Landscape Composition Matters for Mammals in Agricultural Ecosystems: A Multiscale Study in Southeastern Brazil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. While there is no need to focus on the exact value of adjR²，R², hopefully the authors can explain the significance of the data.

2.“3. Results ” is a liitle simple. It is suggested that authors can explain the findings compared with the exsiting research conclusions.

3. I think if authors can give some sugestions on how to improve management and conservation measures in agricultural ecosystems，it would be very helpful.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

1. While there is no need to focus on the exact value of adjR²，R², hopefully the authors can explain the significance of the data.

 

Thank you for pointing this out. When the values ​​were significant they were considered, but we chose to select effect scales based on the construction of univariate linear models based on distances using the coefficient of determination (R² = proportion of variation explained by the model) as a selection criterion

 

2.“3. Results ” is a liitle simple. It is suggested that authors can explain the findings compared with the exsiting research conclusions.

Thank you. The results obtained were better highlighted in discussion by comparing with studies in several other regions, such as Ethiopia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Uruguay and Guatemala.

 

3. I think if authors can give some sugestions on how to improve management and conservation measures in agricultural ecosystems，it would be very helpful.

Done. At the end of the discussion, some strategies were presented to improve landscape management.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. I noticed that the text repetition rate in this article is as high as 44%. I kindly request that you address this issue before resubmitting your revised version. Ensuring that your research offers novel insights and does not replicate or excessively overlap with previously published work is essential.

2. The research area should be clearly defined in the title.

3. The introduction section should provide a review of the research progress of relevant work, summarize the shortcomings of existing research, and propose the scientific questions of this article.

4. The figure should have self-clarity. What do the letters a-m in Figure 1 represent?

5. What is the main research method used in the article? Suggestions should be clear and expressed separately in sections.

6. The analysis of the results is not in-depth enough, and the differences in Landscape Composition Matters should be analyzed from different perspectives.

7. The discussion is not in-depth enough, and the resolution of scientific issues should be addressed in the discussion section. The main conclusions of this article should be compared with similar studies by other scholars, pointing out the shortcomings of this article and the direction for further research.

8. What is the reason and standard for setting the buffer to a 250 meter interval?

9. It is suggested that the author broaden the international perspective of this article. In other words, what is the reference value of this study for similar regions internationally.

10. What is the reason for choosing the research area in this article? Suggest inserting photos of sampling points.

In summary, it is recommended to revise the manuscript and resubmit it.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of the English language is required.

Author Response

1. I noticed that the text repetition rate in this article is as high as 44%. I kindly request that you address this issue before resubmitting your revised version. Ensuring that your research offers novel insights and does not replicate or excessively overlap with previously published work is essential.

Thank you for pointing this out. We carefully read the article to resolve this. If this still persists, it would be important highlight where this occurs.

2. The research area should be clearly defined in the title.

Done.

3. The introduction section should provide a review of the research progress of relevant work, summarize the shortcomings of existing research, and propose the scientific questions of this article.

Again, we carefully read the introduction section to resolve this. If this still persists, it would be important highlight where this occurs.

4. The figure should have self-clarity. What do the letters a-m in Figure 1 represent?

The figure caption was reformulated and related to the landscape information already available in the Supplementary Material

5. What is the main research method used in the article? Suggestions should be clear and expressed separately in sections.

The main research method was the use of camera traps in the center of the sampled landscape and is separated into data sampling and data analysis

6. The analysis of the results is not in-depth enough, and the differences in Landscape Composition Matters should be analyzed from different perspectives.

We certainly have new ways of analyzing the results, but we chose to select effect scales based on the construction of univariate linear models based on distances using the coefficient of determination (R² = proportion of variation explained by the model) as a selection criterion.

7. The discussion is not in-depth enough, and the resolution of scientific issues should be addressed in the discussion section. The main conclusions of this article should be compared with similar studies by other scholars, pointing out the shortcomings of this article and the direction for further research.

The results obtained were better highlighted by comparing with others studies and and directions for future research were given at the end of the discussion.

 

8. What is the reason and standard for setting the buffer to a 250 meter interval?

When we started sampling, approaches to evaluating effect scale in mammals were just beginning and, therefore, we preferred to test using values ​​at intervals smaller than 250m.

9. It is suggested that the author broaden the international perspective of this article. In other words, what is the reference value of this study for similar regions internationally.

The results obtained were better highlighted by comparing with studies in several other regions, such as Ethiopia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Uruguay and Guatemala

10. What is the reason for choosing the research area in this article? Suggest inserting photos of sampling points.

These areas have been the target of many studies by our team evaluating other biological groups and different approaches (See some references below). This allows robustness to the results and better understanding of the processes related to landscape modification.

MACIEL, R; Braga, RF; CARVALHO, RL. ; Louzada, Júlio ; SLADE, EM. . Tropical savanna conversion to exotic pastures negatively affects taxonomic and functional diversity of dung beetle assemblages, but not dung removal. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 1, p. 1-11, 2023

FIALHO, M.Y.G. ; Cerboncini, RS; PASSAMANI, M. Linear forest patches and the conservation of small mammals in human-altered landscapes. MAMMALIAN BIOLOGY, v. 96, p. 87-92, 2019

SIQUEIRA, FF; CALASANS, LV ; FURTADO, RQ; CARNEIRO, VM; Berg, E. How scattered trees matter for biodiversity conservation in active pastures. AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT, v. 250, p. 12-19, 2017

SALES, L. P. ; HAYWARD, M. W. ; PASSAMANI, M. Local vs landscape drivers of primate occupancy in a Brazilian fragmented region. Mammal Research, v. 25, p. 1-10, 2015

CASTRO, GC; BERG, E. Structure and conservation value of high-diversity hedgerows in southeastern Brazil. Biodiversity and Conservation, v. 22, p. 2041-2056, 2013.

Rocha, MF ; PASSAMANI, M; Louzada, J. A small mammal community in a forest fragment, vegetation corridor and coffee matrix system in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Plos One, 6, p. 1-9, 2011

LOUZADA, JNC; SILVA, P. R. Utilisation of introduced Brazilian pastures ecosystems by native dung beetles: diversity patterns and resource use. Insect Conservation and Diversity 2, p. 45-52, 2009. 

In summary, it is recommended to revise the manuscript and resubmit it.

The manuscript was revised, but I was unable to resubmit it through the system.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.      Page 2: This study sampled medium and large-sized mammals in 13 agricultural landscapes (1267 ha each) of Minas Gerais state, southeast of Brazil. How to select this 13 landscapes in Figure 1? What are the criteria for this sampling?

2.      Page 4: It is necessary to explain why collected data in eight spatial scales from buffers around focal point with radius sizes ranging from 250 to 2000 meters with 250 m of interval (Figure 2). How about with 500 m of interval?

3.      Page 7: It is interesting that the forest and coffee covers influenced negatively the species richness. Please explain this situation more detail.

4.      Page 8: It is also an important finding that the pasture cover, number of fragments and mean distance among the forest fragments influenced positively the mammal richness (Figure 4). Please explain in detail.

5.      Page 8: The forest cover (R² = 16%, P = 0.022), coffee cover (R² = 11%, P = 0.142) and the mean distance among the forest fragments (R² = 11%, P = 0.175). How about the number of fragments? Please add this result in paper.

6.    Page 9: This study obtained 454 independent records of 24 species of medium and large-sized mammals from nine families, including 18 native terrestrial species, two native arboreal species and four exotic species. What kinds of species are more suitable for pasture cover?

Author Response

1. Page 2: This study sampled medium and large-sized mammals in 13 agricultural landscapes (1267 ha each) of Minas Gerais state, southeast of Brazil. How to select this 13 landscapes in Figure 1? What are the criteria for this sampling?

Thank you for pointing this out. These landscapes have been the target of many studies by our team evaluating other biological groups and different approaches (See some references below). This allows robustness to the results and better understanding of the processes related to landscape modification.

Maciel, R; Braga, RF; Carvalho, RL. ; Louzada, Júlio ; Slade, EM. . Tropical savanna conversion to exotic pastures negatively affects taxonomic and functional diversity of dung beetle assemblages, but not dung removal. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 1, p. 1-11, 2023

Fialho, M.Y.G. ; Cerboncini, RS; Passamani, M. Linear forest patches and the conservation of small mammals in human-altered landscapes. MAMMALIAN BIOLOGY, v. 96, p. 87-92, 2019

Siqueira, FF; Calasans, LV ; Furtado, RQ; Carneiro, VM; Berg, E. How scattered trees matter for biodiversity conservation in active pastures. AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT, v. 250, p. 12-19, 2017

Sales, L. P. ; Hayward, M. W. ; Passamani, M. Local vs landscape drivers of primate occupancy in a Brazilian fragmented region. Mammal Research, v. 25, p. 1-10, 2015

Castro, GC; Berg, E. Structure and conservation value of high-diversity hedgerows in southeastern Brazil. Biodiversity and Conservation, v. 22, p. 2041-2056, 2013.

Rocha, MF ; Passamani, M; Louzada, J. A small mammal community in a forest fragment, vegetation corridor and coffee matrix system in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Plos One, 6, p. 1-9, 2011

Louzada, JN; Silva, P. R. Utilisation of introduced Brazilian pastures ecosystems by native dung beetles: diversity patterns and resource use. Insect Conservation and Diversity 2, p. 45-52, 2009. 

...We choose the agricultural landscapes according to a gradient of forest cover in landscapes, considering the central point of the landscape in a forest fragment. Highlighted in the study area.

2. Page 4: It is necessary to explain why collected data in eight spatial scales from buffers around focal point with radius sizes ranging from 250 to 2000 meters with 250 m of interval (Figure 2). How about with 500 m of interval?

When we started sampling, approaches to evaluating effect scale in mammals were just beginning and, therefore, we preferred to test using values ​​at intervals smaller than 250m.

3. Page 7: It is interesting that the forest and coffee covers influenced negatively the species richness. Please explain this situation more detail.

This was evidenced in discussion... In addition, some studies have also found no relationship between the richness of medium and large-sized mammals and the amount of native habitat [8,21,55,56] or others have recorded a high species richness in landscapes with strong urban [58,59] or agricultural influence [8,49,50]. In this way, species with a wide ecological niche can be favored by these modified landscapes and, probably, maintain their populations in agricultural landscapes [60].

4. Page 8: It is also an important finding that the pasture cover, number of fragments and mean distance among the forest fragments influenced positively the mammal richness (Figure 4). Please explain in detail.

This was evidenced in discussion... In our study, the pasture cover was the only variable that explained the variation in species richness, with a high explanation support (33%) for a positive relationship between the pasture cover and species richness. Although this result is contrary to the expected positive relation between richness and native habitat cover in agricultural landscapes [7,49,50], agroecosystems can favor the presence of generalist species from open areas and/or typical of the Cerrado. Studies have shown that landscapes altered by anthropic processes tend to favor the occurrence of species with low dependence on intact ecosystems or forest interior [51,52]. More than 50% of the species registered in our study have wide geographical distribution, varied diet and high movement capacity [53]. That is, species that can use different types of habitats and that can be favored in modified landscapes [54]. In other words, landscapes dominated by pastures are predominantly used by generalist species.

5. Page 8: The forest cover (R² = 16%, P = 0.022), coffee cover (R² = 11%, P = 0.142) and the mean distance among the forest fragments (R² = 11%, P = 0.175). How about the number of fragments? Please add this result in paper.

This variable was not significant and its R² value was very low, with little explanatory power

6.   Page 9: This study obtained 454 independent records of 24 species of medium and large-sized mammals from nine families, including 18 native terrestrial species, two native arboreal species and four exotic species. What kinds of species are more suitable for pasture cover?

In this study we did not sample areas within pastures or coffee plantations, only inside forest fragments in the landscape. So we do not know which species use these matrices. Continuing this approach in anthropic landscapes, a new sampling in pasture and coffee matrices was carried out and a manuscript is in the final stages of writing with this approach. First of all, the pastures are very poor in species, with only a few generalist species recorded.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The following issues have not been taken seriously or modified.

1. The text copying ratio is as high as 44%, and it is not evident from the revised manuscript that the author has reduced the repetition rate.

2. The introduction section should provide a review of the research progress of relevant work, summarize the shortcomings of existing research, and propose the scientific questions of this article.

3. When we started sampling, approaches to evaluating effect scale in mammals were just beginning and, therefore, we preferred to test using values​at intervals smaller than 250 m.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of the English language is required.

Author Response

1. The text copying ratio is as high as 44%, and it is not evident from the revised manuscript that the author has reduced the repetition rate.

It is very curious that this rate is so high, since the manuscript was written taking care not to repeat phrases contained in other articles, as we always do. Even so, we reevaluated the entire article to reduce the repetition rate, rewriting many paragraphs, especially in the introduction and methodology. Please feel free to contact us if this rate is still high

         2. The introduction section should provide a review of the research                      progress of relevant work, summarize the shortcomings of existing                        research, and propose the scientific questions of this article.

Thank you for pointing out. We reevaluated the entire introduction and rewrote a new paragraph with some relevant work related to the article's questions

        3. When we started sampling, approaches to evaluating effect scale in                  mammals were just beginning and, therefore, we preferred to test using              values ​at intervals smaller than 250m.

That's not clear. This was our answer to question number 8, above. ...8. What is the reason and standard for setting the buffer to a 250 meter interval?

 

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revision has addressed my concerns.