The Use of Citizen Science to Achieve Multivariate Management Goals on Public Lands
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a very worthy study and identifies an important issue for management of national forests. Yet, it misses the mark in several areas. Please keep working on this to get it published.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article fits to be published. However, I have some concerns about the following points.
The major modification that needs to be done are described here.
- The title should be modified in order to match with the content of the article.
- The abstract is too long and doesn’t meet the journal guidelines (max. 200 words).
- The concept of citizen science is well described. However, is there any local population
involved in the ecological assessment abroad ?
- What are the results that you expect to find ?
- Why choosing to compare the species distribution models with different modelling method ?
Does it bring an answer to the question addressed in the introduction ?
- The results are not easily readable. Indeed, the figures are not complete and it is not possible to
understand your findings if data is missing. Furthermore, they should be integrated in the text
and not in a separated part. The tables are not easy to understand, and their legends are too
long, in particular the one of the Table 2. It already gives some explanation of the results.
- A conclusion would be appreciated after all the work that has been done, and in particular what
needs to be done could be addressed. Could this kind of study be exported abroad ?
The minor comments that I provide are:
- There is a use of non-SI units many times (e.g. l.180, l.187 and l. 186). It should be modified so
the paper can be understood abroad.
- Acronyms should be defined only once when they first appear in the text (e.g. l.69 « STEM »,
l.150 « GBIF »…).
- An attention should be brought to the fact that some paragraphs are not justified and some are.
- FIgures edition must to be improved
- An emphasis should be put on the work done by the Tribal nation which seems to be important
but is not clearly specified. Who were they ? What did they do ?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
My only suggestion is to round metric numbers to make them easier for the reader. In the abstract the amount of land managed my federal agencies could be rounded to 2.6 million
Author Response
Dear Diversity Review Panel and Editorial Board,
I have made the changes suggested by reviewers, as well as proofread the document. Specific responses to reviewer comments are interleaved below.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Sara Souther
Specific responses to reviewer comments:
My only suggestion is to round metric numbers to make them easier for the reader. In the abstract the amount of land managed my federal agencies could be rounded to 2.6 million.
I have rounded numbers throughout the manuscript.
