Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript evaluates the effects of site management for pheasant shooting in the UK, in terms of impacts on forest structure and biodiversity. These effects are evaluated both with an in-depth review and with a comparison with similar sites via remote sensing. The study is interesting and worth publishing. The review is done employing multiple sources and with a rigorous process. The evaluation of the differences among sites is conducted considering multiple landscape level indices. While the introduction is engaging, the methodology is sound and the results are well discussed, the manuscript needs comparison with international literature to qualify for an international journal both in the introduction and in the discussion. Furthermore, the presentation of the results must be reviewed, because at present the evidence from multiple studies are sparsely described and their presentation is lengthy, resembling more the style of a report than of a scientific article. Other paragraphs, like the limitations, must be reduced to what is directly related with the conclusions of the paper. In synthesis, I will be happy to re-evaluate the paper once the authors have improved the specified aspects. More comments are in the attached pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

We thank the reviewer for their thorough and constructive review of our manuscript, “Structural diversity and biodiversity of forest and hedgerow in areas managed for pheasant shooting across the UK.” We appreciate the recognition of the study’s rigour and relevance and have made substantial revisions in response to the specific and general comments. Below we outline our responses to each point, including changes made to the manuscript.

 

General Comments

Reviewer comment:

“The manuscript needs comparison with international literature to qualify for an international journal both in the introduction and in the discussion.”

 

Response:

We have revised both the Introduction and Discussion to incorporate comparisons with the very limited number of studies that relate directly to the topic of our study. We have highlighted the fact that this is a Method paper which could be applied to assessments in other countries/regions where information on potential changes to  forest properties of gamebird management is of interest. We also cite international literature reviews on forest structural diversity and biodiversity responses to hunting-related management. Specific additions include:

 

Reviewer comment:

“The presentation of the results must be reviewed, because at present the evidence from multiple studies are sparsely described and their presentation is lengthy, resembling more the style of a report than of a scientific article.”

 

Response:

The structure of the narrative  results follows guidance as set out in the CEE guidelines and also follows similar publications in this journal by the current authors: 

1. Petrokofsky, G., Harvey, W.J., Petrokofsky, L. and Adongo Ochieng, C., 2021. The importance of time-saving as a factor in transitioning from woodfuel to modern cooking energy services: A systematic map. Forests 2021.
2. Harvey, W.J., Petrokofsky, G., Stansell, N., Nogué, S., Petrokofsky, L. and Willis, K.J., 2021. Forests, water, and land use change across the central american isthmus: Mapping the evidence base for terrestrial holocene palaeoenvironmental proxies. Forests, 12(8), p.1057.
3. Kimanzu, N., Schulte-Herbrüggen, B., Clendenning, J., Chiwona-Karltun, L., Krogseng, K. and Petrokofsky, G., 2021. What is the evidence base linking gender with access to forests and use of forest resources for food security in low-and middle-income countries? A systematic evidence map. Forests, 12(8), p.1096.

 

Moreover, one of the key previous reviews of this topic- Sage et al. 2020 used the approach of combining tabulated data with narrative text assessment in their compelling paper. 

 

Reviewer comment:

“Other paragraphs, like the limitations, must be reduced to what is directly related with the conclusions of the paper.”

 

Response: The section has been moved after the Discussion. The authors do not agree that the limitations section should be shortened as this provides transparency, which is an essential part of a systematic approach to reviewing literature.

In paper comments

 

Reviewer comment: L38: “Add descriptor”

Response: Added.

 

Reviewer comment: L96: “The keywords/terms of the review must be clearly stated, it is not enough to refer to past reviews.”

Response: A paragraph has been added clearly stating the terms of the review as set out in the Protocol.

 

Reviewer comment: L160: “Spell out first time you use it: British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC)”

Response: Added.

 

Reviewer comment: L231: “Add a reference”

Response: Added.

 

Reviewer comment: L264: “This paragraph is more part of the methods rather than of the results. I suggest moving it there. This is just describing the study areas.”

 

Reviewer comment: L375: “This paragraph must be rewritten presenting separately different items:

- N. studies where biodiversity decreases/increases/stays the same;

- taxa involved and the effects on them;

- effects of management.

Response: A sentence has been added to this paragraph to help clarify; however, the data collected was insufficient for meta analysis and therefore is reported narratively below the table. The authors do not feel that expanding this table to include direction of ‘effect’ leads us into ‘vote counting’ territory and we want to avoid over-interpreting our limited data (see cautionary statements in https://environmentalevidence.org/standards-table/   )

Reviewer comment: L413: “I suppose you are introducing these two studies, but this is not clear.”

Response: Clarified in text.

 

Reviewer comment: L424: “This must be reported erarlier to allow immediately a comparison, together with the 14 studies.”

Response: We have restructured the section as suggested.

 

Reviewer comment: L531: “This description is very slavishly conducted. It must be shortened if you hope somebody (not from UK) will read this paper.”

 

Response: While acknowledging that the geo-politics of the UK is complex, the analysis for the separate nations are important in terms of exploring potential differences in historical and current land ownership, land management, and policy instruments in the different nations. We feel that this is particularly important to demonstrate how the method could be applied to other countries and is not particular to the UK. Differences between national or regional land where shooting is taking place would be important considerations. We have added a sentence to 2.3 to explain this reasoning.

 

Reviewer comment: Limitations section: “Move this section after Discussions. BTW, these limitations are very general and are only partially connected with this specific study. So consider shortening these sections.”

Response: The section has been moved after the Discussion. The authors do not agree that the limitations section should be shortened as this provides transparency, which is an essential part of a systematic approach to reviewing literature.

 

Reviewer comment: “Include the authority, e.g.: Abax parallelepipedus (Piller & Mitterpacher, 1783)”

Response: As a biodiversity study and not a taxonomic, and after consulting colleagues, this level of detail is necessary.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors did a quite time consuming literature review and novel spatial analysis to determine whether or not game bird (pheasant) management has influence on biodiversity. Due to low number of research about game management influence on ecosystems nowadays this effort is commendable. The methods used are transparent and reproducible and the same approach can be repeat – it is very strong part of this research

At least some of authors are native Brits so quality of writing is high when it comes to linguistics but I think the easiness with word is a trap for authors. Manuscript is to long and to general in certain parts. It is scientific journal not Country Living J so there are part witch must be improved or best delated.

My main concern about methodology is why authors took into consideration databases easy to obtain not about animals (insects) and plants which are commonly eaten by pheasants? Butterflies are not in their diet (generally). Did you search data bases to check what can be obtain or not? Or did you used what was available whiteout deeper analyses? What about rare species? Maybe presence of pheasants influence that?

Detailed remarks:

Lines19-24 should be placed after sentences from lines 24-30. Literature data first, remote sensing second.

Line 38 – italic in Latin name

Line 50- is empty, delete please

Lines 107-122 – this paragraph is to general, delete please

Lines 142-157 – to general, not necessary, delete please.

Lines 159-163 - lack of area of polygons, range and median. Please add.

First, and big, part of Results are methods in my opinion and should be moved to Methods chapter. Lines 264-335 406-435 and with tables and figures respectively.

Figures 3 and 4 on OX axis is lack of description. What 0 and 1 mean?

Subheading 3.3.4. is very difficult to follow. Consider: leaving data only about significant differences and all non-significant results mention briefly or put all numbers in table – it will be much nicer to read.

Line 523 forest with big F – beginning of sentence

Lines 543-551 – information about size of research “plots should be at the beginning of results chapter in my opinion, please move it.

Paragraph under 3.4.1. is not limitation of the study – is information that you avoid it. It is not necessary – please delete.

Lines 575-581 – delete.

Lines 583-589 should be moved to methods chapter

Lines 590-596 – it is fitting to introduction not limitation, please move it.

Limes 597-602 is more part of discussion chapter – please move it.

Subheading 6.1. is not a discussion in scientific article, it is more essay. So please discus you results with other author’s results – rewrite this chapter.

Line 700 – “government” should be in small letters.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

We thank Reviewer 2 for their thoughtful and constructive comments. We are pleased that the reviewer recognises the methodological transparency and reproducibility of our work, as well as the significance of our contribution to a currently under-researched area. We have addressed each comment carefully and have made substantial revisions to the manuscript accordingly. Our point-by-point responses are provided below.

 

General Comments

Reviewer comment:

“Authors did a quite time consuming literature review and novel spatial analysis... methods used are transparent and reproducible... very strong part of this research.”

 

Response:

We thank the reviewer for acknowledging the scale and rigour of our systematic review and spatial analysis. We agree that the reproducibility and transparency of our methods are key strengths, and we have taken care to emphasise this clearly in the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer comment:

“Manuscript is too long and too general in certain parts. It is a scientific journal not Country Living J.”

 

Response:

We reject the criticism that our paper resembles Country Living J [presumably the reviewer means Country Living Magazine]. It is a scientific paper structured appropriately, following the journal’s guide.

 

Reviewer comment (on biodiversity data):

“Why authors took into consideration butterflies which are not commonly eaten by pheasants? What about rare species?”

 

Response:

Butterflies were not selected as a presumed food source for pheasants but as an indicator taxon, due to the richness, quality, and spatial precision of available data across Great Britain. These taxa (butterflies, birds, plants) are frequently used in biodiversity assessments because of their detectability and established relationships with habitat quality. Nonetheless, we have now added clarification in the Methods (Section 2.5) to explain our selection criteria.

 

In response to the question on rare species: unfortunately, GBIF records do not consistently indicate rarity or conservation status. However, we agree this is an important direction for future work.

 

Specific Comments

Lines 19–24 vs. 24–30 (Abstract):

“These should be reversed – literature review first, then remote sensing.”

 

Response:

Revised as suggested. The Abstract now first introduces the literature evaluation, followed by the remote sensing component.

 

Line 38: “Italicise Latin name (Phasianus colchicus).”

Response: Corrected.

 

Line 50: “Empty line – delete.”

Response: Deleted.

 

Lines 107–122 & 142–157: “Too general – delete.”

Response: This section has been revised following additional comments from Reviewer 1.

 

Lines 159–163: “Lack of area of polygons, range and median – please add.”

Response: These figures are in Table 3.

 

Lines 264–335, 406–435: “These are results currently placed in the Results section but are methodological – should be moved to Methods.”

Response: These sections have been moved into the Methods section, with appropriate restructuring to maintain logical flow.

 

Figures 3 and 4 (Axis): “OX axis lacks description. What do 0 and 1 mean?”

Response: We have clarified the axes in the figure captions.

 

Subheading 3.3.4 (Differences between nations): “Difficult to follow. Consider summarising or using a table.”

Response: The authors have taken advice on this with colleagues, who do not agree that this is difficult to follow. Prefer to leave it as a narrative paragraph and not elevate it into a table.

Line 523 (“Forest”): “Capital F is inappropriate unless at sentence start.”

Response: Corrected.

 

Lines 543–551 (Size of sites): “Should appear earlier in Results.”

Response: This is supplementary analysis and therefore the authors prefer to keep the section after the primary analysis.

 

3.4.1 (Limitations paragraph): “Not a limitation – delete.”

Response: The section has been moved after the Discussion. The authors do not agree that the limitations section should be deleted as this provides transparency, which is an essential part of a systematic approach to reviewing literature

 

Lines 583–589 (technical discussion of remote sensing products): “Should be in Methods.”

Response: This sentence relates to the limitations of the data products already described in the Methods section.

 

Lines 590–596: “More fitting to Introduction – move.”

Response: Moved to Introduction and reworded to link to study aims.

 

Lines 597–602: “More appropriate for Discussion – move.”

Response: Moved to Discussion.

 

Subheading 6.1 (Discussion content): “This is an essay – needs scientific discussion comparing with other authors’ results.”

Response: We have revised this section. It now compares our findings with other authors' results, noting that there are limited studies to draw on. One of the key objectives of the current study was to produce a repeatable method to evaluate the effect of pheasant shooting on woodland biodiversity. 

 

Line 700 (“Government”): “Should not be capitalised.”

Response: Corrected.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for presenting this work on the impacts of management for pheasant shooting on forests and hedgerows in the UK. Given the small number of papers and other literature on this topic, this study is of importance for revealing how structural diversity and biodiversity differ between managed land and the comparable land. However, there are two crutial improvements needed to make this study scientifically sound and enable others to replicate this study.

I. The data are spatial data with known spatial relations, including distance between sites. The authors use t test without considering potential spatial autocorrelation among the sites. The t test modified for spatial autocorrelation should be applied to analyze these data.

Dutilleul, P., Clifford, P., Richardson, S. and Hemon, D., 1993. Modifying the t test for assessing the correlation between two spatial processes. Biometrics, pp.305-314.

II. The methods are not easy to understand, preventing the readers from replicating this study. Key steps, especially the steps for spatial data collection and analysis, should be presented with sufficient details. e.g. The authors can prepare a table to summarize the variables prepared for the analysis in the appendix.

 

 In addition, a number of considerations are provided for the authors to futher improve the text.

1. The introduction to four recent studies can be more like a paragraph instead of points listed (Lines 51-72).
2. Missing citations in Methods 2.2 (Lines 129-142).
3. In Methods 2.3 and 2.4, a lot of short paragraphs are presented, which could be incorporated as longer paragraphs.
4. A large proportion of Results is for the systematic review, while the spatial analysis does not look like the more important part of the study.
5. From 3.3.3 to 3.3.5, the text reads like a report, which should be avoided. e.g. a table to summarized the result from 3.3.3 can be produced to better present the results than the plain text as it is now.
6. The difference in the number of species should also be analyzed using optimized Getis Gi to compare aggregation of this richness index, other than the t test modified for spatial autocorrelation.
7. From 3.4 to Discussion, no literature is cited.
8. Discussion is very limited to this study only, but not broad enough by comparing with other studies on the same topic.
9. The overall presentation of this study and its appendix requires intensive revision to improve its attractiveness to the general readers and the public.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear Authors,

Please revise the causual expressions to academic ways of experssion. e.g. avoid use rather, generally large, etc, as they are not commonly used in scientific papers.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

We sincerely thank Reviewer 3 for their detailed and constructive critique of our manuscript. We appreciate the recognition of our study's contribution to a relatively underexplored topic and have taken careful steps to improve the manuscript in response to the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. Our detailed responses follow.

 

General Comments

 

Reviewer comment: “The authors use t-test without considering potential spatial autocorrelation among the sites. The t-test modified for spatial autocorrelation should be applied.”

 

Response:

We fully agree that spatial autocorrelation can bias standard parametric statistical tests and should be accounted for in spatial data analysis. We have now:

 

Applied the Dutilleul et al. (1993) correction to test the significance of differences in key outcome variables (forest structure, hedgerow density, species richness) while adjusting for spatial autocorrelation.

 

Included a new paragraph in the Methods (Section 2.6) detailing the spatial autocorrelation analysis, including Moran’s I values and the correction approach applied.

 

Updated relevant Results sections (3.3.2 and 3.3.3) to report effective sample sizes and revised p-values 

 

This analysis accounting for spatial autocorrelation has not changed any of our conclusions.

 

These additions ensure the statistical robustness of our findings.

 

Reviewer comment: “Methods are not easy to understand. Key steps, especially spatial data collection and analysis, should be clarified and summarised, e.g., in a table.”

 

Response: We appreciate the reviewer highlighting this clarity issue. In response:

 

We have revised and restructured Sections 2.3 to 2.5, combining short paragraphs and improving flow and readability.

 

We have added a summary table (now Appendix C) that clearly outlines:

 

1. Variables used,
2. Data sources,
3. Years covered,
4. Units of measurement, and
5. Method of calculation or extraction.

 

This table serves as a roadmap for replicating the analysis.

 

Reviewer comment: “The introduction to four recent studies can be more like a paragraph instead of listed points.”

Response: Other reviewers have asked for conflicting changes in this section and the authors have tried to strike a balance between all reviewer comments.

 

Reviewer comment: “Missing citations in Methods 2.2 (Lines 129–142).”

Response: We have added appropriate references to support the remote sensing methods used, including key citations for forest spectral diversity, structural diversity.

 

Reviewer comment: “Short paragraphs in 2.3 and 2.4 should be incorporated into longer paragraphs.”

Response: The authors have addressed this.

 

Reviewer comment: “The Results section is overly weighted toward the literature review.”

Response: Other reviewers have asked for additional details in this section and the authors have tried to strike a balance between all reviewer comments. 

 

Reviewer comment: “Sections 3.3.3 to 3.3.5 read like a report. Consider summarising these with a table.”

Response: The structure of the narrative  results follows guidance as set out in the CEE guidelines and also follows similar publications in this journal by the current authors: 

1. Petrokofsky, G., Harvey, W.J., Petrokofsky, L. and Adongo Ochieng, C., 2021. The importance of time-saving as a factor in transitioning from woodfuel to modern cooking energy services: A systematic map. Forests 2021.
2. Harvey, W.J., Petrokofsky, G., Stansell, N., Nogué, S., Petrokofsky, L. and Willis, K.J., 2021. Forests, water, and land use change across the central american isthmus: Mapping the evidence base for terrestrial holocene palaeoenvironmental proxies. Forests, 12(8), p.1057.
3. Kimanzu, N., Schulte-Herbrüggen, B., Clendenning, J., Chiwona-Karltun, L., Krogseng, K. and Petrokofsky, G., 2021. What is the evidence base linking gender with access to forests and use of forest resources for food security in low-and middle-income countries? A systematic evidence map. Forests, 12(8), p.1096.

 

Moreover, one of the key previous reviews of this topic- Sage et al. 2020 used the approach of combining tabulated data with narrative text assessment in their compelling paper. 

Reviewer comment: “Use of Getis-Ord Gi for species richness aggregation.”*

Response: The authors calculated species density using a published method (Long et al 2017) and did not conduct Getis-Ord Gi hotspot analysis. This would be additional analysis that is outside the scope of our study.

Reviewer comment: “From 3.4 to Discussion, no literature is cited.”

Response: We have revised this section. It now compares our findings with other authors' results, noting that there are limited studies to draw on. One of the key objectives of the current study was to produce a repeatable method to evaluate the effect of pheasant shooting on woodland biodiversity.

 

Reviewer comment: “Discussion is too limited – should compare with similar studies.”

Response: We have revised this section. It now compares our findings with other authors' results, noting that there are limited studies to draw on. One of the key objectives of the current study was to produce a repeatable method to evaluate the effect of pheasant shooting on woodland biodiversity.

 

Reviewer comment: “Overall presentation and appendix need revision.”

Response: This will be addressed during the proofing stage of publication by the editorial team.

 

Reviewer comment:  “Please revise casual expressions to academic phrasing (e.g., avoid ‘rather’, ‘generally large’, etc.).”

Response: We have removed informal or ambiguous expressions as identified by the reviewer.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,
Thank you for your response and the revisions of the manuscript. I accept the second version of the manuscript; however, I personally still find it too long.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your constructive and helpful comments throughout the review process.

Kind Regards.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The revision is much improved in clearity and soundness, especially introduction and methods. In this revision, I notice a few minor issues to be fixed or improved by the authors before the manuscript to be published in Forests. The comments are as below.

Line 159: where it is not possible

Line 168: measure ecosystem health and integrity

Line 217: 90,000 km² (In some cases, the authors use decimal in thousands but some cases not. Please check these numbers.)

Line 248: Please check the unit of Hedgerow density (m/ha).

Line 349: .. -> .

Line 606: Please check the subtitle. 6.1 -> 4.1

Line 728: The reference style is not consistent.

Line 793: Acknowledgments are not complete.

Line 943: It would be better if the spatial resolution of the raster data is provided in the Appendix C.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

We thank Reviewer 3 for their comments and appreciate them bringing nine minor issues to our attention. We have included all suggestions as detailed below:

1. Line 159: where it is not possible
1. ‘it’ inserted
2. Line 168: measure ecosystem health and integrity
1. ‘and’ inserted
3. Line 217: 90,000 km2 (In some cases, the authors use decimal in thousands but some cases not. Please check these numbers.)
1. The authors have standardised.
4. Line 248: Please check the unit of Hedgerow density (m/ha).
1. Checked and corrected
5. Line 349: .. -> .
1. Additional ‘.’ deleted
6. Line 606: Please check the subtitle. 6.1 -> 4.1
1. Subtitles corrected
7. Line 728: The reference style is not consistent.
1. Corrected
8. Line 793: Acknowledgments are not complete.
1. Completed
9. Line 943: It would be better if the spatial resolution of the raster data is provided in the Appendix C.
1. Included.