PSTR-D-22-00075

Sustaining elephant population under changing climate and habitat loss

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation

Dear Dr. Randhir,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Sustainability and Transformation. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Sustainability and Transformation'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.

We will see that while reviewers are generally positive about this study, there are some comments that require your attention before a final decision can be made.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 60 days May 15 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 SustainTransform@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pstr/ 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 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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alka Bharat

Academic Editor

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation

Journal Requirements:

1. Please send a completed 'Competing Interests' statement, including any COIs declared by your co-authors. If you have no competing interests to declare, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist". Otherwise please declare all competing interests beginning with the statement "I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests:"

2. Please amend your detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article. It must therefore be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.

a. State the initials, alongside each funding source, of each author to receive each grant.

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.

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

3. Please provide separate figure files in .tif or .eps format only and remove any figures embedded in your manuscript file. Please also ensure that all files are under our size limit of 10MB.

For more information about figure files please see our guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/sustainabilitytransformation/s/figures

https://journals.plos.org/sustainabilitytransformation/s/figures#loc-file-requirements

4. In the online submission form, you indicated that "Will be available on request". All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons by return email and your exemption request will be escalated to the editor for approval. Your exemption request will be handled independently and will not hold up the peer review process, but will need to be resolved should your manuscript be accepted for publication. One of the Editorial team will then be in touch if there are any issues.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

--------------------

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I don't know

--------------------

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

--------------------

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

--------------------

Reviewer #1: I think it is a quality and valuable work. It is certain that re-evaluating the importance of a very important species for African ecology with such a meticulous study will certainly contribute to the field. For this reason, what I wrote, except for the first clause, mentioned below, is purely a suggestion. Nevertheless, I should point out that the disclosure of the first clause is an important and central importance to the readers of the research, although how it is explained is up to the authors.

1. The statements about habitat change and the impact of climate change on the elephant population in the 2nd and 3rd clauses of the objectives constitute the view that habitats are not affected by climate change. Even if an anthropocentric change on the habitat is mentioned, it would be beneficial to use the ecosystem approach, to evaluate nature and its components as a whole, and to consider the impact in this context. Of course, if what is meant is that the human being is nonnatural, this also needs to be explained. On the other hand, if it is a geographical change in the natural course of the planet, which is possible, then data should be presented on the timeline. In any case, readers need an explanation here. Because the expression here determines for whom and for what the solution is sought.

2. Question for the reader: at line 293 "As such, the incorporation of temperature change did not require detrending." This expression may need to be explained a little more clearly. The calculation and the formula used are not my area of expertise, so l could miss undertood: but while l read I thought that temperature has an effect on the presence of water and this is may not an adequate explanation. I am aware of the explanations in the following sections, but as I said, unfortunately it is not a clear statement enough for me to understand. If it's my fault l am sincerely apologise.

3. Adaptation of animals to climatic conditions is an important field of study. It may be useful if an addition (supported by studies) is made in this direction on the adaptation of elephants. A contribution in this direction can be made in the discussion section.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the previliage to review. The authors have analyzed an important issue regarding the status of elephants in Africa and their habitats under climate change. However, the presentation of the research is not clear and there are several issues that need to be addressed before full peer review.

• The grammar in the manuscript needs to be improved. The authors may consider seeking assistance from a native speaker or using a language model to do so.

• The need for this research is not clearly stated, and the existing research gaps and the rationale for the study are missing. Furthermore, the literature review is not up-to-date and the references used are outdated. To improve this, the authors may critically review the recent literature in the field, such as by using the search query "Africa, Elephants" on Google Scholar. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=Africa,+Elephants&hl=en&as_sdt=0,3&as_ylo=2019

• Facts and figures, such as those found on lines 40, 74, 75, 92, 94, 97, and 104, need to be supported by references. If the authors conducted measurements, the methods and accuracy should be discussed.

• The figures are not clear and are of low resolution. Figure 2, in particular, is not clear and it is advised to name the subplots and describe each one (e.g. 2a, 2b, 2c). Improper use of text in the legend, such as "Popn," should be updated.

• There are several methods applied in this research, and the rationale and reliability of the results are unclear. To improve this, the authors should explain all methods used for the readers, for example, it is unclear why the SCS number method was used over other existing methods. Authors may add a methodological flowchart.

• Lines 158, 317, and 366 - only citing references would not mean anything to the readers, they should be explained well.

Reviewer #3: The topic addressed is highly relevant and the research idea clear and unique, the empirical data appears to be sound and the statistical methods appropriate and well-chosen. However, there are a few major issues that the authors should consider when resubmitting the manuscript.

First, I found the introduction and the description of the study area difficult to follow without a map or other form of visualisation. For example, I am not sure if the BINP is part of the research region (lines 105ff) or outside (as suggested in lines 76ff.).

Second, not sure about the independence of objectives 2 and 3 - assuming that climate change is likely to have an impact on habitat change.

Third, while the empirical model and the data compilation is explained in great detail (in my opinion, the main text should only contain the key information while the details should be transferred to the appendix, or even the supplementary material) I found the presentation of the results not presented and discussed in a sufficiently meaningful and way. Crucial interpretations and contextualisations of the results seem to be missing. For example, there is no reason provided for the 'tremendous decline in the 1990s'. Further, the results are not really discussed in the sense of situating the findings in the relevant body of research on the issue under scrutiny. Finally, there are several policy experiments mentioned, but seemingly only one really elaborated on.

Fourth, the policy scenarios and policy experiments should be elaborated on.

Fifth, data were not provided in a repository directly accessible by reviewers. I give the authors the benefit of the doubt that the data are alright and made accessible after publication. Yet, I could and did not evaluate this.

There are also quite a few editorial and other issues that the authors would need to address when resubmitting the paper.

In general, the English is quite appropriate, yet, the text contains a few mistakes in grammar and some misspellings. Thus, the text should be carefully checked in this regard before resubmission.

- Line 16: GVL - please spell out since abstracts needs to be understandable on its own (without referring to the main text)

- Lines 60ff.: I suggest to write "1) to develop...2) to assess...3) to assess"

- Lines 70-75: The sentences appear to be quite similar.

- Lines 76f.: Does this imply that BINP is outside your research region (see above)?

- Line 106: please introduce abbreviation earlier - when you first mention the park in Line 76

- Line 112: what do you mean with 'vegetation cover demographics'?

- Line 119: "Second, climate change"

- Lines 129 - 132: I do not understand this sentence. Why did introducing climate change 'increase elephant natality'?

- Line 171 and elsewhere: here, you start to not use only the reference number but you often provide the author names instead. Please follow journal rules

- Line 198: "standard method."

- Line 387: " performance validation was done"

- Lines 410f.: "corresponding to" and "indicating that"

- Line 466: "years completely phased out"

- Line 534: There is "1)" but no 2) or 3)....

- Figures are quite low resolution, but I guess this is due to the PDF version.

--------------------

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.

PSTR-D-22-00075R1

Sustaining elephant population under changing climate and habitat loss

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation

Dear Dr. Randhir,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Sustainability and Transformation. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Sustainability and Transformation'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.

Reviewers have highlighted several positive points in this study, but at the same time, there are still several points that need to be addressed before a final decision can be made.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 60 days Oct 20 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 SustainTransform@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pstr/ 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 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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alka Bharat

Academic Editor

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation

Journal Requirements:

1. We noticed that you used "unpublished" in the manuscript. We do not allow these references, as the PLOS data access policy requires that all data be either published with the manuscript or made available in a publicly accessible database. Please amend the supplementary material to include the referenced data or remove the references.

2. Please amend your detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article. It must therefore be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.

a. 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.”

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

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

3. Some material included in your submission may be copyrighted. According to PLOS’s copyright policy, authors who use figures or other material (e.g., graphics, clipart, maps) from another author or copyright holder must demonstrate or obtain permission to publish this material under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License used by PLOS journals. Please closely review the details of PLOS’s copyright requirements here: PLOS Licenses and Copyright. If you need to request permissions from a copyright holder, you may use PLOS's Copyright Content Permission form.

Please respond directly to this email or email the journal office and provide any known details concerning your material's license terms and permissions required for reuse, even if you have not yet obtained copyright permissions or are unsure of your material's copyright compatibility.

Potential Copyright Issues:

Fig 1: please (a) provide a direct link to the base layer of the map (i.e., the country or region border shape) and ensure this is also included in the figure legend; and (b) provide a link to the terms of use / license information for the base layer image or shapefile. We cannot publish proprietary or copyrighted maps (e.g. Google Maps, Mapquest) and the terms of use for your map base layer must be compatible with our CC-BY 4.0 license.

Note: if you created the map in a software program like R or ArcGIS, please locate and indicate the source of the basemap shapefile onto which data has been plotted.

If your map was obtained from a copyrighted source please amend the figure so that the base map used is from an openly available source. Alternatively, please provide explicit written permission from the copyright holder granting you the right to publish the material under our CC-BY 4.0 license.

Please note that the following CC BY licenses are compatible with PLOS license: CC BY 4.0, CC BY 2.0 and CC BY 3.0, meanwhile such licenses as CC BY-ND 3.0 and others are not compatible due to additional restrictions.

If you are unsure whether you can use a map or not, please do reach out and we will be able to help you. The following websites are good examples of where you can source open access or public domain maps:

* U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) - All maps are in the public domain. (http://www.usgs.gov)

* PlaniGlobe - All maps are published under a Creative Commons license so please cite “PlaniGlobe, http://www.planiglobe.com, CC BY 2.0” in the image credit after the caption. (http://www.planiglobe.com/?lang=enl)

* Natural Earth - All maps are public domain. (http://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/)

"

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[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)

Reviewer #6: (No Response)

Reviewer #7: All comments have been addressed

--------------------

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Sustainability and Transformation’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: Yes

--------------------

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

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: N/A

--------------------

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #6: (No Response)

Reviewer #7: Yes

--------------------

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

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation 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: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: 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: See attached comments

Reviewer #5: See the attachement.

Reviewer #6: (No Response)

Reviewer #7: Comments were given in the first draft

--------------------

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.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: No

Reviewer #7: Yes:

--------------------

[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: PSTReview.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review_Sustaining elephant population under changing climate and habitat loss_.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments for authors.pdf

Dynamic modeling of African elephant populations under changing climate and habitat loss in the Greater Virunga Landscape

PSTR-D-22-00075R2

Dear Dr. Randhir,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Dynamic modeling of African elephant populations under changing climate and habitat loss in the Greater Virunga Landscape' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Sustainability and Transformation.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team. 

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

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 SustainTransform@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Sustainability and Transformation.

Best regards,

Isabel Marques

Section Editor

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

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 #8: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Sustainability and Transformation’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #8: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #8: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. 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 #8: Yes

**********

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

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation 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 #8: 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: See attached

Reviewer #8: (No Response)

**********

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.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #8: No

**********

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PSTReview2.pdf