Determinants of Small Mammals’ Body Condition in Eucalyptus Dominated Landscapes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting study on how Eucalyptus plantations influence the body condition of small vertebrates. The few ecological studies on Eucalyptus plantations contrast with their increasing cover. I have some comments intended to clarify some points and improve this manuscript: 

L42 relationships, "and" increase 

L54  "..more limited" than...

L70 It is not clear the relationship between reduction in body size and body condition

L76. Cite those few studies

L73-78. Make reference to studies in other exotic tree plantations (e.g., tree species of the pinus genus) 

L81 "aiming to test". Change to:  "aiming to evaluate the following questions:". Express (i) as a research question

L86-89 Although the hypothesized effects of season and pressure from species interactions are explained in Table 1, the Introduction lacks a theoretical basis for understanding them. Establish the linkages between these effects with forestry plantations (e.g., competition and parasitism can be stronger in Eucalyptus plantations) 

Table 1. The effect of precipitation is closely related to that of shrubs present in the understory (the more rains, the more abundant the understory is). An extra explanation is needed to distinguish between these effects, while methodology should consider these nonindependent effects. 

L89-95 Move this text before your goals

L165 for "variable" interdependencies

L178 "species present several similarities": morphological also?

L178-182 Indicate which distribution was assumed to SMI and if mixed effect regression was used in SEMs (point out if random effects related to spatial location were included)

L212-217. Show results of goodness of fit tests for SEM (e.g., C test)

Fig. 4. Causal relationships between site-level variables and biotic variables (abundance of vertebrates and parasites) should be also evaluated unless some explanation is given.

 

 

Author Response

REVIEWER #1

Reviewer 1: This is an interesting study on how Eucalyptus plantations influence the body condition of small vertebrates. The few ecological studies on Eucalyptus plantations contrast with their increasing cover. I have some comments intended to clarify some points and improve this manuscript

AUTHORS: Thank you for you comments on the manuscript

 

Reviewer 1: L42 relationships, "and" increase

AUTHORS: We changed the sentence as suggested by the referee;

 

Reviewer 1: L54  "…more limited" than...

AUTHORS: We changed the sentence as suggested by the referee;

 

Reviewer 1: L70 It is not clear the relationship between reduction in body size and body condition

AUTHORS: Body condition is most often assessed by estimating body condition indexes, and many of these indexes used in ecology are based on m (e.g., residuals from the regression of mass against a linear measure of size; Hayes, & Shonkwiler, 2001; Peig & Green, 2009). In such an approach, a reduction in body size leads frequently to a reduction in body condition. We added this information to the manuscript. Nevertheless, we changed the example by another one explicitly showing a reduction of body condition in forestry areas:

“For example, Prosser and colleagues [23] showed that Bornean banteng (Bos javanicus lowi) populations inhabiting logged forest showed a lower body condition than those living in reduced-impact logging areas., and in California…”

Hayes, J. P. and Shonkwiler, J. S. 2001. Morphometric indicators of body condition: worthwhile or wishful thinking? In: Speakman, J. R. (ed.), Body composition analysis of animals. A handbook of non-destructive methods. Cambridge Univ. Press, pp. 838.

Peig; And J. and Green J. 2009. New perspectives for estimating body condition from mass/length data: the scaled mass index as an alternative method, 118(12): 1883–1891. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.17643.x    

 

Reviewer 1: L76. Cite those few studies

AUTHORS: We added an example to the mentioned sentence: “…whose condition will affect upper trophic levels within the community [e.g., 27]”

 

Reviewer 1: L73-78. Make reference to studies in other exotic tree plantations (e.g., tree species of the pinus genus)

AUTHORS: We have focused on Eucalyptus plantations because these exotic tree plantations have specific characteristics (extension in Europe, structural differences to native forest -  e.g. understory and canopy -, high intensive forestry regimes, etc.) that make them unique and with differentiated impacts. As this is the model used in our study and we wanted to justify why it's important to assess its impact on wildlife (body condition) we believe that we should focus on Eucalyptus plantations in this part of the introduction section.

 

Reviewer 1: L81 "aiming to test". Change to:  "aiming to evaluate the following questions:". Express (i) as a research question

AUTHORS: Thank you for your comment, we changed the sentence as suggested and reformulated (i) to be a question.

 

Reviewer 1: L86-89 Although the hypothesized effects of season and pressure from species interactions are explained in Table 1, the Introduction lacks a theoretical basis for understanding them. Establish the linkages between these effects with forestry plantations (e.g., competition and parasitism can be stronger in Eucalyptus plantations)

AUTHORS: We understand the referee’s concerns regarding the lack of a theoretical basis for the hypotheses in this sentence. However, as mentioned, we explained the underlying reason for each hypothesis in table 1, and we believe that adding that information here will be a repetition of what was stated in the table. However, we changed the sentence to clarify what was our analytical framework: “…we tested specifically the influence of (i) habitat structure (e.g., shrubs, herbs cover, Forest Landscape Integrity Index-FLII), (ii) season weather conditions (e.g., monthly average precipitation), and (iii) relative abundance of predators (i.e., mesocarnivores), ectoparasites and competitors (i.e., wild ungulates) on the small mammal body condition (see Table 1 for variables and hypothesis reasoning).”.

 

Reviewer 1: Table 1. The effect of precipitation is closely related to that of shrubs present in the understory (the more rains, the more abundant the understory is). An extra explanation is needed to distinguish between these effects, while methodology should consider these nonindependent effects.

AUTHORS: We agree that in native areas this may be the case. However, in agroecosystems, shrubs cover is often more linked to the management options of the manager and not to the climatic characteristics of the sampling region. But to be safe we previously tested all possible multicollinearity between all tested drivers. Specifically, these two variables have a non-significant correlation (r=0.25, p=0.07).

 

Reviewer 1: L89-95 Move this text before your goals

AUTHORS: We moved the text as suggested by the referee.

 

Reviewer 1: L165 for "variable" interdependencies

AUTHORS: We changed the text as suggested by the referee.

 

Reviewer 1: L178 "species present several similarities": morphological also?

AUTHORS: Thank you for highlighting this issue. We were referring to ecological features that could influence body condition, namely diet, predation pressure, etc. Morphology (a biological feature) is not quite similar between both rodents species (A. sylvaticus e slightly bigger than M. musculus, although the body design is similar), but a robust body condition index should not show differences in CIs (i.e. well-being) if species have a similar body design (i.e. a similar morphogenesis) (Peig and Green 2010), as is the case of both rodent species considered in our study (or when the same species shows a marked sexual dimorphism).

Peig, J. and Green, A.J. (2010), The paradigm of body condition: a critical reappraisal of current methods based on mass and length. Functional Ecology, 24: 1323-1332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2010.01751.x

 

Reviewer 1: L178-182 Indicate which distribution was assumed to SMI and if mixed effect regression was used in SEMs (point out if random effects related to spatial location were included)

AUTHORS: Thank you for your comments. We added the requested information (i.e., Gaussian distribution) to the manuscript.

 

Reviewer 1: L212-217. Show results of goodness of fit tests for SEM (e.g., C test)

AUTHORS: We added the requested information to the manuscript.

 

Reviewer 1: Fig. 4. Causal relationships between site-level variables and biotic variables (abundance of vertebrates and parasites) should be also evaluated unless some explanation is given.

AUTHORS: Thank you for your comments. The relationships between independent variables used in SEM, are presented in the supplementary material, and we highlighted the only significant relationships between them (“However, our data showed that in areas with higher wild boar abundance, carnivores were less common (β = -0.93, SD = 0.35, P = 0.01; Figure S1b). This might indicate that carnivore abundance could indirectly promote rodents' SMI.”). We explicitly mention that the results are presented in the supplementary material in the new version of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors Dear Authors, please make changes to the manuscript.    

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REVIEWER #2

Reviewer: L33 - Species diversity and structure of forest stand in the forests affect the habitat of many species of birds and mammals (Oliver et al. 1997, Åberg et al. 2003, Silaeva et. 2021). It is necessary to show that the forest stand affects different species of animals (mammals and birds) and provide appropriate references in the list of references.

1. Oliver, C. D.; Osawa, A.; Camp, A. Forest dynamics and resulting animal and plant population changes at the stand and landscape levels. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 1997. 6(3-4), 281-312.
2. Silaeva, T.; Andreychev, A.; Kiyaykina, O.; Balčiauskas, L. Taxonomic and ecological composition of forest stands inhabited by forest dormouse Dryomys nitedula (Rodentia: Gliridae) in the Middle Volga. Biologia, 2021. 76(5), 1475-1482.

AUTHORS: This initial sentence of the introduction is more general and introduced the topic of how the establishment of agroecosystems affect native biodiversity. And the studies that we cited in our manuscript (Brockerhoff, E.G.; Jactel, H.; Parrotta, J.A.; Ferraz, S.F.B. Role of eucalypt and other planted forests in biodiversity conservation and the provision of biodiversity-related ecosystem services. For. Ecol. Manag. 2013, 301, 43–50. / Gaston, K.J.; Blackburn, T.M.; Klein Goldewijk, K. Habitat conversion and global avian biodiversity loss. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2003, 270, 1293–1300.), show exactly what, i.e. that plantations affect biodiversity, inducing the loss of some species. In one of the studies is clearly stated that “a study of different taxonomic groups in eucalypt and natural forest in Amazonia, found that on average 50% of primary forest, species were absent in eucalypt plantations “, and on the other, they show that “a loss of between a fifth and a quarter of avian species” is due to habitat conversion to plantations and other agriculture systems. Examples of how Eucalyptus plantations affect specific species or functional groups are presented latter (e.g., lines 40-59).

 

 

Reviewer: L103-112 - There is no explanation why the studies were carried out at 11 sites with eucalyptus and 3 with natural native vegetation. Why not 5 and 5 plots and so on? Why were not equal numbers chosen?

AUTHORS: Thank you for your comments. We sampled 8 Eucalyptus plantations dominated areas (and not 11) and three native vegetation sites, totalizing 11 study areas. We recognize that there is an unbalanced number of sites from both landscape types. Plantations vary greatly in structure along the production cycle, due to the management options that imply a control of the understory, and to the growth of the trees itself along the 9-year harvesting cycle. Therefore, to incorporate such variation in plantations (encompassed in the models through the herbs and shrub abundance, but also the presence of eucalyptus trees), which is lower in native vegetation of the regions where the project was implemented we increased the number of eucalyptus plantations areas that included, early planted stands, middle age and pre-harvesting stands. This information was added to the new version of the manuscript.

 

Reviewer: L186-191 - It is necessary to provide a calculation of the results of the relative abundance of small mammals in different biotopes. The units of measurement should be the number of individuals per 100 trap days. This will show how comparable the results of the catches are. It is advisable to provide data on each type of rodent. You don't have enough of them. This can and should be done.

AUTHORS: Thank you for your comment. Alongside the number of captured individuals of each species, we added their relative abundance to the new version of the manuscript.

 

Reviewer: Figure 3 - Exclude a low-abundance species from the graphs. It is not practical to represent this on a graph. No significance based on sample size.

AUTHORS: We represented in this figure the species for which we captured ~30 individuals, i.e. wood mouse (Apodemus sylvaticus; N = 80), Algerian mouse (Mus spretus; N = 47), and greater-white-toothed shrew (Crocidura russula; N = 29). We believe that as these are the three species that were used in the modeling procedure, it is useful to the reader to have an idea of how the SMI varies between the habitat and gender of these three species;

 

Reviewer: L247-249 - Remove from analysis. There is no need to highlight this species. Just one animal. This is not enough to talk about it.

AUTHORS: As mentioned in the previous reply to the referee we captured and used the data from 29 individuals of the greater-white-toothed shrew (Crocidura russula) and not one as the referee states.

 

Reviewer: L356-375 - The conclusions should clearly state the conclusion of your results. Now this is not the case.

AUTHORS: Thank you for your comment. We have introduced some changes to focus the conclusion of «on our results. Nevertheless, we believe the conclusion section should also mention some management and conservation implications of our results, and therefore we maintained this goal.  

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

'globulus' is written with one l, not two as you write in the abstract.

'Forest integrity' is a novel, dubious and not widely - accepted term in forestry literature. The network address that you site as reference makes things more confusing. Eucalypt plantations are not natural but totally the product of human intervention in the nature. According to the definition, their 'integrity' should be close to zero. 

You use only one small mamal species and your statistic analysis is rudimentary.

Most important of all, you do not provide plausible explanations as to why SMI condition of the mammals is attributed to the factors analysed and something else (incestry, lack of food, etc).

You mention or analyse nothing about the possible predators of the small mammals.

Conclusively, your analysis is merely a statistical correlation without scientific explanation and, most importantly, justification provided.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor edition is required by a native english speaker.

Author Response

REVIEWER #3

Reviewer: 'globulus' is written with one l, not two as you write in the abstract.

AUTHORS: Thank you for detecting this typo. We corrected it.

 

Reviewer: 'Forest integrity' is a novel, dubious and not widely - accepted term in forestry literature. The network address that you site as reference makes things more confusing. Eucalypt plantations are not natural but totally the product of human intervention in the nature. According to the definition, their 'integrity' should be close to zero.

AUTHORS: The definition of forestry integrity we used is linked to the Forest Landscape Integrity Index that “integrates data on observed and inferred forest pressures and lost forest connectivity to generate the first globally-consistent, continuous index of forest integrity as determined by the degree of anthropogenic modification”. This index is based on the Global Tree Cover (Hansen et al. 2013), and has 300 m resolution and according to Grantham et al (2020) “combines three main data inputs: (1) observed pressures (infrastructure, agriculture, tree cover loss), (2) inferred pressure modeled based on proximity to the observed pressures, and (3) change in forest connectivity”. Therefore, Eucalyptus plantations have often low FLII due to the high scores of criteria 1) and 2). It has not a priori a 0 score in this index, especially because its score is associated to each 300x300m pixels, which can include more than one cover type. We now added a small description of the index and a citation to the paper that explained the index composition.

 

Grantham, H.S., Duncan, A., Evans, T.D. et al. Anthropogenic modification of forests means only 40% of remaining forests have high ecosystem integrity. Nat Commun 11, 5978 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19493-3

Hansen, M. C.; Potapov, P. V.; Moore, R.; Hancher, M.; Turubanova, S. A.; Tyukavina, A.; Thau, D.; Stehman, S. V.; Goetz, S. J.; Loveland, T. R.; Kommareddy, A.; Egorov, A.; Chini, L.; Justice, C. O.; Townshend, J. R. G. (2013). High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change. Science, 342(6160), 850–853.

 

Reviewer: You use only one small mamal species and your statistic analysis is rudimentary.

AUTHORS: We could not understand this referee's comment. Our analysis was based on three small mammal species [wood mouse (Apodemus sylvaticus; N = 80), Algerian mouse (Mus spretus; N = 47), and greater-white-toothed shrew (Crocidura russula; N = 29)], and and not on a single small mammal species. Moreover, we do not also agree with the referee that the structural equation modelling (SEM) approach is a rudimentary statistical analysis. Please see the paper Lefcheck, J.S. piecewiseSEM: Piecewise structural equation modelling in r for ecology, evolution, and systematics. Methods Ecol. 509 Evol. 2016, 7(5), 573–579. Several studies published in high-ranked journals have used this well-accepted analysis. For example:

Dwyer, J.M. and Laughlin, D.C. (2017), Constraints on trait combinations explain climatic drivers of biodiversity: the importance of trait covariance in community assembly. Ecol Lett, 20: 872-882. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12781

Grotzinger, A.D., de la Fuente, J., Davies, G. et al. Transcriptome-wide and stratified genomic structural equation modeling identify neurobiological pathways shared across diverse cognitive traits. Nat Commun 13, 6280 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-33724-9

Spada, A., Tucci, F.A., Ummarino, A. et al. Structural equation modeling to shed light on the controversial role of climate on the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Sci Rep 11, 8358 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-87113-1

 

 

Reviewer: Most important of all, you do not provide plausible explanations as to why SMI condition of the mammals is attributed to the factors analysed and something else (incestry, lack of food, etc).

AUTHORS: We acknowledge the referee's concerns about the mechanistic link between the tested drivers and the SMI patterns. We tried to explain the mechanistic link between the tested drivers and the SMI in Table One where we presented the hypothesis reasoning and predictions for each of the tested drivers. In the new version we mention some drivers that could also influence small mammals body condition but we could not test due to the lack of data.

 

Reviewer: You mention or analyse nothing about the possible predators of the small mammals.

AUTHORS: Thank you again for your concern regarding the effect of predators on prey body condition. We agree with the referee that predators can constrain prey SMI and that is the reason why we tested the effect of predator abundances on small mammal body condition, We hypothesize that “Areas with higher carnivore abundances will induce a higher predation risk for small mammals, since they are the main prey of carnivores in the study areas. Therefore, individuals subject to higher predation risks may present lower body condition values.” (see table 1),

 

Reviewer: Conclusively, your analysis is merely a statistical correlation without scientific explanation and, most importantly, justification provided.

AUTHORS: In table 1 we present the tested hypothesis reasoning and predictions linked to each of the tested variables, and corroborated each prediction, linked to an ecological mechanism, with references. Furthermore, we have discussed the results in light of each species ecological patterns and the landscape context of the studied areas. Thus, we cannot agree with the referee.

 

Reviewer: Comments on the Quality of English Language: Minor edition is required by a native english speaker.

AUTHORS: Thank you for your comment. We have reviewed the manuscript again to detect and correct any grammar/syntax problem. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See the file attached, please.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REVIEWER #4

Methods

Reviewer: Table 1 is too complex and confused. It contains data sources and some results of other studies that seem to be explanation to the present study (hypotheses?). Reedit it please andwrite the different parts to the right chapter.

AUTHORS: Thank you for your comments. The objective of Table 1 is to give the reader information regarding what variables were considered in the analysis, what were the ecological reasoning for choosing it (hypotheses reasoning), what we believe to be the prediction if our hypotheses are true, and were we collected the data for each variable. We modified the table to clarify it.

 

Reviewer: Relative abundances of fox deer species and wild boar and ectoparasites abundance are from unpublished sources. it is not possible to judge their relevance, accuracy and spatial overlap with the small mammal research. The resources are summarised in a table only and not written among the methods. Please give more details and explain it!

AUTHORS: Thank you for highlighting this issue. We have now added a description of the methods used to estimate carnivore, ungulates and ectoparasite abundance.

 

Results

Reviewer: 214-215 What kind of ecological cause-effect relation could be among the small mammals and deer? What kind of deer? Coud be unknown commonfactors in the background.

AUTHORS: Thank you for your comment. In table 1 we explicitly list the deer species considered in the analysis [i.e. Relative abundance of red deer (Cervus elaphus), roe deer (C. capreolus) and fallow deer (D. dama) per camera-trap grid] and what kind of effect we considered: “… ungulates can alter habitat quality by decreasing vegetation cover and in turn, resources availability for small mammals [38]. In addition, they can also alter the landscape (e.g., wild boar trampling leads to disturbed soil and vegetation removal; [39]. These disturbances may affect the small mammals’ availability of food and shelter re-sources, leading to lower health conditions.”. In the discussion section, we detail our interpretation of the detected patterns related to ungulate influence and what we think can be the most probable mechanism leading to the detected effect (see lines 339-360).

 

Reviewer: 223 “The SEM explained a moderate amount of the variance in small mammals’ body condition across our study sites (R2 = 0.27)“ It means that other, unknown factors has stronger impact.

AUTHORS: We agree with the referee. Another untested factor may be contributing to shaping SMI variation in the studied population. We added a paragraph to the discussion section on other untested factors that may be also driving body condition variation and why we were unable to consider them in our study.

 

Reviewer: 240-240 What is the relation between the precipitation and the Eucalyptus forest? Is the precipitation different in two kinds of forest? Is there any influence of forest type to the precipitation?

AUTHORS: No relation was detected between those variables in the modeling procedure. The plantation areas and the native areas were located in the same region in Portugal (Central region) and probably this may be driving a lower variation in precipitation between areas.

 

Reviewer: What is the effect of wild boar on the bodyweight of rodents? It is only a correlation not a cause-effect relation.

AUTHORS: As mentioned in a previous reply to a referee comment, wild boars may “…alter habitat quality by decreasing vegetation cover and in turn, resources availability for small mammals [38]. In addition, they can also alter the landscape (e.g., wild boar trampling leads to disturbed soil and vegetation removal; [39]. These disturbances may affect the small mammals’ availability of food and shelter resources, leading to lower health conditions.”. We think this may actually be a cause-effect relation.

 

Reviewer: 244-246 “However, our data showed that in areas with higher wild boar abundance, carnivores were less common (β = -0.93, SD = 0.35, P = 0.01; Figure S1b). This might indicate that carnivore abundance could indirectly promote rodents' SMI.” It is speculation.

AUTHORS: We acknowledge the referee’s comments. However, we do not consider it a speculation, but a possible justification for this pattern, i.e. an indirect effect. If we detected that in areas where carnivores are more abundant, there is a decrease in wild boars abundance, and these ungulates have a negative effect on small mammals body condition we believe that it is plausible that there is a positive, but indirect effect of carnivores on small mammals condition (some studies showed that red foxes can predate wounded animals, piglets or consume wild boar carcasses; e.g. Lanszki et al., 2006).

 

Lanszki, J.; Heltai, M.; Szabó, L. (2006). Feeding habits and trophic niche overlap between sympatric golden jackal (Canis aureus) and red fox (Vulpes vulpes) in the Pannonian ecoregion (Hungary). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 84(11), 1647–1656. doi:10.1139/z06-147.

 

Reviewer: 247-249 “Ultimately, for the white-toothed shrew, we were not able to determine the effect of the selected variables on the SMI due to the reduced number of samples (i.e., the models did not converge).”This is the only species where there was significant difference in SMI among the forest types. Could it be caused by low sample size?

AUTHORS: We agree with the referee. The incapacity to run the models and obtain an influential pattern of any of the tested drivers is probably linked to the small number of captured individuals (as we stated in the manuscript: “… due to the reduced number of samples…”).

 

Discussion

Reviewer: 270-272 “Additionally, females C. russula exhibited higher values of SMI in native areas when compared to Eucalyptus plantations. This species presents a female-biased dispersal, mostly related to reproductive opportunities [56,57], although with typically short ranges [58].” How big is the sexual dimorphism in this species. Could it cause the difference in the body weight in two forest types?

AUTHORS: Thank you for your comments. According to Peig and Green (2010) SMI is a robust body condition index that does not show differences in CIs (i.e. well-being) when species have a similar body design (i.e. a similar morphogenesis); e.g., when the same species shows a marked sexual dimorphism. Therefore, sexual dimorphism will not have an effect on sexual differences in SMI.

 

Peig, J. and Green, A.J. (2010), The paradigm of body condition: a critical reappraisal of current methods based on mass and length. Functional Ecology, 24: 1323-1332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2010.01751.x

 

Reviewer: 275-277 “Eucalyptus plantations’ management often leads to a drastic understory reduction [59], which may result in a smaller abundance and, consequently, mating choices.” It is supposition only. Did the authors study the understoryon the sampling spots or in the vicinity?

AUTHORS: We acknowledge the referee concern regarding the variation in understory cover. In each sampling site we evaluated the percentage of cover of all types of shrubs and herbs species within the 1 m radius (see Table 1). This data was incorporated in our modeling procedure.

 

Reviewer: 287-290 “However, our results support the hypothesis that forest landscape integrity index (FLII), ungulate abundances, and climatic conditions directly influence small mammal body conditions, whereas rodent SMI is influenced only by climatic conditions and wild boar abundance.” No, the relation does not mean influence! The cause-effect relation is not proved. It is speculation.

AUTHORS: To address the referee concerns we changed the sentence to highlight the relationship between those variables and small mammals body condition and not the “effect”.

 

Reviewer: 314-316 “small mammals frequentlyavoid areas with higher deer abundances due to direct competition for food, trampling,and reduction in vegetation” Is the food competition proved? Do they feed on the same resources? Are these in restricted quantity and/or quality? Without evidences it is speculation again.

AUTHORS: Thank you for your comment. Several studies (e.g., Afonso et al. 2021; Keesing 1998; Muñoz et al., 2009; Saetnan & Skarpe, 2006) showed that small mammals avoid areas where ungulates are more abundant, and there is no reason to think that the studied population may evidence a different pattern. It is true that we did not evaluate the direct effect of ungulates on vegetation in each area (which would be a time-consuming and demanding task), but due to evidence in other areas, we can hypothesize that the same could be occurring in our study areas. Since food competition between both taxa can be more disputable, we retrieve this references from the mentioned sentence.

 

Afonso, B. C., Swanepoel, L. H., Rosa, B. P., Marques, T. A., Rosalino, L. M., Santos-Reis, M., & Curveira-Santos, G. (2021). Patterns and drivers of rodent abundance across a South African multi-use landscape. Animals, 11(9), 2618. doi:10.3390/ani11092618

Keesing, F. (1998) Impacts of ungulates on the demography and diversity of small mammals in central Kenya. Oecologia 116, 381–389 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050601

Muñoz, A.; Bonal, R.; Díaz, M. (2009) Ungulates, rodents, shrubs: interactions in a diverse Mediterranean ecosystem. Basic and Applied Ecology, 10, 151–160.

Saetnan, E.R; Skarpe, C. (2006) The effect of ungulate grazing on a small mammal community in southeastern Botswana, African Zoology, 41:1, 9-16, DOI: 10.1080/15627020.2006.11407331

 

 

 

Reviewer: The authors always suggest a positive correlation between the rodent abundance or density and the body weight. Is it proved? Is the body weight higher at higher densities? Are there any density dependence.

AUTHORS: Thank you for your comment. We did not want to assume that there is a correlation between rodents abundance/density and body weight. What we meant is that high deer densities may be a suitable ally against shrub encroachment [71], which facilitates access to food (by assuring landscape heterogeneity) that can promote small mammals density [72,73] or increase the body condition of individuals. We changed the text to clarify this idea.

 

Reviewer: 335 “we detected a negative effect of wild boar abundance on the small mammal” relation is not effect. Please correct it everywhere!

AUTHORS: We have changed the text as suggested, when appropriate.

 

Reviewer: 339-341 “Such disturbance will induce a decrease in small mammals’ abundance [73], and ultimately may lead to a reduction in small mammals’ health conditions.” Not proved. The predation on rodents by wild boar os eny othe predator did not worse the health condition.

AUTHORS: Thank you for your comment. We are not mentioning that there is a link between a decrease in abundance and a decrease in health conditions. We are stating that the disturbance linked to wild boar activity (rooting disturbs soil dynamics and habitat vegetation) will reduce food availability and refuge. This reduction in resources can lead to a reduction in small mammals' abundance or health conditions.

 

Reviewer: 342-343 “We could not confirm any direct effect of Eucalyptus plantations on the health conditions of small mammals.” This is the result but not the health condition but the body weight

AUTHORS: Thank you for your comment. As suggested we changed the sentence to clearly mention small mammals' body condition and not health conditions.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The article may be published at the discretion of the journal's editorial board.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer's comments are sufficiently addressed.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the calrification and corrections.