Seasonal Length–Weight Relationships of European Sea Bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) in Two Aquaculture Production Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Three aspects are striking:

1.                  There is no mention of the density of the two bass farming facilities. Density is a very relevant parameter to consider in a crop which affects growth.

2.                  It is suggested to add the “t” test of “b” parameter with respect to “3” (to show isometry or allometry), since this result could also know which of the two environments is more favorable for the farm facility and is necessary to discuss this result.

3.                  There is no temperature and salinity ranges for the species in other crops and/or environments, it is also suggested to add these references in the Introduction section and also discuss it in Discussion section.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude for your dedication in reviewing our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you have invested in providing us with valuable feedback. Your constructive comments and suggestions have been carefully considered and have significantly improved the quality of our article from its initial version.

We have taken all of your comments into account and have addressed them accordingly. We are pleased to attach our responses to each of your comments including our responses below the text of this response in blue, as well as a revised version of the manuscript with Microsoft Word's track changes feature for your convenience. Additionally, we have uploaded the final version of the manuscript without the track changes.

Once again, we sincerely thank you for your valuable feedback, and we look forward to hearing your thoughts on the revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Carlos Orduna.

Three aspects are striking:

1. There is no mention of the density of the two bass farming facilities. Density is a very relevant parameter to consider in a crop which affects growth.

Fish density have been mentioned in the manuscript as follows:

“In both cases, the fish farm managers set the seeding and management of the facilities aiming at obtaining a density of around 5 fish/m3. Moreover, fish were fed until they were satiated during the whole breeding process” (Lines 101-103).

2. It is suggested to add the “t” test of “b” parameter with respect to “3” (to show isometry or allometry), since this result could also know which of the two environments is more favourable for the farm facility and is necessary to discuss this result.

This statistical analysis has been performed and integrated into the manuscript (Lines 124-128; 155-159; 220-229).

3. There is no temperature and salinity ranges for the species in other crops and/or environments, it is also suggested to add these references in the Introduction section and also discuss it in Discussion section.

More information about the environmental parameters is provided both in the introduction (Lines 60-85) and in the discussion section of the manuscript (Lines 199-229).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors should emphasize in the Abstract and Introduction the rationale for performing their research, in addition to the statement that there is a “need to use specific length-weight equations to obtain accurate biomass results in aquaculture based on fish length data“.

The Materials and Methods section is well developed and documented.

However, the Results and Discussion sections seem rather laconic, more appropriate for a short communication than a research article. However, this can be improved with a minor effort from the authors. The Discussion section should be developed further, with more specific details about the differences between the two farming systems and the seasonal variations among them, with references to other similar studies.

I recommend the publication of this manuscript after reformulating especially the Discussions section and addressing the specific comments below.

Specific comments

Lines 3: Replace the word ”kinds” in the title with a more appropriate term (”types” or ”systems”?).

Lines 5-7: Provide more details of the authors’ affiliations, not just the name of the institutions (address etc.).

Line 17: It is superfluous to include among key-words both the scientific and the common name of the species. Remove one and add another relevant key-word.

Lines 26-27: Rephrase the sentence so as not to repeat ”aquaculture”.

Line 28: What does ”accurate data from fish” exactly refer to? Please clarify.

Line 36: Wrong use of the plural in ”aquatics”. Please correct.

Line 39: Double space after the references. Please remove it.

Line 47: Make the agreement between the singular subject and the predicate (“uses“).

Lines 66, 67, 69: A space is required after the values and the measurement units.

Line 75: Provide a sound reference to support the assumption of constant offshore salinity!

Line 111: Correct the sentence, the plural in ”studies” is wrong.

Line 129: Remove the full-stop before the references.

Line 144, 145: Use full-stop, not comma, as a separator for temperature values.

Lines 155, 156: Similarly, use full-stop, not comma, as a separator for variation percentages.

Overall good English, yet some minor corrections are needed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude for your dedication in reviewing our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you have invested in providing us with valuable feedback. Your constructive comments and suggestions have been carefully considered and have significantly improved the quality of our article from its initial version.

We have taken all of your comments into account and have addressed them accordingly. We are pleased to attach our responses to each of your comments including our responses below the text of this response in blue, as well as a revised version of the manuscript with Microsoft Word's track changes feature for your convenience. Additionally, we have uploaded the final version of the manuscript without the track changes.

Once again, we sincerely thank you for your valuable feedback, and we look forward to hearing your thoughts on the revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Carlos Orduna.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors should emphasize in the Abstract and Introduction the rationale for performing their research, in addition to the statement that there is a “need to use specific length-weight equations to obtain accurate biomass results in aquaculture based on fish length data“.

The abstract has been modified as suggested, emphasizing the reasons why this study was carried out (Lines 10-14).

The Materials and Methods section is well developed and documented.

However, the Results and Discussion sections seem rather laconic, more appropriate for a short communication than a research article. However, this can be improved with a minor effort from the authors. The Discussion section should be developed further, with more specific details about the differences between the two farming systems and the seasonal variations among them, with references to other similar studies.

The Results and Discussion sections have been completed. Information about the crops (density, facilities, feeding...) has been added, and the environmental differences present between both installations have been further developed (Lines 191-247).

I recommend the publication of this manuscript after reformulating especially the Discussions section and addressing the specific comments below.

Specific comments

Lines 3: Replace the word ”kinds” in the title with a more appropriate term (”types” or ”systems”?).

Changed to: Seasonal length-weight relationships of European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) in two aquaculture production systems (Lines 2 and 3).

Lines 5-7: Provide more details of the authors’ affiliations, not just the name of the institutions (address etc.). Done (Lines 6-8).

Line 17: It is superfluous to include among key-words both the scientific and the common name of the species. Remove one and add another relevant key-word. Done (Line 20).

Lines 26-27: Rephrase the sentence so as not to repeat ”aquaculture”.

Rephrased as follows: “An efficient, precise, and intelligent aquaculture is the future development direction for this industry” (Line 30).

Line 28: What does ”accurate data from fish” exactly refer to? Please clarify.

Rewritten as follows: “In this sense, monitoring fish production in aquaculture farms is essential for informed decision-making and effective management. Accurate biometric, behavioural, density, and biomass data from farmed fish are crucial, especially in optimizing feed usage, which is a primary factor in determining efficiency and cost” (Lines 30-34).

Line 36: Wrong use of the plural in ”aquatics”. Please correct. Done (Line 43).

Line 39: Double space after the references. Please remove it. Done (Line 46).

Line 47: Make the agreement between the singular subject and the predicate (“uses“). Done (Line 52).

Lines 66, 67, 69: A space is required after the values and the measurement units. Done (Lines 99, 101).

Line 75: Provide a sound reference to support the assumption of constant offshore salinity!

This issue has been clarified in the text and references have been included (Lines 109-112).

Line 111: Correct the sentence, the plural in ”studies” is wrong. Corrected (Line 171).

Line 129: Remove the full-stop before the references. Done.

Line 144, 145: Use full-stop, not comma, as a separator for temperature values. Done (Line 214).

Lines 155, 156: Similarly, use full-stop, not comma, as a separator for variation percentages. Done (Lines 236-237).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I agree with changes.

Reviewer 2 Report

No additional comments.