Assessing the Influence of Anthropogenic Land-Use Changes on Bird Diversity and Feeding Guilds—A Case Study of Kalametiya Lagoon (Southern Sri Lanka)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review of the paper „Assessing the influence of anthropogenic land-use changes on bird diversity and feeding guilds – A Case Study of Kalametiya Lagoon (Southern Sri-Lanka)”

The proposed manuscript presents the composition of the bird community in the lagoon habitats after the effect of the upstream irrigation project. These changes led to the invasion of the lagoon water by monospecific Sonneratia caseolaris mangrove stands and Typha angustifolia reedbeds. The study aimed at determining the lagoon bird diversity and distribution with habitat types and environmental variables. In general, in terms of organization and language, I rate the manuscript as good. Its good point is statistical analysis. I would suggest adding 1-2 photos of the lagoon. The most important remarks are as follows: no exact dates of surveys of birds and vegetation were given (in the period from January to May they could change dynamically), and no verification of whether bird individuals were permanently associated with survey points. Below are some minor suggestions.

Abstract

L32 – what variables? Please, be specific here.

L33-L36 – I don't understand – the authors showed a large diversity of birds in new habitats to recommend the return of the lagoon to the state before the presence of these new habitats. What is the goal of bird protection in this area – specific protected bird species or general diversity that increased with new habitats?

Introduction

Generally well written, although I suggest moving L71-L78 somewhere closer to the last paragraph.

Materials and methods

Fig. 2 – I have comments on the selection of transects with counting points. Why were the transects marked at habitat boundaries, and not across areas of homogeneous habitats? This method of transect selection could artificially increase the diversity of birds in the counting results.

L215-L216 – I don't think converting to percentages was necessary because habitat measurements were made on constant area units

The article lacks information about the dates of bird counts and the date when habitats were measured. I think this is important information because plant communities in wetlands are very dynamic. The information that the survey was from January to May is too general.

There are no citations for R packages, each package has an author and an official source to cite.

Results

L337-L354 – this section would be more valuable if the results were presented graphically

In English, values with a decimal fraction use a period, not a comma. This error appears throughout the manuscript.

Fig. 4, 5 – I suggest that next to the numbers of transects in the legend, their habitat classification should be given

Discussion

L473-L475 – What differences? Please, be more specific here.

L503-L505 – The lack of differences between feeding guilds in different habitats is interesting. To what extent were the birds detected territorial? At the end of reviewing the manuscript, I thought that there was no methodology to determine the breeding category of birds with the points data. Assuming that some species live in flocks and disperse, this could have a great impact on their presence in a given habitat. I propose to consider how to get out of the problem of not investigating to what extent bird individuals kept to the specific points from January to May.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx