Bottlenose Dolphin Responses to Boat Traffic Affected by Boat Characteristics and Degree of Compliance to Code of Conduct

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• I suggest a title more in correspondence with the objective of the work:

 

Bottlenose dolphin responses to boat traffic recorded over a long-term survey (2010-2018) in New Quay Bay, Cardigan Bay, West Wales

 

• I suggest some editing to the objective:

This study aims to identify the bottlenose dolphin responses to boat types, and particular vessel names, under a marine traffic zone recorded over a long-term survey (2010-2018) in New Quay Bay, Cardigan Bay, West Wales, and provide an assessment of compliance with the local code of conduct in Cardigan Bay.

 

• The Abstract needs to include key findings of the work. The only Result currently presented in the abstract is in the following lines: “Speed boats, small motorboats, and kayaks break the code most often resulting in higher rates of negative responses by dolphins. Visitor Passenger boats formed the majority of vessels present in the area with the pressures for sustainable tourism through compliance with codes and education about wildlife increasing amongst visitors in a region economically dependent on tourism”. I strongly recommend authors to include key findings.
• In Methods, the sub-section Analyses must include a better explanation on how the design of the study was done. The data collection protocol was explained but what is necessary to explain better is the design of the study. So, after this explanation, then the analyses would be more clear to the reader.

 

• How did dolphins respond to boat names? I did not understand the point here. Explain better.

 

• The subsection 3.4 Dolphin response to boat compliance to the Code of Conduct need to be rewritten. It seems that dolphins are responding themselves, when the case is different. It could be like the regulation itself of boat traffic as the dolphins may respond to.

 

• I strongly recommend a Conclusions section in order to enumerate the key findings. Remember, no recommendations must be included in the Conclusions section. Thanks.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor and Authors,

I have read and revised the Manuscript ID sustainability-1586035 entitled “Sustainable ocean - case study of marine traffic management 2 for the benefit of both the bottlenose dolphins and the community in New Quay, Cardigan Bay, Wales.”.

The study is very interesting addressing the attention on important aspects related to the management of impacts and interactions between bottlenose dolphin and touristic activities. The introduction and discussion sections are well-written and focused the issue and perspectives required in the management of impacts on cetaceans in an important site of conservation. The methods and results provide useful information; however, I found a few points to improve for clarity of reading and understanding for those outside the research field.

My main concern is the absence of data used in the statistical analysis. Data are important to replicate the analysis and to confirm its validity. Not less important, the data allow to better understand the results reported in the main text. I suggest adding this data as supplement.

I am not an expert of GLM methods, but the explanation on the methods is not enough exhaustive to understand the results reported in the Tables, while plots in the figures are clera. Therefore, more details are required on this part (see minor comments).

Minor comments:

L.58: To add other references on tourism impacts, such as:

Lusseau D., Higham J.E.S., 2004. Managing the impacts of dolphin-based tourism through the definition of critical habitats: the case of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.) in Doubtful Sound, New Zealand. Tourism Management, 25 (6), 657-667.

L. 66: To change “…vessel strike” in “vessel strikes”.

L.67-69: a reference is required, such as:

Connor, R. C., Heithaus, M. R., & Barre, L. M. (2001). Complex Social Structure, Alliance Stability and Mating Access in a Bottlenose Dolphin “Super-Alliance.” Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 268(1464), 263–267. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3067565

L.95-97: References are required.

Cummings S, Regeer B, de Haan L, Zweekhorst M, Bunders J. Critical discourse analysis of perspectives on knowledge and the knowledge society within the Sustainable Development Goals. Dev Policy Rev. 2018;36: 727–742. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12296

Carlucci R., Manea R., Ricci P., Cipriano G., Fanizza C., Maglietta R., Gissi E. 2021. Managing multiple pressures for cetaceans’ conservation with an Ecosystem-Based Marine Spatial Planning approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 287(1): 112240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112240

L.107-108 – I suggest rephrasing in “To choose the best management method, there is a need for research, planning, and application of rules suitable for the regional maritime space.”

Figure 1. and caption: I suggest adding a symbol (e.g. red square) the observation point indicated in the caption.

L.131. To modify in “… as well as for the occurrence of several habitats, such as sandbars, reefs, sea caves.”.

L.133. To modify “…on lower levels of the food chain” in “…on basal and intermediate levels of the food web…”.

L.150-152. “When dolphins were present: behaviour (e.g., suspected feeding, aerial behaviours) and the numbers of adults and calves were recorded every 5min to allow changes to be observed and recorded.” reference on the scan focal sampling method used for the behaviour identification (Shane, 1990) and adults-calves classification of the species (length, or other) should be reported.

L.162. In this paragraph should be added more details on the methods. The equation of the GLM binomial model.

Table 2. I am not an expert in GLM binomial methods. However, I found it difficult to understand the meaning of the values (probability greater than 1 in 2018, How is it calculated? I was expecting a maximum value of 1, but maybe I missed some information). What does "As reference" mean for the 2010 variable? I suggest adding an explanation of this in the Analysis section. The same comment is for Tables 3-6.

L.193-195. “Binomial GLM analyses were conducted after reviewing that the Autocorrelation (ACF) test showed small values, confirming that this type of test is suitable for these data. Vessel types were compared to assess whether dolphin responses differed between them.”. This part should be moved in the Analysis paragraph and a reference on ACF is requiredL316-346: I like this paragraph and the good contextualization on the practice of ocean literacy and education. Perhaps, it is necessary to emphasize at the end of this paragraph the importance of ocean literacy and education as tools for nature conservation and how these tools are involved in achieving the SDGs. You can find details in:

Ferreira, J.C.; Vasconcelos, L.; Monteiro, R.; Silva, F.Z.; Duarte, C.M.; Ferreira, F. Ocean Literacy to Promote Sustainable Development Goals and Agenda 2030 in Coastal Communities. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 62. http://doi.org/10.3390/ educsci11020062

L.334-340. “They conducted 14 semi-structured interviews, analysing companies’ websites and collecting observations of tourist-host relationships during jet-ski, kayak, and boat tour operations. One of the conclusions made by the authors was that “eco” in ecotourism is perceived by companies as an economically advantageous label to apply in a competitive manner rather than as a sustainable modifier to traditional forms of tourism, and that whereas it may achieve some of the sustainable goals such as education about nature, it also might divide society competing to earn more money.”. This part is interesting. I think that could be added as analysis and results in the main text. Just to get a sense of what method adopted in the interviews and the main findings.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

• I strongly suggest authors to remove from title “…help inform more sustainable management of boat traffic” from title please.
• In abstract, line 14, it must be: This work instead of “This article…”
• In abstract, line 19, must be …”responses” instead of response, and “following” instead of respecting.
• In general, I strongly recommend authors to improve the whole abstract by including key findings and improving the delivery.
• The objective must be written in past. I suggest the following: This study aimed to identify responses of the bottlenose dolphin (species?) to particular vessels within a traffic zone as determined by a long-term monitoring programme (2010-2018) to assess compliance with the local code of conduct in New Quay Bay, within the Cardigan Bay, West Wales.
• In Materials and methods section, line 127, authors have to mention the bottlenose dolphin species (scientific name) please.
• In lines 136 and 137, please mention the scientific names of Bottlenose dolphins, harbour purpoise, grey seal, river lamprey and sea lamprey.
• Line 164, please use another word expression for “behavior of the boats”.
• Lines 172 to 173, I suggest the following editing: Observers rotated every two hours to keep good quality of inspections and they used binoculars for better visualization of the sea finding dolphins or details of boats. However, encounters (boat interacting with a dolphin) occurred close to the observer (30 to 100m) which allowed detailed descriptions.
• Lines 181-182, The systematic observations were collected by the Sea Watch Foundation (SWF) between May-October from 2006 to 2018 using a protocol of its own. However, we used data collected from 2010 to 2018 only because additional data (e.g., vessel names and dolphin response) were recorded additionally by this Foundation.
• Lines 188-189, I suggest the following edit: Volunteers entered collected data into Excel spreadsheets and the team of the SWF proofread the database. Variables in database were boat type and name, year, compliance with code of conduct, dolphin response (Table 1).
• Are boat and vessel different? I strongly recommend authors to improve the writing in the lines 190 to 197. There are some parts that are redundant.
• In the section 2.4 Analyses, line 201, please remove “Analyses were conducted using R statistics”.
• In line 217 edit the following: “The R package used to apply GLM model was stats 3.6.2 and a function “glm()” with family binomial [53], [54]” to this edit: The binomial GLM model used in R package was stats 3.6.2 and a function “glm()” with family binomial [53], [54]”.
• In the Results, lines 240 to 241, remove years and months and leave it like this: A total of 8,768 effort hours of land-watches were analysed from 2010 to 2018, 240 during May to October.
• In Table 2, which is the calculated value for 2010?
• From lines 263 to 264 must be from 2010 to 2018 during April to October.
• In Table 3 I strongly recommend to include the acronyms meaning in the table heading.
• This latter sentence must be united to the following paragraph (line 219 to 225). The new paragraph must be moved up to the line 200 just after the heading “2.4 Analyses”.
• I disagree with what authors consider Conclusions –clean ocean matter. Based on a scientific point of view, conclusions are the key findings of the work. In this case, authors include quotations and recommendations, which indicate that it is an extension of the Discussion section. Consequently, I strongly recommend authors to depurate the Conclusions section and just include key finding without any quotation or any recommendation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

I reviewed the manuscript and realized authors followed many of my suggestions. Now, I consider the manuscript improved. However, I still have a recommendation to make.

I still feel awkward the term "Dolphin responses to named vessels". Also, standardize the word boat and vessel, please. 

Please, the section Conclusions and recommendations is not adequate. I strongly suggest authors to split that section into two. On one hand, the recommendations and on the other the Conclusions. This procedure would be helpful for readers to identify which are the recommendations and which are the conclusions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf