted, or revised as mentioned in the abstract.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, thank you for all your's comments. I've marked in yellow all my improvements:
- The title of the manuscript was modified to reflect the actual work.
- The language will be revised by MDPI proofreading services.
- The Latin names were italicized in the title and throughout the MS.
- We calculated person correlation and revises the tables and results.
- The Seasonal difference was considered as a random factor
- The number “4 seasons” was changed to “four seasons” throughout the MS.
- Subtitle 3.3. was changed
- The abbreviation was revised along the MS
- Table 1 was deleted, and Figures 1 and 2 were modified
- Tables 5 and 6 were revised with Pearson correlation
- L 347: Nevertheless was replaced by “in addition”
L 348: This sentence is changed. The whole conclusion was changed.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript "Physiological indices and biochemical composition of queen scallop Aequipecten opercularis in culture" is suitable for FISHES. That said, the article has had the favorable opinion in the scientific analysis, with major revision.
General comments
1. The manuscript contains some potentially interesting findings; the aims were to determine commercial quality, biological indices and biochemical aspects of A. opercularis, in order to determine the effect of environmental parameters and the most favorable season for harvesting. This knowledge will be useful in the assessment of queen scallops as potential candidates for aquaculture.
2. The rationale for the paper is clearly outlined, I would recommend authors to approach protective measures with respect to the period of reproduction. Is there a closed season for reproduction of this species in the study region?
3. Introduction. The introduction is poor; authors should improve, using references that are more current.
4. Material and Methods
· Shellfish sampling and ex-situ culture
Scallops were fed on a daily basis with a mixture of live algae culture (Tetraselmis sp., and Isochrysis sp.) and freeze-dried algae (Skeletonema sp., by Phytobloom). Food quantity was adjusted according to the sample density.
According to sample density? this point should be clarified
· (Autumn/November 2020, Winter/December 2020, Spring/April 2021, Summer/July 2021)
Why November to represent autumn? The three-month interval between winter and spring and spring-summer was considered.
Why only one month gap between autumn and winter? The correct thing would be to sample in September. Only one month between these seasons could and should have interfered with the results.
5. Discussion. The Discussion covers some interesting points but it needs a clearer direction as to why they are of significance and interest to the main thrust of the paper. Since this is not elaborated, their inclusion appears somewhat random and disorganized.
6. Conclusion: Interesting, although there is a decrease in condition index and meat yield depending on the breeding period, scallops were evaluated as quite nutritious, especially in spring and winter. Therefore, they could be suitable for aquaculture production. I would recommend authors to approach protective measures with respect to the period of reproduction. Is there a closed season for reproduction of this species in the study region?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, thank you for all your comments. I've marked in blue all my improvements:
- Our project focus was not oriented toward measuring the reproduction period, so, unfortunately, we did not do it. We observed the different morphology of gonads during the sampling (during 3 years of the project) However, this will be our next step in project submission. We added this suggestion in MS.
- The introduction was improved using more current references.
- Material and Methods were explained more precisely. Thank you for spotting our typo of the sampling month. It was revised through MS (October and January)
- The Discussion was revised.
- The conclusion was revised - a recommendation of protective measures with respect to the period of reproduction was added to the MS.
Kind regards.
Ines Kovačić
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
the authors responded carefully to the reviewer comments
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for your suggestions. I've sent the English revised MS marked up using the “Track Changes” and by improvements in the Introduction and Discussion about suggested topics.
Kind regards.
Ines Kovačić
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
