Plant Communities of the Tern Sanctuary on the Matsu Islands as a Breeding Habitat for Seabirds

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thank you for the research titled “Plant Communities in the Matsu Islands Tern Refuge and Their Relationship with Seabird Breeding Habitat.” The for the interesting topic worth investigating the context of ecology. However, there are a few comments that need attention.

In lines 57–58, it is advisable that we write the scientific name with its authorities when they are introduced for the first time.

For example:  Conyza bonariensis, to be revised to Conyza bonariensis f. bonariensis

In addition, most of the scientific names of the plants in Table 2 need to be verified using https://www.worldfloraonline.org/. and the scientific name should be given to the authorities; this can only be done through the above-mentioned. This aspects needs to be done throughout the plant list within the manuscript.

Most of my comments are attached to the document on its own.

The study does not indicate how ethics were obtained. I am not sure; maybe I have missed this aspect. Please clarify.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

Dear authors, thank you for the research titled “Plant Communities in the Matsu Islands Tern Refuge and Their Relationship with Seabird Breeding Habitat.” The for the interesting topic worth investigating the context of ecology. However, there are a few comments that need attention.

In lines 57–58, it is advisable that we write the scientific name with its authorities when they are introduced for the first time.

For example:  Conyza bonariensis, to be revised to Conyza bonariensis f. bonariensis

In addition, most of the scientific names of the plants in Table 2 need to be verified using https://www.worldfloraonline.org/. and the scientific name should be given to the authorities; this can only be done through the above-mentioned. This aspects needs to be done throughout the plant list within the manuscript.

The document contains most of the comments, but the study does not provide information on the ethics obtained, and the author is unsure if they missed this aspect.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

Comments 1:  In lines 57–58, it is advisable that we write the scientific name with its authorities when they are introduced for the first time. For example: Conyza bonariensis, to be revised to Conyza bonariensis f. bonariensis. In addition, most of the scientific names of the plants in Table 2 need to be verified using https://www.worldfloraonline.org/. and the scientific name should be given to the authorities; this can only be done through the above-mentioned. This aspect needs to be done throughout the plant list within the manuscript.

• Response 1: Thank you for your comments. We checked https://www.worldfloraonline.org/ that you suggested, but there was a lack of information about the plant species in our study area. Therefore, we have established the plant taxon lists (Lines 242-249, Table 2) by https://taicol.tw and revised the scientific names with their authorities in the manuscript. In this manuscript, we keep the scientific name but don't include the authorities because we avoid redundant descriptions.

Comments 2: This article needs to be done throughout the plant list within the manuscript.

• Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. We established a plant list (Lines 242-249, Table 2), and the scientific names were given to the authorities.

Comments 3: The study does not indicate how ethics were obtained.

• Response 3: This manuscript is one of the outcomes of a project commissioned by the Lienchiang County Government. In the Funding section, we have disclosed that this research was funded by the Lienchiang County Government of Taiwan R.O.C.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present an interesting research dealing with plant communities and environment characterization of islands. Moreover, they correlate obtained data with the breeding habitat of bird species (terns specifically) to find results on breeding terns habitat selection.

Focused in Matsu Islands Tern Refuge, they present, based on diverse methodologies, those factors that affects several ecological parameters to plant development. Their results show that parameters such as low-grass shrubs, benefit breeding of terns in the ground

The experimental design is appropriated, the analysis of data is adequate and the tables and figures necessaries and well designed. The discussion and conclusions close perfectly the objectives of the study and the quality and extent of the bibliography, adequate.

Under my opinion, the ms would be ready to switch a paper for Diversity journal but I’ll suggest a couple of minor details in order to improve it.

General aspects:

You use TWINSPAN as method to analyze vegetation. Despite is and old methodology still is used. There are other modern methodologies such as INDVAL that could provide additional information. In that sense, maybe you could justify the use of this method.

Detailed aspects:

You use frequently the term “birdlings”, I think that you could use “chicks” or “fledglings” or “hatchlings” as an alternative that under my humble point of view sounds better.

In line 411 I’ll take out “in this article, just “As mentioned”.

Well this is all, I’ve enjoyed reading your research.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We appreciate your comments, which can improve the quality of the manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

Comments 1: You use TWINSPAN as method to analyze vegetation. Despite is and old methodology still is used. There are other modern methodologies such as INDVAL that could provide additional information. In that sense, maybe you could justify the use of this method.

• Response 1: Thank you for your comments. We have revised the formula of INDVAL (Lines 175-188) and plant lists (please see Table 2) to present relevant information about the species composition and indicator value in our study area. We also state the indicator value at Lines 216-224, and these results approximate our discussion section.

 

Comments 2: You use frequently the term “birdlings”, I think that you could use “chicks” or “fledglings” or “hatchlings” as an alternative that under my humble point of view sounds better.

• Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised and corrected “birdlings” into “hatchlings” (please see Lines 31, 465, 477, 481, 484).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Island ecosystems represent a traditional model for studying the relationships between their structural elements within the framework of the theory of island biogeography. From this point of view, reef islands, as “young” ecosystems with unstable connections between elements, can provide new information. Research on the formation and functioning of plant communities in island ecosystems is important for understanding the details of complex ecological processes. The role of birds in the succession of ecosystems on islands of volcanic origin has been well studied at different latitudes. Birds were the first to populate the islands and are the vectors of many species of plants and even soil animals. However, this manuscript focuses on the current state of bird-influenced island plant communities. At the same time, the authors address another question: how birds can use different plant communities when breeding and raising their offspring. These are two different tasks. In my opinion, authors need to limit themselves to the first task and leave the second for another publication.

Overall, the manuscript is an interesting contribution to island biogeography. A specific example of the relationship between the plant community and bird life on the Matsu reef islands is presented by the authors of this manuscript. The study focuses on describing the plant communities of eight islands where birds stop and breed. The structure and composition of plant communities is described in detail. This new data on plant communities could be the basis for further research into the biodiversity of these islands.

In general, there are no fundamental comments regarding the research methodology and vegetation analysis. However, in my opinion, the problem of studying the relationship between vegetation and the breeding environment of seabirds has not been solved, since the article does not contain quantitative data on breeding birds, including calculations on the flow of guano, the effectiveness of vegetation disturbance during breeding and chick growth, and there is no mention of removal organic matter by birds from the sea to land, etc.

Fundamental remarks

The title of the manuscript is unfortunate. A better option would be “Plant communities of the Tern Sanctuary on the Matsu Islands as a breeding habitat for seabirds”

Although the authors point out the connection between the plant community and birds, the manuscript itself does not contain any empirical information about birds. In my opinion, it is necessary to indicate at least the total number of bird colonies and the numerous species of nesting birds on each island. This will make it possible to understand how much guano enters the ecosystem and how seabirds affect the soil and vegetation.

Specific Remarks

1. Section “Introduction.

In my opinion, it is necessary to add a few sentences to this section about the importance of research for developing knowledge about the formation of island biodiversity. This section lacks theoretical justification for the need for this study.

Page 1, lines 15-37: I propose to remove the names of the islands in Chinese.

It is necessary to specifically formulate the purpose and objectives of this study.

The part of the text that describes the applied significance of the study should be moved to the “Conclusions” section (lines 72-74).

2 Section “Material and methods”.

I propose to change the title of section 2.1. “Study site” on “Study area”

Section 2.3.

I propose adding a table with a list of environmental factors that were taken into account in the study when describing plant communities. The authors describe methods for determining soil properties, but nowhere do they list the set of factors that they analyze. This makes it difficult to understand the methodological approach to analysis.

Section “Results”

Table 1. The environments of each reef in the Matsu Islands Tern Refuge of West Pacific Ocean 186 (Modified by [9]). The authors need to add geographic longitude for each island. It is useful to add the authors’ data obtained in this study on soil properties: the studied variables and their statistics (range of variability, indicators of central tendency). It would be useful in the same table to provide information on the number of bird colonies or data on the relative density of nests (if available).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your comments are very useful to improve the manuscript. We summarized your comments into eight comments. Please find the detailed responses below and the corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

Comments 1. This manuscript focuses on the current state of bird-influenced island plant communities. At the same time, the authors address another question: how birds can use different plant communities when breeding and raising their offspring. These are two different tasks. In my opinion, authors need to limit themselves to the first task and leave the second for another publication.

• Response 1.  Thank your suggestion. We have revised the manuscript’s title, abstract, and introduction section (Lines 17-25, 39-50) to avoid readers being misled by this section. We also added Table 2 to present the plant composition at eight reefs in Matsu Islands Tern Refuge.

Comments 2.  The title of the manuscript is unfortunate. A better option would be “Plant communities of the Tern Sanctuary on the Matsu Islands as a breeding habitat for seabirds”.

• Response 2. Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the title of the manuscript to “Plant communities of the Tern Sanctuary on the Matsu Islands as a breeding habitat for seabirds.”

Comments 3. In my opinion, it is necessary to add a few sentences to this section about the importance of research for developing knowledge about the formation of island biodiversity. This section lacks theoretical justification for the need for this study.

• Response 3. Thank you for your comments. We have revised the manuscript’s title, abstract, and introduction section (Lines 17-25) to avoid readers being misled by this section. These revised paragraphs mainly describe the connection between reefs, vegetation, and soil. Seabirds, as secondary producers, also play an important role in this closed ecosystem.

Comments 4. Page 1, lines 15-37: I propose to remove the names of the islands in Chinese.

• Response 4. Thank your suggestion. We removed the names of the islands in Chinese.

Comments 5. The part of the text that describes the applied significance of the study should be moved to the “Conclusions” section (lines 72-74).

• Response 5. Thank your suggestion. We removed the description of the application of this manuscript. 

Comments 6. I propose to change the title of section 2.1. “Study site” on “Study area”. 

• Response 6. Thank you for your comments. We have revised the name of section 2.1 (Lines 87).

Comments 7. I propose adding a table with a list of environmental factors that were taken into account in the study when describing plant communities. The authors describe methods for determining soil properties, but nowhere do they list the set of factors that they analyze. This makes it difficult to understand the methodological approach to analysis. 

• Response 7. Thank you for your advice. We added the information on topographical and soil factors (Table 3) to replace the description of species composition. Instead, we contributed a plant list (Table 2) to present relevant information about the species composition and indicator value in our study area. 

Comments 8. Table 1. The environments of each reef in the Matsu Islands Tern Refuge of West Pacific Ocean 186 (Modified by [9]). The authors need to add geographic longitude for each island. It is useful to add the authors’ data obtained in this study on soil properties: the studied variables and their statistics (range of variability, indicators of central tendency). It would be useful in the same table to provide information on the number of bird colonies or data on the relative density of nests (if available).

• Response 8. Thank you for your comments. Indeed, we lack quantitative information on seabirds. Therefore, we present the signs of seabird activity observed in the field and discuss our speculations and conservation strategies in Lines 475-517.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have read this work with great interest, considering the title 'Seabird Breeding Habitat'. Unfortunately, the study does not provide any information about the studied seabird species. It is not known what species, terns Sterna spp., or gulls Larus spp, or maybe other Charadrids breed on these island. Although the work describes the vegetation, it is not known what bird species nest in specific types of vegetation. I don't see any connection to the environmental requirements/microhabitat (bare grounds/sand, low grass, high grass, bush etc) of terns or gulls. In fact, the work only describes vegetation, and the title and abstract are misleading. In its current form, the work is not suitable for publication. Please add the required information about the bird species composition in the studied vegetation types or completely convert the content/focus of the paper into a description of the vegetation on the seven studied islands, and the issue of ‘Seabird Breeding Habitat’ can be only discussed based on these findings.

The Abstract states: "Compared to low-grass shrubs, the traits of high-grass shrubs would not be beneficial to nest for breeding of terns on the ground, and no nested trace was found in these plant communities. However, terns rarely nested in some low-grass shrub plant communities on the reefs. This would be influenced by the number of terns that gather, breed, and nest annually on appropriate reefs or affected by environmental factors, characteristics, and structures of plant communities" - what species of terns? nothing is known at this time.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in the re-submitted files.

Comments 1. I have read this work with great interest, considering the title 'Seabird Breeding Habitat'. Unfortunately, the study does not provide any information about the studied seabird species.

• Response 1. Thank you for your comments. We considered your comments and we have revised the title of manuscript to “Plant communities of the Tern Sanctuary on the Matsu Islands as a breeding habitat for seabirds”. The key bird names is Chinese crested tern (Thalasseus bernsteini Schlegel) (Lines 58-64).

Comments 2. Please add the required information about the bird species composition in the studied vegetation types or completely convert the content/focus of the paper into a description of the vegetation on the seven studied islands, and the issue of ‘Seabird Breeding Habitat’ can be only discussed based on these findings.

• Response 2. Thank you for your suggestion. We modified the manuscript’s title, abstract and introduction section. Discussions related to seabirds are included as part of the extended discussion.

Comments 3. The Abstract states: "Compared to low-grass shrubs, the traits of high-grass shrubs would not be beneficial to nest for breeding of terns on the ground, and no nested trace was found in these plant communities. However, terns rarely nested in some low-grass shrub plant communities on the reefs. This would be influenced by the number of terns that gather, breed, and nest annually on appropriate reefs or affected by environmental factors, characteristics, and structures of plant communities" - what species of terns? nothing is known at this time.

• Response 3. Thank you for your comments. We have revised our conclusions regarding signs of bird activity because the evidence has been in practice for a period of time and, therefore, could not be identified (Lines 27-34).

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am satisfied with the authors' corrections and recommend the manuscript for publication.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your review comments and affirmation.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There is still a need to add in many places the name of the tern studied: Chinese crested tern (Thalasseus bernsteini ), i.e. in Abstract line 35, 65, 519, Fig. 3. The full scientific name (Thalasseus bernsteini Schlegel) should be mention only once (now is OK). Alternatively, uou can use instaed the full name: CCT

line 58-59: please add how many tern species or ground nesting species mostly Charadris (gull, plovers etc breed on these islands).

By the way, it would be interesting to add/developed the Discsusion (the first paragraph) of the sources of high floral diversity of these islands in the context of plant dispersal, maybe some of the plant species are dispersed by birds through internal transport/gastrointestinal pathway i.e. from feaces deposition, e.g some gull or migrant shorebirds. This may be important point of the Discussion, please consider this and find more appropriate references from other islands refering seed-bird dispersal.

should bee see gull (l.  460)

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

only minor editing

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your comments are useful to improve the manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in the re-submitted files (with green color).

Comment 1. There is still a need to add in many places the name of the tern studied: Chinese crested tern (Thalasseus bernsteini), i.e. in Abstract line 35, 65, 519, Fig. 3. The full scientific name (Thalasseus bernsteini Schlegel) should be mention only once (now is OK). Alternatively, uou can use instaed the full name: CCT.

• Response 1. Thank you for your comments. Because we focus on the vegetation and environment of the breeding grounds inhabited by terns, we did not include CCT in the keywords. Instead, we added the brief name of the Chinese crested tern in the manuscript. Please see Line 63, 514, and the illustration of Fig. A3.

Comment 2. line 58-59: please add how many tern species or ground nesting species mostly Charadris (gull, plovers etc breed on these islands).

• Response 2. Thank you for your advise. We list the 7 main populations that breed on these reefs. Please see the Lines 59-63.

Comment 3. By the way, it would be interesting to add/developed the Discsusion (the first paragraph) of the sources of high floral diversity of these islands in the context of plant dispersal, maybe some of the plant species are dispersed by birds through internal transport/gastrointestinal pathway i.e. from feaces deposition, e.g some gull or migrant shorebirds. This may be important point of the Discussion, please consider this and find more appropriate references from other islands refering seed-bird dispersal.

• Response 3. Thank you for your suggestion. We have added relevant descriptions and citations based on your suggestions (Lines 477-483). However, given the data from this study and the currently unclear evidence regarding CCT and plant dispersal pathways, the discussion in this manuscript on this topic is presented only through literature and inference.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx