The manuscript presents the data set collected by the use or motion-activated camera traps with Chornobyl's Red Forest during a one-year period following massive wild fires. Authors also analyse the relationship between mammal richness and abundance, and estimated radiation levels (i.e. estimated dose rates). This is a very complete and valuable data set that will allow to examine many different ecological questions (e.g. rewilding processes, post-fire regeneration, ecological effects of radiation, disturbance of war related actions…) within a very special place. 

My only suggestion refers to the Discussion of the results, and its comparison with a previous paper (Moller and Mousseau 2013). In my view, it would be worth to mention that the present study differs in many aspects to Moller and Mousseau (2013): different geographic scope (broader in the 2013 paper, which includes most of the Exclusion Zone, and not just the Red Forest), different contamination scenarios (2013 paper included areas with much lower radiation levels, which may affect the comparisons regarding the effects of radio-contamination on mammal distribution)…

I have also two minor suggestions:

- I would prefer to have Table 1 arranged following a phylogenetic order, rather than an alphabetic one.

-Figure 3. I suggest to remove "Demonstration of the lack of" from the legend.

This is an interesting and important data set relative to wildlife within the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone.  The study uses camera traps within a small area of the red forest following a forest fire.  The data are important because the abundance and diversity of wildlife at Chernobyl and Fukushima is controversial with groups reporting highly different results.  The data of Barnett et al.  align with the establishe paradigms of radioecology as established over the last 50+ years.  The conclusions of the study are supported by the data presented.  

One suggestion is to add additional details on the dose calculations.  External dose is not addressed explicitily.  I assume external dose is simulated using the ERICA model and based on radioactivity soil concentrations of 137Cs and 90Sr.  If so, please add what soil moisture variable was used in your ERICA model run.  External dose simulated by ERICA is quite sensitive to soil moisture, and this information could be useful to others that want to use your data.  You do state that ambient external dose rate was measured at each camer trap location.  Please make it clear to the reader whether the ambient dose rate was used to estimate dose rate to wildlife, or if the ERICA model simulated both internal and external dose rates.