Distribution and Conservation Gaps of Nautilus pompilius: A Study Based on Species Distribution Models

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction

In our opinion, the introduction should be supplemented with information reflecting the peculiarities of Nautilus pompilius biology, its life history, including late maturity, long gestation, long life span and low fecundity, which in turn makes this species particularly vulnerable to overexploitation.

         It is also necessary to point out one of the significant factors leading to the decline in numbers, and this is fishing.  

         Methods

Points of presence of the species are taken from open biodiversity information resources, however, there are literature sources that indicate habitats of the species and how they are counted, which is not doubtful of their reliability. GBIF has over 12,000 references to the species, with the main information for Australia and less information for other locations. There is also the question of whether the researchers have their own Nautilus pompilius accounting data. 

         In our opinion, an anthropogenic factor could be included in the analysis as one of the significant factors for the habitat of the studied species.

The results

From our point of view, in order to visualise and better understand the range dynamics in different scenarios, it makes sense to include in the article a map of the current range as well as maps of the projected ranges of Nautilus pompilius

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I find the manuscript very interesting, however, I am struck by the use of CMIP5 when most (if not all) works already use CMIP6. The use of this can be very different, so I suggest you reconstruct your models with CMIP6.

ABSTRACT:
MENTION MAIN RESULTS (FOR EXAMPLE, VALUES FROM TABLES 2 AND 3, HOW MUCH DOES IT INCREASE? HOW MUCH DOES IT REDUCE?)
INTRODUCTION:
LITTLE USE OF CITATIONS, I SUGGEST ADDING TO SUPPORT THE SENTENCES
LINES 59-70 INCORPORATE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW SDM CONTRIBUTES OR HAVE CONTRIBUTED FOR MARINE SPECIES AND IN OTHER CASES FOR MOLLUSKS
MATERIAL AND METHODS:
WHY THEY CHOSE THIS STUDY AREA, EXPLAIN
LITTLE USE OF BIBLIOGRAPHY TO SUPPORT THEIR METHODOLOGY
LINES 134-136 AS I MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING, THE Shared Socio-economic ARE NOW AVAILABLE Pathways (SSPs): 126, 245, 370 and 585 (https://wcrp-cmip.org/cmip6/). RESULTS MAY VARY, SO I SUGGEST REDOING THIS PART USING THE SSP.
DISCUSSION:
AGAIN, LITTLE USE OF BIBLIOGRAPHY TO SUPPORT YOUR SENTENCES AS WELL AS TO MAKE A DEEPER AND MORE SPECIFIC DISCUSSION OF THE REASON FOR YOUR RESULTS
WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH OTHER MPAs AND WITH OTHER SPECIES OF MOLLUSKS? IS YOUR PROPOSAL SIMILAR TO OTHER STUDIES? HAVE YOU FOUND WHAT?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of Distribution and Conservation Gaps of Nautilus pompilius: A Study Based on Species Distribution Models

 

This paper addresses the issue about a very interesting animal, the Nautilus. The authors do an excellent job in exploring the information contained in the data and correlated to noted observation. The ensemble approach is excellent although perhaps almost too much for the type of project that has many grey areas of established links. I also fully understand that these creatures are quite cryptic and hidden from many observations.

My comments are minor:

1. Some grammar checks required here and there like line 46 ‘has’ to ‘have’ . A few more that the editors will quickly pick up.
2. The authors narrow down the observations to 112 records. It is critical here to clearly demonstrate how the environmental variables are distributed geospatially around these points. Potentially boxplots of the environmental variables from table 1 would be very much needed to show any bias or skew.
3. The authors include a detailed description of how the MPA zones overlap but no detail of the way MPA zones might help. I am not aware of a fisheries that is based on the Nautilus and therefore the exclusion of fishing or other activities is not relevant. Perhaps the authors can explore in more detail how particular actions may assist with the conservation in this regard.
4. If the MPA is relevant in terms of fishing then some basic quality checking of enforcement etc (See Edgar et al (2014) Global conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five key features. Nature 506:216–220) to relate to the conservation impact.
5. Figure 1 EM is surposed to be ME
6. Given the deep nature of these animals how is it possible to adequately correlate to environmental variables such as temperature? Figure 2 shows strong drop offs but how does this relate to the data? More discussion is needed here.
7. Line 300 spell out full name here not just N.
8. Figure S2 is useful but prompts me to ask about other factors such as predation etc. Any comments on the life cycle use of the environmental niche?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the last review you suggested using SSP instead of CPR...why do you continue using these, what is your justification?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have already responded and attended to the suggestions made to the manuscript