Severe Disturbance of Chinese Pangolins Caused by Free-Ranging Domestic Dogs in Unprotected Areas
and Yan Hua 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI congratulate the authors, this is an excellent contribution including well structured, carried out and analyzed research. It also demonstrates how the disturbance of domestic dogs is relevant to the Chinese pangolin, Manis pentadactyla, a critically endangered (CR) species in accordance with the IUCN categories.
However, I would like the authors to add something more in the conclusions in relation to possible management or mitigation proposals regarding the presence of wandering dogs in the area, in order to reduce this disturbance, which is also higher during the winter months.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer #1:
- Add something more in the conclusions in relation to possible management or mitigation proposals regarding the presence of wandering dogs in the area, in order to reduce this disturbance, which is also higher during the winter months.
Reply: Thank you for your constructive advice. We have added more conclusions in management from establishment of protected reserves, dog management, and raising awareness about protection. Please see the lines 397-419 for more details. Additionally, we have provided an explanation for the increased interference during the winter months. Please see lines 374-391 for further information.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview of diversity-3031908
Overall, it is a well written paper that investigates the interactions between domestic dogs and Chinese pangolins via extensive field surveys, GPS collars use, and modeling of habitat use and activity. However, the discussion falls short to explain intense conflict, the threats that Chinese pangolins face from dogs and (interrelated) human presence, and applied measures that could be implemented to avoid this overlap. Below the authors can find a few comments that might be helpful to improve the manuscript.
Introduction
The introduction is well referenced, well presented and tackles the main issues related to the direct and indirect effects of domesticated dogs on Chinese pangolins. At the end of the introduction, it would be better if the authors stress a little more the conservationist perspective of their work in more than one line …
l. 45. Please mark the correct scientific name of the dog, Canis familiaris.
Material and methods.
This section is relatively clear, providing all the necessary information on the methods and the analyses used. However, can the authors be more specific on how the domestic dogs were selected and how the collars were worn on the animals? I suppose that all animals were stray dogs (free ranging?), as it is not specified.
l. 105. Can you be more specific on the time of the study (e.g., provide months along with years).
l. 119 I would prefer … “affecting the biology (not the survival) of wildlife.”
l. 140. A paragraph cannot start with “therefore” which assumes something before.
Results
The results are well presented, and the authors provide a wide variety of different data that aim to help comprehend potential overlap in habitat and activity by Chinese pangolins and domestic dogs.
However, there is no concrete data on the range use of domestic dogs. Please provide a paragraph where the results from the GPS collars and MCP analysis are presented.
l. 240. Pengzhai not Heping
Discussion
Although the discussion provides an insight on potential conflict between Chinese pangolins and domestic dogs it seems to fail to take advantage of the rich multitude of data on habitat use and activity and the models that the authors have used. The discussion is weakened by the way it is presented and it does not analyze the data as a whole. Furthermore, the authors have not presented any concrete applied measures that could reduce potential conflict between the two species and that could be based on their results.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe english is relatively goos and flow quite well in the most parts of the text. Only a few minor edits are required to improve the text.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer #2:
Introduction part
- At the end of the introduction, it would be better if the authors stress a little more the conservationist perspective of their work in more than one line …
Reply: Thank you for your constructive advice. We delete some conservationist perspective and use objective language to describe them.
- 45. Please mark the correct scientific name of the dog, Canis familiaris.
Reply: We have corrected it. Please see line 45
Material and Methods part
- However, can the authors be more specific on how the domestic dogs were selected and how the collars were worn on the animals? I suppose that all animals were stray dogs (free ranging?), as it is not specified.
Reply: We have a more detailed explanation of the selection of domestic dogs. We choose the free ranging domestic dogs not stray dogs, and put the collar on with the help of the owner. Please see lines 110-113.
- 119 I would prefer … “affecting the biology (not the survival) of wildlife.”
Reply: We have changed it. Please see line 121.
- 140. A paragraph cannot start with “therefore” which assumes something before.
Reply: Thanks for your reminding, we have deleted it, and change the expression. Please see line 142.
- Table 1: Considering "meter" as the unit for the variable "Distance to nature reserve."
Reply: To make it easier to understand for readers, we projected the grids and changed the distance unit from geographical degree to meter.
Results
- Please provide a paragraph where the results from the GPS collars and MCP analysis are presented.
Reply: Thank you very much for your advice, we overlooked this point. We have write a paragraph on the results about GPS collars and MCP analysis. Please see lines 219-228.
- 240. Pengzhai not Heping
Reply: We have corrected it.
Discussion part
- The discussion is weakened by the way it is presented and it does not analyze the data as a whole.
Reply: We have rewritten the entire discussion section and analyzed it in more detail through the results.
- Furthermore, the authors have not presented any concrete applied measures that could reduce potential conflict between the two species and that could be based on their results.
Reply: Thanks for your constructive advice. We have added more conclusions in management from establishment of protected reserves, dog management, and raising awareness about protection. Please see the lines 397-419 for more details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised version of the manuscript is greatly improved since the authors have responded to most of the suggestions and have modified their text accordingly. This is mostly clear in the methods and the results sections.
Nevertheless, I still see no great change in the last part of the introduction where the conservation perspective of their work needs to be highlighted, especially mentioning the contribution of what they expect to find via their work.
The discussion flows much better, although in some places the authors simply repeat their findings without serious tackle of the problem (see section 4.3). I think that the authors need to further resolve these issues prior to final acceptance for publication.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Finally, the english language requires some moderate editing in many places in the text.
Author Response
Introduction part
- I still see no great change in the last part of the introduction where the conservation perspective of their work needs to be highlighted, especially mentioning the contribution of what they expect to find via their work.
Reply: Thank you for your very specific suggestions, which have been really helpful to us. We have rewritten the last part of the introduction, highlighted our conservation perspective, and the contribution we want to find. Please see line: 86-92.
Discussion part
- The authors simply repeat their findings without serious tackle of the problem (see section 4.3).
Reply: We are so sorry about that. We have rewritten the entire section 4.3 and analyzed it in more detail through the results. Please see lines: 367-395
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
