Results
[Image]
Figure 2. Species richness estimates across the five observed parking lots, along with the associated 95% confidence intervals. N=3? For each parking lot.
Figure 2 Alt Text: A bar graph showing the species richness (vertical axis) associated with each parking lot (horizontal axis). 95% Confidence intervals are denoted by orange lines placed on top of the bars.
Kmart® and The Shoppes at Vestal were similar for species richness (Figure 2) and species composition, as shown by the overlap in parking lot s in the NMDS ordination (Figure 3). Lowes®, Cracker Barrel®, and Roasted Coffee do not share many species, . Chipping Sparrow (CHSP) and Brown Creeper (BRCR) were only the Cracker Barrel® parking lot, as shown by their proximity to each other and high degree of dissimilarity to the other species. Species gatheredof the ordination had no clear association with any one parking lot
[Image]
Figure 3. The NMDS analysis output, where each species is denoted by its four-letter species code (USGS 2026). The asterisk indicates 11 overlapping species: American Goldfinch, Black-capped Chickadee, Blue Jay, Carolina Wren, Downy Woodpecker, Eastern Meadowlark, Fish Crow, House Finch, Killdeer, Red-winged Blackbird, and Tree Swallow.
Figure 3 A graph showing the five parking lots surveyed (Kmart® in chartreuse, Shoppes at Vestal in magenta, Lowe’s® in green, Cracker Barrel® in salmon, and Roasted Coffee Bar in sky blue) and bird species, denoted by its four-letter species code (black).
Perimeter-to-area ratio of the parking lot, distance from major roadway, and number of dumpsters present were found to be positively correlated with bird diversity across parking lots, while TES, distance from water, area of the parking lot, and number of light posts present are negatively associated with bird diversity (Figure 4).
[Image]
Figure 4. Results of the PCA analysis. .
A circle chart showing the results from the PCA analysis, with each variable associated correlation to bird diversity by arrows either pointing upwards or downwards on the horizontal axis.
& Jason D. Luscier1
Do you have any conflicts of interest that could bias your ability to provide an independent review?
Bonnie Flint
no
Danielle Gay
No
Linda Green
No
Emily Stelling
No
Reviewer 3
No
What did the authors do a good job with?
Bonnie Flint
The authors kept this paper very concise, doing a good job conforming to the "2-pager" style. Information is in the correct sections. They also appeared to make the most of their data, using several statistical analyses to explore it. This paper follows an appropriate format and structure for a scientific paper, demonstrating a reasonable level of understanding of how scientists communicate despite the limited applicability and content allowed by the limitations of the study.
Danielle Gay
The discussion draws clear connections between the results and their broader implications, demonstrating why the study's findings are important for identifying variables of habitat suitability in parking lots and surrounding features. The article provides pertinent guidance for future research and offers recommendations for improving habitat features in and around parking lots.
Linda Green
Asking a relevant question in the study of urbanization and bird populations, used reasonable stats to look at associations between environmental factors and bird observations.
Emily Stelling
The authors did a good job with introduction of topic and explanation of methods
Reviewer 3
I thought the concept of looking at use of parking lots was original and potentially beneficial from a management perspective. Their analyses seemed appropriate.
How do you think this research will contribute to the field?
Bonnie Flint
This is a very small study, so while no strong or generalizable conclusions can be drawn from it, it can serve as an idea generator, proof-of-concept, and pilot study for other researchers to build on. For example, thinking specifically about parking lots as habitat for urban birds can help urban ecologists design movement or habitat studies that explicitly study these spaces, or urban planners can think about how to make parking lots safe and productive for urban birds that might not have many alternative places to use.
Danielle Gay
Because this study focuses on habitat suitability and species composition of parking lots on a local scale, the results can provide important information for targeted management.
Linda Green
These results can help inform how we can modify urban greyspaces to be more ecologically-friendly and wildlife-supporting.
Emily Stelling
It will provide insight into what components of urban landscapes are essential to supporting wildlife
Reviewer 3
I know the idea behind Stacks is supposed to be short notes, rather than full papers found in mainstream journals, however even in that context I do not think the research as conducted will be beneficial. There were too many flaws in the methodology. Where in the parking lot were they standing? How high were they holding their phones? Did they point the mic of the phone in the same direction the whole time or did they sweep it around? Why use only Merlin, rather than their own ability to detect vocalizations? I have had Merlin fail to detect species I was hearing. In addition to flawed methodology, they also make too many assumptions in their results. They talk about bird nesting but have no evidence that they were nesting; only presence-absence data. They say the relationship between TES nd diversity is likely due to edge effects, but again provide no evidence. Overall, while they have an interesting concept, their results are of very limited value.
Regarding the study design and methods, what do the authors need to fix or improve upon to be fit for publication?
Bonnie Flint
This seems very much like a preliminary study, considering there are only 4 locations and each was surveyed only 3 times. The study would be more generalizable if it could be extended, but my guess is that the limitations have a reason (perhaps this was a class project). There are a few things about the study design and methods that could be communicated more clearly: how were TES scores combined? Can a species list for each parking lot be provided in supplemental material?
Danielle Gay
The methods section is readable and understandable, but several points need expansion or clearer definition. The methods need to include, specifically, how the birds were identified to species, how variables were measured, and how the weighted average for each parking lot was calculated.
Linda Green
Some additional clarity in the methods and interpretation of the PCA. Ideally, additional data points would allow for more predictive analysis of bird richness as a function of environmental variables.
Emily Stelling
Explain COMDYN4
Reviewer 3
As mentioned in the previous section,there were too many flaws in the methodology. Where in the parking lot were they standing? How high were they holding their phones? Did they point the mic of the phone in the same direction the whole time or did they sweep it around? Why use only Merlin, rather than their own ability to detect vocalizations? I have had Merlin fail to detect species I was hearing. All these factors affect the detectability, and therefore their entire results.
Regarding the analysis and interpretation of their findings, what do the authors need to fix or improve upon to be fit for publication?
Bonnie Flint
In some sentences, the authors are indicating causal relationships that are not really justified, for example, saying that some variables attract, deter, or affect species presence, when really there were just associations with the variables and the presence of species. This should be corrected before publication. Additionally, while the 2-pager format might limit the length of the introduction and discussion section, I feel strongly that making more links to the existing literature would strengthen the applicability and usefulness of the study.
Danielle Gay
There needs to be some clarification on the stated results and interpretation (see comment about the negative relationship between distance to roadway and diversity). Some of the interpretations of the results are vague and need to be expanded upon to clarify which aspects (tested variables) of each parking lot make them similar or different from one another, and what factors in these lots contribute to the identified species composition.
Linda Green
Modify interpretation to describe how the data suggest features that are associated with higher species richness. It might be more informative to focus on what features support common species (found at all sites), what features support rare species (found at the most "green" site, or categorized as urban-avoiders).
Emily Stelling
Explanation of table 1 & table 1 - this is not clear and may not be necessary for publication.
Reviewer 3
As I previously stated, they make too many assumptions in their results. They talk about bird nesting but have no evidence that they were nesting; only presence-absence data. They say the relationship between TES and diversity is likely due to edge effects, but again provide no evidence, etc. Overall, while they have an interesting concept, their results are of very limited value.
Is there anything else you think the authors need to fix in their article to be fit for publication?
Bonnie Flint
There are a few sentences/phrases that are unclear, and times when the word choice is imprecise. These specific instances have been pointed out by reviewers.
Danielle Gay
I feel the overall writing could be improved to make the information clearer and more concise. This critique might be nitpicky, but I think refining several passages in the document will improve the reading flow and create more space to expand on specific points in the reviewer feedback. For example, the following passage “Parking lots are one area of interest for study, as these open, urbanized areas can be inhabited by birds. Birds use parking lots for a wide variety of reasons, but it is unsure of what variables attract or deter birds from using a parking lot for their its activities, such as mating, foraging, nesting, or roosting.” could be condensed into one sentence to make the sentence more concise and improve reading flow. Here is an example of how I would write this sentence: Parking lots are of interest for study as birds use these open, urbanized spaces for a wide variety of reasons, such as mating, foraging, nesting, or roosting, although it is unclear which specific features are most important for birds. Additionally, the document contains several grammatical errors that the reviewers addressed in their feedback.
Linda Green
Develop the introduction to be more precise on features relevant to your study, rather than more generalized about urbanization and birds. What is already know about greyspace features, or parking lots specifically?
Emily Stelling
Introduction and discussion really needs to be more clear about the mechanisms of "attraction" or "deterrence" of wildlife. If these are not addressed, the mentioning of these two words should be cut. There needs to be some overall editing of writing and most citations are not formatted correctly. Supplementary Information may also be needed for this publication.
Reviewer 3
As it stands now, I do not think it is fit for publication. They really need to recollect their data in a more rigorous and systematic way in order to have meaningful results.
Do you have any concerns about the ethics of this research?
Bonnie Flint
no
Linda Green
no
Emily Stelling
No
Reviewer 3
No