the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 12 Jun 2023
Anthropogenic and ecology research indicators of top commercial fish species in the Baltic Sea: Review
Abstract. In many parts of the world, morality caused as a result of fishing actives is the only influencer affecting the status of top commercial stocks. This however is not the case in the Baltic Sea, which has a multitude of other processes that influence fish stock dynamics. This paper compartmentalises 248 publications that consider the cumulative effects and trade-offs some of the biggest anthropogenic and ecology stressors (temperature change, hypoxia, eutrophication, nutrient pollution acidification, low salinity and food-web dynamics) have on the ecology of top commercial fish species in the Baltic Sea (cod, sprat, whiting, herring, flounder and plaice). The results illustrate the extent of academic research that can be applied to commercial fisheries knowledge in the Baltic Sea and identifies which pressures have the greatest negative impacts for which species. In addition, the findings demonstrate how well individual fish stocks have adapted to the changing environmental conditions of the Baltic Sea. In doing so, the review illustrates the next challenges and underlines what fish will likely dominate in the future and which will struggle. With increased natural hazards, top commercial fish species have reacted differently, depending on the region and adaptive capabilities. In most cases, species in the Clupeidae family have adapted the best to their new surroundings, flatfish resilience is varied, whilst fish in the Gadidae family are finding the Baltic Sea too hostile.
- Preprint
(1215 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(619 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2023-185', Annalisa Minelli, 26 Jul 2023
The paper presents a comprehensive review of scientific literature about adaptation due to climate change of some fish species in the Baltic Sea. The topic is definitely interesting and the review process absolutely valuable. Also the twofold approach for the analysis (with respect to species and stressors) helps framing the situation from different points of views. However, Figure 4 is a bit misleading in that position, because presented before performing the anayses in the following paragraphs. I would suggest to move Figure 4 in the conclusions, where there is a catch up of the analyses performed in the discussion and the Figure itself becomes more meaningful.
Data structuring and presentation is also excellent and respectful of all best practices in data management.
Congratulations to the authors.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2023-185-RC1 -
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Michael J. Rosciszewski-Dodgson, 02 Aug 2023
Dear Dr. Minelli,
Thank you for your valuable suggestion. Initially, we had Figure 4 at the beginning of the conclusions section and moved it at a later date, but based on your feedback, we realise that it would be more appropriate to move it back to its original position in the conclusion. On behalf of the authors, your recommendation has been noted and we will make the necessary adjustments to the revised version of the manuscript.
Best Regards,
Michael J. Rosciszewski-DodgsonCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2023-185-CC1
-
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Michael J. Rosciszewski-Dodgson, 02 Aug 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2023-185', Davide Agnetta, 11 Oct 2023
The manuscript attempts to review the stressors (impacts), status, and future scenarios of the Baltic Sea ecosystem, focusing on commercial fish.
While the manuscript has some merit, I am not sure that this type of review is consistent with the goals of the journal as it stands. However, I did go through the entire document and in many cases found confusion in the use of terms related to anthropogenic stressors and natural hazards, as well as ecosystem impacts and condition. The lack of a formal analysis, at least in the form of a conceptual map (perhaps indicating the direction of drivers and impacts, as suggested in the selected references), makes it very difficult to understand the results from the extensive reference table alone. I suggest adopting a conceptual DPSIR framework to clarify drivers, pressures, condition, and impacts in the Baltic Sea. This methodology should be included as Item 5 in the analysis to support the results and discussion. Discussion and the conclusions are too general and rather superficial, describing the results of other studies rather than explaining the ecological processes behind the synopsis prepared by the authors.
The title is also misleading and does not really reflect the content of the manuscript. The manuscript has many important flaws in terms of language and structural syntax, it flows in intervals, and there are many inconsistencies here and there that indicate that the authors did a poor job of revising the text. I will list just a few:
Abstract: line 6 - change morality into mortality, line 8 - …compartmentalizes 250 publications… but in the short summary are 248, why?
Line 9 – anthropogenic or ecological (ecology) stressors?
Line 10 – is food web dynamics a stressor?
Methods
Line 51-53 again, anthropogenic or natural hazards?
Line 54 and 58 have the same structure of starting sentence: “with this in mind”, it seems a poor choice of words
Line 57 their ability to adapt ……to habitat changes?
Figure 3 what in x and y axis?
Results
Line 107 very short sentence: “From there key trends emerged.” What kind of trends? there is no analysis nor a conceptual map (figure) to realize on results
Discussion
Line 480 – what is a food web reorganization for a species?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2023-185-RC2 -
CC2: 'Reply on RC2', Michael J. Rosciszewski-Dodgson, 12 Oct 2023
Dear Davide,
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your constructive feedback, and we will address each of your comments in the revision.
In the methodology section we will provide a more structured approach to our analysis by creating a DPSIR framework for the paper to better clarify the drivers, condition, and impacts in the Baltic Sea ecosystem, as you suggested.
We agree that providing more insights into the ecological process will improve the understanding of the paper. We will elaborate on our process and explain how they are reinforced by the other research in the discussion and most importantly in the conclusion.
We believe the current title reflects the paper’s content, however will work on changing it to better fit the scope of the paper.
We acknowledge that language and structural Improvements can be made throughout the paper, and we intend to thoroughly proofread the manuscript to correct any language and structural issues, including the specific errors you pointed out.
We are fully dedicated to enhancing the quality and clarity of our paper. We firmly believe that once these issues have been addressed, our review paper will be in perfect alignment with the goals of the ESSD journal. This journal has been home to numerous outstanding review papers, and has addressed fisheries management topics in the past, and we aim to contribute to its repository. Thank you once more for your invaluable input.
Sincerely,
Michael John Rosciszewski-Dodgson & Giuseppe T. Cirella
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2023-185-CC2
-
CC2: 'Reply on RC2', Michael J. Rosciszewski-Dodgson, 12 Oct 2023
-
AC1: 'Final response on essd-2023-185', Giuseppe T. Cirella, 02 Nov 2023
As we conclude the open discussion for our submitted manuscript to ESSD, we wish to express our profound gratitude and appreciation to the handling topic editor, Dr. Minelli (RC1), and Dr. Agnetta (RC2), for their dedicated efforts in reviewing and providing constructive feedback on our work. We have already addressed each of the reviewers’ comments during this open discussion, and after thorough consideration, we hold the utmost confidence in our ability to comprehensively revise and resubmit the manuscript, incorporating all the valuable feedback we have received.
Furthermore, the open discussion has provided us with a deeper insight into the strengths and weaknesses of our manuscript, and we are fully committed to integrating every comment and suggestion to ensure that our resubmission aligns with the rigorous standards of ESSD. Our dedication extends to delivering an improved version that not only addresses the concerns raised but also effectively underscores the contributions and significance of our research.
Once again, we extend our heartfelt gratitude to the handling editor and the reviewers for their invaluable time and effort invested in this process. Their input has played an instrumental role, and we eagerly anticipate presenting our revised manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2023-185-AC1
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2023-185', Annalisa Minelli, 26 Jul 2023
The paper presents a comprehensive review of scientific literature about adaptation due to climate change of some fish species in the Baltic Sea. The topic is definitely interesting and the review process absolutely valuable. Also the twofold approach for the analysis (with respect to species and stressors) helps framing the situation from different points of views. However, Figure 4 is a bit misleading in that position, because presented before performing the anayses in the following paragraphs. I would suggest to move Figure 4 in the conclusions, where there is a catch up of the analyses performed in the discussion and the Figure itself becomes more meaningful.
Data structuring and presentation is also excellent and respectful of all best practices in data management.
Congratulations to the authors.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2023-185-RC1 -
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Michael J. Rosciszewski-Dodgson, 02 Aug 2023
Dear Dr. Minelli,
Thank you for your valuable suggestion. Initially, we had Figure 4 at the beginning of the conclusions section and moved it at a later date, but based on your feedback, we realise that it would be more appropriate to move it back to its original position in the conclusion. On behalf of the authors, your recommendation has been noted and we will make the necessary adjustments to the revised version of the manuscript.
Best Regards,
Michael J. Rosciszewski-DodgsonCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2023-185-CC1
-
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Michael J. Rosciszewski-Dodgson, 02 Aug 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2023-185', Davide Agnetta, 11 Oct 2023
The manuscript attempts to review the stressors (impacts), status, and future scenarios of the Baltic Sea ecosystem, focusing on commercial fish.
While the manuscript has some merit, I am not sure that this type of review is consistent with the goals of the journal as it stands. However, I did go through the entire document and in many cases found confusion in the use of terms related to anthropogenic stressors and natural hazards, as well as ecosystem impacts and condition. The lack of a formal analysis, at least in the form of a conceptual map (perhaps indicating the direction of drivers and impacts, as suggested in the selected references), makes it very difficult to understand the results from the extensive reference table alone. I suggest adopting a conceptual DPSIR framework to clarify drivers, pressures, condition, and impacts in the Baltic Sea. This methodology should be included as Item 5 in the analysis to support the results and discussion. Discussion and the conclusions are too general and rather superficial, describing the results of other studies rather than explaining the ecological processes behind the synopsis prepared by the authors.
The title is also misleading and does not really reflect the content of the manuscript. The manuscript has many important flaws in terms of language and structural syntax, it flows in intervals, and there are many inconsistencies here and there that indicate that the authors did a poor job of revising the text. I will list just a few:
Abstract: line 6 - change morality into mortality, line 8 - …compartmentalizes 250 publications… but in the short summary are 248, why?
Line 9 – anthropogenic or ecological (ecology) stressors?
Line 10 – is food web dynamics a stressor?
Methods
Line 51-53 again, anthropogenic or natural hazards?
Line 54 and 58 have the same structure of starting sentence: “with this in mind”, it seems a poor choice of words
Line 57 their ability to adapt ……to habitat changes?
Figure 3 what in x and y axis?
Results
Line 107 very short sentence: “From there key trends emerged.” What kind of trends? there is no analysis nor a conceptual map (figure) to realize on results
Discussion
Line 480 – what is a food web reorganization for a species?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2023-185-RC2 -
CC2: 'Reply on RC2', Michael J. Rosciszewski-Dodgson, 12 Oct 2023
Dear Davide,
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your constructive feedback, and we will address each of your comments in the revision.
In the methodology section we will provide a more structured approach to our analysis by creating a DPSIR framework for the paper to better clarify the drivers, condition, and impacts in the Baltic Sea ecosystem, as you suggested.
We agree that providing more insights into the ecological process will improve the understanding of the paper. We will elaborate on our process and explain how they are reinforced by the other research in the discussion and most importantly in the conclusion.
We believe the current title reflects the paper’s content, however will work on changing it to better fit the scope of the paper.
We acknowledge that language and structural Improvements can be made throughout the paper, and we intend to thoroughly proofread the manuscript to correct any language and structural issues, including the specific errors you pointed out.
We are fully dedicated to enhancing the quality and clarity of our paper. We firmly believe that once these issues have been addressed, our review paper will be in perfect alignment with the goals of the ESSD journal. This journal has been home to numerous outstanding review papers, and has addressed fisheries management topics in the past, and we aim to contribute to its repository. Thank you once more for your invaluable input.
Sincerely,
Michael John Rosciszewski-Dodgson & Giuseppe T. Cirella
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2023-185-CC2
-
CC2: 'Reply on RC2', Michael J. Rosciszewski-Dodgson, 12 Oct 2023
-
AC1: 'Final response on essd-2023-185', Giuseppe T. Cirella, 02 Nov 2023
As we conclude the open discussion for our submitted manuscript to ESSD, we wish to express our profound gratitude and appreciation to the handling topic editor, Dr. Minelli (RC1), and Dr. Agnetta (RC2), for their dedicated efforts in reviewing and providing constructive feedback on our work. We have already addressed each of the reviewers’ comments during this open discussion, and after thorough consideration, we hold the utmost confidence in our ability to comprehensively revise and resubmit the manuscript, incorporating all the valuable feedback we have received.
Furthermore, the open discussion has provided us with a deeper insight into the strengths and weaknesses of our manuscript, and we are fully committed to integrating every comment and suggestion to ensure that our resubmission aligns with the rigorous standards of ESSD. Our dedication extends to delivering an improved version that not only addresses the concerns raised but also effectively underscores the contributions and significance of our research.
Once again, we extend our heartfelt gratitude to the handling editor and the reviewers for their invaluable time and effort invested in this process. Their input has played an instrumental role, and we eagerly anticipate presenting our revised manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2023-185-AC1
Data sets
Dataset_for_anthropogenic_and_ecology_indicators_of_fish_species_in_the_Baltic_Sea Michael J. Rosciszewski-Dodgson and Giuseppe T. Cirella https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22885913
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 410 | 152 | 77 | 639 | 31 | 31 | 32 |
- HTML: 410
- PDF: 152
- XML: 77
- Total: 639
- Supplement: 31
- BibTeX: 31
- EndNote: 32
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1