Free Flight Training as a Tool for Psittacine Reintroductions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors
This manuscript is a fine contribution and must be published. It is a very descriptive paper, with only one example of the technique's application, no replicates or independent test of the hypothesis, and no null hypothesis to be tested or compared. This is not a problem per se, but the authors must emphasize and make it more straightforward in the text that the free-flying of hand-reared birds works, but it is not superior at all when compared with other releasing techniques.
Please ensure there is a clear and logical connection between the abstract's first and second sentences. Consider modifying lines 13 and 14 accordingly.
Line 550 - Milvago chimachima, not Daptrius.
Line 571 - Please include the scientific name of the Conure
Author Response
This manuscript is a fine contribution and must be published. It is a very descriptive paper, with only one example of the technique's application, no replicates or independent test of the hypothesis, and no null hypothesis to be tested or compared. This is not a problem per se, but the authors must emphasize and make it more straightforward in the text that the free-flying of hand-reared birds works, but it is not superior at all when compared with other releasing techniques.
Reply: In the Simple Summary we changed the last sentence by removing the word “more” which implied that free release was better than other techniques.
The Abstract remained as written because it made no comparison with other techniques.
I do not think I can state straight up that free flight is “not superior at all when compared to other releasing techniques” because I have no data to support that statement (and the evidence I have suggests free flight may be superior). I can however, state that Free flight training does create birds with survival skills and more direct comparisons are needed to determine which is superior.
We have ended the conclusions section with “Now that we have shown that free flight training can be used to establish a core flock of released birds, additional studies that directly compare traditional release and free flight methods are needed to determine if free flight training is a more effective for psittacine reintroductions.”
Please ensure there is a clear and logical connection between the abstract's first and second sentences. Consider modifying lines 13 and 14 accordingly.
Done, the source of this second sentence is the IUCN Red List and that is made clear in the edited text.
Line 550 - Milvago chimachima, not Daptrius.
Reply: Ebird lists it as Daptrius. No change made.
Line 571 - Please include the scientific name of the Conure
Done
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Thank you for submitting such an interesting paper. I believe it will significantly interest researchers working with bird-release programs. However, I have made some comments in the file that must be addressed before the paper can be published. One of the main issues I see with the paper is that most conclusions are based on the researcher's or residents' reports, lacking rigorous scientific evidence. Although the authors themselves have made several considerations throughout the discussion about potential issues with the study, I believe it can be improved with more in-depth discussions (suggested in the PDF file). Ideally, comparing groups that received free flights and those that did not for the evaluated parameters could address many of these problems. As it stands, the article functions more as a report of the technique's use rather than a hypothesis test as intended by the authors. In my view, this does not diminish the work's merit but makes it somewhat weak from a scientific perspective. Nevertheless, I believe the paper should be resubmitted after implementing these suggestions, as it will be a valuable reference for future studies.
Best regards
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The English is very good, but I made some suggestions in the text.
Author Response
Thank you for submitting such an interesting paper. I believe it will significantly interest researchers working with bird-release programs. However, I have made some comments in the file that must be addressed before the paper can be published. One of the main issues I see with the paper is that most conclusions are based on the researcher's or residents' reports, lacking rigorous scientific evidence. Although the authors themselves have made several considerations throughout the discussion about potential issues with the study, I believe it can be improved with more in-depth discussions (suggested in the PDF file).
Reply: We responded to all the comments in the PDF, and did add more details about the data, including discussing how author HM followed up on reports and found no evidence of misreporting by the people on the ranch. In addition, all of the hypotheses were tested with information collected directly by the authors, as we confirmed survivorship, experienced first hand the interactions with the human caretakers, and saw the birds flock, and react to local predators. We can also vouch for the fact that no birds were killed by predators. As a result, while the data collection is unconventional, this does not greatly impact the core findings of our study.
Ideally, comparing groups that received free flights and those that did not for the evaluated parameters could address many of these problems.
Reply: We made it clearer in the hypotheses section of the introduction, Abstract and simple summary that this work was a “proof of concept” study. We plan in future studies to do more direct comparisons between methods (if possible). We also end the paper by stating “Now that we have shown that free flight training can be used to establish a core flock of released birds, additional studies that directly compare traditional release and free flight methods are needed to determine if free flight training is a more effective for psittacine reintroductions.”
As it stands, the article functions more as a report of the technique's use rather than a hypothesis test as intended by the authors.
Reply: We maintain that we in fact test our hypotheses as written in this proof of concept study. The hypotheses do not explicitly state that our method is better than other methods. They just posit that our methods are successful. We feel that this was certainly the case, and for that reason we have left the hypotheses as they stand, but clarified that this study was a proof of concept work.
In my view, this does not diminish the work's merit but makes it somewhat weak from a scientific perspective. Nevertheless, I believe the paper should be resubmitted after implementing these suggestions, as it will be a valuable reference for future studies.
Please see our discussion on Article vs Communication designation above.
Additional comments on predation from PDF
With regards to the concerns about our discussion of Predation, I have further consulted with the field crew and looked in more depth and found that in fact the predation risk was greater than stated in the first draft. As a result, the text has been modified to show the increased predation risk. As an aside, despite the fact that no mammal attacks were ever seen on the released Spix's macaws in Brazil, an Ocelot was seen carrying a released Spix's that it had killed. So not seeing predation attempts does not mean that they do not occur!
See also the attached PDF where we reply to the comments made on the PDF
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Thank you for submitting the revised version of the article. The suggested modifications have been accepted or addressed, and in my opinion, the work is now suitable and can be considered for publication. I hope future tests explore different methods to qualify free-flight as a pre-release management strategy.
