Revisiting the habitat selection of the Eurasian Woodcock in winter: insights from the Mediterranean region

Article activity feed

1. Version published to 10.24072/pcjournal.720

   May 11, 2026
2. 

   Peer Community In Zoology

   Apr 2, 2026

   I have now received excellent and thorough comments by three reviewers on the manuscript. While all three acknowledge the substantial work involved in data collection and the potential of this work to contribute new ecological knowledge, all three reviewers have substantial concerns with the presentation of the work. I agree with all points raised by the reviewers. Particularly reviewer 2 and 3 have laid out some substantial shortcoming in the methods that I believe must be addressed via a major revision of the methods, including new analyses, as suggested by the reviewers. I also think that the introduction and discussion need to be rewritten as suggested by the reviewers. 

   The only comment I do not agree with 100% is regarding the hypotheses. It is true that this work would have benefitted from clear hypotheses (e.g., I agree with …

   I have now received excellent and thorough comments by three reviewers on the manuscript. While all three acknowledge the substantial work involved in data collection and the potential of this work to contribute new ecological knowledge, all three reviewers have substantial concerns with the presentation of the work. I agree with all points raised by the reviewers. Particularly reviewer 2 and 3 have laid out some substantial shortcoming in the methods that I believe must be addressed via a major revision of the methods, including new analyses, as suggested by the reviewers. I also think that the introduction and discussion need to be rewritten as suggested by the reviewers. 

   The only comment I do not agree with 100% is regarding the hypotheses. It is true that this work would have benefitted from clear hypotheses (e.g., I agree with reviewer 2 that the selection of model covariates appears ad hoc and not based on any a priori hypotheses). However, it is also not a good idea to define hypotheses at this stage, after the main analyses have been done. Perhaps a compromise may be to write explicitly why specific covariates were chosen.  

   
   In addition to the reviews’ comments, I also have some specific comments the authors may want to consider: 

    

   L. 28. habitat conditions

    

   L. 36. Does “drier conditions” mean when conditions in wetter regions are dry? Or does it mean drier regions? Please clarify

   
   L. 34-41: Please provide some numbers here, not just qualitative descriptions. For example, what does “less frequently” or “reduced movement” mean in terms of numbers? The lack of quantitative evidence is, unfortunately, recurrent in the ms (see my comments on methods). Reviewer 1 also notes that some results are not supported by numerical evidence. 

   
   L. 115: Habitat selection

   
   L. 130-133: Please also explicitly state what you mean by landscape and local scale, in addition to citing a reference. The reader needs to understand this without having to go through the cited paper. 

   
   Materials and methods: 

   
   I am missing a section that describes the ecology of the study species

   
   Links to Copernicus data: Several Copernicus datasets were used, but the reference is always a link to the main website of Copernicus, not the actual datasets. Please provide more precise references. 

   
   L. 140. Why and how were the subareas selected? Also, S1 and S2 are much closer to each other than the other two sites, an issue the reviewers also see. I therefore think that analyses need to account for potential confounding effect of spatial autocorrelation (in addition to temporal autocorrelation as raised by reviewer 2). 

   
   L. 151-162. I am missing references for the climatological soil quality description of the study sites. What are the sources of information for Table 1? Also, the introduction mentions climate change a lot, but nowhere in this section is there a mention of climatic change patterns in the region - especially of any kind of extreme climatic events during the study period.  

   
   L. 163-165. Why is the mention of agricultural activities important? Does this related to the ecology of the study species? Which brings me to my previous point: I would welcome more information on the study species.  

   
   L. 186: Here and elsewhere: Instead of “many” (here as example), please provide precise numbers of percentages.  

   L. 297. Remove “,” after locations

   
   L. 315-323. I wonder why the subareas were not included as nested Radom factor? That is individual nested within subarea. This is because the subareas were chosen to represent specific environmental conditions (tree density), and this variable is already used as a predictor (along with soil). Therefore, subarea should be a random effect I believe.

   
   L. 349-351. I strongly encourage the authors to reconsider the choice of creating an ad hoc continuous variable for the subareas. Instead, a real environmental gradient, such as temperature or rainfall should be used.

   Read the original source
3. 

   Peer Community In Zoology

   Apr 2, 2026

   Revisiting the habitat selection of a specialist forest bird, Scolopax rusticola, during its wintering in the Mediterranean region.

   General comment

   This study employed GPS tracking to compare habitat use by a forest specialist bird between four study sites in southern France, two of which had deeper soils and more humid climate and two with shallower, drier soils. The study complements previous work on the woodcock because most other studies have been undertaken further north and west, in wetter locations and mature woodland. The study appears to have been conducted using appropriate methods and the authors have presented a clear and thorough explanation of the statistical analyses.

   The subject of behavioural flexibility of species is a topic of general interest, especially with current concerns around the implications of climate change. …

   Revisiting the habitat selection of a specialist forest bird, Scolopax rusticola, during its wintering in the Mediterranean region.

   General comment

   This study employed GPS tracking to compare habitat use by a forest specialist bird between four study sites in southern France, two of which had deeper soils and more humid climate and two with shallower, drier soils. The study complements previous work on the woodcock because most other studies have been undertaken further north and west, in wetter locations and mature woodland. The study appears to have been conducted using appropriate methods and the authors have presented a clear and thorough explanation of the statistical analyses.

   The subject of behavioural flexibility of species is a topic of general interest, especially with current concerns around the implications of climate change. Unfortunately, the paper did not examine this concept as convincingly as I would have liked. I was left feeling that a better study design and more appropriate data collection could have yielded clearer insights into behavioural differences of birds between the different sites and a better explanation of the drivers. I fully appreciate that this would have involved more resource but more information on differences in diets and invertebrate food availability between study subareas would help build a more convincing narrative. I can see that the authors intended to obtain data on activity budgets using accelerometers and it is a pity that this did not yield sufficient data for analysis.

   I think the manuscript could be improved by including an analysis of nocturnal commuting frequency in addition to the current analysis of commuting distances. This could clarify the differences between the subareas. With the exception of dominant tree height and connected forest herbs <50cm, both at night, there is little evidence for selection of habitat features at the local scale. As the discussion is quite long, I suggest reducing some of the text on local scale habitat selection in the discussion and putting the emphasis on the differences between subareas. I think the discussion would benefit from reference to other good examples of behavioural plasticity in habitat use and/or prey exploitation in other species.

   Specific comments

   L160 Use ‘evergreen’ rather than ‘sempervirens’.

   L172 Use ‘dazzled’ rather than ‘glared’.

   L174 Mist-nets

   L176 beginning of the night to preen.

   L177 Ferrand & Gossmann (2009) would be a better refence:

   Ferrand, Y. & F. Gossmann. 2009. Part 5: Ageing and sexing the Eurasian woodcock Scolopax rusticola. Wader Study Group Bulletin 116:75–79.

   L183 Tag plus harness weighed

   L194-198 These lines could be removed to shorten the methods because they describe data not used in the paper.

   L231-232 Rephrase as ‘we excluded the locations for the one bird killed by hunters’.

   L311 Please explain what is meant by scaled TCD and scaled soil wetness. Are they standardized variables to mean 0 and SD 1?

   L413-414 ‘Woodcock in S4 commuted less frequently between distinct diurnal and nocturnal sectors than woodcocks in other subareas’. No data are presented to confirm this. This could be quantified by stating the proportions of nights where woodcocks commuted in each of the subareas and conducting a statistical test of difference (such as a logistic regression with bird-night as the dependent variable (commuted yes/no), subarea as a fixed factor and individual as a random factor).

   L414 ‘commuting distances tended to be shorter’. This is not very convincing as there is no statistical difference.

   L449 Figure 2. The frequency of use of forest at night in this study is much higher than that documented in previous studies at wintering sites further north and west. However, are the authors confident this is not an artefact of their classification of woodland? 5% tree density cover is very low and tree density covers below about 20% could represent largely open habitats with occasional trees that would not typically be described as forest.

   L525 Figure 5. This figure does not add to the paper and should be removed. It shows that the differences between day and night habitat use, and rarely and frequently used habitats, are very subtle within each subarea.

   L541-546 Only the results for commuting distances are presented, not the commuting frequencies. As indicated earlier, an analysis presenting the difference in commuting frequency between the northern and southern subareas would help the reader better understand the scale of difference.

   L600 I suggest deleting the sentence ‘However, we chose not … additional methods and results’.

   L604 Some more detail here on what is known about differences in woodcock diet between southerly, more arid wintering areas and more northerly, wetter areas would be helpful for the reader. What are the main differences between the Aradis et al. 2019 and the Granval 1986 studies?

   L606 It seems likely that in more southerly, drier zones, soil invertebrate food may be less available in open habitats than areas with greater vegetation cover, whereas in north-west Europe earthworms becomes more available in open field habitats relative to woodland in winter, as shown by Hoodless & Hirons (2007).

   L637 Rephrase as ‘wintering area no longer provided the necessary conditions’.

    

   Title and abstract

   Does the title clearly reflect the content of the article? [X ] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [ ] I don’t know
   Does the abstract present the main findings of the study? [X] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [ ] I don’t know

   Introduction

   Are the research questions/hypotheses/predictions clearly presented? [ ] Yes, [X] No (please explain), [ ] I don’t know

   Research questions are rather vague - a comparison of habitat use rather than addressing specific hypotheses.

   
   Does the introduction build on relevant research in the field? [X] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [ ] I don’t know

   
   Materials and methods

   Are the methods and analyses sufficiently detailed to allow replication by other researchers? [X] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [ ] I don’t know
   If applicable (for empirical studies), are sample sizes are clearly justified? [X] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [ ] I don’t know
   Are the methods and statistical analyses appropriate and well described? [X] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [ ] I don’t know

   
   Results

   In the case of negative results, is there a statistical power analysis (or an adequate Bayesian analysis or equivalence testing)? [ ] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [X ] I don’t know
   Are the results described and interpreted correctly? [X ] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [ ] I don’t know

   
   Discussion

   Have the authors appropriately emphasized the strengths and limitations of their study/theory/methods/argument? [X ] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [ ] I don’t know
   Are the conclusions adequately supported by the results (without overstating the implications of the findings)? [ ] Yes, [X ] No (please explain), [ ] I don’t know

   The data and analysis are sound but, as indicated in my review, I think the paper could have been more convincing with additional supporting data to help explain the supposed mechanisms. 

   Read the original source
4. 

   Peer Community In Zoology

   Apr 2, 2026

   The proposed manuscript titled "Revisiting the habitat selection of a specialist forest bird, Scolopax rusticola, during its wintering in the Mediterranean region" presents an investigation into the movement patterns and habitat selection behavior of woodcocks across four distinct wintering sites situated along a latitudinal gradient. The authors have employed a dataset comprising 89 individual woodcocks equipped with GPS-VHF transmitters and tracked between the years 2019 and 2023. Their analysis focuses on three primary aspects of the species' winter ecology.

   First, the study examines movement patterns through several calculated metrics, including the identification of commuting locations that connect roosting and foraging areas, measurement of daily movement distances based on GPS fixes recorded at 9AM and 3PM, and assessment of …

   The proposed manuscript titled "Revisiting the habitat selection of a specialist forest bird, Scolopax rusticola, during its wintering in the Mediterranean region" presents an investigation into the movement patterns and habitat selection behavior of woodcocks across four distinct wintering sites situated along a latitudinal gradient. The authors have employed a dataset comprising 89 individual woodcocks equipped with GPS-VHF transmitters and tracked between the years 2019 and 2023. Their analysis focuses on three primary aspects of the species' winter ecology.

   First, the study examines movement patterns through several calculated metrics, including the identification of commuting locations that connect roosting and foraging areas, measurement of daily movement distances based on GPS fixes recorded at 9AM and 3PM, and assessment of nightly movement patterns using locations obtained between 9PM and 3AM. These movement characteristics are then compared across the four study sites while also considering potential influences of intrinsic factors such as the age and sex of individuals, as well as extrinsic environmental variables including soil wetness conditions.

   Second, the research explores habitat selection at the landscape scale, with particular attention to how the selection for tree cover density varies among the different sites and in relation to soil wetness levels. This component of the study aims to understand broader habitat preferences across the wintering range.

   Third, the investigation delves into fine-scale habitat selection through an extensive field survey effort involving 403 vegetation plots, with six plots surveyed per tracked individual. These plots were characterized for numerous microhabitat features including dominant tree height, tree species composition, proportion of vegetation cover exceeding 0.5 meters in height, along with various other localized habitat characteristics that might influence woodcock habitat use.

   While the manuscript represents a substantial research effort and contains numerous interesting findings about this ecologically significant species, there are several important concerns and questions that need to be addressed to strengthen the validity of the work. In the current form, the manuscript tends to obscure some of the most significant results within an overly lengthy text that includes considerable non-essential information which could reasonably be moved to supplementary materials. At the same time, certain critical methodological details appear to be either missing or insufficiently explained, making proper evaluation of the results challenging.

   One fundamental issue concerns the movement pattern analysis, where the selection of specific metrics and covariates appears somewhat arbitrary without clear a priori hypotheses or biological justification for why these particular measurements and comparisons were chosen. The approach of calculating distances between just two points separated by six-hour intervals seems particularly problematic as it may not adequately capture movement patterns while ignoring the inherent temporal autocorrelation in the data, which could lead to underestimation of confidence intervals in the statistical analyses. A more comprehensive approach examining seasonal home range sizes for each individual might provide more biologically meaningful results while better accounting for individual variation in space use. It may also be more appropriate considering the temporal resolution of the environmental data (1 point per year).

   Regarding the landscape-scale habitat selection analysis, while the examination of tree cover selection in relation to site characteristics and soil wetness is interesting and potentially valuable, the current presentation leaves several crucial questions unanswered about the fundamental structure of the dataset. It remains unclear whether any individual birds were tracked across multiple winter seasons, which has important implications for interpreting the results. If each bird was only observed during a single winter at one site under particular soil wetness conditions, this makes it extremely challenging to properly disentangle the effects of individual preferences, site-specific characteristics, and environmental conditions. Furthermore, the distribution of soil wetness index values across the different sites and years needs to be explicitly addressed - did each study site experience both dry and wet winter conditions during the study period? If not, the inclusion of interaction terms between site and soil wetness in the analyses may not be biologically meaningful or statistically valid.

   A smaller point about this analysis: while I appreciate testing the buffer of different sizes to extrapolate available points, why not just drawing the points from a 100% mcp of the true available locations per individual per year? Would that underrepresent the potential space used by individuals with fewer points?

   The fine-scale habitat selection analysis suffers from unclear description of the statistical methods employed. The text alternates between mentioning a model selection approach, describing counts of locations per plot, and referring to negative binomial models without providing a clear, cohesive explanation of the actual analytical framework. It remains particularly unclear whether the analysis represents a proper habitat selection function using conditional logistic regression or simply examines correlations between habitat characteristics and point densities using negative binomial regression. This fundamental methodological ambiguity needs to be resolved for proper interpretation of the results.

   Beyond these specific analytical concerns, the manuscript would benefit from significant restructuring to improve clarity and focus. The introduction and methods sections in particular could be made more concise by removing non-essential details and moving appropriate material to supplementary information. The paper would be strengthened by more explicit statement of the specific hypotheses being tested and the predicted outcomes for each analysis, which would provide better context for interpreting the results. 

   More detailed comments:

   Ln21: rather “between populations in different geographical areas”

   Ln34: Unclear to me. Please use the same wording if referring to the habitats described above. Are you referring to northern regions that are generally wetter, or to any regions in years where it was very wet? 

   Ln42: “in southern subareas during the day”, if I understood correctly?

   Ln52: I think the authors can find more references to this first opening statement.

   Ln56: Reference missing

   Ln65: Change “devices” with “tools”

   Ln70: I think that this statement is not necessarily true, especially in the last 10 years considering all the GPS data available. Please add references to back up this statement.

   Ln96-97: throughout their annual cycle (REFS) 

   Ln106-108: When I read this statement I think: ok so they’re going to look at side fidelity of woodcocks and see how habitat selection patterns change according to environmental conditions in the same individuals, but this is not what is done in this manuscript, from what I gathered. If the authors feel that they managed to tackle this research gap, please present the data and approaches more explicitly. One idea could be to change Figure 1 in a way that not only represents the four different study sites, but also the different environmental conditions experienced in each year, so that the reader can understand more easily how the different sites varied with SWI across years. This information is embedded in Table 1, but it’s not explicitly reported and muddied by all the text. Figure 1 has some information that is not very relevant (like cities)

   Ln125: “suggesting that a different behavior may occur”

   Methods: In general the method section is very long and in some instances it can be substantially shortened. I provide some suggestions but please consider what parts can be shortened/erased/moved to the supplementary material

   Study area paragraph: here I would add information about how SWI changed across the different study sites in the different years, and refer it to an updated Figure 1 where this information is visually available.

   Ln170: I think using the term site fidelity in this context can be misleading, since in the introduction you used it to refer to animals that each winter come back to the same site, whereas here you use it to refer to individuals that stay within the same wintering home range in a given year.

   Ln186-187: ok, so you had some birds that were present in multiple winters?? This information is important and is very much hidden in this paragraph.

   Ln190: “four locations every 6 hours” to me means 4 locations at 3 AM, 4 locations at 9 AM and so on. I understand now that you mean one location every six hours, correct? Please change accordingly.

   Ln194-196: here and throughout the manuscript: If you’re not reporting the ACC data (or any other type of data), then why mentioning it at all? It is very confusing and just adds to the already very large amount of information that the reader has to deal with. Delete.

   Table 1: this table is very important, but is not really described in the text. Please elaborate on these values (and through an updated Figure 1, for example). Also, what is N mean [min-max]? I assume is number of locations? This needs to be explained in the table legend.

   Ln 229: “identify” instead of “account”

   Ln214-226: all this could be moved to Supp. material in my opinion.

   Ln232-233: so are we now down to 87 individuals in total? 

   Ln242-246: I feel that all this can be shortened

   Ln247-251: this is very interesting.

   Ln276-277: “log-transformed to achieve normality”

   Ln277: “the four explanatory variables” --> which ones? Don’t hesitate to repeat things that for you are obvious. They are not for the reader!

   Ln278: I believe that the mixed model comes from lme4 package, and the estimation of p-values is done with lmerTest?

   Ln282: “the three models” : which ones?

   Ln293: please report the accuracy value.

   Ln298-302: This can be substantially shortened and the random intercept also helps with accounting for individual variability in behaviour, not just for the different in points.

   Ln312-323: I think this is sort of implied and can be deleted.

   Ln330-331: Why did you choose plots with 3-6% of the raw data to define “moderate use” and not something like 20 or 30 or 50? This is quite important and should be explained.

   Ln367-369: as mentioned, I find this paragraph very hard to follow so I don’t really understand what statistical tests were done here. But if you use highly correlated variables in different models, how can you know in the end which variable is actually driving the observed effect? 

   Stats methods in general: what about checking for goodness of fit of the models?

   Table 3: only 5 individuals in S2.. I wonder how good was the fit of this model if you fitted an interaction between subarea:SWI while accounting for individuals as random intercept with these sample sizes?

   Table3-4: I feel that one of those tables can be moved to Supp. material (but then the key information should be reported in the main text).

   Ln417: Who is they? Always repeat the subject unless super obvious.

   Ln 425-426: example of too long sentences.. you can just stop the sentence at not significant.

   Table 4: typo: “linear mixed models”

   Ln475-483: I think here it shows well why using these 3 buffers is confusing. If they don’t change the results, I suggest to pick one and put the others in the supp. materials. Otherwise choose available points from 100% individual MCPs..?

   Figure 3: If you keep the buffers, consider jittering the lines so they’re not at the same Y value.

   Figure 4: From the figure legend you can’t understand what model was fitted. There should be more explanation both here and in all figure legends.

   Figure 5: It’s a nice representation, but why not using the results from the model to do this plot instead of relying only on raw data? You could do a graphical representation along the mediterranean gradient, since it’s what you refer to in this model, and not s1,s2, s3 and s4. I feel that much of the information of figure 5 is now redundant because s1 and s2 are very similar as well as s3 and s4.

   Line 503-504: “degree of mediterranean climate influence” – I find this very confusing. I would explicitly write in the Methods, at line 351, something like “a proxy for Mediterranean gradient”, like it’s actually reported in Figure 4.

   Ln551-552: How do you back up this statement? Are there any data available?

   Ln615-620: can be deleted

   Ln638-643: can you rule out that they simply did not survive?

   Ln648: Are you sure this is unusual or they were simply not tracked before in this area?

   I hope the authors will find these comments useful.

    

    

    

    

   Title and abstract

   Does the title clearly reflect the content of the article? [ ] Yes, [x] No (please explain), [ ] I don't know

   The main focus of the manuscript is not a comparison with previous studies, so I don't think that "revisiting" is the right word. I would rather entitle it "Habitat selection of a specialist forest bird during its wintering period across a mediterranean habitat gradient" or something along these lines.

   Does the abstract present the main findings of the study? [ x] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [ ] I don’t know

   IntroductionAre the research questions/hypotheses/predictions clearly presented? [ ] Yes, [ x] No (please explain), [ ] I don’t know

   Comments about this can be found in the review text

   
   Does the introduction build on relevant research in the field? [x ] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [ ] I don’t know

   
   Materials and methodsAre the methods and analyses sufficiently detailed to allow replication by other researchers? [ ] Yes, [x] No (please explain), [ ] I don’t know

   For many things they are very detailed, and in others the details are so abundant that the reader gets lost in them and cannot follow the steps.

   
   Are the methods and statistical analyses appropriate and well described? [ ] Yes, [ x] No (please explain), [ ] I don’t know

   See concerns about statistical approaches in the main text of the review

   
   Results

   In the case of negative results, is there a statistical power analysis (or an adequate Bayesian analysis or equivalence testing)? [ ] Yes, [ x] No (please explain), [ ] I don’t know

   
   Are the results described and interpreted correctly? [x ] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [ ] I don’t know
   Discussion

   Have the authors appropriately emphasized the strengths and limitations of their study/theory/methods/argument? [ ] Yes, [ x] No (please explain), [ ] I don’t know

   I am concerned about the data structure and how it can influence the results and therefore the interpretation, and this is something that was not mentioned anywhere (also there was no model checking)

   
   Are the conclusions adequately supported by the results (without overstating the implications of the findings)? [ ] Yes, [ ] No (please explain), [x ] I don’t know

    

   Read the original source
5. 

   Peer Community In Zoology

   Apr 2, 2026

   Review text not available.

   Read the original source
6. 

   Peer Community In Zoology

   Apr 2, 2026

   Understanding how species adjust habitat use under varying environmental conditions is central to predicting responses to global change. Yet, empirical studies of habitat selection often focus on limited portions of habitats used by populations (Mayor et al. 2009), which can bias the interpretation of how adaptable or resilient populations are to changes in environmental conditions. The work by Beaumelle and co-authors (2026) assesses winter habitat selection and movement behavior of the Eurasian woodcock (Scolopax rusticola) across a gradient of Mediterranean climate in southern France. The study addresses whether individuals adjust their spatial behavior in response varying climatic and environmental conditions and how such behaviors compare to ones found in other regions  with an Atlantic climate. This question is timely given …

   Understanding how species adjust habitat use under varying environmental conditions is central to predicting responses to global change. Yet, empirical studies of habitat selection often focus on limited portions of habitats used by populations (Mayor et al. 2009), which can bias the interpretation of how adaptable or resilient populations are to changes in environmental conditions. The work by Beaumelle and co-authors (2026) assesses winter habitat selection and movement behavior of the Eurasian woodcock (Scolopax rusticola) across a gradient of Mediterranean climate in southern France. The study addresses whether individuals adjust their spatial behavior in response varying climatic and environmental conditions and how such behaviors compare to ones found in other regions  with an Atlantic climate. This question is timely given projected increases in drought frequency in Mediterranean ecosystems. The authors tracked 84 individuals using GPS-VHF devices and combined these data with environmental variables (soil wetness and temperature) to analyse movement patterns and habitat selection at both landscape and local scales. 

   The results show consistent differences in behaviour along the climatic gradient. Woodcocks in Mediterranean subareas used open habitats at night less frequently than reported in Atlantic regions and relied more on forested habitats, particularly under drier conditions. Movement patterns also differed, with increased daytime movements and reduced nocturnal movements in the most Mediterranean-influenced areas. At the local scale, birds preferentially used denser forest structures, although differences between frequently and infrequently used habitats were relatively subtle. Overall, the study supports the interpretation that woodcocks adjust their habitat use and activity patterns in response to environmental constraints.

   The manuscript was substantially improved during peer review. Reviewers positively evaluated the extensive dataset, the multi-site design, and the potential of the study to provide new insights into habitat selection under contrasting environmental conditions. Reviewers also identified some issues related to the presentation of results, the justification of covariates, and aspects of the analytical framework. In response, the authors clarified the ecological rationale for variable selection, incorporated environmental covariates at a daily scale, added quantitative support to previously qualitative statements, and included additional analyses addressing nocturnal use of open habitats. They also simplified the study design by removing one subarea and improved the clarity of the methods and results sections. These revisions have strengthened the robustness and transparency of the study.

   
   I recommend this article as it provides empirical evidence of behavioural variation within a species across a climatic gradient, based on a substantial tracking dataset and a multi-scale analytical approach. While underlying mechanisms (e.g. prey availability) of behavioural flexibility are not directly tested, the results are robust and contribute to a better understanding of how habitat use may shift under changing environmental conditions. The work also illustrates the importance of extending ecological inference beyond well-studied regions, as species behaviour may differ markedly across their range.

   References

   Camille Beaumelle, Jessica Barbet, Aurélie Cuby, Marc Chautan, Fabrice Etienne, Michel Martel, Alix Du Roure, Rémy Chabanne, Estelle Lauer, Kévin Le Rest (2026) Revisiting the habitat selection of the Eurasian Woodcock in winter: insights from the Mediterranean region. bioRxiv, ver.2 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Zoology https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.05.19.654177

   Mayor, S. J., Schneider, D. C., Schaefer, J. A., & Mahoney, S. P. (2009). Habitat selection at multiple scales. Écoscience, 16(2), 238–247. https://doi.org/10.2980/16-2-3238 

   Read the original source
7. 

   Version published to 10.1101/2025.05.19.654177 on bioRxiv

   May 21, 2025