Morphometric Differentiation of the Swimming Crab Portunus sanguinolentus (Herbst, 1783) Populations in East Asia: Implications for Stock Identification and Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The MS reports interesting results about the morphometric differentiation of Portunus sanguinolentus populations in East Asia. The MS is well structured and the results well described but there are a few issues that should be solved before the MS could be considered for publication.

First issue is the English that is correct but more appropriate scientific terminology should be used. I have uderlined in some part of the MS but all the text should be revised in this sense.

The lack of molecular analyses to support the data should be underlined i the text together with the other limitations if the MS (see the pdf attached for details).

Introduction should be improved by removing the part related to the sex ratio and by adding some paragraph to uderline the importance of the species for the area and the reasons that have lead the authors to carry o this study (conservation biology, fisheries....and so on).

 

Materials and Methods are well written but some references to support the methodologies used should be added. (see pdf).

Results are well described.

Discussion should be imporved by adding a general presentation of the results and the novelty of the study and to add (as metioned above) the limitation of the species. Results of previous studies o the species and similar should be reported in discussion to better discuss the results obtained.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

English should be revised to use a more appropriate scientific terminology 

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

 

We thank truly the Editors and Reviewers for their detailed comments and suggestions to help improve our paper. Especially, reviewers have given some very nice and encouraging comments (Reviewer #1, Reviewer 2, & Reviewer 3), and we are greatly appreciative. We are much grateful for your careful reading of our manuscript and your valuable comments and suggestions to help improve the paper. We have now carefully revised the paper in light of all the comments and suggestions.  And we would like to resubmit the research article entitled “Morphometric Differentiation of the Swimming Crab (Portunus sanguinolentus) Populations in East Asia: Implications for Stock Identification and Management” by Kao et al. for publication in WATER. We sincerely thank the anonymous referees for valuable comments to improve the context of our manuscript. We follow all comments to revise my manuscript, and changes were listed as followed.

 

 

 

Sincerely yours,

 

                        Chun-Han Shih

 

             Author to whom correspondence should be addressed;

E-Mail: [email protected] ;

Tel: +886–7-6158000 ext 3412 Fax: +886–7-6158000 ext 3499.

Ms. Ref. No.: water-2603999
Title: Morphometric Differentiation of the Swimming Crab (Portunus sanguinolentus) Populations in East Asia: Implications for Stock Identification and Management

Reviewer #1: Comments to water-2603999 by Kao et al.

Comment on MS: The MS reports interesting results about the morphometric differentiation of Portunus sanguinolentus populations in East Asia. The MS is well structured and the results well described but there are a few issues that should be solved before the MS could be considered for publication. First issue is the English that is correct but more appropriate scientific terminology should be used. I have uderlined in some part of the MS but all the text should be revised in this sense. The lack of molecular analyses to support the data should be underlined i the text together with the other limitations if the MS (see the pdf attached for details). Introduction should be improved by removing the part related to the sex ratio and by adding some paragraph to uderline the importance of the species for the area and the reasons that have lead the authors to carry o this study (conservation biology, fisheries....and so on). Materials and Methods are well written but some references to support the methodologies used should be added. (see pdf). Results are well described. Discussion should be imporved by adding a general presentation of the results and the novelty of the study and to add (as metioned above) the limitation of the species. Results of previous studies o the species and similar should be reported in discussion to better discuss the results obtained.

Ans: Thank you for your thorough review and feedback on our manuscript. We have corrected.

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript provides original data on the morphometric differentiation of the swimming crab (Portunus sanguinolentus) populations in East Asia. The MS is generally well written with appropriate data analyses and an interesting discussion. Nevertheless, it has a number of shortcomings which should be addressed by the authors in order to improve understanding of the ms.

-Morphometric definitions (line 106-111) should be written under Figure 2.

-Male and Female male and female must be specified in Figure 2.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

 

We thank truly the Editors and Reviewers for their detailed comments and suggestions to help improve our paper. Especially, reviewers have given some very nice and encouraging comments (Reviewer #1, Reviewer 2, & Reviewer 3), and we are greatly appreciative. We are much grateful for your careful reading of our manuscript and your valuable comments and suggestions to help improve the paper. We have now carefully revised the paper in light of all the comments and suggestions.  And we would like to resubmit the research article entitled “Morphometric Differentiation of the Swimming Crab (Portunus sanguinolentus) Populations in East Asia: Implications for Stock Identification and Management” by Kao et al. for publication in WATER. We sincerely thank the anonymous referees for valuable comments to improve the context of our manuscript. We follow all comments to revise my manuscript, and changes were listed as followed.

 

 

 

Sincerely yours,

 

                        Chun-Han Shih

 

             Author to whom correspondence should be addressed;

E-Mail: [email protected] ;

Tel: +886–7-6158000 ext 3412 Fax: +886–7-6158000 ext 3499.

 

Ms. Ref. No.: water-2603999
Title: Morphometric Differentiation of the Swimming Crab (Portunus sanguinolentus) Populations in East Asia: Implications for Stock Identification and Management

Reviewer #2: Comments to water-2603999 by Kao et al.:

 

Comment on MS: This manuscript provides original data on the morphometric differentiation of the swimming crab (Portunus sanguinolentus) populations in East Asia. The MS is generally well written with appropriate data analyses and an interesting discussion. Nevertheless, it has a number of shortcomings which should be addressed by the authors in order to improve understanding of the ms.

 

1.Morphometric definitions (line 106-111) should be written under Figure 2.

Ans: Thank you for your suggestion. I agree that the morphometric definitions should be written under Figure 2 for clarity and convenience. This would help the readers to understand the measurements better and avoid confusion.

 

2.Male and Female male and female must be specified in Figure 2.

Ans: Thank you for your suggestion. It’s indeed important to specify the gender in Figure 2. This will provide a clearer understanding of the morphometric differences between males and females. I appreciate your attention to detail.

 

All [page number] and [line number] represented below are referred to the revised manuscript.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

It is an interesting study to detect morphological variations in an important, commercial ceab in Asia seas. I find your contribution nice and I am sorry I donñt have suggestions to improve the manuscript.

Author Response

Reviewer #3: Comments to water-2603999 by Kao et al.:

Comment on MS: It is an interesting study to detect morphological variations in an important, commercial ceab in Asia seas. I find your contribution nice and I am sorry I donñt have suggestions to improve the manuscript.

Ans: I’m glad to hear that you found the study interesting and the manuscript well-written. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.