Subtropical Broad-Leaved Urban Forests as the Foremost Dynamic and Complex Habitats for a Wide Range of Bird Species
, Shahab Ali Khan 1, Allah Ditta 2,3, Hayssam M. Ali 4, Sami Ullah 1,5, Muhammad Ibrahim 6,*, Altaf Hussain Rajpar 7, Mohamed Zakaria 8,* and Mohamed Z. M. Salem 9Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors conducted line transect sampling at 6 broad-leaved urban forests in Pakistan. Overall, I thought the manuscript was well prepared although there are some words I’d substitute in a revised manuscript. I have two overarching comments for your consideration in organization of the manuscript.
Your paper is developed around the idea that broad-leaved urban forests are an important habitat for birds and that these forests should be a conservation priority. Although you characterized the bird community at the six study sites, your study lacks data to provide a compelling argument for the conservation need for broad-leaved urban forests. I suggest revisions to provide data to support your argument of the importance of urban broad-leaved forests. You have a well-developed observational study of birds, but will need more information to broaden your conclusions.
There were several statements in the discussion about the habitat and other biotic factors had on the bird community results. Specifically, in line 356-357, you stated “It was ascertained that species abundance tends to increase with landscape diversity and decreased with low vegetation coverage that might possess scarce food resources.” In line 367-369, you stated “In addition, vegetation structure especially foliage diversity, vegetation cover percentage, canopy cover, and food assortment were the preeminent variables that harbor higher bird diversity and density in urban forests.” Further, in line 381-385, you stated “This demonstrated that the habitats range and selection among bird species varied depending on the floristic composition, the availability of food resources (e.g. insects, fruits, grains, amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals), adjacent habitats, i.e. agricultural and orchard fields offering suitable foraging and breeding sites, and human mediation.” You did not measure any habitat variables or conduct an analysis to determine what habitat and landscape variables were associated with the bird community. Thus, if you want to make statements about what is driving similarities or differences among sites, I suggest you consider measuring variables that you think are important to the bird community and conducting an analysis as in Sekercioglu (2002). Further, there are multivariate analysis methods that can be used to examine the bird community (see Visser et al. 2018 for a biplot example). As your results show, not all urban broad-leaved forests harbor the same bird community, and from a conservation and management perspective, it would be interesting to know what factors (e.g., forest type, vegetation density, and human density) have the biggest influence.
I acknowledge that you might be working in a region where data is limited, but without results from other habitat types, it is difficult for me to evaluate your statements regarding the importance of the urban broad-leaved forest. Without results from other areas, I don’t know how to interpret the diversity metrics. Is there data from other habitat types could compare in the discussion?
Overall, you have an interesting dataset on birds in urban broad-leaved forests. However, I think the value in your study is being able to understand what attributes of the urban broad-leaved forests influenced the bird community dynamics given the differences among your study sites. And without new analysis, you cannot reach conclusions about the effect of habitat, food availability, adjacent habitat, or landscape setting. Currently, your paper focuses on differences among your study sites. But a reader of Sustainability will be interested in what variables correlate with bird diversity as management actions can be developed in response to correlated.
Sekercioglu, C.H. 2002. Effects of forestry practices on vegetation structure and bird community of Kibale National Park, Uganda
https://sekercioglu.biology.utah.edu/PDFs/Sekercioglu%202002%20BiolConserv_Effects%20of%20forestry%20practices%20on.pdf
Visser et al. 2018. Assessing the impacts of a utility-scale photovoltaic solar energy facility on birds in the Northern Cape, South Africa. DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2018.08.106
Author Response
Response to the reviewer 1 comments
Comment: The authors conducted line transect sampling at 6 broad-leaved urban forests in Pakistan. Overall, I thought the manuscript was well prepared although there are some words I’d substitute in a revised manuscript. I have two overarching comments for your consideration in organization of the manuscript.
Response: Thanks for your appreciation. We have tried our level best to revise our paper as per the comments/suggestions raised by the reviewers
Comment: Your paper is developed around the idea that broad-leaved urban forests are an important habitat for birds and that these forests should be a conservation priority. Although you characterized the bird community at the six study sites, your study lacks data to provide a compelling argument for the conservation need for broad-leaved urban forests. I suggest revisions to provide data to support your argument of the importance of urban broad-leaved forests. You have a well-developed observational study of birds, but will need more information to broaden your conclusions.
There were several statements in the discussion about the habitat and other biotic factors had on the bird community results. Specifically, in line 356-357, you stated “It was ascertained that species abundance tends to increase with landscape diversity and decreased with low vegetation coverage that might possess scarce food resources.” In line 367-369, you stated “In addition, vegetation structure especially foliage diversity, vegetation cover percentage, canopy cover, and food assortment were the preeminent variables that harbor higher bird diversity and density in urban forests.” Further, in line 381-385, you stated “This demonstrated that the habitats range and selection among bird species varied depending on the floristic composition, the availability of food resources (e.g. insects, fruits, grains, amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals), adjacent habitats, i.e. agricultural and orchard fields offering suitable foraging and breeding sites, and human mediation.” You did not measure any habitat variables or conduct an analysis to determine what habitat and landscape variables were associated with the bird community. Thus, if you want to make statements about what is driving similarities or differences among sites, I suggest you consider measuring variables that you think are important to the bird community and conducting an analysis as in Sekercioglu (2002). Further, there are multivariate analysis methods that can be used to examine the bird community (see Visser et al. 2018 for a biplot example). As your results show, not all urban broad-leaved forests harbor the same bird community, and from a conservation and management perspective, it would be interesting to know what factors (e.g., forest type, vegetation density, and human density) have the biggest influence.
I acknowledge that you might be working in a region where data is limited, but without results from other habitat types, it is difficult for me to evaluate your statements regarding the importance of the urban broad-leaved forest. Without results from other areas, I don’t know how to interpret the diversity metrics. Is there data from other habitat types could compare in the discussion?
Response: We agree with the reviewer that the research work was conducted in the region where data is limited and has not been conducted in a similar type of habitat. However, we have already compared our results regarding diversity indices from the forest n other habitats (Please see lines 375-380, 388-396, 410-413, 417-419, 422-430, 448-452, 457-460, and 463-464).
Comment: Overall, you have an interesting dataset on birds in urban broad-leaved forests. However, I think the value in your study is being able to understand what attributes of the urban broad-leaved forests influenced the bird community dynamics given the differences among your study sites. And without new analysis, you cannot reach conclusions about the effect of habitat, food availability, adjacent habitat, or landscape setting. Currently, your paper focuses on differences among your study sites. But a reader of Sustainability will be interested in what variables correlate with bird diversity as management actions can be developed in response to correlated.
Sekercioglu, C.H. 2002. Effects of forestry practices on vegetation structure and bird community of Kibale National Park, Uganda
https://sekercioglu.biology.utah.edu/PDFs/Sekercioglu%202002%20BiolConserv_Effects%20of%20forestry%20practices%20on.pdf
Visser et al. 2018. Assessing the impacts of a utility-scale photovoltaic solar energy facility on birds in the Northern Cape, South Africa. DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2018.08.106
Response: As per the suggestion of the reviewer, we have correlated the data regarding various foraging guilds and bird populations, discussed and presented in Figure 6 (Please lines 346-355, 375-376, 388, and 403)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Review
September 22, 2021
Title: Subtropical Broad-Leaved Urban Forests as the Foremost Dynamic and Complex Habitats for a Wide Range of Bird Species
Authors: Muhammad Nawaz Rajpar 1, Shahab Ali Khan 1, Allah Ditta 2,3, Hayssam M. Ali 4, Sami Ullah 1,5, Muhammad Ibrahim 6,*, Altaf Hussain Rajpar 7, Mohamed Zakaria 8,* and Mohamed Z.M. Salem9 .
Chapter: Abstract
- a) 26th and 27th row, first sentence should be rewritten (Urban forests are the most prolific and diverse ecosystems and are considered a hotspot of biodiversity on the planet) or repleaced by the a part of first sentence from chapter Introduction (51th row). For instance: The broad-leaved subtropical forests are the most productive, diversified, and complex ecosystems on the planet. Because it is a very strange claim in first sentence of abstract “that urban forests are considered a hotspot of biodiversity on the planet.“
- b) Keywords, 48th row, the word „diversity“ is redundant, this term is present in the word biodiversity
- c) Table 2 and 4, First letter of the „passer domesticus“ should be written with capital letters as Passer domesticus
- d) Table 4, It is necessary to remove bold formatting from the species name
I have no other suggestions for correction.
Author Response
Response to the Reviewer 2 comments
Title: Subtropical Broad-Leaved Urban Forests as the Foremost Dynamic and Complex Habitats for a Wide Range of Bird Species
Authors: Muhammad Nawaz Rajpar 1, Shahab Ali Khan 1, Allah Ditta 2,3, Hayssam M. Ali 4, Sami Ullah 1,5, Muhammad Ibrahim 6,*, Altaf Hussain Rajpar 7, Mohamed Zakaria 8,* and Mohamed Z.M. Salem9 .
Chapter: Abstract
Comment a): 26th and 27th row, first sentence should be rewritten (Urban forests are the most prolific and diverse ecosystems and are considered a hotspot of biodiversity on the planet) or repleaced by the a part of first sentence from chapter Introduction (51th row). For instance: The broad-leaved subtropical forests are the most productive, diversified, and complex ecosystems on the planet. Because it is a very strange claim in first sentence of abstract “that urban forests are considered a hotspot of biodiversity on the planet.“
Response: We have modified the mentioned sentence as instructed by the reviewer and highlighted as yellow (Please see line 26-27)
Comment b): Keywords, 48th row, the word „diversity“ is redundant, this term is present in the word biodiversity
Response: The word diversity has been replaced with the word “distribution” and “urban forests”
Comment c): Table 2 and 4, First letter of the „passer domesticus“ should be written with capital letters as Passer domesticus
Response: We have replaced “passer domesticus” with “Passer domesticus” and highlighted it as yellow
Comment d): Table 4, It is necessary to remove bold formatting from the species name
Response: We have removed bold formatting from the species name and highlighted it as yellow
I have no other suggestions for correction
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
My notes are inserted as comments in the text of the ms.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to the Reviewer 3 comments
Comment: I suggest changing the title as: "Park Forests in the Subtropical Urban areas of Pakistan as birds habitats", or something similar to it.
Response: Dear Reviewer, please be clear that the present research work was done in the subtropical urban forest but not in a park forest. We know that “As opposed to a forest park, whose ecosystems are also inherited from wilderness leftovers, urban forests often lack amenities like public bathrooms, paved paths, or sometimes clear borders which are distinct features of parks. Care and management of urban forests is called urban forestry.” Hence, “Subtropical Broad-Leaved Urban Forests” would be appropriate
Comment: You have to mention here that the study was carried out in Pakistan.
Response: We have mentioned the concern raised by the reviewer as “To reduce these severe effects, the present study was conducted to explore the current conservation status and population structure of a wide range of bird species inhabiting different subtropical broad-leaved urban forests of Pakistan” Please see line 31
Comment: “urban park forests”
Response: As mentioned above, the present research work was done in the subtropical urban forest and not in a park forest
Comment: and also the invasive and non-native plant species are problem there
Response: As indicated by the reviewer, we have modified the sentence as “Unfortunately, urban forests are facing overwhelming threats due to the invasion of non-native plant species and human interventions such as continuous sprawl and developments of housing settlements and expansion of agriculture, which may decrease habitat suitability and productivity” (Please see lines 88-91)
Comment: name the countrie/s in brackets (Pakistan, a..?)
Response: As suggested by the reviewer, we have modified the sentence as “The present research work was conducted in subtropical broadleaved urban forests, namely, Dob Ghar, Kamal Khan, Kityari, Palamar, Seya Sar, and Shahabad, occurring 1600 – 3300 feet elevation above mean sea level in the inner foothills of Himalayas in Pakistan” (Please see lines 116-118)
Comment: Please make it clear. In the first sentences of Introduction you mention other species in the forests.
Response: Thanks for your comment. We agree with the reviewer's concern. We have modified the sentence as “Main tree and shrub species growing in the habitat include Indian horse–chestnut – Aesculus indica, Indian maple – Acer caesium, tapering leaf maple – Acer acuminatum, Himalayan elm – Ulmus wallichiana, West Himalayan alder or sharol – Alnus nitida, kamala or kumkum tree – Mallotus philippensis, Indian willow – Salix tetrasperma, common fig – Ficus carica, chamror – Ehretia aspera, and sweet plum – Sageretia theezans. While, the shrubs comprised of Kau – Olea ferruginea, Phulai – Acacia modesta, Fragrant bay tree – Persea odoratissima, Christmas flower – Phoebe pulcherrima, Indian laburnum – Cassia fistula, Phulai – Acacia modesta and Snatha – Dodonaea viscosa, Berberis lyceum, Indigo fera, Carica spinarium, common buckthorn – Rhamnus pentapomica and mallah ber – Zizyphus nummularia. Grass species include aucher’s grass – Chrysopogon aucheri, elephant grass – Pennisetum purpureum, tanglehead grass – Heteropogon contortus, sabai grass – Eulaliopsis binata, buffelgrass – Cenchrus ciliaris, khabbal – Cynodon dactylus, and other turfgrasses” (Please see lines -55-66)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for taking the time to revise your paper and respond to my comments. I like that you added a correlation plot in Figure 6, but I think something might be off with your analysis. First, negative values are typically associated with a red color and positive values are associated with a blue color in the corrplot; yours are opposite. Second, all of your values are highly positively correlated, which I’ve not seen previously. Third, you are missing an axis label. I am uncertain as to the source of the data used in the analysis. What was the source of the rodent data? I had envisioned an analysis where you used foraging guild and habitat variables to determine how the foraging guilds associate with habitat type. Please see the paper by Panda et al. (2021) for an example of a corrplot that might be a good fit for your study.
In your discussion, you have to make a lot of assumptions about how habitat and landscape influenced bird diversity because you analyzed the data by study site. For example, in line 397-398 you stated “It was ascertained that species abundance tends to increase with landscape diversity and decreased with low vegetation coverage that might possess scarce food resources”. How did you reach this conclusion? I searched your paper and did not find a measure of landscape diversity. The limitation you have is that you did not quantify landscape diversity and vegetation coverage so a reader will not understand how you arrived at this conclusion. Please see the paper by Cubley et al (2020) that shows how to quantify an association between landscape diversity and vegetation coverage and bird guild.
As a reader not familiar with the region, I don’t know how to assess the landscape diversity or fragmentation of your study sites. When I look at Table 3, you have the header Habitat, but the study sites listed. I thought all of your study sites were in the same habitat. I then have to look at Table 1 to understand study site conditions. If you don’t have habitat data like in Cubley et al. (2020), maybe you could arrive at a scoring system for your study sites that captures all of the data you presented in Table 1? If you were to rank your sites for ‘landscape diversity’ on a scale of 1 - 6, then you would have results showing how species abundance changes with landscape diversity. You would have to write methods for how you ranked landscape diversity.
Overall, you have six study sites and are attempting to explain what causes the difference in the bird community among the sites without quantifying the habitat at each study site. Thus, you are making broad assumptions about how the habitat is influencing the bird community that are not found in your results. I think you should consider quantifying the habitat variables or changing your discussion to note these are potential factors and not measured factors.
I think your study is well prepared. However, I think your discussion goes beyond the limits of your study because of the lack of vegetation data analyzed.
Cubley et al. (2020)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13157-020-01371-9
Panda et al. (2021)
https://ecologicalprocesses.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13717-021-00304-6
Author Response
RESPONSE TO THE REVIEWER COMMENTS
Dear Ms. Yves Wang
Thanks for the invitation and opportunity to improve this manuscript. We have addressed the reviewers’ comments accordingly and detailed in the relevant sections and a point-by-point response of authors to the specific comments is also prepared.
In this response document (the cover letter), the comments are given in black text, and the authors’ response is in blue text. The changes in the revised manuscript have been made and highlighted. This and the previous reviewers have appreciated the work and we are really thankful for their encouragement and suggestions which improved the quality of the manuscript.
Once again we are thankful to the MDPI and the reviewers for the positive feedback.
Comment: Thank you for taking the time to revise your paper and respond to my comments. I like that you added a correlation plot in Figure 6, but I think something might be off with your analysis. First, negative values are typically associated with a red color and positive values are associated with a blue color in the corrplot; yours are opposite. Second, all of your values are highly positively correlated, which I’ve not seen previously. Third, you are missing an axis label. I am uncertain as to the source of the data used in the analysis. What was the source of the rodent data? I had envisioned an analysis where you used foraging guild and habitat variables to determine how the foraging guilds associate with habitat type. Please see the paper by Panda et al. (2021) for an example of a corrplot that might be a good fit for your study.
Panda et al. (2021) https://ecologicalprocesses.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13717-021-00304-6
Response:
Respected Reviewer, thank you for taking the time to leave your thoughts. Because of your feedback, we altered the correlation plot once again. It is not, however, identical to that developed by Panda et al (2021). There are many packages in R, and we are not sure which one Panda and his colleagues used. However, our plot appears to be much better than previously. Negative values are now connected with a red color, while positive values are now associated with a blue hue, as you suggested. By using corPlot in the psych package in R program, axis labels were also inserted automatically. This analysis was provided in response to your prior remarks, based on a link between the total bird counts and foraging guilds. We also have uploaded the raw data for your information as a supplementary file, and hope it will be useful.
Comment: In your discussion, you have to make a lot of assumptions about how habitat and landscape influenced bird diversity because you analyzed the data by study site. For example, in line 397-398 you stated “It was ascertained that species abundance tends to increase with landscape diversity and decreased with low vegetation coverage that might possess scarce food resources”. How did you reach this conclusion? I searched your paper and did not find a measure of landscape diversity. The limitation you have is that you did not quantify landscape diversity and vegetation coverage so a reader will not understand how you arrived at this conclusion. Please see the paper by Cubley et al (2020) that shows how to quantify an association between landscape diversity and vegetation coverage and bird guild.
As a reader not familiar with the region, I don’t know how to assess the landscape diversity or fragmentation of your study sites. When I look at Table 3, you have the header Habitat, but the study sites listed. I thought all of your study sites were in the same habitat. I then have to look at Table 1 to understand study site conditions. If you don’t have habitat data like in Cubley et al. (2020), maybe you could arrive at a scoring system for your study sites that captures all of the data you presented in Table 1? If you were to rank your sites for ‘landscape diversity’ on a scale of 1 - 6, then you would have results showing how species abundance changes with landscape diversity. You would have to write methods for how you ranked landscape diversity.
Overall, you have six study sites and are attempting to explain what causes the difference in the bird community among the sites without quantifying the habitat at each study site. Thus, you are making broad assumptions about how the habitat is influencing the bird community that are not found in your results. I think you should consider quantifying the habitat variables or changing your discussion to note these are potential factors and not measured factors. I think your study is well prepared. However, I think your discussion goes beyond the limits of your study because of the lack of vegetation data analyzed.
Cubley et al. (2020) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13157-020-01371-9
Response: Thank you very much for the detailed comment and for suggesting an alternative way to discuss. We have tried to modify the discussion within the limits of the results recorded in our study and highlighted them as yellow (in the text), where changes have been made.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for taking the time to revise your manuscript. I found the revisions to the discussion where you noted that a pattern might be explained by something were appropriate. You have a very unique dataset, and I think that your discussion now remains within the limits of the results.
