Characteristics of the Habitat and Population Densities of the Mexican Duck (Anas diazi) in the Plateau of Zacatecas, Mexico

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Characteristics of the habitat of the Mexican Duck (Anas diazi) 2 in the Plateau of Zacatecas, Mexico

 

(Some remarks)

 

line 24, 319 and 386 – “gramineae” – graminean or Gramineae or Poaceae

line 26 – “cataloged” – categorized

line 26 – “endangered” - least-concern after IUCN; citation is needed.

line 32 – “stratum” – strata

line 35 and 39 – “gramineae” – the same, see above

line 41 – “adjacent vegetation cover” isn’t clear.

line 45 – “Mexican duck” - Mexican duck (Anas diazi)

line 47 – “endangered species by Mexican law”. It is good to clearly distinguish the national from the global conservation status of the species and in both cases to cite a source.

lines 54-55 – “disseminated” - spread out

line 60 – “albinfronts” – albifrons

line 67 – “areas” – substrates

line 68-69 – “good production of different duck species” – to be edited better

line 84 – “(Typha sp)” - (Typha sp.)

line 92 – “a species that is mainly” – to delete

line 95 – “so called” – s. c.

line 106 – “(Anas diazi)” – to delete

lines 109-152 – The “Introduction” section partly covers the “Study area” section.

Fig. 1. The standard abbreviation of kilometer/-s is km, not Km. Please correct on the scale bar of the right part of the figure

Table 1 – Second column: Please delete dots ot the ends of each item.

line 156 – Repetition of line 45: “The Mexican duck is an endemic species of Mexico.”

lines 164-164 – “The Mexican duck 164 belongs to the subfamily Anatinae, Anatini tribe in which dabbling ducks are classified.” – clear and unnecessary. May be deleted.

line 170 - Anas diazi is accepted as a separate species also by: (1) del Hoyo (Ed.) 2020. All the Birds of the World. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona., 1-967; (2) Clements, J. F., P. C. Rasmussen, T. S. Schulenberg, M. J. Iliff, T. A. Fredericks, J. A. Gerbracht, D. Lepage, A. Spencer, S. M. Billerman, B. L. Sullivan, and C. L. Wood. 2023. The eBird/Clements checklist of Birds of the World: v2023b. and (3) IOC World Bird List (v10.1) (January 2020)

line 225 – “(Schinus sp.)” - (Schinus sp.)

line 229 – “(Populus sp.) and Willows (Salix sp.)” - (Populus sp.) and Willows (Salix sp.)

line 234 and 238 – “(Opuntia sp.)” - (Opuntia sp.)

line 239 – “Acacia sp. and Opuntia sp.” - Acacia sp. and Opuntia sp.

Table 2 - 6 times replace “sp” with sp.

line 369 – “different” – various

line 370 – “freshwater snail, bivalve” - freshwater snails, bivalves

line 371 – “non-published” – unpublished

The “Conclusion” section is weak. It does not specifically reflect the contributions from the results obtained. Instead, it refers to data from previous research. It would be good to expand with specific findings from the study.

In the “References” titles [35] and [36] shouldn’t be in “bold” font

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Comment 1: line 24, 319 and 386 – “gramineae” – graminean or Gramineae or Poaceae

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment, therefore we have made the changes you have made (line 26, 341 and 397).

 

Comment 2: line 26 – “cataloged” – categorized

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment, therefore we have made the changes you have made (line 29).

 

Comment 3: line 26 – “endangered” - least-concern after IUCN; citation is needed.

Response: The change is not accepted, it is a translation error, it was changed to threatened (line 29).

 

Comment 4: line 32 – “stratum” – strata

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment, therefore we have made the changes to the document.

 

Comment 5: line 35 and 39 – “gramineae” – the same, see above

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment, therefore we have made the changes you have made (line 26, 341 and 397).

 

Comment 6: line 41 – “adjacent vegetation cover” isn’t clear.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment, therefore we have made the changes by removing cover and only adjacent vegetation remains (line 38).

 

Comment 7: line 45 – “Mexican duck” - Mexican duck (Anas diazi)

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment, therefore we have made the changes throughout the document, leaving Mexican duck.

 

Comment 8: line 47 – “endangered species by Mexican law”. It is good to clearly distinguish the national from the global conservation status of the species and in both cases to cite a source.

Response: The change is accepted and justified in the introduction section (line 46).

 

Comment 9: lines 54-55 – “disseminated” - spread out

Response: The change is accepted and is exchanged by extending.

 

Comment 10: line 60 – “albinfronts” – albifrons

Response: The change is accepted and exchanged for albifrons.

 

Comment 11: line 67 – “areas” – substrates

Response: the change is accepted and is changed by zones (line 72).

 

Comment 12: line 68-69 – “good production of different duck species” – to be edited better

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment, therefore the wording of the text has been changed (line 77-83).

 

Comment 13: line 84 – “(Typha sp)” - (Typha sp.)

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment (line 111).

 

Comment 14: line 92 – “a species that is mainly” – to delete

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment (line 92).

 

Comment 15: line 95 – “so called” – s. c.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out, however we found no record of abbreviation of so called by s.c. (line 127).

 

Comment 16: Fig. 1. The standard abbreviation of kilometer/-s is km, not Km. Please correct on the scale bar of the right part of the figure

Response: We agree with this comment, therefore we have made the changes (Fig 1).

 

Comment 17: Table 1 – Second column: Please delete dots ot the ends of each item.

Response: We agree with this comment, so the changes were made. (Table 1).

 

Comment 18: line 156 – Repetition of line 45: “The Mexican duck is an endemic species of Mexico.”

Response: We agree with this comment, so the changes were made (line 156).

 

Comment 19: lines 164-164 – “The Mexican duck 164 belongs to the subfamily Anatinae, Anatini tribe in which dabbling ducks are classified.” – clear and unnecessary. May be deleted.

Response:  We agree with this comment, so the changes were made (line 164).

 

Comment 20: line 170 - Anas diazi is accepted as a separate species also by: (1) del Hoyo (Ed.) 2020. All the Birds of the World. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona., 1-967; (2) Clements, J. F., P. C. Rasmussen, T. S. Schulenberg, M. J. Iliff, T. A. Fredericks, J. A. Gerbracht, D. Lepage, A. Spencer, S. M. Billerman, B. L. Sullivan, and C. L. Wood. 2023. The eBird/Clements checklist of Birds of the World: v2023b. and (3) IOC World Bird List (v10.1) (January 2020)

Response: The change is accepted and the recommended citations are included (line 60).

 

Comment 21: line 225 – “(Schinus sp.)” - (Schinus sp.)

Response: We agree with this comment, so the changes were made (line 256).

 

Comment 22: line 229 – “(Populus sp.) and Willows (Salix sp.)” - (Populus sp.) and Willows (Salix sp.)

Response: We agree with this comment, so the changes were made (line 260).

 

Comment 23: line 234 and 238 – “(Opuntia sp.)” - (Opuntia sp.)

Response: We agree with this comment, so the changes were made (line 269).

 

Comment 24: line 239 – “Acacia sp. and Opuntia sp.” - Acacia sp. and Opuntia sp.

Response: We agree with this comment, so the changes were made (line 265).

 

Comment 25: Table 2 - 6 times replace “sp” with sp.

Response: We agree with this comment, so the changes were made (Table 2).

 

Comment 26: line 369 – “different” – various

Response: We agree with this comment, so the changes were made (line 369).

 

Comment 27: line 370 – “freshwater snail, bivalve” - freshwater snails, bivalves

Response: We agree with this comment, therefore we have made the changes (line 410).

 

Comment 28: line 371 – “non-published” –

Response: We agree with this comment, therefore we have made the changes (411).

 

Comment 29: The “Conclusion” section is weak. It does not specifically reflect the contributions from the results obtained. Instead, it refers to data from previous research. It would be good to expand with specific findings from the study.

Response: We agree with this comment, the wording was changed to support the findings of the study.

 

Comment 30: In the “References” titles [35] and [36] shouldn’t be in “bold” font

Response: We agree with this comment, in the references the headings [35] and [36] were changed and the bold font was removed.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I now have read the manuscript entitled "Characteristics of the habitat of the Mexican Duck (Anas diazi) in the Plateau of Zacatecas, Mexico" that was submitted to BirdsI commend the authors for an interesting work that must have been both difficult to accomplish and pleasant to perform. However, I am very concerned about the date of data collection and the methods used in the statistical analysis.

Overall, I find the introduction well organized and clear with the objectives well-presented. Also, the methods are well explained and seem appropriate to answer the aims of the project, although the statistical analysis seems a bit dated for this day and age. The results are accessible and comprehensive. Finally, the discussion is well structured and easy to follow to read but lacks a strong initial hook.

Data was collected in 2004-2005, and the statistical analysis is reminiscent of that used 20 years ago. As I said, I am very concerned about this. After 20 years, the results may no longer be valid. Wetlands, especially artificial ones dependent on agricultural practices, are very dynamic habitats. After such a long period, the study area and population estimates could be completely different, likely rendering the current paper inadequate for publication.

I do not think I can recommend the acceptance of this submission given the many problems I raised above.

Otherwise, I have some important point-to-point remarks if your work is not rejected:

L34-35. The text reads, “The results determined a significantly larger number of individuals in artificial wetlands rather than in lagoons.” I believe you meant to say "lakes" instead of "lagoons." Lagoons are shallow, often elongated bodies of water, usually with some salinity, separated from a larger body of water by a shallow or exposed shoal, coral reef, or similar feature. Am example is the water bodies inside attols. Lakes, on the other hand, are fixed bodies of water on a land surface whose size and regime depends on the climate. It is common to mix these terms (lake and lagoon) in English because of translation. Many languages suffer from this, mine included. In this case, I believe you intend to use the word "lake." This comment is applicable to the entire manuscript.

L69-70. The text reads, “Duck population is related to factors such as grass size, weed amount, and the structure of different predator mammals [15,16].” I believe you meant to refer to the “structure of different mammalian predator communities,” not the structure of the predator mammals themselves, as the sentence implies.

L174. It reads “(…) September and November 2004 (…)”. Is this correct? Did you collect the data in 2004? If so, I believe any conclusions from this study are no longer valid. It has been too long.

L205-207. I see you indeed collected the data in 2004-2005. This was quite a long time ago. Publishing these results now is almost irrelevant since the conditions of the study area may have changed drastically. Unless you intend to contrast these results with new data from recent years, I don't see the point of this publication.

L210. Your statistical analysis seems very reminiscent of methods used in 2004-2005. Were the data analysed recently, or was this all done 20 years ago? There are newer and more widely accepted ways of conducting this kind of analysis today. Although it ultimately comes down to preference if the data are robust enough, you could have used Generalized Linear Models to test the correlation between the abundance of ducks and your environmental variables (or any other comparison). Using Generalized Mixed Models would be even better, as you could use individual wetlands as a random factor. Overall, your analysis looks dated.

L309. Your discussion lacks a strong initial hook to attract the reader. Consider starting with a recap of your most important results that will be discussed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some minor changes to scentence structure and terms used are needed.

Author Response

Comment 1: I now have read the manuscript entitled "Characteristics of the habitat of the Mexican Duck (Anas diazi) in the Plateau of Zacatecas, Mexico" that was submitted to BirdsI commend the authors for an interesting work that must have been both difficult to accomplish and pleasant to perform. However, I am very concerned about the date of data collection and the methods used in the statistical analysis.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment, the methods used in the statistical analysis were modified, the methods used were modified and corroborated.

 

 

Comment 2: Overall, I find the introduction well organized and clear with the objectives well-presented. Also, the methods are well explained and seem appropriate to answer the aims of the project, although the statistical analysis seems a bit dated for this day and age. The results are accessible and comprehensive. Finally, the discussion is well structured and easy to follow to read but lacks a strong initial hook.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment.

 

Comment 3: Data was collected in 2004-2005, and the statistical analysis is reminiscent of that used 20 years ago. As I said, I am very concerned about this. After 20 years, the results may no longer be valid. Wetlands, especially artificial ones dependent on agricultural practices, are very dynamic habitats. After such a long period, the study area and population estimates could be completely different, likely rendering the current paper inadequate for publication.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and the importance of the information presented in the article is justified.

 

 

Comment 4: L34-35. The text reads, “The results determined a significantly larger number of individuals in artificial wetlands rather than in lagoons.” I believe you meant to say "lakes" instead of "lagoons." Lagoons are shallow, often elongated bodies of water, usually with some salinity, separated from a larger body of water by a shallow or exposed shoal, coral reef, or similar feature. Am example is the water bodies inside attols. Lakes, on the other hand, are fixed bodies of water on a land surface whose size and regime depends on the climate. It is common to mix these terms (lake and lagoon) in English because of translation. Many languages suffer from this, mine included. In this case, I believe you intend to use the word "lake." This comment is applicable to the entire manuscript.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and the change from lagoons to lakes is accepted throughout the document.

 

Comment 5: L69-70. The text reads, “Duck population is related to factors such as grass size, weed amount, and the structure of different predator mammals [15,16].” I believe you meant to refer to the “structure of different mammalian predator communities,” not the structure of the predator mammals themselves, as the sentence implies.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. The change is accepted, it is a translation error (line 69-70).

 

Comment 6: L174. It reads “(…) September and November 2004 (…)”. Is this correct? Did you collect the data in 2004? If so, I believe any conclusions from this study are no longer valid. It has been too long.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out, the data collection is correct and the conclusion has been modified, justifying the results obtained (line 198).

 

Comment 7: L205-207. I see you indeed collected the data in 2004-2005. This was quite a long time ago. Publishing these results now is almost irrelevant since the conditions of the study area may have changed drastically. Unless you intend to contrast these results with new data from recent years, I don't see the point of this publication.

Response: In relation to this comment, the document has justified the importance of the information, highlighting the relevance that it still presents (line 436).

 

Comment 8: L210. Your statistical analysis seems very reminiscent of methods used in 2004-2005. Were the data analysed recently, or was this all done 20 years ago? There are newer and more widely accepted ways of conducting this kind of analysis today. Although it ultimately comes down to preference if the data are robust enough, you could have used Generalized Linear Models to test the correlation between the abundance of ducks and your environmental variables (or any other comparison). Using Generalized Mixed Models would be even better, as you could use individual wetlands as a random factor. Overall, your analysis looks dated.

Response: The change was accepted, the statistical analysis was modified and confirmed, and current analyses were used (line 323).

 

Comment 9: L309. Your discussion lacks a strong initial hook to attract the reader. Consider starting with a recap of your most important results that will be discussed.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment, in this paragraph, the most important results were highlighted (line 425).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The major problem with this study is that Anas diazi is today universally recognized (among others by the most authoritative hanbook on birds, Del Hoyo et al. 1992) as a subspecies of the most widespread and the commonest duck species in the world, Anas platyrhynchos. As occurring only mariginally in Mexico, they are, of cause, not so common as they are in Canada, USA , Europe or Russia. Therefore as a species they remain without any conservation needs. The authors should clarify this in the text (in 'Introduction'). 

Writting English names of the species in the text are not consistent. Use lower case throughout, or upper case throughout the text, not upper case in one places, and lower in another (eg. 'Mexican duck' or 'Mexican Duck').

The methods of counting ducks is not clearly described. You mention about transects along lagoons. These were 150 m long. But how many such transects were designed, how often the were surveyed, and so on.  You have provided lots of details on vegetation in each of the wetlands (Table 2), but you have neglected more important information regading the population densities of the duck (Table3). All the details should be included, for each wetland and each month, and then also the overall numbers. It looks as if the overall numbers are simply the arithmetical averages, but perhaps more appropiate (at least in the case of transects) are not the average but maximum numbers in whichever survey. In anyway, it is good to provide both average and the maximum values. This is why the table should be more elaborated, incorporating data from each month and wetland. Importantly these numbers should also be expressed as the average number of individuals per 10 ha of the study area.

In the section 2: 'Material and methods' you should delete the subsection 2.2. It does not fit here. More important information can be transferred to 'Introduction' section. 

The 'Summary' and 'Conclusion' are not much informative. The most important finding are in Table 3 and Fig. 2 and more information from these tab. and fig. should be provided in the summary and conclusion. 

The title does not reflect the real content of the study. I would suggest the following title: 'Characteristics of habitats and population densities of the Mexican duck Anas platyrhynchos diazi in the Plateau of Zacatecas, Mexico'      

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: The major problem with this study is that Anas diazi is today universally recognized (among others by the most authoritative hanbook on birds, Del Hoyo et al. 1992) as a subspecies of the most widespread and the commonest duck species in the world, Anas platyrhynchos. As occurring only mariginally in Mexico, they are, of cause, not so common as they are in Canada, USA, Europe or Russia. Therefore, as a species they remain without any conservation needs. The authors should clarify this in the text (in 'Introduction'). 

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment, in the introduction section, the current situation of the Mexican duck at international level and in Mexico is justified (line 46).

 

Comment 2: Writting English names of the species in the text are not consistent. Use lower case throughout, or upper case throughout the text, not upper case in one place, and lower in another (eg. 'Mexican duck' or 'Mexican Duck').

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment, therefore we have made the changes throughout the document, leaving Mexican duck.

 

Comment 3: The methods of counting ducks is not clearly described. You mention about transects along lagoons. These were 150 m long. But how many such transects were designed, how often the were surveyed, and so on.  You have provided lots of details on vegetation in each of the wetlands (Table 2), but you have neglected more important information regading the population densities of the duck (Table3). All the details should be included, for each wetland and each month, and then also the overall numbers. It looks as if the overall numbers are simply the arithmetical averages, but perhaps more appropiate (at least in the case of transects) are not the average but maximum numbers in whichever survey. In anyway, it is good to provide both average and the maximum values. This is why the table should be more elaborated, incorporating data from each month and wetland. Importantly these numbers should also be expressed as the average number of individuals per 10 ha of the study area.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out, a more detailed description of the information requested is given in the methodology section (line 137).

 

Comment 4: In the section 2: 'Material and methods' you should delete the subsection 2.2. It does not fit here. More important information can be transferred to 'Introduction' section. 

Response: The change was accepted by deleting section 2.2 and the most important information was sent for introduction (line 46).

 

Commnet 5: The 'Summary' and 'Conclusion' are not much informative. The most important finding are in Table 3 and Fig. 2 and more information from these tab. and fig. should be provided in the summary and conclusion. 

Response: The wording of the summary and conclusion was changed, highlighting important findings (line 29 and 425).

 

Comment 6: The title does not reflect the real content of the study. I would suggest the following title: 'Characteristics of habitats and population densities of the Mexican duck Anas platyrhynchos diazi in the Plateau of Zacatecas, Mexico'      

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment, the title of the article was changed to “Characteristics of the habitat and population densities of the Mexican duck (Anas diazi) in the Plateau of Zacatecas, Mexico” (line 1).

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I now have read the re-submission of the revised manuscript entitled "Characteristics of the habitat of the Mexican Duck (Anas diazi) in the Plateau of Zacatecas, Mexico" that was submitted to Birds. I commend the authors with an improved work. However, I am still concerned about the date of data collection, but my recommendation for rejection has changed.

Overall, I find the introduction improved, well-organized, and clear, with the objectives well-presented. The methods are well explained and seem appropriate for addressing the aims of the project, with improved statistical analysis. The results are accessible and comprehensive. Finally, the discussion is well-structured, easy to follow, and pleasant to read, with a strong initial hook.

My concerns regarding the data collection date being 20 years ago (2004-2005) remain. Nevertheless, I understand the importance of this work in describing a very understudied habitat with characteristics that were largely unknown to science. I still believe the descriptive results from this work are likely outdated. As I mentioned in the previous review comments, wetlands are very dynamic habitats that depend on climate and agricultural practices, both of which have likely changed significantly in the study area over the last 20 years. Still, the correlations you found between your study species and habitat characteristics are likely always to be valid. This in itself gives value to this work.

The concerns I raised before regarding the outdated use of statistical analysis have also been addressed. The use of Correspondence Analysis is a robust and visually intuitive way of showing the differences in duck abundance between the types of wetland studied.

Overall, the use of the English language has improved, though there are still some minor concerns. However, I do not think this detracts significantly from the value of the work after the revision.

I no longer believe this work warrants rejection and now recommend it be published in its present format.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

As I mention in the coments section, the use of the English language has improved, though there are still some minor concerns. However, I do not think this detracts significantly from the value of the work after the revision. Still, some minor improvements to the English language would greatly improve the readability and pleasantness of the paper.

Author Response

I appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing my work. I look forward to having the article approved for publication. If you need any additional information or have any other suggestions, please do not hesitate to let me know. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Since the authros have decided to write English bird names all with capital letters, like Great White Heron, Snow Goose, etc, they should also write Mexican Duck, not Mexican duck. How population densities were calculated in Table 3, as a mean of all the months or the highest number was taken into account? This should be explained both in 'Methods' section and in the caption to the table

Author Response

 Nos complace informarle que hemos completado todas las correcciones sugeridas al artículo titulado ' Características del hábitat y densidades poblacionales del pato mexicano ( Anas diazi ) en el Altiplano de Zacatecas, México ' que fue enviado para revisión. 

Comentarios 1: Dado que los autores decidieron escribir los nombres de las aves en inglés con mayúsculas, como Gran Garza Blanca, Ganso Nival, etc., también deberían escribir Pato Mexicano, no Pato Mexicano.

Respuesta 1:  Respecto al comentario de que todas las especies de aves comunes deben escribirse con mayúscula, esto se recibió y se cambiaron los nombres comunes. 

Comentarios 2: ¿Cómo se calcularon las densidades de población en la Tabla 3, como se tomó en cuenta la media de todos los meses o el número más alto? Esto debería explicarse tanto en la sección "Métodos" como en el título de la tabla.

Respuesta 2:  En la sección Metodología, se describe cómo se calcularon las densidades de población en la Tabla 3 y se cambió el título de la tabla.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx