Soil-Related Predictors for Distribution Modelling of Four European Crayfish Species

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the manuscript entitled Soil-related predictors for distribution modeling of four European crayfish species, the authors have examined the spatial distribution of four European indigenous crayfish species in relation to environmental variables and have further shown that different soil-related predictors associated the distribution of four crayfish species.

My comments on this manuscript are listed as follows:

1. The definition of CPUE: CPUE was estimated as the number of individuals caught per 100 m length of river stretch. I wonder if it is reasonable to use the length of the river stretch as the unit of effort since I do not think it is a common way to do so.  What kinds of fish gears did you use to catch fish? How long did it take for each fish sampling? What is the technical scale of each fish sampling? More detailed information about the procedure of fish sampling shall be provided.  
2. In the materials and method section of Line-124-144: The information is redundant and shall be more concise.
3. The detailed information for the model used in the present study shall be described (the algorithms, parameters, etc)
4. Line 117-118: For each crayfish species, we created a database recording the following information for each field location. Any evidence to show in terms of a weblink, reference, or supplemental files?
5. It might be better to prepare the tables for the statistical values of soil properties in the presence and absence of different crayfish species, which were currently described in the text. This also applied to the results for the R-vale of soil properties related to CPUE and the AUG values of models for different crayfish species.
6. Figures 2-5: I found it was very different to read the figures. The resolution and the font size for the figures shall be adjusted appropriately. Furthermore, it seems to me that figures (a) and (b) were overlapped and their original contents were not shown completely. For example, figure 2a: the information for the colored squares of MDA, presence, and absence was missing. Please do recheck all your figures and make sure the original contents were correctly and consistently present in the manuscript.

Author Response

thank you for the valuable suggestions!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

“Euro-pean” word written without hyphenation on the same row

Scientific name after crayfish species is indicated

1. The introduction paragraph is brief with minimal information about crayfish distribution and habitat preference in last decades.
2. The number of rivers selected around the Romanian Carpathians, populations and individuals selected for data are impressive.
3. The maps from the Materials and Methods paragraph Figure 1, are correct but are general for different type of soils and not peculiar for the rivers sampling points (a single overlapping map of soil types would be much more accurate).

It is not specified what technique was applied for animals collection.

4. The results are paragraph is well organized for each crayfish species database and corresponding map for distribution according to area and soil type.
5. The findings concerning the four species distribution according to soil type are properly described in the context of the published literature (61 titles).
6. No solutions for avoid and protection against the invasion of crayfish species are add and how the soil type can be used as an advantage in crayfish management  protection  (breeding centres for establishing new or strengthen weak populations of crayfish).

References are appropriate, relevant to the study and covered completely in the list.

Author Response

Note to reviewers: To make the evaluation easier, I attached the main manuscript as a „clean” file because we used Grammarly software to check and correct English, but the program needs a clean draft. So, because we changed the initual file, as the reviwers reccomended, there will be a separate attachment, at the Suplementary files place, to see all the changes we made, with track changes enabled. Thank you for understanding this aspect.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have tried their hypothesized modelling of species distribution via specific and simulational examination and validation of digital-leveled  environmental predictors. The disigned predictors include remote-sensing variables or topographic variables obtained from field-tested data.

The soil propertie have been examined for spatial distribution of fish species. They have expanded four European indigenous crayfish species as leading model fishes in local Eomania. A database with 473 presence and absence locations for the four species such as A. bihariensis, A. torrentium, A. astacus and P. leptodactylus are subjected to the eight soil properties.

From simulation via Random Forest modelling, correlation between dense soil preference, low coarse fragments content and deeper sediment cover and high clay values for A. astacus and P. leptodactylus was suggested. Thus, cohesive soil shores are found as the microenvironment for their burrows. Species fit for shores with higher coarse fragments content, the highland species A. bihariensis and A. torrentium, are appropriate for soils relevant to thin sediment cover and low density.  A. astacus species are fit to high erosive soils. Therefore, soil-linked digital descriptors can be linked to the simulation assessment of crayfish species distribution modelling for conservation analysis.

The approaches are intersting in the species distribution modelling, as they authors described and applied using the local fish models.  The manuscript may update the current  approaches to conservation biology in ecosystem.

In a minor comment, the fish species are not in large number. How about the increased number of the fish species in the controlled measurements.

In addition, the statistical analysis should be operated by a spcific variant comparison between the four species.

Author Response

Note to reviewers: To make the evaluation easier, I attached the main manuscript as a „clean” file because we used Grammarly software to check and correct English, but the program needs a clean draft. So, because we changed the initual file, as the reviwers reccomended, there will be a separate attachment, at the Suplementary files place, to see all the changes we made, with track changes enabled. Thank you for understanding this aspect.