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 carefully considered all the reviewers' comments, ensuring that the necessary revisions have been made. After careful review of the new manuscript, it can be concluded that it meets the required standards and is ready for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Xavier Pochon, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Thank you very much for all the modifications already made to the manuscript which have made it clearer and easier to read. However, some minor changes are noted which are still necessary.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should *only* be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
The authors have done a commendable job in reviewing the manuscript and have made significant improvements. Additionally, they have addressed all the reviewers' comments. I only have a few minor comments, which can be found in the attached PDF.
All the comments have been made in the reviewing PDF attached.
All the comments have been made in the reviewing PDF attached.
All the comments have been made in the reviewing PDF attached.
The authors have addressed the reviewers' comments effectively, and the manuscript is suitable for publication in PeerJ. I recommend just a few final alterations to the text for clarity and precision:
Lines 118-120: Hypotheses are typically stated as affirmations. I suggest rephrasing to: “For this reason, the present research proposes the hypothesis that there are changes in the density and biomass of commercially important fish species in areas with different fishing intensities in the BCBR.”
Lines 135-138: I recommend removing this paragraph. Two years of data are sufficient for a snapshot and the analysis performed. The years collected can be described within each subtopic (as is already done).
Lines 156-158: Consider rephrasing to: “Within a 50 m transect, the observer recorded the species detected at a distance of 2 m on each side of the transect and 5 m in front.”
Lines 175-177: I suggest: “This working group currently has permission (Oficio No. F00.9/DRBBCH/151/2024) to carry out research without collecting or handling specimens of species not considered at risk within the Banco Chinchorro Biosphere Reserve.”
Lines 262-265: Rephrase as: “The highest values for these variables were recorded in the moderate fishing area and were significantly different (LSD, P < 0.05) from the density and biomass of fish found in the high fishing areas (FRHLF and RLHLF), which did not differ significantly from each other (LSD, P > 0.05).”
Line 270: Simplify to: “The values of these variables were lower in the high fishing areas.”
Lines 329-330: Rephrase as: “The lower density and biomass of commercial species in areas of high fishing intensity reflect the extraction of top and mesopredators.”
Lines 334-337: Consider: “Therefore, the reduction of the most valuable species for fishing communities may soon lead to the exploitation of less economically important species, such as scarids, balistids, and pomacanthids, potentially resulting in future fishing down the food web.”
Lines 412-415: Rephrase to: “It is therefore important that reserve managers adopt a range of management and conservation measures to protect top and mesopredators highly valued in markets, as well as large herbivores.”
Adequate.
Adequate.
This research significantly enhances the understanding of reef fish ecology and conservation in the Mexican Caribbean. The study analyzed reef fish community composition and fishing intensity to understand how fishing activities affect fish species distribution.
Several manuscript aspects need improvement for better clarity and readability. Additionally, the authors should align their research questions and hypotheses more closely with their main findings.
The original data should be translated into English, with explanatory metadata to describe spreadsheet contents.
Note: Both reviewers have supplied PDFs for you
The study presents an important contribution to the reef fish ecology and conservation of the Mexican Caribbean area. The authors assessed the reef fish assemblage and fishing intensities to disentangle how the fishing activities potentially affects the spatial distribution of the ichthyofauna.
There are some points that require attention to enhance the manuscript's clarity and readability. Additionally, the authors could consider reorganizing the research questions and hypotheses to more effectively align with the primary research findings.
The raw data needs to be translated into english and metadata describing the spreadsheets added.
Please find in the review PDF attached a list of suggestions and comments that should be considered prior to publication.
The research question needs to be improved. Suggestions were made in the review PDF.
Conclusion and the final points of the discussion needs to be improved. Suggestions were made in the review PDF.
The study demonstrates the direct effects of fishing on target species in a marine protected area in the Mexican Caribbean, using data from commercial fishery landings and underwater visual censuses, providing new and significant information for the management of the nature reserve. The paper is well-written, clear, and concise. The objectives are well-defined, and the figures are clear and explanatory. Additionally, the paper is well-referenced with good literature. I have made some comments in the attached document, suggesting, in some parts, a restructuring of the text to improve its flow and highlight the main results.
I recommend better organization of the supplementary material and that it be cited in the main text of the paper. Additionally, it would be helpful to include a PDF document describing what is found in the supplementary material, explaining the acronyms and the information contained in each spreadsheet.
The experimental design is well-constructed, addressing the research question on the direct effects of fishing on target species in a marine protected area in the Mexican Caribbean. The research question is clearly defined, relevant, and fills a significant knowledge gap. The study combines fisheries-dependent and independent data, providing a comprehensive analysis. Methods are described in sufficient detail to allow replication, ensuring high technical and ethical standards.
The integration of both fisheries-dependent and independent data provides a comprehensive assessment of the direct effects of fishing on target species in a marine protected area. The research is conducted to technical and ethical standards, with methods detailed enough for replication, which further supports the reliability of the results. Given these factors, the findings are valid and contribute meaningful, evidence-based insights for the management of marine protected areas.
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.