Spatiotemporal Distribution and Habitat Characteristics of Shorebirds in the Coastal Wetlands of Dalian, Liaoning, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: Spatiotemporal Distribution and Habitats Characteristics for Shorebirds in Coastal Wetlands of Dalian, China

Luo and colleagues recorded the community structure and spatiotemporal distribution characteristics of the shorebirds in nine main coastal wetlands of Dalian from August 2021 to October 2022. The results indicated that 31 species of shorebirds were documented during the sampling periods. The peaks of shorebirds were observed in the spring and autumn seasons. The largest quantities of bird families were Dunlin (Calidris alpina), followed by Kentish plover (Charadrius alexandrinus), Eurasian curlew (Numenius arquata), and Far Eastern curlew (Numenius madagascariensis). There are some main issues.

 

1. The references should be edited according to the recommendation of the journal.
2. The references are inadequate. For example, Lines 25-29, Lines 41-42, etc.
3. Introduction. The authors should introduce the location of Dalian and the importance of Dalian for shorebirds' residence.
4. Introduction. The authors should clearly state the novelty of this study. Is it a similar research conducted in a coastal city in China? If so, what is the added value of this study?
5. Figure 1. What does the figure caption mean? The authors should provide a map of China and the location of Dalian in China.
6. Line 100. Define ERDAS and ENVI.
7. Line 137. What is the routine bird abundance classification method?
8. Figure 4-8. There is a lack of scale of icons.
9. Figure 8 Individual quantity.
10. Why is the linear relationship between natural wetland area and individual quantity in Figure 7? Why is the non-linear relationship between landscape area of habitats and individual quantity in Figure 8? The authors should explain the inconsistent results between Figure 7 and Figure 8. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Rev Sustainability

 

I read this manuscript with interest. The topic is very important and authors devoted a large research effort in field sampling and data analysis. Nevertheless, language is a bit technically poor, at least for the ecological terms (you should involve some ecologists in thsi regard). In this regard, English style and language should be a bit improved (for example: ‘individual quantities’ is not correct as a term, I prefer ‘species abundance’). There are many white spaces among words and punctuations (e.g., rows 49, 51, and so on). Please correct them. Moreover, along the text, there are some further points that should be largely improved: (i) statistic is a bit poor (only regressions, a part the univariate metric of Shannon diversity), (ii) there are not comparisons among landscape features and birds, (iii) I would read some more sentences about the implication of your data for ‘sustainability’ (since the Journal focus on this topic). Therefore, I think that a further work is necessary to make this (good) ms deserving to publication on Sustainability.

However, I think that, after a lot of work, this ms will be publishable. I suggest MAJOR REVISIONS.

Here below some suggestions that, I hope, may help you to improve the ms.

MAJOR AND MINOR POINTS

References are too much Chinese-oriented (>75!!). Please add more worldwide general references.

Row 18. Also the term ‘species quantity of birds’ is not clear. You means ‘species richness’? See also everywhere and in Figs. 7 and 8.

Authors cited a lot of anthropogenic threats (coastal works as reclamation and aquaculture, port facilities, embankment buildings, and cross-sea passages, and the construction of wind farms). I would read some more on the concept of threat (see review in link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-32476-0).

Row 25. ‘sit atop’ shuld be ‘sit at the top’?

Row 34. ‘costal (inland) wetlands’ should be ‘coastal (inland) wetlands’.

Row 69. ‘Statistical Method for Survey’ should be corrected. I suggest to divide this section in (i) Field sampling techniques’ (rows 70-84) and ‘Data analysis (and statistics)’ (after 84).

Row 85. Add a reference for the Shannon index.

All the section on data analysis lacks of references. Why?

‘passing birds’ are migratory birds? Please be more consistent.

‘residence species’ are ‘sedentary species’? Please be more consistent.

In Table 2 ‘residence type’ is ‘phenology’?

Fig. 4 Good.

Fig. 8. ‘ndividual quantity’ should be ‘individual quantity’. This term refers to ‘species abundance’?

Relationships using only linear and polynomial regressions are a bit poor. O would read some more strong comparisons using other tests.

Section ‘2.6. Status of Human Activity Interference’ is very descriptive. You performed stat analyses among human activities and birds? I have difficulty to search them.

In Acknowledgements, add the role of the anonymous reviewers in improve the first draft of the manuscript.

I like to read a revised version of this (good) paper.

Have a nice work.

Regards.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept

Author Response

Dear reviewer，

Thank you very much for your guidance, which has greatly benefited me！

best wishes,

luohao

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

REV SUSTAINABILITY

Authors studied the patterns of species richness and abundance of shorebirds along a set of Chinese coastal wetlands. I read this new version with interest. However, there are still many flaws that don’t make the manuscript deserving publication. First, the text needs of improvment: many sentences are too much long and comphused. Second, disturbances and anthropogenic threats for shorebirds on coastal wetlands are largely incomplete. Third, the species-area relationships and all statistic should be improved. Therefore, I suggest a further MAJOR REVISION with a further effort to improve the readability and the strcutural content of the manuscript. Below some suggestions.

POINTS

Rows 25-26: ‘environmental pollution, habitat loss, and change of biological communities’. I think that a lot of many other anthropogenic threats may act on shorebirds, mainly during the breeding (nesting) period (trampling, motor-vehicle transit, plastic litter generic disturbances by people, and so on: see e.g., for plovers: Land 2023, 12(2), 464; https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020464; Journal of Ecology and Evolution, 69(03-04), 81-86. https://doi.org/10.1163/22244662-bja10046; Bird Study, 36(1), 49-55). More references (and threats) should be added.

What does ‘change of biological communities’ (as disturbance)?

The first 10-20 rows of Introductions are a bit fuzzy and I have had some problems to read it. I suggest to reduce and simplify this section.

Row 142. ‘sedentarysedentary type’. Correct it.

The captions of Figs. 7 and 8 are wrong. I see two diagram: for species richness and for species abundance. What does ‘individual quantity’? Is it ‘abundance’. Please more consistent. Species-area and Abundance-area relationships are a bit more complex and an Excel figure is poor (e.g., they may be log-transformed and so on: see The American Naturalist, 113(6), 791-833 and Journal of Biogeography, 36(4), 728-744). Moreover, the relationships is linear? The better fit is linear? Sure? Have you checked for fit related to different curves? Finally: the determination coefficient R2 is very low (0.15). Therefore the data variance is very high. All this points should be cited at least in conclusions.

Be careful to the terms. What does ‘Human Activity Interference’ mean? ‘Interferences’ are anthropogenic disturbance? There is a robust literature on terms related to threats/disturbances/perturbations/stresses. See https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-32476-0. Add more literature on disturbance ecology and threat analysis.

Finally, add the role of anonyous reviewers.

I like to read a further revised version of this (good but improvable) manuscript.

Have a nice work.

Author Response

Dear reviewer，

Thank you very much for your guidance, which has greatly benefited me！And your suggestions helped me to improve my manuscript.

Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

 

Response to Reviewer X Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript, And Thank you very much for your guidance, which has greatly benefited me. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Can be improved	improved
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Must be improved	improved
Is the research design appropriate?	Can be improved	improved
Are the methods adequately described?	Can be improved	improved
Are the results clearly presented?	Yes
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Can be improved	improved
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

1. Rows 25-26: ‘environmental pollution, habitat loss, and change of biological communities’. I think that a lot of many other anthropogenic threats may act on shorebirds, mainly during the breeding (nesting) period (trampling, motor-vehicle transit, plastic litter generic disturbances by people, and so on: see e.g., for plovers: Land 2023, 12(2), 464; https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020464; Journal of Ecology and Evolution, 69(03-04), 81-86. https://doi.org/10.1163/22244662-bja10046; Bird Study, 36(1), 49-55). More references (and threats) should be added.

Agree. The modified content is as follows:

Coastal birds sit at the top the marine food chain. However, a lot of anthropogenic threats may act on shorebirds，for example, disturbance from beaches by people may impact on halo-psammophilous dunal plants [1,2], important resources (shading, shelters, and nesting materials) for nesting plovers, and therefore, on their behavior and breeding ecology [3], also leading to the destruction of nests and eggs [4–7]. Domestic dogs act as predators on eggs and chicks, or they disturb the hatching adults. In this last case, when dogs are present near the nests, plovers can move away from the nest, exposing it to the predation of eggs/chicks or to sun exposure, and compromising the hatching success [8]. The frequentation of fishermen is at the origin of the accumulation of fishing lines and hooks on the beaches, a type of litter entrapping birds [9]. Mechanical cleaning is another threat that is linked to the need to keep beaches aesthetically attractive for bathing people, but impacting on coastal biodiversity [10,11].During the breeding (nesting) period (tram-pling, motor-vehicle transit, plastic litter generic disturbances by people [12]. The fact that shorebirds react to people its alarming behavior must itself cost energy, and reduce the time for feeding, preening or resting. More seriously, it may prevent the chicks from feeding, because they hide in response to alarm calls, and it certainly prevents the adults from brooding their chicks. There may be some risk that persistent alarming attracts the attention of real predators, such as raptors or corvids[13].

Hence, the comprehensive change and status of marine ecological environment can be evaluated by surveying the birds in the coastal wetlands. The remarkable feature of shorebirds is reciprocating migration to the Northern and Southern Hemispheres [14,15]. There are many factors influence the dynamic spatiotemporal distribution of the popula-tions during migration, such as climatic change, predation and competition, and food supply[16,17], but the most important factor is the habitat change in the breeding, win-tering and supply grounds on the migration route[18,19]. Since shorebirds mainly stay in coastal (inland) wetlands, the population change of shorebirds can reflect the status of wetland ecosystem [20]. Researches on shorebirds in China are mainly focus on species composition[21], individual quantity and distribution[22,23], dynamic situations of mi-gration[24], selection and utilization of habitats, carrying capacity of habitat[25], and feeding habits[26].

Dalian is located in the southernmost part of Northeast China, surrounded by the sea on three sides, the Yellow Sea in the east and the Bohai Sea in the west. It is located in the warm temperate zone of the Northern Hemisphere and has a temperate monsoon climate with maritime characteristics. There are plentiful wetland resources in Dalian, including estuary, mudflat, and estuary delta, and semi-artificial wetlands, including salt farm, and aquaculture farm. The coastal wetlands are mainly distributed in the Yellow Sea coast section on the north of the Qingyun estuary, and the areas around the Jinpu Bay and Changxing Island of the Bohai Sea, with a total area of about 1,400 km2 [27] , ideal for the breeding, resting and wintering of waders, and for the tens of millions of birds that mi-grate long distances in the East Asia-Australasia migratory zone, which are important shorebird habitats in China and major stopovers on the Northeast Asian Flyway for birds[28]. Meanwhile, birds are highly sensitive to environmental changes and are widely used in research to indicate human interference or environmental quality [29,30].At pre-sent, there have been few researches on populations of shorebirds in the coastal wetlands of Dalian. Especially in the coastal areas of China, studies on migration timing, popula-tion structure and migration direction of different ecological types of wadrippers in a re-gion are rare. Some scholars have conducted research on correlation analysis between the number of dominant spices of banding Passeriformes birds and climatic factors in Dalian Latie Mountain [31]. Consequently, the study on the shorebirds in the coastal wetlands of Dalian was conducted. The aims of this study are: (1) to obtain basis information about the community structure and spatiotemporal distribution of the shorebirds; (2) to provide scientific evidence for the migration of shorebirds, the impacts of climate changes and marine exploitation activities on migratory birds and the protection and management of coastal wetlands of Dalian.

 

1. What does ‘change of biological communities’ (as disturbance)?

Removed non-standard expression: change of biological communities.

1. The first 10-20 rows of Introductions are a bit fuzzy and I have had some problems to read it. I suggest to reduce and simplify this section.

AGREE. The modified content is as follows:

Dalian coast is one of the most important habitats for migratory shorebirds along the East Asia-Australasian Flyway. However, the exploitation degree was relatively high in the coastal areas of Dalian, and coastal projects, including reclamation, aquaculture, port facilities, embankment buildings, cross-sea passages, and the construction of wind farms, within the coastal zone has led to significant damage to the habitats of shorebirds. Assessing spatiotemporal distribution and habi-tats characteristics are of great importance for the biodiversity conservation．We surveyed shore-birds in nine coastal wetlands of Dalian, for 15 months from August 2021 to October 2022. In total, 31 species of shorebirds, belonging to five families, were recorded. The species of the migratory birds were the most, accounting for 77% of the recorded shorebirds. Dunlin (Calidris alpina), Kentish plover (Charadrius alexandrinus), Eurasian curlew (Numenius arquata), and Far Eastern curlew (Numenius madagascariensis) had the largest species abundance. Both species richness and species had two peaks in May and September. The Zhuanghe estuary wetland boasted the highest species diversity, while the Huli estuary wetland exhibited the greatest species abundance. The type of habitat and the coverage of natural wetland are main variables influencing the spatial distribution of waterbirds. By identifying the population characteristics and habitat status of shorebirds in population characteristics and habitat status in Dalian，our results provide supports for shore-birds conservation and habitat management.

 

1. Row 142. ‘sedentarysedentary type’. Correct it.

Corrected.

 

1. The captions of Figs. 7 and 8 are wrong. I see two diagram: for species richness and for species abundance. What does ‘individual quantity’? Is it ‘abundance’. Please more consistent. Species-area and Abundance-area relationships are a bit more complex and an Excel figure is poor (e.g., they may be log-transformed and so on: see The American Naturalist, 113(6), 791-833 and Journal of Biogeography, 36(4), 728-744). Moreover, the relationships is linear? The better fit is linear? Sure? Have you checked for fit related to different curves? Finally: the determination coefficient R2 is very low (0.15). Therefore the data variance is very high. All this points should be cited at least in conclusions.

Thank you very much for your suggestions and specific guidance. The modified content is as follows:

There was no correlation between the area of natural wetlands and the species richness and richness of birds (Fig.7), and there was no correlation between the total landscape area of habitats and species richness and richness (Fig.8). It can be seen that the species area relationship of bird communities is not purely linear, and there may be a small island effect[37].

Figure 7and 8 shows that there is no correlation between the individual quantity and landscape patches. One reason is that the number of samples is small, and the other reason is ecological types of various estuarine areas are complex and vary greatly, In fragmented habitats, small patches and artificial green spaces play the role of "transit stations" or "stepping stones" in bird activities, which may lead to an increase in bird species richness in some small patches, weaken the area effect, and may result in the small island effect[57,58].Especially in Yingna River Estuary, is mainly because there are a large number of reeds in here, leading to the shorebirds being unable to live and feed on the mudflat.

 

 

 

1. Be careful to the terms. What does ‘Human Activity Interference’ mean? ‘Interferences’ are anthropogenic disturbance? There is a robust literature on terms related to threats/disturbances/perturbations/stresses. See https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-32476-0. Add more literature on disturbance ecology and threat analysis.

Thank you very much for your guidance, which has greatly benefited me.

1)Modified to "anthropological disturbance and threats"

 

2) However, a lot of anthropogenic threats may act on shorebirds，for example, disturbance from beaches by people may impact on halo-psammophilous dunal plants [1,2], important resources (shading, shelters, and nesting materials) for nesting plovers, and therefore, on their behavior and breeding ecology [3], also leading to the destruction of nests and eggs [4–7]. Domestic dogs act as predators on eggs and chicks, or they disturb the hatching adults. In this last case, when dogs are present near the nests, plovers can move away from the nest, exposing it to the predation of eggs/chicks or to sun exposure, and compromising the hatching success [8]. The frequentation of fishermen is at the origin of the accumulation of fishing lines and hooks on the beaches, a type of litter entrapping birds [9]. Mechanical cleaning is another threat that is linked to the need to keep beaches aesthetically attractive for bathing people, but impacting on coastal biodiversity [10,11].During the breeding (nesting) period (tram-pling, motor-vehicle transit, plastic litter generic disturbances by people [12]. The fact that shorebirds react to people its alarming behavior must itself cost energy, and reduce the time for feeding, preening or resting. More seriously, it may prevent the chicks from feeding, because they hide in response to alarm calls, and it certainly prevents the adults from brooding their chicks. There may be some risk that persistent alarming attracts the attention of real predators, such as raptors or corvids[13].

 

Supplementary literature（add.）

• Defeo, O.; McLachlan, A.; Schoeman, D.S.; Schlacher, T.A.; Dugan, J.; Jones, A.; Lastra, M.; Scapini, F. Threats to sandy beach ecosystems: A review. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sc. 2009, 81, 1–12.
• Gómez-Serrano, M.Á. Four-legged foes: Dogs disturb nesting plovers more than people do on tourist beaches. Ibis 2021, 163,338–352.
• Montalvo, T., Figuerola, J. The distribution and conservation of the Kentish Plover Charadrius alexandrinus in Catalonia. Rev. Catal. Ornit. 2006, 22, 1–8.
• Steven, R.; Pickering, C.; Castley, J.G. A review of the impacts of nature-based recreation on birds. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92,2287–2294.
• Bowles, J.M.; Maun, M.A. A study of the effects of trampling on the vegetation of Lake Huron sand dunes at Pinery Provincial Biol. Conserv. 1982, 24, 273–283.
• Lemauviel, S.; Rozé, F. Response of three plant communities to trampling in a sand dune system in Brittany (France).Environ. Manag. 2003, 31, 227–235.
• Santoro, R.; Jucker, T.; Prisco, I.; Carboni, M.; Battisti, C.; Acosta, A.T. Effects of trampling limitation on coastal dune plant Environ. Manag. 2012, 49, 534–542.
• Ruhlen, T.D.; Abbott, S.; Stenzel, L.E.; Page, G.W. Evidence that human disturbance reduces Snowy Plover chick survival. J. Field Ornith. 2003, 74, 300–304.
• Battisti, C.; Kroha, S.; Kozhuharova, E.; De Michelis, S.; Fanelli, G.; Poeta, G.; Pietrelli, L.; Cerfolli, F. Fishing lines and fish hooks as neglected marine litter: First data on chemical composition, densities, and biological entrapment from a Mediterranean beach.Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 1000–1007.
• Zielinski, S.; Botero, C.M.; Yanes, A. To clean or not to clean? A critical review of beach cleaning methods and impacts. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 139, 390–401.
• Malm, T.; Råberg, S.; Fell, S.; Carlsson, P. Effects of beach cast cleaning on beach quality, microbial food web, and littoral macrofaunal biodiversity. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2004, 60, 339–347.
• Loiselle B A , Graham C H , Goerck J M ,et al.Assessing the impact of deforestation and climate change on the range size and environmental niche of bird species in the Atlantic forests, Brazil[J].Journal of Biogeography, 2010, 37(7).DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2010.02285.x.

 

1. Finally, add the role of anonyous reviewers.

We had added it in Acknowledgements:：We appreciate anonymous reviewers who provided valuable comments. Their suggestions helped us to improve our manuscript.

Best wishes,

luohao

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors Authors changed the text accordingly the reviewer’s suggestions. However there are minor typos and mistakes along the text and many sentences are a bit difficult to understand. Row 274. ‘area of habitats and species richness and richness’. Please correct (deleting the redundant ‘and richness’). Also in rows 272-273: ‘In general, there was no correlation between the area of natural wetlands and the species richness and richness of birds’ should be ‘In general, there was no correlation between the area of natural wetlands and the species richness’. Be careful and check further for these mistakes along the text! Rows 297-298: the sentence ‘The structure of the community is closely related to the living environment of birds, and different environments will have different bird community composition’ shuld be changed in ‘The structure of the community is closely related to the suitable habitats of shorebirds, with different environments showing different composition’. In row 345, the number of reference is written in apex. Please correct it. Everywhere along the text, I have had some minor problems in read some sentences. I suggest a further English revision, mainly focused on the ecological concepts (for example, in many points, I prefer the term ‘habitat’ to ‘environment’). I suggest a simplification of many sentences (too much full of redundant terms as ‘community’, ‘environment’, etc.). I suggest still a further effort in improve this good manuscript. Have a nice work.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Dear editor,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.

 

1.Row 274. ‘area of habitats and species richness and richness’. Please correct (deleting the redundant ‘and richness’).

Modified

2.Rows 272-273: ‘In general, there was no correlation between the area of natural wetlands and the species richness and richness of birds’ should be ‘In general, there was no correlation between the area of natural wetlands and the species richness’. Be careful and check further for these mistakes along the text!

Modified

3.Rows 297-298: the sentence ‘The structure of the community is closely related to the living environment of birds, and different environments will have different bird community composition’ shuld be changed in ‘The structure of the community is closely related to the suitable habitats of shorebirds, with different environments showing different composition’.

Modified

4.Row 345, the number of reference is written in apex. Please correct it.

Modified

5.Everywhere along the text, I have had some minor problems in read some sentences. I suggest a further English revision, mainly focused on the ecological concepts (for example, in many points, I prefer the term ‘habitat’ to ‘environment’). I suggest a simplification of many sentences (too much full of redundant terms as ‘community’, ‘environment’, etc.).

Thank you very much for your suggestions on revisions, which have improved my article. I have also made revisions and polished the sentences, vocabulary, and grammar in the paper. I have used revision mode to make the revisions. Please review.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx