Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

ABSTRACT

Consider mentioning the sample size (number of nests studied) for better evaluation of statistical power.

There might be a typo in line 24: "472 and 500 km of the river" - perhaps it should be a range (e.g., "between 472-500 km").

Consider mentioning the specific type of predation observed (e.g., mammals, birds) if known, for a more complete picture (although this might be detailed in the full paper).

Line 20: "affecting" can be replaced with a stronger verb like "influencing"

Line 28: "predated" can be replaced with "depredated" for improved flow

Introduction

Consider mentioning a specific consequence of the decline in bird populations for the ecosystem's health (e.g., impact on insect populations they control).

Consider adding a stronger transition sentence to introduce the specific focus on Common Sandpiper nest survival (e.g., "Understanding the factors influencing nest success is crucial for the conservation of this declining species").

Consider mentioning if the biparental incubation behavior is related to the high predation pressure in the habitat.

Consider mentioning the limitations of existing research, particularly related to studies done in smaller rivers compared to the large lowland river being investigated in this study. This would further emphasize the novelty of the research.

Line 35: "gather" can be replaced with a stronger verb like "support"

Line 40: "a" before "decline" can be omitted for smoother flow

Line 49: "characterized by" can be replaced with a more concise phrase like "exhibits"

Line 51: "brood" can be replaced with "chicks" for clarity for a general audience

Line 58: "contingent upon" can be replaced with "influenced by" for better readability

Line 66: "An alternative response" can be replaced with "Another strategy" for better flow

Line 77: "predation pressure" can be replaced with "predator abundance" for improved clarity

Method

Consider mentioning the justification for choosing this specific stretch of the Vistula River (e.g., known breeding ground for Common Sandpiper, logistical feasibility).

Consider condensing some sentences for improved readability (e.g., lines 98-100).

Consider mentioning the sample size (total number of nests found) early in this section.

Consider mentioning how the potential issue of small sample size was addressed beyond variable selection (e.g., model pooling, zero-inflated models if applicable).

Line 90: "survey" can be replaced with "nest searching" for consistency

Line 97: "those" can be replaced with "these" for better flow

Line 123: "potential nesting sites" can be replaced with "areas suitable for nesting" for improved clarity

Line 138: "successful" can be replaced with "hatching" for smoother flow

Line 184: "approach" can be replaced with "method" for improved flow

 

Results

Consider mentioning the total number of nests studied and the number of nests lost to each cause (predation, flooding) for better clarity.

Line 198: "including year" can be replaced with "the inclusion of year" for better flow

Line 201: "half of which" - consider rephrasing for clarity. Perhaps "In half of the predation cases, the timing or..."

Discussion

Consider mentioning the limitations of comparing nest survival rates across studies due to methodological variations (e.g., nest monitoring frequency).

Briefly mention any limitations of the study design that could affect the interpretation of nest concealment effects (e.g., sample size per nest location type).

You could explore future research directions related to understanding predator behavior and habitat use around nests with different concealment types.

Briefly mention the limitations of the study design that could affect the interpretation of the distance-to-water effect (e.g., not accounting for vertical distance).

Suggest future research directions aimed at disentangling the reasons behind the observed association between nest location and survival. This could involve investigating predator behavior near nests at different distances from water or using playback experiments to assess parental response rates.

Line 256: "The overall probability of nest survival..." - This sentence can be the opening sentence of the Discussion section, summarizing the main finding.

Line 257: "In comparison" can be replaced with "Nest success on upland rivers..." for improved flow

Line 261: "There was a distinction...avian predator species" - consider rephrasing for clarity. Perhaps "Avian predator composition differed..."

Line 271: "thou" can be replaced with "thought" for better grammar

Line 273: "may be precisely due to" can be replaced with "likely due to" for improved flow

Line 276: "inherently" can be omitted for improved readability

Line 289: "repeated clutches" can be replaced with "replacement clutches" for consistency with previous terminology

Line 290: "mitigating inundation pressure" can be replaced with "reducing flood risk" for simpler language

Line 297: "Birds deal with... necessitating diverse anti-predatory behaviours" - This sentence can be rephrased for improved flow. Perhaps "Facing predation pressure from both avian and mammalian predators, Common Sandpipers employ..."

Line 301: "a trade-off" - Consider specifying the trade-off, e.g., "a trade-off between benefits like resource availability and drawbacks like predator visibility"

Line 313: "complementary" can be replaced with "opposing" for better clarity

Line 317: "Nest location and concealment..." - This sentence can be the opening sentence of the paragraph to introduce the topic.

Line 321: "exhibited a higher survival rate" - Consider mentioning the reason for highlighting this finding, perhaps "although this habitat type might favor avian predators..."

Line 328: "depredated by diurnal and nocturnal predators" - Can be rephrased as "susceptible to predation by..." for better flow

Line 333: "questionable whether" can be replaced with "unclear whether" for improved flow

Line 340: "not only by the individual..." - This can be rephrased for better readability. Perhaps "facilitating more frequent checks by both the incubating bird and its partner during foraging trips."

Conclusions

Line 350: "highest probability of nest survival" - Consider rephrasing for improved flow. Perhaps "Our study suggests that Common Sandpipers can maximize nest survival..."

Line 353: "can significantly increase" - Consider mentioning the specific factors affected (e.g., "can significantly increase daily survival rate and mitigate predation risk").

Line 355: "While earlier ones..." - Replace "ones" with "broods" for clarity.

Line 356: "an important factor significantly limiting" - Consider replacing with "a significant factor that can limit" for improved readability.

You could mention a caveat acknowledging the limitations of the study design (e.g., focus on single river system) and the need for broader applicability.

 

Briefly mention the potential implications of the study findings for conservation efforts related to Common Sandpipers or other ground-nesting riverine birds.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

ABSTRACT

Consider mentioning the sample size (number of nests studied) for better evaluation of statistical power.

There might be a typo in line 24: "472 and 500 km of the river" - perhaps it should be a range (e.g., "between 472-500 km").

Consider mentioning the specific type of predation observed (e.g., mammals, birds) if known, for a more complete picture (although this might be detailed in the full paper).

Line 20: "affecting" can be replaced with a stronger verb like "influencing"

Line 28: "predated" can be replaced with "depredated" for improved flow

Introduction

Consider mentioning a specific consequence of the decline in bird populations for the ecosystem's health (e.g., impact on insect populations they control).

Consider adding a stronger transition sentence to introduce the specific focus on Common Sandpiper nest survival (e.g., "Understanding the factors influencing nest success is crucial for the conservation of this declining species").

Consider mentioning if the biparental incubation behavior is related to the high predation pressure in the habitat.

Consider mentioning the limitations of existing research, particularly related to studies done in smaller rivers compared to the large lowland river being investigated in this study. This would further emphasize the novelty of the research.

Line 35: "gather" can be replaced with a stronger verb like "support"

Line 40: "a" before "decline" can be omitted for smoother flow

Line 49: "characterized by" can be replaced with a more concise phrase like "exhibits"

Line 51: "brood" can be replaced with "chicks" for clarity for a general audience

Line 58: "contingent upon" can be replaced with "influenced by" for better readability

Line 66: "An alternative response" can be replaced with "Another strategy" for better flow

Line 77: "predation pressure" can be replaced with "predator abundance" for improved clarity

Method

Consider mentioning the justification for choosing this specific stretch of the Vistula River (e.g., known breeding ground for Common Sandpiper, logistical feasibility).

Consider condensing some sentences for improved readability (e.g., lines 98-100).

Consider mentioning the sample size (total number of nests found) early in this section.

Consider mentioning how the potential issue of small sample size was addressed beyond variable selection (e.g., model pooling, zero-inflated models if applicable).

Line 90: "survey" can be replaced with "nest searching" for consistency

Line 97: "those" can be replaced with "these" for better flow

Line 123: "potential nesting sites" can be replaced with "areas suitable for nesting" for improved clarity

Line 138: "successful" can be replaced with "hatching" for smoother flow

Line 184: "approach" can be replaced with "method" for improved flow

 

Results

Consider mentioning the total number of nests studied and the number of nests lost to each cause (predation, flooding) for better clarity.

Line 198: "including year" can be replaced with "the inclusion of year" for better flow

Line 201: "half of which" - consider rephrasing for clarity. Perhaps "In half of the predation cases, the timing or..."

Discussion

Consider mentioning the limitations of comparing nest survival rates across studies due to methodological variations (e.g., nest monitoring frequency).

Briefly mention any limitations of the study design that could affect the interpretation of nest concealment effects (e.g., sample size per nest location type).

You could explore future research directions related to understanding predator behavior and habitat use around nests with different concealment types.

Briefly mention the limitations of the study design that could affect the interpretation of the distance-to-water effect (e.g., not accounting for vertical distance).

Suggest future research directions aimed at disentangling the reasons behind the observed association between nest location and survival. This could involve investigating predator behavior near nests at different distances from water or using playback experiments to assess parental response rates.

Line 256: "The overall probability of nest survival..." - This sentence can be the opening sentence of the Discussion section, summarizing the main finding.

Line 257: "In comparison" can be replaced with "Nest success on upland rivers..." for improved flow

Line 261: "There was a distinction...avian predator species" - consider rephrasing for clarity. Perhaps "Avian predator composition differed..."

Line 271: "thou" can be replaced with "thought" for better grammar

Line 273: "may be precisely due to" can be replaced with "likely due to" for improved flow

Line 276: "inherently" can be omitted for improved readability

Line 289: "repeated clutches" can be replaced with "replacement clutches" for consistency with previous terminology

Line 290: "mitigating inundation pressure" can be replaced with "reducing flood risk" for simpler language

Line 297: "Birds deal with... necessitating diverse anti-predatory behaviours" - This sentence can be rephrased for improved flow. Perhaps "Facing predation pressure from both avian and mammalian predators, Common Sandpipers employ..."

Line 301: "a trade-off" - Consider specifying the trade-off, e.g., "a trade-off between benefits like resource availability and drawbacks like predator visibility"

Line 313: "complementary" can be replaced with "opposing" for better clarity

Line 317: "Nest location and concealment..." - This sentence can be the opening sentence of the paragraph to introduce the topic.

Line 321: "exhibited a higher survival rate" - Consider mentioning the reason for highlighting this finding, perhaps "although this habitat type might favor avian predators..."

Line 328: "depredated by diurnal and nocturnal predators" - Can be rephrased as "susceptible to predation by..." for better flow

Line 333: "questionable whether" can be replaced with "unclear whether" for improved flow

Line 340: "not only by the individual..." - This can be rephrased for better readability. Perhaps "facilitating more frequent checks by both the incubating bird and its partner during foraging trips."

Conclusions

Line 350: "highest probability of nest survival" - Consider rephrasing for improved flow. Perhaps "Our study suggests that Common Sandpipers can maximize nest survival..."

Line 353: "can significantly increase" - Consider mentioning the specific factors affected (e.g., "can significantly increase daily survival rate and mitigate predation risk").

Line 355: "While earlier ones..." - Replace "ones" with "broods" for clarity.

Line 356: "an important factor significantly limiting" - Consider replacing with "a significant factor that can limit" for improved readability.

You could mention a caveat acknowledging the limitations of the study design (e.g., focus on single river system) and the need for broader applicability.

 

Briefly mention the potential implications of the study findings for conservation efforts related to Common Sandpipers or other ground-nesting riverine birds.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

TITLE

why not mentioning the Vistula river? For example: "Factors affecting survival of the Common Sandpiper’s (Actitis hypoleucos) nests along the Vistula river (Poland)"

ABSTRACT
- how many nests? please explain

- row 28: "later in the season"?
please cite months

rows 30-31: "Moreover locating the nest in proximity to water increased nesting survival and in fact, more nests found in our study were situated close to the water's edge". Thi is quite counterintuitive, if fact if floodind destroys nests, why do nests closer to the river have higher survival rate?

KEYWORDS
In alphabetical order please


MATERIALS AND METHODS

- rows 99-102: "Those habitats are used as breeding sites by Common Sandpiper, Little Tern (Sternula albifrons), Common Tern (Sterna hirundo), Ringed Plover (Charadrius  hiaticula), Little Ringed Plover  (Charadrius  dubius), and Oystercatcher  (Haematopus  ostralegus), as well as Sand Martin (Riparia riparia) and Kingfisher (Alcedo atthis)". So there are many other bird species competing for the river habitat. Can these competing bird species destroy nests or eggs of the Common Sandpiper? If so, why do the Authors did not consider these threats?

- are there human interferences that could
destroy nests or eggs by trampling or by
stealing eggs or by killing breeding adults? If so, why do the Authors did not consider these threats?

- rows 139-141: from this text I understand that the dep. variable was binary 1 = successful nest, 0 = unsuccesfull. Is this correct?

- row 154: how did the Authors separate "flat, undulated, or sloped terrain"?
What thresholds were used in degrees?

- row 163: the variable distance to the nearest water (i. e. main river channel, oxbow lake, or side channel)
does not convince me. In fact, distance to the river can be a cost due to inundations, while distance to
lake can be a benefit for Common Sandpipers. This is a sort of mixed benefit-cost variable that biases the model

- row 183: "due to the small sample size available". How much is N? How many nests in total? This is
a key point

- rows 183-185: "we applied  a priori variable selection for both sets of models, where variables were chosen based on  their biological significance and used to estimate DSR with the single-factor models".
What variable selection? What methodology? Where are the results of variable selection?

- rows 186-192: this step is very disappointing. The Authors build several single-factor models where
of course they can't take into account the interactions (additive or multiplicative) among variables.
These single-factor models are very weak

- rows 192-194: the Akaike’s Information Criterion just tells which model is better but not how much
good it is. An absolute criterion is necessary here, sort or R-squared or similar

Overall, the field data collected by the Authors are very good but analyses and modelling are not on top of the goals of this study

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

thank you for having replied to my remarks

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for all the previous feedback. We do our best to improve the manuscript along with your comments.