Reptile Biodiversity and Vulnerability in Bolivia’s Beni Department: Informing Conservation Priorities in a Neglected Frontier
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsRecently, regional summaries on reptiles, for example, the island territories of Mexico, have been published in the journal Diversity (González-Sánchez et al., 2023, https://doi.org/10.3390/d15080921), despite the high costs of preparing the manuscript and editing and peer review, the value of such works is beyond doubt.
These publications form the basis of national conservation policies, taking into account the global conservation status of the species (IUCN STATUS).
The authors used scales (lines 136-142): “The first scale incorporates a geographic distribution score (DS) based on the following categories:
1 = distribution broadly represented both inside and outside Bolivia (large portions of 138 range are both inside and outside Bolivia);
2 = distribution prevalent inside Bolivia, but limited outside Bolivia (most of range is 140 inside Bolivia);
3 = distribution limited inside Bolivia, but prevalent outside Bolivia (most of range is 142 outside Bolivia).
Note, the DS scale must indicate the range limits and explanations:
Another scale, lines 149-156: “The second scale incorporated ecological distribution or habitat score (HS) based on the 149 number of habitat types occupied, as follows: 150 1 = occurs in seven or more types 151 2 = occurs in six types 152 3 = occurs in five types 153 4 = occurs in four types 154 5 = occurs in three types 155 6 = occurs in two types 156 7 = occurs in one type.”
Further, line 167 “For the EVS indicator, it is necessary to provide explanations (calculation formulas and examples of use).”
In the article “The lizards and amphisbaenians of Bolivia (Reptilia, Squamata): checklist, localities, and bibliography” (Dirksen, Riva, 2011, 10.3989/graellsia.1999.v55.i0.329), “Thecadactylus rapicauda (Houttuyn, 1782 ) Beni: Tumi Chucua (Fugler, 1983). Río Quiquibey (Fugler, 1984). Río Yata (on road from Guayaramerín to CachuelaEsperanza), AMNH. " The authors indicate “Thecadactylus solimoensis”, since the species Thecadactylus solimoensis and Thecadactylus rapicauda (Houttuyn, 1782) are erroneously identified. Comments and explanations in the publication on species whose taxonomic status requires clarification are necessary.
Author Response
We thank you for your review of our manuscript. We have address all comments and have attached a file with specific responses to each.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript presents a needed compilation of the reptile species that occur in Beni, Bolivia. Bolivia is one of the most neglected countries as far as reptile research goes, and we need more studies like this to try to get a handle on the species that occur there. The EVS assessments of each of the species are very interesting, as is how they often do not agree with the LC classifications of the IUCN. The manuscript is well written for the most part and the conclusions seem sound. I think that the Discussion rambles a bit and could be streamlined significantly. I am not sure that the manuscript really fits into the scope for the journal—that is for the editor to decide. Otherwise, I am happy with this paper and have relatively few comments. My specific minor comments follow.
1. Lines 39-41. It doesn’t seem important to me to list the provinces here.
2. L93. The publication cited is about amphibians.
3. Discussion. There are a lot of good points brought up in the Discussion but it is also a bit repetitive in places and could be streamlined.
4. L313. It is worth mentioning here that IUCN scores are based on the entirety of the species’ range and not just in Beni or Bolivia. That makes them nice overall but a species that is doing well elsewhere could be in danger of extirpation in Beni.
5. L332. Should probably also cite here Böhm et al. (2013) The conservation status of the world’s reptiles.
6. Figure 1. I think you should change the color of the boundary of Beni so that readers can see it better. I know it is highlighted in the smaller map but it would make it easier to understand if you made the border in red, for example, in the main map. Also, the habitats are described in Spanish but this article is in English so it must be translated. Also, the font on the habitat descriptions is much too small.
7. Figures 2 and 3. I’m not sure that you need Figures 2 and 3. They more-or-less show the same information. If you must include both, you should put them as A and B of a single figure.
8. Figures 5-9. I don’t really see the point of these. I guess you are trying to show how the threat processes differ but they are very hard to read and interpret. Figure 9 is impossible to follow. If you want to keep these, I recommend moving them to Supplemental Material.
Overall, I recommend publication of this manuscript after some minor revision.
Author Response
We thank you for the quick review of our manuscript. We have attached specific responses to each comment here.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe reviewer thanks the authors for the corrections, clarifications and clarification of information. I recommend the article for publication.
The authors state: “According to Uetz et al. (2023). T. solimoensis is separated from T. rapicauda via distribution in the Beni. Also, we included this species based on a specimen that is deposited in the CIRA collection (see Appendix A), that we had the opportunity to examine and identify, rather than relying on historical reports that include erroneous identifications. Following Bergmann and Russell (2007) the two species can be easily distinguished morphologically and many of the taxonomic issues are with T. rapicauda, ​​rather than T. solimonensis."
I believe that this information should be reflected in the article or additional materials. The historical aspect of faunal research must be taken into account; in the conditions of transformation of the habitats of reptiles and their food supply (hunting objects), a reduction in the number of reptiles and the invasion of alien animals - the consumer of reptiles may not obtain a reliable estimate. There is a certain inertia in the dissemination of information from researchers into the field of practical application, for example, in the development of protection measures and limiting the explication of resources.
My opinion: Old data certainly requires verification and inventory, but “throwing” it into the trash is also not rational.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer again for the quick review and time spent on our manuscript. Specific responses to comments and suggestions can be found in the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
