Biodiversity during Pre and Post Hula Valley (Israel) Drainage
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper gives an invaluable information about the changes in the hydrological regime and associated ecosystem services provided by the Hula Valey (Israel) in relation to the hydrological changes made to the valey (first the lowering of the water table in an attempt to promote agriculture and restoration later on).
Unfortunately, the paper is very badly written and difficult to understand. First, the English needs to be improved by a native reader or a professional agency. Even the use of uppercase or smallercase letters and italics should be known to a scientist who is familiar with scientific writing!
Second, the structure of the manuscript is extremely difficult to follow. Obviously there are two main periods of interest: pre-drainage and post-drainage, which is nevertheless affected by the ongoing climate change. It is absolutely not clear what the authors want to show. Do they just dezcibe the hydrological conditions during the study period? This would be an extremely interesting piece of information, but the text should be structured differently:
First, in the Methods, the data sources should be described in more detail. It should be described what information is gathered from each publication, perhaps in a form of a table.
Second, in the Results, the hydrological changes and other associated parameters should be described following the timeline. In the graphs, the moments of the particular hydrological interventions (drainage and restoration) should be indicated, for instance by a vertical line. The graphs should preferentially be grouped in plates having a joint topic (e.g., nutrient loading).
In the Discussion, then, all the interpretations of the hydrological development over time should be included.
Generally, the manuscript presents data of great interest to the global scientific community but is extremely badly written. First, the English needs a substantial improvement before the manuscript can be reviewed scientifically. Second, the paper is so badly structured that it is almost impossible to understand what the authors want to show.
In conclusion, I recommend to reject the manuscript in its present form and resubmit it after a major revision. At the same time, I would like to encourage the author to devote the energy to do so because the information he/she wants to present is extremely valuable.
The English is so bad that the message of the manuscript can hardly be followed. It needs to be improved by a native speaker or by a profesional translating agency.
Author Response
Author response to reviewer #1
- The major changes that have been done in the ecology of Hula valley were stressed: Drainage, Reclamation and Climate Change Condition. These ecological modifications occur simultaneously and effected biodiversity. The paper considered the final comprehensive results.
- The data sources were re-organized and each contribution was considered.
- A separate subtitle was given to each group of the Figures.
- Hydrological events were emphasized in the Discussion.
- The linguistic style was re-checked by a professional company of English speakers.
- Upper and smaller-case letters were re-checked.
- All changes, corrections and additions were inserted in. red color into the new version.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Biodiversity during pre- and post-drainage in the Hula Valley (Israel) is a well-written manuscript with a simple but particularly interesting topic: The Hula Valley in Israel had lakes and wetlands, but these were drained and converted for agriculture. However, after drainage, there was an increase in the number of plant, bird and fish species, leading to a higher biodiversity index and species richness. This has created a wider range of habitats for different types of organisms.
However, there are a few comments to add.
The abstract is too brief. It could be extended with the results obtained.
The introduction is fair and accurate in its first part. The next paragraph, 1.1 should be moved to the next section, Material and Methods
Same for paragraphs 109-114.
The Results begin with a paragraph that would be more appropriate for the Discussion section. You could at least make a table with this data. This section is for tables and graphs resulting from the data analysis. There is a lot of detail that does not belong here.
Discussion does not refer to any reference, which is why it needs to be completely revised.
Concluding remarks are not the most appropriate.
Author Response
Author response to reviewer #2:
- Changes suggestion were accepted and inserted in Red color. Parts from paragraph 1.1. and 109-114 were moved to Material and Method.
- Part from the “results”was moved to “discussion” as suggested
- References were added to the “Discussion”
- The abstract was extended.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Unfortunately the English is so bad that it is impossible to understand the meaning. A new review of the MS is therefore necessary after the English is really improved.
The author claims that the English was revised by an agency with native speakers, but I cannot see any improvement as compared with the previous version of the MS. Just as an example, I have highlighted incorrect or clumsy words and phrases in the Abstract. There were 13 of them on 12 lines. Maybe the author should choose a different language agency.
Author Response
Author response to editorial review (2nd round); All changes additions,, are presented in Blue color.
1: English improvement: The full text was re-submitted
to a scientific professional company, English native speakers personal and the attached is the result.
If one of two reviewers criticize the English linguistic trait of this version
I can submit the full text to another proofreading experts for second opinion.
Nevertheless, I apply for 7 more days for response timing.
Your response is appreciated.
- In response to the Editorial comment, a short section with suggested text and citations was added at the end of the discussion, as well as acknowledgements and author statements (blue colored).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Ms has been changed as required. It is not absolutely necessary but a map of the area would make the whole study easier to understand.
Author Response
Author response to editorial review (2nd round); All changes additions,, are presented in Blue color.
1: English improvement: The full text was re-submitted
to a scientific professional company, English native speakers personal and the attached is the result.
If one of two reviewers criticize the English linguistic trait of this version
I can submit the full text to another proofreading experts for second opinion.
Nevertheless, I apply for 7 more days for response timing.
Your response is appreciated.
- In response to the Editorial comment, a short section with suggested text and citations was added at the end of the discussion, as well as acknowledgements and author statements (blue colored).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
