Fallow Deer (Dama dama) Population and Harvest Changes in Europe since the Early 1980s

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have collected estimates of population size and harvest of fallow deer from several European countries for four periods. The conclusion is that both population and harvest numbers have increased strongly from 1984 to the early 2020s in most countries, and that there is a strong positive correlation between the growth in population data and the growth in harvest data.

Materials and Methods, Data analysis

I think you should start by explaining why you correct the numbers, and how you do it. I agree that harvest rates above 40% are unlikely, but could you back up your argument, as well as the use of 30%, by some references?

What is the difference between "growth factor" and "growth rate"?

Line 122–: It is obvious that you use the available numbers. Better to write: "For each country, we calculated the growth rate of population size and harvest for six periods; 1984–2000s etc.

Line 126: Why "annual"?

Results

Line 146–152: This is introduction and methods rather than results.

It is not clear what the difference between the determination coefficients in Table 1 and Figure 3–8 is. It is sufficient to give two decimals in the coefficients.

Why not give p-values for the regression analyses?

Line 196: Write "From 1984 to the mid-2010s, the population..."

Line 240: "From 2005 to 2020" or "During 2005–2020".

Table 1: "Mean growth rate" (Table legend) or "Mean growth factor" (Table heading)? It is not clear from the table legend which factor is dependent and which is independent. Add number of countries for each period, which according to Figure 3–8 appeared to vary from 9 to 16.

Figures: Add y-axis to Figure 1–2, and except from the x-axis, remove horizontal lines in all figures, they have no function. It is the increases (Fig. 1–2) and the correlations (Fig. 3–8) that are of interest for the reader, not the exact values.

It would be easier to compare the results for uncorrected and corrected data if the same interval was used for the y-axis in each of the two panels in figures 3–8. It would also be easier to compare periods if the same interval was used for all six figures. You could also consider to combine Fig. 3, 6 and 8 in one figure with six panels, and make a similar for Fig. 4, 7 and 5.

Discussion

Start by repeating your main findings, before citing literature. I am not up to date when it comes to literature on cervid population levels in Europe, but as far as I can judge, several relevant studies are cited.

Line 320: "from which they disappeared"

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review: Bijl and Csányi (2022), Sustainability

The authors evaluated the relationship between fallow deer population growth and harvest data across Europe.  They used previously available data to achieve their goals. I fully appreciate the work and accomplishments of the authors. I have, however, several concerns about the manuscript, especially the way it is written in the current format. The overall impact of the manuscripts is weak in terms of concepts, methodology advancement, or management implications. My major concern is the lack of a strong case for the scope and aim of the present manuscript. There is a general lack of a central carry-home message for the readers.  The authors simply skip the rationale behind their endeavor, as such the manuscript deals with the correlation between two metrics- population growth and harvest rates and nothing else.  I think the authors should seriously think about putting “meat to the bones” regarding the content of their work.  They should also relate the importance of their work to the overall management and conservation of the deer species in terms of sustainable harvesting practices. Think about how this study advances our knowledge of population dynamics and mortality of a species.

I have also commented directly several times in the PDF copy.  

Abstract:

The abstract is very vague and doesn’t tell what is the central question the authors are hoping to address. What part of cervid management are they interested in telling to readers?  The information is mostly numerical and doesn’t provide any valuable information to the readers about the issue. The abstract seems broken and doesn’t lead to the stepwise interpretation of the study’s background, aim, methods, results, and significance. I suggest starting with a central question, brief methods, results/trends (in words not so much numerical information!), synthesis of their findings, and how it is useful for the conservation managers.

Keywords: Think about revising- add harvest, population, management

Introduction: Generally, okay in reading, but I find it very short and really underestimates the vast literature available on population dynamics, and harvesting. The authors have to reorganize the section to better state their study objectives and why their study is important.

Methods: This section is generally well organized, and easy to follow. Some texts should be converted into a table. I am not sure how the authors came to certain assumptions or corrections of the data. They should provide some background information.

Results: This section is easy to follow. The figure caption has to be revised and elaborated a bit for the reader to understand better.

Discussion: Easy to follow but lacks a general overview and synthesis of the study. Very weak in terms of synthesis and the greater aim of the study. I don’t see much discussion on the trends of the population and harvest data based on different time periods that are elaborately presented in the result section.  Mostly repeating the result or lack of strong data from different countries but no synthesis of their findings. Also, mostly deals with issues about methods of estimating deer population among countries. Some information is repeated and not suitable for this section and should be moved elsewhere. What are the suggestions? What is next? Any management suggestions? Any long-term plans? What should the readers of the manuscript think of it in terms of fallow deer population dynamics and harvesting? Is it sustainable?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the extensive revision. 

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and providing feedback.