PONE-D-21-18168Seasonal variation in fish school spatial distribution and abundance under the Kuroshio regular pattern and the Kuroshio large meander in Suzu coastal watersPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please follow up and explain how you have dealt with the reviewer's main concerns. I will evaluate your revised manuscript, maybe based upon a reviewer's opinion. This reviewer will likely be the same as for the original submission so make sure you deal properly with his/her main requirenments.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 25 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Geir Ottersen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere. [The study builds on the work of ‘Seasonal dynamics in fish distribution and abundance revealed by an acoustic survey in coastal waters of the Suzu Area, Kochi Prefecture, Japan’ accepted by Journal of Marine Science and Technology (JMST).The previous paper used one year's data, and this paper uses two years' data.] Please clarify whether this [conference proceeding or publication] was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This research received funding from the Marine Fisheries Research and Development Center, Japan Fisheries Research and Education Agency (Empirical Research Project for Marine Fisheries Resource Development: Set-net in Suzu, Kochi prefecture, Fiscal Year 2016-2018). We also thank Masahiko Hamada for navigating the research vessel and the reparation of research cruise”.

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“Marine Fisheries Research and Development Center, Japan Fisheries Research and Education Agency (Empirical Research Project for Marine Fisheries Resource Development: Set-net in Suzu, Kochi prefecture, Fiscal Year 2016-2018)”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

5. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: General comments.

The Kuroshio large meander is an interesting phenomenon and could affect the transportation of eggs and larvae of fishes, the natural mortality, the recruitment success, then resource abundance and finally fishery, which have attracted boosting attentions in studies on fisheries oceanography. The authors use set-net catch and acoustic survey data to distinguish catch composition and distribution under two patterns of the Kuroshio. However, structures of the Introduction, Results and Discussion should be modified to increase their logicality. The Methods need to be replenished to show the rationality of the analytical framework. The English should be improved to increase the readability. Detailed comments are shown below.

1 Introduction. The Introduction needs to be restructured to improve its logicality. The effects of the Kuroshio Current, as well as its different patterns, on local fishery even ecosystem should be further described to highlight significance of this study. The Kuroshio Current and its two patterns should be illustrated with figures for reader who are not familiar with these current and area. In addition, fishery in the coastal area of Tosa Bay should be described, such as information about main species, etc.

In detail, the first paragraph can introduce the Kuroshio Current and its primary characteristics and importance for local ecosystems; the second paragraph can describe the two patterns of the Kuroshio and the potential effects of these two patterns (It was divided into three patterns in Kaneko et al., 2019, doi:10.1111/fog.12403, I wonder why the authors do not reference the newest study) based on previous literatures; the third paragraph needs to introduce set-net fishery in the Tosa Bay, including the targeting species and their main characteristics; finally the aims of this study should be clearly pointed out.

2 GAM. The authors need to provide more details on model structures, such as setting for the distribution family, linking function, smoothing methods, degree of freedom, etc. Model check process (such as the normality and homogeneity) is imperative and should be displayed to ensure the confidence on results, and the ‘gam.check’ routine is useful. Furthermore, the authors construct three groups of GAM, including one links Sa to L, and two link Sv to D and Db. The reason for such analyses should be clarified as D and Db can used as explanatory variables in one group of GAM. In summary, as the dominant analytical method in this study, model details on GAM should be provided for a better understanding for readers.

3 Results. The current results are divided in two parts - one for regular pattern of the Kuroshio, and another for large meander pattern of the Kuroshio. Overmuch descriptions on fundamental and dispersive results greatly distract attention and deduce interest of readers. As this manuscript aims to compare species composition and distribution between the two patterns of the Kuroshio, I strongly suggest that the author reorganize these results with focus on differences in species abundance, composition, and distribution. The attractive results should be directly displayed with clear language.

4 Discussion. Similar to the Results, the Discussion should also be reorganized. Firstly, repeated descriptions on the Results should be avoided. Secondly, inferences should be strongly supported by your results or previous literatures. Thirdly, brief language will help readers to better understand your points.

5 The English should be polished by native speakers to increase the readability.

Specific comment:

1 Line 53. The authors should cite relevant references to endorse this opinion. In my opinion, I think the Warm Current of Mexico Gulf is the largest warm current.

2 Lines 61-67. A conceptual map of the Kuroshio is needed for readers who are not familiar with this area. Also it will be helpful to show the regular pattern and large meander pattern of the Kuroshio, as well as the cold- and warm-water mass when it is in the large meander pattern.

3 Lines 74-75. How can a bay contribute to variations in the Kuroshio path? Or the authors try to say the variations in Kuroshio path contribute to the physicochemical properties of costal area of the bay. This should be clarified.

4 Lines 77-79. To my knowledge, the fishery of set-net is also largely dependent on the current that drive fishes into the cod-end. Although this paper focuses on the seasonal species composition, this should be declared in the introduction.

5 Line 80. “it” should be “its”.

6 Lines 86-90. Statements of migrating areas of walleye pollock and Japanese pearlsides are redundant for this sentence, as it is highlighting the importance and applications of acoustic survey.

7 Lines 109-110. The latest large meander pattern of the Kuroshio should be described in the Introduction instead of in the Methods.

8 Lines 186-188. The authors should provide details on GAM used in this study, such as explanatory and response variables, setting for the distribution family, linking function, smoothing methods, degree of freedom, etc.

9 Lines 197-198. The authors mention that large meander pattern of the Kuroshio happened in the August 2017, while the low density of fish schools in autumn. Can the large meander pattern last for several months? This should be clarified.

10 Lines 197-206. Repeated descriptions on results should be avoided.

11 Lines 219-220. Table 4 shows that a small number of fishes caught in Autumn, which may not support the dominant role of horse mackerel efficiently.

12 Line 239. I think the citation should be “Table 3”.

13 Line 255. Figs. 2 and 3 should be exchanged.

14 Line 289. Legend of Fig. 4 is confusing.

15 Fig. 8. Details on the measure of environmental factors are not well described, resulting in my doubt on the variations in physicochemical properties. Are these results based on measure of environmental factors for every day in the month or just one or several days in the month?

Although the authors note that environmental factors are different between the two patterns of the Kuroshio, the difference could be caused by different dates of the data instead of the patterns.

16 Lines 408-409. “high fish school responses”. I do not understand this phrase.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-21-18168R1Seasonal variation in fish school spatial distribution and abundance under the Kuroshio regular pattern and the large meander in Suzu coastal watersPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. You have improved your manuscript substantially since the version originally submitted.You have dealt well with the reviewer's requirements and only some minor issues remain. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript were the following minor issues are dealt with:The English is now of good standard, but please replace "them" with "it" in line 57.In line 387 please replace a "." with ",". Please order the Figures according to number. Now Figure 1 is last. I don't understand your naming of the Supporting information. You have S2 Table 1, S2 Table 2, S4 Fig, S5 Fig, and S6 Fig. It is very good that you include the excel sheets with data, but why call them figures?Please rename the Supporting information simply as S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6 When these small issues are fixed and you have submitted the revised ms I will accept it without further review.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 23 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Geir Ottersen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Seasonal variation in fish school spatial distribution and abundance under the Kuroshio regular pattern and the large meander in Suzu coastal waters

PONE-D-21-18168R2

Dear Dr. Zhu,

Thank you for following up on my last few instructions. We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Geir Ottersen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE