A Conceptual Framework for Biodiversity Monitoring Programs in Conservation Areas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I failed to see the logic of this paper. What is it intended to do and for whom? It seems like a concoction of papers cited but have no logical "story". If the idea is reviewing monitoring of indicators, then it did not do a good job at that. If the idea is a review of selecting indicators, I also did not see this to be a good review. The two are mentioned with selective referencing (see for example some other references below). You say you "provide a robust conceptual framework of monitoring based upon six key conceptual questions for broad application to developing effective biodiversity monitoring programs, 'why monitor,' 'which indicators' should be included, 'where' and 'when' monitoring will occur, 'who' will be involved, and 'how many' resources are required.” But these are things every one who does monitoring of indicators (& selections) asks. It is also classic management tools for any project. So I failed to see what is new or robust about it. 

Geldmann, J., Deguignet, M., Balmford, A., Burgess, N.D., Dudley, N., Hockings, M., Kingston, N., Klimmek, H., Lewis, A.H., Rahbek, C. and Stolton, S., 2021. Essential indicators for measuring site‐based conservation effectiveness in the post‐2020 global biodiversity framework. Conservation Letters, 14(4), p.e12792.

Han, X., Smyth, R.L., Young, B.E., Brooks, T.M., Sánchez de Lozada, A., Bubb, P., Butchart, S.H., Larsen, F.W., Hamilton, H., Hansen, M.C. and Turner, W.R., 2014. A biodiversity indicators dashboard: Addressing challenges to monitoring progress towards the Aichi biodiversity targets using disaggregated global data. PLoS One, 9(11), p.e112046.

Stephenson, P.J. and Stengel, C., 2020. An inventory of biodiversity data sources for conservation monitoring. PLoS One, 15(12), p.e0242923.

Welch, D., 2008. What should protected area managers do to preserve biodiversity in the face of climate change?. Biodiversity, 9(3-4), pp.84-88.

Zafra-Calvo, N., Pascual, U., Brockington, D., Coolsaet, B., Cortes-Vazquez, J.A., Gross-Camp, N., Palomo, I. and Burgess, N.D., 2017. Towards an indicator system to assess equitable management in protected areas. Biological Conservation, 211, pp.134-141.

Author Response

Please see comments in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Hello,

I really enjoyed reading the manuscript "A conceptual framework for biodiversity monitoring programs in conservation areas". In my opinion is a great and interesting article that provides a good framework of biodiversity monitoring. 

I only would give more details on how citizen science can be used to monitor most of the essential variables you mention in Table 1. For example, for birds, the use of eBird is even allowing to infer the population trends in areas, which can be valuable for monitoring: https://science.ebird.org/en/status-and-trends. I think that similar approaches could be taken for other groups. It can be also used to monitor movement, and phenology.

Thanks,

Author Response

Please see comments in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors:

I enjoy reading and reviewing your manuscript on a conceptual framework for biodiversity monitoring programs in conservation areas. The framework you proposed with seven basic questions is well stated. Your answers to these questions are clearly presented with the flow-charts and the tables may be used as a communication tool to guide conservation area managers to implement effective biodiversity monitoring techniques.

The conceptual model and the framework approach you studied may be used as a strategic guideline for supporting comparative monitoring planning, fieldwork designing, and assessing the monitoring results. I can see the values of your comprehensive work in contribution to systematic approaches for adaptive management in protected areas (Pas) and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs).

I will recommend the editors to accept your manuscript for publication. Congratulations to your excellent achievement!

Author Response

Reviewer 3 seemed content with the manuscript as originally presented. No comments or revisions were necessary to satisfy Reviewer 3's concerns.

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript is well written and at the first instance I can recommend for publication. But, I suggest the authors should include a section  of materials and methods adopted for compiling this manuscript as a separate section, if possible, I mean its just a suggestion. Also, hypothesis behind this manuscript can also be discussed properly. 

Author Response

Reviewer 4 recommends publication of the article as was originally presented. We believe that our revisions satisfy their minor points of suggestion.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I still have the same opinion regarding this paper as I stated in the first round of review. Might be useful as a chapter in a book (a review)