Large-Scale Reduction in the Extent of Agriculture around Stopover Sites of Migratory Geese in European Russia between 1990 and 2015
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper deals with the evaluation of land use changes along the migration route of the white fronted goose Anser albifrons in northern Russia. The assessment was made on the basic of Landsat images from 1990 to 2014. Succession changes worsen conditions at goose stopover sites.
Authors should improve methodology, and add ststistical analyses of the results obtained. Among the presented maps reference data of the beginning of the study are missing.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear editor,
We are grateful for the time that the reviewers spent on our manuscript, and we believe that through their help the manuscript improved where necessary. We wrote the following in reaction to the comments of the reviewers.
Reviewer 1, comment #1 (line 2): We have not changed the title but appreciate the fact that the reviewer commented on it.
Reviewer 1, comment #2 (line 11): In the first line of the abstract, the reviewer suggests to change the wording ‘population health’ to ‘population condition’. We agree with the reviewer that the word ‘health’ is not the best of all words, yet ‘condition’ carries the same ambiguity. We have replaced it with ‘the state of the population’.
Reviewer 1, comment #3 (line 29): The reviewer suggests replacing the word ‘portion’ with ‘part’. We verified this (for instance on a site on ‘legal writing’) and the reviewer is correct. We thus replaced ‘portion’ with ‘part’. We are very happy with his/her close reading of our MS.
Reviewer 1, comment #4 (lines 91-92): The reviewer pointed out that the text “Widespread abandonment of agricultural land resulted, which is currently leading to rapid change in land-cover as abandoned fields undergo succession” could lead to confusion. We thus rewrote this sentence as “Widespread abandonment of agricultural land resulted, and that led to rapid change in land-cover as abandoned fields undergo succession”.
Reviewer 1, comment #5 (line 112): the reviewer suggests to replace the species name Greater white-fronted goose after its mentioning here by GWFG. We have not followed his/her suggestion because we are of the opinion that the proliferation of acronyms in a text make these texts obtuse and obfuscated.
Reviewer 1, comment #6 (line 140): the reviewer asks him/herself ‘which neighbours’ we are referring to. We specifically referred to two publications, both of which are available in the public domain, where this is explained. Yet we changed the text from “We estimated based on the successional stage (Table 1) and interviews with neighbours (as reported in 140 Grishchenko & Prins 2016; Grishchenko 2018) how many years previously agriculture on the site had been 141 abandoned, …” to “We estimated based on the successional stage (Table 1) and interviews in the neighbourhood (as reported in 140 Grishchenko & Prins 2016; Grishchenko 2018) how many years previously agriculture on the site had been 141 abandoned, …”. We trust this puts to rest the reviewer’s concerns.
Reviewer 1, comment #7 (line 147): The reviewer asks for a source, but there is no source. We did not copy this from someone else.
Reviewer 1, comment #8 (line 156): The reviewer asks what the word ‘abandonment’ refers to. It is the last word of the caption and belongs to line 147.
Reviewer 1, comment #9 (line 181): The reviewer remarks that there is a lack of statistic[al] methods, and in line 222 asks whether the differences are statistically significant. Yet, ALL pixels in each of the scenes were classified and so there is no basis for a statistical evaluation of the difference. An analogy might be helpful: each of two bags contains a large number of balls, some of which are red and some blue. One could withdraw n samples, estimate the proportions red and blue, and ask statistically if they differ. But if one counts ALL the balls in each bag there is no need for statistical evaluation. Our pixel counting process is like the latter. Hence, we have not followed the suggestion by the reviewer to add a column giving the statistically significant differences in Table 2 or in Table 3 (wrongly numbered Table 4 – see comment #11) and 4 (wrongly numbered Table 3).
Reviewer 1, comment #10 (line 197; again 201, again 230). Concerning Figure 3a (and 3b), the reviewer mentions that “the map from the first year of the study, a reference point for the changes taking place, is missing”. We do not agree here with the reviewer. Such a figure is actually not missing – it is also not needed because the text states fundamentally “nothing changed except where we indicate that something changed” because the analysis is about land use change, and not about land use.
Reviewer 1, comment #11 (line 257): we appreciate that the reviewer noted an error in the numbering of our tables, and have corrected Table 4 into Table 3, and likewise corrected [old] Table 3 into Table 4.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors!
I have read the manuscript with great pleasure. The article quite fully reflects how land use changes in the northwestern part of the European part of Russia have affected the flyway of the great white-fronted goose in this region. Reasonably enough, trends and tendencies of change towards a decrease in the number of migrating geese and a decrease in the territory for their stops for rest and food are shown. It is indicated that the flyway has shifted to the south and bypassed the expanding boreal zone. On the whole, I find the article interesting and contains quite rare material from the territory of the Russian Federation. For most readers, especially those dealing with wild migratory species, it will be essential to understand the general trend in changing migration routes over the past 30 years.
However, despite the generally positive image of the entire context of the article, I have a few comments-questions. Also polish the design and English !
1. I cannot fully agree that during the given period 1990 and 2015 there could have been a shift of the northern migratory route to the south. Rather, there was a large-scale movement of the migration wave to the east of the European part of Russia towards the Volga and further on the Kama migration route. The same migration route indicated by the authors through the Urals and further east to the Ob, of course, tends to increase the intensity of migration of geese in recent decades, but it does not cover the entire migratory mass of white-fronted geese from wintering in Western Europe.
2. I also find that the spring hunting of geese in the European part of Russia in the years described had a very strong influence on the flyways, stopping places and numbers of great white-fronted geese. Despite a significant decline in the number of people, a decline in living standards and neglect in agriculture, the hunting pressure on waterfowl has grown significantly and is growing every year. People have increased mobility, and possession of hunting weapons, active non-compliance with laws, lack of proper protection of hunting control, etc.
3. As for the displacement of the flyway tension to the east towards the Volga basin, especially to the Middle Volga and Kama. Here there was no such significant change in the structure of arable land and, in general, a drop in the intensification of agriculture. In addition, the introduction of grain corn cultivation into the practice of farming, the increase in winter wheat sowing, the sowing of perennial grasses with early spring vegetation, and the construction of complex-purpose reservoirs in agricultural landscapes to a large extent predetermined the increase in the intensity of the migration route of great white-fronted geese, in particular in the Republic of Chuvashia, Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Udmurtia and partly in the Perm region.
4. In the conclusion section, I think it is also necessary to point out that the revealed pattern of land use in the studied region may change under the influence of the economic or political situation. This means that the structure of the flyways of migrating birds can change dramatically. In addition, "no one" canceled the trend towards climate change.
5. It would be nice to hear from the authors about proposals for protection or practical measures to change the situation with the migratory routes of great white-fronted geese.
Author Response
Dear editor,
We are grateful for the time that the reviewers spent on our manuscript, and we believe that through their help the manuscript improved where necessary. We wrote the following in reaction to the comments of the reviewers.
Reviewer #2 in general observed QUOTE “I have read the manuscript with great pleasure. The article quite fully reflects how land use changes in the northwestern part of the European part of Russia have affected the flyway of the great white-fronted goose in this region. Reasonably enough, trends and tendencies of change towards a decrease in the number of migrating geese and a decrease in the territory for their stops for rest and food are shown. It is indicated that the flyway has shifted to the south and bypassed the expanding boreal zone. On the whole, I find the article interesting and contains quite rare material from the territory of the Russian Federation. For most readers, especially those dealing with wild migratory species, it will be essential to understand the general trend in changing migration routes over the past 30 years.” end Quote. We are happy with the reviewer's reaction.
Reviewer 2, comments # 1, #3 and #4: We thank Referee 2 for his/her comments. It would be instructive to be able to discuss her/his views with her/him, but it is difficult to respond practically. The referee states that s/he has different views on processes in NW Russia. S/He does not criticize our data or the logic, nor does s/he state why s/he feels these do not support our arguments. S/He does not offer quantitively supported counterarguments or citations to support it. Hence for our present manuscript we do not see a need to modify our text (except point #5) but we see a great opportunity for the editor of this special issue to highlight a possible difference in views between what we present and what the referee #2 sees as alternative mechanism. Indeed, out of a contrast in opinions and data we can arrive at better understanding of what is going on vis-à-vis goose migration.
Reviewer 2, comment #2: QUOTE: ´… Despite a significant decline in the number of people, a decline in living standards and neglect in agriculture, the hunting pressure on waterfowl has grown significantly and is growing every year. People have increased mobility, and possession of hunting weapons, active non-compliance with laws, lack of proper protection of hunting control, etc. END quote. See our general comment above, and it would be great if the editor could invite the reviewer to present her/his observations in this special issue! We have not been able to identify a centralized hunting association, and we suppose it would be hard to show to what extent the number of hunters has increased since 1990. We certainly observe that hunters are more visible due to social media, and they appear to be better equipped and more mobile. We also note that there appears to be an increasing sentiment against hunting, especially in the vicinity of large population centres with younger and more affluent populations. More remote areas where geese would be still stopping might be still exposed to what a reviewer describes. However, due to land use changes and land abandonment that we describe in our MS, and the population declines in the northern areas of European Russia, there is much road deterioration which makes it harder to access certain areas. So we repeat that it would be great of the editor of this special issue could entice the reviewer to publish her/his views on hunting and the pressure on migratory geese, and especially Greater white-fronted geese.
Reviewer 2, comment #5: we are very pleased with this suggestion by the reviewer to make some statement about mediating measures that could be considered. Indeed, Olonets (close to Lake Onega in NW Russia) is a good example of community-based conservation. It started in the late 1990s as the Russian-Swedish project "Oloniya" that targeted agricultural development. Participants quickly discovered that maintaining and advancing agriculture around Olonets had a very positive effect on migrating birds, particularly geese. Therefore, the focus was placed on improving agricultural practices, recovering abandoned fields while raising public awareness and conservation efforts. The latter was achieved with the local goose festival (started in 2001). Such an approach could still work under the current socio-economic conditions in the Russian Federation, except that foreign financing is not allowed currently. We thus added the following text:
“To mitigate the negative effects of old field succession in abandoned agricultural lands on migratory geese, it would be important to maintain some agricultural fields in a productive state in the Important Bird Areas of NW Russia, especially away from large towns where otherwise hunters would have too easy access. For this, the focus should be on clearing up fields from shrubs and trees, maintaining fields under crops of which the left-overs can be used by migrating geese, and maintaining grasslands/pastures through mowing these minimally once a year but a higher frequency would be better. Hay should not be left behind to prevent proliferation of herb growth because geese need young grass. These activities should be done in conjunction with an increased visibility on social media of the beauty of migrating geese and other wildlife, which can be done in partnership with other local cultural and historical attractions, tapping into the current Federal rural infrastructure development and medium/small towns' revitalization programmes; for this foreign funding is not needed neither is additional legislation. Considering the current foreign travel restrictions, increased interest in domestic and nature travel creates an enabling environment to generate domestic tourist income”.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I have no comments
Reviewer 2 Report
I have no comments
