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.
I have assessed the revised manuscript and conclude that all comments by the reviewers have been thoroughly addressed. The manuscript is ready for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Patricia Gandini, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Both reviewers make very detailed comments to improve the manuscript. There is indeed an excessive amount of references. Some of those can be removed as they don't add to the actual study. The introduction needs a slight shift in focus (see reviewer 1) and the experimental design needs clarification (reviewer 2).
**PeerJ Staff Note**: Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
I have reviewed the manuscript entitled “Geographical and seasonal distribution of the Short-crested Coquette hummingbird: a microendemic and endangered species” by Pablo Sierra-Morales et al. This is an interesting study about seasonal changes in the distribution of a restricted and critically endangered hummingbird species from Mexico. Given its vulnerable status, any information generated is valuable.
It is a well written manuscript, however, the context is not well presented and lack of sufficient background. On the other hand, there is an excess of references (it is not a long article that contains many aspects), for example, many citations with other taxonomic groups are not appropriate.
Find bellow my specific comments.
There are two topics where the introduction must be focused: 1) seasonal-altitudinal variation in hummingbirds and how it has been addressed (methodologically), as well as the advantages that ecological niche models offer. 2) movements in microendemic species.
Line 28. Change to “rainy season” throughout the manuscript.
Line 30. Change to “at a global scale”
Line 38. Why you mention here the availability of fruits also? It should be mentioned before, in the methods part.
Lines 51-53. The last part of the sentence (and are a response to the search for food, breeding sites, or more favorable climates), is repetitive. It could be deleted or integrated in the previous sentence.
Lines 58-60. Here it is necessary to cite examples with birds, not other taxonomic groups, and point out that these are examples.
Line 61. Not only pollinator species but other kind of interacting species.
Lines 60-63. I think this is an important topic for your article, you need to expand this information, going from the most general (i.e. species involved into biological interactions) to the most specific information (i.e. hummingbirds). Although information about seasonal-altitudinal variation in hummingbirds is not precisely abundant, there is information available. You also need to explain how the study of seasonal or altitudinal movements in hummingbirds (not long-distance migrants) has been addressed (methodologically) and the advantages that ecological niche models have.
Line 63. The reference for Martin-Gonzalez and Missagia are missplaced.
Lines 63-64. These references are very general, which is ok to begin, however, none of them are about hummingbirds.
Line 65-66. You can obviate this statement and references or integrate in the following sentence.
Line 68. How can the environment be heterogeneous in such small distribution areas? I would think it's quite the opposite.
Line 69-73. This sentence is not connected with the previous one, and it is not clear what you mean by “along with their future implications”.
Line 75-76. I do not agree that those studies have being largely focused on amphibians and reptiles. Rather, in general it has been scarce.
Lines 79-80. Such as? Please explain.
Line 84. Why you abbreviate the short-crested coquette as SCH? The H doesn’t make sense to me.
Line 85. It would be useful to provide more details on the habitat where the species live.
Line 90. The potential effects of land use, climate change and natural history on what?
Line 93. Explain why fruits phenology is important for this hummingbird.
Lines 97-107. As I have explained before, this topic should be the principal focus of the introduction.
Lines 100-101. Not all these references are for hummingbirds.
Line 104. The correct name is Saucerottia beryllina.
Lines 103-105. They are not so well documented either.
Line 105-107. Reword.
Lines 109-111. Reference?
Line 112. It should be clear in this paragraph that you took data on flower availability.
In general, the approach used to answer the scientific question is appropriate and well performed. My main concern is given the restricted area of study, why didn’t the authors build climatic layers at a higher resolution?
Description of
Lines 124-125. Change to “2 to 3 km long”
Lines 122-128. Please clarify that the coordinates of the sites where the species was observed were included in the records database.
Lines 133-134. What do you mean by duplicates based on location?
Why didn't you filter out the records that were very close? For example, within 1 km of each other?
Line 139. You must include the original reference of the accessibility area approach.
Line 143. Do these sub-basins have names? Or what is the name of the basin to which they belong?
Lines 157-158. It is not clear what do you mean by “bio1 = January to bio12 = December” and why in Table S1 you have only “12” in the Bios column.
Line 165. It is not necessary to include “following methods implemented in previous studies” because you explained below the modelling analysis.
Lines 167-168. These are not “some variables”, rather are the only two variables you excluded.
Lines 203-205. This information must be integrated in the introduction.
Lines 235-236. The species regularly consumes nectar, so only the consumption of fruits is unusual. This information must be in the description of the species within the introduction, and include more information about this habit. Do the SCH consume fruit because of the lack of flowers? I would expect this to happen during the dry season.
The results are clear and statistically sound. Regarding the discussion, it is very general, it must be focused on the results, and again in the appropriate context.
Lines 252-253. Could you also report the area in square meters or kilometers?
Lines 260-266. You must provide more information about the diversity of flowering and fruiting plants recorded. More detailed information must be included in the supplementary material.
Line 264. What does the purple graphic in figure 2e means? Besides, it is not intuitive what colored peaks mean, because the color are different from those of figures a-d.
Lines 267-268. Clearly express that those variables differ statistically between both seasons. The test statistic z is missing.
Line 268. Change to “water vapor pressure”
Line 270. Delete “specifically”.
Consider to move figure 3 to supplementary material.
Line 276. Delete “a”
Line 279. Water vapor pressure.
Line 283. Indicate in figure legend of figure 4 what does both figures as well as the colors of panel c represent.
Line 287. Please first present a summary of your most relevant results and then go into more detail on each one.
Lines 292-302. In this paragraph you cite many studies about flower availability, but what does your own results (on flower availability) indicate?
Lines 303-304. This is not necessarily true, as many hummingbirds inhabit tropical dry forests which is an extremely seasonal ecosystem. Long-distance migratory species are another example.
Line 303. These are not climatic conditions but climatic variables.
Lines 304-305. Variables that differ between seasons (3 variables) are more than those that not differ (2). Therefore, it is not a strong argument.
Line 307. Other widely distributed species also undertake local or altitudinal migrations (e.g. Mexican Violetear, Amethyst-throated Mountain-gem, Garnet-throated Hummingbird)
Lines 311-313. This is part of your results, why you cited Arizmendi et al? you can say that your findings are supported by the study of Arizmendi, but it should be clear which are your findings.
Lines 323-327. Reword this sentence avoiding the term “favorable”.
Line 329. Change to “Saucerottia beryllina”, and to “territorial behavior”.
330-333. Time partition for foraging is also common in hummingbirds.
Lines 342-344. What about studies on niche equivalency in hummingbirds? The comparison you present in lines 346-348 is very coarse.
Lines 356-361. Is there information regarding the historical distribution of the species? Is there a possibility that relatively recent fragmentation (last 100-200 years) has contributed to its restricted distribution and therefore to the restricted climatic conditions where it is found?
Lines 385-388. I’m not sure what you want to say here. It sounds logical that if the seasonal climatic niche changes, the climatic conditions will be different, please clarify.
Lines 396-399. This sentence is a little out of place, it must be in the species description. Why do you say frugivory is not documented for SCH? Your observations are the first one? If it is this way it should be clear, and provide more data of your observations.
Line 402. Change to “global scale”
Lines 412-415. It is a bit risky to conclude this; you would have to do future modelling and see if the species would have the opportunity to increase in altitude.
Line 427. Change to “scale”
The manuscript by Sierra-Morales et al. discusses the geographic distribution and seasonal climatic niche of a species with high global conservation importance (Lophornis brachylophus). This species is a highly localized and critically endangered hummingbird found only in humid forests and shade coffee plantations in Mexico. The objectives are clearly stated, but the methods are somewhat unclear; however, the results support the chosen methodological approach.
a. The paper is well-written and well-structured.
b. The authors use clear, professional English typical of scientific articles.
c. The manuscript contains too many unnecessary references. They should be grouped, with a maximum of 45–50 citations.
I found the approach proposed not particularly original or novel. The combined use of geographic distribution and seasonal climatic niche has been used by several authors (i.e., Hayes et al., https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132599; Hereford et al., https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12739). Additionally, the methodological approach is not clear at all.
a) Authors say "five variables were selected to generate the distribution models for both seasons. Some variables, such as mean temperature and wind speed, were excluded due to a high correlation with the remaining variables."... But each variable has 12 layers (one layer per month). So, how many layers were finally included in the modelling process? Did the authors do a correlation to remove highly correlated layers?
b. Authors say they used 49 records for the dry season and 34 for the rain season. ‘Hinge’ requires 15 or more samples. Why didn't the authors use it? How many records are considered 'low numbers'? Your document would benefit if it included a reference for this.
a. Not clear at all.
b. How many candidate models were constructed? How many candidate models met the validation criteria? What variables contribute the most?
c. I am concerned about the potential predicted area. According to the Data Zone of BirdLife (https://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/short-crested-coquette-lophornis-brachylophus), the extent of occurrence is about 70 km² (authors make a mention on line 142). The same source mentions that "recent analysis by Sierra-Morales et al. (2016) suggests that the potential habitat available to this species could be considerably larger than this". In this study, during the dry season, the potential distribution of this species covered 642 pixels, while in the rain season covered 487 pixels. Sierra-Morales et al. (2016) proposed a potential distribution area of 2,762 km² for this species. Please, include a brief discussion about this.
d. Sierra-Morales et al. (2016) include the “areas of potential distribution of hummingbirds by vegetation type”. In this study, “records not corresponding to the species habitat, such as oak forests or tropical dry forests, were removed”. Why didn’t the authors describe in the Results section the vegetation types within the potential distribution area of this species?
Once the authors defined the study area (or calibration area), how do the authors describe the study area in terms of land use and land cover, elevation, climate, ...?
From lines 356 to 368, all this is about the Sierra Madre del Sur, but international readers don’t know where the Sierra Madre del Sur is. If the authors conserve this paragraph in the discussion section, they should include the Sierra Madre del Sur limits in their Figure 1 Study area.
Generally, conclusions should not include references, but there are exceptions. While the conclusion summarizes the main points of the paper, it should not introduce new information or arguments that require further citation. So, the conclusions in this study should be rephrased to be considered as conclusions.
Figure 1 must include the calibration area.
It's unclear how Figure 3 was made.
All figures should be improved in quality.
Raw data (raster layers) were not included (Raw data and/or code must be submitted).
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.