All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The authors have addressed all my concerns and those of the reviewers'. The design and analysis of this manuscript are in-depth and sound, and the results of the manuscript would contribute to the sustainable fishery of not only C. japonica, but other crab species in other geographical regions as well. I personally liked the clear and coherent writing of the manuscript! Well done.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by James Reimer, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors addressed all our concerns in the current version of the manuscript. However, I would like to request the authors to please modify Figure 1A so that the dimension details are in the same background colour (white) as the common background. The current Figure 1A dimension is of poor quality.
The manuscript is well written and the experimental design is sound. The use of CH instead of CL is interesting. However, I would suggest the authors to discuss further on this based on the biology and behaviour of Charybdis japonica.
Specific comments:
1. Please make sure all abbreviations are used accordingly. For example, line 70, 'carapace height' should be replaced with 'CH'.
2. Figure 1, please convert the 'Vent size' into words.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the response letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the response letter. Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
In general, the manuscript was well written. However, improvements on the following are suggested :
● The title can still be reduced. It is too long.
●It is better to indicate the word crab in the first line under Abstract so that those who not familiar (especially non-crab workers/researchers) with Charybdis would immediately know.
●It is better to show the figure of the conventional crab pot design beside the modified round pot.
The experimental design was described well. However, information on the the basis/criteria in selecting the site for the deployment of crab pots should be included? How about the info on the crab population in the selected site?
In general, the data obtained were discussed well and the conclusions were based on the the acceptable discipline-specific repository.
There are some comments that need to be addressed though:
●Is there no MLS for male C. japonica in the decree of the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture? Is this the reason why the % males and females retained in the round pots with various sizes of escape vent was not determined? This could have been also a good information that can be useful in the future. In many fisheries ordinances, MLS for males and females are specified.
●Likewise, information on the by-catch was lacking (other animals that can be trapped in that type of crab pots? Animals other than crabs that entered the pots could have also fed on the bait. This could have affected the entry of crabs based on the availability of baits/lures (which serve as attractant).
This manuscript reports the result from catch comparison analysis of standard round pots vs pots with fitted escape vents to improve size selectivity. The set of experiments is well planned, the collection of data is appropriate and the analysis is valid. I find this manuscript suitable for publication after very minor revision.
The research question id clearly defines, relevant and meaningful. The set of experiments is well planned, the collection of data is appropriate and the analysis is valid. I would advise the authors to extent and clarify the definition of relative fishing intensity (lines 139-40). ..."relative to what"?
Definitely this study systematically assess and document the effect of different escape vents on the size selectivity of crabs in the Yellow Sea. This manuscript applies adequate models to carry out catch comparisons. It uses state of the art bootstrapping technique to estimate confidence intervals and applies exploitation indicators to assess the capture efficiency.
Minor comments:
Line 13: I would suggest deleting the word "little"
Line 139: It is a bit difficult to understand the term "relative fishing intensity". Please, provide a definition. relative to what? what do you mean by "intensity"
The author has data set, although I noted lack of details on the suitable analytical method for drawing conclusions. In addition, this manuscript is clearly written in a professional manner
Research question well defined
The findings on the effectiveness of window trap sizes are well presented well, with photograph and tables. However, there is a slight disturbance because I have not found out what method is used to conclude that there is a significant catch size between trap models with different window size
Still needed a clearer explanation about determining the best window trap size. Need a more suitable analytical method
Abstract:
It is necessary to add the analytical method used to determine the significance of each window traps size in selecting the size of the crabs caught
Introduction: good
Materials & method.
It is necessary to add the analytical method used to determine the significance of each window traps size in selecting the size of the crabs caught
Results: Crab catch information should be displayed in more detail
Preferably, the number of catches for each trip and each trap is displayed. Because if you look at the number of crabs caught, only 704 crabs (line 195). This number gives an indication that the crabs are very few. The number of traps is 50 with 9 hauls, so that when averaged only 1,56 crabs per trap for each haul.
Discussion: What about the influence of ocean currents on crab movement and the effectiveness of traps and the window in catching and selecting crabs according ti their size. This information will be very interesting and add value to this article
Conclusion: Good. The conclusion has answered the research objectives and the impact of the results of this research in the future
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.