Distribution Modeling and Gap Analysis of Shorebird Conservation in Northern Brazil
, Danielle Paludo 5, Larry Niles 6, Joseph A. M. Smith 7, Stephanie Feigin 6 and Amanda Dey 8
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In Figure 5, I recommend another type of graph to represent the areas. Perhaps a rectangle would be more intuitive.
Author Response
In Figure 5, I recommend another type of graph to represent the areas. Perhaps a rectangle would be more intuitive.
Authors Response: changed from a circular pie chart to a rectangular “waffle” plot.
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript does an interesting demonstration on a Distribution Modeling and Gap Analysis of Shorebird Conservation in Northern Brazil. Introduction is good. Very interesting presentation and very good data analysis. Convolutional neural networks have been broadly applied in hyperspectral image classification and have demonstrated impressive performance in the past decade. However, still some challenging problems still exist which can be covered in this paper. Identifying and characterizing shorebird habitat within vs. outside the MER system is a critical step in elucidating the potential role of these MERs in shorebird conservation. A hybrid approach used in this research that uses both diversity and the extent of rarer species produces results that meet the management goals identifying gaps in existing conservation to protect the most at risk species, while conserving the diverse assemblages they coexist with. During the reading of the manuscript, the following questions and comments came to my mind and I would like to ask the authors to comment on them:
1- Please check the file attached for details comments
As the article provides a good body of work, I find that it has the sufficient quality to be published in present state.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
During the reading of the manuscript, the following questions and comments came to my mind and I would like to ask the authors to comment on them:
Author Response to comments in marked-up pdf:
Abstract; Question about the 25% of the intertidal habitat figure. Have included specific text on Line 375 and modified Table 3 to support this statement.
Line 42: reduced numbers of keywords.
Line 73. No citation included here are as following sentences describing each approach includes relevant citations.
Line 159 This section redone. Table 1 not first referred to until later in Methods text.
Line 179 corrected to reflect random selection of model calibration vs validation points.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is interesting and well treated. However I suggest small corrections on the figures and some advice.
Include the contribution of remote sensing in the abstract.
Figures 1 and 2: report to the same scale to be directly comparable or make a single figure
Fig 3. Enter geographic coordinates or north and metric scale, dimension a circle on the figure. What part of the study area?
Table2. Find other way of highlighting, for example bold and underline or other symbology.
The appendix is especially important to be an appendix, put, if possible, the content in the paper text.
Figures 6 and s1-s2: The colors don't stand out, there are colors too similar. Change colors.
Additional Comments:
1. What is the main question addressed by the research?
This paper addresses spatial models to identify important intertidal zones to wintering populations of migratory shorebirds. They are at significant risk, with populations of multiple species dropping globally, often due to habitat disruption and loss.
2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field?
The manuscript is absolutely relevant in the field
3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
In paper the used approach produces results that meet the management goals identifying gaps in existing conservation to protect the most at-risk species.
4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?
The methodology is adequate
5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?
Yes, they are consistent and address the main question.
6. Are the references appropriate?
The references are appropriate.
7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.
Tables and figures are well done but can be improved to be more readable with the proposed suggestions
Author Response
However I suggest small corrections on the figures and some advice.
Include the contribution of remote sensing in the abstract.
Author Response: Several sentences related to remote sensing were added to the Abstract.
Figures 1 and 2: report to the same scale to be directly comparable or make a single figure
Author Response: Made into a single figure and modified to make more readble.
Fig 3. Enter geographic coordinates or north and metric scale, dimension a circle on the figure. What part of the study area?
Author Response: Each survey area is represented by a 250-meter radius (500m diameter) circle as referenced in the Figure caption. Reworded figure caption to make clearer.
Table2. Find other way of highlighting, for example bold and underline or other symbology.
Author Response: Removed colors and grey shaded boxes instead.
The appendix is especially important to be an appendix, put, if possible, the content in the paper text.
Author Response: We prefer to keep these methodological details as an Appendix to streamline the text. We did include Figure 3 to provide a graphic illustration.
Figures 6 and s1-s2: The colors don't stand out, there are colors too similar. Change colors.
Author Response: The colors have been changed to make more distinguishable. The colors match the waffle plot in Figure 4.
Reviewer 4 Report
This manuscript addresses the use of spatial analysis to identify important intertidal zones to wintering populations of Nearctic waders. The topic addressed is very interesting. The work is very well approached, with an adequate methodological design and a correct statistical analysis. The discussion is well focused. However, below I suggest changes intended to improve the manuscript.
Specific comments
Line 58 Replace “... Neararctic ….” with “….. Nearctic ….”
Line 63 Replace “... Neararctic ….” with “….. Nearctic ….”
Line 122 I don't understand why the description of the study area is included in the Introduction. I think it is more classic and, formally, better to include the study area as a subsection in a general section of Study Area and Methods.
Line 171 Authors must indicate how they established the radius of 250 m on the ground. Was it estimate? Was it measured with a range finder?
Line 187 Although this work is not oriented to the analysis of abundances, in Table 1 it would be very informative to know for each species the total number of individuals counted in the 700 point counts
Line 195 Replace “… methods. (….” with “….. methods ( ….”
Line 305 I miss the use of some other index for the validation of the models, for example the Boyce index. It only requires presences and measures how much model predictions differ from random distribution of the observed presences across the prediction gradients (Boyce et al. 2002). Boyce’s index is the most appropriate accuracy metric in the case of presence-only models (Hirzel et al. 2006).
Line 362 I suggest to indicate the minimum threshold for discrimination (0.75) in the section 2.5 and to include there the reference Elith et al. (2006).
Line 367 In table 2, why not use bold instead of colours. Likewise, I suggest deleting the legend “Landscape, Remote Sensing, and Worldclim”
Line 376 Why don't authors use the symbol % instead of the word percent?. In the same way, I suggest that throughout the text the abbreviations of the units of measurement are always used.
Line 383. Table 3. If the unit of measure (%) is indicated at the top of the table, it is not necessary to repeat the percentage symbol in each value.
References
Boyce M.S., Vernier P.R., Nielsen S.E., Schmiegelow F.K.A. 2002. Evaluating resource selection functions. Ecological Modelling 157: 281–300.
Hirzel A.H., Le Lay G., Helfer V., Randin C., Guisan A.. 2006. Evaluating the ability of habitat suitability models to predict species presences. Ecological Modelling 199:142–152.
Author Response
I suggest changes intended to improve the manuscript.
Specific comments
Line 58 Replace “... Neararctic ….” with “….. Nearctic ….”
Line 63 Replace “... Neararctic ….” with “….. Nearctic ….”
Author response: Corrected.
Line 122 I don't understand why the description of the study area is included in the Introduction. I think it is more classic and, formally, better to include the study area as a subsection in a general section of Study Area and Methods.
Author Response: Moved Case Study down into Study Area and Methods
Line 171 Authors must indicate how they established the radius of 250 m on the ground. Was it estimate? Was it measured with a range finder?
Author response: more information provided on the methods employed.
“Prior to the survey, observers were trained to approximate the 250 meter distance using a range finder. A GPS was used to record starting point locations and record distance between subsequent points. During the survey, observers kept track of birds’ locations to reduce double counting.”
Line 187 Although this work is not oriented to the analysis of abundances, in Table 1 it would be very informative to know for each species the total number of individuals counted in the 700 point counts
Author response: Included total counts in Table 1.
Line 195 Replace “… methods. (….” with “….. methods ( ….”
Author response: corrected.
Line 305 I miss the use of some other index for the validation of the models, for example the Boyce index. It only requires presences and measures how much model predictions differ from random distribution of the observed presences across the prediction gradients (Boyce et al. 2002). Boyce’s index is the most appropriate accuracy metric in the case of presence-only models (Hirzel et al. 2006).
Author response: Thank you for this recommendation. We will incorporate it into our future work. Given the limited time we have to make revisions we are not able to implement the Boyce’s Index.
Line 362 I suggest to indicate the minimum threshold for discrimination (0.75) in the section 2.5 and to include there the reference Elith et al. (2006).
Author response: add sentence to discussion on AUC scores.” Elith et al. (2006) suggest that AUC scores should be greater than 0.75 for models to serve as a useful discrimination of presence.”
Line 367 In table 2, why not use bold instead of colours. Likewise, I suggest deleting the legend “Landscape, Remote Sensing, and Worldclim”
Author response: modified Table 2.
Line 376 Why don't authors use the symbol % instead of the word percent?. In the same way, I suggest that throughout the text the abbreviations of the units of measurement are always used.
Author response: Corrected.
Line 383. Table 3. If the unit of measure (%) is indicated at the top of the table, it is not necessary to repeat the percentage symbol in each value.
Author response: Corrected.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I thank the authors for accepting the proposed suggestions.
I wish you a happy new year.
Best regards
