A Kiss from the Wild: Tongue Nibbling in Free-Ranging Killer Whales (Orcinus orca)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of A Kiss from the Wild: Tongue Nibbling in Free-Ranging Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) by Almunia et al.

This manuscript reports a case of tongue nibbling in free-living killer whales observed and recorded by citizen scientists in 2024. The manuscript is detailed and well-written in a good and understandable English. The case study is interesting and worth publishing but I found some minor problems that the authors have to fix before acceptance. Minor changes are the following:

• In the keywords, italicize Orcinus orca.
• Hierarchy, dominance and submission are parts of the same category (hierarchy). Maybe the authors could leave hierarchy and erase the other two words.
• I recommend the authors to mention Figure 1 in the text before their mention of Figure 2.

Changes that will require more attention by the authors are the following:

• First of all, the video of the 2024 observation is not provided. The only provided video is about a case recorded in 2013 (do the authors have the permissions to publish it?). The video of the 2024 observation is crucial to understand what is described in the text, otherwise, the only proof of the described interaction is a low-quality picture (Fig. 2 of the current manuscript).
• I think that the authors have to give more importance to the differences in the contexts in which behaviors are triggered. In particular, it seems that they do not consider the idea that there may be specific differences in the exhibition of certain behavioral repertoires in free-living populations with respect to populations in captivity. About what the authors wrote on lines 261-268, I agree with the authors that behavioral studies should not exclude observations made in managed contexts but it is important to recall that managed contexts are often related to higher stress levels in captive populations of different mammalian species. For this reason, while the documentation of a behavior may be unaffected by captivity, the context and the trigger of such behavior may be affected by captivity-induced stress. This means that it is possible that behaviors naturally occurring in free-living populations may occur in captive specimens but it is also possible that the triggers of such behaviors may be different due to the different contexts the specimens are experiencing. It is, therefore, important to distinguish between the objective description of a behavior and the causes that trigger it. In this sense the authors’ recall to the strict methodological procedures that have to be followed by researchers working on specimens living in captivity is fundamental (lines 275-280). I recommend the authors to mention this problem in the text. In this respect, about what the authors wrote on lines 269-274, I do not agree with the statement by the authors that the persistence of affiliative behaviors in captivity directly challenges reductionist perspectives that emphasise aggression or stress-related behaviours in captivity. In fact there is no discussion about the context triggering these behaviors and, as suggested above, such contexts may be the key to understand when and why such behaviors occur. I recommend the authors to discuss this point somewhere in the text.

In the end, I suggest acceptance of the present manuscript after moderate revisions.

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewers for their careful reading of our manuscript and for the thoughtful and constructive comments provided. We highly appreciate the time and effort they have devoted to the review process, and we are particularly thankful for the insightful suggestions, which have undoubtedly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our work. We have addressed each comment thoroughly and revised the manuscript accordingly. We believe these changes have significantly strengthened the manuscript and we are pleased to submit this revised version for your consideration.

Comment 1:
In the keywords, italicize Orcinus orca.

Response 1:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the formatting of the scientific name Orcinus orca to ensure it appears in italics, as is standard practice. This change has been made in the “Keywords” section of the manuscript (page 1, line 10).

Comment 2:
Hierarchy, dominance and submission are parts of the same category (hierarchy). Maybe the authors could leave hierarchy and erase the other two words.

Response 2:
We sincerely thank the reviewer for this insightful suggestion. We agree that dominance and submission are indeed subordinate elements of the broader concept of hierarchy. However, given that both terms are used and discussed in later sections of the manuscript, we consider it important to retain them for the sake of clarity and coherence for readers who may not be deeply familiar with the nuances of social behaviour terminology. Therefore, we have adopted a compromise by including “dominance” and “submission” in parentheses following “hierarchy.” This modification has been implemented in the Introduction section, page 2, paragraph 1, line 6.

Comment 3:
I recommend the authors to mention Figure 1 in the text before their mention of Figure 2.

Response 3:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added an explicit reference to Figure 1 in the first paragraph of the Methods section to ensure proper chronological presentation of figures. This change can be found in the “Materials and Methods” section, page 3, paragraph 1, line 3 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 4:
First of all, the video of the 2024 observation is not provided. The only provided video is about a case recorded in 2013 (do the authors have the permissions to publish it?). The video of the 2024 observation is crucial to understand what is described in the text, otherwise, the only proof of the described interaction is a low-quality picture (Fig. 2 of the current manuscript).

Response 4:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have clarified in the manuscript that the 2024 video is indeed available and that we hold full permission to publish it. The video exceeded the journal’s maximum file size for supplementary materials and was consequently uploaded to an external repository in accordance with the journal’s guidelines. However, we acknowledge that the reference to the video was inadvertently omitted from the dat availability section at the manuscript. This has now been corrected.

Comment 5:
I think that the authors have to give more importance to the differences in the contexts in which behaviors are triggered. In particular, it seems that they do not consider the idea that there may be specific differences in the exhibition of certain behavioral repertoires in free-living populations with respect to populations in captivity.

Response 5:
Thank you very much for this insightful comment. You are absolutely right, and we fully agree with the importance of emphasising the contextual differences that may shape the expression of behavioural repertoires in free-ranging versus managed populations.

Comment 6:
About what the authors wrote on lines 261–268, I agree with the authors that behavioral studies should not exclude observations made in managed contexts but it is important to recall that managed contexts are often related to higher stress levels in captive populations of different mammalian species. For this reason, while the documentation of a behavior may be unaffected by captivity, the context and the trigger of such behavior may be affected by captivity-induced stress. This means that it is possible that behaviors naturally occurring in free-living populations may occur in captive specimens but it is also possible that the triggers of such behaviors may be different due to the different contexts the specimens are experiencing.

Response 6:
We sincerely thank the reviewer for this thoughtful observation. We agree that the context and triggers of behavioural expressions may differ between wild and managed settings. While we acknowledge the broader debate concerning stress in captive environments, it is important to note that recent literature on cetaceans under human care does not support a consistent association with chronic captivity-induced stress. Conversely, stress is a natural physiological response that also affects free-ranging cetaceans, particularly in anthropogenically impacted environments such as the fjords of northern Norway, where the present wild observation was recorded amidst fishing activity and growing tourism.

Nevertheless, the reviewer is absolutely right in highlighting that the potential variability in behavioural triggers had not been considered in the original version of the manuscript. In response, we have now revised the text to reflect the possibility that identical behaviours may arise from different triggers depending on the social or environmental context. This change can be found in the “Discussion” section, page 7, paragraph 2, lines 3–10.

Comment 7:
It is, therefore, important to distinguish between the objective description of a behavior and the causes that trigger it. In this sense the authors’ recall to the strict methodological procedures that have to be followed by researchers working on specimens living in captivity is fundamental (lines 275–280). I recommend the authors to mention this problem in the text.

Response 7:
We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment and fully agree with the need to distinguish between the objective description of a behaviour and the causal mechanisms that may underlie its expression. This important issue was already addressed in our response to the previous comment by highlighting that the same behavioural form may emerge from different triggers depending on the context. In addition, we have now slightly revised the paragraph referenced (lines 275–280) to explicitly reinforce this distinction. This revised passage underscores the necessity for methodologically rigorous studies that take into account not only the observable features of behaviour but also their contextual underpinnings. The amendment is located in the “Discussion” section, page 7, paragraph 3, lines 4–8.

Comment 8:
In this respect, about what the authors wrote on lines 269–274, I do not agree with the statement by the authors that the persistence of affiliative behaviors in captivity directly challenges reductionist perspectives that emphasise aggression or stress-related behaviours in captivity. In fact there is no discussion about the context triggering these behaviors and, as suggested above, such contexts may be the key to understand when and why such behaviors occur. I recommend the authors to discuss this point somewhere in the text.

Response 8:
We thank the reviewer for this important clarification. We agree that the statement in its original form was too strong given the limitations of the evidence presented. This case study represents a single instance of affiliative behaviour and must be interpreted with caution. Nonetheless, we believe that the preservation of such behaviours over long periods in managed settings does raise legitimate questions about the adequacy of reductionist portrayals that focus exclusively on aggression or stress. We have therefore revised the text to present a more balanced perspective, indicating that the observation offers a starting point for more detailed ethological investigations—including the contextual triggers of behaviour—rather than constituting definitive evidence. This revision appears in the “Discussion” section, page 7, paragraph 2, lines 10–15.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Allow me to state at the outset that this is already an excellent paper.  It discusses an interesting behavior, considers it carefully within the context of related observations, and even touches appropriately on timely issues like wild vs captive comparisons and the costs/benefits of ecotourism.  It was truly a pleasure to read.  I am confident that it will go on to be published. 

I do however have the following considerations. 

In the first place, the overall format of this manuscript is awkward.  Fundamentally, this is a case report of a single observation.  Yet the paper is organized as if it were a formal study, including a section on Materials and Methods, etc.  I urge the authors and the journal to rework this paper as a simple case report. 

In that regard, nearly all of the content in the present Materials and Methods section should be omitted.  What is relevant is that human snorkelers were in the water and made certain observations.  Location, time of day, and distance from the animals are all relevant.  The number of guests on their ship, the thickness of their gloves, and the nature of their evening gatherings are among the many details that are not relevant to the observations made.  Just suppose that there were more guests or fewer, that their suits were more thick or less, or that they gathered in the morning instead of the evening or even not at all.  The observational report would be the same.  I felt that most of the Materials and Methods section came off as an endorsement or advertisement for the tour company.  It seems like a very good organization, but most of the details are not relevant to the observation made. 

In addition, in the hope of being helpful I offer the following:

Line 86:  Why is the word expeditions italicized?  Or not capitalized?

Line 129:  If this is to be included, please better explain the use of 2 o’clock in this context. 

Line 159:  The acronym RIB is used without explanation. 

Line 160:  The term “research team” is an inappropriate description of two wildlife guides plus 12 tourists.   May I suggest "the group of snorkelers"

Line 165:  Care needs to be taken between observations and inferences.  Unless you actually witnessed the swallowing of food, the best you can say is "apparent feeding behavior" 

Line 166:  Same issue.  Less movement is an observation.  Resting is an inference. 

Line 173:  The complementary video in my review copy showed only captive whales, nothing from the wild. 

Line 181:  The term “several” is awkward here.  How many were consulted?

Line 263:  “a clearly affiliative behavior” should be “an apparently affiliative behavior” 

Line 270:  I am not sure reductionist is the right word here.  May I suggest “directly challenges any limited perspective that primarily emphasizes aggression…..”

I have offered all of these comments in the sincere hope of being helpful.  In closing, I want to emphasize that my overall view of this paper is extremely favorable.  Once it is adapted, I will be very pleased to see it published. 

Author Response

We sincerely thank Reviewer 2 for their generous and encouraging comments. We are truly grateful for your thoughtful assessment and are pleased that you found the manuscript engaging and relevant. Your kind words regarding the clarity, contextualisation, and topical scope of the paper are deeply appreciated. It is especially gratifying to hear that the discussion of behavioural observations across wild and managed contexts, as well as the implications of ecotourism, resonated with you. We have carefully considered your specific suggestions and comments, and we are confident that the resulting revisions have strengthened the manuscript. Thank you once again for your support and constructive feedback.

Comment 1:
In the first place, the overall format of this manuscript is awkward. Fundamentally, this is a case report of a single observation. Yet the paper is organized as if it were a formal study, including a section on Materials and Methods, etc. I urge the authors and the journal to rework this paper as a simple case report.

Response 1:
We appreciate this insightful observation and we agree with the reviewer’s assessment regarding the nature of the manuscript. Indeed, our initial contact with the journal’s editorial office included a query about whether the standard manuscript structure was appropriate for presenting a single behavioural case study, given that Oceans does not provide a specific format for case reports. The editor confirmed that the use of the conventional structure was acceptable, which led us to submit the paper in its current form. However, we are fully prepared to revise the structure of the manuscript in line with the editor’s guidance in order to better reflect the nature of a case report and enhance its clarity and coherence for readers.

Comment 2:
In that regard, nearly all of the content in the present Materials and Methods section should be omitted. What is relevant is that human snorkelers were in the water and made certain observations. Location, time of day, and distance from the animals are all relevant. The number of guests on their ship, the thickness of their gloves, and the nature of their evening gatherings are among the many details that are not relevant to the observations made. I felt that most of the Materials and Methods section came off as an endorsement or advertisement for the tour company. It seems like a very good organization, but most of the details are not relevant to the observation made.

Response 2:
We thank the reviewer for this precise and constructive recommendation. We fully agree that much of the original “Materials and Methods” section included contextual information that, while well-intentioned, was not essential to the behavioural observation itself. As a result, we have revised this section to focus strictly on the details relevant to the behavioural case reported—specifically the location, time, conditions of observation, and methods of documentation. We have also renamed the section to more accurately reflect the nature of a case description. This revised section appears now as Observation Context and Recording Conditions on page 3, lines 1–15.

Comments 3–4 (Lines 86, 129):
Line 86: Why is the word expeditions italicized? Or not capitalized?
Line 129: If this is to be included, please better explain the use of 2 o’clock in this context.

Response 3–4:
We thank the reviewer for these careful and highly relevant editorial remarks. In full agreement with the concerns raised, we have substantially revised the “Materials and Methods” section to better align with the format and purpose of a behavioural case report. In the process, all content unrelated to the focal observation or essential recording context has been removed, including the references and terminology noted in these comments.

As a result of this restructuring:

• The word expeditions and company names have been removed;

• The  2 o’clock

These improvements appear in the new section titled Observation Context and Recording Conditions, on page 3 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 5:
Line 159: The acronym RIB is used without explanation.

Response 5:
We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We agree that acronyms should be clearly defined upon first mention. Therefore, we have revised the sentence to include the full term “rigid inflatable boats (RIBs)” to ensure clarity for all readers. This change has been made in the “Observation Context and Recording Conditions” section, page 3, paragraph 2, line 4.

Comment 6:
Line 160: The term “research team” is an inappropriate description of two wildlife guides plus 12 tourists. May I suggest "the group of snorkelers".

Response 6:
We thank the reviewer for this accurate and constructive observation. We agree that the term “research team” may be misleading in this context. To better reflect the actual composition of the group, we have replaced it with “the group of snorkellers,” as suggested. This revision appears in the “Observation Context and Recording Conditions” section, page 3, paragraph 2, line 5.

Comment 7:
Line 165: Care needs to be taken between observations and inferences. Unless you actually witnessed the swallowing of food, the best you can say is "apparent feeding behavior".

Response 7:
We thank the reviewer for this important clarification. We agree that the term “feeding behaviour” implies a degree of inference not directly supported without visual confirmation of prey capture or ingestion. To ensure appropriate caution in our descriptions, we have revised the sentence to read “apparent feeding behaviour.” 

Comment 8:
Line 166: Same issue. Less movement is an observation. Resting is an inference.

Response 8:
We fully agree with this point and have revised the description accordingly. To avoid drawing unconfirmed inferences from visual cues, we now refer to the second group of animals as “displaying reduced locomotor activity near the coastline.” This phrasing more accurately reflects the observational nature of the report. The change appears in the same paragraph, immediately following the previous correction.

Comment 9:
Line 173: The complementary video in my review copy showed only captive whales, nothing from the wild.

Response 9:
We thank the reviewer for drawing attention to this issue. Indeed, the wild video documentation was included in the supplementary material via an external repository, as the file size exceeded the journal’s limit for direct uploads. However, it appears that this was not clearly indicated in the original manuscript, which may have caused confusion. We have now corrected this by explicitly referencing the availability of the 2024 wild observation video in the “Observation Context and Recording Conditions” section, including the DOI link.

Comment 10:
Line 181: The term “several” is awkward here. How many were consulted?

Response 10:
We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. To improve precision and clarity, we have replaced the term “several” with the exact number of individuals consulted. Specifically, three professional divers and underwater videographers with extensive experience documenting killer whales in different geographic locations were consulted. This revision appears in the “Discussion” section, page 7, paragraph 1, line 8.

Comment 11:
Line 263: “a clearly affiliative behavior” should be “an apparently affiliative behavior”

Response 11:
We thank the reviewer for this precise and well-considered suggestion. We fully agree that the interpretation of tongue-nibbling as affiliative, while well-supported, remains observational and should be described with appropriate caution. We have therefore replaced “a clearly affiliative behaviour” with “an apparently affiliative behaviour” to reflect this nuance. The change has been made in the “Discussion” section, page 7, paragraph 2, line 1.

Comment 12:
Line 270: I am not sure “reductionist” is the right word here. May I suggest “directly challenges any limited perspective that primarily emphasizes aggression…”

Response 12:
We appreciate this thoughtful suggestion and agree that the term “reductionist” may be too strong in this context. We have revised the sentence to use the phrase “narrow portrayals” as a more neutral alternative that still conveys the idea of an incomplete or overly simplified interpretation. This adjustment preserves the meaning while softening the tone in accordance with the reviewer’s recommendation. The revision appears in the “Discussion” section, page 7, paragraph 2, line 10.