Is Shrub Encroachment Driving the Decline of Small Mammal Diversity in Pyrenean Grasslands? A Preliminary Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a preliminary study on the effect of succession and mechanical removal of shrubs on grasslands. The experiment is well designed and clearly described. I just a few suggestions:
I am not sure the title is appropriate, I do not like the word banalisation here. What is observed is a decrease in species diversity and species richness.
I do not really understand how the traps were set: there were 36 traps on a grid (6x6 m) and traps were spaced 15 m (line 88). So what was the sampling plot area and what is 6x6 m if the distance between traps was 15 m?
“Traps were operated during three consecutive nights and revised during the early morning of the first, second, and third day”: does this mean the traps were checked in the morning and stayed closed during daytime?
“Rodents were marked with ear-tags (Style 1005–1, National Band 94 Co.USA)”: This particular ear tags are quite big and my experience is that get removed accidentally from vole ears. Did you notice that voles lost ear tags? Could this affect your results and analysis?
line 134: higher not high
line 135, Figure 2: I think ‘species density’ is not a good word here. The number of species (or species richness) would be much clearer
I really like figure 3.
Author Response
This is a preliminary study on the effect of succession and mechanical removal of shrubs on grasslands. The experiment is well designed and clearly described. I just a few suggestions:
I am not sure the title is appropriate, I do not like the word banalisation here. What is observed is a decrease in species diversity and species richness.
Authors: We agree, and we changed the title according to suggestions, this was the new title:
Is shrub encroachment driving the decline of small mammal diversity in Pyrenean grasslands? A preliminary study
I do not really understand how the traps were set: there were 36 traps on a grid (6x6 m) and traps were spaced 15 m (line 88). So what was the sampling plot area and what is 6x6 m if the distance between traps was 15 m?
Authors: there was a mistake, the “m” was incorrect. We added the distance between traps after the description of the grid (6x6)
“Traps were operated during three consecutive nights and revised during the early morning of the first, second, and third day”: does this mean the traps were checked in the morning and stayed closed during daytime?
Authors: The traps were not closed during the day. However, we had low mortality (4%), we added it to the results section.
“Rodents were marked with ear-tags (Style 1005–1, National Band 94 Co.USA)”: This particular ear tags are quite big and my experience is that get removed accidentally from vole ears. Did you notice that voles lost ear tags? Could this affect your results and analysis?
Authors: We agree, some tags were lost, but some marks in the ears were evident, and at least, it allowed us to infer that the individuals were previously marked. Unfortunately, we did not quantify the number of tags lost, but we do not think this problem biased the results.
line 134: higher not high
Authors: Done
line 135, Figure 2: I think ‘species density’ is not a good word here. The number of species (or species richness) would be much clearer
Authors: We changed it to “Species richness”
I really like figure 3.
Authors: Thanks!!!
Reviewer 2 Report
I found the manuscript very clear and concise, and overall well written and worth of publication on Diversity.
The authors analysed the small mammal assemblage in an experimental mountain plot, assessing the effects of grassland encroachment on rodent and insectivore diversity in time, after a clear-cutting intervention.
I did not detect any significant issue (but please uniformly format reference entries!)
Author Response
I found the manuscript very clear and concise, and overall well written and worth of publication on Diversity.
The authors analysed the small mammal assemblage in an experimental mountain plot, assessing the effects of grassland encroachment on rodent and insectivore diversity in time, after a clear-cutting intervention.
I did not detect any significant issue (but please uniformly format reference entries!)
Authors: Thank you very much!!! we tried to format references as also requested by reviewer 4
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors investigated how shrub encroachment influences small mammal community composition in a subalpine meadow area of the Pyrenees.
The topic covered by the authors has also been investigated for other taxa but in this paper it is the first time for small mammals.
The method used is correct and the data collected sufficient to be analysed.
The conclusions sounds with the results obtained.
The most significant result obtained by the authors was that shrub encroachment produced the banalisation of small mammals’ communities dominated by generalist species. Although the increase in shrub encroachment has a limited duration over time, it is important for the conservation and maintenance of biodiversity and provides useful indications for vegetation management.
Bibliographic citations are sufficient and adequate. Overall a good paper. I have only one comment to make on figure 2. The colors indicating species, especially the shades of blue, are not very clear and are needed improvements.
Author Response
The authors investigated how shrub encroachment influences small mammal community composition in a subalpine meadow area of the Pyrenees.
The topic covered by the authors has also been investigated for other taxa but in this paper it is the first time for small mammals.
The method used is correct and the data collected sufficient to be analysed.
The conclusions sounds with the results obtained.
The most significant result obtained by the authors was that shrub encroachment produced the banalisation of small mammals’ communities dominated by generalist species. Although the increase in shrub encroachment has a limited duration over time, it is important for the conservation and maintenance of biodiversity and provides useful indications for vegetation management.
Authors: Thank you very much!!!
Bibliographic citations are sufficient and adequate. Overall a good paper. I have only one comment to make on figure 2. The colors indicating species, especially the shades of blue, are not very clear and are needed improvements.
Authors: We changed the colors of fig. 2 to be more clear
Reviewer 4 Report
Authors conducted a five-years study of small mammals in the Pyrenean grasslands under different conditions. The results of their captures are properly analyzed and discussed.
A number of smaller and linguistic corrections have to be made. Also the References section requires further correction.
Line 14: goats and sheep
Line 16: We document a case study
Line 24: changes by decreasing
Line 39: reach their southern
Line 42: Microtus gerbei Gerbe, 1879 / Microtus arvalis Pallas
Line 43: Arvicola monticola de Sélys-Longchamps, 1838
Line 46: Microtus lavernedii Crespon, 1844
Line 56: Because small mammal
Line 62: goats/sheep
Line 98: nomenclature follows the Handbook
Line 114: Gaussian
Line 139: indicates the
Line 155: Also they showed
Line 180: changes that occurred
Line 187: results agree with
Line 213: as a rare species
Line 220: Pyrenees are home
Line 224: not (or barely)
Line 237: communities by
Line 243: which provides protection
244/245: Interestingly, the abundance of C. russula was
Line 256: suggest that
Line 304: 2012 (in bold)
Line 308/309: (text in lower case)
Line 311: 2011. (in bold)
Line 314: ? (publisher/city missing), 2017 (in bold)
Line 316: ? (pages)
Line 318: 2019 (in bold)
Line 330: 2006 (in bold)
Line 338: 2009 (in bold), reference incomplete
Line 360: 2014 (in bold)
Line 377: (title of book in italics)
Line 378: 2011 (in bold)
Line 391: (pages missing)
Author Response
Authors conducted a five-years study of small mammals in the Pyrenean grasslands under different conditions. The results of their captures are properly analyzed and discussed.
A number of smaller and linguistic corrections have to be made. Also the References section requires further correction.
Line 14: goats and sheep
Authors: Done
Line 16: We document a case study
Authors: Done
Line 24: changes by decreasing
Authors: Done
Line 39: reach their southern
Authors: Done
Line 42: Microtus gerbei Gerbe, 1879 / Microtus arvalis Pallas
Authors: Done
Line 43: Arvicola monticola de Sélys-Longchamps, 1838
Authors: Done
Line 46: Microtus lavernedii Crespon, 1844
Authors: Done
Line 56: Because small mammal
Authors: Done
Line 62: goats/sheep
Authors: Done
Line 98: nomenclature follows the Handbook
Authors: Done
Line 114: Gaussian
Authors: Done
Line 139: indicates the
Authors: Done
Line 155: Also they showed
Authors: Done
Line 180: changes that occurred
Authors: Done
Line 187: results agree with
Authors: Done
Line 213: as a rare species
Authors: Done
Line 220: Pyrenees are home
Authors: Done
Line 224: not (or barely)
Authors: Done
Line 237: communities by
Authors: Done
Line 243: which provides protection
Authors: Done
244/245: Interestingly, the abundance of C. russula was
Authors: Done
Line 256: suggest that
Authors: Done
Line 304: 2012 (in bold)
Authors: Done
Line 308/309: (text in lower case)
Authors: Done
Line 311: 2011. (in bold)
Authors: Done
Line 314: ? (publisher/city missing), 2017 (in bold)
Authors: Done
Line 316: ? (pages)
Authors: Done
Line 318: 2019 (in bold)
Authors: Done
Line 330: 2006 (in bold)
Authors: Done
Line 338: 2009 (in bold), reference incomplete
Authors: Done
Line 360: 2014 (in bold)
Authors: Done
Line 377: (title of book in italics)
Authors: Done
Line 378: 2011 (in bold)
Authors: Done
Line 391: (pages missing)
Authors: Done
