Ice Cod Arctogadus glacialis (Peters, 1874) in Northeast Greenland—A First Sketch of Spatial Occurrence and Abundance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study presents a long term monitoring result of ice cod (Arctogadus glacialis) in Northeast Greenland. The authors have compared the distribution of ice cod by geography (fjord and shelfs) and physiochemical factors (water temperature and depth). This study matches the aim of the section and special issue. I believe the data in this paper is worth publishing, but only after major revision and extensive English editing throughout the manuscript.

 

At this imminent review, I will focus on major concerns as follows:

 

1. Please check the captions of figures and tables these should be self explanatory, and the formatting (size) of Table 1, Figure 2, and Figure 4. Also, check the expressions or used (e.g., Average weight and mean body mass (figure 7-9)) are consistent; Figure 5 and 6 I think frequency should be replaced (e.g., proportion biomass or biomass (%)).

 

2. Legends lack explanation or is difficult to read:

   Figure 1 -> No explanations about the dots (red and blue) and lines.

   Figure 3 -> Almost identical to figure 1; please add information about the size of orange dot (catch) so the readers can visually compare.

   Figure 7 -> Error bars (standard deviation) should be added. Also, I think weight in grams (g) would be better than kilograms (kg).

 

3. Monitoring results comparing fjords and shelfs are absent. Comparison between fjords and shelfs are frequently mentioned, but there are no figures or tables that directly show the difference between them. Figure 8 and 9 does compare biomass between fjords and shelfs, but I would like to know more directly. For instance, adding a table comparing average body mass, water temperature, depth etc. can be preferable.

 

4. There are no statistical analysis conducted in this study. Please provide statistical evidence that can support the results and discussion.

 

5. The anomalies of catch in 2008 and 2015 require explanation.

 

6. The first paragraph of 3.1 illustrates results from other studies as it is from this study.

 

7. The second paragraph of 3.3 requires further discussion of the phenomenon.

 

8. Reference requires formatting.

Author Response

Respected Reviewer

Thank you so much for taking the time to review our article. Your comments undoubtedly helped to improve its content. But there are some points that seem to us unnecessarily highlighted. Apparently, you did not pay attention to the title of the article. It states that it is the first sketch. Judging by the comments, you have understood the essence well, so your conclusions about the language look biased. We are not native speakers, but we consider your claims as an exaggeration. Now essentially. As for Table 1 and Figures 2 and 4. Apparently, you were not sent an article file to the word, but to the pdf. In the word, this table, figures and references are completely formatted. The pdf file was not made by us. We have taken into account all your comments about the figures. All changes have been made. We are really think that an additional figure is superfluous and that statistics is unneeded for this sketch. We are very cautious and balanced in our description, and statistics can neither prove nor disprove anything here. About anomalies in 2008 and 2015. In 2008, this was area of the island of Jan Mayen, where ice cod was encountered only at one station out of six. Therefore, a small catch. There was also a small catch in 2015. That year there were few stations and only on the shelf. Perhaps because of this, since the differences in catch even between neighboring stations can be very large. From time to time, because of the ice, it is impossible to get closer to Greenland and make more stations. Note on section 3.1. Data from other studies are provided to compare the values of catches from adjacent areas. But there are links everywhere. As for the second paragraph of section 3.3. At the moment we can't say for sure why large fish were found in the fjords at temperatures above 0.4, but there was no such phenomenon on the shelf. There is some reason, but it is not the temperature. In this case, we can use Table (below), which presents the data of the analysis of variance. And show that there is no connection between size (weight) and temperature. Apparently, there are some other reasons (clearer stratification of waters, distribution of food, etc).

Table. Results of the dispersion analysis of the influence of factors (temperature and depth) on the distribution of Arctic cod of different sizes (by weight)

 

Indicators	Temperature	Depth
F actual	0,64	2,52
F tabular	2,77	2,77
ƞ, %	0	0

Note: ƞ – the power of the influence of the factor

 

With the best wishes,

Karamushko O, J. Christiansen, A. Linghammar

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript provides an important account of the spatial occurrence and abundance of the rarely studied ice cod Arctogadus glacialis from the TUNU Programme expeditions in Northeast Greenland (2002-2017). The reporting of annual variation in abundance and spatial distribution of catches is extremely rare for this species where it occurs in high abundance and is critical for understanding climate change impacts to the species, which are considered to be high. Moreover, the authors present findings in relation to temperature, depth and fjord vs shelf habitats. The manuscript is generally well written with clear methods and results/discussion. Please see my comments and suggested minor changes in the attached.  My suggestions focus on some clarifications in the text, minor additions to detail in the methods and figures (how depth and temperature were recorded, additions to the legend in Figure 1 and 3), and places where a citation would benefit the reader in the discussion. It would also be good to have a few more sentences on why Fjords could be preferred habitat for Ice cod relative to Polar cod in the discussion.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Respected Reviewer

Thank you so much for taking the time to review our article. Your comments undoubtedly helped to improve its content. We have taken into account all your comments about the figures 1 and 3. All changes have been made. We also added data on how the depth and temperature were measured. We also paid attention to your suggestion about the reasons for the preference of fjords for ice cod compared to polar cod. But at the moment we are only processing materials for polar cod and we can say beforehand that its concentrations in fjords are also higher than on the shelf.

 

With the best wishes,

O. Karamushko, J. Christiansen, A. Linghammar

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for considering my comments for improving the manuscript. I can see the authors have elaborated the manuscript significantly, and answered to my concerns.