Spatiotemporal Distribution of Photographic Records of Brazilian Birds Available in the WikiAves Citizen Science Database

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

That is a nice idea for a paper. nevertheless youcould probably shorten it up strongly. See my other suggestions below

20: rewrite the sentence that you don't use "I also discuss", something like "this article discusses..."

22: what do you mean with digital vouchers? for me that means like a discount code or something. I do not understand how that interconnects with photographic records of birds

24: with records, do you mean like records in the database? Please clarify

35 and 36: see above, avoid using “I”, better use “this paper” or “this article”

52: that is interesting, maybe elaborate a little bit more on the connection to the paragraph above

54: here you also talk about eBird, but in the rest of the introduction you only talk about WikiAves. Either include eBird in the following paragraphs as well or delete here.

65: “Digital vouchers” see comment above

78: check citation

102-114: See above, avoid using “I”

152 – 160: in the above paragraphs you always mentioned precipitation, include here as well, same with temperatures

175 and following: why not also use eBird? Please clarify here or in the introduction or delete from the introduction

183: which ones?

185: to which period?

187: how does this yield results only for citizen science? How do you exclude “professional” ornithologists which also contribute to the database?

188: Why can you use the record number as synonymous to birdwatching activity? Please clarify.

191-254: maybe include an incentive or question for these several objectives in the last part of the introduction to have a smoother transition to this large part of your methods. You could also shorten this part strongly

196: why this exception?

220 and 249: why exactly 72?

256-265: see above, avoid using “I”, put this part in the introduction, not in Material and Methods

Figures 2 and 3 are way too small

197: please clarify “less expressive record numbers”

Figure 4: maybe reconsider your choice of colours, red and green are not distinguishable for quite a few people. Also make the figure bigger if possible

315 and following: please clarify this paragraph, I do not understand what you mean with this description

Figures 5 and 6: make it bigger if possible, in Fig.6 the colours are hard to see

374 and following: why did you not correct for the number of contributors to the database? Would that not be better, like this you could distinguish if only contributor numbers went up or record numbers did

378: or they found hobbies that are possible to do alone and possibly more people searched for a connection to nature in times of the pandemic

Figure 7: I like the idea of this explanatory model but explain where you got the potential factors from. Could you already explain something with your data? Why not make parts of this part of the analysis? Like the already suggested correction for contributors could explain some of the human factors, why not already do that? The following paragraph talks about species-specific variation, why is that not already in your results?

The discussion headings should follow the results headings, also in the same order.

489 and following: did you really make that clear? Not for me, clarify above for what it’s good and what your results contribute to that

504: don’t say the same thing twice, you already talked about this in the paragraph above, shorten this

528: I like this paragraph

551 and following: see my comment on “digital voucher”: also shorten this paragraph, there is a lot of duplicated talk here

Conclusion: what about your results? What do they contribute?

Author Response

Mossoró, 26 December 2022.

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for all your comments, suggestions and corrections. I tried to follow all of them. They certainly improved the quality of my manuscript.

Thank you for considering my study as a nice idea. Ok, I tried to make it shorter by following the suggestions.

Line 20. Ok, I changed all "I also discuss" that had appeared in the original text.

Line 22. I had used "digital vouchers" as synonymous of photographic and sounds records available in the database. To avoid further confusion I eliminated "digital vouchers" from the manuscript.

Line 24. As requested, I clarified what I meant with "records".

Lines 35 and 36. Ok, I followed the suggestion here and in other parts of the text...methods, etc.

 Line 52. Ok, I made some changes to improve the connection. I added things that the Editor suggested (UK and Finland).

Line 54. I had cited eBird because it is the second largest database for Brazil...and my study deals only with WikiAves. Thus, to follow this suggestion, I deleted things about eBird.

Line 65. I eliminated "digital vouchers" from the manuscript to avoid confusion.

Line 78. It is not a citation. They are the authority that described the species. I provided them to all species mentioned in the paper.

Lines 102-114. Yes, I am making the requested change along the text.

Lines 152-160. Ok, I added the temperatures for all ecosystems.

Lines 175 and ahead. I do prefer to eliminate eBird. Adding data from eBird would be a hard task, and all combined data would generate a too long paper. It is no more in the Introduction.

Line 185. "period" refers to selected months or years...I added some words to make it clear.

Line 187. It would be impossible to separate these two types of contribution. I added some words to explian that some records made by professional ornithologists also make part of this database. Professional ornithologists also photograph birds during their holidays (as citizens).

Line 188. I suppose that the more time birders spend in the field, more records will be obtained. I added a sentence to explain it.

Lines 191-254. I agree that it was long. I tried to make it shorter. I moved some setences to a new section of Discussion, as suggested by the Editor. Also, I made a better connection with the objectives.

Line 196. To compile records obtained in each year, I selected from 01 January to 31 December. On the other hand, I made this exception for 2022 because I made the search in May 2022. Thus, I added some words to clarify that 2022 compilation was incomplete.

Lines 220 and 249. I now explain that 72 refers to 6 years X 12 months. Data collection for each month had to be done 1 by 1.....time consuming!! I added some words to clarify.

Lines 256-265. Sorry, I think that this "cut" is more appropriate here, as part of the methods. I would fragment the introduction. But if you consider really necessary, I will make this change in a next version. I shortened it.

Figures 2 and 3. I increased their size.

Line 197. Actually, line 297. I changed it. I just wanted to say that fewer records were obtained there.

Figure 4. Yes, I forgot about this. I replace two colors to easy the view. Also, I increased its size. 

Line 315 and ahead. I made some changes to better describe the seasonal variation in the number of records observed in different biomes.

Figures 5 and 6. I increased their sizes. I replaced two colors. It is easier to see them.

Line 374. The databe does not provide this detailed information on the number observers...thus, it is not possible to do this suggestion, although the idea is good.

Line 378. Yes, I incorporated this idea/possible explanation. Some could have found the recomented "isolation" in nature.

Figure 7. This model came with my experience when getting photographs for my papers since 2018. By noting differences in the amount of records for diferent species in different regions, and in distinct periods (this study), by reading comments provided by numerous observers, by reading the literature, and also from my experience with field studies and birding in numerous landscapes in Brazil and overseas.

Figure 7... Continuation. It is just a proposed model that came to my mind as a whole. My paper is already long. There is no space for more analysis. I think that future studies would be necessary to examine the influence of these specific factors on record prodcution....My study is an initial evaluation..... 

I incorporated these explanations in the text and in the figure caption.

Discussion headings. Sorry, but I disagree. When writing the original manuscript, I tried to follow the same thing that you suggested. However, I dealt with a strong overlap of explanatory factors, for example. See figures that deal with seasonality, for example. It is clear that record production varies seasonaly...some factors would be repeated along different sections of the discussion, what would not be good for the reading. Many of what influences production in municipalities also influence portions of biomes....I prefer to keep the sections as they are, if possible. 

I mentioned all results in the discussion when talking about explanatory factors. It makes section  4.1., that deal with annual production, geographic distribution in regions and states, and seasonal variation. This initial section deals with all the Results. The further sections discuss implications for scientifc studies, and other conclusions and limitations.

Line 498. This problem occurred because I had not cited references here. Now I added some to highligh that not only maps can be obtained there. Record compilations can provide information to study species.

Line 504. Ok, done. Actually, I eliminated this paragraph.

Line 528. Great! Thanks.

Line 551. I eliminated digital vouchers and repetitive talks.

Last comment: I added some words talking about the contribution of my results.

Yes, I was walking more about others, and forgot mine.

 

Thank for you all the effort, expertise and time.

Dárius

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

My evaluation is that the article–“An assessment of the spatiotemporal distribution of photographic records of Brazilian birds produced by citizen scientists, and available in 

the WikiAves database”–can be published after a minor revision specified below. The article gives important insights to user behaviours of the Citizen Science platform WikiAves database in Brazil. When discussing the results, the author gives valid suggestions on why the distribution looks the way it does that opens up for further inquiries in the conditions for citizen science activities and motivations for citizen scientists in Brazil.

 

Before publishing the article, I recommend the author to consider making the following changes:

 

·      On line 48 in the sentence that starts with “According to them”, please specify who “them” is referring to.

 

·      Please consider adding a section where the database is described more thoroughly. Is it a database for photographs and sounds only. If not, does written occurrence records of birds also appear in the database? And in that case, is there a difference between the distribution of occurrence records (without photographs) and the photographic records?

 

·      Consider referring to research about changed birdwatcher behaviours during the Covid-19 pandemic in other parts of the world in the discussion on page 12.

Author Response

Mossoró, 26 December 2022.

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you very much for your comments and corrections. I tried to follow all of them, and now my study is improved.

Please find my responses below.

I´m glad with the positive view of my study. Thank you.

About line 48 ("them"). Ok, I made some changes to improve it.

Adding a section. OK, I added some sentences explaining in more detail the content of the database. It contains only photographic and sound records. The distribution maps do not consider records published previously in the literature. I included ony photographs because only then are searched through the advanced search that I used to do this study. Also, sounds records represent a minor portion of the total records available in this database.

 

About covid-19 in the discussion (page 12). Ok, I agree. I was too brief. Now, I added some sentences citing previous studies on this pandemic and birdwatching activities.

 

I hope my changes were sactisfatory.

Thank you.

Dárius

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author, 

the Paper is already way better. You could maybe still elaborate a bit on the introduction, compared to the other sections it is a lot shorter. 

But still, I like it.