Behavioural Impact of Captive Management Changes in Three Species of Testudinidae

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting this interesting paper that investigates the behaviour of three tortoise species following an enclosure change. There is a lot of value to papers of this type because, as is well acknowledged in the work, there is less information available for zoo-housed reptiles than mammals.

At current however, there seem to be some large revisions required in the manuscript to ensure the work is scientifically robust. I have attached the PDF version of the manuscript with specific comments. Additionally, please consider the following points:

1. Literature. At current, the wider research for the species is poor. There is limited evidence of research on the three species in terms of captive (or wild) behaviour and biology. The extensive data on the thermal biology, specifically, has been entirely ignored. Understanding of the natural history and behaviour is essential if the results are to be interpreted. 

2. Methods. Please provide clearer information on when the sampling took place. What times were observations conducted? Most importantly, be clear on the exact sampling method that was used as the results don't match up with what has been stated. For example, how was duration recorded? 

3. Results. The analysis is currently very basic and as such, does not provide a clear message regarding the findings. There is strong evidence that environmental variables (e.g. temperature) are highly correlated with behaviour. There needs to be acknowledgment of time of day and environmental effects on the results; multivariate statistics will allow you to do this. Without this, you may be attributing much of the behaviour change to enclosure changes, when it could just be the result of summer / time of day. As a bare minimum, statistics need to be re-run, taking into account time of day and temperature, though humidity and presence of observer / camera would add value.

4. Discussion. There needs to be much clearer acknowledgement of the possible interpretation of the statistics.

5. Wording. Currently there are many errors in wording, grammar and referencing. A full proof read of the substantially revised manuscript is necessary. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. The introduction has been rounded out with general animal welfare and zoo information. A section on tortoise thermoregulation and activity levels has been added into the discussion, with a focus on the target species. The methods have been clarified, a focal animal sampling method was used. Data was collected 9 times a day, for each animal (once an hour between the hours of 8AM and 5PM). The data collection spanned 3 consecutive days. Statistics have been re-run to include time of day and temperature. All figures have been updated. The observer was observing from the public viewing areas outside the enclosure. The cameras were located in the same position out of reach from the tortoises and did not move day to day. A more complex analysis has been conducted to account for time of day, species, and temperature differences. Discussion has been reviewed and re-written to include updated interpretation of re-ran statistics. The paper has had a thorough proofread.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have presented a novel way to evaluate animal behavior in captivity to assess wellness. Providing more space to captive animals and additional enrichment may seem like obvious improvements, but I like that they did this because it allows for evaluation of their methods. Thinking of animal behavior in this way and in under studied taxa is a valuable contribution to the literature.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback and taking the time to review this paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

Spelling/grammar issues (I realize that spelling differs among the British colonies, but as the colony that bailed the mother country out of two great wars, I prefer the American spelling, less vowels):

83 Diet for all groups consist of ad libitum grass hay, as well ass defined

87 Glen Osmund, South Australia), and a calcium -vitamen D supplement

100 This study utilized the opportunity pf planned changes to the

161 correction was conducted post hoc on each behaviour to invesitagte

172 duration/frequency of ith behaviour. A higher H value represents greater

195 A repeated measures GLM was conducted on the aggression

200 diffenences over time, p

<0.05, as displayed in Figure 4.>

206 50057) = 17 p<001 (decimal missing)

214 Figure 4. Mean Duration of Co-occupand Agression at Three Timepoints (1) (missing a space and “aggression” is usually spelled with two “g,” it is spelled correctly in the discussion)

164 165 A repeated measures GLM and Bonferroni post 164 hoc was (plural, should be were) repeated again on any significant results by isolating the data for 165 each species

276 interaction. A Bonferroni post hoc analysis revealed that co -occupant 277 aggression and co -occupant interaction behaviours was (plural subjects) significantly different at both subsequent time points compared to baseline (Figure 3).

Please provide make and model of UV lamps as that will be of interest to readers and not all lamps are created equal.  It’s less of an endorsement as it is just sharing husbandry ideas.

91 basking lights and UV lamps

294 the aforementioned dohphin study.

297 had stabilised.

305 levels. Figure 7 clearly separates the diversity index data by species. Both

306 H values for the Radiated’s increased post environmental change. (sentence fragment)

325 behaviours so the monitoring of behaviours is still required. (try not to use “so” as a conjunction, grammar would be improved with a compound sentence or adverb clause)

334 modification. A study on gecko’s produced mean index values between

335 1 and 2.5 [23] as calculated in the current study. (another fragment sentence)

343 [22]. However, perhaps of more value than specifying a particular (don’t need both words here, better grammar to reword, improve the syntax will help your reader)

354 to 5 to 10 minuites with a total focal time of 135 to 270 minuites each

Comments:

263 and a decrease in co -occupant interaction. It could be that the new 264 resources introduced gave the tortoises something to compete over, or 265 potentially upset the established social hierarchy. Depending on the age/breeding potential of the Leopard and Radiated, is there any thought that the larger enclosure(s) are encouraging breeding behavior which correlates with more aggressive interaction?  Just a thought.

 

364 to 389: so well written it looks like a different author wrote this section.  The grammar and logic are strong in this section, much stronger than the result’’s section grammar and explanation.

Excellent topic and wonderful example of using a zoological setting to gather important data.  The number of spelling issues detracts from the reading.  The results section should be re examined by the authors again.  Have others read it for clarity as the explanation of the statistics is difficult (the topic is also difficult to explain, but I believe you can improve).  I recommend improving syntax so a reviewer can focus more on the methods and data which is difficult at this time.  Excellent first attempt, read your papers for simple typos before submission.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. Apologies for the typo's, these have been corrected. In response to your comment about larger enclosures encouraging breeding behaviour, this could definitely be a factor, however the leopard tortoises are an all male population. It would be difficult to discuss this in terms of breeding behaviour, especially as breeding behaviour and aggression in tortoises can look quite similar, with biting, ramming, shell hooking all potential breeding behaviours. The results have been re-examined and figures updated.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Many thanks for submitting this revised version of the manuscript for review. You have taken into account the feedback provided on the initial review of the paper. You have also shown clearly where changes have been made to the work, as shown with the highlighted sections of text. The developments to the manuscript have resulted in a more robust paper overall. In light of the revisions, the paper is now in a much better position for consideration.

Author Response

Thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

Please read my edits again. I believe you should find a reviewer more suited to the statistical analysis after the grammar has been corrected.  I believe someone more proficient in those statistics would benefit the paper more.  Good luck.

Author Response

A statistician was consulted about the results, and some sections have been re-analysed. Thank you