Density Pattern of Flare-Horned Markhor (Capra falconeri) in Northern Pakistan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A read the manuscript entitled "Density Pattern of Flare-horned Markhor (Capra falconeri) in Northern Pakistan" with interest.  I believe that the work is suitable and should be published after corrections. Information from this region is scarce and therefore this manuscript, including the fact that the Authors seek to synthesize information from markhor densities, is therefore valuable. Detailed remarks below:

62-63: but also to evaluate the management effects in given area, see for example:

Valdez R., Michel S.,Subbotin A., Klich D. 2016. Status and Population Structure of a Hunted Population of Marco Polo Argali Ovis ammon polii (Cetartiodactyla, Bovidae) in Southeastern Tajikistan. Mammalia 80 (1): 49–57

127-131: what was the area studied for given regions and a total area studied, an a percent of Markor range?

150-151: some of areas were studied during sprung (April) but others during winter. In my opinion this could impact the results. for example: other groups (sex and age structure) are formed during spring comparing to winter. This is typical for argali, and makhor also create large winter groups, thus the probability of encountering animal of given sex is different during vegetation period comparing to winter period.

168-169: please support with citation the classes or describe the horns

177:  the literature should be listed for each study site (watershed).

The use of literature data should be mentioned in the beginning of the methods section

195: a repetition of methods

201: mean density

202: 1.28 individuals

Table 3, caption: population size? numbers?

220: 23 ind.

225: animals/herd should be also in other brackets

Table 3: why are there zeros after the decimal point in the part of the table?

289-291: repetition of results

241: different different

244: repetition of methods

table 4: please include a parentage of each class

293: This study’s results are comparable - which results?

discussion in general: It’s too long in my opinion, and should be shortened.

322-323: the classes can indicate the trophy hunting impact on the population structure, and should be discussed, not only mentioned

Author Response

A point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments is provided in the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please find my minor comments.

The manuscript entitled "Density Pattern of Flare-horned Markhor (Capra falconeri) in Northern Pakistan" provides information on Markhor, and it will be more informative for managers and policy makers. Please find my minor comments, and it can be published after addressing minor comments.
Line 74: IUCN…..2022 (follow format: no need accessed on March 25, 2022); No need about other species threatened status such as Kashmir musk deer.
Study area: Better to provide the areas of each region (see lines 127-131)
Lines 151-152: How many transects? Minimum and maximum transect length? Average transects with SD. Please mention it.
Line 160: herd size, location, composition and time (suggest elaborating more for sentence)
Table 3: digits after decimal (Format)
Lines 167-169: Reference?
Line 202: 1.79???
Line 268: better to mention with references or personal communication is also necessary.
Lines 293-295: better to compare otherwise remove it.

Author Response

A point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments is provided in the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The submitted manuscript is a great contribution to the conservation of the Flare-horned Markhor population in Northern Pakistan. It is very good that such studies are being produced. I have only one comment for the future work of the authors. It would be very beneficial if you use other population density estimation methods to verify the validity of the findings of the results. Then you can compare the results of two different methods and make conclusions from them.

Otherwise, I rate the manuscript very highly in terms of pleasant and readable English.

Author Response

A point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments is provided in the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This is a generally well written article, presenting novel results of recent surveys on globally significant populations of markhor. The data are presented in a narrow context, comparing a lot of the authors own results and the quality of the paper would increase significantly if it was presented in a broader context. One way of achieving this is to introduce a series of well considered research questions that each are embedded in the existing literature on not just markhor densities but on other species, regions, topics as well.

I also think that there is too much a focus on the markhor of Pakistan - some excellent work has been done on them in India, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, etc. and it would be good to incorporate this more into the Introduction and Discussion.

 

Specific comments

Rewrite the Abstract to start with a good few introductory sentences, then bring in some good well-structured research questions, then present the results in a more condensed manner (no need to present all estimates, just the take home message) and then add a few lines discussion your findings in a broader context.

 

The above, for the Abstract, is also true for the remainder of the paper - a bit of restructuring can make the article become more clear.

Line 18 - fill in the citation data

Line 56 - tigers are not a good examples as they live mainly in the lowlands and not mountains 

Line 66 - the sentence on Mammalian Orders is not relevant, remove

Line 84 - no need for abbreviations, just spell it out (also for line 120, 127, etc).

Line 101 - Southeast Asia - is this relevant? Pakistan is in South Asia. Surely there are better examples from South and Central Asia.

Line 142 - the lettering in the figures is very small - please change (the lettering in the photographs does not come across well either)

Line 180 - the analysis is clear

Discussion is a bit too restrictive to your own results - try to broaden it, bring in other studies, from other countries, compare and contrast.

The plate with photographs is stretched out over two pages - make sure it fits onto one.

 

 

 

Author Response

A point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments is provided in the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf