Small Island Effects on the Thermal Biology of the Endemic Mediterranean Lizard Podarcis gaigeae
, Efstratios D. Valakos 3,4 and Kostas Sagonas 5,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your article titled "Small island effects on the thermal biology of an endemic Mediterranean lizard" for consideration. Your paper is quite interesting, and it appears that you have conducted extensive fieldwork, which is quite impressive. However, I have noticed methodological similarities between your current research and your previous studies published in the Journal of Thermal Biology, namely "The particularities of a remote islet shape the thermoregulatory profile of an endemic Mediterranean lizard" and "The impact of insularity on the thermoregulation of a Mediterranean lizard." While this is not necessarily a negative aspect, it appears that your manuscript may lack novelty. Additionally, I have identified some statistical errors and missing information in both the Materials and Methods and Results sections. Based on these observations, I recommend addressing and clarifying these issues.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Materials and Methods
1. Line 111: You mentioned that the endemic Skyros wall lizard lives in a variety of different habitats. It would be a benefit to provide a short description of these habitat types.
2. Line 113: You should correct the statement that "The islet populations got isolated due to rising sea levels and have been separated from the main island (hereafter referred to as the 'mainland') since 180.00 years ago [30]." I believe there is a typo in this statement. Additionally, the citation provided does not support the statement. Instead, you should cite the following article: “Runemark, A., Hey, J., Hansson, B., & Svensson, E. I. (2012). Vicariance divergence and gene flow among islet populations of an endemic lizard. Molecular ecology, 21(1), 117-129”. In the first paragraph of the Discussion section in this article, there is a clear statement regarding the isolation time: "The islet populations of the Skyros wall lizard have relatively recently become isolated due to rising sea levels. The geological divergence times based on two different sea level estimates ranged from 1500 to 9500 years ago."
3. Line 114: Please use active voice when appropriate.
4. Lines 116-118: I assume that you know for sure (due to intense fieldwork of your team) that these islets are predator-free. However, a reference is necessary to confirm this statement. In case there are no available references, just add "pers. obs" (personal observation).
5. Line 127: I would recommend adding a map with tree cover density of the entire Island and its surroundings islets. It would be an important addition in order to confirm your saying (“Vegetation coverage differs among the five islets: at one extreme (dense vegetation) is Atsitsa Islet, followed by the moderate-density vegetation islets of Lakonisi, Agios Ermolaos, Mesa Diavates and Exo Diavates (with the lowest density and coverage”). You can find this information here: https://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/high-resolution-layers/forests/tree-cover-density.
6. Line 135: To ensure the accuracy of your measurements, it is crucial to provide specific details regarding the number of researchers involved in handling the captured individuals. If multiple handlers were involved, it has the potential to introduce bias into your metrics. Furthermore, it is essential to clearly indicate the duration for which the animals were handled. Handling serves as a direct emotional stimulus that can affect the core body temperature (Tc). In anxiety-provoking or fight-or-flight situations like handling, animals, including lizards, exhibit an increase in Tc. It is noteworthy that this rise in Tc has been observed not only in homeotherms but also in poikilotherms, as demonstrated by Cabanac and Gosselin (1993). Typically, this increase in Tc occurs approximately 15 minutes after handling.
7. Lines 136: Please clarify and add more details regarding the field handling procedure.
8. Lines 137-138: Please specify the duration in which the temperature appears on the screen of the thermometer. (I hope that the temperature appears in milliseconds).
9. Line 143: Please add the reference “Bakken, 1992” in accordance with the journal’s guidelines (add number not text).
10. Line 150: How did you categorise the sunlight exposure? Did you take other metrics that you don’t mention here (eg W/m2) or empirically? Please define the area of the microhabitats!
11. Line 158: To ensure accurate results, it is important to provide information about the acclimatization period for the 260 transferred lizards in the lab. Please specify the number of days during which the lizards were allowed to acclimate to the new environment. What happened to the lizards after the experimental procedure? Did you release them back to the island? Please include this information on your ms.
12. Line 192: In order to provide accurate information, please specify the number of individuals measured from each sampling site (mainland and the surrounding islets of Skyros). I saw that each site corresponds to a different population (10 in total). While the information may be somewhat available in Table 1, it is important to explicitly state these details in the materials and methods section to ensure clarity and transparency.
13. Lines 193-194: Based on the provided Figure 2, I have observed some visual indications regarding the distribution of the dataset, specifically regarding symmetry and boxplot shape. Some of them appear noticeably skewed to one side, while others exhibit asymmetrical or irregular shapes. These indications suggest a departure from normality. Please provide me with the results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for all the variables (populations) in your dataset (just the corresponding p-values for each variable). This will help me to determine the suitability of performing an ANOVA analysis. If the data is not normally distributed, alternatives to consider for performing an ANOVA analysis include the Kruskal-Wallis test (a non-parametric test) or the Welch ANOVA (which can handle unequal variances and sample sizes). The Kruskal-Wallis test is a non-parametric equivalent of the one-way ANOVA and is appropriate when the assumption of normality is violated. It compares the medians of multiple independent groups to determine if there are significant differences among them. The Welch ANOVA, on the other hand, is suitable when the assumption of equal variances is violated or when the sample sizes are unequal. It adjusts the degrees of freedom and uses a modified F-statistic to account for these differences. Choosing between the Kruskal-Wallis test and the Welch ANOVA depends on the specific characteristics of your data, such as the nature of the non-normality and whether there are significant differences in variances or sample sizes among the groups. It is important to consider these alternatives and select the appropriate test based on the specific characteristics of your dataset to ensure accurate and valid statistical analysis.
14. Line 201: You have to add the number of individuals that you measured in each sampling site (each population). You cannot use the post-hoc Tukey HSD if the number of individuals differs between the sampling sites. The post-hoc Tukey HSD test assumes equal sample sizes between groups. If the number of individuals differs between sampling sites or groups, an alternative test is needed. The Games-Howell test is one such alternative that can be used when the sample sizes are unequal. When reporting your findings, it is important to clearly state which test was used for the post-hoc analysis (if there is a sample size difference, the Games-Howell test) and provide the rationale for choosing it due to the unequal sample sizes.
Results
3.1 Body size and field measurements (Tb and Te)
General comment: In this part you include field metrics but I found some results that belong to the lab metrics (lines 210-212).
15. Lines 210: Based on the F statistic provided, I can infer that this analysis was conducted using a dataset derived from 260 animals belonging to 10 populations that were transferred to the lab. However, it remains unclear what happened to the remaining animals, as the total number of animals mentioned (473) does not match the number included in the analysis (260). Additionally, I would recommend performing a post hoc test to determine which specific pairs of populations differ from each other. This will help to further analyze and understand the variations among the populations.
16. Lines 212: Regarding the differences that you found in these five populations (males-females) please report the following:
- Degrees of freedom (df): Provide the degrees of freedom for both the numerator (between-groups) and denominator (within-groups) components of the ANOVA.
- F-statistic: Report the F-statistic value.
- p-value: State the p-value associated with the F-statistic.
- Effect size: Optionally, you can report the effect size measure such as partial eta-squared (η²) to quantify the proportion of variance explained by the group differences.
- Descriptive statistics: Include means, standard deviations, and sample sizes for each group.
I would recommend reporting the aforementioned for each population.
17. Line 227: Based on the F statistic that you provided the 20710 represents the degrees of freedom for the denominator (within-groups) which is related to the total number of observations minus the number of groups (populations). I think that this is a typo and you should corrected!
18. Line 229: Which sites did you pool together? It is not clear.
19. Line 231: You have to clearly mention these combinations and the reason that you selected them (in the materials and methods section). It is not clear at all!!!
3.2. Lab measurements (Tpref and Tset)
20. Line 240: You stated that: “When, body size taken into account [28] the differences remained (Tpref: F9,249 = 14.44, P < 240 0.001 and Tset: F9,249 = 9.52, P < 0.001).” Please provide more information in how you added the body size variable in this analysis.
21. Line 245: Figure 2: Correct the y-axis (Temperature 0C) on the accuracy of thermoregulation graph. It is not the temperature, it is the difference de-db.
22. Line 258: The range values in Table 1 regarding the variable de suggest that there is a possibility that the data may not follow a normal distribution. For example, the mean value of 6.53 ± 6.69 (Nyfi – NF) suggests that the data has a relatively large standard deviation (SD) of 6.69. A large SD indicates that the data points are spread out and may exhibit higher variability. Additionally, the range of 0.0 - 32.34 also indicates a wide spread in the values observed in the dataset. When the range is large compared to the mean, it suggests that the data may not be symmetrically distributed around the mean. So, please provide more information regarding the normality of your data!!!Something is wrong with your range values in the table!!!
23. Lines 265-268: Correct the subscripts and superscripts. Check again the degrees of freedom!!!
24. Lines 269-270: Probably you are right but you have to confirm this statement by adding a test (eg. Anova).
Final remarks: I would strongly recommend that you take the time to revise the manuscript especially in the Materials and Methods as well as the Results section. This will require a significant effort on your part, but it will ultimately lead to a much stronger manuscript.
Minor issues!
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your article titled "Small Island effects on the thermal biology of an endemic Mediterranean lizard" for consideration. Your paper is quite interesting, and it appears that you have conducted extensive fieldwork, which is quite impressive. However, I have noticed methodological similarities between your current research and your previous studies published in the Journal of Thermal Biology, namely "The particularities of a remote islet shape the thermoregulatory profile of an endemic Mediterranean lizard" and "The impact of insularity on the thermoregulation of a Mediterranean lizard." While this is not necessarily a negative aspect, it appears that your manuscript may lack novelty. Additionally, I have identified some statistical errors and missing information in both the Materials and Methods and Results sections. Based on these observations, I recommend addressing and clarifying these issues. Thank you for considering these comments.
We thank the reviewer for her/his encouraging words. In this work we indeed employed the same methodology we used in previous studies, mainly to be able to interpret our results in a valid comparative frame. Though in the present study we revisit the matter of thermal adaptation on small islands, our working hypothesis differs from those tested in past papers. We actually extend our knowledge on the ectothermic thermal biology on islets based on what previous research (including the papers mentioned above) has revealed. Coming to the two points she/he brought out, first, we now provide further methodological details and changed the analysis when appropriate following her/his suggestions.
Materials and Methods
Point 1: Line 111: You mentioned that the endemic Skyros wall lizard lives in a variety of different habitats. It would be a benefit to provide a short description of these habitat types.
Response 1: In the revised manuscript this information is given in line 118.
Point 2: Line 113: You should correct the statement that "The islet populations got isolated due to rising sea levels and have been separated from the main island (hereafter referred to as the 'mainland') since 180.00 years ago [30]." I believe there is a typo in this statement. Additionally, the citation provided does not support the statement. Instead, you should cite the following article: “Runemark, A., Hey, J., Hansson, B., & Svensson, E. I. (2012). Vicariance divergence and gene flow among islet populations of an endemic lizard. Molecular ecology, 21(1), 117-129”. In the first paragraph of the Discussion section in this article, there is a clear statement regarding the isolation time: "The islet populations of the Skyros wall lizard have relatively recently become isolated due to rising sea levels. The geological divergence times based on two different sea level estimates ranged from 1500 to 9500 years ago."
Response 2: Reviewer detected an important mistake. We apologize for this severe error that misleads readers of the manuscript. In the revised manuscript the offending sentence has changed according to Reviewer’s comment (lines 118-120).
Point 3: Line 114: Please use active voice when appropriate.
Response 3: We rephrase the sentence according to Reviewer’s suggestion (new line 122).
Point 4: Lines 116-118: I assume that you know for sure (due to intense fieldwork of your team) that these islets are predator-free. However, a reference is necessary to confirm this statement. In case there are no available references, just add "pers. obs" (personal observation).
Response 4: Reviewer is right. In the revised manuscript we made the appropriate changes (line 125)
Point 5: Line 127: I would recommend adding a map with tree cover density of the entire Island and its surroundings islets. It would be an important addition in order to confirm your saying (“Vegetation coverage differs among the five islets: at one extreme (dense vegetation) is Atsitsa Islet, followed by the moderate-density vegetation islets of Lakonisi, Agios Ermolaos, Mesa Diavates and Exo Diavates (with the lowest density and coverage”). You can find this information here: https://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/high-resolution-layers/forests/tree-cover-density.
Response 5: We thank the Reviewer for the suggestion, and we understand the concern. Unfortunately, the suggested online platform does not illustrate any of the focal islets probably due to their tiny size. However, taking Reviewer’s comment into account, in the revised manuscript we added a photo for each study site to confirm our saying on vegetation coverage (new Figure 1).
Point 6: Line 135: To ensure the accuracy of your measurements, it is crucial to provide specific details regarding the number of researchers involved in handling the captured individuals. If multiple handlers were involved, it has the potential to introduce bias into your metrics. Furthermore, it is essential to clearly indicate the duration for which the animals were handled. Handling serves as a direct emotional stimulus that can affect the core body temperature (Tc). In anxiety-provoking or fight-or-flight situations like handling, animals, including lizards, exhibit an increase in Tc. It is noteworthy that this rise in Tc has been observed not only in homeotherms but also in poikilotherms, as demonstrated by Cabanac and Gosselin (1993). Typically, this increase in Tc occurs approximately 15 minutes after handling.
Response 6: Reviewer is right. In the revised manuscript all this information is given in lines 146-155
Point 7: Lines 136: Please clarify and add more details regarding the field handling procedure.
Response 7: Done (lines 146-155)
Point 8: Lines 137-138: Please specify the duration in which the temperature appears on the screen of the thermometer. (I hope that the temperature appears in milliseconds).
Response 8: T-4000 cloacal thermometer is a non-mercury quick-reading thermometer with response time of approximately a second, that is typically used in thermal studies of similar-sized Mediterranean lacertids [1-6]
Point 9: Line 143: Please add the reference “Bakken, 1992” in accordance with the journal’s guidelines (add number not text).
Response 9: Done (line 163)
Point 10: Line 150: How did you categorise the sunlight exposure? Did you take other metrics that you don’t mention here (eg. W/m2) or empirically? Please define the area of the microhabitats!
Response 10: The three solar microclimates were categorized based on the time of sunlight exposure. Microhabitats in full sun exposure throughout the day (i.e., there were fully exposed and no vegetation or other type of coverage existed) were categorized as “full-light”. Microhabitats that were always in shade (i.e., inside the sand or in the ground, hidden between stones and stone walls, or within phrygana, etc) were categorised as “shade”. Finally, models that were placed at the edge of shaded microhabitats and were exposed to sunlight few hours during the day were categorised as “semi-light”. No further metrics were considered. The area of a microhabitat was defined for instance as the shady area under a tree, or the underside of a stone in a stone wall. In other words, we used the term microhabitat to define an area of similar characteristics around the site where the copper model was placed.
Point 11: Line 158: To ensure accurate results, it is important to provide information about the acclimatization period for the 260 transferred lizards in the lab. Please specify the number of days during which the lizards were allowed to acclimate to the new environment. What happened to the lizards after the experimental procedure? Did you release them back to the island? Please include this information on your ms.
Response 11: We thank the Reviewer for the comment. In the revised manuscript we provide all necessary information in lines 157-158 and lines 179-180.
Point 12: Line 192: In order to provide accurate information, please specify the number of individuals measured from each sampling site (mainland and the surrounding islets of Skyros). I saw that each site corresponds to a different population (10 in total). While the information may be somewhat available in Table 1, it is important to explicitly state these details in the materials and methods section to ensure clarity and transparency.
Response 12: We understand Reviewer’s point and we agree that is important to explicitly state the number of individuals measured from each sampling site to ensure transparency. Therefore, we provide all this information in details in Table 1. Unfortunately, we afraid that because sample size differs between the different variables (i.e., Tb versus Tpref/Tset) adding this information in the text could be difficult for readers. Yet, following Reviewer’s comment in the revised manuscript we reference Table 1 more frequently (e.g., lines 145, 172).
Point 13: Lines 193-194: Based on the provided Figure 2, I have observed some visual indications regarding the distribution of the dataset, specifically regarding symmetry and boxplot shape. Some of them appear noticeably skewed to one side, while others exhibit asymmetrical or irregular shapes. These indications suggest a departure from normality. Please provide me with the results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for all the variables (populations) in your dataset (just the corresponding p-values for each variable). This will help me to determine the suitability of performing an ANOVA analysis. If the data is not normally distributed, alternatives to consider for performing an ANOVA analysis include the Kruskal-Wallis test (a non-parametric test) or the Welch ANOVA (which can handle unequal variances and sample sizes). The Kruskal-Wallis test is a non-parametric equivalent of the one-way ANOVA and is appropriate when the assumption of normality is violated. It compares the medians of multiple independent groups to determine if there are significant differences among them. The Welch ANOVA, on the other hand, is suitable when the assumption of equal variances is violated or when the sample sizes are unequal. It adjusts the degrees of freedom and uses a modified F-statistic to account for these differences. Choosing between the Kruskal-Wallis test and the Welch ANOVA depends on the specific characteristics of your data, such as the nature of the non-normality and whether there are significant differences in variances or sample sizes among the groups. It is important to consider these alternatives and select the appropriate test based on the specific characteristics of your dataset to ensure accurate and valid statistical analysis.
Response 13: We thank the Reviewer for the valuable comments on the analyses. In the revised manuscript we changed the statistical approach using permutation tests (Te, Tpref and Tset) or GLM where appropriate (db and de, using the Poisson distribution) according the Reviewer’s suggestion. Furthermore, a Welch t-test was used for unequal variances when comparing two groups (lines 211-223).
Point 14: Line 201: You have to add the number of individuals that you measured in each sampling site (each population). You cannot use the post-hoc Tukey HSD if the number of individuals differs between the sampling sites. The post-hoc Tukey HSD test assumes equal sample sizes between groups. If the number of individuals differs between sampling sites or groups, an alternative test is needed. The Games-Howell test is one such alternative that can be used when the sample sizes are unequal. When reporting your findings, it is important to clearly state which test was used for the post-hoc analysis (if there is a sample size difference, the Games-Howell test) and provide the rationale for choosing it due to the unequal sample sizes.
Response 14: We thank the Reviewer for this comment. In the revised manuscript the statistical analyses have changed according to Reviewer’s comment (see also Point 13) (e.g., line 216-217).
Results
3.1 Body size and field measurements (Tb and Te)
Point 15: General comment: In this part you include field metrics but I found some results that belong to the lab metrics (lines 210-212).
Response 15: Reviewer is right. Body size (length and mass) was measured only on those lizards that were transferred in the laboratory. However, we decided to provide the results of this comparison at the beginning of the Results to give the reader the big picture.
Point 16: Lines 210: Based on the F statistic provided, I can infer that this analysis was conducted using a dataset derived from 260 animals belonging to 10 populations that were transferred to the lab. However, it remains unclear what happened to the remaining animals, as the total number of animals mentioned (473) does not match the number included in the analysis (260). Additionally, I would recommend performing a post hoc test to determine which specific pairs of populations differ from each other. This will help to further analyze and understand the variations among the populations.
Response 16: Following Reviewer’s comment in the revised manuscript we provide clearer details on sample size (lines 172-173). In total 473 lizards were captured in the field to measure the body temperature (Tb) and estimate the accuracy of thermoregulation (db). However, only 260 animals were transferred at the Animal Facilities. The rest 213 after Tb recording were released at the point of capture. Furthermore, Table 1 provide information about the sample size used for each variable and each population.
Point 17: Lines 212: Regarding the differences that you found in these four populations (males-females) please report the following:
- Degrees of freedom (df): Provide the degrees of freedom for both the numerator (between-groups) and denominator (within-groups) components of the ANOVA.
- F-statistic: Report the F-statistic value.
- p-value: State the p-value associated with the F-statistic.
- Effect size: Optionally, you can report the effect size measure such as partial eta-squared (η²) to quantify the proportion of variance explained by the group differences.
- Descriptive statistics: Include means, standard deviations, and sample sizes for each group.
I would recommend reporting the aforementioned for each population.
Response 17: We understand Reviewer’s comment. In the revised manuscript we provide the statistics of those populations for which sexual size differences observed (lines 236-240).
Point 18: Line 227: Based on the F statistic that you provided the 20710 represents the degrees of freedom for the denominator (within-groups) which is related to the total number of observations minus the number of groups (populations). I think that this is a typo and you should corrected!
Response 18: We understand Reviewer’s comment. Actually, the evaluation of environmental temperatures (as expressed by Te) was based on the total number of measurements and not that of models (Castilla and Bauwens, 1991; Herzt, 1992; Diaz 1997). As such the value 20710 in F-statistics represents the number of measurements taken in total in a site: 28 copper models x 74 recordings (7:40 to 19:50 at 10 min intervals) x 10 populations equal 20720 recordings.
Point 19: Line 229: Which sites did you pool together? It is not clear.
Response 19: Reviewer is right. In the revised manuscript the offending sentence has changed as it was not clear to the reader (lines 261-262). We did not pool any population together. In this sentence we just refer to the populations that were grouped together when post-hoc analysis was applied.
Point 20: Line 231: You have to clearly mention these combinations and the reason that you selected them (in the materials and methods section). It is not clear at all!!!
Response 20: Done (lines 166-169).
3.2. Lab measurements (Tpref and Tset)
Point 21: Line 240: You stated that: “When, body size taken into account [28] the differences remained (Tpref: F9,249 = 14.44, P < 240 0.001 and Tset: F9,249 = 9.52, P < 0.001).” Please provide more information in how you added the body size variable in this analysis.
Response 21: Body size was used a covariate and an Analysis of Covariance was carried out. In the revised manuscript this information has been added in lines 232-240 and lines 265-267.
Point 22: Line 245: Figure 2: Correct the y-axis (Temperature 0C) on the accuracy of thermoregulation graph. It is not the temperature, it is the difference de-db.
Response 21: We understand Reviewer’s confusion. The accuracy of thermoregulation refers to db. On the other hand, de-db refers to the effectiveness of thermoregulation.
Point 23. Line 258: The range values in Table 1 regarding the variable de suggest that there is a possibility that the data may not follow a normal distribution. For example, the mean value of 6.53 ± 6.69 (Nyfi – NF) suggests that the data has a relatively large standard deviation (SD) of 6.69. A large SD indicates that the data points are spread out and may exhibit higher variability. Additionally, the range of 0.0 - 32.34 also indicates a wide spread in the values observed in the dataset. When the range is large compared to the mean, it suggests that the data may not be symmetrically distributed around the mean. So, please provide more information regarding the normality of your data!!!Something is wrong with your range values in the table!!!
Response 23. We thank the Reviewer for the comment. In the revised manuscript the statistical analyses have changed following her/his comments.
Point 24: Lines 265-268: Correct the subscripts and superscripts. Check again the degrees of freedom!!!
Response 24: Done. Regarding the degrees of freedom as aforementioned they indicate the number of recordings.
Point 25: Lines 269-270: Probably you are right but you have to confirm this statement by adding a test (eg. Anova).
Response 25: We understand Reviewer’s concern. However, simply entering these bootstrapped values into a conventional ANOVA would not be appropriate. Therefore, in the revised manuscript we plotted the distribution of E bootstrapped values (new Figure 3) where one can see that mainland populations always get E bootstrapped values higher than islet ones. In other words, the overlap of values between distribution/histogram plots are marginally or absent.
Final remarks: I would strongly recommend that you take the time to revise the manuscript especially in the Materials and Methods as well as the Results section. This will require a significant effort on your part, but it will ultimately lead to a much stronger manuscript.
Response: We thank the reviewer for her/his comments. In the revised submission we have changed the Material and Methods and Result sections according to reviewer’s suggestion.
References
- Bauwens, D.; Hertz, P.E.; Castilla, A.M. Thermoregulation in a lacertid lizard: The relative contributions of distinct behavioral mechanisms. Ecology 1996, 77, 1818-1830, doi:10.2307/2265786.
- Pafilis, P.; Herrel, A.; Kapsalas, G.; Vasilopoulou-Kampitsi, M.; Fabre, A.-C.; Foufopoulos, J.; Donihue, C.M. Habitat shapes the thermoregulation of Mediterranean lizards introduced to replicate experimental islets. J. Therm. Biol. 2019, 84, 368-374, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtherbio.2019.07.032.
- Rusch, T.W.; Angilletta Jr, M.J. Competition during thermoregulation altered the body temperatures and hormone levels of lizards. 2017, 31, 1519-1528, doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12869.
- Kapsalas, G.; Gavriilidi, I.; Adamopoulou, C.; Foufopoulos, J.; Pafilis, P. Effective thermoregulation in a newly established population of Podarcis siculus in Greece: a possible advantage for a successful invader. Acta Herpetol. 2016, 11, 111-118.
- Adamopoulou, C.; Valakos, E.D. Thermal ecology and activity cycle of Podarcis milensis in a sandy coastal area. Isr. J. Zool. 2005, 51, 39-52, doi:10.1560/hwwq-r26y-wthb-k00v.
- Díaz, J.A.; Cabezas-Díaz, S. Seasonal variation in the contribution of different behavioural mechanisms to lizard thermoregulation. Funct. Ecol. 2004, 18, 867-875.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, congratulations on an interesting work. I have no objections to your article, apart from very minor editorial remarks.
In several places in the main text there are formatting problems, lines: 176, 178, 179, 182, 185, 186, 200, 202, 252, 265, 266, 267, 280.
line 294: please change des to des
In the 'references' section, numbers: 6, 9, 14, 16, 26, 24, 36 and 54 have no journal names, only year, pagination and DOI numbers.
In a few cases (Nos. 2, 22, 30, 31, 41, 58, you provide the full names of the journals, and in others they are abbreviated.
Line 559 - use italics for Ouroborus cataphractus
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear authors, congratulations on an interesting work. I have no objections to your article, apart from very minor editorial remarks.
We are happy that the Reviewer found our manuscript interesting
Point 1: In several places in the main text there are formatting problems, lines: 176, 178, 179, 182, 185, 186, 200, 202, 252, 265, 266, 267, 280.
Response 1: We thank the Reviewer for bringing this to our attention. In the revised text we fixed those errors
Point 2: line 294: please change des to des
Response 2: Done (new line 333)
Point 3: In the 'references' section, numbers: 6, 9, 14, 16, 26, 24, 36 and 54 have no journal names, only year, pagination and DOI numbers.
Response 3: We thank the Reviewer for pointing this out and apologise for the mistake. In the revised the journal names have been added in the list
Point 4: In a few cases (Nos. 2, 22, 30, 31, 41, 58, you provide the full names of the journals, and in others they are abbreviated.
Response 4: In the revised manuscript all journal names are abbreviated
Point 5: Line 559 - use italics for Ouroborus cataphractus
Response 5: Done
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have carried out an evaluation of small island effect on thermal biology of P. gaigeae in Greece and the paper contributes in building knowledge on wild reptiles. I am recommending this manuscript for publication with minor revisions, referred mostly to points of editorial nature, which I am listing here below:
- The species that the article is dealing with (P. gaigea) should be included in the title and this could improve the reader attraction for the article
- L18: I suggest the modification … of the environment for most aspects of…
- In the introduction, it could be useful for the reader to have a small paragraph on P. gaigeae (size, habits, thermoregulation knowledge, diet …), the reason(s) of this species for the study (vulnerable?...) and how it could be recognized among other lizards in the environment (if necessary)
- In accordance with the latter point, please justify the method to recognise the species in the environment, in order to avoid lizards identification mistake(s) during the study.
- Please clarify the method used to diagnose gravid females.
- Please could you also explain the method used to ethically catch lizards in natural environment?
- Could you please justify and discuss the cloacal method used? Why didn’t you use cutaneous (surface) temperature for example? Why didn' t you use subcutaneous/intracoelomic temperature probes?
- How did you assess the influence of stress of cloacal temperature measurement on behaviour? How could you be sure that cloacal temperature measurement every hour didn’t influence lizard exposure and then modify observations/statistics
- L291-302: this paragraph explains the differences observed in different types of locations due to local environments in general. However, the justification between islets and mainland is not clear. Could you please rephrase it to improve reader understanding?
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors have carried out an evaluation of small island effect on thermal biology of P. gaigeae in Greece and the paper contributes in building knowledge on wild reptiles. I am recommending this manuscript for publication with minor revisions, referred mostly to points of editorial nature, which I am listing here below:
Point 1: The species that the article is dealing with (P. gaigeae) should be included in the title and this could improve the reader attraction for the article.
Response 1: We thank the Reviewer for the suggestion. In the revised manuscript the species name has been added on the title
Point 2: L18: I suggest the modification … of the environment for most aspects of…
Response 2: Done (line 18)
Point 3: In the introduction, it could be useful for the reader to have a small paragraph on P. gaigeae (size, habits, thermoregulation knowledge, diet …), the reason(s) of this species for the study (vulnerable?) and how it could be recognized among other lizards in the environment (if necessary)
Response 3: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. In the revised manuscript we tried to highlight the reasons for choosing this species and added further information on its ecology and habitats of preferences (Lines 83-88). Regarding the information on species ecology and other characteristics, in the new text it appears in materials and methods in lines (114-132). Finally, regarding Reviewer’s last question, the species can easily be recognised as it is the only Podarcis lizard on Skyros Archipelagos.
Point 4: In accordance with the latter point, please justify the method to recognise the species in the environment, to avoid lizards’ identification mistake(s) during the study.
Response 4: We understand Reviewer’s concern. However, as aforementioned this is the only Podarcis lizard species on Skyros Archipelagos and it cannot be mistaken to another lizard species.
Point 5: Please clarify the method used to diagnose gravid females.
Response 5: Done (lines 153-155)
Point 6: Please could you also explain the method used to ethically catch lizards in natural environment?
Response 6: We are afraid we are missing this point. Lizards were caught with a noose made of fishing line that was fitted to the end of a 2.2-m-long fishing rod. One observer carefully slipped the noose over the head of the lizard and pulled it and a second person holding a cotton bag, carefully dropped the lizard inside by loosening the noose. This to our knowledge is the best way to remove lizards quickly and carefully from the noose. Each lizard during the sampling was placed in an individual bag of 25 x 25 cm. At the end of the sampling for all lizards were placed in individual terraria. In the revised manuscript we provide this information in lines 145-147.
To avoid oversampling lizard populations densities were estimated in each site prior to sampling. On top of that, when gravid females were caught, we released them in the field. Finally, at the end of the experiment all lizards were released back in the field. In the revised manuscript we added this information in lines (157-158). To carry out this work a special permit was issued by the Greek Ministry of Environment ΥΠΕΝ/ΔΔΔ/16809/663.
Point 7: Could you please justify and discuss the cloacal method used? Why didn’t you use cutaneous (surface) temperature for example? Why didn't you use subcutaneous/intracoelomic temperature probes?
Response 7: The reviewer is of course right. Unfortunately, we do not have this kind of equipment in our lab, and this is why we used exclusively the cloacal Miller-Weber thermometer. The temperature of the lizard was measured within 10 seconds after caught by the second individual holding the cotton bag (see above).
Point 8: How did you assess the influence of stress of cloacal temperature measurement on behaviour? How could you be sure that cloacal temperature measurement every hour didn’t influence lizard exposure and then modify observations/statistics.
Response 8: We understand Reviewer comment. This is a standardized procedure of measuring lizards’ temperature with a cloacal Miller-Weber thermometer. Yet, to avoid increased stress that could affect lizard thermoregulatory behaviour and temperature measurements we handle lizards as little as possible. Furthermore, we observed lizards’ behaviour throughout the experimental procedure to ensure no behavioural modifications (e.g., remain still) after the measurement.
Point 9: L291-302: this paragraph explains the differences observed in different types of locations due to local environments in general. However, the justification between islets and mainland is not clear. Could you please rephrase it to improve reader understanding?
Response 9: Reviewer is right. In the revised text we rephrase this paragraph and hopefully it reads better.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
I wanted to take a moment to express my appreciation for the efforts you put into revising the article in response to the feedback provided during the review process. Your commitment to enhancing the quality of the manuscript is evident in the comprehensive changes you made and the detailed explanations you provided for each revision. It is clear that you have not only addressed the issues and suggestions raised but have also significantly improved the overall clarity and rigor of the article. The revised version is indeed much stronger and more impactful. Your hard work and responsiveness to the review comments have greatly contributed to its success.
