Nursery Roosts Used by Barbastelle Bats, Barbastella barbastellus (Schreber, 1774) (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) in European Lowland Mixed Forest Transformed by Spruce Bark Beetle, Ips typographus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The data, delineation and execution of the work is well done. Some minor modifications that I request were not done, but many of these were suggestions and my recommendation is to publisher the article.

 

Thiago B Vieira

Reviewer 2 Report

The changes made are sufficient. This paper will make a fine contribution to the literature. 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments in file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for this review. The answer was attached as an MS Word file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a review of the manuscript entitled “Nursery roosting of the forest specialist Western barbastelle bat in dead Norway spruce trees in Białowieża Primeval Forest: restoration of the natural state as a result of a mass outbreak of the spruce bark beetle”. The authors of this paper netted for bats at 4 locations and transmittered 9 lactating female barbastelle bats, an IUCN near threatened species. The authors observed this bat species in a fairly novel roost type, e.g. beetle killed spruce trees. As this species is mostly found in deciduous trees in many parts of its range, this is an interesting find that has been noted by few other authors. The novel part of this manuscript seems to be that most of the studied area is covered by mixed forest, but barbastelle bats are choosing to roost in beetle killed trees. This is an incredible finding very worth of publication. We assume that bats will roost in trees proportional to their availability unless bats show some preference for roost type. The fact that bats in this study like beetle killed spruce trees is interesting but expected based on previous research into the flexibility in roosting preference as forestry pressures increase.

This manuscript suffers from a few writing problems. First, and least of all, there are many grammatical errors that detract from the reading. I suggest a few edits below but my edits are not exhaustive. Second, the writing is sometimes confusing. Definitions are missing for multiple terms used in the methods. Also, many paragraphs in the results could be removed entirely if figures and tables were modified to better display the data. Third, and most concerning, the authors make many suggestions about conservation of this near threatened species but this manuscript does not suitably address those conservation concerns. The topic of salvage logging is introduced thoroughly in the introduction and discussed heavily in the discussion and conclusions sections of this manuscript but there is no mention of salvage logging areas or the practice in the methods or results. Though I do not think that salvage logging is good for biodiversity, I do not think that this paper speaks to the topic of salvage logging besides that this protected species uses a commonly salvage logged tree species. Thus, I am of the opinion that the discussion of salvage logging is overstepping the results of this study. This study reads more as an editorial on management than as a scientific study on roosting ecology.

Line 40. Consider rewording breeding places to places to give birth to offspring unless bats mate in trees.

Line 43. Why is space for summer roosts one of the most limiting factors for tree-dwelling bats? This needs to be explained and cited.

Line 53. Preference for deciduous forest is very strong language to use here. Preference indicates that bats use deciduous forest more than it is available. If this is true, you need to cite it. None of the citation for this statement speak to that fact. It is my guess that bats use forests in proportion to the roost sites available. You state clearly that more roost areas exist in deciduous forests thus we expect that bats will use those forests more. This is not preference. See Hall Krausman and Morrison 1997

Line 102 update year?

Line 178 change an to and

Line 198 change to appropriate permits were

Line 221 remove “the” from found roosting in the trees

Line 246 change place to netting location where

Line 247 this wording is unclear “There were 21 cases of bats roosting in 18 trees (Table 1), with more than one female occupying the same colonies in three cases”. Please change to something like, We found Barbastelle bats using 18 unique roost trees. Of the 9 transmittered females, two bats occupied the same roost on three occasions accounting for ___ of the roosting days.

For this edit, please indicate if more than two transmittered bats shared a roost and for how many nights (the blank above). 21 cases has no real meaning. It would also be nice if the coloring in table 1 were roost specific. That way we could see which bats shared roosts.

Line 248 you only found 18 roost trees saying that 20 were in spruce inflates the number of roosts that you actually found. Because barbastelle bats form colonies, the choices of individuals are not fully independent. So, the choices of the females that used the same roost are not fully based on the roost itself. Thus, you cannot assume that both females choices are independent and independently significant.

Line 259 please rewrite the following sentence “For three animals (numbers 6, 8 and 9) these are the minimum values: in the case of loss of contact with a given bat, the period between the loss of contact and its regaining, we treated as one more roost (while in fact there could have been more, but we could not be sure)”

According to table 1 there is no loss of contact for bat 6, only 8 and 9. Based on the way this is written, it is unclear if you are counting these bats as having use 3 roosts or only 2. Only discuss roosts that you observed. Your reader knows the bat exists somewhere during the loss of contact. But you cannot draw any conclusions about things you did not see.

Line 274 the language in this paragraph is unclear. “We observed at least two separations of colonies: females no. 2 and 3, who stayed in one tree for two days, then both moved to another one, but not at the same time. Females no. 5 and 9, after spending four days in one roost, separated and female no. 9 moved to another tree for the remaining days.”

I would suggest consulting a native English speaker. I asked for this information at my comment for line 247. However the wording here confuses the point. If the roost trees in table one were numbered, it would really clear this up and remove the need for this information to be written.

Line 278 change nearing the roosts to around roost trees

Line 280 you suggest that bats are selecting dead spruce. Please define what you mean by habitat selection. Most studies use a use versus available approach to suggest habitat selection. Your statistic given is not a use versus available statistic. It is a use statistic. Bats used a tree and the trees around it were likely part of that decision. We have no clue what the available habitat looks like based on this statistic. Is the entire forest dominated by spruce? If so, the bats don’t have a choice and cannot “select” anything but spruce. Adding some definition of selection or use would reduce any misconceptions about what you did and what bats are doing in this study. Again, see Hall Krausman and Morrison 1997 for further instruction on how to define terms. Also, your reader has no clue what your forest looks like until you mention it is mostly deciduous at line 312. This is too late but also requires explanation. Is the entire forest mixed or are there spruce stands? Most definitions of habitat selection are spatially hierarchical.

Line 314 this statement lacks sufficient justification.

Line 382 your data does not show this. Your data show that barbastelle bats will use spruce when it looks good. You did not compare roost types in differing species.

Line 384 your data do not speak to this conclusion either. In order to conclude this you should have data on whether the population increase is a migration response or a reproduction response. You do not mention population numbers in this study.

Line 388 I fully support your ideas that salvage logging is bad for biodiversity. The literature is ripe with studies that show this. This study, however, is not one of them. This is no measure of activity or population in salvage logged vs. non-salvage logged areas. Thus, all discussion of salvage logging is speculation as you suggest at line 342. So, knowing that this topic requires further research, how can this be a conclusion? You know that bats use beetle killed Norway spruce (so did citation 34 and 66 of your paper). So, all you can do based on this is suggest that management include protections of beetle killed trees and avoid activities like salvage logging which removes the roost type most used here. Concluding that removal of these trees impacts this species is a big leap based on the data provided.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for this review. The answer was attached as an MS Word file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx