Review Reports - Systematic Analysis of Threats to Sea Turtles in Mexico: Trends, Knowledge Gaps, and Implications for Conservation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present study is a literature review. The review topic is important and of interest to the broader community. However, should one want to validate your methods and procedures, one should have access to your dat (in this case articles use in the vetting process). These articles are not currently available with your paper. The search process is included in supplementary material, but this isn't the actual references used. I think this will be useful and should be included.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful comments and suggestions, which have been extremely valuable in improving the clarity, completeness, and overall quality of our work. Please find our detailed responses below, along with the corresponding revisions and corrections highlighted in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Comment 1: The present study is a literature review. The review topic is important and of interest to the broader community. However, should one want to validate your methods and procedures, one should have access to your data (in this case, articles used in the vetting process). These articles are not currently available with your paper. The search process is included in supplementary material, but this isn’t the actual references used. I think this will be useful and should be included.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have included an additional section in the supplementary material that contains the complete list of references used in this review. This ensures transparency and allows readers to validate the information. The updated content can be found in the Supplementary Material (Section S2: References).

“The Supplementary Material has been updated to include the complete list of references analyzed in this study (Section S2: References).”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study adressed a very important subject dealing with threats faced by sea turtles. It highlights the main threats identified by studies conducted in different regions of Mexico (Pacific, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean) and make comparison between existent politic and strategy and real threats outlined by scientific studies. Such a study is highly important and necessary for developing an effective strategy to conserve biodiversity generally and sea turtles in particular. This type of study should be presented to the authorities rather than being left in office drawers.

Moreover, this study identified new stressors that are either underestimated or absent in national policy instruments, which is crucial for updating the national strategy for conservation of sea turtles

Abstract :

The Abstract is well written and reflect the contents of the paper.

Key words:

The key words can be improved. I think, it is important to indicate the area of the study (Mexico) and indicate the PACE (Species Conservation Action Programs) which is a base on which the study was based on with the published papers.

It is better to put threats or threat assessment and not emerging threats because the paper is treating threats in general and not only the emerging ones. I propose also to delete the biodiversity loss because it is a general term and the paper is not focusing on it.

Threatened species is also a general term and it is better to focus on key and important terms of the paper, I propose to delete it.

PACE (Species Conservation Action Programs) is an important term of the study so I propose to put it in the key words.

Introduction:

Globally, the introduction is well written and give idea on the state of sea turtles in Mexico and present the objectives of the study.

Since the 6 species use Mexican beaches to nest, could you specify which species nest on which beaches? (Pacific beaches, gulf beaches and Caribbean beaches) in order to clarify for the readers

Lines 51-53: Is there a regional statute of the species. Please indicate!

For example, the statutes of Caretta caretta or Dermochelys coriacea in the pacific are different than globally.

Material and methods:

This section is clear and well written

What is the difference between of the stressor “Vessel strike” in Marine development and Fisheries

Results:

This section is very important and well-structured but need revision.

Line 158: “The research identified 22 stressors linked to 8 key threats faced by sea turtles”. The number of stressors is 22 or 32? Please verify. If it is 32, correct in the text (Abstract and discussion for example)

Lines 191-193: “Notably, the least studied threats fall….Marine traffic/vessel strike”, these have 1 study conducted however some stressor have no study at all. Please indicate these stressors and change the sentence if necessary.

Line 195: PACE, you didn’t indicate that PACE is the abbreviation of the term “Species Conservation Action Programs” at the beginning of the text. There is only a Spanish indication. Please change it in English and put the definition in the beginning than put only the abbreviation in the following sentences of the text

Paragraph 3.3.1 Caretta caretta : Please verify. You say “Our review documented 15 stressors, five of which are not incorporated into PACE (Figure 4)”. With the multitude of colour in fig 4, it is difficult to identify the stressors and which of them are not incorporated in the PACE, So Fig 4 is not suitable as a reference to this sentence. Table 4 is appropriate as a reference but it indicate that only 4 stressors are not incorporated into PACE. Please verify.

Fig 4 must be set before the section 3.3.1 Caretta caretta because it is related to all species.

Line 240: I think that Fig 4 is usually not appropriate to identifiy the stressors that are not considered by PACE as major threat.

Section 3.3.3 : Eretmochelys imbricata. There is a reference to the Figure 5 or there is no figure 5 in the paper

Section 3.3.6: Lepidochelys olivacea. Please verify the paragraph “The PACE reported 23 stressors associated with eight threats, while our review identified 13 (Table 4, Figure 4). Eight of the stressors reported in PACE lack scientific studies, while four have been investigated but are not considered major threats to the species.

Discussion

The discussion is well written and can be adopted as it is

Conclusion

Good but please try to avoid repetition and sentence already said in the discussion

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: The Abstract is well written and reflects the contents of the paper.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out.

Comment 2: The key words can be improved. I think, it is important to indicate the area of the study (Mexico) and indicate the PACE (Species Conservation Action Programs) which is a base on which the study was based on with the published papers.
It is better to put threats or threat assessment and not emerging threats because the paper is treating threats in general and not only the emerging ones. I propose also to delete the biodiversity loss because it is a general term and the paper is not focusing on it.
Threatened species is also a general term and it is better to focus on key and important terms of the paper, I propose to delete it.
PACE (Species Conservation Action Programs) is an important term of the study so I propose to put it in the key words.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Lines 28–29: We have revised the keywords as follows: Sea turtle conservation policies; threat assessment; endangered species; trends; PACE (Species Conservation Action Plans). However, we did not include Mexico as a keyword, since it is already mentioned in the title and we consider it best not to repeat it.

Comment 3: Globally, the introduction is well written and give idea on the state of sea turtles in Mexico and present the objectives of the study. Since the 6 species use Mexican beaches to nest, could you specify which species nest on which beaches? (Pacific beaches, gulf beaches and Caribbean beaches) in order to clarify for the readers.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Lines 46–59: We have added a new paragraph to the Introduction specifying the main nesting beaches for the six species.

Comment 4: Lines 51-53: Is there a regional statute of the species. Please indicate! For example, the statutes of Caretta caretta or Dermochelys coriacea in the Pacific are different than globally.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Lines 64–73: We clarified the international, regional, and Mexican conservation status of the species, as well as the importance of integrated frameworks.

Comment 5: This section is clear and well written. What is the difference between the stressor “Vessel strike” in Marine development and Fisheries?

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Lines 128–130: We added a footnote to Table 1 explaining the differences.

Comment 6: Line 158: “The research identified 22 stressors linked to 8 key threats faced by sea turtles”. The number of stressors is 22 or 32? Please verify. If it is 32, correct in the text (Abstract and discussion for example).

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. However, the statement is correct. Our literature review identified 22 stressors out of the 32 documented.

Comment 7: Lines 191–193: “Notably, the least studied threats fall…. Marine traffic/vessel strike”, these have 1 study conducted however some stressors have no study at all. Please indicate these stressors and change the sentence if necessary.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Lines 226–231: This is an important point, since it relates to your previous observation. We now specify the 10 stressors that lack studies, which also highlights the 32 stressors documented by Fuentes et al. (2023).

Comment 8: Line 195: PACE, you didn’t indicate that PACE is the abbreviation of the term “Species Conservation Action Programs” at the beginning of the text. There is only a Spanish indication. Please change it in English and put the definition in the beginning then put only the abbreviation in the following sentences of the text.

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We verified the correct name: Species Conservation Action Plan (PACE).

Comment 9: Paragraph 3.3.1 Caretta caretta: Please verify. You say “Our review documented 15 stressors, five of which are not incorporated into PACE (Figure 4)”. With the multitude of colors in Fig. 4, it is difficult to identify the stressors and which of them are not incorporated in the PACE. So Fig. 4 is not suitable as a reference to this sentence. Table 4 is appropriate as a reference but it indicates that only 4 stressors are not incorporated into PACE. Please verify.

Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Lines 226–269: We updated Table 4 and corrected the references to Table 4 and Figure 4.

Comment 10: Fig. 4 must be set before the section 3.3.1 Caretta caretta because it is related to all species.

Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Figure 4 has now been replaced with a map showing the distribution of studies and documented threats. It has also been moved before Section 3.3.1 (Lines 261–264).

Comment 11: Line 240: I think that Fig. 4 is usually not appropriate to identify the stressors that are not considered by PACE as major threats.

Response 11: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have clarified in the text that Table 4 is the most suitable source for identifying these stressors.

Comment 12: Section 3.3.3: Eretmochelys imbricata. There is a reference to Figure 5, but there is no Figure 5 in the paper.

Response 12: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Lines 279–280: We corrected the text to reference only Table 4.

Comment 13: Section 3.3.6: Lepidochelys olivacea. Please verify the paragraph “The PACE reported 23 stressors associated with eight threats, while our review identified 13 (Table 4, Figure 4). Eight of the stressors reported in PACE lack scientific studies, while four have been investigated but are not considered major threats to the species.”

Response 13: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Lines 308–316: We updated Table 4 and corrected the values accordingly.

Comment 14: The discussion is well written and can be adopted as it is.

Response 14: Thank you for pointing this out.

Comment 15: Good but please try to avoid repetition and sentences already said in the discussion.

Response 15: Thank you for pointing this out. However, we consider it important to emphasize these points; therefore, only minor wording adjustments were made.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

This review study you have conducted on sea turtles in Mexico is an important work that will contribute to the identification of the current situation and future management plans. I believe that a few points, particularly the "MM" and "Results" sections, need to be reconsidered. I consider the absence of a map showing the important habitats of sea turtles and the lack of a trend analysis based on scientific studies spanning many years to be shortcomings. Furthermore, Appendix S1 in MS is unfortunately missing from the main text and supplementary files. I have no doubt that with more careful and meticulous work, this study will provide important summary information on sea turtles. You can see my relevant suggestions in the attached PDF.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is generally excellent throughout the main text, but the meaning of some parts is not entirely clear. I have sent a small note on the PDF.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

Dear Author,

Response: Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive comments. We sincerely appreciate your suggestions, which have helped us improve the clarity and completeness of our manuscript.

In response to your comment regarding the absence of a map, we have created a new map that shows the distribution of sea turtle studies in Mexico and the stressors associated with the documented threats, which replaces the previous Figure 4. This provides a clearer visualization of the information. We also recognize the importance of your comment on habitat distribution; therefore, in the Introduction, we have added a new paragraph specifying the main nesting sites of the six sea turtle species in Mexico. Furthermore, all PACE (Species Conservation Action Plans) references for the species are available digitally and are included in the reference list of the article, allowing readers to access them directly. For this reason, we have not included them in the Materials or Supplementary Material.

In addition, we have carefully reviewed the English throughout the manuscript and made further corrections to improve clarity, ensuring that the meaning of all sections is now more precise and easily understood.

We believe that these revisions improve the clarity and accessibility of the information, and we are grateful for your careful and valuable suggestions.

Comment 1: 4–9 are irrelevant references. Please be careful to use references relevant to the topic. Could you please use peer-reviewed articles whenever possible.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We partially agree with this comment. References 4, 5, 8, and 9 have been updated to more relevant sources; however, we retained reference 6 because it refers to the PACE, which is directly relevant for this review article.

Comment 2: Instead of IUCN, it would be better to use the latest updated status published by IUCN for each species.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We consider that the reference provided achieves the same purpose of indicating the conservation status for each species.

Comment 3: Could you also write it in English? It would be helpful for readers who don't know Spanish.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Lines 159: The Spanish name has been replaced with the English version, and we have ensured consistent use throughout the manuscript.

Comment 4: This paragraph seems to explain the purpose of the manuscript. If so, it would be better to include it in the introduction. However, if the purpose is analysis, it should be explained or emphasized differently.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Lines 165–169: We have revised the paragraph to clearly convey the purpose of the analysis and how it was conducted.

Comment 5: Why are there no records between 1960 and 1997? It would be helpful if you could provide some brief information.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Lines 203–205 (Section 3.2) and Lines 329–333 (Section 4.1): We now provide context explaining this gap: “This scarcity persisted despite the establishment of the Species Conservation Action Plans (PACE) in 1966, which aimed to promote environmental awareness and species protection, with early initiatives primarily documented in technical reports and regional workshops of limited circulation.”

Comment 6: These sentences would be better if they were rewritten.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We revised the paragraph to improve clarity and flow. Lines 176–181.

Comment 7: To emphasize the manuscript, it is useful to express the trend analysis with a statistical result. Simply put, the non-parametric Mann-Kendall Trend test can be used to show the change between 1997 and 2004. Otherwise, in such a comprehensive study, this result seems like a simpler result.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We considered this point very important; therefore, we added the Mann-Kendall trend analysis methodology (Lines 147–154) and included the corresponding results (Lines 179–181), which detected a significant positive trend in the number of published studies over time, confirming a consistent increase throughout the study period. Figure 1 was also updated to reflect these results consistently.

Comment 8: Figure 2 and this paragraph contain useful information. Additionally, in terms of visibility, I recommend that a map showing the research areas in the MM section be provided. Alternatively, integrating a map with Figure 2 would provide readers with more useful insights.

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. However, we consider that the updated Figure 4, which was replaced with a map showing the documented threats by state and species, complements this suggestion and provides a clearer overview of the research distribution and associated stressors.

Comment 9: It would also be useful to provide the percentage ranges based on the total number of studies. Furthermore, it would be appropriate to include these percentage ranges in Table 2.

Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. We have not incorporated this suggestion because, as described in the methodology and shown in Table 3, several studies address multiple species and threats. Reporting percentages in this section could potentially confuse readers regarding the number of studies.

Comment 10: Please refer to the relevant table for abbreviations.
Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Text was added in Figures 3 and 4: “Acronyms for the associated stressors are described in Table 1,” for greater clarity.

Comment 11: Instead of using Latin scientific names, it is beneficial to use English names. Throughout the manuscript, I recommend that you provide both names where you first mention them and then continue using only English (except for relevant Tables and Figures).

Response 11: Thank you for pointing this out. We have standardized this throughout the text. However, we decided to retain the scientific names while providing the common English names in the Introduction, ensuring consistency with the overall structure of the article.

Comment 12: It would also be useful to provide the percentage ranges based on the total number of studies.

Response 12: Thank you for pointing this out. As noted in Response 9, we did not include percentage ranges for the same reasons to avoid confusion with multi-species/multi-threat studies.

Comment 13: What does the number 1 in the table indicate? Please briefly write it in the table title.

Response 13: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Lines 126–127: Table 1 has been renamed to: “Threats to marine turtles and their associated stressors, with acronyms used in subsequent figures. Adapted from Fuentes et al. [28],” for clarity and proper referencing.

Comment 14: Please check Table 3. There seems to be an inconsistency.

Response 14: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Table 3 has been updated and verified.

Comment 15: In this and the following paragraph, the abbreviation PACE is used differently in two different places. It is best to use the abbreviation directly, as you will have already written the English version in the introduction.

Response 15: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We verified the correct name: Species Conservation Action Plan (PACE).

Comment 16: There is no Appendix S1 in the supplements.

Response 16: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. The reference to Appendix S1 has been removed.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No comments to authors

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your insightful comments and constructive suggestions, which have been instrumental in enhancing the clarity, depth, and overall quality of our study.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s),

Thank you very much for your positive response to my suggestions. There is no doubt that the revised MS is better.
I think my suggestion for Comment 13 was misunderstood. I asked what the "1" in Table 3 meant. I suggest you write in the Table 3 title what the "1" written in the table means. What does the 1 in the table mean? Please briefly explain.

Best

Author Response

Comment:
Thank you very much for your positive response to my suggestions. There is no doubt that the revised MS is better.
I think my suggestion for Comment 13 was misunderstood. I asked what the "1" in Table 3 meant. I suggest you write in the Table 3 title what the "1" written in the table means. What does the 1 in the table mean? Please briefly explain.

Best

Response:
Thank you very much for your positive feedback and for your helpful clarification regarding Comment 13. After reviewing your previous comments, we realized that the explanation for the value “1” should be included in Table 4, not Table 3. Accordingly, we have revised the title of Table 4 (lines 252–254) to read as follows:

Table 4. Comparison of threats reported in this paper’s review (PR) and those documented by the PACE. A value of 1 indicates the presence of the stressor; blank cells indicate absence. Acronyms for the associated stressors are consistent with those in Table 1.

We sincerely appreciate your attentive review and constructive suggestions, which have contributed significantly to improving the clarity of the manuscript.