Diversity and Population Sizes of Wintering Waterbirds in the Wetlands of the Saïss–Middle Atlas Region (North–Central Morocco): Main Survival Factors and Evaluation of Habitat Loss
, Ismail Mansouri 2,†, Ikram Douini 3,†, Hamid Achiban 4, Hamza Saghrouchni 5, Abdelbari El Agy 1, Fatima Fadil 1, Michael Wink 6 and Mohamed Dakki 7
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study is very interesting and necessary to elucidate the importance of wetlands for wintering waterbirds in an arid area on the edge of the Western Palaearctic. The objectives are clear: to determine the wintering waterbird community on the one hand, and to characterise the influence of anthropisation of the wetlands and the territory on this community, as well as to indicate possible threats. In this sense, the chosen methodology is appropriate and correct, and the article is well written and structured.
I would only suggest one aspect that can be extracted from the results and help in the management of these wetlands to favour the conservation of these birds. The study shows the importance of dams for wintering (and breeding) waterbirds in maintaining water levels during the winter season, which is most significant in particularly dry years. Given that in the climate change scenario (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bird-conservation-international/article/climate-change-exposure-of-waterbird-species-in-the-africaneurasian-flyways/9292D944ABCEBC7641208AAE7A2BE440) this will be more pressing in the future. Perhaps you could point out the importance of these artificial wetlands in the conservation of aquatic avifauna, and how important it would be to manage them to favour the presence of waterbirds, specially endangered species as White-headed duck.
In any case, this is a suggestion, as the main result fulfils the objectives.
Specific suggestions for improving the text to clarify the review are detailed below.
Page 5 line 199. Reference number 37 refers exclusively to Streptopelia turtur, but should refer to all species, I believe you want refer to the global IUCN red List, not only a species.
Page 6 line 215. Scientific names should be in italics. Review all the text.
Page 15 line 355. I think you forgot the name of the NT species (Aythya nyroca?)
Page 15 line 371. Delete interline space.
Page 15 line 386. After Midelt delete space
Page 17 line 492. Correct reference is Ardeola 63, not arla
Page 19 line 552. It should be Birdlife International, and see comment about Page 5 above
Page 19 line 557. It should be Bulletin.
Page 19 line 580. Proceedings of the International Biodiversity & Ecology Sciences Symposium should be in italics (also correct word Biodiverstiy)
Page 20 lines 607-608. Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science should be in italics.
Author Response
The study is very interesting and necessary to elucidate the importance of wetlands for wintering waterbirds in an arid area on the edge of the Western Palaearctic. The objectives are clear: to determine the wintering waterbird community on the one hand, and to characterise the influence of anthropisation of the wetlands and the territory on this community, as well as to indicate possible threats. In this sense, the chosen methodology is appropriate and correct, and the article is well written and structured.
I would only suggest one aspect that can be extracted from the results and help in the management of these wetlands to favour the conservation of these birds. The study shows the importance of dams for wintering (and breeding) waterbirds in maintaining water levels during the winter season, which is most significant in particularly dry years. Given that in the climate change scenario (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bird-conservation-international/article/climate-change-exposure-of-waterbird-species-in-the-africaneurasian-flyways/9292D944ABCEBC7641208AAE7A2BE440) this will be more pressing in the future. Perhaps you could point out the importance of these artificial wetlands in the conservation of aquatic avifauna, and how important it would be to manage them to favour the presence of waterbirds, specially endangered species as White-headed duck.
In any case, this is a suggestion, as the main result fulfils the objectives.
Specific suggestions for improving the text to clarify the review are detailed below.
Page 5 line 199. Reference number 37 refers exclusively to Streptopelia turtur, but should refer to all species, I believe you want refer to the global IUCN red List, not only a species.
Response: yes, thank you for the mention. We corrected it as suggested.
Page 6 line 215. Scientific names should be in italics. Review all the text.
Response: Corrected
Page 15 line 355. I think you forgot the name of the NT species (Aythya nyroca?)
Response: Added
Page 15 line 371. Delete interline space.
Response: deleted
Page 15 line 386. After Midelt delete space
Response: deleted
Page 17 line 492. Correct reference is Ardeola 63, not arla
Response: Corrected
Page 19 line 552. It should be Birdlife International, and see comment about Page 5 above
Response: Corrected
Page 19 line 557. It should be Bulletin.
Response: Corrected
Page 19 line 580. Proceedings of the International Biodiversity & Ecology Sciences Symposium should be in italics (also correct word Biodiverstiy)
Response: Corrected
Page 20 lines 607-608. Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science should be in italics.
Response: Corrected
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study assessed the diversity of birds visiting wetlands in central Morocco. Overall, the study is very well done and clearly presented here. I have a few points that need clarification and added details. I have noted below the points of clarification, but the authors can articulate why they chose the intervals used in their methods and how varying approaches may yield different results.
Line 55: globally threatened, according to what source? If it is something like the IUCN Red List, write the category using a proper noun.
Line 68: What are RAMSAR sites?
The introduction is very clear and sets up the study's goal and its justification.
Line 109-125: lacks citations for the information.
Line 152: Can you justify the 20-30 observation window? Did you systematically work between 06:00 and 17:00
Line 154: Can you explain more about the strategies for accurately estimating the number of birds present without double counting them?
Figure 2: I can see that the asterisks denote a significant difference, but between what? You show us the tested years, especially given the varying significance levels.
Figure 3: is blurry and hard to read
Figure 4: what are the bars representing?
Figure 5: same as Figure 4
Author Response
This study assessed the diversity of birds visiting wetlands in central Morocco. Overall, the study is very well done and clearly presented here. I have a few points that need clarification and added details. I have noted below the points of clarification, but the authors can articulate why they chose the intervals used in their methods and how varying approaches may yield different results.
Line 55: globally threatened, according to what source? If it is something like the IUCN Red List, write the category using a proper noun.
Response: replaced by one of the species recorded in our study.
Assia Djelailia, Nasser Baaziz, Farrah Samraoui, Ahmed H Alfarhan &
Boudjéma Samraoui (2017): Distribution and breeding ecology of the Ferruginous Duck Aythya
nyroca in Algeria, Ostrich, DOI: 10.2989/00306525.2017.1313331
Nest site selection and breeding ecology of the Ferruginous Duck (Aythya nyroca) in Algeria
K Loucif, MC Maazi, M Houhamdi… - Global Ecology and …, 2021
Status and Trends of the Ferruginous Duck's (Aythya nyroca) Wintering Population in Morocco: Analysis of 35 Years of Winter Census Data …
MA El Agbani, A Qninba - 2018
Line 68: What are RAMSAR sites?
Response: A Ramsar site is a wetland site designated to be of international importance under the Ramsar Convention,[1] also known as "The Convention on Wetlands", an international environmental treaty signed on 2 February 1971 in Ramsar, Iran, under the auspices of UNESCO.
The introduction is very clear and sets up the study's goal and its justification.
Line 109-125: lacks citations for the information.
Response: Added as recommended
Quantitative assessment of the relative impacts of different factors on flood susceptibility modelling: case study of Fez-Meknes region in Morocco
L Khaldi, A Elabed… - E3S Web of Conferences, 2023
Structural pattern of the Saïss basin and Tabular Middle Atlas in northern Morocco: hydrological implications
O Dauteuil, F Moreau, K Qarqori - Journal of African Earth Sciences, 2016
Kessabi, R.; Hanchane, M.; Guijarro, J.A.; Krakauer, N.Y.; Addou, R.; Sadiki, A.; Belmahi, M. Homogenization and Trends Analysis of Monthly Precipitation Series in the Fez-Meknes Region, Morocco. Climate 2022, 10, 64. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli10050064
Methodology for a Moroccan inventory and assessment of geological sites: a proposal to be applyed in other African regions
…, M Martín-Martín, R Hlila, A Maaté, S Chakiri, M Achab… - 2023
Line 152: Can you justify the 20-30 observation window? Did you systematically work between 06:00 and 17:00
Response: yes we made a great effort to collect the data we spent a lot of time in the field
Line 154: Can you explain more about the strategies for accurately estimating the number of birds present without double counting them?
Response: to avoid double counting, we observed birds and we counted them when they were stabilized during the early morning, Mid-day, and the afternoon. In these periods, the birds were stable for feeding (morning and afternoon) and resting during Mid-day. In the other periods groups of birds (single or group of species) displaced from one site to another, which risks to miss the exact numbers.
Figure 2: I can see that the asterisks denote a significant difference, but between what? You show us the tested years, especially given the varying significance levels.
Response: clarified as suggested. Then applied for all figures.
(* denote statistically significant differences and ****>***>**>*)
Figure 3: is blurry and hard to read
Response: rebuilt with a clear appearance.
Figure 4: what are the bars representing?
Response: bars present the values of Shannon index
Figure 5: same as Figure 4
Response: the Bars of Figure 5A present the population of threatened species (recorded in the study sites).
The bars of Figure 5B present the wintering populations of each species.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview of “Diversity and populations of wintering waterbirds in wetlands of Fez Meknes region (Central Morocco): comparison among peri-urban, natural and human -made wetlands, and devaluation of habitat loss, by Saqualli et al.
Overall comments:
I found the manuscript well written, the science to be sound, and the information to be relevant to several fields of study. There were some minor grammatical issues, outlined in the following. Overall, I enjoyed reading this manuscript.
1. Throughout the manuscript there are many scientific names without italics. Please go back and correct this.
a. Line 69, 215, 216, 279, 280, 281, 407
b. Common names only in line 83 and 84 – without scientific names, but only used scientific names throughout the rest of the manuscript.
c. Suggest, using scientific names only, or using common names with scientific names on first mention and then using common names.
d. Alternatively, you can use four letter codes after first using common and scientific names – example Northern Pintail (NOPI, Anas acuta). Four letter codes for birds can be found (https://www.birdpop.org/pages/birdSpeciesCodes.php)
2. Line 74 – the use of “alimentary” in reference to food webs is odd. Consider just using ‘food”.
3. Table 1. For common names – remember that common names for birds are proper nouns and the second word is capitalized. example – Northern Pintail. See (https://www.birdpop.org/pages/birdSpeciesCodes.php)
4. Figure 3 was very difficult to read when printed – even in higher resolution. Consider adjusting for better resolution
5. Table 2. Under the consider limiting to 3 or 4 decimal places for estimated differences, t and P. For the third value of P in Farmlands add a 0 before the decimal place
6. Line 349 – remove ‘s’ from ‘hands’ to read ‘hand’
7. Line 351 – change ‘wintered’ to ‘wintering’
8. Line 355 – missing species after near-threatened
9. Line 361 – change ‘These’ to “This”
10. Line 386 – extra space(s) between Midelt and province.
11. Line 424 – extra space(s) between ha and because
Comments on the Quality of English Languagesee above
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsREVIEW
General remarks
Monitoring bird species diversity and abundance in different regions is an integral component in assessing and predicting biodiversity in general. This is due to the continuity of the process of landscape transformation as a result of climate change and increasing anthropogenic activity. North Africa's wetland habitats are on the migratory route of many bird species and are important for waterfowl. Some birds stay here for the winter. In many regions, a redistribution of birds on wintering areas can be noted in the last two decades. Many species of Anseriformes remain to winter north of their old wintering grounds, shortening their migration routes. In this regard, the status of bird wintering areas in central Morocco is currently of interest. Another relevant question is: how have the numbers and species composition of waterfowl changed compared to the previous research period? The manuscript contains interesting information and conclusions, but it does not completely satisfy the reader. Many points should be clarified in order for this study to be of interest to a wide range of specialists.
1. Title. The title is too detailed in my opinion. It is better to leave Diversity and populations of wintering waterbirds in wetlands of Fez-Meknes region (Central Morocco)
2. Details should be specified in keywords, adding, for example, the following: natural wetland, human-made wetland, habitat loss.
3. The authors use mainly Latin names of species, sometimes accompanied by English names. I propose to fix this. When you first mention a species, you must provide the English and Latin names of the species, then use only the English name in the text. Moreover, the full list of species is in Table 1. Also, Latin names are not always italicized in the text. This must be corrected.
4. The authors provide different years of research in the text: 2018-2023 (for example, line 27) or 2018-2022 (for example, line 140). Which dates are still correct? It is necessary to correct.
Introduction
Here I will note a few unfortunate points.
5. Line 52-52. Authors cite [1]: Wang et al. 2021. Tree Diversity and Stand’s Relative Position on Insect and Pathogen Damage in Riparian Poplar Forests. Forest Ecology and Management. This publication is not related to the topic of the study and the idea that the authors are trying to justify with this reference.
6. Lines 54-57. When the authors describe the importance of North African wetlands for migratory birds, they use the Aquatic warbler (Acrocephalus paludicola) as an example. This species, although associated with wetlands, is not among the species that the authors recorded in their study. I recommend finding an example that is more suitable to the topic of research.
7. It would probably be better to put lines 85-89 in the discussion section and discuss them with your findings.
Material and methods
8. Line 100. Section title 2.1. change to “Study area”
9. Lines 109-125. The authors provide physical and geographical characteristics of the study area. There are no references to sources of information here.
10. It is necessary to make a table listing the reservoirs where surveys were carried out, their classification, area and number of surveys. Then it will be clear whether the samples are representative. In addition, when further describing the results, the authors nowhere indicate sample sizes in specific comparisons.
11. Lines 140-141. The surveys were carried out from October to February, as the authors indicate. But does wintering begin in October-November? If the authors discuss wintering, then the analysis will include migrants who stop temporarily in the studied water bodies. If only calendar winter months were selected, this should be noted. Then you need to compare not years (2018, 2019 ... 2023), but winter seasons (2018/2019; 2019/2020 ... 2022/2023). Further, after clarification, it is necessary to change the abscissa axes of the diagrams.
12. It is not clear to the reviewer what number is at the basis of the study? If the authors conducted censuses twice a month, then at a minimum they should have obtained 6 counts per winter for each water body. A total of 36 records over 6 years. What final numbers were used in the study: average, maximum for wintering or others? Perhaps there was a redistribution of wintering birds between water bodies? How was this taken into consideration? The methodology does not contain a description of these details.
13. Section 2.3. Lines 161-163. What values from the database did the authors use to calculate precipitation and temperature indicators: average daily, average monthly?
14. Section 2.5. lines 197-199. This information does not apply to statistical analysis. By the way, the authors do not use it much in their research. I propose adding this information to Table 1.
Section “Results”.
15. Section 3.1. There is not enough analysis here of which species winter annually and which periodically.
16. Line 233. Table 1. I recommend adding columns with the status (resident, migratory, wintering) in the study area and the conservation status of the species. The column “Abundance, Number of individuals” raises questions. What kind of abundance is this? Total registered for all years? If you indicate the maximum recorded (or average) number of individuals during winter, then it should be given for different winter seasons. In this form, this data is not informative.
17. Line 234. Are we talking about 36 species of waterfowl?
18. Line 240. Figure 2. See remark on seasons: winter begins in one year and ends in the next. It is not clear from the graph what data was compared.
19. Line 256. Figure 3. See previous remark.
20. What do the “whiskers” show on the graphs (Figures 2-4): standard deviation, error of the mean, confidence interval, or something else?
21. Line 319. Table 2. Probability values should be reduced to 4 decimal places and significant ones highlighted in bold (p<0.05).
Discussion
The authors did not discuss the question of how the climate changed. As the authors indicated, they analyzed data on precipitation and temperatures. Therefore, these data should be used in research. Compare data for the last 6 years of research with long-term climate indicators. A small section with specific values that the authors calculated can be added to the results (you can add a small table with data for each winter on average temperature and precipitation and the corresponding long-term data).
What hypotheses do the authors have about why the number of species and their numbers during wintering in the studied reservoirs decreases? How can we explain the decline in numbers in the winter of 2019?
Why have threatened species been absent in the last two winters? What hypotheses can be put forward? In my opinion, it would be more interesting to discuss fluctuations in the abundance of some species, rather than the total number of species, which does not provide significant information to the reader.
Overall the discussion is poorly written. Authors need to improve it.
Technical remark
If the significance level is p>0.05, I recommend not giving the full probability, but indicating n.s. (non-significant).
Conclusion. The manuscript requires major revision
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsanimals-2912850
Squalli et al.: Diversity and populations of wintering waterbirds in wetlands of Fez-Meknes region (Central Morocco): comparison among peri-urban, natural and human-made wetlands, and evaluation of habitat loss
This is a scientific study of wintering waterfowl in Morocco's most important wetlands. The research lasted several years and provided excellent insight into the wintering of waterfowl in the Fez-Meknes region. The authors assessed the diversity and abundance of wintering birds between 2018 and 2023. Although the research does not provide much additional scientific value, it may be of great conservation value.
Lines 206-207: The authors use "n" (lower case), while on lines 236 and 238, they use "N" (upper case). Please double-check the rest of the text.
Lines 215-216: Please italicize the following scientific names: Fulica atra, Bubulcus ibis, Larus ridibundus, and Phalacrocorax carbo. The same applies on line 407. The rest of the text should be checked carefully for this and similar issues.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 6 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe presentation has several shortcomings
The authors should consider the requests for information, objections, and suggestions, detailed as notes on the attached pdf. Important points to be considered:
- Clarify the criteria for choosing the sample of wetlands (rows 94-95, 132-32);
- Check your choice of statistical tests, and complete the description (row 199-203). T-test is not an optimal test for differences in “Shannon index, avian richness and populations”. Were the data normally distributed ? The use of Pearson correlation (“to evaluate the trends from 2018 to 2023” in Fig. 2 with only 6 data points), could hardly result in high significance. Therefore, it is doubtful that the number of birds in the lower graph of Fig. 2 could be interpreted as a significant decrease. On the other hand, the decrease of species richness in the upper Fig.2 looks more consistent and it could be significant
- Add details about meaning of column headings in Tab. 1; complete the captions of Fig. 2, 3, 4 with a brief mention of the test applied, and with the significance levels
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Language is not acceptable. I am sympathetic with authors who need to write in English without mastering the idiom as mother language (I’m one of them), but the present paper needs to be completely revised.
Sentences marked in yellow on the attached pdf are unclear and need to be re-phrased.
The presentation includes many typist errors, and does not follow the guidelines of the journal and the common usage of scientific papers.
The text should be made more readable by deleting unnecessary words. See e.g. the proposed deletions on rows 25-35, the same style should be applied to the whole text.
Repetitions should avoided (rows 372-377, 441-452
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors significantly revised the manuscript. It has become now more logical and understandable. Important methodological details of the study were clarified. The introduction, results and discussion sections have been corrected. The new version of the manuscript may be published in the journal "Animal"
Author Response
Thank you so much for your comments
