PONE-D-23-23260Drivers of Rodent Community Structure in an Urban National Park, KenyaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lwande,

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.

The authors must address the comment as there are issues related to the calculation of indices and language. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 16 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,

Lalit Kumar Sharma

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. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following: 

● The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

● A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

● A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3. Please note that funding information should not appear in any section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript.

4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 

5. We note that Figure 1 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 (a) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (b) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 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/

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

Additional Editor Comments:

The authors must address the comment as there are issues related to the calculation of indices and language. The manuscript is overall week in terms of readability and lack clarity. Further, the manuscript is not prepared as per the PLOS ONE format; at least the primary test setting should be done so that the reviewer can follow the text.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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: Yes

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: No

**********

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: The authors need to revise the ms throughly. I won't emphasize on language but there are sentences which doesn't make sense. I have provided my comments as an attachment. Please find the pdf attached and revise the ms accordingly.

Reviewer #2: The current research holds significant importance as it offers insights into a frequently overlooked category of organisms, namely, small mammals. Below are my overall remarks on the manuscript, with more detailed comments provided in the PDF document.

1. Abstract: The abstract requires certain adjustments in terms of its writing flow and cohesion. Some of the statements in the abstract appear incomplete. Specifically, it lacks information regarding the statistical methods employed to achieve the research objectives.

2. Introduction: The introduction is competently written, but it appears somewhat disjointed and lacks cohesiveness in its narrative. To enhance its clarity, the authors should initially provide a clear definition of the term "Urban protected area." Following this, the first paragraph should incorporate substantial ecological insights into rodents and their pivotal role in maintaining ecosystem health. For instance, rodents serve as crucial prey for meso and small predators, as well as seed predators. The introduction should then delve into how human disturbances and alterations could impact rodent populations and diversity, leading to a discussion of conservation concerns within the National Park. Lastly, it would strengthen the manuscript's scientific rigor to include a hypothesis and corresponding predictions in the conclusion of the introduction.

In the nutshell authors need to make strong ecological rationale with unity and flow in writing.

3. Methods:

Rodent community survey

The Methods section appears disorganized and lacks a clear direction, leading to confusion for readers. Upon closer examination, it seems that the authors placed transects in various habitats and subsequently employed Sherman trapping. However, the current presentation makes it challenging to comprehend the step-by-step process of their sampling, from habitat selection to rodent capture. To improve clarity, the authors should simplify and provide more detailed explanations of their survey methods, ensuring that the sequence is easy for readers to follow. Additionally, statements like "edge effects" need further elaboration to enhance understanding.

Tree and Shrub Density and their Percent Cover

This section should be consolidated under a single heading, such as "Vegetation Variables," as the scattered information under different headings lacks coherence. Additionally, it remains unclear how the quadrates were positioned on the transects—whether they were placed along the transects or centered on Sherman traps. This ambiguity raises concerns regarding the representation of fine-scale rodent habitat usage, which could have substantial implications for the results and their interpretation.

Furthermore, statements like "A 30 x 30cm wire quadrat, thrown along each transect" in line 153 contribute to the confusion in the sampling design.

Moreover, there is insufficient detail provided on how data related to anthropogenic variables was collected during the sampling process. Crucially, the manuscript does not specify how rodent abundance was assessed, whether through traditional capture-recapture methods as briefly mentioned or through alternative methodologies. Clarifications on these points would enhance the comprehensibility of the methodology section and the study as a whole.

Data analysis

Rodent Species Diversity, Richness, Evenness and Abundance

he rationale behind the inclusion of numerous diversity indices needs clarification in the manuscript. Additionally, there is a lack of information regarding how the richness and evenness indices were calculated. Furthermore, the calculation method for abundance is not clearly stated.

To improve the clarity and conciseness of this section, it would be beneficial for the authors to provide explanations for why they chose to use multiple diversity indices, offer details on how richness and evenness indices were computed, and specify the method employed for calculating abundance. Simplifying the presentation of this information will help readers better understand the study's methodology.

Tree and Shrub Density and their Percent Cover

The manuscript would benefit from a clearer rationale for the inclusion of PCA analysis in investigating vegetation differences in various habitats, as it currently appears to create a disconnect between vegetation structure and factors influencing rodent diversity. Staying closely aligned with the study objectives would improve the manuscript's focus. Additionally, it is important for the authors to support their statements with references, especially in the statistical section, to enhance the scientific rigor of their work. The statistical section should not read like a storytelling or blog but should be underpinned by relevant literature and methodology.

Regarding the use of both bivariate and multivariate predictive modeling, the authors should provide a strong justification for this choice. It would be helpful to clarify why they employed both approaches and how they complement each other, especially in cases where GLM with combinations of models may be more powerful. A clear rationale will provide readers with insight into the methodology selection and strengthen the scientific basis of the analysis.

Results

The Results section should be rewritten for improved clarity. It's essential to provide a clear explanation of the type or species groupings that the PCA has undertaken.

Furthermore, considering that the main focus of the manuscript is on rodents, it might be best to maintain consistency in the treatment of the vegetation section. Deviating from the core focus on rodents can create distractions, so it's advisable to align the presentation with the central theme of the study.

Discussion.

Need more strengthening from the perspective of rodent ecology.

In summary, the manuscript exhibits issues with unity and writing flow, resulting in a fragmented understanding of its sections. There is a perception that the authors have introduced unnecessary objectives related to vegetation and its statistical analysis, which detracts from the central focus on rodents. To enhance the manuscript's potential for publication in PLOS ONE, it is advisable to concentrate solely on the rodent aspect and consider restructuring the manuscript for better scientific coherence. A recent manuscript by Misher et al. (2022) on a similar topic could serve as a helpful reference for organizing the manuscript more effectively. A major revision is recommended to address these concerns and improve the overall quality of the manuscript.

Misher C, Vats G and Vanak AT (2022) Differential Responses of Small Mammals to Woody Encroachment in a Semi-Arid Grassland. Front. Ecol. Evol. 10:755903. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2022.755903

**********

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:  Amira Sharief

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: PONE-D-23-23260.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-23260_reviewer.pdf

PONE-D-23-23260R1Drivers of Rodent Community Structure in an Urban National Park, KenyaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lwande,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 30 2024 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,

Dereje Yazezew Mammo, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for considering PLOS ONE for your manuscript "Drivers of Rodent Community Structure in an Urban National Park, Kenya". Peer review of your manuscript is now complete. Based on the reports and my own reading of your manuscript, I have completed my evaluation of your manuscript.

Although the manuscript is thoughtful in its content and important for conservation endeavor, there are some areas that should be improved prior to publication as indicated by the reviewers. Especially the number of tables should be minimized by substituting with figures as per the feasibility. The references citations and bibliography sections also need revision, for instance the authors used both numbering and author in the citation and the journal names are written inconsistently with a mix of abbreviate and full written. There are also some discursive and self- contradictory run on sentences in the literature and discussion section without logical sequencing, lending to distractions and deviations from the key messages that the authors are trying to convey.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. 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 #2: This work addresses the often overlooked rodents in comparison to their larger counterparts, highlighting its significance. In the initial manuscript review, I identified several weaknesses and issues, which I outlined. In the current review, the authors have effectively addressed all of my comments, making a compelling case for publication.

Reviewer #3: Dear authors,

Congratulations on the article.

From what I have seen, the manuscript is much improved since the first submission.

However, I think the abstract can be improved and I think tables are a bit excessive in the text.

You could transform tables into nice graphs, easier to visualise and compare results (Table 2).

Your figure 1 can hardly be understood by someone who does not know the study area, it should be improved.

In general, all figures and tables could be made more attractive and easier to visualise. The fact that most tables are desformatted makes interpretation difficult.

Overall, these are minor changes that can improve your manuscript and then I believe it is ready for publication.

Best wishes

**********

7. 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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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: PONE-D-23-23260_R1.pdf

PONE-D-23-23260R2Drivers of Rodent Community Structure in an Urban National Park, KenyaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lwande,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 18 2024 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,

Waheed Ali Panhwar, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

**********

2. 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 #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

4. 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 #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

5. 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 #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

6. 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 #4: This manuscript provides novel research into the significance of ongoing monitoring of ecosystems which are disturbed by human development and activities, with results applicable to land managers. While the manuscript generally reads well, it could improve through the addition of some fine-scale detail and further explanation of the results and their implications. Furthermore, incorporating the key findings in relation to effects on rodent diversity and abundance into the concluding remarks will ensure that readers grasp the main findings of the study clearly. There are also formatting inconsistencies through the manuscript which require correction to enhance the readability of the paper. The referencing, both in text and in the reference list, still needs some attention to adhere to the PLOS ONE referencing guidelines.

Detailed comments can be found below.

- Appears there may be extra spaces in the text between words/after full stops e.g. Lines 35, 70, 99, 105, 111, 173, 203, 210, 251, 335 (space before the comma), 404.

- Line 36: may read better as “were identified:”

- Lines 41, 46: instead of including that human disturbance had no effect on the two separate metrics, could have a sentence after stating what did have an effect on the metrics stating that human disturbance had no effect in both models.

- Line 48: add “measured” before “biotic and abiotic factors” to limit observations to those factors that were investigated in this study.

- Line 49: “a threat to the faunal diversity” – can the authors truly extrapolate their findings to all faunal diversity in the NNP with the same relationships they found for rodents occurring for all species?

- Line 54: change the full stop after the citation to a comma.

- Line 59: what frequency of monitoring is required? Ongoing?

- Line 62: outline what “the choice” is referring to e.g. the choice of what?

- Line 64: remove the “a” before survival.

- Lines 66, 68, 84, 91: inconsistent formatting of “e.g.” (e.g e.g., and e,g.,) – ensure all are formatted the same throughout the text.

- Line 68: remove the “;” after “prey”.

- Lines 87, 89, 107: the citations have circular brackets instead of square brackets.

- Line 92: is it better to say “park boundaries”?

- Line 98: start the sentence with “The”.

- Line 104: add “a” before “decline”.

- Line 110: “grass species, and scattered low-canopy” text shouldn’t be in italics.

- Line113-114 and 224-225: consider keeping format the same in relation to the use of “and” in the list of animals within the two lots of brackets (e.g. either use “and” before the last animal or remove it).

- Line 116: consider consolidating the figure 1 title e.g. map showing study location of NNP in relation to Kenya (left) and Africa (middle)…

- Line 126-129: consider re-writing sentence more concisely (e.g. Rodents were sampled using a line transect approach using a stratified random design…) or break-up into two sentences. The “for a given effort to sample rodents” component of the sentence doesn’t flow well.

- Line 129-130: this sentence is repetitive of the information provided in the sentence preceding it. Either remove this information from the first sentence which would make that sentence more concise, or remove this sentence.

- Line 130: replace “it is sensitive” with “they are sensitive”.

- Line 132: I think “a long” should be one word “along”.

- Line 133: insert “as” before “sites”. What is the distance from park boundaries that sampling occurred at?

- Line 136: what is the distance from edge boundaries that trapping occurred at?

- Line 140: sentence may benefit from adding “traps” after “relocating”.

- Line 143: a space is needed after the full stop. Consider replacing “of importance” with “recorded”. May also benefit from including that the species were recorded here too.

- Line 146: add s to “shrub”.

- Line 148, 150: consider using lower case m for the units as you have used lower case letters for other measurement units e.g. cm.

- Line 150: a space is needed after the full stop.

- Line 151: consider adding “possible” after “taxa”.

- Line 154, 156: keep formatting consistent when referring to “savannah, riverine, forest” – they appear as both capitals and lower case.

- Line 158, 248: the reference to figure 1 isn’t consistent (e.g. one is capitalised and one isn’t).

- Lines 164-167: the sentence doesn’t read properly with the inclusion of brackets around site names.

- Line 167: consider re-wording “site named” to “sites” and then replace the “was” (line 168) to “were”.

- Line 168: remove “savanna, forest and riverine” as is repetitive information.

- Line 174: remove the extra “ .”

- Line 180, 186, 191: is there relevant citations can include here?

- Line 217-222: sentence is too long and needs to either be broken up or re-written. Remove the repeated “the rodent species richness, abundance, and diversity” section.

- Line 231, 427, 430, 458: citation referenced incorrectly.

- Line 232: consider writing “ the smallest AIC value”.

- Line 235: consider writing” because non-lethal traps were used for…”

- Line 244: use the abbreviation for NNP.

- Line 245: add a comma after “J”.

- Line 246: add a full stop at the end of the sentence.

- Line 249: consider adding “sites” to the end of the sentence.

- Line 254: consider writing “where only a single species was caught” for improved clarity.

- Line 255: need to add in the close bracket.

- Lines 292, 293: add a “0” in front of the decimal point.

- Line 294: remove the comma after 6.

- Line 298, 312: should “per cent” read “percent”?

- Line 300: should it read “control sites”?

- Line 305: the results may benefit from adding in if the difference was significant or not.

- Line 306: add in “and” before “tree density”. Remove the capital from “Vegetation”.

- Line 308: it may be beneficial to define what you mean by dominant (e.g. was it based on a threshold of X% cover of a site?). This may be beneficial in the Methods.

- Line 309, 310: inconsistent formatting of savannah – sometimes with a capital, other times without.

- Line 311: was there any statistical analyses conducted for these comparisons? Was there significant differences in dominant plant species composition across the vegetation types? Report these.

- Line 326: remove “a” before “savannah”.

- Line 334: add “a” before “dominant tree”.

- Line 339-340: inconsistent formatting of sp (e.g. sp, sp and sp.).

- Line 348: add “more” before “abundant”.

- Line 349, 358, 368: suggest just referring to the supplementary table as “S1 Table” or “S2 Table” – relevant for all references to supplementary tables.

- Table 5: should the “wet season cf. dry season” be all on one line?

- Tables 6, 7, 8, 9: just wondering why the metrics are in all capitals (and table 9 also bold).

- Line 370: space needed in “Table7”.

- Table 9: should the forest for the second and third lines all be on one line?

- Line 392: “in” should have a capital I.

- Line 394: end bracket should not be in italics.

- Line 398: do the authors mean globally in reference to abundance or just within the study area?

- Line 404: remove “a” before “significant”.

- Line 405: this sentence is a very strong claim. I would suggest adding “can affect small mammal populations” as otherwise the sentence reads that this is always the case.

- Line 412: is there a citation for the distribution?

- Line 415: space required in “H.kerbispeterhansi”.

- Line 418: is there any evidence to support this claim in this study?

- Line 424: clarify whether this refers to in this study or in the aforementioned studies.

- Line 429: clarify whether this refers to native or introduced species or both.

- Line 453: perhaps a different word than “advances” would be better here.

- Line 456: perhaps add analyses or similar to the end of the sentence. Also, remove the “s” from “types”.

- Line 457: could you provide examples of the different resources required?

- Line 458: authors could expand on what they mean by “influences” e.g. positive/negative etc.

- Line 460: suggest re-writing this sentence to improve readability.

- Line 461: remove the “(“ in front of the square bracket.

- Line 465: perhaps add “species” after Mus.

- Line 471: the concluding paragraph may benefit from re-stating how the vegetation types influenced rodent diversity.

- Line 473: including the effect on abundance (e.g. increase/decrease) will help the reader finish the article with a clear understanding of how your measured metrics affected it. It may also be stronger take-home message to re-write the end of the sentence to something like “anthropogenic habitat disturbance has no direct influence”.

- References: spaces are required between the year, volume number and page numbers for the journal articles. Journal names also aren’t abbreviated as per PLOS ONE guidelines.

- Lines 534, 594, 601: have random numbers associated with them and no further information.

- Lines 628-630: suggest not including “.pdf” in the table title names.

- Figure titles: keep consistent in formatting throughout the manuscript – some ended in full stops while others didn’t.

Reviewer #5: The manuscript has been well written and all issues addressed, but I just have some few things to be addressed to improve the quality of the manuscript.

**********

7. 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 #4: No

Reviewer #5: 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: PONE-D-23-23260R2 Review.docx

PONE-D-23-23260R3Drivers of Rodent Community Structure in an Urban National Park, KenyaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lwande,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 07 2025 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,

Clement Ameh Yaro, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #6: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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 #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

4. 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 #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

5. 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 #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

6. 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 #5: All authors have answered queries raised with regards to improving this manuscript. I want to say to the authors, Well done!

Reviewer #6: The manuscript focuses on the rodent assemblage in a national park embedded within an urban matrix, making it highly relevant for understanding the wildlife in these areas, which are essential for biodiversity conservation. The manuscript is well-written and, from what I can see, has improved substantially since the initial version submitted. I only have two minor comments:

- I could not find information about the years and months when the rodent sampling was conducted. I suggest adding this information.

- It would be helpful to include details about the size of the national park (in km²) for readers who may not be familiar with it.

**********

7. 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 #5: No

Reviewer #6: 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.

Drivers of Rodent Community Structure in an Urban National Park, Kenya

PONE-D-23-23260R4

Dear Dr. Lwande,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Clement Ameh Yaro, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #6: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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 #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

4. 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 #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

5. 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 #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

6. 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 #5: (No Response)

Reviewer #6: Thank you for addressing all the comments. Congratulations for your work, very interesting for the conservation of biodiversity in natural spaces within urban environments.

**********

7. 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 #5: Yes:  Olukayode James Adelaja

Reviewer #6: No

**********