Breeding Density and Collision Mortality of Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I liked this research and my assessment of the manuscript is generally positive.

The study is based on a long-term series of data, it is multitasking. The authors investigated not only the direct influence of the anthropogenic factor (wind turbines) on the density and mortality of the Loggerhead shrike, but also the indirect influence through the disturbance of the habitats of California ground squirrels, the destruction of the nesting substrate of the Loggerhead shrike. The authors also showed the relationship between the populations of Loggerhead shrike and California ground squirrels through topical relationships.  The methods used in the field research and analysis are generally adequate. The authors made an attempt to show the influence of wind turbines and their modernization on the density and turbine mortality of the Loggerhead shrike, which in some parts of the area distribution is a rare and protected species. 

There are no fundamental comments on the manuscript.

There are quite a few technical notes that the authors can easily correct.

1.       Page 1. Lines 25-26. Keywords. I don't like the alphabetical order of the keywords, not the semantic order. I also suggest adding “mortality” to the list of keywords.

2.       Page 2. Line 70. «as it has for species of raptor [15-17]» change to «as it has for species of raptor and owl [15-17]», because the publication [17] is devoted to owls. 

3.       Page 5. Line138. Figure 4. In my opinion, it would be appropriate here to designate the location of the wind turbines in the figure, marking the old type and modernized wind turbines with different symbols.

4.       Page 7. Lines 189-195. There are different gradations of the nest substrate in the methodical section and table 2. It should be done uniformly.  

5.       Page 7. Part 2.3 Wind Turbine Fatality Estimates. In my opinion, it is necessary to briefly supplement the details of the monitoring process for dead birds: How often was the monitoring carried out, what was its scheme?

6.       Page 7. Lines 216-217. Table 1 The formatting needs to be corrected.

7.       Page 8. Lines 225-227. Figure 6. Figures A and B are marked as left and right in the caption. It needs to be corrected on A and B.

8.       Page 8. Lines 237-238. Table 2. Title. Words “and chick production” need to delete, as there is no such data in the table.

9.       Page 8. Lines 237-238. Table 2. The formatting needs to be corrected. 

10.   Page 8. Lines 237-238. Table 2. Column “Ha” need change “Area, ha”

11.   Page 8. Lines 237-238. Table 2. Column “Nest substrate”. There are no gradations ‘’Available’’, “Scarce” and “Moderate” in the methodical section, but they are in the table. The column contains qualitative and quantitative assessments. There are no gradations ‘’ Available ’’, ‘Scarce’ ’and“ Moderate ”in the method, but they are in the table. The column contains qualitative and quantitative assessments. It is necessary to designate in accordance with the methodological section or specifically explain.

12.   Page 8. Lines 237-238. Table 2. Column “Ground squirrel abundance”. Plot 18.  Missing value.

13.   Page 8. Lines 237-238. Table 2. Column “Ha”. Plots 107 and 108. There are no area values.

14.   Page 15. Line 280. Figure 12. A and B not indicated. Figures A and B are indicated as left and right in the caption. It needs to be corrected for A and B, since the text references A and B.

15.   Page 15. Line 286. The Latin specific name for eucalyptus is given for the second time in the text. It needs to be deleted here.

16.   Page 18. Lines 314. Figure 15. The Latin specific name for gooseberry oak is given for the second time in the text. It must be deleted here.

17.   Page 22. Lines 489—500. There are no references of publications [25-30] in the text.

18.   Page 22. Line 506. ‘’33’’ – must be deleted.

Author Response

We appreciate the review comments of our peers.  We strove to address them as best we could.  As a result, we feel the paper has been improved.  Please note that we changed the order of the keywords, which is not indicated by Track Changes because we had not yet activated Track Changes. 

 

We also corrected a mistake in the species identification of a tree.  The senior author had identified it as valley oak, but had to concede that the second author was correct – it was blue oak.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This ms. is of high quality. It is well presented. The collection of data and its analysis are appropriate and clear. The conclusions are well supported by the data.

Author Response

Thank you!