Dear Dr. Kifle,

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 Nov 29 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.

• 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,

Abdallah M. Samy, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.-->--> -->-->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: "Bahir Dar University"-->--> -->-->Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."-->--> -->-->If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.-->--> -->-->Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.-->--> -->-->3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "This work was funded by the Bahir Dar University. We would like to thank the Zegie district administers for allowing us to carry out this study in the Zegie Peninsula. Our thanks also go to the local people who answered the questionnaire survey politely."-->--> -->-->We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments 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 and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "Bahir Dar University"-->--> -->-->Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.-->--> -->-->4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.-->--> -->-->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 (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:-->--> -->-->1. 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].”-->--> -->-->2. 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/-->?>

[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?

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: After reviewing the manuscript titled “Population size, habitat association, and local residents’ attitudes towards rock hyrax (Procavia capensis) in Zegie Peninsula, Ethiopia,” I have several recommendations for major revisions:

Key Points and Recommendations:

1. Population estimation methodology

The manuscript uses the line transect method to estimate the rock hyrax population, which is a solid choice. However, it would be helpful to explain a bit more about why 18 transects were used and how their lengths were decided. This would make the study easier to replicate. It’s also great that the transects were done during both the dry and wet seasons and at different times of the day, but it’s not clear whether the same transects were repeated or if new ones were set up each time. Adding some clarification on that, and why those specific times were chosen (maybe based on rock hyrax activity), would really strengthen this section. Finally, including error margins or confidence intervals for the population estimates would boost confidence in the findings and give readers a better understanding of how precise the results are.

2. Data on habitat association

The study gives a general overview of where the rock hyraxes were found, mentioning four habitat types: lakeshore, human premises, tall trees with coffee plantations, and bushland. Most of the hyraxes were spotted around the lakeshore, with none recorded in the bushland. While this gives us a basic idea of their habitat use, the analysis feels a bit surface-level. It would be helpful to go deeper into why they prefer certain areas, like the availability of food or shelter, and back this up with a more detailed analysis. For example, using a habitat preference index or another statistical tool could help show exactly how hyraxes are choosing their habitats. This would make the study more insightful and give a clearer picture of how they’re using different areas throughout the seasons.

3. Questionnaire design and analysis

While the questionnaire survey looks at local residents' attitudes, there isn't much detail on how the questions were developed or validated, and I’m not sure if any pilot testing was done to ensure validity and reliability. Additionally, the analysis leans heavily on descriptive statistics and a simple Chi-square test to compare attitudes across groups like gender and education. Exploring the data further by using more advanced methods, such as logistic regression, could uncover interesting patterns or relationships between other demographic factors and attitudes. This would add depth to the analysis and provide a richer understanding of the local community's views.

4. Lack of ecological context and comparison

The study does mention rock hyrax population densities in other places like the Bale Mountains and the Serengeti, but it doesn’t really dive into the ecological factors that might explain why those numbers are different from what was found in Zegie. Things like food availability, predators, or human activity could be playing a big role, but they aren't discussed in detail. Adding more about these factors would help paint a clearer picture of what’s going on in Zegie. Also, while there are some comparisons with other areas, it would be useful to compare Zegie to regions with similar environments to help explain why the results might be unique. This kind of deeper context would make the findings stronger and more insightful.

5. Cultural considerations

The paper brings up some really interesting cultural beliefs about the rock hyrax, like the idea that it has magical powers and the fact that it’s used in traditional medicine. But this section could be developed more. It would be great to see a deeper discussion of how these beliefs affect people’s attitudes toward conservation. For example, do these beliefs make people less likely to support conservation, or could the use of the hyrax in traditional medicine actually help conservation efforts by showing its value to the community? Exploring this more would give a fuller picture of the cultural dynamics and how they might play a role in protecting the species.

6. Conservation recommendations

The study points out that conservation is important, but the recommendations feel a bit general. It mentions raising awareness and educating the community, which is good, but there could be more specific, practical suggestions. For example, it would be great to see ideas for reducing conflicts between locals and rock hyraxes, like ways to protect crops or involve the community in conservation efforts. You could also suggest some habitat management strategies to help balance the needs of both the animals and the people. Adding more concrete, actionable steps would make the recommendations stronger and more useful for anyone looking to implement conservation measures.

Reviewer #2: General comments

1. The manuscript has availed useful ecologic information concerning Procavia capensis in a peninsula at Lake Bahir Dar shore. It is largely a well written manuscript, but quite a bit of writing problems need attention.

2. Reference citations are a bit awkward especially when a statement begins with a citation number. The name of the author(s) should precede the number reference. For example, the sentence in lines 252/253 state “Similarly, [13] recorded more adult ratio than babies in the Bale Mountains National Park, Ethiopia” Should read as “Teklehaimanot et al (13) recorded more adults than babies in the Bale Mountains National Park, Ethiopia. There are many more examples, e.g., in lines 256, 269, 270, 281, 284, 285, 287, 298, 310, etc.

3. The scientific name for “Shembeko” should be availed to be consistent and to assist international readers grasp the message.

4. The population of rock hyraxes was estimated using 18 strip transects. What is the probability that hyraxes maybe found in different transects at different times and then double-counted? I think a note about possibility (likelihood) of double counting would help. Double counting can lead to overestimation of population size. Contrarily, as the investigators walked along the transect lines, the did not pause at any point. They just kept moving forward. That means resting animals could not be counted. Some behavioral characteristics of hyraxes would determine mobility, e.g., not foraging as a colony, etc.

5. The hours of the hyrax counting seem confusing. How can late afternoon be designated as 8:30 – 11:30? Similarly, 3:30 – 5:30 designated as morning hours need be explicated. If counting started at 3:30 a.m., one wouldn’t expect hyraxes at that early hour. Either a 24-hr or a.m./p.m. time should be provided properly.

6. It would be interesting to see data about the mean number of hyraxes spotted at each counting point.

7. In table 1, it is shown that a high proportion (44/45%) of rock hyraxes dwelled around human dwellings. This observation was not discussed in the results/discussions. It would help to highlight whether humans have intruded in hyrax habitats or if hyraxes liked roaming and foraging around human dwellings.

8. In tables 2 &3 religion is listed under educational level. It is unclear why this is the case. Is it in reference to study participants who can read and write but have not gone to school? This is also the case in figure 2. In both tables and in figure 2, it is better to provide a proper designation of educational level. There is also another designation (certificate and above) that is confusing. It is also important to mention whether schooling level is being attended or completed.

======

For editorial/minor comments, please see attached file, which also contains the above general comments.

Thanks

Reviewer #3: The manuscript brings nice information from under researcher region. But, the concerns raised in the annotated pdf should be addressed line by line. Please see the comments line by line, my comment goes upto page 43

**********

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: No

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-24-32415_reviewer.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-32415 Marked.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-30486.pdf

Dear Dr. Kifle,

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 Apr 21 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.

• 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,

Honnavalli Nagaraj Kumara, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments :

Both the reviewers provided the corrections and suggestions directly in the MS, and the same is attached with this email. 

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: The manuscript can still be improved substantially. There are some corrections to be made. I have used the pdf file to directly put my comments at the appropriate locations. I refer the authors to go through the revised document where I have shown my comments and corrections.

Reviewer #3: The MS should address the weakness before being accepted for publication. I have attached a more detailed list of comments and suggestions within the manuscript itself [if applicable, mention how you've provided comments, e.g., using track changes, PDF annotations]. These comments are intended to be constructive and to help the authors strengthen their work.

I believe that addressing these points will significantly improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript. Therefore, I recommend that the manuscript be revised before being considered further for publication.

**********

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-24-32415_reviewer Comments Embedded.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: Recommendation for improvment.docx

Population size, habitat association and local residents’ attitude towards rock hyrax (Procavia capensis) in Zegie Peninsula, Ethiopia

PONE-D-24-32415R2

Dear Dr. Kifle,

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,

Honnavalli Nagaraj Kumara, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

All the concerns are well addressed

Reviewers' comments: