A Comparative Multi-Zoo Survey Investigating the Housing and Husbandry of Callimico goeldii

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A thorough consideration of housing and husbandry of captive Callimico. It will prove useful to the zoo community. My comments are relatively minor and are detailed below. 

L17 “Significant, positive, differences were discovered between minimum recommended enclosure dimensions” – need to clarify what was being compared here, was it actual enclosures vs minimum recommended dimensions?

L42 Saddleback tamarins have been reclassified from Saguinus to Leontocebus. Would be helpful to include both old and new genus.

L58 59ha (missing the a)

L110/1 repetition of not included

L112 volume rather than cubic metres?

L137/8 Was the additional score for mixed-species exhibits weighted the same as those given per enclosure feature? Was the test Mann-Whitney, or was it a Wilcoxon since on & off exhibit enclosures could be paired by zoo?

L139 When using the terms on and off exhibit do these equate to outside and inside enclosures? Clarity here would help as some inside enclosures are on show / exhibit.    

L141 As above, when considering multi-species mixed-species enclosures, was the score given for each additional species housed equally weighted, and weighted the same as those given per enclosure feature? Alternatively, it could be argued that from a Calimico perspective, an enclosure with other callitrichids may be more complex than one with say an armadillo or group of acouchis. Whichever approach is taken, the methods need to be clear on the weightings used.

L144 Could prevalence of UV lighting be examined with respect to access to outside enclosures? For example comparing those where the animals had access >50% of the time and <50% of the time? Or perhaps using some geographic measure, such as above and below a certain latitude?  

L158 is the figure quoted the EAZA recommended size or recommended minimum size?

L187 Align species names to the left for increased readability. Grey winged trumpeter (not trumpeter bird), remove (parakeet) from Golden conure, and white faced saki (not sakis, unless pluralising the other species). Consider including a column to the left of the species for families, e.g., parrots, callitrichids, rodents etc to increase accessibility for readers less familiar with the species. Check italicisation for genera, the initial letter for some appears to have been missed e.g., Iguana.  

L202 Convention is to avoid starting a sentence with a numeral.  

L207 Northern and Southern climates should be defined in the method. It would be interesting, as mentioned earlier, to compare UV provision for Northern & southern collections (rather than just the absence of provision). When ‘free external access’ is used, does this mean that animals had external access throughout the year? It may be useful to compare external access between Northern & southern collections, perhaps before consideration of UV?.    

L227 It would be helpful to explain social enrichment – the other types are fairly straightforward, but it’s less obvious how social enrichment might be provided.

L235 confirmed rather than confirming

L301 An explanation of Ferguson Zone would be helpful for readers unfamiliar with them, e.g. non-herp specialists

L328 It would be helpful to state here what the preferred branch size and orientation were so that collections can more readily take account of them in their enclosure design.

L366 “There is potential for some aspects of the survey to negatively affect welfare but limitations to the study may have accentuated these” – consider rewording as it is unlikely that the survey or aspects of it negatively impacted the animals’ welfare 

Well written, some very minor comments (see above)

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please find my comments and suggestions for authors attached.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The quality of the English language was good, just some minor edits and suggestions are included.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf