Efficacy of Bomas (Kraals) in Mitigating Livestock Depredation in Maasai Mara Conservancies, Kenya
, Evans Sitati 4, Paul W. Webala 2, Hellen Ipara 5 and Tabitha Finch 6Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work appears interesting as it finds application in the study areas where pastoralism is one of the main sources of income.
However, I think that some improvements are needed in the various sections of the article as follows:
ABSTRACT:
line 21: what did you mean with 41%? Events during the night? Please modify the period
INTRODUCTION:
Lines 43-47: the problem of predation affects the whole world so if we are talking about mammalian carnivores we have to choose at which level to describe the problem. In my opinion it is not necessary to cite the Asian continent as the only example given the differences there are with the African one. At the same time, if you choose to do so, then it is appropriate to cite the bibliography describing the impact of the wolf, jackal, lynx on animal husbandry also in Europe and therefore also in America with its species. This work would take too long so I recommend focusing on sub-Saharan Africa.
Line 51: please explain better what do you mean with “ these examples are biased due to”
Line 71: It is not known to the reader who does not live in Africa what a bomas is. Please explain with photos, drawings or diagrams their structure and functioning
MATERIALS & METHODS:
Line 113-119: same as line 71 please explain the different types of location of attack so that the reader understands the differences
Lines 113-119: why didn't you collect the number of animals present at the time of the attack and the presence or absence of the guardian?
Line 120: Is it possible to see these maps or produce maps of the study area with the various locations of attack indicated?
RESULTS
Is it possible to produce maps with the main results?
Line 189-190: this is a discussion not a result; moreover it appears speculative if not supported by a spatial analysis. Moving the period in discussions and using the conditional quoting the lack of spatial analysis; the sentence can be formulated as a hypothesis to make further and future investigations through spatial statistics aimed at defining the distribution pattern, identifying clusters, etc.
Lines 197-201: this is a discussion
Line 208-2011: this is a discussion
Table 2: It would have been interesting to understand the impact of losses as a proportion of farmed/grazed animals during attacks.
Figure 2: it is difficult to understand if the characteristics of the structures mentioned are not known
DISCUSSION
Line 238-240: How can you tell if you haven't collected and analyzed that data? It's speculative
Line 279: (cattle 42%; sheep 49% and goats 43%) is a result
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Page 1, line 41: Please contextualise the statement, byindicating the geographical areas referred to. The bibliography cited does not support a global spread.
Page 2, line 46: Please check the sentence beginning with [11] because the subject is missing.
Page 2, lines 51–52: Explain why the "existing compensation scheme for livestock lost to specific carnivore species" interferes with the data.
Page 2, line 57: see comment on line 46.
Page 2, line 76: once more, the authors cite numbers and not names.
Page 2, lines 76–80: check the grammatical construction of the list.
Page 2, lines 110–111: It is not clear why "migrant communities" are involved in large-scale crop production, which is primarily a settled activity.
Page 2, line 112: Please briefly recall the area where you made the entries.
Page 2: Materials and Methods: It would be interesting if the authors included a paragraph describing the various kinds of "bomas," which are listed below.
Page 5, lines 187–190: the lack of a link between the number of incidents and the size of the reserve should be explained more thoroughly.
Page 7, line 256: check references 5 and 24, which are cited instead of the authors' names.
Page 7, lines 265-268: The description of possible solutions is very interesting and should be better developed in the paragraph dedicated to this topic. This brief mention at this point in the paper is ineffective.
Page 7, line 277: Children are not mentioned above. It would be interesting to specify beforehand who the shepherds' guardians are.
Page 8, paragraph Carnivore species involved in livestock depredation: The description in this paragraph emphasizes the importance of a prior description of the different types of bomas and kraals.
Page 8, paragraph Livestock keeping is a major wildlife conservation compatible land use practice: this analysis could be expanded, also to include other predator species.
Page 8, paragraph Possible mitigation measures to promote co-existence: This paragraph is critical to the study’s objectives. The suggestions for measures should be developed more thoroughly.
Page 9, Conclusion paragraph: This paragraph should be implemented after the document has been reviewed. There is no mention of the type of pastors or their training. Furthermore, no mention is made of how government support and/or regulatory changes could or should be
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper lacks of relevant and updated references.
Plus, the methodology isn't clearly stated and the conclusions aren't clearly analyzed.
I strongly suggest the authors to add some more relevant references, and analyze in a more detailed way the methodology and the conclusions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has been adequately reviewed. I recommend two more edits before publishing it.
1) Regarding your answer to my comments for lines 113-119: that's right, but why didn't you explain it in your text? Might be useful for the reader.
2) Regarding your answer to my comments for line 120: that's right, but you can show in your map at least the boomas sites wich you mention in the tables.
Author Response
- Regarding your answer to my comments for lines 113-119: that's right, but why didn't you explain it in your text? Might be useful for the reader.
Thank you, we have now included it in the text
- Regarding your answer to my comments for line 120: that's right, but you can show in your map at least the bomas sites which you mention in the tables.
We have included the map
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The paper has been properly reviewed. However, I believe the conclusions could be improved, for example, as to the chances of success in implementing innovative mitigation measures, as well as by providing a glimpse of how animal interests can be taken into account when describing future recommendations.
Author Response
- The paper has been properly reviewed. However, I believe the conclusions could be improved, for example, as to the chances of success in implementing innovative mitigation measures, as well as by providing a glimpse of how animal interests can be taken into account when describing future recommendations.
Thank, we have provided the required information
