Application of biological and fisheries attributes to assess the vulnerability and resilience of tropical marine fish species

Taking advantage of published data on life-history traits and short-term information on fishery parameters from 3132 records for 644 fish stocks along the coast of India, we calculated resilience (R) and vulnerability (V). Further, we developed an Index of Resilience and Vulnerability (IRV) for 133 species of tropical finfishes, crustaceans, and molluscs. Using 7 resilience and 6 vulnerability attributes, two-dimensional scatter plots of the resilience and vulnerability scores were generated and the Euclidean distance and angle from the origin to each point were calculated to determine IRV and the effect of fishing on fish species. By ranking the species, the top 10 highly resilient, highly vulnerable, and high-risk species (low IRV) were identified. While small-sized species with fast growth rate and low trophic level were among the highly resilient species, large predatory species such as sharks and barracudas were among the highly vulnerable and high-risk species. More than 100 of the 133 species were resilient-yet-vulnerable, and most crustaceans showed high resilience. Differences in IRV scores among species within the same family were discernible, indicating the differences in the biological characteristics and response to fishing. Sensitivity analysis indicated that an abridged IRV with 6 attributes works similar to 13 attributes and can be used in data-deficient situations. Comparison of R and V of IRV with other assessments showed different results because of divergences in the objectives, number and types of attributes, and thresholds used. These assessments do not convey the same information and therefore great care must be taken for reproducing these frameworks to other fisheries. The results of IRV analysis can be useful for stock assessments and in developing effective management measures in combination with other complementary information.


General comments:
-In general, this manuscript would benefit from a careful proofreading, as there are numerous spelling and grammatical mistakes throughout. I highlight some of these in the Specific comments below. This may help the writers clarify their meaning in some sections of the paper, which will be helpful for the overall interpretability. -There are many statements throughout the introduction and discussion that would be much stronger with a supporting citation. I think this manuscript could do a more thorough job of incorporating relevant published work. -I do not agree that resilience and vulnerability are innately opposites, as is hypothesized here. As indicated in L652-653, you expected high R with low V (or vice versa) but did not always observe this result. This does not surprise me, since the two indices you calculate (R and V), while complimentary, describe attributes of each species/fishery that are not necessary inversely related (or related at all). At points throughout the manuscript, it is implied that R and V are inversely related, and these statements need to be adjusted to either justify this expectation by the authors or to clarify their expectations if my interpretation above is incorrect. -A figure showing a map of the study regions (data source areas) would be helpful and could be referenced throughout the manuscript to provide better spatial context (e.g., L192-193, L870-873) Specific comments: L22: delete "was estimated".
L30-31: delete "by the species within the same family".
L33: rather that "contradictory results", use something like "different species vulnerabilities" or "different fish management priorities".
L47: "species of diverse" should be "species with diverse".
L89: both mentions of "is" should be changed to "are".
L106-107: with regard to the Hilborn et al. (2020) citation, is there any information available to allow you to describe the state of the fisheries used in this study? Are they "in poor shape" as you say?
L115: BMSY and FMSY have not been defined elsewhere in the manuscript.
L119-127: This paragraph brings up an important point. You describe 133 species, but use data from 644 stocks. Are there multiple stocks for some of these species? If so, how were data from different stocks combined for a single species?
L141-143: although the original paper is cited, I believe it would be helpful to briefly describe the attributes from the siFISH analysis that were important for the sustainability classifications you list.
L145-147: 4 values of K are listed for 3 classes.
L152: ∞ symbology is incorrect here and throughout the manuscript (file error?) L152: Should mention the general species/stocks that Musick (1999) uses so we can assess how comparable these approaches are.
L155: how were these thresholds identified?
L158-168: while this citation seems appropriate for this paper, there are several terms that could use some brief additional detail to help the reader follow. For example, the meaning of "adaptive capacity" is unclear. What types of variables fit this criteria?
L192-193: were these ecoregions sampled equally? It would be very beneficial to include a figure with a map showing the ecoregions from which data were collected.  L326: parenthetically indicate whether x-axis refers to resilience or vulnerability.
L369-371: there needs to be more elaboration on your methodology. It is hard to follow what was done here.
L381: doesn't your IRV only represent Indian stocks? How comparable are IUCN data from other regions in these cases? That needs to be considered when comparing these indices. L471: should we be concerned that the most resilient species has an IRV of 0.52, and not closer to the theoretical maximum value? What aspects of the biological and fishery attributes for this species give it the highest IRV? Should we be concerned about Indian fish stocks overall? -all things to be considered in the discussion. L576: curious if there is any concern about gear bias in the results. Related to this, is gear regulation (e.g., changing mesh sizes) an option for targeted management of atrisk/vulnerable/less resilient fisheries?
L586-587: were there any temporal trends in the other variables besides Er?
L609-610: CVs (or SDs) are great for describing variation in the data; these would be better reported in the results section and interpreted here.
L616: also depends on the severity of the impact, right?
L635-636: do people use smaller mesh size when targeting smaller species? Does this minimize the effect described here?
L666-667: Evaluations and reporting of statistics for these comparisons should be made in the results section. L692: what is meant by "marginal"?
L698: it is unclear what is meant by "inconsistent weights will cause bias in the analysis".
L712-713: statements such as "Many clupeids and crustaceans fall under high K category" require citations. L737: thoughts on the possible mechanism of this relationship between resilience and geographic distribution? Is there evidence of such relationships from other studies?
L761: link to a citation or source or IUCN evaluations.

L766
-767: what is meant by "evaluate its usefulness"? How was this done in the manuscript? You showed that it was possible to calculate an index, but I do not see an evaluation of usefulness.
L801: seems that interpretation of this metric is thus relative to the fishery being studied. This has implications for comparing IRV to other indices.
L818: not following how 14 species are on the top-10 list.
L833: how often is this list revised, and could your work be used to help India reconsider which species to include on it?
L887: need to describe this "appropriate tool" in a little more detail, so readers can understand how these IRV values for multiple fisheries can be combined.