Mesocarnivore Distribution along Gradients of Anthropogenic Disturbance in Mediterranean Landscapes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript (1597193) refers to the distribution of mesocarnivore mammals along human-transformed gradients in a Country in Northern Iberian peninsula. Paper is well written. Predictions have been reported clearly, Techniques used are fine. Research effort is representative. They performed a strong statistical approach. Discussion is linear and readable. I think that this is a good ecological paper, with some implication for landscape management (for example, Authors could add some implication about ecological network planning in fragmented landscapes, also using mesocarnivores as focal species, see below). However, manuscript deserves to be published after MINOR REVISIONS, in my opinion. Here below some minor comments and suggestions. I hope that these points coudl help the authors a bit.
POINTS
Row 57. Also bushlands and ecotones. Please add these habitat types.
Row 75. I would add ‘historical’ to ‘human influence’. On the role of history in affect natural succession see Swetnam (Applied historical ecology).
Row 128. Add references (Shannon and Weaver? Magurran, 2004. Measuring Biological Diversity, Blackwell?). You should report also some statistical handbooks (Zar, Dytham, Sokhal and Rohlf, Foweler and Cohen…).
Fig. 2. I am not sure that stacked chart is the more suitable representation for these data.
Table 1. ‘Felis catus’ in table but in text was ‘Felis sylvestris catus’. See methods. Uniform it.
Fig. 4. Very explicative. Good. The fact that gradient is largely homogeneous without abrupt thresholds may be discussed a bit, I think.
In discussion (e.g. 296-298) a sentence about the role of woodpatches as ‘key structures’ for mesocarnivores should be added (see Tews et al., 2004, J. Biogeogr.). see also rows 305-306.
Row 300. ‘last century’. I suggest to report a sentence on the role of history (and not only the present ecology) in affect these targets.
Row 340. Interesting ecological-based conclusions.
References are almost all related to Spanish literature. Please add some more general references about habitat fragmentation, mesopredators, fires/urbanization/human induced threats (in this last regard, I suggest to refer to the threat taxonomy reported in Salafsky et al., 2008 Conserv. Biol. and to the IUCN taxonomy and nomenclature).
483-485. Not in capital letters. ‘Genetta genetta’ should be in italic.
In references, authors cited the paper of Chapron on Science (ref. 43). However in Gippoliti in Journal for Nature Conservation 41: 73–78, reported some criticism in this regards. Please see also this paper, if necessary.
Row 467. ‘Canis familiaris’ in italic. Check for the scientific names in References (all in italic).
Data provided in this manuscript could show implication for landscape conservation, management and planning. In this regard, a concluding sentence on this topic could be added. For example, mesocarnivores (and fragmentation-sensitive small mammals) have been sugested as focal species for ecological network planning and de-fragmentation projects in human-dominated landscapes: see: Amici, V., & Battisti, C. (2009). Selecting focal species in ecological network planning following an expert-based approach: a case study and a conceptual framework. Landscape Research, 34(5), 545-561.
Add the role of anonymous reviewers and Editors in the Acknowledgments.
I like to read a revised version ogf this manuscript.
Have a nice work.
Author Response
REVIEWER 1
This manuscript (1597193) refers to the distribution of mesocarnivore mammals along human-transformed gradients in a Country in Northern Iberian peninsula. Paper is well written. Predictions have been reported clearly, Techniques used are fine. Research effort is representative. They performed a strong statistical approach. Discussion is linear and readable. I think that this is a good ecological paper, with some implication for landscape management (for example, Authors could add some implication about ecological network planning in fragmented landscapes, also using mesocarnivores as focal species, see below). However, manuscript deserves to be published after MINOR REVISIONS, in my opinion. Here below some minor comments and suggestions. I hope that these points coudl help the authors a bit.
Authors: Thanks for the positive comments
POINTS
Row 57. Also bushlands and ecotones. Please add these habitat types.
Authors: Added
Row 75. I would add ‘historical’ to ‘human influence’. On the role of history in affect natural succession see Swetnam (Applied historical ecology).
Authors: Thank you very much for this interesting suggestion. In fact, we have followed an historical approach to both the interpretation of patterns found and for the development of recommendations. We here just included the word ‘historical as suggested and include the reference to the classical paper by Swetman et al. (1999). Later on, we develop a bit historical arguments, as suggested.
Row 128. Add references (Shannon and Weaver? Magurran, 2004. Measuring Biological Diversity, Blackwell?). You should report also some statistical handbooks (Zar, Dytham, Sokhal and Rohlf, Foweler and Cohen…).
Authors: Added Magurran et al. (2010) and Dytham (2011), respectively.
Fig. 2. I am not sure that stacked chart is the more suitable representation for these data.
Authors: We changed the chart to show independent contacts per species.
Table 1. ‘Felis catus’ in table but in text was ‘Felis sylvestris catus’. See methods. Uniform it.
Authors: We changed as requested
Fig. 4. Very explicative. Good. The fact that gradient is largely homogeneous without abrupt thresholds may be discussed a bit, I think.
Authors: This figure shows the best fitted output of the occupancy models for the mesocarnivores along gradients from transects with more surface occupied by crops (left end axis) to transects with more scrubland/woodland (right end axis), and showed that as far a the proportion of crops dropped and the proportion of natural cover increased, there was a regular (linear) raise of all the species. But some species (genet and stone marten) showed higher response to gradients represented by the steeper slopes of the lines. The bottom of the figure represents the gradient between crops and areas of natural vegetation, although it may seem that we showed the response of the species to the ecotone between both habitats. We added in the figure a shaded line to show the change of the land cover of both scrubland and forest, respectively, along the PCs summarising changes in main vegetation land-uses. We tried to clarify it in the text and figures.
In discussion (e.g. 296-298) a sentence about the role of woodpatches as ‘key structures’ for mesocarnivores should be added (see Tews et al., 2004, J. Biogeogr.). see also rows 305-306.
Authors: we added a reference to the “habitat heterogeneity hypothesis” (Tews et al. 2004), our results were in close agreement with the findings of those authors.
Row 300. ‘last century’. I suggest to report a sentence on the role of history (and not only the present ecology) in affect these targets.
Authors: As indicated above and suggested here, we now develop the idea by adding the sentence ‘Historical patterns of human landscape management (abandonment of agricultural uses, concentration of human population in urban settlements, fire management policies) seem thus key to understand current responses of mesocarnivores to landscape structure, as history of land uses was the ultimate cause of current gradients of habitat suitability. Applied historical ecology approaches are thus key to understand current wildlife responses to man-made habitat change and to improve future management recommendations (Swetnam et al. 1999).’ At the ende of the paragraph. Many thanks again for the suggestion.
Row 340. Interesting ecological-based conclusions.
References are almost all related to Spanish literature. Please add some more general references about habitat fragmentation, mesopredators, fires/urbanization/human induced threats (in this last regard, I suggest to refer to the threat taxonomy reported in Salafsky et al., 2008 Conserv. Biol. and to the IUCN taxonomy and nomenclature).
Authors: We added more general references to habitat fragmentation and other threats for mesocarnivores.
483-485. Not in capital letters. ‘Genetta genetta’ should be in italic.
Authors: corrected
In references, authors cited the paper of Chapron on Science (ref. 43). However in Gippoliti in Journal for Nature Conservation 41: 73–78, reported some criticism in this regards. Please see also this paper, if necessary.
Authors: After reading the reference suggested, we don’t think it to be suitable for our discussion, since the reference to Chapron et al. (2014) was exclusively based on a relaxed predation pressure experienced by mesopredators within communities lacking large predators, nothing was related to European conservation policies, as was the topic of Gippoliti et al. (2018).
Row 467. ‘Canis familiaris’ in italic. Check for the scientific names in References (all in italic).
Authors: Checked throughout the paper
Data provided in this manuscript could show implication for landscape conservation, management and planning. In this regard, a concluding sentence on this topic could be added. For example, mesocarnivores (and fragmentation-sensitive small mammals) have been sugested as focal species for ecological network planning and de-fragmentation projects in human-dominated landscapes: see: Amici, V., & Battisti, C. (2009). Selecting focal species in ecological network planning following an expert-based approach: a case study and a conceptual framework. Landscape Research, 34(5), 545-561.
Authors: Very interesting reference, we read it and open the possibility of enrich our introduction and discussion. Thanks a lot!!!
Add the role of anonymous reviewers and Editors in the Acknowledgments.
Authors: added
I like to read a revised version ogf this manuscript.
Have a nice work.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have presented research concerning the distribution of mesocarnivores along environmental gradients. This is an important piece of work studying the effects of anthropogenically altered landscapes on wildlife. Research has been nicely designed, conducted, analyzed and discussed. Findings confirm the ecology of the concerned species and extend our knowledge on the subject.
Comments
---Line 12 – “large patches of low-growth natural habitats”. Or something like that.
---Line 13 – “remain mostly near well protected human settlements”
---Lines 18-29 – Delete this text. It only presents hypotheses. Give here main findings.
---Lines 34-36 – Generalist mesocarnivores should be generally more resilient than specialist top predators. Please revise this sentence.
---Line 37 and throughout – References should be [4,5]. Correct throughout.
---Line 84 – Fire incidents not so recent. Please give some information about forest regeneration or absence thereof.
---Lines 92-93 - This set up accommodates 4 cameras, not six... Please revise to be correctly understood.
---Lines 96-99 – Were the size of land uses and transects selected representative of those available? Please give some information.
---Line 140 – What are the six species? Not clear. Please clarify.
---Lines 203-204 – per 100 camera-nights.
Author Response
REVIEWER 2
The authors have presented research concerning the distribution of mesocarnivores along environmental gradients. This is an important piece of work studying the effects of anthropogenically altered landscapes on wildlife. Research has been nicely designed, conducted, analyzed and discussed. Findings confirm the ecology of the concerned species and extend our knowledge on the subject.
Authors: Thanks for the positive comments
Comments
---Line 12 – “large patches of low-growth natural habitats”. Or something like that.
Authors: changed
---Line 13 – “remain mostly near well protected human settlements”
Authors: changed
---Lines 18-29 – Delete this text. It only presents hypotheses. Give here main findings.
Authors: we changed the abstract to show only our findings
---Lines 34-36 – Generalist mesocarnivores should be generally more resilient than specialist top predators. Please revise this sentence.
Authors: changed
---Line 37 and throughout – References should be [4,5]. Correct throughout.
Authors: changed, and we checked thoroughout the paper.
---Line 84 – Fire incidents not so recent. Please give some information about forest regeneration or absence thereof.
Authors: We changed this sentence, including the negative effects of fire recurrency on tree regeneration.
---Lines 92-93 - This set up accommodates 4 cameras, not six... Please revise to be correctly understood.
Authors: changed, it was an important mistake, thanks for noticing.
---Lines 96-99 – Were the size of land uses and transects selected representative of those available? Please give some information.
Authors: we used a stratified (non-random) sampling design, and the three groups selected (scrubland, woodland, and crops) were roughly equally represented in the sample despite evident differences in their surface covered on the study area.
---Line 140 – What are the six species? Not clear. Please clarify.
Authors: we clarified this sentence
---Lines 203-204 – per 100 camera-nights.
Authors: changed
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors followed all the reviewer's suggestions. I think that now this ms deserves to be published. Regards,
