Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is a theoretical and practical contribution to investigating ecosystem and cultural services in a wetland. It presents relevant data for the management and conservation of the biodiversity in Gargano National Park, Italy.

The corrections/suggestions for the manuscript:

1) Produce a new map of the study area, since the map presented has already been published in another scientific article: https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10060632

 

2) Produce a photo board to present (as a supplementary file) the mixed biotope category: wetland and aquatic/riparian ecosystems (WET), semi-natural vegetation areas (NAT), built-up areas (BUILT), agricultural areas (AGR).

3) Presentation of a photo board of bird species (as a supplementary file), primarily of the flag-species.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper aims to assess the cultural values of a coastal wetland. using birds for this purpose, which is often applied procedure, as birds a key elements in in nature conservation (Bird directive of E.U.). The methodology is well-apllied although the presentation is not always clear. For example in Table 3, the authors use abbreviations of avian orders instead of fully spell their names. The same they do with species, they use numbers instead of their names (lines: 387, 391, 394, 399, 400, 403). While metioning avian families and orders they use, as they wish, Latin names in one place, and English in another, but the English with Latin togother can not be traced. The percentages should be rounded up to one decimal, but while in Table 4 it is OK, in Table 5 we can find two decimals, but in Table 6, again to one decimal. They use this as they wish, without any rule. 

Names of SPA and ZSC are given without their international codes. 

The section 'Introduction' is too long, and should be shortened by 30-40%. 

Species were evaluated/graded based on their abundance, (feeding) habitat preferece, and taxonomic position. The most important factor was, however, not taken into account: whether or not they are breeding/nesting in the study area. This may change the 'cultural' and conservation status of some of these species.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript of Ingaramo et al. entitled “Birds as cultural ambassadors: bridging ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation in wetland planning”, is an interesting work that brings together two approaches to the study of ecosystem services: the evaluation of the bird community as indicators of the biodiversity value of a particular site (the King's Lagoon), and the evaluation of the users' perception of the value of this site for people's well-being. Their approach allows them to determine that ecotone habitats are both those with the greatest biodiversity and interest for conservation, and those perceived as most important by people They also select herons as an iconic group of birds that can be considered flagship species for conservation purposes. Based on this knowledge, they formulate some guidelines for a conservation program. My congratulations to the authors for this interesting work.

Overall, the manuscript is well written and presents the results obtained. The supplementary material included is also appreciated. However, I have several suggestions that could improve the understanding of the manuscript.

Abstract.

I believe that the abstract should include how and why herons have been selected as the flagship species. On the other hand, it should better organize the main guidelines for the proposed conservation program, and avoid repeating theoretical aspects of cultural ecosystem services.

Introduction.

The introduction, while interesting and using adequate references, is very long, mainly because it focuses largely on explaining concepts that the reader should already know. It should be reduced and made concrete in the focus of the study, avoiding turning it into a kind of review. It is important that in the introduction they explicitly say that the 40 ha area studied is the King's Lagoon.

Material and Methods.

Lines 183-219. This part is an explanation of the focus of the study. It overlaps with many concepts mentioned earlier in the introduction, so repetition should be avoided. In my opinion, this focus should be clearly and concretely included in the introduction in relation to the objectives of the study.

Figure 1. Explain whether this figure comes from other sources, is a modification of them, or whether is a new proposal of your own.

Figure 2. Improve the resolution of the images, particularly the texts, identify each image in the legend and include a scale on the lower left image. Include the polygon of the Gargano National Park in relation to the polygon of the King's Lagoon reserve.

Line 271. Authors explained that their study area, King’s Lagoon, is forty hectares. They then explain that they subdivide this area into 67 cells of one hectare each. How is this possible? Or perhaps other areas outside King’s Lagoon were considered for the study? Please explain this clearly and better if that is expressed in the figure 2.

Line 277. There is an important effect of seasonality that is not being considered and that implies variations in the composition of birds, especially in relation to migratory birds. This also implies different experiences of activities in nature by visitors. An analysis differentiating seasons, or at least a table indicating the months in which each species can be observed, could be interesting.

Line 277. It is difficult to imagine how the transects can cover the total of 67 cells, especially those that fall over bodies of water. Transects covered over the geographic space can be better explained or added in a figure.

Line 283. Clarify the rules for considering individuals in bird counts. The 20-metre restriction seems contradictory to the bird groups considered (i.e. hirundinidae, apodidae).

Line 288. Quantitative analyses could also be done at the species level. For example, analysis with presence and absence. If it is considered that it is better to do it by orders than by families or species, it should be much better justified not only by the low abundance of some species. It is important to consider the usefulness of the results for the objectives of the study.

Line 302-305. The concept of line 288 is repeated, but still without adequately justifying the use of orders. Why would this be more consistent?

Line 326. The authors should better explain all the criteria used consecutively to select the flagship species. This information was only included in the results.

After reading the results, it is evident that many methods, particularly statistical analysis, have not been explained.

Results.

Line 381. In Table S2 it is better to include the total abundances of each species, and including information on occurrence and abundance by season (or even by month) would be extremely useful.

Line 386 – 392. The methods for the results included in these sections have not been explained in methods, such as the species abundance rank analysis and its usefulness for the study, as well the use of the Shannon index for which the response unit considered must be clearly explained.

Line 401. No evidence was shown to understand these seasonal results.

Lines 416-417. The results should report that the species selected as flagship species have been herons. It should also be clarified whether all eight species of herons in King's Lagoon are considered or some in particular.

Figure 4. Please state what software was used. Could the texts be edited to improve them?

Figures 5 and 6, Table 3 and 6. All abbreviations used in figures and tables should be explained in each legend, and should be consistent with each other, including the supplementary material.

Discussion.

The discussion could be improved with clarifications introduced in methods and results.

In some sections, the concepts explained are repeated, such as between lines 626 to 632.

Section 4.4 is very long and highlights the scarce use of references. In reality, this section should be transformed into one that lists the guidelines for a conservation program based on the results obtained, in such a way as to meet the stated objectives of "provide recommendations to improve and optimize the provision of CES in the studied coastal wetlands and to preserve its biodiversity heritage".

Conclusions.

In conclusion it should also be said that herons have been selected as flagship species, and how this relates to the importance of ecotone environments for their conservation. Both results must be confronted to the conclusions on the opinions of users. The general guidelines of the conservation program specific to King's Lagoon should be summarized, rather than dwelling on merely theoretical aspects.

Supplementary material

In Table S2 it would be interesting to show the total abundances of each species at least by season. Authors have to be careful with the current taxonomy of all bird species, for example the Eurasian jackdaw is actually Coloeus monedula (Linnaeus, 1758). The names of the authors of the species must not be italicized.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the great effort made by the authors to improve the manuscript in relation to the observations made. My general assessment is that the manuscript has improved substantially. I find the new table 8 particularly useful. However, I would like to point out below some aspects that still need to be addressed.

The editorial changes throughout the text, and in particular in the introduction and discussion, affect the numbering of citations and bibliographical references. You must pay special attention to these changes so that the sequence is correct. Just as an example, note the absence of reference 12 in the text (lines 60-62), or that the reference format is not correct in some new references such as 79 and 81.

Figure 2 has greatly improved, but there is confusion between the abbreviations NAT and MEAD.

Be careful with the use of italics for scientific names (e.g. line 423)

Text editing is required on lines 524-525, as well in Table 6.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf