Dam Impact on Fish Assemblages Associated with Macrophytes in Natural and Regulated Floodplains of Pandeiros River Basin

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the manuscript “Dam Impact on Fish Assemblages Associated with Macrophytes in Natural and Regulated Floodplains in Pandeiros River Basin” by Gavião Prado et al. This paper looks at fish and macrophyte communities in dam-affected and natural lakes in Brazil.

I think the study design is good and represents a sensible question. However, I think the manuscript would benefit from some more context, descriptions of how the dam is function and affecting these habitats, and some more analysis of the macrophyte data. As this is presented, I do not see a strong connection between the fish – macrophyte – dam variables. I would beef up the macrophyte analyses, in hopes that this would make the connection stronger. General comments are listed here, more specific comments are in the pdf.

1.      Please enhance the description of the dam and how it is currently affecting the surrounding habitat. Are there fish passages? How is it connected to the other sites you sampled?

2.      I would suggest restricting the results section a bit. It wasn’t clear to me that you had done a GLM, maybe more those results earlier or move that table earlier. I also think analyzing the macrophyte community data in a similar way as you have done the fish data may help answer some questions that you pose in the discussion. Did the dam affect macrophyte communities? You have the data to answer this, and it may help with the next step of did the macrophyte beds affect fish community.

 

3.      Why is this project important? More context to place it in the world would be helpful. Are dams widespread in this region? Are fish communities declining? Plants? Why are you doing this work? 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Generally English is good, there are some minor grammatical errors that persist throughout the manuscript that I have commented on in the pdf.

Author Response

1. Please enhance the description of the dam and how it is currently affecting the surrounding habitat. Are there fish passages? How is it connected to the other sites you sampled?

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. We added more information regarding the dam conditions and characteristics to the sampling area section

2. I would suggest restricting the results section a bit. It wasn’t clear to me that you had done a GLM, maybe more those results earlier or move that table earlier. I also think analyzing the macrophyte community data in a similar way as you have done the fish data may help answer some questions that you pose in the discussion. Did the dam affect macrophyte communities? You have the data to answer this, and it may help with the next step of did the macrophyte beds affect fish community.

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. We have now performed a GLM using the macrophyte beds data and included it into the results

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(1) The hypothesis 1 "fish richness and abundance and macrophytes richness are higher in the natural floodplain lakes than in the regulated floodplain" seems meaningless.

（2）Line 113-114: Collections were carried out in the dry season (July 113 and September 2014) and in the rainy season (January and February 2015). Does this mean that the data for this study came from 10 years ago? The abstract show that the dam should be remolved. Has the current state of the dam been demolished？If there were no current results, the significance of this article would be limited.

（3）The current conclusion is more like that for a work report than for a scientific academic paper.

Author Response

1. The hypothesis 1 "fish richness and abundance and macrophytes richness are higher in the natural floodplain lakes than in the regulated floodplain" seems meaningless.

Answer: This hypothesis is based on the knowledge on impacts of flow regulation by dams on aquatic ecosystems and the importance of natural environments for the proper function of the system.

2. Line 113-114: Collections were carried out in the dry season (July 113 and September 2014) and in the rainy season (January and February 2015). Does this mean that the data for this study came from 10 years ago? The abstract show that the dam should be removed. Has the current state of the dam been demolished？If there were no current results, the significance of this article would be limited.

Answer: Your interpretation is correct. The publication originally was planned to be conducted soon. However, only 2023 some advances were done and there are a few issues being solved for it to happen.

3. The current conclusion is more like that for a work report than for a scientific academic paper.

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. We have now improved the paragraph in order to be more academic.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no further questions about the manuscript.

The reference numbers are duplicated.

Author Response

Dear reviewers and editor, we set right the numbers of the references that were indeed duplicated and checked the document as indicated on the review report form.

 

We are sincerely  grateful for the suggestions and the improvements made in our manuscript.