An Operational Checklist of the Birds of Northwestern Italy (Piedmont and Aosta Valley)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript by Boano et al., updates previous checklists of birds recorded in northwestern Italy - Piadmont and Aosta Valley regions, with the record of new breeding and extinct breeding species in the study area. It also introduces some new settings to make the checklist more operational for all users.
The manuscript is well written, with a good introduction, appropriate material and methods, and good presentation of results. The discussion and conclusion focus on the area's biogeographical patterns and migratory routes. The authors also refer to the need for more efficient data collection for reproductive species.
Overall, I think this is a manuscript that highlights the need to continue to update existing checklists taking into account species adaptation to the environmental and climate changes in the near future.
Therefore, I think the manuscript should be accepted for publication in Diversity.
Author Response
Many thanks for the positive comments to our work.
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript provided an operational checklist of the birds in Northwestern Italy. In general, it was well organized and described, and it was also useful to guide the researchers and public to understand the background of the birds in this area. However, there were some minor flaw needed to be addressed.
1. The introduction part was a little tedious long, and it should be reduced.
2. More background should be added to the sources of the ornithological information. Specially, the population estimates and the population trends estimates should be addressed.
Author Response
Many thanks for the positive comments to our work. The manuscript had been reviewed by a native English speaker, who revised it again after this comment.
Here following the answers to the two points raised by the reviewer:
1) We prefer to leave the Introduction as it is now to better explain the concepts behind a bird checklist and its need of updating. In fact, Diversity is not a strictly Ornithological journal where all the readers should be accustomed to bird checklists, but a broad zoological journal where checklists on other taxa have been published and so it is important to clarify the differences. Furthermore, the introduction was particularly appreciated by one of the reviewers.
2) We reported all the relevant references from which we took the data of the population and trend estimates (see lines 114-123 and 160-171). In addition to those data, personal unpublished data were added, based on the more that 50 years of ornithological researches in the Region by the authors.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is very well done, methodologically consistent, and I suggest its publication in the proposed format.
Author Response
Many thanks for the positive comments to our work.
Reviewer 4 Report
This is a regional species checklist with comments and thus not really a scientific paper for a standard review. The importance of such checklists is unquestioned and I think this contribution fits well into a focal issue about biodiversity in Italy. The species list is annotated with important info about status, population trend and red list information and as judged from a couple of samples drawn from the list the information has been collected throughly.
I have only some minor points to raise:
line 77 (grammar) "new code... IS added" (or "data about... are added")
line 180/182 (content): I see the point of the authors, but the unit this list deals with is also not "the breeding population". Its a regional subset (defined by completely un-biological circumstances) of the breeding population. I suggest to use another wording here.
line 480 (typo): Anthropoides virgo
line 487 (grammar): "involved in" or "affected by"
line 491 (typo): "Twelve..."
line 578 (expression): "PAV is much less attractive"
Author Response
Many thanks for the positive comments to our work. We corrected the typos (thanks for point them out) and changed the expression about the “breeding population”.
In fact, even if the meaning of "population" is very large and not always closely linked to a given (bio)geographical area, as can be also applied to a subset of the total individuals of a species that occupies a certain area, we understand your point and we changed our text and the expression “breeding population” is now replaced with “local breeder”
