Evaluating the Role of Canada Goose Populations in Transmission Dynamics During Peak HPAI Incidence in Iowa, February 2022–December 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript by Jimenez et al. investigated the role of Canada geese in the transmission of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) in Iowa from February 2022 to December 2023. The study found that despite their abundance and frequent contact with human activities, counties with higher numbers of Canada geese had fewer HPAI cases, suggesting that they may not be primary vectors for HPAI. The research also highlighted that the lack of poultry farm location data limited a comprehensive assessment of the geese’s role in HPAI transmission, and more detailed geospatial analyses are needed to further clarify the risk factors. The manuscript also has several other deficiencies that need to be revised.

 

1 L41-42 Please supplement how wild birds become vectors and how they transmit the virus to poultry.

 

2 L43-44 Please specify the source and time range of the H5N1 infection data cited in the United States (71 cases).

 

3 L44-47 Please explicitly state whether these infections are directly related to the current outbreak, and describe the specific symptoms or severity of human infections.

 

4 L67 Please explain how "mixing-vessel mammals" become "mixing vessels" for viruses, and their potential role in the transmission of HPAI.

 

5 L123-145 Please streamline the description of Canada geese and focus on behavioral characteristics that are directly related to the transmission of HPAI. L134-137 The description of conflicts between Canada geese and humans (such as the ineffectiveness of harassment) lacks sufficient logical connection to the research topic of HPAI transmission.

 

6 L156 Please briefly describe the specific methodology or conclusions of the“phylodynamic analysis.”

 

7 L189 https://ebird.org, The website relies on observations and reports from citizen scientists, which may introduce spatial and temporal biases.

 

8 L260-274 Please provide a detailed description of how these methods were applied and how the final model was selected based on the results.

 

9 L368-369 The abundance of Canada geese is negatively correlated with HPAI. Please provide additional biological mechanisms for this correlation.

 

10 L423 The limitations of citizen science data (eBird) were not sufficiently discussed, and the potential counting biases resulting from differences in observer experience were not mentioned.

 

11 What are the specific criteria for reviewing "qualified researcher exemptions"? When recommending AI and robotic technologies, is it necessary to assess their cost-effectiveness, and can small farms afford them? When suggesting that mobile phone applications be used for real-time reporting of outbreaks, have privacy concerns for farmers been considered?

 

 

Author Response

1 L41-42 Please supplement how wild birds become vectors and how they transmit the virus to poultry.

Provided more detail in the introduction. L44-52

 

2 L43-44 Please specify the source and time range of the H5N1 infection data cited in the United States (71 cases).

Provided this information in the introduction L54-56

 

3 L44-47 Please explicitly state whether these infections are directly related to the current outbreak, and describe the specific symptoms or severity of human infections.

Provided information on L 57

 

4 L67 Please explain how "mixing-vessel mammals" become "mixing vessels" for viruses, and their potential role in the transmission of HPAI.

Provided information on L172-200. Due to other suggestions, I moved this section from its location on the first manuscript (L67).

 

5 L123-145 Please streamline the description of Canada geese and focus on behavioral characteristics that are directly related to the transmission of HPAI. L134-137 The description of conflicts between Canada geese and humans (such as the ineffectiveness of harassment) lacks sufficient logical connection to the research topic of HPAI transmission.

Attempted to streamline the description of their behavior and how it gives them the potential to be vectors of HPAI.  L119-130.

 

6 L156 Please briefly describe the specific methodology or conclusions of the“phylodynamic analysis.”

Provided more detail on the methods and conclusion of the phlodynamic analysis done in the study I referenced L141-150

 

 

7 L189 https://ebird.org, The website relies on observations and reports from citizen scientists, which may introduce spatial and temporal biases.

Made this correction L579-580

8 L260-274 Please provide a detailed description of how these methods were applied and how the final model was selected based on the results.

Provided a detailed description of the process pre-analysis on L300-305. Provided description of the actual model selection process after bivariate results were significant on L333-365.  

9 L368-369 The abundance of Canada geese is negatively correlated with HPAI. Please provide additional biological mechanisms for this correlation.

Wrote a more detailed description of biological mechanism that provides insight in Canada goose association with decreased HPAI risk.

10 L423 The limitations of citizen science data (eBird) were not sufficiently discussed, and the potential counting biases resulting from differences in observer experience were not mentioned.

Provided a more detailed explanation on the limitations of citizen science data L578-587.

 

 11 What are the specific criteria for reviewing "qualified researcher exemptions"? When recommending AI and robotic technologies, is it necessary to assess their cost-effectiveness, and can small farms afford them? When suggesting that mobile phone applications be used for real-time reporting of outbreaks, have privacy concerns for farmers been considered?

Provided a more detailed explanation for “qualified researcher” L628-636. Discussed cost-effectiveness of AI and robotic tech L496-504. Due to editor’s suggestion, section on mobile phones was removed.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In their article, “Assessing the Role of Canada Goose in HPAI Transmission Dynamics in Iowa During the Peak HPAI Incidence, February 2022–December 2023,” the authors present a study that aimed to examine the relationship between Canada goose abundance and the occurrence of HPAI in Iowa.

There should be a space between the text and the author citation. When citing the same author in two consecutive sentences, it is not necessary to cite them in each sentence. Cite at the end of the second. For example:

“The current highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) epidemic in the United States began in Canada in late 2021; wild birds were the primary vectors for the dominant HPAI strain, H5N1. The 2023 interim period of the epidemic indicated that 42 wild birds played the primary role in the persistence of H5N1 in the United States [1].”

1. Introduction: This section is not well structured. The reader cannot understand what the article will be about. The introduction should address three main questions: What; why; how? After completing the introduction, the reader should clearly understand the subject of your research paper.

Lines 40-63 – This information is chaotic.

HPAI public health risk: Human-adapted mutation; Infection of multiple mammalian species. These two subsections need to be revised. They are not well written. You need to link this information to the title.

Start with the epidemiology of HPAI, then the ecology and behavior of the Canada goose, and the possible role of the Canada goose in the transmission of HPAI. Finally, make a connection to HPAI in dairy cows and humans.

2. Materials and Methods

The numbering of the sub-sections is incorrect.

Lines 215-220 – Are there residential Canada geese?

You also included the mallard, wood duck, and green-winged duck, but there is no information about them in the introduction.

4. Discussion

This section needs to be rewritten. The discussion usually summarizes the results of the study, describes how these results relate to the topic of the study, and may expand on the implications of these findings. In practice, you do not discuss your results in your discussion. It is good to consider limitations and directions for future research, but these should be at the end of the manuscript.

The font needs to be corrected.

Author Response

There should be a space between the text and the author citation. When citing the same author in two consecutive sentences, it is not necessary to cite them in each sentence. Cite at the end of the second. For example:

 

“The current highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) epidemic in the United States began in Canada in late 2021; wild birds were the primary vectors for the dominant HPAI strain, H5N1. The 2023 interim period of the epidemic indicated that 42 wild birds played the primary role in the persistence of H5N1 in the United States [1].”

Reduced citations as you suggested.

 

Introduction: This section is not well structured. The reader cannot understand what the article will be about. The introduction should address three main questions: What; why; how? After completing the introduction, the reader should clearly understand the subject of your research paper.

Lines 40-63 – This information is chaotic.

Revised introduction L42-74 and incorporated your suggestions (what, why, how).

 

HPAI public health risk: Human-adapted mutation; Infection of multiple mammalian species. These two subsections need to be revised. They are not well written. You need to link this information to the title.

This section was revised L172-202.

 

Start with the epidemiology of HPAI, then the ecology and behavior of the Canada goose, and the possible role of the Canada goose in the transmission of HPAI. Finally, make a connection to HPAI in dairy cows and humans.

Re-organized according to your suggestions (Epid of HPAI first, the ecology of Canada goose…) L78-202)

 

Materials and Methods

The numbering of the sub-sections is incorrect.

Addressed

Lines 215-220 – Are there residential Canada geese?

Addressed in lines (248-251)

You also included the mallard, wood duck, and green-winged duck, but there is no information about them in the introduction.

Mentioned these species in the introduction L70-74.

 

Discussion

This section needs to be rewritten. The discussion usually summarizes the results of the study, describes how these results relate to the topic of the study, and may expand on the implications of these findings. In practice, you do not discuss your results in your discussion. It is good to consider limitations and directions for future research, but these should be at the end of the manuscript.

 

I revised this section by summarizing and expanding on the implications of the findings. I included the limitations I thought were important to discuss at end of the section after discussing the results and editor suggested interventions.

 

The font needs to be corrected.

Font consistency should now be present.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has answered the questions or doubts that I raised.

Author Response

  Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has answered the questions or doubts that I raised

Thank you. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have a few comments on the revised manuscript - “Assessing the Role of Canada Goose in HPAI Transmission Dynamics in Iowa During the Peak Incidence of HPAI, February 2022 - December 2023”.

Lines 179 - 188 - No need for the "mixing vessel" meaning. The problem is that Canada geese can infect mammals, and the virus can mutate and infect humans. During the H5N1 outbreak in cows in the US, there were infected pigs, but they did not infect humans. There was only one person in Texas from whom virus containing the PB2 E627K mutation was isolated. This should be your perspective.

Discussion needs revision:

Lines 393-397 - Provide evidence, cite article on rodents as a vector.

Lines 406-412 – There is a repetition of the statement that there is not enough information about the farm. It is not necessary.

Lines 416-418 – The paragraph is not related to the topic.

“Reducing the impact of HPAI with technology: Using artificial intelligence and robotics” and “Reducing the spread of HPAI in the short term: Strengthening biosecurity for mixing vessels and prioritizing rodent control.” - I could not understand how these points are related to the title and topic of the manuscript.

The “limitations” section is too long. Please shorten it and make it more specific. There is a lot of redundant information. Lines 594-599 – This information is unnecessary.

Author Response

Lines 179 - 188 - No need for the "mixing vessel" meaning. The problem is that Canada geese can infect mammals, and the virus can mutate and infect humans. During the H5N1 outbreak in cows in the US, there were infected pigs, but they did not infect humans. There was only one person in Texas from whom virus containing the PB2 E627K mutation was isolated. This should be your perspective.

Took out meaning of mixing vessel and stated that Canada geese can infect mammals.

Discussion needs revision:

Lines 393-397 - Provide evidence, cite article on rodents as a vector.

Provided citation

Lines 406-412 – There is a repetition of the statement that there is not enough information about the farm. It is not necessary.

Addressed repetition by deleting sentence.

Lines 416-418 – The paragraph is not related to the topic.

“Reducing the impact of HPAI with technology: Using artificial intelligence and robotics” and “Reducing the spread of HPAI in the short term: Strengthening biosecurity for mixing vessels and prioritizing rodent control.” - I could not understand how these points are related to the title and topic of the manuscript.

Attempted to weave some of this information in the discussion section by explaining how it could be a solution for limited data access. Journal editor recommended discussing how AI could be used as tool during an epizootic.  

The “limitations” section is too long. Please shorten it and make it more specific. There is a lot of redundant information. Lines 594-599 – This information is unnecessary.

Shortened limitations section, previous content from lines 594-599 were removed.