Impacts of Mycobacterium leprae-Infection on Wild Populations of the Nine-Banded Armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) Species Complex: A Systematic Review

1. Summary

Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript. We have addressed your comments in detail below, and the associated revisions are highlighted in the re-submitted version using track changes.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Significant edits were made to the results section to better organize and present data. Please refer to more detailed comments below

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

Are all figures and tables clear and well-presented?

Can be improved

The inclusion of country was added to each study site listed in Table 1

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: 

This is an adequate systematic review of the Impacts of Mycobacterium leprae-infection on wild populations of the nine-banded armadillo.

The introduction provides adequate background using relevant references.

Thank you for this feedback.

Comments 2: 

Lines 60-62:  change to "Leprosy, also known as Hansen's disease is a neglected tropical disease (NTD) that persists in developing nations and mainly affects the peripheral nervous system and mucus membranes. 

This change has been made, thank you for your suggestion.

Comments 3: 

The methods are adequately described.

Thank you.

Comments 4: 

Line 155: check reference should be 40 instead of 41

I appreciate you bringing this to our attention, it was checked and edited as we did have the incorrect number for this citation.

Comments 5: 

The results are clearly presented, and the tables and figures are adequate however figure 2 should be moved to this section and the caption of the figure should be described in this section and make a shorter caption.

Thank you for this suggestion and we agree. Figure 2 was incorporated into the results section and the caption was shortened. The leprosy prevalence information was consolidated and edited for readability as well.

Comments 6: 

The discussion needs major work, most of the statements are unclear, the authors need to re-write the discussion entirely.

I appreciate your insight and feedback. We reviewed the discussion section and made edits to ensure that statements were clearer and concise. Additionally, we reorganized several paragraphs and reformatted them for readability.

Comments 7:

Move Figure 2 to the results section.

Thank you, we agree. Figure 2 was moved to the results.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The discussion needs major work, most of the statements and conclusions are not clear, the authors need to re-write the entire section

Please refer to the comment provided above.

5. Additional clarifications

In addition to the suggestions you provided, we made the following edits to the manuscript:

• Edits were made throughout the manuscript to ensure that the review meets the PRISMA guidelines.
• Updated locations in the tables to include “USA”
• A missing citation needed for the ESRI mapping software
• The inclusion of a study site, the Welder Wildlife Refuge, in the table which was not included due to only prevalence being recorded at this site. The study site was removed and the correct average prevalence was updated
• The addition of a standard errofor the presented prevalence average in the results section

1. Summary

We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing this manuscript. Detailed responses to your comments are provided below, and all revisions have been made accordingly and marked in track changes in the revised submission.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Is the research design appropriate?

Are the methods adequately described?

Are the results clearly presented?

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Are all figures and tables clear and well-presented?

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: 

In this study the authors explore relationships between leprosy and reported incidence in nine-banded armadillo. Although, as noted in this synthesis paper, many studies have some link to this topic very few have evaluated potential impacts of this disease among armadillos as vectors. The utility of this paper is in bringing these records together and highlighting key topics that are critical to the management of this potential zoonotic. 

Overall, I found this paper to be very well-written and informative. I am not an expert on armadillo, nor disease ecology so my digestion of this topic comes with limitations but I found this paper to be very approachable and I learned a fair amount in reading it. I did not find major issues with the methods or analysis but one thing I would consider in the Discussion is how hormones and breeding can affect the intensity of the leprosy infection. As is, the authors note identified differences in age and sex of armadillo to leprosy but did not consider how the physiology of the animal, during reproduction, etc. could influence the immune response in these animals.  I don't know what is known on this topic with armadillo but this might make an interesting area for further exploration. Or, if leprosy is shed more easily during periods of limited immune response among individual armadillo then perhaps human contact with these animals during this time may pose a greater risk?

Thank you for your kind feedback. We searched for articles related to immune system response and hormones that may impact M. leprae-infection and leprosy. Although we did not recover any relevant articles that would be a good addition to this paper, we did provide your suggestions as an area of further study in our discussion section. We think that you are correct in that this would be an interesting area of further exploration. We appreciate your review of our manuscript and providing such valuable feedback.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comments provided.

5. Additional clarifications

In addition to the edits you provided, we made the following edits to the manuscript:

• Edits were made throughout the manuscript to ensure that the review meets the PRISMA guidelines.
• Updated locations in the tables to include “USA”
• A missing citation needed for the ESRI mapping software
• The inclusion of a study site, the Welder Wildlife Refuge, in the table which was not included due to only prevalence being recorded at this site. The study site was removed and the correct average prevalence was updated
• The addition of a SE for the presented prevalence average in the results section

1. Summary

Thank you for reviewing our work. Responses to your feedback are provided below. The manuscript has been revised accordingly, with all changes marked using track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

Are all figures and tables clear and well-presented?

Yes

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: 

Dear Authors,

I liked the manuscript, its relevance and novelty do not raise any questions. Important data for science were obtained. It appears to impact older adults in armadillo populations and lead to an increased risk of mortality, other important components of population dynamics like reproduction and sex ratio do not appear to be impacted. The review of the research results was chosen appropriately, as were the statistical methods used for its analysis. There are no comments on the methodology in the article. The analysis and conclusion for each chapter are sufficient and do not raise any objections. References to literature sources are correct. The results of previous studies by other authors are taken into account. I recommend it for the journal Diversity.

Thank you for your positive feedback and for recommending our manuscript for the Diversity journal.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comments provided.

5. Additional clarifications

In addition to the edits you provided, we made the following edits to the manuscript:

• Edits were made throughout the manuscript to ensure that the review meets the PRISMA guidelines.
• Updated locations in the tables to include “USA”
• A missing citation needed for the ESRI mapping software
• The inclusion of a study site, the Welder Wildlife Refuge, in the table which was not included due to only prevalence being recorded at this site. The study site was removed and the correct average prevalence was updated
• The addition of a SE for the presented prevalence average in the results section