How Many Mammals Are Killed on Brazilian Roads? Assessing Impacts and Conservation Implications
, Douglas William Cirino 3, Rafaela Cobucci Cerqueira 4,5, Clarissa Rosa 6 and Simone Rodrigues Freitas 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript reviewed literature on medium and large mammal road-kills in Brazil, estimating numbers and biomass removal.
Comments
The authors performed a meta-analysis of literature findings to provide robust estimates of the impacts of roads on medium and large mammals. The research question is very interesting, expanding on current knowledge.
Results provided updated and robust estimates of road-kills in Brazil by using relevant studies from this country. In this way, results are valuable for guiding conservation management and as a basis for future comparisons; an important addition to the current literature.
The conclusions are well explained and justified and consistent with the evidence and arguments presented, proficiently addressing the main question.
The manuscript is generally well written; however, the English need improvement and should be checked by a native speaker.
Journal style has not been followed.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer 1 for the review and comments. We sent the manuscript to a native speaker that provided properly changes on the text.
Reviewer 2 Report
After carefully reading the manuscript and appendices, checking references and reading some that I did not know, my general impression of the ms is good and I only notice minor modifications. These are minimal and do not imply any structural change or lose the meaning of the proposed objectives.
Point 1: Line 89: Figure 1: Only as a suggestion for improvement. The figure shows the clear information for which it has been conceived but it could be improved: As the black dots of the road-kill studies are approximate (at the scale of the figure) they could be overlapped with the road network in a single figure, giving greater size to the figure of the biomes. In this way, the duplicate information of the biomes, the general reference frame (subcontinent), the scale and the north would be eliminated.
Point 2: Line 96: In order to calculate the road-kill ratios, you indicate the tool and the variables. When trying to access the web address of the tool, it reports that the address is access prohibited, inaccessible. Change the address so that readers can access it or, in case the tool is of restricted use, change it to the software reference (as is typically with scripts or tools implemented in R).
Point 3: Line 163: I have detected that in some values, the decimal symbol is the point and in others, it is the comma. Not only in this line, but also in the rest of the document as well as the appendices. Pay attention to these editing details, also to the number of decimal places, as this should be uniform throughout the manuscript and appendices.
Point 4: Line 166: Figure 2: In the legend of the x-axis you indicate the total species richness for the taxonomic order. It would be much more illustrative and informative to also indicate the richness of road-kills (like Fig. 3) but not on the x-axis but within the column (e.g. Primates: (6/32)... I make it up... ). With the current format and with the entire document in mind (Fig. 3, text and annexes), it is possible to determine the number of road-kills per order, but it is not straightforward.
Author Response
After carefully reading the manuscript and appendices, checking references and reading some that I did not know, my general impression of the ms is good and I only notice minor modifications. These are minimal and do not imply any structural change or lose the meaning of the proposed objectives.
Response: We thank the reviewer 2 for the review and improving the manuscript. We already made the corrections and the responses to comments are follow below.
Point 1: Line 89: Figure 1: Only as a suggestion for improvement. The figure shows the clear information for which it has been conceived but it could be improved: As the black dots of the road-kill studies are approximate (at the scale of the figure) they could be overlapped with the road network in a single figure, giving greater size to the figure of the biomes. In this way, the duplicate information of the biomes, the general reference frame (subcontinent), the scale and the north would be eliminated.
Response 1: We agree with the reviewer and will provide changes on figure 1, especially on removing the duplicate information. Regarding the union of the two maps, we already tried this type, but we didn't like the map style with the road network overlapping with the dots, seem more confusing for the reader. So, we prefer to maintain the figure in two separate maps.
Point 2: Line 96: In order to calculate the road-kill ratios, you indicate the tool and the variables. When trying to access the web address of the tool, it reports that the address is access prohibited, inaccessible. Change the address so that readers can access it or, in case the tool is of restricted use, change it to the software reference (as is typically with scripts or tools implemented in R).
Response 2: Thanks for the notice. We already change for a properly link.
Point 3: Line 163: I have detected that in some values, the decimal symbol is the point and in others, it is the comma. Not only in this line, but also in the rest of the document as well as the appendices. Pay attention to these editing details, also to the number of decimal places, as this should be uniform throughout the manuscript and appendices.
Response 3: Ok, Thanks for that warning. We change all decimal comma symbol for point (.).
Point 4: Line 166: Figure 2: In the legend of the x-axis you indicate the total species richness for the taxonomic order. It would be much more illustrative and informative to also indicate the richness of road-kills (like Fig. 3) but not on the x-axis but within the column (e.g. Primates: (6/32)... I make it up... ). With the current format and with the entire document in mind (Fig. 3, text and annexes), it is possible to determine the number of road-kills per order, but it is not straightforward.
Response 4: We are thank for the appropriate comment on Figure 2, but we still choose to maintain the road-kill species richness in parentheses on Figure 3.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
