Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper analyzes the body condition index of small mammal species in relation to different habitat types. Body condition index is considered an indicator of habitat quality but also of individual success. 

My main concern regarding the present paper is related to the way the data are analyzed in the sense that the body condition index for each species is compared to an expected value representing the national average over all small mammals (excluding rats) which is 3.03 but varies between 1.04 and 6.89 across different species. I think it would be much more correct and relevant if the body condition index values were not compared to the absolute average for the country but to the average per species, that way the results would certainly be much different. The abstract also refers to the use of the body condition index in relation to changes in habitat quality under climate change, which is not found in the paper. We would expect a series of comparisons of these indices for the 1980s and the 2000s or a dynamic, historical evolution of these indices to test whether these habitats are indeed undergoing changes. 

A better description of the analyzed habitats. Thus it is not very clear how disturbed habitats are delimited in the sense that both agricultural habitats and some forest habitats can be considered disturbed. 

For a better description of the BCI formula, in the referenced paper we did not find an explanation on the necessity of using the third or fifth power of the mentioned formula. 

In figure 2 there is an overlap of colors in the legend, thus both for Sorex araneus and Microtus agrestis the same colors are used. Also no clear and easy distinction can be made between A. flavicollis and A. uralensis. It is recommended to use hatches when using close shades. 

 

Author Response

Rev #1 comments and answers

 

This paper analyzes the body condition index of small mammal species in relation to different habitat types. Body condition index is considered an indicator of habitat quality but also of individual success. 

 

Comment: My main concern regarding the present paper is related to the way the data are analyzed in the sense that the body condition index for each species is compared to an expected value representing the national average over all small mammals (excluding rats) which is 3.03 but varies between 1.04 and 6.89 across different species. I think it would be much more correct and relevant if the body condition index values were not compared to the absolute average for the country but to the average per species, that way the results would certainly be much different. The abstract also refers to the use of the body condition index in relation to changes in habitat quality under climate change, which is not found in the paper. We would expect a series of comparisons of these indices for the 1980s and the 2000s or a dynamic, historical evolution of these indices to test whether these habitats are indeed undergoing changes.

Answer: sure, we added Table S1 with essential statistical parameters of BCI for all analyzed species. All of these species, except M. minutus, have values BCI < 2.0, and all except N. fodiens and A. uralensis have BCI > 5.0, so this comparison did not change our results. As these values refer to the former our publication [47], we think this table should not be in the main text.

However, please note that we do not directly compare data with the average value of BCI in all species, we just select most extreme ones and test their habitat dependence.

Text added to Line 145: BCI statistics for all species analyzed are presented in Table S1 in the Supplement. All analyzed small mammal species except M. minutus have BCI values < 2.0, and all except N. fodiens and A. uralensis have BCI values > 5.0.

The last sentence of the abstract was related to the discussion, not the results, so we acknowledge your comment by deleting this sentence and replacing it with another to indicate that retrospective data can facilitate insights into the relationships between small mammals and their habitat.

We have presented the dynamics of habitat change in the paper already under review, and a paper on the dynamics of BCI is under consideration. Therefore, the BCI comparison between time periods should not be included here, and we have already changed the abstract text.

 

Comment: A better description of the analyzed habitats. Thus it is not very clear how disturbed habitats are delimited in the sense that both agricultural habitats and some forest habitats can be considered disturbed. 

Answer: inserted after Line 126. We are not happy to remind this, but there is no standard habitat classification used in small mammal trappings. Therefore we can only acknowledge your comment by giving extended description of the habitat groups we used. We added text:

“As shown in [9-13, 15-19, 25-28, 30-32, 43], there is no standard habitat classification used in small mammal trapping. The grouping used here is not based on CORINE, although it does include some Level 3 habitats [7]. In the commensal habitat group, we included industrial and commercial areas, farms, farmsteads, cattle barns, and individual houses. The agricultural habitat group included arable land, perennial and annual crops, and complex cropping patterns. Disturbed habitats included mines, landfills and construction sites according to CORINE [7], as well as sites with strong disturbance of biological origin, territories of breeding cormorant colonies. Apart from these, small mammals were only captured in closed landfills. The riparian habitat group included meadows, wetlands, forests and other habitats within 50 m from the shore of a river, lake or island. This group has no equivalent in the CORINE classification. The meadows group included natural or seeded grasslands and pastures, including flooded meadows. Wetland habitats include all wetland habitats, from marshes to peat bogs; in the description of the trapping sites, the habitat  in 70% of the cases was characterized as "wetland" only, the presence of reed beds was indicated in ~7% of the trapping sites. Shrub habitats are defined as transitional woodland-shrub in the CORINE classification [7]; both "shrub" and "shrub-covered meadow" account for 40% of the trap descriptions. Forest habitats include deciduous, coniferous and mixed forests regardless of their age; characterizations of this habitat were the most variable, with over 100 different descriptions. Finally, mixed habitats also have no CORINE equivalent, and this category was chosen when a 125 m trap line covered several different habitats, so that mixed habitats were also fragmented habitats. We expect that such a broad classification will ensure better compatibility with the results of other small mammal researchers.”

 

Comment: For a better description of the BCI formula, in the referenced paper we did not find an explanation on the necessity of using the third or fifth power of the mentioned formula. 

Answer: there really is no explanation in the paper we referenced, However, L^3 indicates a cubic relationship which is intrinsic to the formula and typically represents a volume-to-length ratio in biological contexts. So, perhaps unavoidable.

Now as for 10^5, if we express body length in centimeters, not millimeters, then we can use 10^2. However, body length in small mammals is by default expressed in mm. Therefore 10^5 assure we have number between 1 and 7 as BCI.

 

Comment: In figure 2 there is an overlap of colors in the legend, thus both for Sorex araneus and Microtus agrestis the same colors are used. Also no clear and easy distinction can be made between A. flavicollis and A. uralensis. It is recommended to use hatches when using close shades.

Answer: We changed A. uralensis and made Sorex araneus and Microtus agrestis distinct.  To keep contrast without hatching, more colours were adjusted.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 55: maybe add to  the end of the sentence "and the predators that prey on them"

Line 73: re-phrase "We did not follow.......but we analyzed BCIs"

Line 109: maybe here you should state which, if any, species were excluded. Were Apodemus sylvaticus and Rattus absent?

Table 1. three asterisk (***) is not referred to in the notes at the bottom.

Line 116: in this paragraph clarify whether each trapping site was contained in a single habitat type and if not whether it was allocated to 'mixed' habitat.

Line 118: Cormorant colonies are an unusual habitat type; could you perhaps  explain the type of (original ) habitat that supports them - i.e. riparian woodland or island in a lake?

Line 120: please explain the difference between 'mixed' habitat and 'fragmented'.

Line 257: remove the extra square bracket.

Line 267: I do not understand "BCIs did not demonstrate commensal habitats", please reword.

Line 269: remove the ''s' after differences.

Within the Discussion I feel two topics could be covered, even briefly: firstly, what mechanisms might be behind species specific propensity for overfitness, and secondly, does high BCI confer fitness benefits in terms of increased survival or fecundity, and are there any costs to being overfit?

References, line 454, please remove '( )' after the authors.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, the English is fine. I have asked for one clumsy sentence to be improved (line 267).

Author Response

Rev #2 comments and answers

 

Line 55: maybe add to  the end of the sentence "and the predators that prey on them"

Answer: changed as advised

 

Line 73: re-phrase "We did not follow.......but we analyzed BCIs"

Answer: changed as advised

 

Line 109: maybe here you should state which, if any, species were excluded. Were Apodemus sylvaticus and Rattus absent?

Answer: list of not analyzed species included into the text. “Based on the sample size, Mediterranean water shrew (N. milleri), hazel dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius), northern birch mouse (Sicista betulina), wood mouse (A. sylvaticus), water vole (Arvicola amphibius), sibling vole (M. rossiaemeridionalis), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) and black rat (R. rattus) were excluded from analyses.”

 

Table 1. three asterisk (***) is not referred to in the notes at the bottom.

Answer: corrected

 

Line 116: in this paragraph clarify whether each trapping site was contained in a single habitat type and if not whether it was allocated to 'mixed' habitat.

Answer: habitat descriptions were added after Table 2. And yes, if one line (125 m) covered several habitats, this trap[ping was identified as done in mixed habitat.

 

Line 118: Cormorant colonies are an unusual habitat type; could you perhaps  explain the type of (original) habitat that supports them - i.e. riparian woodland or island in a lake?

Answer: original habitat supporting breeding sites of Great cormorants is woodland, riparian or continental, but only one of investigated colonies was situated on an island.

 

Line 120: please explain the difference between 'mixed' habitat and 'fragmented'.

Answer: in fact, “mixed category was chosen when a 125 m trap line covered several different habitats, so that mixed habitats were also fragmented habitats” – we added this text after Table 2. Just we think, that term “mixed” explains better the habitat itself – as a mixture of several types in a small area, covered by a single trap line.

 

Line 257: remove the extra square bracket.

Answer: removed

 

Line 267: I do not understand "BCIs did not demonstrate commensal habitats", please reword.

Answer: apologies, word “adaptation” was deleted by mistake. We restored text.

 

Line 269: remove the ''s' after differences.

Answer: done

 

Within the Discussion I feel two topics could be covered, even briefly: firstly, what mechanisms might be behind species specific propensity for overfitness, and secondly, does high BCI confer fitness benefits in terms of increased survival or fecundity, and are there any costs to being overfit?

Answer: in Lines 266–283 we discussed possible causes of species being overfit in specific habitats – rich food sources and specific adaptation to habitat, also elevated concentrations of biogens.

The problem is, that we started here a relatively new direction in small mammal ecology, so references to use in Discussion about the habitat and benefits of better body condition do not exist. While presence of large individuals of several species was mentioned by several authors (as we point out in Lines 86–97), none of these authors speaks about the benefits, survival or the costs of being overfit.

So we added text after Line 282: Theoretically, several mechanisms can contribute to species-specific propensity for overfitness, including genetic, ecological, behavioral, and physiological factors, but, again, we analyze just individual fitness so far. What might be tested on the site level by other authors is ecological release (reduced competition in environments where numbers of competing species is reduced, so they can increase in number and increase individual fitness. Such situation might occur in newly colonized areas after the strong disturbance.

 

References, line 454, please remove '( )' after the authors.

Answer: done

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

GENERAL COMMENT 1

The first paragraphs explain some background on studies that have assessed small mammal richness and abundance across various habitats. This is not well handled by the authors, as those studies had other objectives and focus, but the authors suggest that those studies were limited by not taking into account the body condition of the individuals. For example: “It should be noted, however, that none of the above studies assessed the fitness or body condition of small mammals, only their diversity and abundance”; “Coastal wetlands, hemi-boreal forest-farmland landscapes, successional stages from grassland to forest, and commercial orchards were analyzed, but again the biomass and not the mass of an individual was evaluated”. In other words, the authors should address in their introduction the importance of studying body condition and its relationship with habitat types, but not by referring to other studies that did not even have that goal. It is a matter of handling the information to capture the reader and tell them why your study is relevant.

 

COMMENT 2

In the introduction, the authors briefly mention that Lithuania is a mid-latitude country and refer to studies that are not. Still, they do not clarify why latitude is vital in their research. What would one expect to find according to latitude? That should be specified.

 

GENERAL COMMENT 3

The authors mention the Chitty effect very briefly, but they never elaborate or make clear whether it will be tested or evaluated. Why is it mentioned, and why would it be important for the reader to know about it?

 

GENERAL COMMENT 4

It is also mentioned that this study focuses on commensal habitats, but again, no proper context is given as to why this focus is relevant. The discussion mentions that "Commensal and non-commensal small mammal species may adapt to urban environments by modifying their behavior." I consider that this could be elaborated in the introduction to generate predictions of expected outcomes and enrich the discussion.

 

GENERAL COMMENT 5

Age categories are mentioned in the materials and methods, but it is not mentioned whether they were used to separate or divide the analyses or whether some age categories were eliminated, which undoubtedly can affect the results.

 

GENERAL COMMENT 6

 

One of the relevant results is that "Outlying values ​​in body condition indices (BCI < 2 and BSI > 4) were observed in all investigated habitats and in all species, with the exception of M. minutus, which was never under-fit.". However, this case of M. minutus is not discussed in detail. Why?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comment

Author Response

Rev #3 comments and answers

 

GENERAL COMMENT 1

The first paragraphs explain some background on studies that have assessed small mammal richness and abundance across various habitats. This is not well handled by the authors, as those studies had other objectives and focus, but the authors suggest that those studies were limited by not taking into account the body condition of the individuals. For example: “It should be noted, however, that none of the above studies assessed the fitness or body condition of small mammals, only their diversity and abundance”; “Coastal wetlands, hemi-boreal forest-farmland landscapes, successional stages from grassland to forest, and commercial orchards were analyzed, but again the biomass and not the mass of an individual was evaluated”. In other words, the authors should address in their introduction the importance of studying body condition and its relationship with habitat types, but not by referring to other studies that did not even have that goal. It is a matter of handling the information to capture the reader and tell them why your study is relevant.

Answer: please note, that our study is one of the first dealing with Body Condition of small mammals in a multi-species and multi-habitat approach. However – we do not say, that other studies were “limited”, and especially that “those studies were limited by not taking into account the body condition of the individuals”.

There are no studies on BCI to compare with our data, and we add text „Thus, there are no publications that can be directly compared with our data, i.e. the extremal BCI values of various small mammal species and their distribution in habitats.“

 

COMMENT 2

In the introduction, the authors briefly mention that Lithuania is a mid-latitude country and refer to studies that are not. Still, they do not clarify why latitude is vital in their research. What would one expect to find according to latitude? That should be specified.

Answer: did we say it is “vital”? we did not find such text. Mid-latitude is a characterization of the country position – as representing ecological situation and small mammal species composition, different from countries in high and low latitudes. Therefore, our data will be best comparable to similar latitudes. To be clear about this, we add few words into the Aim “Lithuania, representing mid-latitude countries with continental climate.”

 

GENERAL COMMENT 3

The authors mention the Chitty effect very briefly, but they never elaborate or make clear whether it will be tested or evaluated. Why is it mentioned, and why would it be important for the reader to know about it?

Answer: as we mention on Lines 79–85, presence of large-bodied individuals is one of the manifestations of the Chitty effect. We add text “It is also not clear whether these large-bodied individuals have higher BCIs.” So, Chitty effect is not testable – or there are such individuals in the populations, or they are absent, but the effect needs to be mentioned. Our results show presence of high BCIs in most of the species.

 

GENERAL COMMENT 4

It is also mentioned that this study focuses on commensal habitats, but again, no proper context is given as to why this focus is relevant. The discussion mentions that "Commensal and non-commensal small mammal species may adapt to urban environments by modifying their behavior." I consider that this could be elaborated in the introduction to generate predictions of expected outcomes and enrich the discussion.

Answer: we added context, by inserting “providing access to human-related foods”. Further in Discussion, commensal habitats were mentioned in relation to possible adaptation of species, therefore achieving better body condition. However, there are no more published sources to cite in this context, so we cannot elaborate Discussion not based on the Results.

 

GENERAL COMMENT 5

Age categories are mentioned in the materials and methods, but it is not mentioned whether they were used to separate or divide the analyses or whether some age categories were eliminated, which undoubtedly can affect the results.

Answer: no, age categories were not used further. We deleted this sentence.

 

GENERAL COMMENT 6

One of the relevant results is that "Outlying values ​​in body condition indices (BCI < 2 and BSI > 4) were observed in all investigated habitats and in all species, with the exception of M. minutus, which was never under-fit.". However, this case of M. minutus is not discussed in detail. Why?

Answer: but is is! M. minutus was discussed in Lines 236–239 of the reviewed version “as is the case for M. minutus in meadows (and also in riparian and agricultural habitats, as illustrated in Figure 3 bc) due to their scansorial lifestyle and preference for rich and protective habitats, such as reedbeds [51].” We have no more detail for this species, and there are no publications on M. minutus BCI, so discussion hardly can be expanded.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors compared extremely high and low body conditions with habitat in small mammals. Their results are very useful for mammal management and as a basis for future comparisons and assessments.

Some improvements are needed before the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Comments

Introduction and Discussion: The use of very small paragraphs is disorienting as the reader expects the discussion of a new topic, which is not always the case. Please merge paragraphs with similar meanings.

Lines 102-104: The explanation given is confusing as it refers to association with habitats, while the explained phrase refers to species proportions. Please clarify.

Table 1: I can find neither a three asterisk footnote nor a one asterisk subscript in the table. Please check and amend.

Lines 158, 174-177, 195-196: Give degrees of freedom for chi-squared tests.

 

Lines 176, 196; What is “v”?

Author Response

 

Rev #4 comments and answers

 

Comment Introduction and Discussion: The use of very small paragraphs is disorienting as the reader expects the discussion of a new topic, which is not always the case. Please merge paragraphs with similar meanings.

Answer: did as required; several paragraphs were merged.

 

Comment Lines 102-104: The explanation given is confusing as it refers to association with habitats, while the explained phrase refers to species proportions. Please clarify.

Answer: apologies, we expected that end of the sentence covers both parts of it. Reel meaning was to test, if proportions of extremes correspond to proportions of species. Sentence rephrased as “We tested whether the distribution of these extreme values correlated with the proportions of individuals of each species caught in each habitat, i.e. whether the proportions of poorly and well conditioned individuals were associated with specific habitats.”

 

Comment Table 1: I can find neither a three asterisk footnote nor a one asterisk subscript in the table. Please check and amend.

Answer: corrected

 

Lines 158, 174-177, 195-196: Give degrees of freedom for chi-squared tests.

Answer: inserted

 

Lines 176, 196; What is “v”?

Answer: this was intended to be chi-square, apologies

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

     This is an interesting study on the relationship between different land uses (habitats) and body condition indices (BCI) for small mammals. However, several aspects need to be clarified before the manuscript can be published.

 

Keywords: It is unnecessary to repeat words that are already in the manuscript title.

 

Introduction:

     The introduction should be improved. The primary purpose of the introduction is to inform the reader about your topic and its significance. This can be achieved with a strong opening hook. It is important to explain why this type of investigation is important and what has been published on this subject in the scientific literature. Additionally, lines 38-41 are more suitable for the discussion section.

 

   Why did you choose to compare the BCI? Is this important for the ecology of small mammals? Why is this index more important compared to others? What are the main factors influencing the BCI in small mammals?

   Ensure that abbreviations are explained at their first mention in the text.

 

Materials and Methods:

     A map showing the trapping sites would be very useful. Although you mention "the whole country," a map would provide more clarity. Additionally, the study spans a very large period. Can you provide more details? How many trapping nights per year, per habitat, per location? Did you use the same areas each year? How did you choose the trapping locations? Is there a random distribution?

The connection with Great Cormorants is unclear. Is this an important habitat? Please provide more details.

Explain how you chose these habitats. First, these seem to refer to land use rather than habitats. Second, the categories appear mixed, such as forest, meadows, and commensal. How did you group these, and why did you choose these categories? Are these categories of land use or groups of land use important for small mammals? Do they have different management practices in terms of small mammal conservation? What are fragmented habitats? Do you have such land use/habitat? How did you choose it?

   Table and figure captions should be self-explanatory. A reader should understand the content without reading the manuscript text.

   All abbreviations should be explained. There is a formula BCI = (Q/L³) × 10⁵. There are different BCIs; why did you choose this specific one?

Mention the permit number for this study when discussing capture methods.

 

Results:

     Explain Table 3. "Exp" should be expected proportion, but in the table, it is different and not a proportion. How did you calculate this?

   Check the statements on lines 162-165. They are not reflected in the table, or the expected values are not in the correct format.

   When citing supplementary material, provide the values in the text first for easier follow-up.

   Carefully check the explanations in Figure 2. What does “best fit” mean?

Line 196: What does “v” mean in v=47.6?

 

Discussion:

     This section should be rewritten. Discuss each result presented in the previous section. Why do these species have different BCIs in different habitats/land uses? How does this influence their survival, ecology, trends, or other aspects? How do you explain the differences in number and presence? Are there any other studies on BCI for mammals?

 

   Verify the statement on lines 245-247. Is this part of the present study?

 

References:

Please check the reference list for accuracy.

The following citation is unclear:

Balčiauskas, L.; Balčiauskienė, L. Habitat and Body Condition of Small Mammals in a Country at Mid-latitude. Land, 2024 (after 334 reviews).

I look forward to your revised manuscript addressing these points.

 

Best regards,

Author Response

Rev #5 comments and answers

 

Keywords: It is unnecessary to repeat words that are already in the manuscript title.

Answer: small mammals changed to “voles; mice; shrews”

 

Introduction:

The introduction should be improved. The primary purpose of the introduction is to inform the reader about your topic and its significance. This can be achieved with a strong opening hook. It is important to explain why this type of investigation is important and what has been published on this subject in the scientific literature. Additionally, lines 38-41 are more suitable for the discussion section.

Answer: Our aim is “to analyze the habitat distribution of extreme (highest and lowest) values of body condition index in different species of small mammals in Lithuania, representing mid-latitude countries with continental climate. We tested whether the distribution of these extreme values correlated with the proportions of individuals of each species caught in each habitat, i.e. whether the proportions of poorly and well conditioned individuals were associated with specific habitats.”

Please note, that our study is one of the first dealing with Body Condition of small mammals in a multi-species and multi-habitat approach, and that here are no studies on BCI to compare with our data. Therefore, Introduction show namely the context of habitat in small mammal investigations, and the absence of data on BCI. Lines 38–41 are to confirm this. In the Lines 68–71 we added text “Thus, there are no publications that can be directly compared with our data, i.e. the extremal BCI values of various small mammal species and their distribution in habitats.”

 

   Why did you choose to compare the BCI? Is this important for the ecology of small mammals? Why is this index more important compared to others? What are the main factors influencing the BCI in small mammals?

Answer: all these questions are answered in our recent publications, the one already published in Animals and the second under consideration in Land. We listed factors and GLM results, therefore here the focus is on the extremes and their distribution according species and habitats. The aim was “The aim of this study was to analyze the habitat distribution of extreme (highest and lowest) values of body condition index in different species of small mammals…”, therefore, answering these questions should not be included into the text.

As an answer to your questions, we say that BCI is important as a proxy to individual fitness. Whys this one index – it is very simple, based on the most frequently done animal measurements (body mass and body length), therefore, tons of retrospective data available in various countries.

The main factors are several. “ Spatially controlled GLM showed cumulative influence on BCI of season (F_3,25927 = 183.1), animal age (F_2,25927 = 165.8), habitat (F_8,25927 = 152.3), and species (F_18,25927 = 150.6), all of which were highly significant (p < 0.0001). There was no spatial constraint on the model, as the influence of county part was not significant (F = 2.0, p = 0.15). The influence of animal sex was also not significant in this model (F = 1.9, p = 0.15). After controlling for other variables in the model, two of these factors, species (?² = 0.095) and habitat group (?² = 0.045) had strongest influence on BCI variation. Season (?² = 0.021) and animal age (?² = 0.013) were weaker. Therefore, we further analyzed the effects of habitat and species on individual body condition indices.”

 

Ensure that abbreviations are explained at their first mention in the text.

Answer: inserted into Line 40

 

Materials and Methods:

A map showing the trapping sites would be very useful. Although you mention "the whole country," a map would provide more clarity. Additionally, the study spans a very large period. Can you provide more details? How many trapping nights per year, per habitat, per location? Did you use the same areas each year? How did you choose the trapping locations? Is there a random distribution?

Answer: we added map as the Figure 1. Legend on the map shows also number of trapped individuals per location.

Trapping effort in habitats was added to Table 2.

We inserted text at the very beginning of 2.1 chapter:

The choice of study sites and habitats has not been consistent, depending on research priorities at the time: in the 1970s, it was irrigated grasslands and protected areas with various habitats. In the 1980s, protected areas and their habitat complexes were further studied and monitoring was conducted in the nuclear power plant region, focusing on forest, wetland, grassland and agricultural habitats. In the 1990s, protected areas continued to be surveyed and small mammals were captured in various areas and habitats in order to identify the most valuable sites in terms of biodiversity through complex surveys. National monitoring of small mammals was also carried out during this decade. In the 2000s, monitoring continued and a number of previously undesignated protected areas were surveyed. Specific studies were also undertaken to assess changes in small mammal communities in overgrowing meadows, to assess small mammal diversity on islands and small forest fragments in agroforestry, and to resurvey sites surveyed in the 1970s to compare results. Systematic surveys of small mammals in gardens, berry gardens and commensal habitats began in the 2010s and were continued into the 2020s. This choice of habitats and sites results in a random distribution across the country (Figure 1) and uneven trapping effort across habitats [47]. In the 1970s–1990s, surveys were mostly conducted during the growing season, but since the 2000s, they have also been conducted in winter.

 

The connection with Great Cormorants is unclear. Is this an important habitat? Please provide more details.

Answer: yes, it is – as shown in Discussion, Lines 240–249 of the reviewed version, disturbed habitats are very rich in biogens, therefore, despite seeming scarcity, provide small mammals with rich food sources.

 

Explain how you chose these habitats. First, these seem to refer to land use rather than habitats. Second, the categories appear mixed, such as forest, meadows, and commensal. How did you group these, and why did you choose these categories? Are these categories of land use or groups of land use important for small mammals? Do they have different management practices in terms of small mammal conservation? What are fragmented habitats? Do you have such land use/habitat? How did you choose it?

Answer: most of the answers are in the text, inserted after Table 2. This is retrospective study, so habitat choices were different, depending on the project or investigation, as already explained in the answer to your comment above, and inserted into the text in beginning of 2.1. chapter. In the monitoring projects, small mammal trappings as a rule were targeted to forest, meadow and wetland, sometimes also to agricultural areas. Commensal habitats were previously surveyed on a random basis, and targeted only close to 2020s, when it became clear that there were no records of them in the country.

Secondly, again this is a retrospective study, and the studied habitats are described in different ways and categories, therefore we grouped them to have best possible compatibility to the results of other authors. We would like to note, that there is no standard habitat classification in small mammal studies, therefore we do not present reference for the grouping.

Of course, all habitats are more or less important for the small mammals inhabiting them, and here we present only one aspect of habitat importance,

In theory, “land use” refers to the human management and modification of the natural environment into built environments such as settlements and agricultural systems. It involves the activities people engage in to exploit land resources for various purposes, which can affect the natural state of the environment.

We do not put any emphasis on the management and modification in the habitat groups we use. So, forest is referred not as an area where forestry is taking place, but as area where small mammals live. And, the same with other habitats.

As for fragmentation, we hope inserted text explain our approach: “Finally, mixed habitats also have no CORINE equivalent, and this category was chosen when a 125 m trap line covered several different habitats, so that mixed habitats were also fragmented habitats.”

Our knowledge of the publications on small mammals let us to think, that absolute most of them are not making difference between land use and habitat when talking about forests, shrub, meadows, commensal habitats, wetlands, disturbed habitats, agricultural habitats, etc. However, level of details defining these categories are strikingly different. So, the same was in our case, about one territory we can have the only definition as “forest”, for the other – “old oak forest, with hazel in the second layer, limited herbaceous vegetation, situated on the western slope, fragmented with small clearings where all coniferous trees were removed”. Therefore, all categories we use are referring to a living place of small mammals, but not quantifying resources, shelter, etc.

 

 

Table and figure captions should be self-explanatory. A reader should understand the content without reading the manuscript text.

Answer: we read manuscript text and did not find Table or figure with unclear caption. Could you be more specific, which ones were not clear for you – we will present explanations.

 

All abbreviations should be explained. There is a formula BCI = (Q/L³) × 10⁵. There are different BCIs; why did you choose this specific one?

Answer: BCI abbreviation explained on the first use. Your second sentence – what is wrong with the formula? BCI, Q an L are all explained.

Current BCI is based on two most common metrics of small mammal: body mass and body length, and in many of investigations they can be obtained retrospectively. In addition, we are using this BCI from 2015, and index validity was not doubted.

 

Mention the permit number for this study when discussing capture methods.

Answer: according MDPI policies, such information is presented in the Back Matter, not in Material and Methods.

Please also have in mind, that we use retrospective material, and in the most of the covered period, approval or permit for small mammal trapping was not required. Even now, in Lithuania we can do trapping without permit, so approvals of the Animal Welfare Committee of the Nature Research Centre, protocols No GGT-7 and GGT-8, were obtained to comprise with publication practices of some publishers.

 

Results:

Explain Table 3. "Exp" should be expected proportion, but in the table, it is different and not a proportion. How did you calculate this?

Answer: you are right, our apologies, expected proportions were not included into the table. Statements in the text are correct, so we supplied additional data to the Table 3 and changed caption as necessary.

 

Check the statements on lines 162-165. They are not reflected in the table, or the expected values are not in the correct format.

Answer: you are right, our apologies, expected proportions were not included into the table. Statements in the text are correct, so we supplied additional data to the Table 3 and changed caption as necessary.

 

When citing supplementary material, provide the values in the text first for easier follow-up.

Answer: in the version of manuscript reviewer there were no Supplemental material. After revision, Table S1 is included and it is referred in the Material and Methods, not Results.

 

Carefully check the explanations in Figure 2. What does “best fit” mean?

Answer: there is no “best fit” in the Figure 2 and its caption. We expect you mean Lines 215–216. “Best fit” was changed to “BCI > 4”

 

Line 196: What does “v” mean in v=47.6?

Answer: chi-squared, mistypes corrected

 

Discussion:

This section should be rewritten. Discuss each result presented in the previous section. Why do these species have different BCIs in different habitats/land uses? How does this influence their survival, ecology, trends, or other aspects? How do you explain the differences in number and presence? Are there any other studies on BCI for mammals?

Answer: we have no data how BCI extremes (namely THIS was the aim of our current study) influence individual survival, ecology, trends, or other aspects? This is the first such study on BCI extremes, and we cite all other studies available to us on small mammals and their BCI (not talking about Moors, as we do not analyze rats). Therefore, we cannot add more discussion than that already presented in Lines 232–248 of the reviewed version, and a paragraph with theoretical considerations, added after Line 248.

 

Verify the statement on lines 245-247. Is this part of the present study?

Answer: no, statement was a part of study referred in [53]. We did necessary change.

 

References: Please check the reference list for accuracy.

Answer: done, identified mistypes corrected

 

The following citation is unclear:

Balčiauskas, L.; Balčiauskienė, L. Habitat and Body Condition of Small Mammals in a Country at Mid-latitude. Land, 2024 (after 334 reviews).

Answer: we insert [in press] for now, as this paper is expected to be published first

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors answered all my concerns clearly and concisely and improved the manuscript accordingly. I recommend the paper for publication.