Evaluating the Effects Related to Restocking and Stock Replenishment of Penaeus penicillatus in the Xiamen Bay, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Please see the section-wise comments below on your research article with the following details.
Manuscript title: Evaluation of the effect of restocking and stock enhancement of Penaeus penicillatus in the Xiamen Bay, China
Manuscript Number: jmse-1401377
Journal Submitted: Journal of Marine Science and Engineering
Specific Comments:
This manuscript has a severe issue of English language, description, and copy from a thesis.
Would you please rephrase and write it with the help of an expert?
There are several repetitive statements that must be deleted.
Title:
The title can be modified as “Evaluating the Bay area restocking and stock replenishment of Penaeus penicillatus in China”
Abstract:
The abstract is written relatively too simply and does not reflect how the outcomes were drawn.
Further, the authors need to mention their main conclusions clearly. In the end, the authors point out general suggestions while do not know how to do what they are suggesting.
The abstract must be enriched with more results and conclusions.
I the beginning, it is better to resort to the reason why this type of study was essential.
The keywords are not the ones that should be. Would you please delve deep into your results and revise them accordingly?
Introduction:
L 42-45; Why do you think that restocking is limited to marine and estuarine ecosystems? Why is it not done in freshwaters? I guess you are mistaken.
L 45-46: Please improve this statement.
L 49: Evaluation of what?
L 59-61: Contains errors.
L 63-66: These are two contradictory statements.
L 77-78: A repetitive statement. Would you please delete it?
L 81-86: There are no citations provided to support your claims.
The aims are missing the description is too poor.
Would you please revise the aims and avoid overstaining?
Materials and Methods:
L 96: it is a repetition of what you already said in the introduction.
L 113-124: How about making a table of this information and compare the sites?
L 126-136: You must know that you should not use the present tense.
This appears to be a direct copy from a thesis, and it does not fit here. Would you please revise the whole methods section?
Figure 1. The figure quality is so poor. Would you mind enhancing the clarity and enriching it?
Where have you explained figure 2?
The figure 2 quality is too poor.
Where is the detail on statistical analysis?
You need to provide enough detail in order to replicate this study.
Results:
Figure 3. The figure quality is too poor, and it instead adds negativity to the manuscript.
Figures 4 and 5. Same as above.
L 313-315: Please delete this statement or move it from here and go straight to your main findings.
Figure 6. I hope you realize that this figure is deplorable in visualization.
L 329-333: There are no regression equations in figure 7.
Figure 7 does not mean anything if it is kept as it is.
The authors failed to state their primary outcomes and explain their illustrations clearly.
Discussion:
The discussions are well-written, but numerous English language and description shortcomings must be revised carefully.
Would you please separate your conclusions and recommendations apart from discussions?
You can further discuss your results from multiple angles and place them into context without being overinterpreted.
I feel that a combined results and discussion section would do much better than this separation by seeing your paper structure.
Conclusions
Missing.
What are the main limitations of this study, and how this study adds value for future researchers?
What is the way forward?
Please highlight all this in the separate conclusions section.
References:
References to too less. Please cite more relevant studies.
In the end, please highlight what this study adds to the existing science in this research area.
Author Response
All [page number] and [line number] represented below are referred to the revised manuscript.
Ms. Ref. No.: jmse-1401377
Title: Evaluation of the effect of restocking and stock enhancement of Penaeus penicillatus in the Xiamen Bay, China
Reviewer #1: Comments to jmse-1401377 by Wang et al. (please, also see annotated manuscript):
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. The following is a point-by-point response.
1.This manuscript has a severe issue of English language, description, and copy from a thesis.
Answer: We thank Reviewer #1 for these helpful comments. We corrected these errors. Thanks to the English editor recommended by the journal for assisting in the revision of the article. Regarding the question of copy from a thesis, we confirmed that we have read some literatures, referenced and rewritten.
2.Would you please rephrase and write it with the help of an expert?
Answer: We have followed your comments and sought help from the English editor recommended by the journal. Thanks to the English editor recommended by the journal for assisting in the revision of the article.
3.There are several repetitive statements that must be deleted.
Answer: We have followed your comments, and have removed and corrected repetitive statements.
Title:
4.The title can be modified as “Evaluating the Bay area restocking and stock replenishment of Penaeus penicillatus in China”
Answer: We have followed your comments, and have corrected the title.
Abstract:
5.The abstract is written relatively too simply and does not reflect how the outcomes were drawn.
Answer: We have followed your comments, and have corrected this paragraphs. We corrected these errors. We fixed the “The biological characteristics and catch equation were used to evaluate the effect of restocking and stock replenishment. The analysis uses the FAO-ICLARM Stock Assessment Tool (FISAT II) pro-gram. In general, there are two sources of recruitments—one from spawning brood stock, and the other from released juvenile shrimp. We constructed an evaluation model for effect evaluation based on Baranov’s Catch equation to separate the initial recruitment volume using survey data.” Line 18-23.
We fixed the “Obviously, the restocking effect is lower, and the programs needs to be improved. To improve the restocking effect, the replenishment performance should be adjusted to reduce the mortality rate and increase its release effectiveness. Therefore, corresponding implementations are recommend-ed, including standard extensive culture, reduction in stress during transportation, and temporary culture. ” Line 29-33.
6.Further, the authors need to mention their main conclusions clearly. In the end, the authors point out general suggestions while do not know how to do what they are suggesting.
Answer: We have followed your comments, and have corrected this paragraph. We corrected these errors. We fixed the “Obviously, the restocking effect is lower, and the programs needs to be improved. To improve the restocking effect, the replenishment performance should be adjusted to reduce the mortality rate and increase its release effectiveness. Therefore, corresponding implementations are recommend-ed, including standard extensive culture, reduction in stress during transportation, and temporary culture. ” Line 29-33.
7.The abstract must be enriched with more results and conclusions.
Answer: We have followed your comments, and have corrected this paragraph as described above. We corrected these errors.
8.In the beginning, it is better to resort to the reason why this type of study was essential.
Answer: We have followed your comments. Your suggestions gave us great guidance and help. We agree with you that this type of research is rare in China. Therefore, this article will have a certain value and contribution in terms of policy.
9.The keywords are not the ones that should be. Would you please delve deep into your results and revise them accordingly?
Answer: We have followed your comments, and have corrected the keywords.
Introduction:
10.L 42-45; Why do you think that restocking is limited to marine and estuarine ecosystems? Why is it not done in freshwaters? I guess you are mistaken.
Answer: We have followed your comments, and have corrected this paragraph. We corrected these errors. We fixed the “Meanwhile, restocking was defined as the release of cultured juveniles into the water environment, including oceans, rivers, reservoirs, and lakes, for subsequent growth and harvesting, with the released aquatic organisms contributing to the biomass [2,4,5].” Line 50-52.
11.L 45-46: Please improve this statement.
Answer: We have followed your comments, and have corrected this paragraph. We corrected these errors. We fixed the “This form of fisheries enhancement (stock replenishment and restocking) has played a vital role in recruiting populations and has great potential to help to replenish depleted wild populations by releasing the offspring spawned from wild parents into the sea [2]).” Line 52-55.
12.L 49: Evaluation of what?
Answer: We have followed your comments, and have corrected this sentence. We corrected these errors. We fixed the “population assessment” Line 58.
13.L 59-61: Contains errors.
Answer: We have followed your comments, and have corrected this error. We fixed the “Penaeus penicillatus Alcock, 1905 (Fenneropenaeus penicillatus),” Line 68.
14.L 63-66: These are two contradictory statements.
Answer: We have followed your comments, and have corrected this paragraph. We corrected these errors. We fixed the “In the early 1980s, the wild stock of P. penicillatus declined severely due to overfishing, environmental degradation, and engineering construction. Since 2005, it has been listed as an endangered species and entered in the Red List of Species in China [15]. Ruan and Gong (1984) proposed implementing a fishing ban to protect the broodstock resources of Penaeus prawns in Xiamen waters [16].” Line 71-75.
15.L 77-78: A repetitive statement. Would you please delete it?
Answer: We have followed your comments, and have deleted this repetitive statement.
16.L 81-86: There are no citations provided to support your claims.
Answer: We have followed your comments, and have added the original official website information. We are trying to find relevant documents, obviously it is difficult due to this type of research is rare in China.
17.The aims are missing the description is too poor.
Answer: We have followed your comments, and have corrected this paragraph. We fixed the “To manage shrimp fisheries resources and sustainability in Xiamen waters, biological information and population assessment are needed. This research aims to analyze the biological aspect of redtail prawn (P. penicillatus) in Xiamen waters, consisting of the sex ratio, length–weight analysis, growth parameter, level of exploitation (natural mortality rate, fishing mortality rate, and total mortality rate), and evaluation of stock replenishment and restocking. We have particularly constructed an assessment model to evaluate the effect based on Baranov’s Catch equation, which can separate the amount of initial recruitment using survey data from 2014 to 2017. The aim of this research, which analyzes the biological characteristics and restocking effects of P. penicillatus in Xiamen Bay, is to provide an idea regarding the effect of fisheries replenishment and restocking, provide suggestions on how to improve the effects, and serve as a reference for formulating redtail prawn management policies and the conservation of fisheries resources.” Line 95-106.
18.Would you please revise the aims and avoid overstaining?
Answer: We have followed your comments, and have corrected these errors.
Materials and Methods:
19.L 96: it is a repetition of what you already said in the introduction.
Answer: We have followed your comments, and have corrected this sentence. We corrected these errors.
20.L 113-124: How about making a table of this information and compare the sites?
Answer: We have followed your comments. We tried to make a table but felt that it was not good and not ideal. We are sorry.
21.L 126-136: You must know that you should not use the present tense.
Answer: We have followed your comments, and have corrected these errors.
22.This appears to be a direct copy from a thesis, and it does not fit here. Would you please revise the whole methods section?
Answer: We have followed your comments, and have corrected these errors.
23.Figure 1. The figure quality is so poor. Would you mind enhancing the clarity and enriching it?
Answer: We have followed your comments, and have corrected these errors. We have redrawn Figure 1.
24.Where have you explained figure 2?
Answer: We have followed your comments, and note Figure 2, Line 224-225.
25.The figure 2 quality is too poor.
Answer: We have followed your comments, and have corrected these errors. We have redrawn Figure 2.
- Where is the detail on statistical analysis?
Answer: We have followed your comments, and have corrected these errors.
- You need to provide enough detail in order to replicate this study.
Answer: We have followed your comments, and have corrected these errors.
Results:
28.Figure 3. The figure quality is too poor, and it instead adds negativity to the manuscript.
Answer: We have followed your comments, and have corrected these errors. We have redrawn Figure 3.
29.Figures 4 and 5. Same as above.
Answer: We have followed your comments, and have corrected these errors. We have redrawn Figure 4 and Figure 5.
30.L 313-315: Please delete this statement or move it from here and go straight to your main findings.
Answer: We have followed your comments, and have deleted this statement.
31.Figure 6. I hope you realize that this figure is deplorable in visualization.
Answer: We have followed your comments, and have corrected these errors. We have redrawn Figure 6.
- L 329-333: There are no regression equations in figure 7.
L 329-333：圖 7 中沒有回歸方程。
Answer: We have followed your comments, and have deleted this figure. We corrected these errors.
- Figure 7 does not mean anything if it is kept as it is.
Answer: We have followed your comments, and have deleted this figure. We corrected these errors.
- The authors failed to state their primary outcomes and explain their illustrations clearly.
Answer: We have followed your comments, and have corrected these errors.
Discussion:
- The discussions are well-written, but numerous English language and description shortcomings must be revised carefully.
Answer: We are very grateful for your guidance and help. We have corrected these errors.
- Would you please separate your conclusions and recommendations apart from discussions?
Answer: We have followed your comments and added a conclusion section.
- You can further discuss your results from multiple angles and place them into context without being overinterpreted.
Answer: We have followed your comments, have adjusted and moved the chapter content.
- I feel that a combined results and discussion section would do much better than this separation by seeing your paper structure.
Answer: We have followed your comments, have adjusted and moved the chapter content.
Conclusions
- Missing.
Answer: We have followed your comments and added a conclusion section.
- What are the main limitations of this study, and how this study adds value for
future researchers?
- What is the way forward?Answer: We have followed your comments and added a conclusion section.
We fixed the “To improve the restocking effect, the replenishment performance should be adjusted to reduce the mortality rate and increase its release effectiveness. Therefore, corresponding implementations are recommended, including standard extensive culture, reduction in stress during transportation, and temporary culture. Of course, the results of this evaluation are unsatisfactory. We believe that the main limitations of the created evaluation model are the consequence of certain assumptions that were made. Therefore, identifying how to improve our ability to carry out successful evaluations is expected to be the focus of efforts in the future.” Line 496-504.
- Please highlight all this in the separate conclusions section.
Answer: We have followed your comments and added a conclusion section.
We are very grateful for your guidance and help.
References:
- References to too less. Please cite more relevant studies.
Answer: We have followed your comments and added some references.
We have added this paragraph and literature. We fixed the “Optimum level of exploitation (Eopt) is 0.5 beyond which stock was said to be over-exploited [29]. This level implying that the stock of the P. penicillatus in Xiamen waters is exploited in a suitable state. Komi et al. (2013) reported fishing mortality (F = 0.39 yearr-1) natural mortality (M = 1.640 year-1), total mortality (Z = 2.030 year-1) and exploitation rate (E = 0.1906) of Metapenaeus elegans in the Andoni River, Nigeria which indicated the stock was under-exploited [37]. Another species of shrimp, Metapenaeus elegans of Segara Anakan Lagoon Cilacap, Central Java, showed overexploitation of this population, obtained from F = 6.760, M = 1.430, and E = 0.8830 [38]. Nwosu (2009) also reported an over-exploitation case of P. notialis, with E = 0.77 in 2007 and E = 0.69 in 2008 [39]. Most species of penaeid shrimps are over fished [40-42]. The exploitation rate could help understand the losses caused by fishing efforts and natural deaths, and thus pro-posed the implementation of management. When the catch death and natural death were almost equal, which also means that the biomass was not wasted in natural death. Therefore, the exploitation rate of P. penicillatus in Xiamen waters was conducive to management purposes. Such conditions could be harvested sustainably to maintain the socio-economic capacity and development of coastal communities.” Line 353-368.
- In the end, please highlight what this study adds to the existing science in this research area.
We have followed your comments. This type of research is rare in China. And we have created a method that can separate recruit groups, therefore, the effect of the release shrimp can be clearly evaluated.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have made a study of an important subject. You can find my specific comments below.
Keywords
restocking and stock enhancement -> restocking, stock enhancement,
Intro
32 define type of fisheries
39 fisheries systems -> fishery systems
45-46 injecting -> chnage this to a more suitable term
50 includes
57 only few studies
60 rephrase this sentence. Now it seems that FAO is called redtail prawn.
Good in length and contents!
104 there are
107-112 not necessary. Consider removing.
206 Remove sentence "First, we..
257 Remove "that the following"
273 Remove "both"
276 gm -> g Follow the SI system
272-277 Use imperfect throughout the MS!
280 Figures 3 -> Figure 3
Figures 4 and 5 should be higher in quality.
Discussion
Use imperfect her as well. This study showed
some results but they cannot be generalized.
Table 1. millimeter -> mm
410 Comparison of..
It seems that the authors have genuine worry about the status of the coastal area.
I appreciate that but recommend to use more neutral description of the study.
Author Response
All [page number] and [line number] represented below are referred to the revised manuscript.
Ms. Ref. No.: jmse-1401377
Title: Evaluation of the effect of restocking and stock enhancement of Penaeus penicillatus in the Xiamen Bay, China
Reviewer #2: Comments to jmse-1401377 by Wang et al. (please, also see annotated manuscript):
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. The following is a point-by-point response.
- Keywords
restocking and stock enhancement -> restocking, stock enhancement,
Answer: We have followed your comments and corrected and added Keywords.
Intro
- Line 32 define type of fisheries
Answer: We have followed your comments and corrected this sentence. We corrected these errors. We fixed the “In many offshore and pelagic fisheries in the world, nearly 90% of marine fish re-sources have been fully exploited, overexploited, or depleted and are affected by the degradation of aquatic habitats [1].” Line 38-39.
- Line 39 fisheries systems -> fishery systems
Answer: We have followed your comments and corrected this error.
- Line 45-46 injecting -> chnage this to a more suitable term
Answer: We have followed your comments and corrected this error.
We fixed the “This form of fisheries enhancement (stock replenishment and restocking) has played a vital role in recruiting populations and has great potential to help to replenish depleted wild populations by releasing the offspring spawned from wild parents into the sea [2]). ” Line 52-55.
- Line 50 includes
Answer: We have followed your comments and corrected this error.
- Line 57 only few studies
Answer: We have followed your comments and corrected this error.
- Line 60 rephrase this sentence. Now it seems that FAO is called redtail prawn.
Answer: We have followed your comments and corrected this error.
We fixed the “Penaeus penicillatus Alcock, 1905 (Fenneropenaeus penicillatus), is called redtail prawn as per the United Nations Agricultural Food Organization (FAO) [14]. ” Line 68-69.
- Good in length and contents!
Answer: We are very grateful for your guidance and help.
- Line 104 there are
Answer: We have followed your comments and corrected this error.
- Line 107-112 not necessary. Consider removing.
Answer: We have followed your comments and removed this paragraph. We corrected these errors.
- Line 206 Remove sentence "First, we..
Answer: We have followed your comments and corrected this error.
- Line 257 Remove "that the following"
Answer: We have followed your comments and corrected this error.
- Line 273 Remove "both"
Answer: We have followed your comments and corrected this error.
- Line 276 gm -> g Follow the SI system
Answer: We have followed your comments and corrected this error.
- Line 272-277 Use imperfect throughout the MS!
Answer: We have followed your comments and corrected this error.
- Line 280 Figures 3 -> Figure 3
Answer: We have followed your comments and corrected this error.
- Figures 4 and 5 should be higher in quality.
Answer: We have followed your comments, and have corrected these errors. We have redrawn Figure 4 and Figure 5.
Discussion
- Use imperfect her as well. This study showed some results but they cannot be generalized.
Answer: We have followed Reviewer #1: Comments and added a conclusion section.
Also, Reviewer #1: I feel that a combined results and discussion section would do much better than this separation by seeing your paper structure.
We have followed Reviewer #1: Comments and have adjusted and moved the chapter content.
- Table 1. millimeter -> mm
Answer: We have followed your comments and corrected this error.
- Line 410 Comparison of..
Answer: We have followed your comments and corrected this error.
- It seems that the authors have genuine worry about the status of the coastal area.
I appreciate that but recommend to use more neutral description of the study.
Answer: We are very grateful for your guidance and help.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have revised the whole manuscript and the manuscript appears to be greatly improved. Congratulations to the authors for this accomplishment.
Author Response
All [page number] and [line number] represented below are referred to the revised manuscript.
Ms. Ref. No.: jmse-1401377
Title: Evaluation of the effect of restocking and stock enhancement of Penaeus penicillatus in the Xiamen Bay, China
Reviewer #1: Comments to jmse-1401377 by Wang et al. (please, also see annotated manuscript):
1. The authors have revised the whole manuscript and the manuscript appears to be greatly improved. Congratulations to the authors for this accomplishment.
Answer: We are very grateful for your guidance and help.
Reviewer #2: Comments to jmse-1401377 by Wang et al. (please, also see annotated manuscript):
No comments are provided in this revised version.
Answer: We are very grateful for your guidance and help.
Academic Editor: Comments to jmse-1401377
- The new title, even if it has been suggested by the Referee 1 is in my opinion not right: Evaluating the Bay area restocking and stock replenishment of Penaeus penicillatus in China (which is the Bay refers to?) , therefore I suggest
“Evaluating the effects related to restocking and stock enhancement of Penaeus penicillatus in the Xiamen Bay, China”
Answer: We have followed your comments, and have corrected the title.
- In the current version, it is hard to follow the revisions made to the original text, please provide a copy where the changed sentences are evidenced in red (and the original ones are removed, thank you
Answer: We have followed your comments and provide a pdf file. This file can display all modified tracking records. These contents of tracking records include reviewers’ comments and full details of the editing service (also can be found at https://www.mdpi.com/authors/english).
Finally, we are very grateful for your guidance and help.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
