The Impacts of Severe Drought on Waterbirds: A Case Study for the White-Naped Crane in Poyang Lake Based on Satellite Telemetry
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview of: The drought crisis in Poyang Lake and its impacts on White-naped Cranes
Overview
The manuscript addresses the ecological impacts of the extreme drought at Poyang Lake (winter 2022~2023) on the White-naped Crane, based on long-term GPS tracking data. Overall, the manuscript aligns well with the journal’s scope, and the dataset is extensive, which represents a clear strength of the study. However, the narrative is somewhat simple and does not fully convey the implications and novelty of the work, which weakens the clarity of the contribution. In particular, the Abstract, Introduction, Results, and Discussion sections would benefit from substantial reorganization. The figures need to be significantly improved. My detailed comments are provided below:
- Title: The title currently emphasizes both drought analysis and impact assessment, which does not fully correspond to the actual scope of the study. Please consider revising the title so that it more accurately reflects the analyses that were conducted.
- Abstract: L12-15: Please revise these sentences to be more concise and to highlight the research gap clearly
- Abstract: L16: Please clarify the type of case study conducted, the specific research aim, and the methods applied to achieve this aim.
- Abstract: L21-26: What are the main results? Please present them in a clear, point-by-point manner. In addition, the implications section is rather shallow and should be further strengthened.
- Introduction: L83-86: The two assumptions presented do not contribute to highlighting the novelty of the manuscript. The first is no longer a hypothesis, as it has already been established in previous studies—particularly in reference 19, where a similar conclusion was reported. The second assumption relates to the general function of species distribution models, which does not require a hypothesis. I recommend that the authors first provide a more detailed review of prior related studies in the Introduction, summarizing their main findings, before clearly positioning the novelty of this work. Specifically, in this section, the authors should introduce the research gap explicitly and then state the research objectives, rather than framing them as hypotheses.
- Materials and Methods: L103: The layout of Figure 1 is not visually clear. The lines overlap with the map, and scale bars are missing from the subfigures. Please revise the figure accordingly.
- Materials and Methods: L111: Figure 2 is difficult to interpret. The variation in line colors is intended to represent different years, but this information cannot be clearly discerned from the figure. Please improve the figure design to ensure that the temporal differences are easily readable.
- Materials and Methods: L176: The manuscript constructs separate SDM models for roosting and foraging habitats. In this case, the sets of environmental variables should differ between the two models. What are the specific differences? This information should not be presented only in the Appendix Table A1, but should be described in detail within the main text. In particular, the authors should explain the rationale for selecting different variables for different activities.
- Materials and Methods: I suggest adding a framework diagram in the Methods section to better illustrate the overall methodological approach and the main content modules of the study.
- Results: Section 3.1 on tracking records should be placed under Section 2 (Materials). Please reorganize this part accordingly.
- Results: Sections 3.2~3.4 are poorly organized. Please present the results following a clearer storyline and structure, as the current version is difficult to follow. Adding a framework diagram in Section 2 (as suggested in Comment 9) would likely help the authors clarify their approach and enable readers to better understand the main results.
- Discussion L349: Section 4.1 of the Discussion is too superficial and requires substantial revision. This section should not merely restate the results but must critically engage with the highly relevant studies mentioned in the Introduction. A comparison of their conclusions with the present findings—highlighting both similarities and differences—is necessary to demonstrate the unique contributions of this work. In addition, the authors should incorporate more recent and broader literature to provide a deeper and more comprehensive discussion. This will help position the study within the wider body of research and better justify its significance. The reference list contains too few publications from the past three years, and the proportion of high-quality references is limited. Please update the references by incorporating more recent and relevant studies to strengthen the foundation of the paper.
- Discussion L368: Section 4.2 should also include a deeper discussion by comparing the findings with those from the broader literature on SDMs, rather than relying solely on a single reference (No. 48). A more comprehensive engagement with relevant studies will strengthen the validity and contextualization of the discussion.
- Discussion L382: Section 4.3 introduces a new topic that was not addressed earlier in the manuscript. Rather than adding depth, it makes the discussion appear diffuse and unfocused. I recommend deleting this section to maintain a clearer and more coherent narrative.
- Discussion: The Discussion section should include a clear statement of the study’s limitations as well as directions for future research. This will provide readers with a more balanced understanding of the work and highlight potential avenues for further investigation.
- Conclusions: The conclusion is overly brief and does not sufficiently highlight the study’s contributions and significance. I recommend expanding this section to clearly summarize the key findings, emphasize the novel aspects of the work, and articulate its broader implications for research and practice. In general, a strong conclusion should: (1) concisely restate the main results without repeating the entire discussion; (2) highlight the originality and value of the study; (3) explain the relevance of the findings in a wider ecological or conservation context; and (4) provide a forward-looking perspective, such as management implications or avenues for future research.
Author Response
The manuscript addresses the ecological impacts of the extreme drought at Poyang Lake (winter 2022~2023) on the White-naped Crane, based on long-term GPS tracking data. Overall, the manuscript aligns well with the journal’s scope, and the dataset is extensive, which represents a clear strength of the study. However, the narrative is somewhat simple and does not fully convey the implications and novelty of the work, which weakens the clarity of the contribution. In particular, the Abstract, Introduction, Results, and Discussion sections would benefit from substantial reorganization. The figures need to be significantly improved. My detailed comments are provided below:
1. Title: The title currently emphasizes both drought analysis and impact assessment, which does not fully correspond to the actual scope of the study. Please consider revising the title so that it more accurately reflects the analyses that were conducted.
Response: The title has been changed to: “The impacts of severe drought on waterbirds: a case study for the White-naped Crane in Poyang Lake based on satellite telemetry”. This title addresses a broad and compelling question, making it more likely to attract a wider readership.
2. Abstract: L12-15: Please revise these sentences to be more concise and to highlight the research gap clearly
Response: The sentences have been revised as follows: “Climate change is increasing the frequency of extreme weather events like droughts, threatening wetland ecosystems and waterbird populations globally. During the 2022–2023 winter, Poyang Lake, China’s largest freshwater lake, suffered its most severe drought on record. However, the impacts of such droughts on waterbirds remain poorly understood.”. The original sentences have been shortened, and an additional sentence has been added to emphasize the research gap.
3. Abstract: L16: Please clarify the type of case study conducted, the specific research aim, and the methods applied to achieve this aim.
Response: The sentences have been changed as: “To assess the ecological consequences of this drought on waterbirds, we conducted a case study on the White-naped Crane (Antigone vipio). Using GPS transmitters, we tracked 56 individuals and collected 268,615 valid hourly location records from the Poyang Lake region between 2014 and 2023.”. We have clarified that the type of case study is ecological analysis on cranes’ movement. The specific research aim is to evaluate the impacts of drought on the bird. The methods are satellite-tracking based analysis.
4. Abstract: L21-26: What are the main results? Please present them in a clear, point-by-point manner. In addition, the implications section is rather shallow and should be further strengthened.
Response: We revised the results as: “The results indicate that, in winter at Poyang Lake, the White-naped Cranes primarily utilized two types of habitats: croplands for foraging and shallow water areas for roosting. We found that habitat suitability for White-naped Cranes reached its lowest point during this exceptionally dry winter. Reduced water levels forced the cranes move much further to seek alternative habitats, especially shallow water areas for nocturnal roosting.”.
We revised the implications as: “These findings underscore that maintaining adequate water level to protecting both roosting and foraging habitats at Poyang Lake is a critical conservation priority for sustaining waterbird populations under intensifying climatic extremes.”. We added a phrase to highlight the importance of water level here.
5. Introduction: L83-86: The two assumptions presented do not contribute to highlighting the novelty of the manuscript. The first is no longer a hypothesis, as it has already been established in previous studies—particularly in reference 19, where a similar conclusion was reported. The second assumption relates to the general function of species distribution models, which does not require a hypothesis. I recommend that the authors first provide a more detailed review of prior related studies in the Introduction, summarizing their main findings, before clearly positioning the novelty of this work. Specifically, in this section, the authors should introduce the research gap explicitly and then state the research objectives, rather than framing them as hypotheses.
Response: We revised the two hypotheses. We mush clarify that: a hypothesis is a testable and potentially falsifiable statement. Once published, it can be subjected to repeated testing and validation.
We revised our hypotheses as: (1) Severe drought alters wetland hydrology at Poyang Lake, leading to reduced availability and quality of roosting and foraging habitats, which in turn causes significant changes in the space-use patterns and habitat selection of overwintering White-naped Cranes. (2) Species distribution models (SDMs) parameterized with telemetry data will effectively capture the environmental drivers of crane habitat use and reveal a contraction or shift in suitable habitat during drought years compared to normal hydrological conditions. This revised hypotheses strengthen the original by:
- Specifying the mechanism (altered hydrology → degraded habitat → changed behavior).
- Clarifying the purpose of using SDMs (to compare habitat suitability across conditions).
In the introduction, we cite 23 references on prior related studies, clearly establishing the research gap. While numerous studies have examined the impacts of droughts on waterbirds (lines 42-54), and the effects of the 2022–2023 Poyang Lake drought have already been published for some species (lines 70-75), the situation for the White-naped Crane remains unknown.
6. Materials and Methods: L103: The layout of Figure 1 is not visually clear. The lines overlap with the map, and scale bars are missing from the subfigures. Please revise the figure accordingly.
Response: Thanks for pointing out the problems. We removed all lines, and added scale bars.
7. Materials and Methods: L111: Figure 2 is difficult to interpret. The variation in line colors is intended to represent different years, but this information cannot be clearly discerned from the figure. Please improve the figure design to ensure that the temporal differences are easily readable.
Response: Figure 2 shows seasonal and annual water levels of one station at Poyang Lake. It is correct that the variation in line colors is intended to represent different years. We added this information within the figure caption. We also highlight that in panel B the blue color indicate wet years and brown color indicates dry years.
8. Materials and Methods: L176: The manuscript constructs separate SDM models for roosting and foraging habitats. In this case, the sets of environmental variables should differ between the two models. What are the specific differences? This information should not be presented only in the Appendix Table A1, but should be described in detail within the main text. In particular, the authors should explain the rationale for selecting different variables for different activities.
Response: The sets of environmental variables are identical for the separate SDMs modeling roosting and foraging habitats. This is because, for each individual, roosting and foraging sites are typically located in close proximity, usually only a few kilometers apart. By using the same environmental predictors in both models, we ensure that any differences in predicted habitat use reflect genuine distinctions in behavioral occurrence types rather than variation in environmental covariates.
9. Materials and Methods: I suggest adding a framework diagram in the Methods section to better illustrate the overall methodological approach and the main content modules of the study.
Response: The method section is lengthy, including study area, target species, satellite tracking, the Hetero-occurrence Species Distribution Model, and comparing daily movement distances. If we add a diagram, it should be like this:
┌─────────────────
│ Study Objective & Scope │
│ - Assess ecological impact of extreme│
│ drought on White-naped Cranes │
│ - Focus: Poyang Lake wintering area │
└─────────────────
â–¼
┌───────────────────
│ 1. Study Area & Species │
│ - Poyang Lake: hydrology, land cover │
│ - White-naped Crane: ecology, IUCN │
│ status, population (~300–400) │
└─────────────────
â–¼
┌──────────────────
│ 2. Crane Capture & GPS Tracking │
│ - 78 individuals tracked (2014–2022) │
│ - 56 overwintered at Poyang Lake │
│ - GPS transmitters (hourly fixes) │
│ - Data filtering: exclude E-level │
│ (invalid) locations │
└─────────────────
â–¼
┌──────────────────
│ 3. Occurrence Differentiation (HOSDM │
│ Preprocessing Step) │
│ - Classify locations by habitat type │
│ • Cropland → foraging (daytime) │
│ • Shallow water → roosting (night) │
│ - Use 24-h activity density curves │
│ - Land cover dataset (30 m res.) │
└────────────────
â–¼
┌──────────────────
│ 4. Environmental Data Preparation │
│ - 12 predictor layers (30 m res.): │
│ • Land cover (9 classes) │
│ • Elevation (ASTER GDEM v3) │
│ • Climate (Bio_1, Bio_4, Bio_12, │
│ Bio_15) │
│ • Human Footprint Index │
│ • Solar radiation, wind, vapor │
│ pressure (Jan) │
│ • Latitude & Longitude (spatial │
│ autocorrelation control) │
└─────────────────
â–¼
┌───────────────────
│ 5. Hetero-occurrence SDMs (HOSDMs) │
│ - Two separate Random Forest models │
│ per year: │
│ a) Foraging habitat suitability │
│ b) Roosting habitat suitability │
│ - Response: binary (1 = occurrence, │
│ 0 = pseudo-absence) │
│ - Output: Habitat Suitability Index │
│ - Implemented via custom R package: │
│ migrationR::HOSDM() │
└─────────────────┬
â–¼
┌───────────────────
│ 6. Movement Analysis │
│ - Daily movement distance (Euclidean │
│ sum of hourly segments) │
│ - Mixed-effects model: │
│ lmer(Distance ~ Winter*Day + Day² │
│ + (1|ID)) │
│ - t-test: 2022–2023 vs. prior years │
│ - Centroid distance: foraging ↔ │
│ roosting sites │
└─────────────────┬
â–¼
┌──────────────────
│ Integration & Inference │
│ - Link habitat suitability (HOSDM) │
│ with movement behavior │
│ - Interpret drought impact through: │
│ • Reduced shallow water area │
│ • Increased daily travel │
│ • Shortened wintering duration │
└─────────────────
However, the diagram appears redundant. The Methods section presents a sequential narrative of distinct components (study area, target species, satellite tracking, the Heterogeneous-Occurrence Species Distribution Model (HOSDM), and daily movement distance comparisons) without substantial parallel or interconnected processes that would benefit from visual synthesis. Therefore, we do not believe that adding a diagram would enhance clarity or understanding.
10. Results: Section 3.1 on tracking records should be placed under Section 2 (Materials). Please reorganize this part accordingly.
Response: We moved this section to 2.3. Crane capture and tracking, treating this part as “materials” rather than tracking results.
11. Results: Sections 3.2~3.4 are poorly organized. Please present the results following a clearer storyline and structure, as the current version is difficult to follow. Adding a framework diagram in Section 2 (as suggested in Comment 9) would likely help the authors clarify their approach and enable readers to better understand the main results.
Response: To better integrate the three sections, we added a synthesis paragraph that concisely summarizes and connects the findings from each section. It is:
We demonstrate the impact of drought on White-naped Cranes through three approaches: (1) directly characterizing their movement patterns at Poyang Lake during the drought; (2) applying a Hetero-occurrence Species Distribution Model (HOSDM) to reveal distinct foraging and roosting habitats, underscoring the critical role of shallow water areas which was lost during the drought; and (3) employing a mixed-effects model to statistically compare daily movement distances between the drought year and typical years.
12. Discussion L349: Section 4.1 of the Discussion is too superficial and requires substantial revision. This section should not merely restate the results but must critically engage with the highly relevant studies mentioned in the Introduction. A comparison of their conclusions with the present findings—highlighting both similarities and differences—is necessary to demonstrate the unique contributions of this work. In addition, the authors should incorporate more recent and broader literature to provide a deeper and more comprehensive discussion. This will help position the study within the wider body of research and better justify its significance. The reference list contains too few publications from the past three years, and the proportion of high-quality references is limited. Please update the references by incorporating more recent and relevant studies to strengthen the foundation of the paper.
Response: We totally agree. We added a new subsection (4.1, "Comparison with other studies") that cites 11 papers published in 2024 or 2025 and contextualizes their findings in relation to our study.
13. Discussion L368: Section 4.2 should also include a deeper discussion by comparing the findings with those from the broader literature on SDMs, rather than relying solely on a single reference (No. 48). A more comprehensive engagement with relevant studies will strengthen the validity and contextualization of the discussion.
Response: We highly appreciate this comment. We added the following contents in this section.
Species distribution models, as powerful tools for quantifying species–environment relationships, are increasingly incorporating more nuanced and detailed features. For instance, occupancy models use repeated surveys to explicitly account for detection probability, thereby providing a more accurate estimation of species distributions (MacKenzie et al. 2002). Multi-species distribution models enhance model fit by leveraging shared ecological preferences or functional traits across species (Vermeiren et al. 2020). Meanwhile, multi-level species distribution models integrate species occurrence data with both coarse-scale climate variables and fine-scale physiographic characteristics, such as terrain, soil, and vegetation, to infer fine-scale bioclimatic patterns (Kling et al. 2024). While most SDMs treat all occurrences of a species uniformly, HOSDMs stand out as the only approach that distinguishes among different types of occurrences for a single species.
14. Discussion L382: Section 4.3 introduces a new topic that was not addressed earlier in the manuscript. Rather than adding depth, it makes the discussion appear diffuse and unfocused. I recommend deleting this section to maintain a clearer and more coherent narrative.
Response: The issue of dam construction is not directly addressed in the analyses presented in this study. However, the extreme drought has reignited public and policy debates over whether a dam should be built. The local government has already invested substantial resources in designing sophisticated hydraulic infrastructure and has publicly emphasized biodiversity conservation as a key priority, which is an important step forward. Given these developments, we believe this paper on the ecological impacts of drought should acknowledge this ongoing initiative. It is highly likely that the dam proposal will be approved in the near future, with potentially significant implications for the region’s wetland ecosystems and waterbird populations.
15. Discussion: The Discussion section should include a clear statement of the study’s limitations as well as directions for future research. This will provide readers with a more balanced understanding of the work and highlight potential avenues for further investigation.
Response: The limitation of this work was listed in the discussion section: “It is important to note that we currently lack evidence of lower survival rates, poorer body condition, or reduced reproduction in White-naped Cranes during the upcoming breeding season as a result of the extreme drought at Poyang Lake.”.
In the future, we will continue monitoring these cranes to gain deeper insights into their behavior, movements, and overall fitness in response to such extreme climatic events.
16. Conclusions: The conclusion is overly brief and does not sufficiently highlight the study’s contributions and significance. I recommend expanding this section to clearly summarize the key findings, emphasize the novel aspects of the work, and articulate its broader implications for research and practice. In general, a strong conclusion should: (1) concisely restate the main results without repeating the entire discussion; (2) highlight the originality and value of the study; (3) explain the relevance of the findings in a wider ecological or conservation context; and (4) provide a forward-looking perspective, such as management implications or avenues for future research.
Response: Thanks for the clear and constructive suggestion. The unique contribution is that we showed the impact of drought on the White-naped Crane, which has never been reported. Our major contribution in a wider ecological or conservation context is the HOSDMs. As such, we added: We developed HOSDMs to separately predict suitable foraging and roosting sites, and found that the mean distance between these foraging and roosting locations peaked during the drought season. To facilitate the application of HOSDMs, which uniquely allow different types of occurrences to be treated distinctly, we provide an R package, migrationR. This capability represents a major contribution of our study toward advancing species distribution modeling.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors conducted a case study on the White-naped Crane Using GPS transmitters and they tracked 56 individuals and collected 268,615 valid hourly location records from the Poyang Lake region between 2014 and 2023. The study concluded that safeguarding both roosting and foraging habitats at Poyang Lake is a critical conservation priority for sustaining waterbird populations under intensifying climatic extremes.
In general
- The objectives were reached
- Methods and statistical analysis are suitable to investigate the objectives
- Introduction, results and discussion also well presented
- References in all sections are adequate to the study
Comments:
- Add the scientific name in the keywords
- Remove any reference from result section as 47
- Indicate in methods which data are analyzed with t-test
Author Response
Authors conducted a case study on the White-naped Crane Using GPS transmitters and they tracked 56 individuals and collected 268,615 valid hourly location records from the Poyang Lake region between 2014 and 2023. The study concluded that safeguarding both roosting and foraging habitats at Poyang Lake is a critical conservation priority for sustaining waterbird populations under intensifying climatic extremes.
Response: Thanks for the concise summary.
In general
- The objectives were reached
- Methods and statistical analysis are suitable to investigate the objectives
- Introduction, results and discussion also well presented
- References in all sections are adequate to the study
Response: Thanks!
Comments:
- Add the scientific name in the keywords
Response: Done.
- Remove any reference from result section as 47
Response: Thanks. We removed the reference from the result section. That is the standard way to present results.
- Indicate in methods which data are analyzed with t-test
Response: The data being tested are daily movement distance between the winter of 2022-2023 and previous winters. In the section 2.5, We use the paragraph to indicate this information: We also conducted a t-test to directly compare the daily movement distances during the drought season with those in all normal seasons.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe methodology is correct. And the conclusions address the question posed, but a more detailed explanation of impact on survival-conservation should be important to discuss, also taking ideas from other studies.
Pag. 51: local or country decline do not mean decline of whole population. Such concept should be pointed in this part of the paper.
Pag.59: expand the content of this citation with causes of mortality.
Pag. 129: describe capture method.
Pag. 350-351: the two different areas used by cranes is a repetition, already written at least 3 times, remove it from discussion.
Pag. 365-366-367: such concept should be added in conclusions.
Pag. 382: such part do not match with the study purpose and design, should be deleted.
Author Response
The methodology is correct. And the conclusions address the question posed, but a more detailed explanation of impact on survival-conservation should be important to discuss, also taking ideas from other studies.
Response: Thanks for the suggestion. We added 11 new references published in 2024 or 2025 to the Discussion section, comparing our findings with those studies and emphasizing the unique contributions of our work. To be transparent, we do not have data on crane survival rates, and we explicitly acknowledge this limitation in the Discussion.
Pag. 51: local or country decline do not mean decline of whole population. Such concept should be pointed in this part of the paper.
Response: We totally agree with this point. Birds are highly mobile, and it is natural for them to avoid unfavorable environments by moving to more suitable areas, precisely what most waterbirds did during the severe drought. We have mentioned several times that the cranes traveled significantly farther in search of suitable habitat, and we currently lack evidence indicating a population decline as a result.
Pag.59: expand the content of this citation with causes of mortality.
Response: The winter drought caused increased salinity levels and reduced freshwater in the bays and saltmarshes, which have direct or indirect effects on the availability of resources (i.e., food and freshwater) and behavioral responses (i.e., movement) of whooping cranes. We added this information into the context.
Pag. 129: describe capture method.
Response: Bird snares were used to capture cranes. The snares were placed on the ground, and upon being attracted by bait and moving within the area, the cranes became ensnared by loops around the neck or leg. We added above contents into the context.
Pag. 350-351: the two different areas used by cranes is a repetition, already written at least 3 times, remove it from discussion.
Response: Thanks, and we removed the sentence.
Pag. 365-366-367: such concept should be added in conclusions.
Response: This is the major limitations of this study. We added such content to the conclusion section.
Pag. 382: such part do not match with the study purpose and design, should be deleted.
Response:
The issue of dam construction is not directly addressed in the analyses presented in this study. However, the extreme drought has reignited public and policy debates over whether a dam should be built. The local government has already invested substantial resources in designing sophisticated hydraulic infrastructure and has publicly emphasized biodiversity conservation as a key priority, which is an important step forward. Given these developments, we believe this paper on the ecological impacts of drought should acknowledge this ongoing initiative. It is highly likely that the dam proposal will be approved in the near future, with potentially significant implications for the region’s wetland ecosystems and waterbird populations.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease refer to the attached pdf document for detailed comments and suggestions.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Please refer to the attached pdf document for detailed comments and suggestions.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your exceptionally thoughtful suggestions, as they were remarkably patient, clear, and constructive. We have accepted all of them and implemented the relevant revisions throughout the manuscript.
For the only question:
Lines 386 - 401: How do the authors propose to avoid or at least minimise and manage the potential adverse environmental effects dams can have on the environment and wildlife?
Response: Prioritizing biodiversity over economic interests is of utmost importance. The proposed dam at Poyang Lake is a sophisticated hydraulic infrastructure designed to facilitate seamless two-way water transfer between the lake and the Yangtze River [62]. It aims to regulate lake levels, artificially controlling the lake inundation area during the recession season (September-October) and the dry season (Noveber-December) [63]. During periods of extreme drought, dam operations can help maintain water levels to support wintering waterbirds.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the thorough revision. The authors have satisfactorily addressed all 16 of my previous comments. The manuscript is now clearer and better structured. Although the additional figure suggested in Comment 9 was not added, the revised Methods section is sufficiently clear, and the manuscript already includes seven figures. I have no further concerns and consider the manuscript ready for publication.
Author Response
Thank you for the thorough revision. The authors have satisfactorily addressed all 16 of my previous comments. The manuscript is now clearer and better structured. Although the additional figure suggested in Comment 9 was not added, the revised Methods section is sufficiently clear, and the manuscript already includes seven figures. I have no further concerns and consider the manuscript ready for publication.
Response: We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s comments, which were both constructive and insightful. Thanks to these guidance-like suggestions, the manuscript has been significantly improved.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is now clearer. I remain doubtful about the paragraph regarding damn construction. I suggest to add some sentence about this item in the discussion and your evaluation in the conclusion.
Author Response
The manuscript is now clearer. I remain doubtful about the paragraph regarding dam construction. I suggest to add some sentence about this item in the discussion and your evaluation in the conclusion.
Response: In the section on dam construction, we reorganized the paragraphs to improve logical flow and added the following sentence at the end: 'If a dam is built, we strongly recommend regulating the water level to support biodiversity rather than prioritizing economic benefits.'.
