Spatial Conservation Assessment for Native Fishes in the Lahontan and Central Nevada Basins, USA

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript reports on efforts to assess the conservation value of watersheds and subwatersheds in the Great Basin. In general, this is a well-written manuscript and the analyses and results will prove useful for conservation agencies in the region. I have just a few suggestions which I provide below.

 

1) The whole manuscript could probably do with a careful going through to find poorly written sentences, as well as overly complex sentences (e.g., line 114). In addition, there are a few places where there appear to be typos (e.g., line 76).

 

2) The section on Aquatic Connectivity (starts on line 263) needs some work. I found it difficult to determine if the curves referred to and shown in Figure 4 are heuristic, theoretical, or empirical.  I’m also not certain if the curves in Figure 4 are specific to particular species as implied in the text or if they are more generalized.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

 

This manuscript reports on efforts to assess the conservation value of watersheds and subwatersheds in the Great Basin. In general, this is a well-written manuscript and the analyses and results will prove useful for conservation agencies in the region. I have just a few suggestions which I provide below.

 

• The whole manuscript could probably do with a careful going through to find poorly written sentences, as well as overly complex sentences (e.g., line 114). In addition, there are a few places where there appear to be typos (e.g., line 76).

 

We have re-read the manuscript carefully to simplify overly complex sentences and fix typos, including the ones specifically mentioned (L114, L76).  These are indicated in Track Changes as requested.

 

• The section on Aquatic Connectivity (starts on line 263) needs some work. I found it difficult to determine if the curves referred to and shown in Figure 4 are heuristic, theoretical, or empirical.  I’m also not certain if the curves in Figure 4 are specific to particular species as implied in the text or if they are more generalized.

 

We have clarified that the curves in Figure 4 are assigned to upstream and downstream connectivity for each species based on life history.  We have added the curves used for each species in Table 1.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

General Comment:

The work entitled ‘Spatial Conservation Assessment for Native Fishes in the Lahontan and Central Nevada Basins, U.S.A.’ yielded a high-ranking basins and/or subwatersheds in the US which are vital for conservation planning and investment of the native fishes. The manuscript is structured very well and it has a great contribution to agencies working on biodiversity conservation.  However, there are a few complicated sentences written in the manuscript and hard to understand them. In addition, the materials and methods section is difficult to understand and replicate it. Thus, the authors shall address these and the following specific comments before submitting the final version of the paper.      

Specific comments:  

1.      Page 1, lines 12-24. The two sentences are complicated and hard to understand. Please try to revise them.

2.      Page 1, line 19. It would be good to clearly mention some of the subwatersheds of prime importance after the ‘full stop.’  

3.      Page 1, line 23. Please include the scientific name in brackets after ‘Cui-ui.’

4.      Page 1, line 28. You may include ‘landscape value’ as a keyword if it does not overlap with others.

5.      Page 1, line 34. Delete the comma after ‘Muhlfeld’ Please do the same (Page 5, line 179)

6.      Page 1, line 38. What is the number of trout and char species globally? You have two numbers mentioned, i.e., 67 or 124. Which one is correct?

7.      Page 2, line 47. You may put the word ‘improper’  before ‘water’

8.      Page 2, line 59. Please revise the whole phrase in this line. Something is missing.

9.      Page 2, line 69. The authors gave due emphasis on spatial conservation assessment frameworks. Does this framework consider the temporal dynamism? If not, how do you account for this?

10.  Page 2, line 86. In the material and methods section, it is not clearly indicated whether the authors collected primary data or not?

11.  Page 2, line 87. Under the ‘study area,’ it would be good if you could include altitudinal ranges and the catchments area of the Great Basin.

12.  Page 4, lines 117-118. You mentioned about the ‘potentially other factors’ Would you list some of those factors?

13.  Page 4, lines 121, 124, 129 and elsewhere. You may consider to put punctuation marks before or after ‘then’ and ‘thus’

14.  Page 4, line 131. The authors put the ‘marginal loss equation.’ If it is not yours own, put citation.

15.  Page 4, lines 133-139. Please be consistent with the ‘spacing’ before and after ‘=’

16.  Page 4, line 136. The authors shall define ‘NFHP’ at first mention. Do the same for WBD (Page 9, line 269).

17.  Page 4, line 151. What if you could you put citation after ‘cell size?’

18.  Page 4, line 160. Put citation after ‘average’  In addition, put the minimum and maximum area of the subwatersheds. You may also put them in different categories in terms of size.

19.  Page 5, lines 171-177. Did you acknowledge the data sources?

20.  Page 5, line 195. There seems extra spacing after ‘full stop or .’

21.  Page 6, line ??. From the table, under the column ‘Scientific name,’ do we have to italicize the word 'spp.'? In addition, be consistent when writing species, use either 'sp.' or 'spp.'

22.  Page 7, lines 224-228. The authors mentioned some of the environmental predictor variables. How did you come up with these environmental predictors only? How about other variables?

23.  Page 7, line 246. Instead of ‘Habitat condition index (HCL)’ better to use ‘The HCL’

24.  Page 7, line 247. Delete ‘hyphen or (-)’ before ‘km’

25.  Page 8, line 252. From the equation, ‘(4 – 1)’ is not clear. Why? Please elaborate it.

26.  Page 8, line 256. What is equated as ‘Pocc_discounted’ is not clear. Please define it.

27.  Page 10, line 295. In the figure legend (i.e., Conservation rank), ‘Top 10%’ is not clear.

28.  Page 10, line 295. From the graph, it is hard to realize (clearly observe) the specific subwatersheds being ranked. Even authors later tried to explain their findings at basin level or in terms of the different valleys.

29.  Page 11, line 320. Better to replace ‘habitat exists’ by ‘habitats may exist’

30.  Page 12, lines 405-407. Don't you think that the approach indicated in these lines undermine the patchy habitat conservation efforts? Please justify it.

31.  Page 13, line 421. I don't think that proper acknowledgment has been made for the different data sources.

32.  Page 14, line 425. Please strictly follow the guide to authors to format the reference section.

33.  Page 14, lines 426-432. Do we have to really list all these authors? Please use ‘et al’ at somewhere.

34.  Page 14, line 434 and all other references. There is ‘comma (,)’ before the title. I don’t think comma is necessary. Please check the guide to authors.

Author Response

General Comment:

The work entitled ‘Spatial Conservation Assessment for Native Fishes in the Lahontan and Central Nevada Basins, U.S.A.’ yielded a high-ranking basins and/or subwatersheds in the US which are vital for conservation planning and investment of the native fishes. The manuscript is structured very well and it has a great contribution to agencies working on biodiversity conservation.  However, there are a few complicated sentences written in the manuscript and hard to understand them. In addition, the materials and methods section is difficult to understand and replicate it. Thus, the authors shall address these and the following specific comments before submitting the final version of the paper.      

We thank the reviewer for these comments. We have tried to minimize complex sentences and paragraphs in the revision, and have addressed the point-by-point clarifications that were requested.

Specific comments:  

1. Page 1, lines 12-24. The two sentences are complicated and hard to understand. Please try to revise them.

We broke up the complicated sentence in the middle of the abstract.

2. Page 1, line 19. It would be good to clearly mention some of the subwatersheds of prime importance after the ‘full stop.’  
3. Page 1, line 23. Please include the scientific namein brackets after ‘Cui-ui.’

Added scientific name.

4. Page 1, line 28. You may include ‘landscape value’ as a keyword if it does not overlap with others.

Added

5. Page 1, line 34. Delete the comma after ‘Muhlfeld’ Please do the same (Page 5, line 179)

Done

6. Page 1, line 38. What is the number of trout and char species globally? You have two numbers mentioned, i.e., 67 or 124. Which one is correct?

The sentence clearly states that 67 refers to the species ‘assessed’ under the IUCN framework where as the 124 is the global number of species recognized.

7. Page 2, line 47. You may put the word ‘improper’  before ‘water’

We added water ‘use’ instead.

8. Page 2, line 59. Please revise the whole phrase in this line. Something is missing.

Unclear what is missing.

9. Page 2, line 69. The authors gave due emphasis on spatial conservation assessment frameworks. Does this framework consider the temporal dynamism? If not, how do you account for this?

Unclear how temporal dynamism fits where indicated.  Assessments typically represent a point in time and are not dynamic.

10. Page 2, line 86. In the material and methods section, it is not clearly indicated whether the authors collected primary data or not?

Added that we used existing data.

11. Page 2, line 87. Under the ‘study area,’ it would be good if you could include altitudinal ranges and the catchments area of the Great Basin.

Added elevations in the study area description.

12. Page 4, lines 117-118. You mentioned about the ‘potentially other factors’ Would you list some of those factors?

We added parenthetically that these other factors can include threats and uncertainties (in inputs).

13. Page 4, lines 121, 124, 129 and elsewhere. You may consider to put punctuation marks before or after ‘then’ and ‘thus’

We considered this, but did not address it as we feel the punctuation in these places is a matter of style (and not strict grammar).

14. Page 4, line 131. The authors put the ‘marginal loss equation.’ If it is not yours own, put citation.

We cited the Zonation software manual here.

15. Page 4, lines 133-139. Please be consistent with the ‘spacing’ before and after ‘=’

Done.

16. Page 4, line 136. The authors shall define ‘NFHP’ at first mention. Do the same for WBD (Page 9, line 269).

Defined both terms at first mention.

17. Page 4, line 151. What if you could you put citation after ‘cell size?’

Cell size was an analysis choice by the authors and is not fixed in the software; therefore a citation is inappropriate.

18. Page 4, line 160. Put citation after ‘average’  In addition, put the minimum and maximum area of the subwatersheds. You may also put them in different categories in terms of size.

The citation was included at first mention of the WBD dataset earlier in the paragraph.

19. Page 5, lines 171-177. Did you acknowledge the data sources?

Yes, citations 34 and 35 represent the data sources. There is no need to cite the data source in the subsequent sentences.

20. Page 5, line 195. There seems extra spacing after ‘full stop or .’

This is an artifact of the template that we assume will be resolved at press.

21. Page 6, line ??. From the table, under the column ‘Scientific name,’ do we have to italicize the word 'spp.'? In addition, be consistent when writing species, use either 'sp.' or 'spp.'

We do not believe so.

22. Page 7, lines 224-228. The authors mentioned some of the environmental predictor variables. How did you come up with these environmental predictors only? How about other variables?

We added that these variables have been shown to influence similar species in an adjacent region, and included a citation.

23. Page 7, line 246. Instead of ‘Habitat condition index (HCL)’ better to use ‘The HCL’

We retained the acronym as is (HCI) as that is common usage for that data source.

24. Page 7, line 247. Delete ‘hyphen or (-)’ before ‘km’

Done.

25. Page 8, line 252. From the equation, ‘(4 – 1)’ is not clear. Why? Please elaborate it.

The re-scaling by the range of values minus the lowest value should be self-evident.

26. Page 8, line 256. What is equated as ‘Pocc_discounted’ is not clear. Please define it.

We defined the term.

27. Page 10, line 295. In the figure legend (i.e., Conservation rank), ‘Top 10%’ is not clear.

We revised the figure and expanded the description in the figure caption to improve clarity.

28. Page 10, line 295. From the graph, it is hard to realize (clearly observe) the specific subwatersheds being ranked. Even authors later tried to explain their findings at basin level or in terms of the different valleys.

The labels correspond to places called out in the text and represent specific subwatersheds or clusters of watersheds as described in the text.

29. Page 11, line 320. Better to replace ‘habitat exists’ by ‘habitats may exist’

Changes as recommended.

30. Page 12, lines 405-407. Don't you think that the approach indicated in these lines undermine the patchy habitat conservation efforts? Please justify it.

Unclear what is meant.  Some species listed in the endangered species act, such as Lahontan Cutthroat Trout, are widely distributed.  That is, populations occur across the Lahontan Basin, its just that their populations occupy small fragments of habitat and have low population sizes.

31. Page 13, line 421. I don't think that proper acknowledgment has been made for the different data sources.

The data sources referenced in the text all have citations.  We have listed the final output – the conservation rankings – here and have noted where they can be accessed.

32. Page 14, line 425. Please strictly follow the guide to authors to format the reference section.

We originally used the ACS citation format as referenced in the WATER guide for authors, but now realize a specific MDPI citation format is available.  And we are nowusing it withing Endnote Software for the revision.

33. Page 14, lines 426-432. Do we have to really list all these authors? Please use ‘et al’ at somewhere.

We are using the MDPI citation format within Endnote Software for the revision as recommended in the guide for authors.

34. Page 14, line 434 and all other references. There is ‘comma (,)’ before the title. I don’t think comma is necessary. Please check the guide to authors.

We are using the MDPI citation format within Endnote Software for the revision as recommended in the guide for authors.

Reviewer 3 Report

Excellent paper that will make an impact in freshwater fish conservation.  I really like the approach and thought the authors did a great job explaining the mechanics of the ranking system used.

My one comment is with regards to accounting for climate change. In lines 234-241 the authors present the habitat condition index to assign risk to each stream in terms of future degradation. Does this index also account for climate-induced changes in hydrology or water temperature?

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Excellent paper that will make an impact in freshwater fish conservation.  I really like the approach and thought the authors did a great job explaining the mechanics of the ranking system used.

My one comment is with regards to accounting for climate change. In lines 234-241 the authors present the habitat condition index to assign risk to each stream in terms of future degradation. Does this index also account for climate-induced changes in hydrology or water temperature?

Thank you for the thoughtful comments.  Yes, the habitat condition index describes threats to aquatic habitats.  Unfortunately, the habitat condition index does not account for climate change impacts to aquatic habitats.  Therefore, climate change risk is not included in our assessment, which is beyond the scope of our study.  One could incorporate climate change impacts either via the species distribution models or the distribution discounting feature.  But it would take some careful thinking about how to do it well based on the goal of its inclusion: do we triage habitats with high climate risk? Or do we prioritize habitats with some risk (but not high risk) to build resiliency.  A simple approach would be to layer a climate vulnerability assessment post hoc onto our assessment, which would then let it be tailored to the reason(s) for including it.  We hope someone pursues and integrates a climate vulnerability assessment with our assessment results.

Reviewer 4 Report

This paper describes a landscape-level prioritization analysis of watersheds in the Lahontan and Great Basin region that will be used to strategize native fish conservation. The paper is very well written and well thought out, and I honestly feel bad that I don't have more constructive comments to give! It is pretty excellent the way it is!

My only major comment is that there could be additional discussion on how prioritization of fish conservation does or does not align with existing development. The watersheds were discounted if there was a high probability of degretation due to developement (if I understood the analysis correctly). However, areas close to development are frequently those in most need of protection. Much of the basin the authors analysed is very, very sparsely populated, making conservation relatively easy.  Would this same scheme work in an area with more development? Some additional discussion along those lines would be helpful

Minor comments:

Line 48 - I think this sentance would work better in the body of the paragraph, rather than at the end.

Figure 1 - Using white for the Lahontan Basin makes it 'blend in' to the background. Can you use a different color?

Line 203 - How would imperfect surveys impact the results of this analysis? Would increasing surveys improve the final prioritization? Or are you happy with the species distribution models as a fill-in?

 

Author Response

Reviewer 4

This paper describes a landscape-level prioritization analysis of watersheds in the Lahontan and Great Basin region that will be used to strategize native fish conservation. The paper is very well written and well thought out, and I honestly feel bad that I don't have more constructive comments to give! It is pretty excellent the way it is!

Thank you.

My only major comment is that there could be additional discussion on how prioritization of fish conservation does or does not align with existing development. The watersheds were discounted if there was a high probability of degretation due to developement (if I understood the analysis correctly). However, areas close to development are frequently those in most need of protection. Much of the basin the authors analysed is very, very sparsely populated, making conservation relatively easy.  Would this same scheme work in an area with more development? Some additional discussion along those lines would be helpful

We added a couple of sentences to the Discussion that speak to the fact that habitats near developed habitats are more at risk to future development, that this is typically accounted for in build-out planning scenarios (with a citation), but that our use of a subwatershed planning unit reduces the needs to account for these spatial development processes in our accounting of risk to habitat degradation.

Minor comments:

Line 48 - I think this sentance would work better in the body of the paragraph, rather than at the end.

This sentence was moved into the body of the paragraph (2^nd sentence).

Figure 1 - Using white for the Lahontan Basin makes it 'blend in' to the background. Can you use a different color?

We changed to color of the Lahontan basin to tan instead of white.

Line 203 - How would imperfect surveys impact the results of this analysis? Would increasing surveys improve the final prioritization? Or are you happy with the species distribution models as a fill-in?

While we agree accounting for imperfect detection would lead to better model, only 7 SDMs were used (of 49 species, subspecies, and ecological units).  And these 7 species are fairly broadly distributed when compared to the endemic species that are known from one to a few habitats. These rare species drive the final prioritization.  So, we’re fine with the models we built for the common and widely distributed species and the final prioritization, although we added more information on model accuracy.  We determined that no revision of the text was required as a result of this comment.