Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Mar 21;18(3):e0281595. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281595

Diversity and relative abundance of bird species in the two habitat types of Dokima forest Awi zone, Ethiopia

Binega Derebe Asmare 1,*, Yonas Derebe 2, Mulugeta Tamer 2
Editor: Judi Hewitt3
PMCID: PMC10030032  PMID: 36943851

Abstract

Birds are the most widespread vertebrate group, as they can be found in practically every type of habitat. However, lack of knowledge on bird ecology in Afrotropical highlands and bird habitat degradation are the main problems that is why this research was studied. The study was conducted in Awi zone, Amhara National Regional State with the objective of the diversity and relative abundance of bird species in the two habitat types of Dokima forest in Awi zone, Ethiopia. Between November 2018 and December 2020, the transect method was conducted in both dry and wet seasons. Using one-way ANOVA, the effect of seasons and habitats on species richness and abundance was investigated and compared. In both the dry and wet seasons, a total of 2233 individuals, 47 species belonging to 35 families, and 14 orders were recorded. The abundance of bird species was not statistically differed between habitat types in the dry season, but it was statistically significantly in the wet season. The mean abundance of bird species differed significantly between the dry and wet seasons. In the dry season, the forest habitat type had the highest species diversity index (H’ = 3.18) and the highest evenness (J = 0.94), while in the wet season, the forest habitat type had the highest evenness (J = 0.94). These habitats must be conserved in order to protect the birds that live in the area.

Introduction

It is important to note that afro-tropical forests are very rich in species and endemism and play an important role in biodiversity around the world [1]. As a result of their conspicuousness and ease of determination relative to other taxa, birds are significant organisms for evaluating the long-term impacts of human pressure on biodiversity in the tropics [2]. A bird can also be used as an indicator of biodiversity since they display sensitivity to various forms of human intervention [3]. Birds are taken as good indicators of biodiversity and monitors of environmental changes, like the level of contamination and environmental impacts [4]. Forest sites with higher woodpecker richness were also rich in all other bird species [5]. Birds eat pests, pollinate flowers, disseminate seeds, scavenge carrion, cycle nutrients, and alter the environment for the advantage of other species [6]. There are various organisms in situations where there are a big number of birds. Tropical inland lakes harbor and forest have a variety of birds and provide a wintering habitat for Palaearctic and other migratory birds [7]. Bird abundance and diversity can be used as indices or indicators of how ecologically diverse an ecosystem or habitat is [4]. There are several factors affecting bird populations in the tropics, including deforestation and forest fragmentation [811] and it leads to the particular ecological associations, such as insectivores and frugivores, are at risk [1114]. Bird species abundance is determined by the distribution of food and cover resources. Species’ requirements for food and cover are largely determined by the vegetation structure and composition, which are correlated with abundance and habitat use [15, 16]. Agricultural intensification, new agricultural commodities, residential growth, and land abandonment are all driving change in rural areas around the world [17]. Global biodiversity is threatened by deforestation in the humid tropics [18, 19]. It is predicted that global warming also cause elevational range shifts in bird species to montane habitats [19]. As humans encroach on forests in tropical areas, habitat loss and fragmentation impose further pressure on these avian communities [2022]. Local, regional, and historical factors, such as competition, habitat variability, and climate changes, all influence bird species richness [23]. The nature of the flora that makes up a large part of a bird’s habitat determines its species. Rainfall patterns that shift between wet and dry seasons are known to have an impact on vegetation composition and structure [15]. Biotic interactions and their dynamics influence species’ relationships to climate, and this also has important implications for predicting future distributions of species [24]. Changes in human land use, such as grazing pressure and afforestation, have been cited as important threats to biodiversity in mountain environments, affecting species abundance and triggering distribution shifts to mountaintops [25]. Despite Ethiopia’s high bird variety, habitat damage, fragmentation, and loss have been documented for decades, posing a serious threat to bird species’ survival [26]. The habitat use, diversity studies and seasonal migratory of birds in Ethiopia is less explored [15]. Agricultural growth is a major cause of biodiversity loss, but the effects on agro-ecosystem community assembly are less well understood [27, 28]. Individual species must be considered in the context of the broader forest bird population when it comes to conservation. More shrub land birds will be supported by larger and more frequent clear-cuts, while older forest species may lose habitat. The abundance of shrub land birds varies with successional stage, depending on when optimal habitat conditions for a certain species arise [29].

Ethiopia is home to some of the world most unusual and diversified bird populations. Ethiopia is a huge, biologically varied country with a variety of unique environmental circumstances [4, 30]. Due to Ethiopia’s topography, altitude and climate diversity, it is one of the few countries in the world with a high level of avian biodiversity [31]. One of Ethiopia’s main reasons for its biodiversity richness is the imposing difference in altitude between Ras Dashen (4620 m above sea level) and Afar Depression (126 m below sea level) [32].There are 881 bird species in Ethiopia, including 19 endemics, 14 other bird species are shared with Eritrea, 31 globally threatened species, and one introduced species [33, 34]. Some birds have cultural values in Ethiopia, for instance Hornbill is a culturally significant bird species to the Oromo society where proverbs related to the species are used in constructing healthy social relationships [35]. A cautious interpretation of abundance and species richness data is also necessary, since deforestation is an extremely recent phenomenon, agricultural intensification is still occurring, and only a limited amount of information is available about the long-term stability of faunal populations in land use systems [18, 36]. Research into the species richness and distribution patterns of intact Afrotropical forests is necessary in order to fully understand disturbed ecosystems and communities [18]. Bird species richness and relative abundance and their role to ecosystem functioning have been over looked by avian studies especially in developing countries like Ethiopia. As a result, the bird’s check list of Ethiopia is still far from complete. Species composition, distribution, relative abundance and evenness of the bird fauna of Dokima forest are not before addressed. Therefore, the present study attempts to fill this gap. The objective of the study was to identify the diversity and relative abundance of bird species in the two habitat types of Dokima forest in Awi zone, Ethiopia.

Materials and methods

Study area description

Awi zone is one of the administrative zones in Amhara region located in between 11o to 10o85’ N latitude and 36°39’60” to 36°57’E longitude [37]. According to Awi zone department of agriculture, 2018 report, most part of Awi zone is Woyena Dega (72%) followed by Dega (17%) and Kolla (11%). The area ranges from 700 to 2900m.asl in altitude [37]. According to the area’s rainfall distribution, the dry season runs from December to April, while the wet season runs from May to November. The annual rainfall of the zone ranges between 1000 mm in the driest year to 1602 mm in the wettest year and the mean annual rainfall over those years is about 1302 with standard deviation of 110.4 mm [38, 39]. The temperature of the area ranges from 15 to 24oC. Awi zone is a home to a variety of wild animals’ that include amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Dokima forest are one of the largest forest that found in Awi zone, it covers more than 2.5 hectares. Dokima forest is located in the Awi zone, in Banja woreda. It is situated between 10 58’3 0" N and 11 0’ 0" N, and 36 38’ 30"E and 36 40’ 30"E, respectively.

Study design and data collection

Dokima forest is characterized by moist Afro-montane forests with different vegetation strata including trees, shrubs and grasses [40]. The Dokima forest is a natural forest, no any plantation of trees. However the area is highly affected by anthropogenic impacts like logging, overgrazing and firewood collections. Some of the dominant tree species include Cordia africana, Croton macrostachyus, Olea sepecies, Rosa abyssinica, Acacia abyssinica, Albizia species, Apodytes dimidiate, Ekebergia capensis, Ficus vasta, Prunus africana, Schefflera abyssinica, Rhus gluti [40]. The sampling units representing each habitat types were selected based on stratified random sampling method. The area was divided into two habitat types for this study based on land cover features. Forest and shrub land were the habitat types under consideration. Bird species diversity and abundance were assessed using a random sampling design across the two stratified habitat categories. The censuses were taken on 30 sampling points of which 18 were from forest and 12 from shrubs. In each point count station, a minimum distance of 150–200m was maintained using GPS to avoid double counting [40].

Direct observations with the use of binoculars and bird guide books were used to identify birds and count individuals. Standing in the center of the point transects and softly observing up to a distance of 50 m radius was used to make observations. Each point transect was observed for 15 minutes [15]. Standing in the center of the point transects and silently and softly observing 360° about up to a radius of 50 m, observations were made [15]. The distance between points along the transect were 100m maximal in the shrub and 30m minimal in the forests [7]. The point count approach involves counting all individuals seen and heard by observers from a fixed location (census station) for a set period of time [7, 41].

During field observation, the birds’ common and scientific names were recorded. To identify the bird species, the following three traits were used. External morphology (color, form, size, beak, leg, and tail), song and calls, and habitat type are the three factors to consider [42]. Point surveys of bird species were conducted in the morning from 6:00 to 10:00 a.m. and in the early evening from 5:00 to 7:30 p.m. [4, 43]. The survey point was visited two times a day in morning and afternoon and three days in wet and three days in dry season. Four observers with two data recorder were used during the survey. A prepared datasheet was used to record all of the bird species that were seen. By using simultaneous counting and thorough observation of birds while surveying birds, multiple counting of the same species or individual birds at a site was prevented. To obtain accurate data, well-experienced researchers and bird experts were involved with the aid of binocular and field guide books. Before conducting bird identification, all observers received introductory training on how to use the techniques and how to use field materials and tools [43].

Data analysis

During the study period, all data was summarized in a table by season and habitat type. The Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index was used to calculate the distribution, abundance, and evenness of species across the wet and dry seasons, as well as between habitat types. The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 20 software and R studio. Using one-way ANOVA, the effect of seasons on species richness and abundance was investigated and compared. Excel version 2016 was used to generate the relative abundance and species diversity index using prepared formulas.

The following formula was used to calculate Shannon diversity index

H=Σpi*ln(pi)(1)Shannondiversityindex.

Where H’ is Shannon-winner index, pi is estimated as ni/N, where ni is the proportion of the total population of the ith species and N = -∑ni.

This use proportions rather than absolute abundance values to reduce the effects of order of magnitude deference in bird numbers between species. Birds’ diversity was calculated using both Shannon-Weiner and Simpson’s diversity indices [23, 43]. This index provides a measure of `evenness’ in the proportion of each species occurring within squares.

J=H/ln(S)(2)Evennessindex

Where, J’ is Evenness index, H’ is Shannon winner index and used the formula one and S is numbers of species encountered. S = Σn Where n is the number of species in a community

The similarity among and between the habitats concerning the composition of species was computed using Sorenson’s similarity index (SI):

(SI)=2C/S1+S2.(3)Similarityindex

Where C is the number of species the two habitats have in common, S1 is the total number of species found in habitat 1, and S2 is the total number of species found in habitat 2.

Relativeabundance(RA)(%)=n/N×100..(4)Relativeabundance

Where, n is the number of individuals of particular species recorded and N is the total number of individuals of the species.

Results

Species richness and abundance of birds

In Dokima forest, a total of 2233 individuals of birds, 47 species belonging to 35 families and 14 orders, were identified throughout the study period (Table 1). In both the dry and wet seasons, the order Passeriformes had the most species identified, followed by the Columbiformer (Fig 1). While the order of Bucerotiformes, Gruiformes, Pelecaniformes, and Cuculiformes was recorded in the study area had the least number of species (Fig 1). Passeriformes was also the most abundance in number of population follower by Coraciiformer (Fig 2). The correlation among the average populations and relative abundance were linear relationships, that means the higher the populations have the higher relative abundance (Fig 3). Ethiopian oriole (Oriolus monacha), Banded barbet (Lybius undatus), and Rouget’s rail (Rougetius rougetii) are the only species found in the study area that are endemic to both Ethiopia and Eritrea. The Spot bearsted lawping (Vanellus melanocephalus), an endemic bird species, was also identified (Table 1). 45 species were classified as least concern by the IUCN in 2021, while two species, Rouget’s rail (Rougetius rougetii) and Rüppell’s vulture (Gyps rueppelli), were classified as near threatened and critically endangered, respectively (Table 1).

Table 1. Bird species richness and abundance during both dry and wet seasons in Dokima forest.

Order of the species Family Scientific name Common name Population 2021 IUCN -CS
Dry Wet
Passeriformes  Estrildidae Uraeginthus bengalus Red-cheeked Cordon-bleu 85 92 LC
    Spermestes cucullata Bronze mannikin 212 225 LC
    Lagonosticta rufopicta Bare-breasted fire finch 20 35 LC
  Pycnonotidae Pychonotus barbatus Common bulbul 13 22 LC
  Oriolidae Oriolus monacha Ethiopian oriole AB 20 22 LC
  Coliidae Colius striatus Speckled mouse bird 30 38 LC
  Hirundinidae Cecropis daurica Red-rumped swallow 25 36 LC
  Ploceidae Bubalornis niger Red-billed buffalo weaver 8 6 LC
    Ploceus luteolus Little weaver 23 20 LC
    Ploceus intermedius Lesser masked weaver 34 36 LC
    Ploceus cucullatus Village weaver 104 95 LC
  Nectariniidae Cinnyris bifasciatus Purple-banded sunbird 26 28 LC
  Zosteropidae Zosterops senegalensis Yellow Wight eye sunbird 8 9 LC
  Muscicapidae Cossypha semirufa Rüppell’s robin-chat 45 55 LC
  Turdidae Turdus smithi Karoo thrush 29 39 LC
    Zoothera piaggiae Abyssinian ground thrush 10 12 LC
  Malaconotidae Laniarius major Tropical boubou 15 12 LC
  Motacillidae Anthus cinnamomeus African pipit 8 6 LC
  Emberizidae Emberiza striolata Cinnamon-breasted bunting 14 16 LC
  Motacillidae Motacilla flava Western Yellow Wagtail 6 4 LC
  Viduidae Vidua chalybeate Village indigo bird 4 8 LC
  Fringillidae Crithagra gularis Streaky-headed seedeater 62 62 LC
  Monarchidae Terpsiphone viridis African paradise flycatcher 10 8 LC
  Alaudidae Mirafra cantillans Singing bush lark 8 6 LC
  Sturnidae Lamprotornis chalybaeus Greater blue-eared starling 12 21 LC
  Leiothrichidae Turdoides hartlaubii Hartlaub’s babbler 6 4 LC
Coliiformes Cisticolidae Phyllolais pulchella Buff-bellied warbler 45 56 LC
Coraciiformes Coraciidae Eurystomus glaucurus Broad-billed roller 8 10 LC
  Meropidae Merops pusillus Little bee-eater 56 66 LC
Piciformes Lybiidae Lybius bidentatus Double-toothed barbet 8 6 LC
    Lybius undatus Banded barbet AB 4 8 LC
  Picidae Dendropicos namaquus Bearded woodpecker 6 4 LC
Columbiformes Columbidae Turtur abyssinicus Black-billed wood dove 6 4 LC
    Columba larvata Lemon dove 8 12 LC
    Streptopelia roseogrisea African collared dove 2 8 LC
    Spilopelia senegalensis Laughing dove 6 4 LC
Bucerotiformes Bucerotidae Bycanistes brevis Silvery-cheeked hornbill 4 8 LC
Gruiformes Rallidae Rougetius rougetii Rouget’s rail AB 2 2 NT
Psittaciformes Psittacidae Poicephalus flavifrons Yellow-fronted parrot 8 6 LC
Pelecaniformes Threskiornithidae Bostrychia hagedash Hadada ibis 4 6 LC
Cuculiformes Cuculidae Centropus monachus Blue-headed coucal 4 4 LC
Accipitriformes Accipitridae Gyps rueppelli Rüppell’s vulture 4 2 CR
    Melierax metabates Dark chanting goshawk 6 4 LC
Charadriiformes Charadriidae Charadrius dubius Little ringed plover 4 8 LC
    Vanellus melanocephalus Spot-breasted lapwing A 16 16 LC
Musophagiformes Musophagidae Turaco leucotis White-cheeked turaco 8 12 LC
Apodiformes Apodidae Apus affinis Little swift 10 14 LC

Note: A = EndemicA; AB = Endemic to both Ethiopia and Eritrea; NT = Near Threatened; LC = Least Concern; CR = Critically Endangered; CS = Conservation Status; Dry = Dry Season; Wet = Wet Season.

Fig 1. Number of species among orders.

Fig 1

Fig 2. Number of populations in each order.

Fig 2

Fig 3. Correlations among the entire matrix of four variables.

Fig 3

In the shrub habitat the average number of bird population was 1517±11.63 and in the forest habitat type the average number of bird population was 716±37.03. The average abundance of birds by habitat type was statistically significant different (P ≤0.001) (Table 2). Shrub habitat type was recorded the highest abundance of bird populations than forest habitat type. During the study 68% of bird population were recorded in shrub land and 32% of population of bird were recorded in forest habitat type (Fig 4). Forest habitat had the maximum species richness in both seasons 33 and 37 species in dry and wet respectively, while shrub land had the lowest species richness 30 and 31 species throughout the dry and wet seasons (Fig 5). However, Forest habitat type was higher number of species; whereas, its abundance was lower than shrub habitat type (344, 372) and (712, 805) individuals in both dry and wet seasons respectively (Fig 5).

Table 2. Mean abundance of bird populations in the two habitats.

Habitat type Mean number of populations Std. De Std. Error Df F Sig.
Forest 716 37.03 15.12 1 9298.56 0.000
Shrub 1517 11.63 4.75

Fig 4. Percentage of bird population among the two habitats.

Fig 4

Fig 5. Bird species abundance and distributions among the two study habitats.

Fig 5

Between the dry and wet seasons, there was a statistically significant variation in bird species abundance (P≤0.001). Wet season mean of bird abundance was higher than the mean abundance (1177±27.10.5) of dry season (1056 ± 7.3) (Table 3).

Table 3. Total mean abundance of bird species in dry and wet season.

Seasons Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mini Max Df F Sig.
Dry season 1056.000 23.16127 7.32424 1020.0 1092.00 1 88.78 ≤0.001
Wet season 1177.000 33.35666 10.54830 1127.0 1227.00

Bird species diversity and evenness index

The species diversity of birds was recorded (H’ = 3.18), (H = 3.4) in both dry and wet seasons, respectively. Although the highest species diversity was recorded in wet season, the diversity among season was almost the same. The evenness of the species distribution is lowest in the dry season (J = 0.366) and highest in the wet season (J = 0.94). In both the dry and wet seasons, the shrubs land habitat type reduces diversity, with the highest evenness index (J = 0.77) in the dry season (Table 4).

Table 4. Bird species diversity and evenness index along habitat types.

Habitat type Seasons Species No of individuals Diversity(H’) Evenness (J)
Forest Dry 33 344 3.18 0.366
Wet 37 372 3.4 0.94
Shrubs Dry 30 712 2.62 0.77
Wet 31 805 2.67 0.78

The Sorensen similarity index (S) is used to compare the similarity of species across various habitat types. It is set to "One" if two habitats are completely comparable, and "Zero" if the species of two habitat types are completely distinct. S = 2C/ (S1 + S2) is the Sorensen similarity index (S). During the dry seasons, the research area’s forest habitat has 33 bird species, while the shrub land environment contains 30 and 16 bird species were common in both habitat types. During the wet season, there are 37 bird species in the forest habitat and 31 bird species in the shrub land environment and 21 bird species were common in both habitat types. In the dry season, S = 2*16/ (33+30) = 32/63 = 0.51, whereas in the wet season, S = 2*21/ (37+31) = 42/68 = 0.61. This suggests that the species present in both environments in both seasons were more similar in wet season than the dry seasons.

Relative abundance of birds

Bronze manikin (Spermestes cucullata) had the highest relative abundance (20.1 percent), (212 individuals), (19.1 percent), (225 individuals) in both the dry and wet seasons, followed by Village weaver (Ploceus cucullatus) with 104 (9.93 percent), 95 (8.07 percent) in both. During the dry season, the Roget rail (Rougatius rougatti) and African collared dove (Streptopelia roseogrisea) had the lowest relative abundance (2(0.2%) and 2(0.2%), respectively. The Roget rail (Rougatius rougatti) and the Ruppells vulture (Gyps rueppelli) had the lowest relative abundance score 2 (0.17 percent) each during the wet season (Table 5).

Table 5. Relative abundance and distribution of bird species in the two study habitats with seasons.

Common name Scientific name RA (%) Habitat types
Wet Dry FL SL
Wet Dry Wet Dry
Red-cheeked Cordon-bleu Uraeginthus bengalus 8.05 7.8 - - + +
Common bulbul Pychonotus barbatus 1.87 1.23 + + + +
Ethiopian oriole NE Oriolus monacha 1.97 1.79 + + - -
Village weaver Ploceus cucullatus 8.07 9.52 + + + +
Speckled mouse bird Colius striatus 3.23 2.55 + + + +
Buff-bellied warbler Phyllolais pulchella 4.76 4.26 + + + +
Little weaver Ploceus luteolus 1.7 2.18 - - + +
African paradise flycatcher Terpsiphone viridis 0.7 0.95 + + + +
Little bee- eater Merops pusillus 5.6 5.3 + + + +
Double-toothed barbet Lybius bidentatus 0.5 0.76 + + + +
Purple banded sunbird Cinnyris bifasciatus 2.38 2.46 + + + +
Yellow Wight eye sunbird Zosterops senegalensis 0.76 0.75 + + + +
Rüppell’s robin-chat Cossypha semirufa 4.67 4.26 + + + +
Black billed dove Turtur abyssinicus 0.34 0.57 + + + -
Karoo thrush Turdus smithi 3.3 2.75 + + + +
Abyssinian ground thrush Zoothera piaggiae 1.02 0.95 + + + +
Tropical boubou Laniarius major 1.02 1.42 + + - -
Bare- breasted firefinch Lagonosticta rufopicta 3 1.71 - - + +
African pipit Anthus cinnamomeus 0.5 0.76 + + - -
Cinnamon-breasted bunting Emberiza striolata 1.34 1.33 + + + +
Laser masked weaver Ploceus intermedius 3.06 3.22 + + + +
Yellow wag tail Motacilla flava 0.34 0.57 - - + +
Bronze manikin Spermestes cucullata 19.1 20.1 - - + +
Lemon dove Columba larvata 1.02 0.76 + + + +
Village indigobird Vidua chalybeate 0.68 0.38 - - + +
Streaky seed eater Crithagra gularis 5.27 5.87 + + + +
Silvery-cheeked hornbill Bycanistes brevis 0.68 0.38 + + - -
Rouget’s rail NE Rougatius rougatti 0.17 0.2 - - + +
Singing bush lark Mirafra cantillans 0.5 0.76 - - + +
Greater blue-eared starling Lamprotornis chalybaeus 1.78 1.14 + + + +
Broad-billed roller Eurystomus glaucurus 0.85 0.76 + + - -
Laughing dove Spilopelia senegalensis 0.34 0.57 + + + +
Yellow-fronted parrot Poicephalus flavifrons 0.5 0.76 + + - -
African collared dove Streptopelia roseogrisea 0.68 0.2 + + - -
Red-rumped swallow Cecropis daurica 3.06 2.37 + + + +
Hadada ibis Bostrychia hagedash 0.5 0.38 - - + +
Hartlaub’s babbler Turdoides hartlaubii 0.34 0.57 + + - -
Blue-headed coucal Centropus monachus 0.34 0.38 + + - -
Rüppell’s vulture Gyps rueppelli 0.17 0.38 + + + -
Red billed buffalo weaver Bubalornis niger 0.5 0.76 - - + +
Little ringed plover Charadrius dubius 0.68 0.38 + + - -
Banded barbet NE Lybius undatus 0.68 0.38 + + - -
Dark chanting goshawk Melierax metabates 0.34 0.57 + + - -
Spot-breasted lapwingE Vanellus melanocephalus 1.36 1.5 + + - -
White-cheeked turaco Turaco leucotis 1.53 1.02 + - - -
Little swift Apus affinis 1.2 0.85 + - + -
Bearded woodpecker Dendropicos namaquus 0.34 0.51 + - - -

Note: RA: Relative abundance, (+) refers to the species was found in the habitat and (-) refers to the species was not found in the habitat during the study, FL = Forest land, SL = Shrub land, Wet = Wet season, Dry = Dry season.

Discussions

In comparison to other studies, the number of bird species in Dokima forest was low. For example, a total of 86 bird species were recorded in San Pedro de Puntina Punco [44]. In addition, 89 bird species were identified in the Zapotitlán Salinas Valle (Romero-Bautista et al., 2020). A total of 112 bird species belonging to 21 orders were recognized in Gibe Sheleko National Park (GSNP) [43] and 1,672 individuals belonging to 137 bird species were reported in Wondo Genet Forest, south-central Ethiopia [15]. In contrary, in the Buriganga river, a total of 38 bird species from 21 families and 8 orders were recorded [42]. Overall, effects on species richness were higher than those on bird abundance, with the latter being extremely varied depending on the species planted and the geographical context in which these productive systems are found [45]. Species with a high degree of specialization are more vulnerable to environmental changes than generalist species with a larger geographic range [46].

Forest habitats had the maximum species richness in both dry and wet seasons, although it has lower bird population abundance than the shrub habitat type. This could be linked to the abundance of a range of food items, water, and cover during the research period, all of which contributed to the habitat’s highest species richness and evenness [47]. With clear-cut age, bird communities shift from shrub land to mature forest, with more species associated with mature forest. Forest managers must address the geographical and temporal effects of timber harvests while managing forests for shrub land birds [29]. The high diversity and species richness of birds in the Dokima forest emphasizes the importance of implementing conservation measures and limiting human activity in the area according to different bird threat factors. For the sake of conserving high bird diversity in the entire riparian landscape, the wood cover, which includes trees, bushes, and young saplings, should be maintained, not only trees [48]. The forest patch and its environs are important for bird habitats [15]. Bird abundance and diversity are influenced by habitat type and size around the world, but especially in developing countries with rapid human population expansion and unplanned urban, agricultural, and industrial development [44]. The complexity of the ecosystem enhances the number of insects, which in turn promotes the diversity and population of birds [49]. Higher abundance during the wet season can be attributed to the availability of food as well as the breeding season [48]. All of the bird species found in the study area was sedentary species, they were found in both wet and dry seasons. Depending on the season, all regions were key bird habitats, reflecting the varying effects of temperature [50]. A similar research showed that the abundance of birds differed significantly between the two study seasons. The post-rainy season had the maximum abundance of birds, while the dry season had the lowest [7]. There was also a considerable change in the mean abundance of bird species between the dry and wet seasons in and around Wondo Genet woodland in south-central Ethiopia [15]. The diversity of bird species, on the other hand, did not vary significantly throughout the research period [47]. However, the species in our study varied according on the season.

During the study forest habitat was higher species diversity than the shrub habitat type. Forested areas have a higher diversity of forest-dependent bird species than non-forested areas [51]. Agricultural expansions in the study area had an impact on bird habitats; similarly, diverse land-use trajectories have resulted in variance in landscape structure, with a principal gradient of change from forest to rural townships [17]. Short-distance migrants and granivores birds are expected to increase as agriculture expands [28]. Similarly, despite conservation efforts in several bird-protected areas in Ethiopia, cropland has the lowest species diversity due to severe human disturbance [43]. Bird species richness was linked to environmental heterogeneity, habitat filtration, and biotic interactions [23]. The Rift Valley environment, which includes Lake Abijatta, has a total of 538 species of birds, accounting for more than 65 percent of the country’s total [52]. Lakes with abundant vegetation gained more species than lakes with sparse vegetation, according to the relationship between habitat index and number of species gained [53]. The forest patch and its environs are important bird habitats [15]. Anthropogenic changes to the landscape and climate result in new ecological and evolutionary constraints, potentially leading to major changes in biodiversity distribution [54]. Human-caused habitat loss and degradation are one of the most serious threats to biodiversity worldwide (Regos et al., 2018). For the long-term protection of bird communities, appropriate management programs must be designed and implemented [49].

There is some difference in bird populations among both dry and wet seasons as the relative abundance shows. The relative abundance of bird species during different seasons may be related to food availability, habitat conditions, and the species’ breeding season. Seasonal fluctuations in bird species abundance are caused by the unique seasonality of rainfall and seasonal variation in the amount of food supplies [55, 56].

Conclusion and recommendations

The habitats that were studied are significant for a variety of bird species. The presence of a large number of resident and international concerned birds in Dokima forest, including endemic and globally vulnerable species, proves the importance of the study areas for bird conservation. During the study, a large number of birds from both habitats were identified during the wet season. In all seasons, the forest habitat type had the greatest diversity of bird species. The mean abundance of bird species differed significantly between the dry and wet seasons. Bird diversity in shrub habitat was lower than in forest habitat. Bronze mannikin (Spermestes cucullata) had the largest percentage relative abundance of birds, followed by Village weaver (Ploceus cucullatus). During the study period, human disturbances such as livestock overgrazing, agricultural expansion, deforestation, and hunting were identified as the top threats to birds. To ensure bird conservation through their habitats, proper habitat conservation and management efforts should be implemented.

Supporting information

S1 Data. Dokima bird data.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We like to say thank you for the College of Agriculture Food and Climate Science for all support. We owe a special appreciation to the experts and residents in the study area who provided us all the relevant information.

Data Availability

Data are within the Supporting Information file.

Funding Statement

Funding was provided by Injibara University, Ethiopia. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Orme C. D. L. et al. , “Global hotspots of species richness are not congruent with endemism or threat,” Nature, vol. 436, no. 7053, pp. 1016–1019, Aug. 2005, doi: 10.1038/nature03850 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Pimm S. L. et al. , “The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection,” Science, vol. 344, no. 6187, p. 1246752, May 2014, doi: 10.1126/science.1246752 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Fraixedas S., Lindén A., Piha M., Cabeza M., Gregory R., and Lehikoinen A., “A state-of-the-art review on birds as indicators of biodiversity: Advances, challenges, and future directions,” Ecological Indicators, vol. 118, p. 106728, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106728 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Shiferaw A. and Yazezew D., “Diversity, distribution and relative abundance of avifauna at Ansas Dam and surrounding farmland site Debre Berhan Town, Ethiopia,” Avian Biology Research, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 8–17, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.1177/1758155920963200 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Menon T. and Shahabuddin G., “Assessing woodpeckers as indicators of bird diversity and habitat structure in managed forests,” Biodiversity and conservation, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 1689–1704, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10531-021-02164-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Whelan C. J., Şekercioğlu Ç. H., and Wenny D. G., “Why birds matter: from economic ornithology to ecosystem services,” J Ornithol, vol. 156, no. S1, pp. 227–238, Dec. 2015, doi: 10.1007/s10336-015-1229-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Alemayehu Y., Welegerima K., and Meheretu Y., “Importance of Lake Ashenge, a Small Important Bird Area in Northern Ethiopia, to Palaearctic and Other Migratory Birds,” African Journal of Wildlife Research, vol. 47, no. 1, p. 1, Apr. 2017, doi: 10.3957/056.047.0001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Bregman T. P., Sekercioglu C. H., and Tobias J. A., “Global patterns and predictors of bird species responses to forest fragmentation: Implications for ecosystem function and conservation,” Biological Conservation, vol. 169, pp. 372–383, Jan. 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.024 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Dulle H. I. et al. , “Changes in abundances of forest understorey birds on Africa’s highest mountain suggest subtle effects of climate change,” Diversity Distrib., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 288–299, Mar. 2016, doi: 10.1111/ddi.12405 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.LaManna J. A. and Martin T. E., “Logging impacts on avian species richness and composition differ across latitudes and foraging and breeding habitat preferences,” Biol Rev, vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 1657–1674, Aug. 2017, doi: 10.1111/brv.12300 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Newmark W. D. and Stanley T. R., “Habitat fragmentation reduces nest survival in an Afrotropical bird community in a biodiversity hotspot,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., vol. 108, no. 28, pp. 11488–11493, Jul. 2011, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1104955108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Newbold T. et al. , “Ecological traits affect the response of tropical forest bird species to land-use intensity,” Proc. R. Soc. B., vol. 280, no. 1750, p. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.2131 , Jan. 2013, 2012.2131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Tvardíková K., “Bird Abundances in Primary and Secondary Growths in Papua New Guinea: A Preliminary Assessment,” Tropical Conservation Science, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 373–388, Dec. 2010, doi: 10.1177/194008291000300403 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Waltert M., Bobo K. S., Sainge N. M., Fermon H., and Hlenberg M. M., “From forest to farmland: habitat effects on afrotropical forest bird diversity,” Ecological Applications, vol. 15, no. 4, p. 16, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Girma Z., Mamo Y., Mengesha G., Verma A., and Asfaw T., “Seasonal abundance and habitat use of bird species in and around Wondo Genet Forest, south-central Ethiopia,” Ecol Evol, vol. 7, no. 10, pp. 3397–3405, May 2017, doi: 10.1002/ece3.2926 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Waterhouse F. L., Mather M. H., and Seip D., “Distribution and abundance of birds relative to elevation and biogeoclimatic zones in coastal old-growth forests in southern British Columbia,” JEM, Jun. 2003, doi: 10.22230/jem.2003v2n2a232 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sambell C. E., Holland G. J., Haslem A., and Bennett A. F., “Diverse land-uses shape new bird communities in a changing rural region,” Biodivers Conserv, vol. 28, no. 13, pp. 3479–3496, Nov. 2019, doi: 10.1007/s10531-019-01833-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Matthias Waltert K. Serge Bobo N. Moses Sainge, Heleen Fermon and Michael Mühlenberg, “From Forest to Farmland: Habitat Effects on Afrotropical Forest Bird Diversity,” Ecological Applications, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 1351–1366, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Neate-Clegg M. H. C., Stuart S. N., Mtui D., Şekercioğlu Ç. H., and Newmark W. D., “Afrotropical montane birds experience upslope shifts and range contractions along a fragmented elevational gradient in response to global warming,” PLoS ONE, vol. 16, no. 3, p. e0248712, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248712 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Harris J. B. C. et al. , “Rapid deforestation threatens mid-elevational endemic birds but climate change is most important at higher elevations,” Diversity Distrib., vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 773–785, Jul. 2014, doi: 10.1111/ddi.12180 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Neate-Clegg M. H. C., Jones S. E. I., Burdekin O., Jocque M., and Şekercioğlu Ç. H., “Elevational changes in the avian community of a Mesoamerican cloud forest park,” Biotropica, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 805–815, Sep. 2018, doi: 10.1111/btp.12596 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Newmark W. D., Jenkins C. N., Pimm S. L., McNeally P. B., and Halley J. M., “Targeted habitat restoration can reduce extinction rates in fragmented forests,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., vol. 114, no. 36, pp. 9635–9640, Sep. 2017, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1705834114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Liang C. et al. , “Bird species richness is associated with phylogenetic relatedness, plant species richness, and altitudinal range in Inner Mongolia,” Ecol Evol, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 53–58, Jan. 2018, doi: 10.1002/ece3.3606 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Wisz M. S. et al. , “The role of biotic interactions in shaping distributions and realised assemblages of species: implications for species distribution modelling,” Biological Reviews, vol. 88, no. 1, pp. 15–30, Feb. 2013, doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2012.00235.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Lehikoinen A. et al. , “Declining population trends of European mountain birds,” Glob Change Biol, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 577–588, Feb. 2019, doi: 10.1111/gcb.14522 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Aynalem S. and Bekele A., “Species composition, relative abundance and habitat association of the bird fauna of the montane forest of Zegie Peninsula and nearby islands, Lake Tana, Ethiopia,” SEJS, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 45–56, Aug. 2011, doi: 10.4314/sinet.v32i1.68731 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Asefa A., Mengesha G., Sori T., and Mamo Y., “Local‐ and landscape‐level effects of land use change on bird diversity in Abiata‐Shalla Lakes National Park, Ethiopia,” Afr J Ecol, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 51–58, Mar. 2019, doi: 10.1111/aje.12558 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Endenburg S., Mitchell G. W., Kirby P., Fahrig L., Pasher J., and Wilson S., “The homogenizing influence of agriculture on forest bird communities at landscape scales,” Landscape Ecol, vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 2385–2399, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.1007/s10980-019-00895-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.George A. D., Porneluzi P. A., Haslerig J. M., and Faaborg J., “Response of shrubland birds to regenerating clearcut area and shape,” Jour. Wild. Mgmt., vol. 83, no. 7, pp. 1508–1514, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.1002/jwmg.21733 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Asefa A., Mengesha G., and Mamo Y., “Application of birds as ecological bioindicators for monitoring habitat change: a case study from Abijata-Shalla Lakes National Park, Ethiopia,” p. 9, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Fishpool L. D. C. and Evans M. I., “Important Bird Areas in Africa and Associated Islands: Priority Sites for Conservation,” Can Field Nat, vol. 117, no. 4, p. 664, Oct. 2003, doi: 10.22621/cfn.v117i4.786 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Tesfahunegny W., “A catalogue for endemic birds of Ethiopia,” vol. 3, no. 4, p. 26, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Tefera T., Ejigu D., and Tassie N., “Avian Diversity and Bird-Aircraft Strike Problems in Bahir Dar International Airport, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia,” In Review, preprint, Oct. 2021. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-1009128/v1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Tesfahun T. and Ejigu D., “Avian Communities of Alatish National Park, Ethiopia,” International Journal of Zoology, vol. 2022, pp. 1–16, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.1155/2022/ 4108081. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Asefa A., “Exploration of human-bird relationships: Oromo proverbs associated with the Northern Ground-hornbill in Ethiopia,” Social Sciences & Humanities Open, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 100162, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ssaho.2021.100162 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Otieno Tobias, Mwinami Timothy, Ngala Martha, Oduor Sandy, Ng’weno Fleur, Musila Simon, et al. “Avifauna of Boni-Dodori National Reserves, Lamu and Garissa Counties, Kenya,” Scopus, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 1–16, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kassaye M., Derebe Y., Kibrie W., Debebe F., and Gedamu B., “Carbon Stock and Spatial Dynamics in Natural Forests of Awi Zone, Amhara Region, Northwestern Ethiopia: Implication For Climate Change Mitigation And Adaptation,” In Review, preprint, Feb. 2022. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-1365934/v1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Abera M., Yusuf Mummed Y., Eshetu M., Pilla F., and Wondifraw Z., “Perception of Fogera Cattle Farmers on Climate Change and Variability in Awi Zone, Ethiopia,” OJAS, vol. 10, no. 04, pp. 792–815, 2020, doi: 10.4236/ojas.2020.104052 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Kebede A., Korecha D., and Bayable E., “Impacts of climate change and variability on major crop production in ankesha guagusa district of Awi zone, North Western Ethiopia,” vol. 3, no. 4, p. 14, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Genet Y. and Ejigu D., “Community composition, relative abundance and habitat association of avian species in Apini and Dikuma forest patches, Awi Administrative Zone, Ethiopia,” Eth J Sci & Technol, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 33, Jan. 2017, doi: 10.4314/ejst.v10i1.3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Joshi K. K., Bhatt D., and Arya A. K., “Avian diversity in forest, agriculture and water stream habitats of Dehradun Valley, Uttarakhand, India,” Biodiversity data journal, vol. 9, no. Journal Article, pp. e61422–e61422, 2021, doi: 10.3897/BDJ.9.e61422 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Hossain M. M. and Baki M. A., “Present status of preliminary survey on avifauna diversity and distribution in the most polluted river Buriganga, Dhaka, Bangladesh,” International Journal of Pure and Applied Zoology, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 59–69, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Abie K., Tilahun B., Feyisa A., and Kumssa T., “Bird species diversity and distribution in case of protected area,” p. 12, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Aerts R., Spranghers S., and Şekercioğlu Ç. H., “Conservation of ecosystem services does not secure the conservation of birds in a Peruvian shade coffee landscape,” Bird Conservation International, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 71–82, Mar. 2017, doi: 10.1017/S0959270916000149 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Bohada‐Murillo M., Castaño‐Villa G. J., and Fontúrbel F. E., “The effects of forestry and agroforestry plantations on bird diversity: A global synthesis,” Land Degrad Dev, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 646–654, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1002/ldr.3478 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Borges F. J. A., Ribeiro B. R., Lopes L. E., and Loyola R., “Bird vulnerability to climate and land use changes in the Brazilian Cerrado,” Biological Conservation, vol. 236, pp. 347–355, Aug. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.05.055 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Tsegay Y., Tilahun B., and Sahle M., “Urban Bird Species Diversity and Abundance in case of Wolkite Town, Southwestern Ethiopia,” vol. 45, no. 3, p. 10, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Li N. et al. , “Bird species diversity in Altai riparian landscapes: Wood cover plays a key role for avian abundance,” Ecol Evol, vol. 9, no. 17, pp. 9634–9643, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.1002/ece3.5493/ece3.5493 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Ogendi G. M. and Ondieki R. N., “Avian and Habitat Diversity in the Semi-Arid Lands of Baringo South, Kenya,” OJE, vol. 10, no. 08, pp. 518–536, 2020, doi: 10.4236/oje.2020.108033 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Kawamura K., Yamaura Y., Senzaki M., Ueta M., and Nakamura F., “Seasonality in spatial distribution: Climate and land use have contrasting effects on the species richness of breeding and wintering birds,” Ecol Evol, vol. 9, no. 13, pp. 7549–7561, Jul. 2019, doi: 10.1002/ece3.5286 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Cazalis V., Princé K., Mihoub J.-B., Kelly J., Butchart S. H. M., and Rodrigues A. S. L., “Effectiveness of protected areas in conserving tropical forest birds,” Nat Commun, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 4461, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-18230-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Giweta M., “‘Reversing the Degradation of Ethiopian Wetlands’: Is it Unachievable Phrase or A Call to Effective Action?,” IJESNR, vol. 14, no. 5, Sep. 2018, doi: 10.19080/IJESNR.2018.14.555898. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Pöysä H., Holopainen S., Elmberg J., Gunnarsson G., Nummi P., and Sjöberg K., “Changes in species richness and composition of boreal waterbird communities: a comparison between two time periods 25 years apart,” Sci Rep, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 1725, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-38167-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Greig E. I., Wood E. M., and Bonter D. N., “Winter range expansion of a hummingbird is associated with urbanization and supplementary feeding,” Proc. R. Soc. B., vol. 284, no. 1852, p. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2017.0256 , Apr. 2017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Amare G. and Girma M., “Species composition, seasonal abundance and distribution of avifauna in Lake Hawassa and part of the Eastern Wetland habitats, Southern Ethiopia,” Int. J. Biodivers. Conserv., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–11, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.5897/IJBC2018.1259 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Gaston K. J., Blackburn T. M., Greenwood J. J. D., Gregory R. D., Quinn R. M., and Lawton J. H., “Abundance-occupancy relationships,” J Appl Ecology, vol. 37, no. s1, pp. 39–59, Sep. 2000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2664.2000.00485.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Judi Hewitt

1 Dec 2022

PONE-D-22-23950Diversity and relative abundance of bird species in the two habitat types of Dokima forest Awi zone, EthiopiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Asmare,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Although we have only one reviewer for your manuscript, they did a very good job in suggesting what is needed to improve the manuscript- please consider all their points seriously.  To those I would addIt appears that you have done three one-way ANOVAs- one for the dry season comparing the two habitats, one for the wet season comparing the two habitats and one for both habitats comparing the two seasons.  It is generally more appropriate to conduct a two-way ANOVA that has season and habitat as factors and includes an interaction term.  You may already have done this as from your results its likely that you would get a significant interaction term and you would then have to conduct separate tests.  However, this does bring you into the minefield of defining your factors as fixed vs random, nesting and the type of contrast tests to explore the different habitat/season differences.  Another way of looking at this is to determine whether you are most interested in season or habitat and divide the data and analyses based on that.  So if differences between habitats is your focus- then do an ANOVA that compares the habitats regardless of season and then show differences between seasons in each habitat separately with a plot (and then you could show your ANOVA results for the seasons separately).  Conversely if its differences between seasons- then show your ANOVA that compares the seasons regardless of habitat and then show differences between habitats in each season separately with a plot (and then you could show your ANOVA results for the habitats separately). Secondly your sorensons index.  You give two different equations for it and then after explaining that it ranges from 0 to 1 you give results that are greater than one.  I would suggest you either use the following equation, or use the jaccard index which is very similar but does not emphasise common species (just remove the 2) in the sorenson equationsorenson = (2a)/(2a + b + c) where a is the number of species in common, b is the number of species that only occur in the first sample and c is the number of species that only occur in the second sample Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 15 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Judi Hewitt

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.\\

3. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. 

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)”

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

Injibara University was the funder

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

The data collection costs for this study were paid by Injibara University's College of Agriculture, Food and Climate Science.

However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

Injibara University was the funder

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:  

No any conflict of interest 

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now 

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

7. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

8. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting work focuses on greatly understudied topic – abundances of birds in Afrotropical highlands. I applaud the authors for collecting nice data and composing this manuscript. At the same time, however, this manuscript suffers from several major weak points that need to be thoroughly addressed.

1. Writing style need considerable improvement. All parts are too wordy and often lack substantial information content. Here are specific comments to respective parts:

- Abstract: Please add one sentence why is this study important (e.g. lack of knowledge on bird ecology in Afrotropical highlands) and specify what are the focal habitat types right from the beginning. Please delete F-statistics, p-values and df.

- Introduction: There is a lot of redundant information, some of them are even repetitive (e.g. that about woodpecker richness). On the other hand, readers do not know from this text what are the aims of the study. So, I suggest building the Introduction as follows (the points roughly represent intended paragraphs): a) importance of Afrotropical forests for global biodiversity, b) threats to these forests and outcomes of these pressures (some parts are cleared and transformed to shrub land), c) importance of birds in ecological research, d) birds of Ethiopian highland forests + lack of knowledge on their abundance and species richness in different habitat types of this environment, e) study aims.

- Study area and study site: Please reduce the information on administrative divisions, state simply where the study was conducted and describe briefly the environmental conditions (climate, biotopes) in the area. All the information can be presented in 5-8 sentences. The justification for selecting the study area for research should be moved to the Introduction.

- Study design and data collection: Please state briefly the sampling period and remove the information about the preliminary survey as it is irrelevant. Description of the habitats should be moved to the previous chapter. Description of bird counts must be elaborated since some sentences are duplicated (but differ in the specific information – see 30m vs. 50m radius!). Many of the information are redundant (e.g. readers do not need to know your bird identification techniques or how did you make your notes on bird detections). When writing this part, please have in mind that it serves for potential reproduction of your research by someone, not for justification of your bird identification skills. Consider the presentation from this perspective.

- Data analysis: Please describe in more detail the ANOVA. You state that it was used for testing the differences between seasons, but you obviously used it to test for differences between habitats, too. Moreover, the Sorenson similarity index cannot work in the form presented in the text. It is defined as a proportion of species common to two assemblages. So, it cannot be calculated as a number of species common to both habitats divided by the sum of the total numbers of species recorded in respective habitats. If both habitats contained the same 10 species, then it would be 10/(10+10) = 0.5, whereas the correct value of this index should be 1.0. Please revise the formula.

- Results and Discussion: I do not see any reason for merging these two parts. It makes the text very unclear and reduces the true discussion to minimum. Please separate results to a specific Results section (its organization into subchapters can be the same as it is) and then write a new Discussion section. In Discussion, we need to learn the interpretation of the patterns presented in the Results section, i.e. why there were the differences between the habitats and seasons observed. In addition, please make a comparison with other studies from Afrotropical region in general and from the mountain ecosystems in particular.

2. Conducting the research. Based on the information presented, it seems that you used mainly visual detections. This is quite unusual as 90%+ birds are recorded as aural detections in forest conditions. At the same time, you state that birds were recorded by experts and experiences researchers, so it sounds odd that “binoculars and bird guide books were used” – experts just use their knowledge of bird voices. Moreover, I do not know what was the radius used for bird counts – 30m or 50m? Both figures mean that the radii overlapped in forest habitat because points were separated by 30m distance. Finally, we do not know how the distances were measured – by eye after training or by laser range finder? Taken together, the description of data collection must be much more convincing to judge reliability of the data.

3. Data analysis. I think that one-way ANOVA is an appropriate and powerful tool for addressing the questions you asked, but we do not know what the data points are, and what the explanatory variables are. The other analyses are less convincing. The correlations shown in Fig. 4 make little sense, especially those between population and relative abundance – these variables are identical, they only differ in the way of presentation of the same thing. So, their correlation must be 1.0, as also indicated by the plot. Values of the Sorenson index do not correspond to the theoretical background for this index and are most likely wrong.

4. Comparison with other studies. The data on bird abundance remain scarce in Afrotropical highland conditions, but some studies exist – please consult literature from Albertine rift, Mt. Kenya, Kilimanjaro and our work from the Cameroon Mountains to make a thorough assessment of your findings in the context of other studies.

Jiri Reif

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Jiri Reif

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Mar 21;18(3):e0281595. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281595.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


14 Dec 2022

Dear reviewers, I would like to say thank you for your best and constructive comments. We try to to correct the comments but some suggestions were difficult to us like Map of the study area copyright and Data depository because especially in data depository, the data is in my hand but how I send the data to the data depositors. Thank you again!!

Best regards!!

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Judi Hewitt

27 Jan 2023

Diversity and relative abundance of bird species in the two habitat types of Dokima forest Awi zone, Ethiopia

PONE-D-22-23950R1

Dear Dr. Asmare,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Judi Hewitt

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Judi Hewitt

31 Jan 2023

PONE-D-22-23950R1

Diversity and relative abundance of bird species in the two habitat types of Dokima forest Awi zone, Ethiopia

Dear Dr. Asmare:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Judi Hewitt

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE


Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES