The evolution of aquaculture in the Mediterranean region: An anthropogenic climax stage?

Benedetto Sicuro

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0290870

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 17, 2022
17 Feb 2023 Decision Letter - Pierluigi Carbonara, Editor PONE-D-22-29781The evolution of aquaculture in the Mediterranean region: an anthropogenic climax stage?PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Sicuro, 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. Although the reviewers have underlined the interest of the study, they have also highlighted some critical issues regarding the methods (e.g. they should be better specified) and the analysis (e.g. about the production value, a more in-depth analysis of the Egyptian production, about the shellfish production) . Below you will find the specific comments to which I ask you to respond to all exhaustively. Please submit your revised manuscript by 18 April 2023. 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, Pierluigi Carbonara, PhD 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 note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 3. We note that Figures 2.1, 2.2 and 2.5 in your submission contain map 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 Figures 2.1, 2.2 and 2.5 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/ [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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: Great amount of effort on collecting and analyzing all these data for the Mediterranean aquaculture. I would suggest some minor corrections/ amendments: line 43 please change the order of the word "here" with the word "analyzed" line 58 please delete the dot after 2017 Reference 71 is missing so update the reference numbers In figures 1.1, 1.2, 1.5.1, 12.2 please include at the caption what is the dot line in the figure In figure 1.2 please explain in the caption what is the black line In figures 2.3 and 2.4 please explain in the caption what is the black and the blue lines In figure 2.7 please change the font size of the legends in the figures because it is rather difficult to read them as it is now. Additionally, describe in the caption what represents the black line in the figure. Finally, in the methodology, I would suggest to give a bit more information about the selected statistical tools of the data analysis. Reviewer #2: Review about manuscript. “The evolution of aquaculture in the Mediterranean region: an anthropogenic climax stage?” The author presents a comprehensive analysis of production data and statistics on aquaculture in the Mediterranean. This provides new insights on what could be the evolution of the sector. There are, however, some very important points to improve in the analysis presented here. Most of them are related to methodological aspects. Among them: i) The author should better clarify and specify in Materials and Methods what is meant by the term Mediterranean region in this work. Which statistics and countries are considered under this term. It is clear that continental aquaculture (trout) is considered, but not if the statistics include aquaculture in the Atlantic (oysters, mussels, turbot, etc.) or in the Black Sea. ii) It is striking that the analysis of FAO statistics stops at the year 2017, when from March 2022 there is the dataset with 3 more years statistics (up to 2020) is availabe. This update is essential, as there have been significant variations in recent years, which could have a major impact on the trends. iii) Another aspect is that it is highly advisable to carry out an analysis of production in the Mediterranean considering the value of production. This would help the reader to gain knowledge on the reasons being the development of the sector. For example, while in Egypt, the leading country in the Mediterranean, the main driving force for development is the need to provide animal protein of high nutritional value and affordable prices (tilapia, mullets), in the rest of the Mediterranean that is different, and thus higher value species are produced. iv) The author analyses aquaculture in Egypt separately, which is appropriate as it is the main producer country in the region. However, it would be advisable to provide a more in-depth description of aquaculture development in this country, since a very significant amount of production (mullets) is carried out in brackish waters, and this is reflected in the statistics. In fact Egyptian mullets production may account for near 20% production in the regions. v) Please, revise the sentence in lines 168 and 169. “Fish farming is the main production in the Mediterranean [53, 6, 54], in fact in 2017 accounted for the 96% of entire aquaculture production in the region.” This must be a mistake, as bivalve production may be around 20% of the whole production. vi) Besides the need of updating the statistics, considering the latest dataset from March 2022 (FAO-FishStatJ. Aquaculture Production (Quantities and values) 1950-2020 (Release date: March 2022), the author may profit of the occasion to include some recent relevant publications. i.e.: Llorente, I., Fernandez-Polanco, J., Baraibar-Diez, E., Odriozola, M. D., Bjorndal, T., Asche, F., … Basurco, B. (2020). Assessment of the economic performance of the seabream and seabass aquaculture industry in the European Union. Marine Policy, 117, 103876. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103876 COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Strategic guidelines for a more sustainable and competitive EU aquaculture for the period 2021 to 2030 Fernandez Sanchez, José Luís & Llorente, Ignacio & Fernandez Polanco, Jose. (2023). Profitability differences in aquaculture firms of the Nordic and Mediterranean-EU regions. Aquaculture Economics & Management. 1-17. 10.1080/13657305.2022.2163721. Best regards ****** 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 Reviewer #2: 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290870.r001
Revision 1
23 Jun 2023 Author Response 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: Great amount of effort on collecting and analyzing all these data for the Mediterranean aquaculture. Thank you very much for your comments. I would suggest some minor corrections/ amendments: line 43 please change the order of the word "here" with the word "analyzed" productions [23], but the 67 years of production data analyzed here represent the entire history of line 58 please delete the dot after 2017 OK Reference 71 is missing so update the reference numbers I added citation 71 in the text In figures 1.1, 1.2, 1.5.1, 12.2 please include at the caption what is the dot line in the figure I corrected figure 1.1 legend as suggested: Dotted line: polynomial regression line, with equation and regression coefficients. I uploaded most recent aquaculture data until 2020. I added economic value of aquaculture from 1984 to 2020 (FAO data on economic value are only recorded from 1984) Fig. 1.1. a) Mediterranean aquaculture productions and annual growth rate from 1950 to 2020. b) Mediterranean aquaculture economic value and annual growth rate from 1984 to 2020. Dotted line: polynomial regression line, with equation and regression coefficients. (FAO. 2022. Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics. Global aquaculture production 1950-2020 (FishStatJ). In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Division [online]. Rome. Updated 2022. ww.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstatj/en) In figure 1.2: dotted line, legend correct as follows: Fig 1.2 Fishery and aquaculture productions in the Mediterranean. Dotted line on the top: polynomial and linear regression lines, with relative equations and regression coefficients. In figure 1.5.1: dotted line, legend correct as follows: Dotted lines: polynomial regression lines, with relative equations and regression coefficients. In figure 1.2 please explain in the caption what is the black line Fig 1.2 Fishery and aquaculture productions in the Mediterranean. Black line, bottom: ratio aquaculture/fishery volumes. Dotted line, top: polynomial and linear regression lines, with relative equations and regression coefficients. In figures 2.3 and 2.4 please explain in the caption what is the black and the blue lines Fig 2.3 – Aquaculture value (blue line) and GDP pro capita (black line) (considering the 3 previous zones in aquaculture zonation obtained in fig 2.1). In the corner, on the left, the Pearson correlation coefficient (r). Fig 2.4 – Aquaculture production (blue line) and sea food* consumption pro capita (kg/year) (black line) (considering the 3 previous zones in aquaculture zonation obtained in fig 2.1). In the corner, on the left, the Pearson correlation coefficient (r). (sea food includes: cephalopods, crustaceans, demersal fish, fish body oil, fish liver oil, freshwater fish, marine fish, other mollusks, other pelagic fish, according all the items contained in the database: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/CL) In figure 2.7 please change the font size of the legends in the figures because it is rather difficult to read them as it is now. Additionally, describe in the caption what represents the black line in the figure. Fig 2.7 Aquaculture and fishery production in Malta, Egypt and Israel from 1950 to 2020. Black lines are the aquaculture/fishery volume ratio I increased font size, I included description of black line. I also downloaded data until 2020 and updated the figures Finally, in the methodology, I would suggest to give a bit more information about the selected statistical tools of the data analysis. I inserted some short sentences in the section, to clarify the statistical methods, as follows: Both multivariate and regression methods have been used for data elaboration. Dendrograms have been calculated only on the rows that are fish species, as the focus of the data analysis was the study of temporal succession of farmed species in the Mediterranean. Multiple correlation plot has been obtained with R package "Performance Analytics", ". In the multiple correlation plots, frequency histograms have been added. Reviewer #2: Review about manuscript. “The evolution of aquaculture in the Mediterranean region: an anthropogenic climax stage?” The author presents a comprehensive analysis of production data and statistics on aquaculture in the Mediterranean. This provides new insights on what could be the evolution of the sector. There are, however, some very important points to improve in the analysis presented here. Most of them are related to methodological aspects. Among them: Dear Reviever #2, Thank you for your comments, I will try to reply them as best as I can. i) The author should better clarify and specify in Materials and Methods what is meant by the term Mediterranean region in this work. Which statistics and countries are considered under this term. In this study I utilized all the countries of Mediterranean Sea represented in FAOSTAT databases: Malta, Egypt, Israel, Greece, Cyprus, Italy, Turkey, Croatia, Albania, France, Spain, Tunisia, Lebanon, Bosnia, Slovenia, Montenegro, Syria, Morocco, Algeria, Libya, and Palestine (indicated in tab. 2.1), thus respecting most recent geopolitical situation (in 2017). I have excluded non-Mediterranean regions of countries which coastlines are not exclusively Mediterranean (i.e. Spain, France, Morocco, Egypt and Turkey) as indicated in legend of tab 2.2 I have also considered socio-political changes occurred in the course of 68 years analyzed, in particular for countries corresponding to ex-Yugoslavia (as indicated in figure 2.2) It is clear that continental aquaculture (trout) is considered, but not if the statistics include aquaculture in the Atlantic (oysters, mussels, turbot, etc.) I have considered all the species farmed in all the considered countries during the 68 years contained in FAO databases or in the Black Sea. I did not consider Black Sea, I focused my analysis on Mediterranean Sea ii) It is striking that the analysis of FAO statistics stops at the year 2017, when from March 2022 there is the dataset with 3 more years statistics (up to 2020) is availabe. This update is essential, as there have been significant variations in recent years, which could have a major impact on the trends. I uploaded the most recent FAO databases of aquaculture productions and capture fishery (FAO. 2022. Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics. Global capture production 1950-2020 (FishStatJ). In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Division [online]. Rome. Updated 2022. www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstatj/en) and I consequently uploaded figures with the most recent available data. During the second elaboration of data from 1950 to 2020, I also found 2 mistakes I did in the previous data elaboration in the figures 1.3 and 2.6. I corrected them and I included a correct interpretation. Fig. 1.1a Mediterranean aquaculture productions and annual growth rate from 1950 to 2020. (FAO. 2022. Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics. Global aquaculture production 1950-2020 (FishStatJ). In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Division [online]. Rome. Updated 2022. www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstatj/en) I uploaded the most recent FAO databases of aquaculture economic value, that starts from 1984 Fig 1.1b Mediterranean aquaculture economic value and annual growth rate from 1984 to 2020 (FAO. 2022. Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics. Global aquaculture production 1950-2020 (FishStatJ). In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Division [online]. Rome. Updated 2022. www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstatj/en) Fig 1.2 Fishery and aquaculture productions in the Mediterranean Figure 1.2.2 Evolution of two main aquaculture sectors: marine and freshwater aquaculture. Trend and annual growth rate Fig 1.2.3 Fish and bivalve farming in the Mediterranean region. Trend and growth rate Fig. 1.2.4 Aquaculture productions of Nile tilapia, mullets, European sea bass and gilthead seabream. Fig 1.3 Capture fishery and aquaculture annual productions (considering only Mediterranean coastline of respective countries) I apologize. I did a mistake in the previous data as I did not exclude fishery data from the extra Mediterranean coasts. Part of the Morocco, Spain France, Turkey and Egypt coasts are in Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Consequently, the fishery production resulted higher than production solely relative to Mediterranean Sea. However, the interpretation of data is comparable with the previous one. Fig 1.4.1 – Heatmaps of main aquaculture species in the Mediterranean (A: original data; B: scaled data). Data scaling: x scaled = (x-μ)/s.d. (μ=mean; s.d.=standard deviation) Fig. 1.4.2 Comparison between succession of farmed species in the Mediterranean in 3 stages (A and C) and a forest succession in 6 stages (B) (from Wikipedia https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=13274746, modified) Fig. 1.5.1 Aquaculture diversity in the Mediterranean region, considering its main components: main, relevant and minor species. A: Pareto Index trend (ratio main/relevant species); B: evolution of different components Fig 1.5.2 Aquaculture diversity in the Mediterranean region. Shannon Index Fig. 2.2 Map aquaculture persistence (years of farming in each country) countries corresponding to ex-Yugoslavia have been counted considering the historic change of national boundaries Fig. 2.6 Geographical expansion of aquaculture in the Mediterranean region. In red the number of countries producing the 80% of annual production. Pareto index (%) = (number of countries producing the 80% of annual production/total countries aquaculture producing) I apologize, in this figure I fond an error I have done in the previous data elaboration. Pareto index is 23% for the entire considered period, even if in the first years there are some oscillation caused by low number of countries producing the 80% of total production. This value is closer to that relative to species diversity (Fig. 1.5.1) and also with a previous study on world aquaculture diversity (Sicuro B. World aquaculture diversity: origins and perspectives. Rev. Aquac. 2021; 13, 1619-1634 https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12537). Fig 2.7 Aquaculture and fishery production in Malta, Egypt and Israel from 1950 to 2020 iii) Another aspect is that it is highly advisable to carry out an analysis of production in the Mediterranean considering the value of production. This would help the reader to gain knowledge on the reasons being the development of the sector. For example, while in Egypt, the leading country in the Mediterranean, the main driving force for development is the need to provide animal protein of high nutritional value and affordable prices (tilapia, mullets), in the rest of the Mediterranean that is different, and thus higher value species are produced. I added the evolution of economic value of Mediterranean aquaculture from 1984 to 2020, including annual growth rate and polynomial model of regression Fig 1.1b Total aquaculture from 1984 to 2020 (trend and growth rate) (FAO. 2022. Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics. Global aquaculture production 1950-2020 (FishStatJ). In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Division [online]. Rome. Updated 2022. www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstatj/en) iv) The author analyses aquaculture in Egypt separately, which is appropriate as it is the main producer country in the region. However, it would be advisable to provide a more in-depth description of aquaculture development in this country, since a very significant amount of production (mullets) is carried out in brackish waters, and this is reflected in the statistics. In fact Egyptian mullets production may account for near 20% production in the regions. I added following figure (Fig. 2.8), considering main species of Egyptian aquaculture Figure 2.7b Aquaculture productions in Egypt (main species) from 1950 to 2020 v) Please, revise the sentence in lines 168 and 169. “Fish farming is the main production in the Mediterranean [53, 6, 54], in fact in 2017 accounted for the 96% of entire aquaculture production in the region.” This must be a mistake, as bivalve production may be around 20% of the whole production. I checked data, I re-made elaborations, I introduced a figure on Egyptian aquaculture (Fig 2.7b) and I consequently correct as follows: Fish farming is the main production in the Mediterranean [53, 6, 54], in fact in 2020 accounted for more than the 90% of entire aquaculture production in the region. Within fish species, Mediterranean aquaculture has 4 species with potential further growth: Nile tilapia, European sea bass, gilthead seabream and in less extent, mullets (Fig. 1.2.4) Following: carps and mullets productions in Egypt (not introduced in the manuscript) vi) Besides the need of updating the statistics, considering the latest dataset from March 2022 (FAO-FishStatJ. Aquaculture Production (Quantities and values) 1950-2020 (Release date: March 2022), the author may profit of the occasion to include some recent relevant publications. i.e.: Llorente, I., Fernandez-Polanco, J., Baraibar-Diez, E., Odriozola, M. D., Bjorndal, T., Asche, F., … Basurco, B. (2020). Assessment of the economic performance of the seabream and seabass aquaculture industry in the European Union. Marine Policy, 117, 103876.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103876 Added as 88th reference COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Strategic guidelines for a more sustainable and competitive EU aquaculture for the period 2021 to 2030 Brussels, 12.5.2021 Added as 82th reference Fernandez Sanchez, José Luís & Llorente, Ignacio & Fernandez Polanco, Jose. (2023). Profitability differences in aquaculture firms of the Nordic and Mediterranean-EU regions. Aquaculture Economics & Management. 1-17. 10.1080/13657305.2022.2163721. Best regards ________________________________________ 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 Reviewer #2: 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Mediterranean aquaculture - Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290870.r002
18 Aug 2023 Decision Letter - Pierluigi Carbonara, Editor The evolution of aquaculture in the Mediterranean region: an anthropogenic climax stage? PONE-D-22-29781R1 Dear Dr. Sicuro, 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, Pierluigi Carbonara, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. 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: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. 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 ****** 5. 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: Yes ****** 6. 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: (No Response) ****** 7. 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290870.r003
Formally Accepted
7 Sep 2023 Acceptance Letter - Pierluigi Carbonara, Editor PONE-D-22-29781R1 The evolution of aquaculture in the Mediterranean region: an anthropogenic climax stage? Dear Dr. Sicuro: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Pierluigi Carbonara Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290870.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .