All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
After reviewing this revised version of your manuscript, I see that the main comments suggested by the reviewers in figures, tables and appendices have been included. Therefore, I am satisfied with the current version and consider it ready for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jennifer Vonk, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
After reviewing this revised version of your manuscript, I see that the main comments suggested by the reviewers have been included. However, there are still some details that need to be clarified before having a final version that can be published. Some details remain pending regarding the appropriate use of some concepts and the editing of figures, tables and appendices.
No comment
The methods have been described in good detail and the analyzes are well supported.
The data provided in the manuscript have statistical validity. The research has relevant results in understanding the habitat selection of nocturnal snakes. The conclusions are appropriate and reflect the results presented.
I have reviewed the modifications made to the document with respect to my previous comments. Considering that the changes made to eliminate words associated with “ambush” hunting behavior that was not evaluated were necessary to give clarity to the document and not confuse the reader. I have been very emphatic in this request and I appreciate that it is taken into account. However, the word “ambush” and “preference”, the latter of which was changed to “selection”, are still present in the titles of some figures, so it is necessary to take care of that detail and eliminate those words as I mention throughout of my observations. It will be necessary to correct the figure caption in figures 2 and 3, as well as eliminate the words “for prey capture” from appendix 3, so as not to link the results with something that was not evaluated
I regret that I was not clear in my request when I asked that the word “ambush” be removed from the entire document, which also includes figures, tables and appendices. That said, I suggest the following modifications for the figure captions 1 and 2, and the header of appendix 3:
Figure 2 Microhabitat selection among four groups of V. stejnegeri
Figure 3 Factor importance in microhabitat selection by V. stejnegeri.
Appendix 3 Autocorrelation of habitat factors for microhabitat selection by V. stejnegeri
Likewise, specify in the corresponding titles of figures, tables and appendices that the four groups to which they refer are from V. stejnegeri
No comment
No comment
I regret that these details lead to another period of review and correction by the authors, but it is appropriate.
After reviewing this revised version of your manuscript, I see that the main comments suggested by reviewer 3 have been included, however this reviewer still has minor comments. Reviewer 2, on the other hand, has major comments. It is therefore necessary to make these observations in order to have a version ready for publication.
See my previous review.
See my previous review.
See my previous review.
I thank the authors for considering the observations and making the suggested corrections. After reviewing the document and all its materials again, I observe that the authors attended each requested point. Now the document, in my opinion, is clearer and more understandable. However, from the beginning the word "ambush" caused me confusion given that it is a passive hunting behavior that obviously involves many factors and variables for its analysis. Because the present work focuses on the comparison of site selection by males and females during the breeding and non-breeding seasons, and there is no specific data and evidence of ambush behavior towards prey, it is necessary eliminate the word “ambush” in the entire document. Indeed, the word was removed from several sentences, but it still appears in others. This is why there are still minimal corrections in this regard, to be consistent with what was mentioned. My observations are the following:
Line 99.- The work does not record the ambush behavior associated with the capture of prey or does it? but rather a state of rest in different reproductive seasons between different sexes, then the word “ambush” must be eliminated.
Line 100.- the word selection is more appropriate than preference, as suggested in the title.
Line 137.- Remove the word "and"
Line 185.- Remove the word "ambush" The word ambush refers to hunting behavior and the use of this word suggests that something is going to be studied in this regard. For this reason, since nothing is mentioned about hunting prey, I suggest it be removed be removed from the entire document and only refers to microhabitat selection
Line 210.- Do you have the Snout-vent length or total length average, if you have the information, post it.
Line 280.- Remove the word "ambush"
Line 285.- Remove an extra point
In table 1.- Remove the word "ambush" of the header
In the Appendix 1.- Because throughout the document I have emphasized not using the word "ambush" because it is directly related to foraging behavior which is not analyzed as such, I suggest also removing the words "predation parameters" for the same reason. The work focuses on the selection of sites by males and females in the breeding and non-breeding seasons, but there is no data on predation events by snakes.
Likewise, I suggest that the heading mention the word category assignment instead of division, as mentioned in the section where the appendix is cited.
No comment
No comment
If you agree with these corrections and have no problem discussing them, after making them there would be no more suggestions from me.
Thank you very much for your manuscript titled “Effects of sex and season on ambush microhabitat selection in Stejneger’s bamboo pitviper (Viridovipera stejnegeri)” that you sent to PeerJ.
This study provides relevant and valuable information on the habitat selection of a species of snake in China. Based on a 4-month field study, some sexual and seasonal differences were found.
As you will see below, comments from referee 1 suggest a minor revision while reviewers 2 and 3 suggest a major revision before your paper can be published. Given this, I would like to see a major revision dealing with the comments. Their comments should provide a clear idea for you to review, hopefully improving the clarity and rigor of the presentation of your work. I will be happy to accept your article pending further revisions, detailed by the referees, which largely focus on clarifying some aspects of your work, mainly the introduction and methods.
Reviewer 1 suggests expanding the background by detailing the reproductive biology and microhabitat of the study species, in addition to expanding the information on different aspects of the methods and redefining some statistical aspects.
Reviewer 2's observations are noted directly on the manuscript, basically focusing on the objectives of the study and various details of the methodology that should be described with more resolution.
Reviewer 3 suggests
Please note that we consider these revisions to be important and your revised manuscript will likely need to be revised again.
The three reviewers also provide comments directly on the manuscript.
The manuscript is well structured and the language is correct.
The literature is correct; however, It is necessary to expand the background, mentioning from the introduction the reproductive cycle of V. stejnegeri and the months in which it occurs, since after the breeding season, the animals may be more focused on searching for food, shelter and survival in general. Instead of reproduction. In addition to the importance of choosing the microhabitat due to prey availability.
The structure of the manuscript is in accordance with the format. While the figures are presented with good definition and describe the results of the manuscript.
The manuscript is within the scope of the journal
The research question is well directed and attempts to answer the ambush microhabitat for an understudied snake.
The research conforms to field ethical guidelines according to the paper presented.
There is a lack of further description in the methodology that explains in detail aspects such as snake collection and data processing in the appendices, for example how many data of each variable were obtained, as well as descriptive statistics that would strengthen the understanding of the selection of ambush microhabitats. Additionally, from the small sample size; I suggest trying factor models for the analysis or, where appropriate, non-generalized linear models to introduce all the variables, even if they do not have a normal distribution.
The results suggest an effect of sex and season on the ambush microhabitat of a nocturnally active snake; however, it is necessary to discuss the criteria of ambush sites and not perch or thermoregulation.The data provided in the manuscript have statistical validity. However, it is suggested to try another statistic due to the small sample size. Explain in more detail how much data is available on each environmental factor, if they are average values and some measure of dispersion.
Very important to mention preferences for prey. It is likely that differences in altitude or slope are due to the prey they consume and not necessarily a preference of the snake. Discuss that the sites must also function as sites that keep them undetectable, camouflage, crypsis for possible predators. The lack of data on prey availability in the environment would be necessary to understand if there are changes in microhabitat selection due to changes in site preferences or is a consequence of simple variation in available prey per season. Aspects to strengthen the discussion.
Finally, a description of the composition of the microhabitat (grassland, trees, temperature, slope) is needed to better demonstrate the effect of sex and season on the selection of ambush microhabitats. This will allow us to answer whether the snake's habitat preferences increase the probability of hunting by overlapping habitat with prey and increasing its attack success rate.
The study is clear, and the language is good.
References are sufficient.
Figures could be improved.
The data set is shared, but the column names should be changed to Latin letters.
The design is good, however the information on spatial replication is not given.
The findings are interesting and meaningful. Result interpretation is sound.
The article is written in 12 point English and is generally clear, but there are some important details that must be modified and not ambiguous. The first of them is to specify in the title and in the other parts of the document that the term season refers to reproduction or breeding, if said word is mentioned, the correct thing to do is to write “breeding season” or refer to seasonal characteristics of the study site, define. On the other hand, the word “ambush” is a term that explains the hunting behavior of some predators. However, the article does not analyze this behavior, so that word must be eliminated and only refer to “microhabitat selection” which is what data is actually provided.
The references used as background in the introduction section are appropriate and necessary, in such a way that they correctly guide the background and context to reach the objective and the hypothesis proposed. However, the way the last three sentences of this section gives the impression that they already had the field data and the only thing they had to do, to corroborate the hypothesis, was perform the statistics. There are several errors in both the citations and the references that should be reviewed.
The article conforms to the format established by the magazine. The title does not exceed 60 words, it is attractive and describes the work, although it is non-specific and therefore ambiguous in the use of some terms such as “season and ambush” pertinent modifications must be made. The general structure of the document has the requested sections. There are a number of supplementary files that contain the raw data, although it comes in the authors' native language, so trying to understand them is complicated. The abstract, although it adequately describes the results and conclusion, does not mention the reason for the work and the methodology.
The figures are relevant to the content of the article. However, although figure captions are optional, they are necessary here for a better understanding. In figure 1, the ideal is to have the comparison of a study site, but taken from the same perspective, that is, exactly the same place in different seasons. It is appreciated that the difference between seasons is possibly humidity, but this should be emphasized within the text. In the figure 4. correct the name of the variable “sites” instead of “rites” There are values that must be specified for the axes in the figures that do not have it.
The results are relevant to address the proposed hypothesis.
The research is original and is located within the objectives and scope of the journal. It is not a research that involves animal experimentation, but it does track the movement and location of specimens in the field. The research question defines the lack of information on ecological aspects in the selection of microhabitats in nocturnal snakes, and therefore the hypothesis raised and its verification is relevant and significant to contribute to knowledge in this gap.
The Research is rigorous and is carried out with a technical and ethical standard. The authors include the corresponding national permissions to carry out their project, in accordance with the ethical standards in force in the field. However, the methods described need to complement several details in order to be replicated. The description and division of habitat factors and predation parameters are decisive for the development of the research and of course the obtaining of data. But there are several questions in this regard that must be clarified and justified. Based on what, did you decide to assign those categories? How did you take some of that data? You must specify trademarks and relevant characteristics of the instruments and equipment used in the field. Likewise, they must clearly mention biometric data about the specimens used. All of this must be specified in the methodology. Read the suggested observations.
The study that the authors submit for evaluation does not imply experimentation that can be replicated. Field work is more complex in the sense that the variables cannot be controlled. Although the methodology used is very common in telemetry and home environment work for many animal species, the difference and importance of the findings of the study in question focuses on the establishment of parameters to evaluate environmental factors that allow analyzing the selection of microhabitats, in addition to working with nocturnal tree snakes, which makes obtaining information more difficult and complex.
In this sense, the authors emphasize the lack of information about this type of snakes and justify their work. Thus, although there are details that must be specified regarding the assignment of parameters to be measured in the field, the results are relevant and significant for the behavioral ecological knowledge of these snakes.
The authors provide several files as a complement, including the database obtained in the field, although the language in which they are found makes their understanding and analysis difficult. However, the statistical tests carried out and the selection indices obtained are adequate. Only the values of the statistical tests carried out, as well as the degrees of freedom should be specified.
The conclusions are well expressed, linked to the original research question and limited to the results. There are some speculations that the authors mention as such, within this section, but they present them as possibilities and not assertions.
The article provides interesting information and contributes to knowledge about the ecology and behavior of Viridovipera stejnegeri, a nocturnal tree snake. This document analyzes the selection of microhabitats based on their characteristics, in two seasons (reproductive and non-reproductive) comparing both sexes. As the authors mention, the study species due to its nature and habits represents a challenge for field research. Despite this, the article generates information that expands the panorama of the environmental characteristics that can influence the reproduction and survival of the species. Without a doubt, it is a document that falls within the objectives and scope of the journal and that will be of great interest to the audience, particularly to those readers who focus on ecology and herpetology.
In general, the document has the sections and format requested by the magazine. However, there are several observations that must be addressed for greater clarity and better understanding of the study. The main thing is to specify in the title and consequently in the other sections of the document, whether the word season is a function of the reproduction of the snakes, the characteristics of the habitat or both, if it is not specified there may be confusion regarding the findings that are reported. On the other hand, the word ambush refers to hunting behavior, in which data on prey, captures, and so on must obviously be reported. As the document does not reveal this data, it is important to judge whether the use of this word is appropriate or not, or if there are facts associated with hunting, report them to strengthen the idea.
Likewise, it is important to mention reproductive aspects of the species, in order to provide a context that allows understanding and discussing the methodological part and the findings. Another important aspect to clarify is to know on what basis the categories of habitat factors and predation parameters were established. Everything that appears in Appendix 1 needs to be explained in detail so as not to cause methodological doubts. Specifying the number of individuals used and their characteristics is essential in all work; interesting aspects for discussion may arise from this. I have no doubt that if published, the article will contribute to the knowledge of the aspects already mentioned about this species, particularly this population, but to do so, the observations, comments and suggestions stated must be addressed.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.