Range Contraction and Population Decline of the European Dupont’s Lark Population

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I generally like the paper, however the title overestimated what is inside. I put my comments directly on the mS. On the other hand, I like this because we need this kind of reflection to more constructive and effective conservation effort.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I generally like the paper, however the title overestimated what is inside. I put my comments directly on the mS. On the other hand, I like this because we need this kind of reflection to more constructive and effective conservation effort.

> We thank the comments of the reviewer 1. The reviewer suggests that the title overestimate the content of the manuscript. After accepting the suggestion of the editor, we have changed the title by deleting the part of “last call for conservation”. We hope this change will be agree with the reviewer.

(L. 76-78) But is not, because big differences in detectability males and females?

> The reviewer indicates this sentence: Its European range is restricted to Spain and its population was estimated during the II National Census (2004-2007) to be around 3463-4452 males, which means 2,200-2,800 breeding pairs considering the sex-ratio of 0,61.

> The authors of the paper referred in this comment capture the individuals randomly placed claptraps within the study areas and baited with mealworms, avoiding the use of song recordings to reduce sex-biases in captures. In this sense, we understand that the probability of capturing males and females would be similar since both must move to feed and therefore the probability of an individual pecking at the larva in the claptrap would be equivalent, and so the sex ratio is accurate.

(L. 110) well, the title suggest stronger reflection, opinion, but below is like in classical material paper. Is OK with me, but promising of general view is bit overestimated.

> We understand in this comment that the reviewer is suggesting that this paper shows similar trends for the species, when looking at the classical literature cited. This is indeed true. However, the title simple states the range reduction and population decline we observed in our data, our data being the most up to date information about the species. Thus, we respectfully disagree that the title promises an overestimated view of the data shown.

(L. 267) is worth to compare with Paul Donald job on other skylark species; looks like quite general phenomenon.

> We have found no actual reference by professor Paul Donald about the skylark or other lark species. Anyway, we have complemented our sentence in the discussion, including a reference to previous work with grassland species.  L. 423-242. “Similar results have been found for other grassland species as the little bustard in Spain [40]”

(L. 342) well, for skylarks, like for many ground nesters, predation pressure is probably very important issue, but in very general way - I maean also interaction between predators and alternative prey like voles, I rememeber this paper: Tryjanowski, P. (2000). Changes in breeding populations of some farmland birds in W Poland in relation to changes in crop structure, weather conditions and number of predators. FOLIA ZOOLOGICA-PRAHA-, 49(4), 305-315.

> After the sentence “This result suggests that inadequate management is being carried out in these areas, or that protected areas have been declared reactively in already threatened or fragmented areas” we have included “or where natural predation is exceptionally high [41]” (L. 454).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I read your article with interest as it is about a less studied species. Your results are very interesting and it is sad to read that the population of this species is also declining.

In addition to the few specific comments below, I have two major comments:

1. Please do not repeating that the Spanish population is the same as the European. The reader will be aware of this even if it is written only once. Please improve the text in the light of this.

2. The first part of the Discussion is more or less repeating the Results. I understand that the numbers are important, but the focus here should be on evaluating the results. This section should be simplified and keep focus on the evaluation of the results.

Specific comments:

L76: „Its European range is restricted to Spain…” Redundant. Please delete this part of the sentence.

L87 and 102: (and therefore European): Redundant. Please delete this part of the sentence.

L182-183: „The estimated current male population size of the Dupont’s lark in Spain (Europe) is of (minimum) 2,289 territorial males.”

I would suggest the following sentence: „The estimated current population size of the Dupont’s lark in Spain is of (minimum) 2,289 territorial males.”

L185-186: Please delete „in Europe”.

L317-327: For me, this paragraph should be placed in the Material and Methods section

L329: 981 km² occupied

References

I do not find Keller et al. (2020) (EBBA2) in the References. This should definitely be used for this paper.

Moderate editing of English language required. Please use – instead of - when writing about intervals (e.g. 2020–2022).

Author Response

Dear Authors,

I read your article with interest as it is about a less studied species. Your results are very interesting, and it is sad to read that the population of this species is also declining.

> We would like to thank reviewer 2 for his comments, which have helped to improve the manuscript.

In addition to the few specific comments below, I have two major comments:

1. Please do not repeating that the Spanish population is the same as the European. The reader will be aware of this even if it is written only once. Please improve the text in the light of this.

> Thank you for this comment. We have deleted redundant information in L. 76, L. 87 and L. 102.

2. The first part of the Discussion is more or less repeating the Results. I understand that the numbers are important, but the focus here should be on evaluating the results. This section should be simplified and keep focus on the evaluation of the results.

> Thank you for your suggestion. We have deleted from the first part of the discussion the allusion to concrete numbers from the results. We have deleted (L. 268-269) “with a total population decline of 29.7% in the last 15 years (mean annual decline rate of 2.3%)”, (L. 274) “897 of the 2,289 Dupont’s lark territories (39.2%)”

Specific comments:

L76: „Its European range is restricted to Spain…” Redundant. Please delete this part of the sentence.

> We have changed the sentence: “Dupont’s lark population in Spain was estimated during the II National Census…”.

L87 and 102: (and therefore European): Redundant. Please delete this part of the sentence.

> We have deleted this part of the sentence in both lines.

L182-183: „The estimated current male population size of the Dupont’s lark in Spain (Europe) is of (minimum) 2,289 territorial males.” I would suggest the following sentence: „The estimated current population size of the Dupont’s lark in Spain is of (minimum) 2,289 territorial males.”

> We have applied changes in the sentence “The estimated current male population size of the Dupont’s lark in Spain is of (minimum) 2,289 territorial males”. We have decided to keep “current male population” instead of “current population” because our data (resulting from census of this species) only allows us to know the number of males.

L185-186: Please delete „in Europe”.

> Done

L317-327: For me, this paragraph should be placed in the Material and Methods section

> Thank you for this suggestion. We have placed this paragraph in Material and Methods from line 320 to 327. We have decided to keep in the discussion L. 317-320, since we consider that it is an appropriate discussion of because why the region of Aragón experiment a large decline.

L329: 981 km2 occupied

> Done.

References

I do not find Keller et al. (2020) (EBBA2) in the References. This should definitely be used for this paper.

> Thank you for this suggestion. We have consulted  https://ebba2.info/maps/ and we have included this reference in the introduction L.59.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language: Moderate editing of English language required.

> We have reviewed the wording in English.

Please use – instead of - when writing about intervals (e.g. 2020–2022).

> Done.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you for accepting my suggestions. I think the manuscript has improved significantly.