Taxonomic, Functional, and Phylogenetic Diversity of Bats in Urban and Suburban Environments in Southern México
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSee the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Sorry, but I did not have time to work on the English, which is already fairly good. However, the manuscript would certainly benefit from additional review by a native English speaker to improve its flow and correct grammatical mistakes.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic of the impact of anthropogenic pressure, and urbanization in particular, on bats is extremely interesting and relevant practically all over the world. It is believed that, in general, the bat diversity retreats in front of urbanization due to the loss of food sources and suitable habitats. On the other hand, it is known that a number of bat species are not only resistant to anthropogenic changes in the environment (urban-tolerant species), but are also capable of producing high numbers and increasing reproductive success in urban conditions compared to the wild (synurbic, such as Pipistrellus kuhlii in Southern Europe; e.g. Russo & Ancillotto 2014). It is logical to assume that the proportions of species with one or another attitude to urbanization will differ depending on the region and climate zone, and that in an initially rich bat community there will be more urban-sensetive and urban-tolerant species.
From this point of view, one cannot fail to note the scientific relevance of the article under consideration, devoted to the reaction of bats to urbanization in one of the regions with the richest chiropteran fauna. The volume of material on which the authors base their results and conclusions, as well as the methods of collecting this material, do not raise doubts and questions. However, the text of the manuscript undoubtedly contains parts that require revision or, at least, clarification.
Page 1 “Bats are a highly diverse and abundant group, easy to sample” – I think many researchers would disagree. Research on bats has lagged behind research on other mammals in a number of ways for decades precisely because they are not easy to sample.
Page 3 “Eastern Site” – It is not clear from the text why Santa María del Tule and San Pablo Villa de Mitla are combined into one site, given that, judging by Figure 1, Tule is much closer to the center of Oaxaca than to Villa de Mitla. Looking at Table 1, one can assume that this is due to the same level of urbanization in both points, but the principle of dividing the points into "Eastern", "Western", "Southern" and "Central" is not reflected in the text. For now, for the reader, this looks like the arbitrariness of the authors.
Page 5, Table 2 – Am I right in understanding that there are no Functional traits that reflect wing proportions (at least those that are easily measured, such as Aspect Ratio Index or Wing Tip Index)? Meanwhile, if for fruit-eating bats this may not be critical, then for insectivores the wing shape allows us to identify a fairly significant division of niches. For example, Molossus, Myotis and Corynorhinus will all be insectivores, but their preferred feeding habitats and the distance they are able to travel from their day roost will differ significantly (and therefore they will not compete for the resource), and this is fully reflected in the wing proportions.
Page 6 (and later) “This index measures the total branch lengths of a phylogenetic tree and quantifies phylogenetic richness as the total amount of evolutionary history among all species at each site.” – Phylogenetic diversity is the most unclear and controversial indicator measured by the authors. If species diversity and functional (read - ecological) diversity and their measurement do not raise questions, then the text contains practically no justifications and explanations of how the well-being/non-well-being of the bat community can be related to the phylogenetic distances between the species included in it. The only thing that is there is a link in the last paragraph of the Discussion to Darwin’s words about greater competition between closely related species, which in the context of this work looks rather primitive. And in fact, e.g., food competition between the insectivorous Myotis and Pteronotus, will be incomparably greater than between Myotis and the fruit-eating Artibeus, although the phylogenetic distance in both cases is approximately the same. In contrast, Myotis would have significantly less food competition with Lasiurus and Corynorhinus, which belong to the same family, because representatives of these genera feed in different habitats and in slightly different ways. So what does “phylogenetic diversity” actually reflect in relation to the influence of urbanization? It goes without saying that “evolutionary history among all species at each site” sounds like a nonsense, since the evolution of different species took place in different places and certainly not in the particular site under study (unless we are talking about an isolated island in the ocean). Obviously, a thoughtful and thorough explanation is required from the authors (or a revision of their views).
Discussion - The entire section raises questions. It contains quite a few general words about the significance of the results obtained, but, in fact, there is no clear explanation for some of them.
Firstly, the authors encountered a surprising result – greater species and ecological (“functional”) diversity in the territory with a high level of urbanization compared to suburban areas. The authors themselves admit that this result contradicts both expectations and previous similar studies. However, this statement is not followed by an analysis designed to explain the identified situation. From the reader’s perspective, one explanation suggests itself: the authors incorrectly assessed the degree of urbanization or oversimplified this assessment, failing to take into account some important ecological factors. If urbanization is assessed as the ratio of the built-up area to green areas, then modern development areas with concrete buildings and green areas in the form of lawns and young plantings will be for bats strikingly different from the historical city center with old buildings and old trees in albeit small parks. Obviously, in the first case, bats will be practically deprived of both food supply and shelter, while in the second case, old buildings and old tree plantings will provide them with a greater diversity of both. To this should be added the location of natural and artificial water sources (both the fact of their presence and location in relation to green areas). And finally, a number of species can fly to feed in old parks or gardens located in a highly urbanized area, resting during the day several kilometers away (in the case of the center of Oaxaca – for example, in Cerro del Fortin and Monte Alban). The authors discuss this issue very superficially, without trying to analyze the reasons for the identified situation.
Also, the authors, discussing the influence of urbanization on bats, do not even attempt to analyze the described community from the position of attitude to urbanization (according to the categories "urban-sensetive – urban-tolerant – synurbic" or something similar). Such an assessment, at least approximate, would be extremely appropriate in this work (especially against the background of a strange, poorly justified criterion of phylogenetic diversity).
Let me repeat: the work seems scientifically relevant and potentially interesting, and I have no complaints about the volume and quality of the primary material. But the authors should certainly critically review the results obtained and the reasons underlying them, eliminating the questions and misunderstandings described above. Only after this can the article could be recommended for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is much improved. Congratulations on the progress. However, there are still some minor issues that need to be addressed:
Tables:
Table 2: The term "Masa corporal (Weight)" is strange. It should be "Body mass."
Table 3: Since the authors are clearly discussing bats (Chiroptera), the term "Chiroptera order" is redundant and not needed in this table.
Table S1: For the diet, the correct term should be "pollinivore" or "palynivore," not "polynivore."
Text:
Some sentences need to be checked and corrected:
Page 7: The sentence "To determine the degree of total differentiation and the components of turnover and nestedness of bats among four sites (Center, South, East, and West), according to the Jaccard index [43]. We calculate:" should be corrected to "To determine the degree of total differentiation and the components of turnover and nestedness of bats among four sites (Center, South, East, and West), according to the Jaccard index [43], we calculated:"
Consistency in the use of terms:
Be consistent with the use of "diversity" versus "diversities," and "beta" as a word or a Greek letter. For example:
"2.6. Calculating taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic β diversity…."
If plural, then "diversities." Be consistent with the use of "beta" in the same context, e.g., "Taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic β diversity was calculated using the function beta.multi for multiple samples and beta.pair for pairwise values." OR RATHER "Taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic β diversities were calculated using the function beta.multi for multiple samples and beta.pair for pairwise values."
First paragraph in the Discussion:
This paragraph contains an extremely long sentence without proper flow. Consider revising it for clarity, e.g.,
"Some studies have demonstrated that cities are not favorable habitats for certain bat species, with many unable to tolerate urban environments [46]. These studies suggest that urbanization can generally be detrimental to the diversity and abundance of some aerial insectivore bat species [47; see also Table 2 in Palheta et al. 2020. Acta Chiropterol., 22: 403–416]. However, we recorded a high number of species, nearly 34% of the bat species reported for the State of Oaxaca (97 species;..."
Consistency in terminology:
Use "Central site" and "Central Valleys," not "Central sites" or "central Valleys." Also, be consistent with the use of "site" versus "Site."
Overall: Well done.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
See my comments above.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have definitely improved the manuscript and, first of all, the Discussion section. At least, there are now some explanations both to the phenomenon of high species diversity in a highly urbanized area observed by the authors and to the biological meaning of phylogenetic diversity. They have also corrected many details in the text that raised questions or misunderstandings, and have significantly expanded the list of references.
However, there are still a few small issues that require clarification.
Firstly, at the beginning of section ‘2.1 Study area’, there is still no clear and explicit phrase in the text that would say: “the material collection places were divided into 4 sites according to such and such parameters”, since this is not obvious neither from the text, nor, especially, from the Figure 1. Just one phrase will remove many doubts and misunderstandings. The words about “the Northern site was omitted from consideration” sound strange, as if the studied sites are some objective discrete entities. At the same time, it is clear that the designation of sites by cardinal directions is conditional: e.g. the “Western” site is located quite far to the north relative to all the others.
The phrase in the first paragraph of ‘Discussion’ section is clearly not agreed upon. The paragraph should be broken into two or three sentences.
«These organisms» – probably, “These animals” will be better.
“Fenton and Bogdanowicz [56] mention that foraging styles from a phylogenetic perspective suggest that aerial feeding in ancestral” – They were writing specifically about the genus Myotis (for which this is probably true). For bats in general, this is unlikely to be true, since the early bats were poor fliers.
«This genus Sturnira» - probably, «The genus Sturnira»
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
