Biological Parameters and Biomass and Abundance Indices of Two Demersal Species, Turbot (Scophthalmus maximus) and Thornback Ray (Raja clavata), Estimated by a Trawl Survey in Western Black Sea
Atsushi Nanami
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The present study shows basic biological parameters of two fish species in Western Black Sea. The results would be useful for effective fisheries management of the two fish species.
I would recommend some revisions as follows:
1) Table 1 & 2
These data should be shown as FIGURES, not tables.
2) Male-female difference in length and weight frequency
The authors should show male-female difference in length and weight frequency as figures.
3) Figure 2
The label of X-axis (LC) should NOT be shown as abbreviations. The font size in the figure is too small to see.
4) Figure 3
It is hard to see. The authors should show close-up data at western area, such as upper figure of Figure 1). Again, the font size in the figure is too small to see.
5) Figures 4 & 5
"TL" should be revised as "Total length".
Author Response
1) Table 1 & 2
These data should be shown as FIGURES, not tables.
2) Male-female difference in length and weight frequency
The authors should show male-female difference in length and weight frequency as figures.
- We replaced Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the estimated biological parameters based on a combined dataset of two sexes: a) turbot and b) thornback ray, with a new Figure 1: Box plots of fish length (mm) and weight (g), based on all collected specimens, n=187 for turbot, n=103 for thornback ray, (indicated: mean, medians, range of values: 25 – 75 %, minimum and maximum values)
- We added a new Figure 2: Distribution of length (mm) and weight classes (g) of both fish species by sex. (Data for turbot included a subsample with lengths > 45 mm, as explained in the methodology section), showing differences in length and weight classes by sex
- To our understanding, the Table 2 Distribution of the mean length (mm), mean weight (g), mean biomass (kg.km-2) and mean abundance (ind.km-2) by depth strata: a) turbot and b) thornback ray, should be retained, as Figure 3 and 4 provide details about distribution of biological parameters.
3) Figure 2
The label of X-axis (LC) should NOT be shown as abbreviations. The font size in the figure is too small to see.
- LC is removed,
Unfortunately, we could not change the font size, it is a product of R script (version 0.2.01) in RoME and Biondex (version 3.1).
4) Figure 3 is hard to see. The authors should show close-up data at western area, such as upper figure of Figure 1). Again, the font size in the figure is too small to see.
Unfortunately, we could not change the font size, it is a product of R script (version 0.2.01) in RoME and Biondex (version 3.1).
5) Figures 4 & 5
"TL" should be revised as "Total length".
Done.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
*This study is a well-designed research article.
*However, some parts of the study need correction. Some of these are as follows.
-A paragraph should be added to the introduction that deals with the importance of biological parameters (eg. Length-weight relationship), biomass and abundance in fish populations. (See attached file)
-Information about turbot samples whose sex cannot be determined should be added. Because it can cause the b values to be misinterpreted.(See attached file)
-The 95% confidence intervals of the b values should be specified for female, male and all individuals of the each species.
-Was any statistical test applied while determining the growth type?(See attached file)
-In the text, it only says b value is greater or less than 3. This should be also supported statistically.(See attached file)
-Scientific names of species should be written in italics.(See attached file)
-Other suggestions and recommendations are in the attached file.
*If this work is corrected, I would like to state that I am willing to re-examine the revised version of the work.
Best regards,
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
It doesn't seem like a big problem. But a general check can be made.e.
Author Response
- A paragraph should be added to the introduction that deals with the importance of biological parameters (e.g., Length-weight relationship), biomass and abundance in fish populations. (See attached file).
Responses
We included this explanation in the introduction, within the penultimate paragraph.
- Information about turbot samples whose sex cannot be determined should be added. Because it can cause the b values to be misinterpreted. (See attached file).
Responses
We added information in material and methodology section
- The 95% confidence intervals of the b values should be specified for female, male and all individuals of each species.
Responses
We added 95% confidence intervals of the b for female, male and all individuals of each species
- Was any statistical test applied while determining the growth type? (See attached file).
Responses
We added t-test analysis to determine whether the regression coefficient b differed significantly from the
expected cubic value of 3.
- In the text, it only says b value is greater or less than 3. This should be also supported statistically. (See attached file).
Responses
After conducting a t-test for the regression slope b, we made some alterations to the results, which are indicated with track changes in doc file and with yellow color in the pdf file.
- Scientific names of species should be written in italics. (See attached file).
Responses
Done
- Other suggestions and recommendations are in the attached file.
Responses
All suggestions and recommendations are followed.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
