GIS and Wave Modeling for Establishing a Potential Area of Aquaculture—Case Study: Central Atlantic Part of the Moroccan Coast
, Atika Hilali 1, Hassan Rhinane 1, Antoine Mangin 3, Philippe Bryère 4, Abdelatif Orbi 5, Hassan Mabchour 6,7, Bendahhou Zourarah 8 and Aïssa Benazzouz 6
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is very interesting and uses very useful technologies for the process of selecting new sites for aquaculture.
It is well written and can be accepted after minor corrections:
Line 69 – Remove the “.”
Line 310 Figure x?
Please revise and improve the legend of Fig.4
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is well written, with key messages clearly delivered to the reader. Methods are throughly explained. Results are clearly presented. Conclusions support the obtained results. Please see my comments.
Abstract. Try to express the obtained results in more quantitative terms: to which extent the investigated area is prone to host aquaculture?
The literature is comprehensive but not up-to-date. I would suggest taking into account the following reports, providing a discussion in the Introduction:
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111254
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.133
LINE 67. No nide to capitalize GIBRALTAR.
LINE 97. Please express the adopted level of precision for Bathymetry.
LINE 104. The offshore …
LINE 135. Be univocal with the achronim SWAN. Decide whether all capitalized or not.
LINE 218. Limit to 50 m, specify from which side, though obvious.
Conclusions support the obtained results though key concise obtained values are expected.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This work has very good application. As an assessment of the sea area for the production of marine aquaculture. I note that this is only one of the stages. Since in addition to the significant height estimated by the authors, there are still many parameters. For example: weather data, hydrology, hydrodynamics, etc.
1. At page 3 "The GEBCO field used for the offshore hydrodynamic forcing conditions provides the data for the bathymetric contour map". By my experience, Gebco is poorly suited for coastline data. You can check your data by superimposing with Google Earth
2. At page 4 Strange statement "the grid map of the European Marine Observation (GEBCO)". The General bathymetric Chart of the Oceans (GEBCO). GEBCO operates under the joint auspices of the International Hydrographic Organization(IHO) and the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) (of UNESCO)
3. At page 4 Strangely described boundary conditions. As boundary conditions, it is necessary to explain what conditions (equations) you used on the maritime border and on the shore. I understand that you used the WW3 model data as a initial data for SWAN. I assume that the wave was set at an open border.
4. The simulation parameters for SWAN are poorly described (not described). How many scenarios have been modeled. What is the calculation time? Simulations conducted over a period of 10 years? (as shown at Figure 7)
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
