PONE-D-23-01905Nature Forest Reserves in Tanzania and their importance for conservationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ract,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Two reviewers have provided helpful comments below as well as in a marked up copy for you to download. One of the primary criteria for publication in PLOS is analytical rigor. Reviewer #1 has provided feedback on your analytical approach. You will also find suggestions for an overhaul of the framework for your analysis. I encourage you to consider the suggestion to adopt a systematic conservation planning approach. I agree that this could yield a higher impact for your work. However, I leave this to the discretion of the authors, so long as the methods employed are statistically valid and the approach clear and repeatable.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 04 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Stephanie S. Romanach, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

We did build the paper off material collected by a GEF funded project called:

“Enhancing the Forest Nature Reserves Network for Biodiversity Conservation in Tanzania".

This is mentioned in our manuscript as well as others donors.

Funders had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, conclusion, decision to publish the manuscript as it stands.”

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: 

“The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

The work is all original research carried out by the authors. All authors agree with the contents of the manuscript and its submission to the journal.

No part of the research has been published in any form elsewhere, unless it is fully acknowledged in the manuscript.

This manuscript is not being considered for publication elsewhere while it is being considered for publication in this journal.

Any research in the paper not carried out by the authors is fully acknowledged in the manuscript. Neil Burgess worked on the Global Environment Facility (GEF) project “Enhancing the Forest Nature Reserves Network for Biodiversity Conservation in Tanzania”, that collected some of the information. However, he did not collect the data.

All sources of funding are acknowledged in the manuscript, and the authors have declared any direct financial benefits that could result from publication.”

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that Figures 1,6 and 7 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1,6 and 7 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

5. Please upload a copy of Supporting Information Table S1 which you refer to in your text on page 9.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a useful and encouraging review of the conservation status of forest reserves and their vertebrate wildlife in Tanzania. The manuscript reads like a report rather than a critical review and conclusions are framed as suggestions. A more decisive statement of priorities to ensure positive outcomes for the NFR network is needed. The statistical analyses rely on non-parametric correlation, which is incorrect because time is incorrectly used as the independent variable when, in fact, it is a factor (i.e., the year in which a METT assessment was done). ANOVA or its non-parametric equivalents (Kruskal-Wallis; Friedmann’s test) are more appropriate but see below for comments about using a systematic conservation planning approach. Stacked bar-graphs are difficult to interpret in some cases and another graphic method may be more useful. Maps lack legends and scales. The writing is reasonable but can be finessed and improved. I have done an extensive edit of the manuscript using tracked changes and attach it too my review.

That said, I think this is a useful paper and could be published but falls way short of its potential. I would have liked to see more critical assessment and encourage the authors to consider upgrading their analyses. This can be achieved by using well established iterative algorithms that allow for systematic identification of priority reserves based on species rarity and complementarity. The latter would up-date the research to contemporary practices. See the following references:

Margules, C. R., & Pressey, R. L. (2000). Systematic conservation planning. Nature, 405, 243-253.

McIntosh, E. J., Pressey, R. L., Lloyd, S., Smith, R. J., & Grenyer, R. (2017). The Impact of Systematic Conservation Planning. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 42(1), 677-697. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-060902

Kukkala, A. S., & Moilanen, A. (2013). Core concepts of spatial prioritisation in systematic conservation planning. Biological Reviews, 88(2), 443-464. doi: 10.1111/brv.12008

Watson, J. E., Grantham, H. S., Wilson, K. A., & Possingham, H. P. (2011). Systematic conservation planning: past, present and future. In R. J. Ladle & R. J. Whittaker (Eds.), Conservation biogeography (pp. 136-160): Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Reside, A. E., Butt, N., & Adams, V. M. (2018). Adapting systematic conservation planning for climate change. Biodiversity and Conservation, 27(1), 1-29. doi:10.1007/s10531-017-1442-5

Eeley, H. A. C., Lawes, M. J., & Reyers, B. (2001). Priority areas for the conservation of subtropical indigenous forest in southern Africa: a case study from KwaZulu-Natal. Biodiversity and Conservation, 10, 1221-1246.

Without analyses that provide insights to which reserves are a priority for conservation, the conservation conclusions are platitudinous and not implementable. The suggestion that “…we recommend that TFS consider further expanding the current network to include the small number of endemic gap and poorly covered species that are outside the current NFR network, but could be included with some management status changes at existing sites.” is the sort of recommendation I was expecting and could be elicited by a systematic conservation planning approach.

Good luck.

Mike Lawes

Reviewer #2: 1. Summary of the research and your overall impression

Tanzania has expanded its network of Nature Forest Reserves to include almost all forest types. The study found that, the change of management has increased conservation effectiveness especially where donor funds are available. However, there are still some management challenges include illegal logging, charcoal production, firewood, pole cutting, hunting and wildfires. The study recommends areas for further research and strategies to further improve the management effectiveness.

• Some of the presented information need to be updated (I will provide examples in the below Section).

• The recommendations provided to improve management effectiveness are pertinent but need to consider current issues such as putting the NFRs into carbon credit trading schemes and the use of novel high technologies such as drones in managing the NFRs.

2. Evidence and examples

In order to improve the manuscript the authors should:

Line 73: TFS started its operations in 2011

Line 77: NFRs in Tanzania currently contains 22 reserves (the three that were under proposed status and Vikindu NFR that is missing in the list and the Map). Please update this information in the entire document.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Michael J Lawes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Manuscript_final.docx

Nature Forest Reserves in Tanzania and their importance for conservation

PONE-D-23-01905R1

Dear Dr. Ract,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Stephanie S. Romanach, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE