Fraser River sockeye salmon: data synthesis and cumulative impacts

Response: This is a fair question. We selected several example figures to illustrate caseswhen either the hockey stick model or straight line model fit better, but rather thanshowing the full diagnostic figures for both models and all stocks we summarized the restof the results in a table to save space. We have decided to remove all of the diagnosticfigures from Appendix 4 and simply present the table of results. We still include anexample of the diagnostic figures that were generated for each stock in the methods section(Appendix 3)50. The Tables A4-2 (there are mistakenly two of them) show the statistics and "recenttrend", although the latter refers to the trend over the entire time series.Response: We have corrected the table numbering in this section.51. The two darkest colored lines in Figures A4-5 and A4-6 are not distinguishable. Thisshould be fixed, especially in Figure A4-5 where it matters most.Response: We have redrawn the figures using dashed lines for two of the time-periods toclarify the difference between lines.52. Captions of Figures A4-7 through A4-10 should define the R/S series as black soliddots and lines.Response: Corrected as suggested.53. Page 163 - You now have yet a third Table A4-2!Response: All tables have been re-numbered.54. Page 163 - Finally, we get to see what "model set" means. However, it is stillincomplete. Where does the reader find which 6 stressors were used for model M3, forexample, let alone all the other models? There should be a table similar to Table A4-5on page 168 for each model set. Also, there is no statement about why the particularmodel sets were chosen to be provided on pages 163 onward. Are these only examplesor were they your only analyses?Response: Yes, we agree. We have added tables to explicitly list the variables included ineach model. The analyses presented represent all of the analyses that were completed. Wehave added a paragraph to the methods in Appendix 3 to describe why we selected themodel sets we did.55. Pages 163-170 are written very poorly. Results should be presented in a mannersimilar to that of a journal article. At present, some paragraphs describe results withoutreferring to the supporting information in tables that I finally ran across later (parameterestimates, AIC values, etc.). At the end of the first sentence where results are reported,you should include a concise reference to the appropriate table (e.g., "Results show that134