Obligations of Researchers and Managers to Respect Wetlands: Practical Solutions to Minimizing Field Monitoring Impacts

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors propose a manuscript titled “Our Obligation to Respect Wetlands: Practical Solutions to Minimizing Researcher and Manager Field Monitoring Impacts”. The article give new data, is well argued and written. The study were conducted on wetland field and relative impacts and in particular the induced stressors such as trampling, alloctonous seed and alien invertebrates dispersal, and disease and fungal spread. The authors wanted to identify a linear pathway of deterioration highlighting stressors that can progress to cumulative impacts, consequences, and losses at the site scale. In the study the first and crucial step was those to verified the disturbance through classify the current ecosystem quality, and after the preventative measures of these environments that vary by time of implementation (before, during, and after wetland visit). Finally, the authors have considered the preventative measures that can build accountability in order to protecting wetlands. I remember that this environments are very important habitat protected as habitat Directive 92/43 EEC in Europe and Ramsar Convention at world level. The manuscript deserve of few few crucial informations after which will be able to be published.

Introduction

Some remarks. Add some references and consider some crucial aspects of wetland.

• Please add two words of other wetlands aspects of International convention as Habitat Directive 92/43 EEC, Ramsar Convention …
• Although views are shifting as researchers disseminate information on the values and ecosystem functions of wetlands such as reducing flood damage, providing clean water [choose a reference for this statement], preserving biodiversity the mitigating global climate change [3–5];
• The authors declare correctly: “To aid managers in encouraging researchers and monitoring personnel to maintain the ecological integrity of a wetland, we propose a conceptual framework that includes a tiered approach to classify wetland sensitivity, with guidelines for preventative measures recommended at various intensities and time of implementation to protect wetland integrity. Please spend two words about the existing methods used on monitoring of wetlands area, if they exist!!!

 

2. Linear Pathway of Deterioration

The figures are clear. Few suggestions

• The authors describe “….monitoring and research-induced disturbances as four potential stressor categories: 1) physical trampling; 2) non-native seed dispersal; 3) non-native invertebrate dispersal; and 4) disease and fungal spread…”. This is formarly correct but I think is also important the monitoring of soils parameters and vegetation. What do you think about this consideration? even if something is said after in the text;
• Physical impacts from field research are broad and can impact characteristics of wetland soil, hydrology, and vegetation [choose a reference for this statement];
• These invasive species may be spread via field gear and waders [15], boats [16], or even vehicles [17], and require specific studies and comparisons on their distribution from region to region in order to adequately assess their control [Stinca et al. 2021];
• Remember that for botanical point of view when cite for the first time a genus or species, we need to using the complete form with the author name in the following way (check whole documents). Site suggested to check: https://www.gbif.org/species/

 

• Phalaris arundinacea
• Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin.

 

Reference to be added:

• Stinca, A.; Musarella, C.M.; Rosati, L.; Laface, V.L.A.; Licht, W.; Fanfarillo, E. et al. Italian Vascular Flora: New Findings, Updates and Exploration of Floristic Similarities between Regions. Diversity 2021, 13, 600. doi: 10.3390/d13110600.

 

3. Identify Successful Intervention Strategies and 4. Classify and Prioritize Ecosystem Sensitivity

Well done. Few observations

• Rembered that in wetland areas there is grazing, especially that of buffalo. This is a crucial aspect to be evaluated, the load and plan of grazing!;
• Table 2. About “…Biodiversity: Assemblages of species that exist in a stable state and support natural communities…”. Again the livestock question, there are also the palatable wild species that are not considered in the manuscript. this is an important issue for the maintenance of the wetland ecosystems.

5. Recommended Preventative Measures

Well done. The figures are clear.

• Please consider my previous comments on:
• load and grazing plan
• species appetite by livestock
• evaluation of alien plant species

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

What is this? A scientific paper which supposed must published in a good Journal with IF, like “Land”, or an advertisement? Where is the scientific part of this work? Which are the original parts and the contribution to the existing work? I see a literature description, which of course is not a review, and nothing more, just mistakes, which I point: The authors use words like “Our” and “we”, even in the title…It sounds very selfish, like they want to advertise themselves. There are Figures and Tables which are splitted in two pages or they occupy space in the middle of a paragraph….There is a “Supplemental Table ”" only in words…. The number of References, 50 totally, is very big for this work. It is not a review, also it is difficult to believe that all these references have been used. Why the authors are so sure that their “practical” solutions are so effective? Did they use them in a facility of wetlands? If yes, where is this application? Finally, where is the “Conclusions” section? The two most important parts is a publication for a journal are the “Abstract” and the “Conclusions”… For all the above reasons, unfortunately I have no other options than to REJECT it. I hope that the authors will follow my instructions, if they try to publish this work in another Journal…

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, the manuscript follows my suggestions and I think no other changes are necessary.
Congratulations,

 reviewer

 

Reviewer 2 Report

I recognize that the authors followed some of my remarks/corrections, and they improved somehow their work.

 

The quality of each work must be relevant with the reason of it. I mean, this paper could be OK for conference proceedings, for a chapter, even for a journal without or with a small IF. “Land” is a journal with high quality, an increased IF the last years (it is already high, over 3) and each work must help every journal to increase its IF through its citations.

 

As I pointed in my initial report, this work is something like a review, without being written with the proper way (of a review paper)….The authors use words like “we” and “us”, something not so kind for scientific words….The most important point, they don’t provide something new/original in the existing literature, and they don’t prove with experimental or computational results their conclusions.

 

For all these reasons, and in order to protect the same the journal (it is better not to publish a work than to publish an average one), unfortunately I have to reject it.

 

I wish all the best to authors and to take into account the comments of all the reviewers, especially the negative ones, in order to improve their futural publications.