Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to the authors

I think that this paper is important for birds of game management in the region. However, there are several aspects that need to be improved:

Title

The words "Knowledge of" in the title lead to thinking about different aspects of knowledge. However, the objective was to compare their abundances with respect to two types of vegetation.  I suggest changing the title to something like:

Birds of Game abundances in semi-evergreen forests in Calakmul Biosphere Reserve, Campeche, Mexico

Scientists should first provide the scientific name throughout the manuscript, followed by the common name in parentheses.

 

Introduction

The family Cracidae is important as a resource for human subsistence

The authors must add a paragraph to justify why only two vegetation types were sampled. They must also state whether they used roads, as this can influence the abundances of these species.

 

Methods

The authors should organize their methods more clearly; for instance, they first cited PCA and then mentioned the variables in a subsequent paragraph.

 

Results

The authors need to mention the abundances they estimated for each game bird species. I suggest adding a table with the following information: species name, vegetation type, locality (or coordinates) mean abundance ± standard error

 

Species name	Vegetation type	Locality, stations and/or coordinates	Abundance (mean±standard error)
Crax rubra
Penelope purpurascens
Meleagris ocellata

Figures

Figures 1, 3 and 4 present legends in Spanish. Figure 2 is not clear at all; I suggest changing it to another type of diagram, such as a circular graph. The authors need to explain what colors represent; is there a color for species? Put the frequencies in bold or another letter so they will be differentiated over time. Also, Figure 2b is in Spanish and needs to be translated into English.

Discussion

I think that working with 46 camera traps is a lot of work, and I was hoping you could cite the abundance of each species per defined area. Only figure 4 gives the abundance, but it does not mention the area in such a way that it could be comparable with other studies. For example, what about the comparison with the work of Calmé et al. (2000) that you cite?

The authors do not compare the abundances in other studies and areas, such as the works in Guatemala or in the UMAs of the Yucatan Peninsula. Also, in the last paragraph on future research, I suggest that they should include all vegetation types in the CBR, including the archaeological sites.

Conclusion

On the other hand, if a statistical analysis shows no significance, then the authors Can not conclude that a variable such as the abundance is higher in sub-evergreen forests. Pay attention to your statistical analysis.

 

Attached to this message, you will find the manuscript with several observations. Please verify that you can read the corresponding comments and corrections. Otherwise, contact the editor.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

My English is not perfect, but I can say that the authors' English could improve. They particularly need to work on the figures since they submitted the manuscript without translating the legends into several figures.

Author Response

Comments 1: [The words "Knowledge of" in the title lead to thinking about different aspects of knowledge. However, the objective was to compare their abundances with respect to two types of vegetation].

Response 1: [We changed the title as recommended by the reviewer "Birds of Game abundances in semi-evergreen forests in Calakmul Biosphere Reserve, Campeche, Mexico]"

Comments 2:  [Line 29Cite the species]

Response 2:  [Whe add the species "three species of birds (Crax rubra, Melleagris ocellata and Penelope purpurascens) of hunting..."] 

Comments 3: [Scientists should first provide the scientific name throughout the manuscript, followed by the common name in parentheses].

Response 3: [we changed the scientific names before the common names. Line 59-59: Among the species used for subsistence are Crax rubra (Great Curassow) and the Penelope purpurascens (Crested Guan). Additionally, another species from a different family, the Phasianidae, is the Meleagris ocellata (Ocellated Turkey)]

Comments 4: The family Cracidae is important as a resource for human subsistence. The authors must add a paragraph to justify why only two vegetation types were sampled. They must also state whether they used roads, as this can influence the abundances of these species

Response 4:  We added the context of types of vegetations [Nevertheless, the CBR is an area with many scientific studies of different faunal groups such as vertebrates, including birds. The southern region, particularly the tropical rainforest near the Mayan Biosphere Reserve in Guatemala, are unexplored sites, where no data on game birds are recorded. Specifically in vegetation types such as high and medium sub evergreen forests].

Comments 5: [The authors should organize their methods more clearly; for instance, they first cited PCA and then mentioned the variables in a subsequent paragraph].

Response 5: We add the ambiental variables in the text; Line; 117 and 118 [The PCA was performed with standardized variables (temperature, precipitation, humidity, wind and NVDI)].

Comments 6: The authors need to mention the abundances they estimated for each game bird species. I suggest adding a table with the following information: species name, vegetation type, locality (or coordinates) mean abundance ± standard error.

Response 6: The corresponding table suggested by the editors has been added.

Comments 7: Figures 1, 3 and 4 present legends in Spanish. Figure 2 is not clear at all; I suggest changing it to another type of diagram, such as a circular graph. The authors need to explain what colors represent; is there a color for species? Put the frequencies in bold or another letter so they will be differentiated over time. Also, Figure 2b is in Spanish and needs to be translated into English.

Responses 7: We traslate the legends of figure 1, 3, and 4.

Comments 8:  I think that working with 46 camera traps is a lot of work, and I was hoping you could cite the abundance of each species per defined area. Only figure 4 gives the abundance, but it does not mention the area in such a way that it could be comparable with other studies. For example, what about the comparison with the work of Calmé et al. (2000) that you cite?

Responses 8: We Added the table 1 with the abundances, means and standard error that suggested, also the comparation between the type of vegetation. 

Comments 9: The authors do not compare the abundances in other studies and areas, such as the works in Guatemala or in the UMAs of the Yucatan Peninsula. Also, in the last paragraph on future research, I suggest that they should include all vegetation types in the CBR, including the archaeological sites.

Responses 9:   We added the line 246 to 248 [However, the mean abundances of M. ocellata in the study of [44] in 1998-2000 were higher than that of the present study (18.93 ± 7.19)].

Comments 10: [On the other hand, if a statistical analysis shows no significance, then the authors Can not conclude that a variable such as the abundance is higher in sub-evergreen forests. Pay attention to your statistical analysis].

Response 10: [We delete the text; Humidity and precipitation showed the greatest influence on the abundance of the cracid species].

We have revised the text of the manuscript and hope that the editors will be pleased with it.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Article is interesting and contribute to biology of 3 bird species. But it is written in a little bit chaotic manner and need some changes.

line 35 - delete "(ANOSIM; R= 0.10, p=0.22)"

In Introduction please add paragraph underlining how little we know about species in consideration.

lines 43-44 full name should be first and abbreviations in brackets - please change.

All the figures - change language in figures description to English

line 129 add examined between three and species.

line 131 add but at the beginning of sentence

line 134 should be the all species showed

Results - first paragraph (with statistical tests values) should be second one after general results description - please change the order

Figure 5 need to be moved to Methods chapter instead of Discussion chapter

Figure 6 - I am confused what author mean in figure description. Hunting is legal action, poaching is illegal. There is no "hunting poaching of the species" thing. Please rephrase description

 

Author Response

Comments 1. [line 35 - delete "(ANOSIM; R= 0.10, p=0.22)"]

Response 1. We deleted ["(ANOSIM; R= 0.10, p=0.22)"]

Comments 2.  In Introduction please add paragraph underlining how little we know about species in consideration.

Response 2. These species are very popular in the region, also in the line 53 to 59 we describe some of uses and habitats [This family consume fruits and berries, making them important seed dispersers [6, 7, 8]. Some species within this family have restricted distributions and inhabit diverse habitats. Among the species used for subsistence are Crax rubra (Great Curassow) and the Penelope purpurascens (Crested Guan). Additionally, another species from a different family, the Phasianidae, is the Meleagris ocellata (Ocellated Turkey), which is distributed across the entire Yucatan Peninsula, in Campeche are located the largest populations of this species in the region [9].]

Comment 3. [lines 43-44 full name should be first and abbreviations in brackets - please change].

Response 3. [Presence of 18 Important Bird Conservation Areas (IBAs), 24 Natural Protected Areas (NPAs)].

Comment 4. All the figures - change language in figures description to English

Response 4. We traslate all the description of figures. 

Comment 5. line 129 add examined between three and species.

Response 5. We added examined [The abundances of the three examined species were higher in the high sub evergreen forest (n=477; table 1)]

Comment 6. line 131 add but at the beginning of sentence

Response 6. We added But beginning os sentence [But no significant differences were found between the abundances reported in the two vegetation types (ANOSIM; R= 0.10, p=0.22)].

Comment 7. line 134 should be the all species showed

Response 7. We added in the text the table 1. [The abundances of the three species were higher in the high sub evergreen forest (n=477; table 1)]

Comment 8. Results - first paragraph (with statistical tests values) should be second one after general results description - please change the order

Response 8. We changed the order that suggested [Comment 8. Results - first paragraph (with statistical tests values) should be second one after general results description - please change the order...].

Comment 9. Figure 5 need to be moved to Methods chapter instead of Discussion chapter

Response 9. We consider figure five as a photographic evidence of the species evaluated by the camera traps, so we reaffirm that it should be placed as results and discussion.

Comment 10. Figure 6 - I am confused what author mean in figure description. Hunting is legal action, poaching is illegal. There is no "hunting poaching of the species" thing. Please rephrase description. 

Response 10. Line 207 and 208 [Figure 6. Poaching activity in the surveyed area in the southern zone of Calakmul, a, b, c and d show some cases photographed in camera traps].

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made most of the suggestions. However, they removed some elements that, in my opinion, should not have done so. For example, they removed Figure 2 and did not replace it with another figure. In addition, they continue to cite it in the results. 

Please check all figures are provided with explanations within the manuscript and that the statements are appropriate (abundance is not the same as richness).

Attached to this message, I uploaded the manuscript with some specific comments. 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: [The authors made most of the suggestions. However, they removed some elements that, in my opinion, should not have done so. For example, they removed Figure 2 and did not replace it with another figure. In addition, they continue to cite it in the results.]

Response 1. [We replaced figure 2 with what was requested above regarding the translation. However, we consider that it is adequately rendered and visually understandable. We leave it to the reviewers to consider whether its use is appropriate].

Comment 2: [Thanks for considering change the title, but to make it coherent with the types of vegetation you used in methods (sub evergreen high forests and sub evergreen medium forests)  just delelete semi-].

Response 2. [Thank you for the suggestion, we deleted the word "Semi" as you considered].

Comment 3: [I suggest not to delete this result.].

Response 3: [We added the suggested "ANOSIM; R= 0.10, p=0.22),"]

Comment 4: [Indicate the total length or area covered by the camera traps].

Response 4: [We added the total length in the line 92 "a total of 92 km of transects were covered on roads and trails "].

Comment 5: [Authors need to add a new graph or explain the one they presented before].

Response 5 [We considered that the explanation of the text is clear to reference of the figure 2. "During dry seasons, the species showed greater activity between 06:00 and 08:00 h, while in the rainy season they tended to have more activity at 06:00 h and during nortes at 8:00 h. The hours with the least activity were between 13:00 and 14:00 h during the nortes season (Figure 2a)"]:

Comment 6: [Indicate the total length or area covered by the camera traps in the sub ever green forest].

Response 6: [We decided add the length in the methods. Line 92 " a total of 92 km of transects were covered on roads and trails (60 km in the medium sub evergreen forests and 32 in the medium sub deciduous forests)"].

Comment 7: [Indicate the total length or area covered by the camera traps in the medium subevergreen forest].

Response 7: [We decided add the length in the methods. Line 92 " a total of 92 km of transects were covered on roads and trails (60 km in the medium sub evergreen forests and 32 in the medium sub deciduous forests)"].

Comment 8: [I suggested explaining this diagram, not deleting it or changing it to another circular graph that can be used to compare abundances among seasons.].

Response 8: [We explain the graph in the first paragraph of the results "During dry seasons, the species showed greater activity (abundances) between 06:00 and 08:00 h, while in the rainy season they tended to have more activity at 06:00 h and during nortes at 8:00 h. The hours with the least activity were between 13:00 and 14:00 h during the nortes season (Figure 2a). The dry season shows a greater presence of the species, where M. ocellata has a higher frequency than in the rainy and northerly seasons, while C. rubra has a greater number of records during the rainy season (Figure 2b). Regarding the abundances in the seasons of the year, it was found that there is greater activity of individuals during the dry season with 336 records, followed by the rains with 267 and nortes with 76"].

Comment 9: [Indicate the number of individuals per hectare or per square kilometer].

Response 9: [Line 251 and 252 " were higher than that of the present study with 3.2 ind/km² (18.93 ± 7.19)."]

Author Response File: Author Response.docx