Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

References – some are listed with name/date, others are numbered in text. Make consistent.

Line 25: First line has “(Papio Erxleben, 1777)” I would change to “Baboons (Papio spp.) (Erxleben, 1777 OR in text numbered citation).

Lines 37-39: suggest putting scientific names in parentheses following common names for baboons. Also suggest adding the 6^th baboon species (as of 2019) to the list, the Kinda Baboon (Papio kindae). Previously it was a subspecies of the yellow baboon. A savannah baboon that lives in Angola, Congo, and Zambia (Rogers et al., 2019).

Line 44: Add a sentence about what technology is being used for population mapping, etc. Thermal imaging/drones? Later in the manuscript you describe AI, you can add some details about how AI is used in this section.

Introduction: Consider adding a sentence or two about the historical human-baboon relationships and how they reach as far back as ancient Egypt.

 Line 107: Correct to six baboon species and add P. kindae.

Table 2: Add Papio kindae

Line 127: It would be interesting to add the difference in costs of the differing management strategies under Governance. Comparing the more grass-roots efforts of the African nations to the increased technology capacity of Saudi Arabia with the use of AI. Cost per nation, or cost per baboon.

Line 128: Can you expand on the Adaptation section and include more details on how baboons have adapted in different countries?

Line 137: Under “3.2 Intersection” can you include how successful the varying management strategies have been, and if changes are needed?

Line 251: This line needs more information. “By integrating technology with ecological knowledge, EBM enables precise, resource-efficient interventions…” By “technology” are you specifically referring to AI? Are there other technology resources that could benefit African (and Saudi) baboon management?

Overall: Review manuscript for repetition and consolidate. Consider adding more details about the non-lethal, decentralized, community-driven programs in Africa. Those words are used frequently to describe the African programs, but does that include farmer reimbursement for crop destruction? Is there financial support to protect crops from raiding? More details are needed and could be added to Line 199. Last paragraph in Conclusions is very well written. Also consider including how the African nations might fund and incorporate the technology-driven management strategies successfully employed in Saudi Arabia.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript ("Baboons at the crossroads: Comparative perspectives on geography, governance, and adaptation in Africa and Saudi Arabia"). I appreciate your constructive and insightful comments, which have collectively strengthened the depth and clarity of this comparative analysis.

Clarification: I would like to note that the initial brevity of certain sections was entirely due to the strict 4-to-8-page limit required for this proceeding paper format. Balancing this strict length constraint with the multidisciplinary breadth of our socio-ecological framework was a significant challenge. However, we have carefully incorporated your suggestions to ensure the necessary depth while doing our best to navigate the journal's formatting limits.

As suggested, please find detailed responses to each specific comment in the point-by-point table below. I hope that these expansions and clarifications are acceptable, and I thank you again for your contribution to improving this work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Comments
This manuscript compares baboon conservation across Africa and Saudi Arabia. It uses a socio-ecological systems (SES) framework. The topic is timely. However, However, several aspects require clarification and refinement to strengthen the ecological and methodological rigor of the study.
General Suggestions
1. Clarify the review type. You call this a "systematic review." But you lack PRISMA flow diagrams, search strings, and inclusion criteria. Provide these details. Or reclassify the study as a narrative review.
2. Cite data properly. You state "~36,000 baboons across 561 hotspots" and "SAR 500 fines." These numbers lack direct citations. Add primary sources immediately after each claim.
3.  Balance the Discussion. The Saudi centralized model is praised but not critiqued. Discuss its costs, equity issues, and transferability to poor regions.
Specific Suggestions
Introduction
1. State the knowledge gap clearly. What does your SES framework add that regional reviews do not?
2. You cite the Tsaobis Baboon Project in Namibia. But Namibia is not a case study. Explain why you cited it. Or add Namibia to your analysis.
Materials and Methods
3. The Methods section lacks sufficient detail to ensure reproducibility; please expand the description of your analytical procedures, data extraction criteria, and search strategy.
4. Section 2.3 classifies governance as "centralized/decentralized." State your classification criteria. State how many reviewers coded the data. Report inter-rater reliability if possible.
Results
5. The "~36,000 baboons" claim first appears in Section 3.5. It lacks a citation there.
6. The Results are purely narrative. If you did not perform meta-analysis, state this limitation explicitly.
7. The Results would benefit from figures to illustrate the comparative data more clearly.
Discussion
8. Address generalizability. Can this SES framework apply to other primates? State its limits.
9. Expand climate resilience. The Abstract mentions it. The Discussion barely does. Add a paragraph on climate adaptation.
References
10. Check citation order. Ensure brackets follow sequential order (e.g., [19,26], not [26,19]). Add DOIs to all references where available.
11. Please ensure that all citations are consistent with the chosen referencing style and that there are no missing references. Additionally, ensure that all cited works are relevant to the study and provide specific support for the claims made in the manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your thorough, constructive, and highly detailed review of this manuscript ("Baboons at the crossroads: Comparative perspectives on geography, governance, and adaptation in Africa and Saudi Arabia").

In this revised version, I have addressed all your feedback. Key enhancements include:

• Expanding the Methods section to detail the systematic search strategy, analytical procedures, and PRISMA screening flow.
• Balancing the discussion by critically evaluating the socio-economic and equity limitations of the centralized Saudi model.
• Adding focus on climate adaptation and clarifying the broader generalizability of our socio-ecological systems (SES) framework.
• Ensuring all specific quantitative claims are properly backed by primary citations upon their first appearance and correcting all citation formatting.

Throughout these revisions, I worked to meet your rigorous standards while strictly adhering to the page limit required for this proceeding paper format. Please find the detailed, point-by-point responses to each of your specific comments in the table below. I hope you find these revisions satisfactory and thank you again for your valuable time and expertise in improving this work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors Recommendation: Accept with minor linguistic and formatting revisions The manuscript presents a coherent comparative synthesis. Please ensure the final version fully adheres to the journal's formatting and style guidelines, with particular attention to reference formatting, table presentation, and typographical consistency.