Moose Space Use, Fidelity, and Selection of Calving Sites Within Forestry- and Fire-Disturbance Regimes of Northern Quebec, Canada

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper examines space use, habitat selection and calving site fidelity by moose in Eeyou Istchee. The study adds to the knowledge base on moose calving site selection and how management may be focussed. However, I found the manuscript could use some tightening and focus to ensure the pertinent messaging is delivered. I offer a number of comments the authors may wish to consider:

1. L 151–152: I am unclear why a main focus of the paper is comparison of the neonatal period with space use and fidelity to 7-day periods in late winter and summer. It is fairly intuitive that moose space use is much smaller in winter than in summer and is driven by different selection factors (mainly resulting I assume from snow depth and access to forage). Summer space use is much larger and highly variable (L 361: range: 24.6 - 985 km²). I do not follow the ecological relevance or importance of these comparisons. The Discussion simply repeats the results and comparisons (e.g., L 496–501 for space use). I suggest if you are going to retain these comparisons, that you better justify in the introduction the logic behind these comparisons. I can better understand the importance of comparisons between moose calving characteristics on either side of the northern limit of commercial forestry.
2. L 238–240: I understand that a 7-day period is the average post-partum localization period, but give variability in the dates that cow moose localize (e.g., if a calf is lost on Day 2 then the cow would not stay in the area as long), why would you not use the actual days of localization from each moose-year in the analysis? Wouldn’t that focus down on actual calving site/period habitat? Your results (L 358: mean 0.52 km², range <0.01 – 10.3 km²) suggest some extensive movements by some individuals during the set 7-day window.
3. L 253–255: If the objective was to examine calving site fidelity, would it be better to use the actual calving site as determined by the 3 movement-based methods (parturition date location), rather than the “centroid of the female’s 7-day calving home range”.
4. L415–440: For the selection analysis, if the 95% CIs overlap 1.0, is it valid to refer to selection or avoidance? This page appears to blend use versus selection/avoidance. I appreciate that individual selection points are provided in the figures, but unless you show the proportions of individuals above or below the 1.0 line, then you should clarify which parameters are statistically selected (for or against). Selection for peak ridges – a rare topographic feature on the landscape – is highlighted as an “overall tendency” (L 542) yet the 95% CIs overlap 1.0 (Fig. 5). The authors should clarify what they mean by selection/avoidance, use, and “tendency” (L 527), and how they address mean selection versus the range of individual variation.
5. L 523: Some of the statements in the discussion and conclusions do not appear to align with corresponding results. For example, calving sites avoided high road density (L 523, 563, 567, 597), yet high road density in the south was used roughly proportionately to availability (1.1; L 430) and high road density was essentially absent in the north (L 433). The GLM showed that road density was the weakest predictor (L 464). Once my points in comment no. 4, above, are clarified, then the interpretation may become easier.

Minor comments

6. L 44–45: The start of this sentence is missing a word?
7. L 69–70: Would it be more appropriate to state “in which mothers spend significant time away from their neonates”?
8. L 86: Add scientific name after wolves and bears? I am unclear if it is journal style to include scientific names of tree species, etc.
9. L 122: You may wish to clarify what a “forestry regime” is.
10. L 146: Clarify whether “in the region” is within or beyond the Adapted Forestry Regime.
11. L 162: Italics for Picea mariana.
12. L 171–172: Is it necessary to include “by private contractors that have contracts signed with the government of Quebec”? This doesn’t seem germane to the project.
13. L 174: “Regime” capitol or not? Be consistent.
14. Figure 1: I suggest it is not necessary to repeat the circle and polygon colours in the caption as they are covered in the figure legend. Same comment for Figure 2.
15. L 201–202: Similarly, I don’t think providing the circle colours in the text is needed; simply refer to Figure 1 at the end of the sentence.
16. L 203: Please provide the fix rate of the collars during the calving period and other seasons. With Globalstar collars an indication of the fix success might also be helpful.
17. L 210: It seems more relevant to me to provide the off times in Eastern Time.
18. L 326–327: Median and range of collar locations already provided earlier in the paragraph.
19. L 358: What does range <0.01 km² mean? You also use 0.047 and <0.0062 as the bottom end of different ranges, so I am unclear what your degree of precision is.
20. 2: I suggest it would be clearer to note the Y-axis units are logarithmic, and to add 1 and 10 to the numbers adjacent to the axis.
21. 2 and 3: For clarity you may wish to consider making the coloured solid and dashed horizontal lines thicker or something, as they tend to get lost on the figure behind the black lines.
22. 4: For clarity, consider removing the x-axis labels on (a) and (b), and placing “North study area” and “South study area” at the top of the columns of graphs.
23. L 419, 421: The panels for land cover and topography are reversed between text and figure.
24. L 422–423: Why is there 1 significant digit of precision for some selection ratios (e.g., 0.4) while others have 2 SD (0.35)? Please be consistent.
25. 5. Clarify in figure caption that these are selection of calving habitat (L 442). Should there be a y-axis border line for % availability? I found it exceedingly challenging to discern whether the 95% CIs overlapped 1.0 or not. Given the amount of information conveyed in this figure (individual ratios (open circles), means (closed circle) accompanied by 95% confidence intervals, and medians (triangles)), for most parameters the various pieces of information are hidden or overlapped. The figure is nicely compact but is there any way to expand the height of the selection ratios to better show the data, especially the relationship between 95% CIs and 1.0 ratio?
26. Table 1: Please note in the caption that this refers to calving site habitat.
27. L 464, 478 and Fig. 7: If landcover generally was the strongest predictor of selection, why is the PCA (1 – the strongest dimension) driven primarily by topography? Does the PCA provide data/interpretation beyond what is provided in the GLM? Perhaps the main take-home from the PCA analysis is the different strategies of selection by moose.
28. Discussion in general: There is a fair bit of repetition of numerical and descriptive results in the Discussion. I suggest you try and avoid repeating the results in the Discussion unless it is necessary to comparisons with the literature.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Specific suggestions are as follows:

A The main issues are as follows:

1、The data collection interval for the GPS collars is not specified. Based on the study description, it is inferred that the interval might be only one location per day. With a study period of 7 days, this results in only 7 location points for analysis, leading to a potentially high margin of error. The calculated seasonal home range sizes (calving, winter and summer) show minimal difference, especially the implausibly small winter range of 0.01 km² (100m x 100m). This unrealistic result is likely caused by an excessively long time interval between GPS fixes.

2、While 89 moose were initially collared, only data from 53 individuals were used in the final analysis. The rationale for excluding the remaining 36 moose is not provided. Furthermore, the study utilized video collars to record behavior, and video data during the calving period should be the most accurate for confirming parturition. However, the paper does not detail the calving events observed via video.

3、The distances moved between winter and summer ranges show considerable variation. This likely relates to the presence of both migratory and non-migratory individuals. These two movement strategies should be distinguished, as individuals following different patterns likely exhibit differences in habitat selection and the factors influencing it.

4、The analysis of calving site fidelity includes only 19 moose. It is unclear if the remaining collared moose did not calve in consecutive years, leading to their exclusion from this analysis.

5、In the Principal Component Analysis (PCA), the combined contribution rate of the first and second principal components is only 32.8%, which is relatively low. Furthermore, the PCA incorporated only two types of factors, raising questions about the purpose and effectiveness of the dimensionality reduction. The results do not sufficiently support the study's conclusions.

6、A stated highlight of the research is the impact of forestry activities and wildfires. However, the methodology and results fail to demonstrate the effect of these disturbances. Firstly, the analysis only calculated the area ratio of these disturbances around calving sites. Secondly, the results show no correlation for either disturbance type, and the low R² values indicate a poor fit, meaning the findings lack statistical significance. Such results cannot support the core content implied by the paper's title.

 

B Suggestions for revising the details of the article

 

1. L32-33 It is necessary to explicitly report the investigation duration, sample size of female moose, and the number of repeated observations across years.
2. Revised Keywords
3. The section describing the research methods requires further streamlining. At present, the descriptions of data collection and data analysis are intermingled. It is suggested that these two parts be separated: field investigations should be presented first, followed by data analysis, which will improve clarity.
4. L188 The adjacent regions shown in the figure should be clearly labeled.
5. L195-214 It is suggested that additional information regarding the positioning interval and accuracy of the GPS collars be provided. Furthermore, the authors should clarify whether any data screening or outlier removal was performed during data preprocessing.
6. L250-265 Why is the assessment based on the birth sites of only 19 moose, while Section 2.2 indicates that 89 female moose were fitted with GPS collars?
7. L279-354 This section is overly lengthy and lacks focus. It is sufficient to briefly clarify how the data were collected and how the data analysis was performed.
8. 2.7 This section should use a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM), where individual ID serves as the random effect and habitat variables as the fixed effects. Beyond AIC, R² should also be indicated.
9. L355-491 The results section is advised to be divided into subsections. Examples include: 3.1 The Impact of Fires on Moose Space Utilization; 3.2 The Impact of Fires on Moose Calving Sites Selection, etc.
10. L356-366 It is noted that there are discrepancies regarding the sample size of moose (n=53) mentioned in different parts of the text. It is recommended that the authors clarify and unify the specific data volume used in the research methods section.
11. L368-384 The sample size in this section is only 19, and comparisons were made between northern and southern regions. Notably, the southern region included merely 5 samples. Such an insufficient sample size leads to low statistical power, and the reliability of the results should be carefully evaluated.
12. Figure 2 Why is an analysis of annual habitat use presented here? No corresponding description is provided in the results section. In addition, Figure 3 does not include information on annual site fidelity.
13. L463-470 It is suggested that the results of the optimal model be presented, and Table 2 be placed in the appendix.
14. L492-587 It is recommended that the Discussion section be reorganized into subsections based on the revised results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article by authors Mikaela Borgeaud LeBlanc, Manuelle Landry-Cuerrier, Vincent Brodeur and Murray M. Humphries "Moose Space Use, Fidelity, and Selection of Calving Sites within Forestry and Fire Disturbance Regimes of Northern Quebec" is devoted to the study of the use of space by female moose during an important period of life – the birth of calves. The authors compared the extent of the areas used during calving to the extent of the areas used during late winter and summer, while also examining whether females returned to areas used during previous calving, winter and summer periods. The results indicate that during the week after calving, the females used small plots that are similar to those used in winter, but smaller than in summer. At the same time, regardless of the time of year, females had little tendency to return to previously used areas. Females preferred calving sites located in elevated areas with mixedwood or broadleaf forests and few roads. The results of the study provide new information on the space use and habitat selection expressed by female moose during calving. This fact gives the article relevance and importance from a conservation point of view, as the authors emphasize the priority of habitat protection during this vulnerable period of moose reproductive activity.

The material and methods used correspond to the tasks set in the article. The conclusions logically follow from the described results of the analysis of the nature of the use of space by female moose using collars equipped with GPS tracking devices. The presentation of the article is clear and exhaustive. Despite the positive assessment of the manuscript, there are a number of comments.

1. For convenience and information, the authors should add the confidence levels of the differences in the comparison pairs in Figures 2 and 3.
2. For a more complete illustration, the authors should add the regression equations in the diagrams in Figure 4.
3. In the first paragraph on page 13 (lines 415-421), the authors probably confused the illustrative panels (A and B).

Thus, after further revision of the manuscript, the article can be published in the journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed my concerns with the original manuscript. A few minor suggestions (all lines refer to the revised manuscript):

1. L 26: You could move or repeat “in northern 26 Quebec, Canada” after” Eeyou Istchee” on L 16.
2. L 202: Why is “Borgeaud LeBlanc et al., 2025” cited in this format and not listed in the References?
3. L 237–239: You may wish to clarify this sentence to “given that a 2-hr… ..June 30, a ≥700 location…”
4. L 505: I was unable to find Figure S1 in the Supplementary Material file.
5. L 571: Not sure what [A1] is? A residual comment?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised the manuscript in response to the previous comments; however, several critical issues still remain unaddressed and require further clarification and revision, as detailed below:

1. The manuscript only uses the 95% Minimum Convex Polygon (MCP) to quantify seasonal space-use area. MCP’s outer envelope property makes it highly sensitive to marginal wandering points; even minor GPS positioning deviations (e.g., caused by signal reflection) can significantly overestimate the area. The authors report a winter 7-day home range of only 0.01 km² (1 hectare), whose authenticity is questionable—it may result from GPS errors and MCP methodological flaws. No filtering or outlier removal was performed on GPS data, yet positioning errors are inevitable in dense sampling. The 50% core utilization area via Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) should be added.

2. Using "calving season season" as the analysis unit means some female individuals contribute multi-season data. It is necessary to clarify whether repeated observations were treated as individual means or independent samples in calculating Manly’s selection ratio. The latter would artificially reduce standard error due to non-independent data. Since the authors have abandoned mixed models in GLM, they must address pseudoreplication and add a methodology paragraph to explain the handling approach.

3. For comparing calving site fidelity between northern and southern regions, only 5 female individuals in the south have two consecutive years of data. This small sample size lacks statistical power for parametric tests. Although the authors noted the sample size limitation, they should only conduct descriptive statistics or abandon inter-region significance tests to avoid misleading readers.

4. The results show some individuals have a winter-summer home range movement distance exceeding 300 km (possibly partial migration). Direct inclusion in mean calculation will overestimate the overall level and obscure the characteristics of non-migratory individuals. The authors must clarify whether such outliers were smoothed or removed in the analysis of variance (ANOVA).

5. L505, Figure S1 is included in the main text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf