Monitoring Effectiveness of an Operational Project on Two Threatened Landbirds: Applying a Before–After Threat Analysis and Threat Reduction Assessment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

 The study Monitoring effectiveness of an operational project on two threatened landbirds: applying a before-after Threat Analysis and Threat Reduction Assessment applied threat analysis and threat reduction assessments to assess the effectiveness of conservation actions on the endangered Kentish Plover and the Little Ringed Plover by using an expert evaluation of threat magnitude and an on-the-ground project to curb the threats. This interesting study should be well relevant to many biodiversity management projects, especially those involving species with unique habitat requirements and breeding ecologies, such as plovers that often conflict with socio-economic interests. Although the study is well-designed and executed, the presentation requires several corrections to improve readability and argument logic.

§  Several typos and awkward words suggest that the authors should carefully read the manuscript to enhance the grammar and clarity for readers.  

§  The abstract should be reworked to synthesize it into a more focused and precise highlight of the work that readers can fully understand even without the full text.

§  The use of numbered lists instead of paragraphs appears avoidable in nearly all cases and only serves to interrupt the flow of the paper. Authors should collapse the lists into paragraphs.

§  Using Tab. to refer to Table should be avoided to avoid confusion; cite tables as Table 1, Table 2, …. And migrate the tables from the end of the paper to in-text at appropriate places where they should be placed.

§  The in-text referencing and bibliography should conform to a consistent (and correct) style.

§  The discussion should be revised to avoid simple reiterations of the findings without explicit discursive notes and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies and some relevant hypotheses; there should be more relevant references here. Authors should also highlight future research directions and limitations of the findings that readers should be aware of.

I have highlighted several words and sentences with suggestions/comments using Adobe Acrobat’s ‘Add Note to Text’ tool in the attached PDF that the authors should carefully consider to aid them in revising the work.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REV 1

The study ‘Monitoring effectiveness of an operational project on two threatened landbirds: applying a before-after Threat Analysis and Threat Reduction Assessment’ applied threat analysis and threat reduction assessments to assess the effectiveness of conservation actions on the endangered Kentish Plover and the Little Ringed Plover by using an expert evaluation of threat magnitude and an on-the-ground project to curb the threats. This interesting study should be well relevant to many biodiversity management projects, especially those involving species with unique habitat requirements and breeding ecologies, such as plovers that often conflict with socio-economic interests. Although the study is well-designed and executed, the presentation requires several corrections to improve readability and argument logic.

Author’s reply: Ok, thanks for your wellcome comments. We changed along the text to improve the readability and logic.

• Several typos and awkward words suggest that the authors should carefully read the manuscript to enhance the grammar and clarity for readers.

Author’s reply: we improved all the English style, grammar and language. We hope that now all has been improved. We corrected some minor typos. We included also all the typos (and suggestions) on the pdf file (REV 1). Thanks.

• The abstract should be reworked to synthesize it into a more focused and precise highlight of the work that readers can fully understand even without the full text.

Author’s reply: ok, we changed a bit the abstract, re-writing some sentences and making it more readable, we hope. Thanks.

• The use of numbered lists instead of paragraphs appears avoidable in nearly all cases and only serves to interrupt the flow of the paper. Authors should collapse the lists into paragraphs.

Author’s reply: ok, we deleted the numbered lists. We included all in paragraphs. We hope that now the ms has been improved in readability.

• Using Tab. to refer to Table should be avoided to avoid confusion; cite tables as Table 1, Table 2, …. And migrate the tables from the end of the paper to in-text at appropriate places where they should be placed.

Author’s reply: ok, we changed the terms and shifted the tables in the text. Thanks.

• The in-text referencing and bibliography should conform to a consistent (and correct) style.

Author’s reply: We revised, as possible, all the references and bibliography. We hope that now these are improved. We added further refs, and re-numbered all. We corrected some typos. Thanks.

• The discussion should be revised to avoid simple reiterations of the findings without explicit discursive notes and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies and some relevant hypotheses; there should be more relevant references here. Authors should also highlight future research directions and limitations of the findings that readers should be aware of.

Author’s reply: Ok, we changed some sentences (synthetizing a bit) and added further references. We better defined the point of strength and weaknesses of these two approaches (TAN and TRA).

I have highlighted several words and sentences with suggestions/comments using Adobe Acrobat’s ‘Add Note to Text’ tool in the attached PDF that the authors should carefully consider to aid them in revising the work.

Author’s reply: Thanks. We accepted all your suggestion along the pdf file.

Finally, we acknowledged the useful role of the anonymous reviewers in improve the first draft of the manuscript.

Thank you for all.

Corrado Battisti (Corresponding Author) and co-authors

Torre Flavia’ LTER (Long Term Ecological Research) Station, Protected areas – Regional park Service, Città Metropolitana di Roma Capitale, viale G. Ribotta, 41, 00144 Rome, Italy; ORCID: 0000-0002-2621-3659

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an intersting article on a relevant topic. I want to make the following comments and suggestions:

1. Including a map of the site (potentially with nesting sites and other information) would add value for readers.

2. The use of statistical analysis should be justified. I understood that only 10 people were asked which threats were likely and how they rated them on a scale of 1-4. So the data should be relatively easy and clear to present. The authors should reexamine what type of statistical analysis best serves the purpose of clear and understandable presentation here.

3. The Measures taken and the evaluation of the measures could be described in more detail. For example: what type of cage was used etc.

Author Response

REV 2

This is an intersting article on a relevant topic. I want to make the following comments and suggestions:

Author’s reply: Thank you for your comments. Below our responses.

1. Including a map of the site (potentially with nesting sites and other information) would add value for readers.

Author’s reply: ok, we added a map (Fig. 1). We re-numbered the old Fig. 1 as Fig. 2.

2. The use of statistical analysis should be justified. I understood that only 10 people were asked which threats were likely and how they rated them on a scale of 1-4. So the data should be relatively easy and clear to present. The authors should reexamine what type of statistical analysis best serves the purpose of clear and understandable presentation here.

Author’s reply: ok, we re-articulated the terms in ‘Statistical analyses’ section.

3. The Measures taken and the evaluation of the measures could be described in more detail. For example: what type of cage was used etc.

Author’s reply: yes, we included now these measures. Thanks.

Finally, we acknowledged the useful role of the anonymous reviewers in improve the first draft of the manuscript.

Thank you for all.

Corrado Battisti (Corresponding Author) and co-authors

Torre Flavia’ LTER (Long Term Ecological Research) Station, Protected areas – Regional park Service, Città Metropolitana di Roma Capitale, viale G. Ribotta, 41, 00144 Rome, Italy; ORCID: 0000-0002-2621-3659

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Abstract - The abstract does not accurately and concisely summarize the main points provided in the manuscript. A well-written abstract should provide all the information needed to understand why the study was performed (Introduction), how it was performed (Methods), what it showed (Results) and what it means (Discussion). Abstracts are the most visible and highly read component - therefore, please give a broad understanding of the need-to-know background information for your study, and how your paper will contribute to this knowledge. Now only methods are presented and info on conservation project (is it the main ground of the manuscript?)

Introduction: could be improved. Lines are not numbered, so, see the 1^st paragraph of Introduction: what human-induced threats namely? It would be better to provide some more information even in brackets (e.g.……). Introduction is presented more like methodological part.

The introduction should lead readers from a general subject area to a particular topic.

It should establish the scope, context, highlight the importance of the topic, being conducted by presenting an overview and summarizing current understanding and background information about the topic, opposing an existing assumption, revealing a gap in existing research and stating the purpose of this study in the form of the research problem supported by a hypothesis or a set of questions, explaining briefly the methodological approach used to examine the research problem, indicating the potential outcomes your study can reveal.

Page 4, 8: see font size (it should be equalized),

Page 7 – statistical symbols should be italicized.

2.4. Threat analysis – „biodiversity“ – it is too broad concept

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REV3

The abstract does not accurately and concisely summarize the main points provided in the manuscript. A well-written abstract should provide all the information needed to understand why the study was performed (Introduction), how it was performed (Methods), what it showed (Results) and what it means (Discussion). Abstracts are the most visible and highly read component - therefore, please give a broad understanding of the need-to-know background information for your study, and how your paper will contribute to this knowledge. Now only methods are presented and info on conservation project (is it the main ground of the manuscript?).

Author’s reply: ok, we changed the abstract providing the information requested. Moreover, we followed all your suggestions in the pdf attached.

Introduction: could be improved. Lines are not numbered, so, see the 1st paragraph of Introduction: what human-induced threats namely? It would be better to provide some more information even in brackets (e.g.……). Introduction is presented more like methodological part.

The introduction should lead readers from a general subject area to a particular topic.

It should establish the scope, context, highlight the importance of the topic, being conducted by presenting an overview and summarizing current understanding and background information about the topic, opposing an existing assumption, revealing a gap in existing research and stating the purpose of this study in the form of the research problem supported by a hypothesis or a set of questions, explaining briefly the methodological approach used to examine the research problem, indicating the potential outcomes your study can reveal.

Author’s reply: now all the lines are numbered. As requested, we added examples of the main categories of threats. We improved the beginning of Introduction, in this regard.

The manuscript is largely methodological since it proposes the simultaneous use of two evaluation approaches (i) of the impact of threats on specific targets and (2) of the overall effectiveness of the actions in reducing these impacts. In this sense, we have proposed a case study. However, we better detailed the scope (expliciting the aims and questions), the context, the topic citing many example worldwide, the point of strength and weakness. We hope that, now, the introduction is more readable in this regard. Thanks.

Page 4, 8: see font size (it should be equalized).

Author’s reply: Ok, we equalized with the same font along all the text.

Page 7 – statistical symbols should be italicized.

Author’s reply: Ok, we italicized the symbol (TRA-I, H, p). Thanks.

2.4. Threat analysis – „biodiversity“ – it is too broad concept

Author’s reply: ok, we changed with the term ‘ecosystems’ and specified some of ecosystem components. Thanks.

We followed all your suggestions in the pdf attached.

 

Finally, we acknowledged the useful role of the anonymous reviewers in improve the first draft of the manuscript.

Thank you for all.

Corrado Battisti (Corresponding Author) and co-authors

Torre Flavia’ LTER (Long Term Ecological Research) Station, Protected areas – Regional park Service, Città Metropolitana di Roma Capitale, viale G. Ribotta, 41, 00144 Rome, Italy; ORCID: 0000-0002-2621-3659

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

Your research is interesting! Please find my suggestions in the attached pdf.

Thank you.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor,

we reviewed the manuscript following also the useful comments and suggestions of the fourth reviewer (pdf attached).

We added the fourth reviewer also in Acknowledgments. We  corrected some minor typos.

We hope that now this ms deserves to be published.

Thank you for all.

Regards,

Corrado Battisti

Torre Flavia’ LTER (Long Term Ecological Research) Station, Protected areas – Regional park Service, Città Metropolitana di Roma Capitale, viale G. Ribotta, 41, 00144 Rome, Italy; ORCID: 0000-0002-2621-3659

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf