Log, Rock, and a Gradient of Choice: Speleomantes strinatii Adjusts Shelter Use with Stream Distance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

What do we as scientists have except for reputation? Not much, so we must do everything we can to protect it. One way to do this is to publish small datasets with tentative conclusions as notes, and to publish big datasets with firm conclusions as articles. This is a note pretending to be an article. Why? Sample size is small (54) and results are tentative (confidence intervals are huge [see Fig. 2],there are no data to support the contention that moisture/humidity are higher under logs than rocks, and there is no measure of size of cover (is a big rock equivalent to a small log?). In my opinion, a study like this should either 1) be a note, 2) serve as supporting material for a grant proposal, or 3) lead to other questions that would produce an article big enough to be considered a true article. If the authors published this work as is, most people would conclude they're only interested in producing LPUs (least publishable units), which doesn't help any scientist's reputation.

Specific comments:

Line 23: River or stream? They are different. Once you describe your lotic system as a stream, continue to refer to it as a stream . This error also appears in the body of the ms. (e.g., line 195 and elsewhere).

Line 24: Between these two sentences they should be a sentence describing the differences in forest management that justify the abstract's final sentence. For example, are unwanted limbs and leaves left on the forest floor or are they collected into brush piles and burned?

Figure 1a. This Figure should be replaced with one more appropriate (we do not need to know the placement of oceanic ridges and valleys) and easier to navigate (i.e, we all know what Italy looks like but given the lack of clear shoreline we have to work to visualize it here.)

Line 205. Here you give some forest management advice, but what's the current situation and does it vary across the three habitats? And, the advantages of leaving downed woody debris as habitat for amphibians and other forest floor species have been know for generations, so nothing novel in the conclusion.

 

 

Author Response

R1: What do we as scientists have except for reputation? Not much, so we must do everything we can to protect it. One way to do this is to publish small datasets with tentative conclusions as notes, and to publish big datasets with firm conclusions as articles. This is a note pretending to be an article. Why? Sample size is small (54) and results are tentative (confidence intervals are huge [see Fig. 2], there is no data to support the contention that moisture/humidity are higher under logs than rocks, and there is no measure of size of cover (is a big rock equivalent to a small log?). In my opinion, a study like this should either 1) be a note, 2) serve as supporting material for a grant proposal, or 3) lead to other questions that would produce an article big enough to be considered a true article. If the authors published this work as is, most people would conclude they're only interested in producing LPUs (least publishable units), which doesn't help any scientist's reputation.

A: We agree that the length of the former version of this manuscript was limited. However, our findings are robust from the statistical point of view and well supported by the available bibliography. We ran 9 Bayesian GLMMs and performed all the tests for assessing model convergence and fit, providing all the metrics which showed that our estimates are reliable (see Table 1), even if the sample size is limited. In our modeling we accounted also for both shelter Type and Area (see models “bayes3” and “bayes4” in Table 1), to assess simultaneously the effect of size and type of cover but both resulted to not be the best supported. Finally, we acknowledge that in this study we did not measure the moisture level under shelters, but only because there is already a previous and tested consensus on the fact that wood is able to retain more moisture than rocks and that they are subject to fewer extreme variations in temperature and humidity (see Thybring and Fredriksson. 2023. Wood and Moisture. In Springer Handbook of Wood Science and Technology; and Rosa et al. 2024. The Role of Familiarity in Shelter Site Fidelity: Insights from a Mesocosm Experiment with a Plethodontid Salamander). For these reasons, we thought that our results could be of interest to researchers and practitioners in forestry and herpetology fields and could be worthy of publication. We expanded the manuscript by adding analyzes relating to the body condition of salamanders, estimated using the scaled mass index. This addition broads the information regarding salamanders’ condition, depending on shelter type and habitat, and are in accordance with the other results.

Specific comments:

R1: Line 23: River or stream? They are different. Once you describe your lotic system as a stream, continue to refer to it as a stream. This error also appears in the body of the ms. (e.g., line 195 and elsewhere).

A: We thank the reviewer for the report. We corrected the error changing “river” to “stream” wherever necessary.

R1: Line 24: Between these two sentences there should be a sentence describing the differences in forest management that justify the abstract's final sentence. For example, are unwanted limbs and leaves left on the forest floor or are they collected into brush piles and burned?

A: We added a sentence (lines 24-26) to clarify salamanders’ persistence may be ensured in managed forests: “In the managed habitat, trunks and branches cut during coppicing or chestnut harvest, as well as naturally fallen wood, were often left on the ground, thereby increasing the availability of shelter for salamanders.”

R1: Figure 1a. This Figure should be replaced with one more appropriate (we do not need to know the placement of oceanic ridges and valleys) and easier to navigate (i.e, we all know what Italy looks like but given the lack of clear shoreline we have to work to visualize it here.)

A: We changed Figure 1a with a simplified map of Liguria region, showing coastlines and major cities and indicating the study site marked with a star.

R1: Line 205. Here you give some forest management advice, but what's the current situation and does it vary across the three habitats? And, the advantages of leaving downed woody debris as habitat for amphibians and other forest floor species have been know for generations, so nothing novel in the conclusion.

A: We added details about past forest management of the study area in Material and Methods. In the conclusions, we don’t have the pretense of proving anything new (we changed “prove” to “confirm” to avoid misunderstandings). We drew our conclusions based on our results (which for the first time demonstrate the buffering effect that woody shelters in sub-optimal areas can have) and on previous research. We specified that our conclusions underscore the already known advantages of leaving downed woody debris on the forest floor for biodiversity.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript "Log, rock, and a gradient of choice: Speleomantes strinatii adjusts shelter use with stream distance". This study examines the microhabitat selection of the endangered species Speleomantes strinatii. Through quadrat sampling surveys and functional modeling data analysis, it reveals the species' microhabitat preferences and adaptive strategies. The research is methodologically sound, and the findings contribute valuable insights to forest management and conservation.

However, the studies appear to be very surface level which prevents relevant conclusions from being drawn. A more in-depth discussion of results would be required for publication in Diversity. Below are specific points that should be addressed.

Suggested Revisions:

Introduction:

Line 33-54: The logical relationship of this paragraph should be adjusted. Microhabitat selection is the core of this thesis, so habitat is the first core of description, followed by other factors influenced by habitat (e.g., behavior, physiology, etc.).

Line 44: The numbering of references in the text does not conform to the style of the “Diversity”.

 

Results:

The "p" representing significance should be in italics.

 

Discussion:

Line 182: In the first paragraph of the discussion, a summary of the results obtained from the paper and a comprehensive comparison and evaluation of previous studies should be added.

Line 225: As the introduction suggests that habitat influences various factors, could we analyze, based on the results drawn from the paper, whether the results of Speleomantes strinatii's microhabitat selection are connected to other factors (such as behavior, physiology, reproduction, and so forth)?

 

References:

The format of the references has not been standardized. Please check carefully.

Author Response

R2: Thank you for submitting your manuscript "Log, rock, and a gradient of choice: Speleomantes strinatii adjusts shelter use with stream distance". This study examines the microhabitat selection of the endangered species Speleomantes strinatii. Through quadrat sampling surveys and functional modeling data analysis, it reveals the species' microhabitat preferences and adaptive strategies. The research is methodologically sound, and the findings contribute valuable insights to forest management and conservation.

However, the studies appear to be very surface level which prevents relevant conclusions from being drawn. A more in-depth discussion of results would be required for publication in Diversity. Below are specific points that should be addressed.

A: We thank the Reviewer for comments and suggestions. We broadened the whole manuscript in order to provide a more complete overview of the study context and the relative findings.

Suggested Revisions:

R2: Line 33-54: The logical relationship of this paragraph should be adjusted. Microhabitat selection is the core of this thesis, so habitat is the first core of description, followed by other factors influenced by habitat (e.g., behavior, physiology, etc.).

A: We restructured the first part of the Introduction in order to follow the correct logical relationship (lines 35-50).

R2: Line 44: The numbering of references in the text does not conform to the style of the “Diversity”.

 A: We revised the references numbering to comply with the style of Diversity.

R2: The "p" representing significance should be in italics.

 A: We changed the format.

R2: Line 182: In the first paragraph of the discussion, a summary of the results obtained from the paper and a comprehensive comparison and evaluation of previous studies should be added.

A: We revised the first paragraph of the introduction, providing a general summary of the results and a comparison with previous studies on this subject.

R2: Line 225: As the introduction suggests that habitat influences various factors, could we analyze, based on the results drawn from the paper, whether the results of Speleomantes strinatii's microhabitat selection are connected to other factors (such as behavior, physiology, reproduction, and so forth)?

 A: We refined the section inn order to discuss in more details the influence of the other factors that we were not able to measure in this study, notably competition, prey distribution, demography and personality (lines 250-261).

R2: The format of the references has not been standardized. Please check carefully.

A: We revised the references numbering to comply with the style of Diversity.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. I found your work to be a valuable and timely contribution to the field of amphibian ecology and conservation. The study is well-designed and clearly written, and the use of Bayesian GLMMs is appropriate and thoughtfully implemented.

Your findings provide important insights into how shelter type and distance from water sources influence microhabitat use in Speleomantes strinatii, and how logs may compensate for environmental constraints farther from streams. The implications for forest management and conservation planning are especially relevant in light of climate change and increasing anthropogenic pressures on forest ecosystems.

A few points for your consideration:

1. The manuscript would benefit from minor language polishing for clarity and grammar, particularly in the abstract and discussion (e.g., smoothing transitions, avoiding redundancy).

2. You might consider elaborating slightly more in the discussion on the possible influence of unmeasured social or ecological factors (e.g., competition, prey distribution) that could shape habitat use, as you briefly mention this but do not expand.

Overall, I commend you on a well-executed study that offers actionable recommendations for conservation-focused forest management.

Author Response

R3: Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. I found your work to be a valuable and timely contribution to the field of amphibian ecology and conservation. The study is well-designed and clearly written, and the use of Bayesian GLMMs is appropriate and thoughtfully implemented.

Your findings provide important insights into how shelter type and distance from water sources influence microhabitat use in Speleomantes strinatii, and how logs may compensate for environmental constraints farther from streams. The implications for forest management and conservation planning are especially relevant in light of climate change and increasing anthropogenic pressures on forest ecosystems.

A: We thank the reviewer for the general overview and for the specific comments, which we responded to individually below.

A few points for your consideration:

R3: 1. The manuscript would benefit from minor language polishing for clarity and grammar, particularly in the abstract and discussion (e.g., smoothing transitions, avoiding redundancy).

A: We revised the whole manuscript to improve its clarity and make it more readable, in particular in the abstract and discussion.

R3: 2. You might consider elaborating slightly more in the discussion on the possible influence of unmeasured social or ecological factors (e.g., competition, prey distribution) that could shape habitat use, as you briefly mention this but do not expand.

A: We refined the section inn order to discuss in more details the influence of the other factors that we were not able to measure in this study, notably competition, prey distribution, demography and personality (lines 250-261).

R3: Overall, I commend you on a well-executed study that offers actionable recommendations for conservation-focused forest management.

A: We thank the reviewer again for the appreciation of our manuscript. We hope that this first study can be the starting point for even more in-depth future research.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dears authors

The study is straightforward, but if the study is well designed and its objectives are clearly defined, it can produce very valuable results.

I think the study is well-conceived and designed. I find it very interesting that fallen logs on the ground are an important refuge for this species and amphibians. This is very important for forest management as it highlights the importance of so-called horizontal relief and its importance in maintaining biodiversity.

I believe the study can be published in its current form.

Author Response

R4: The study is straightforward, but if the study is well designed and its objectives are clearly defined, it can produce very valuable results.

I think the study is well-conceived and designed. I find it very interesting that fallen logs on the ground are an important refuge for this species and amphibians. This is very important for forest management as it highlights the importance of so-called horizontal relief and its importance in maintaining biodiversity.

I believe the study can be published in its current form.

A: We thank the Reviewer for the comment. We implemented the suggestions of the other Reviewers in order to enrich the content of our manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a fleshed out and much improved manuscript. It no longer feels like it was thrown together or an LPU. I thank the authors for taking my suggestions seriously

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This revision has addressed the previously raised issues to a certain extent, and I have no further new questions.