Why Partner with a Zoo or Garden? Selected Lessons from Seventy Years of Regional Conservation Partnerships at the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Τhis manuscript is certainly of interest but looks more like a story than a survey or review. Although I am glad to read that it reviews successful partnerships between a particular ZBG and other institutions or agencies, Ι would be equally glad if the authors would somehow transform their manuscript into a more ''scientific'' article than keep it as a (very interesting indeed) narrative. 

Some more specific comments: 

1. Please change your abstract! Instead of mentioning the advantages of ZBGs partnerships and how both partners may benefit from such a cooperation please tell us about the cases you refer to and review in the main text. Perhaps you can keep one or two ''general'' sentences in the beginning or at the end of the abstract (the last, as a conclusion).

2. Please add references! Please provide some references about the Sonora desert characteristics and biota/ecosystems (lines 60-70). The same for the Ironwood Forest National Monument and surveys related to its area (lines 129-136). What is the book that Dr. Gary Nabhan published (lines 140-141)? Please also consider putting references to support the meanings/conclusions of lines 154-157, 158-159 (some characteristics of the protected area), 165-170 (why the study of phenology is important; please provide some references), 204-205 (references about the habitat of Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum), 254-259 (references about the increased threats the aquatic and riparian habitats face, particularly in your area), 265-288 (references about what is already known about the threatened taxa and their conservation), 230-236 (side-effects of Cenchrus introduction). Extra references beyond the above are also welcome. Please have in mind that reviews offer, as a rule, an abundance of references and that their role is, at least partly, important because of the many references they cite. 

3. All scientific names should be in italics.

4. English is not my mother language, but I am wondering about the appropriate abbreviation of Zoos and Botanic Gardens words. Instead of ZBG's, I would recommend ZBGs (without the apostrophe). For me, as a foreigner, ZBG's looks somewhat possessive, i.e., something that belongs to the ΖΒG.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this submission. Please see our responses in italics below.

Τhis manuscript is certainly of interest but looks more like a story than a survey or review. Although I am glad to read that it reviews successful partnerships between a particular ZBG and other institutions or agencies, Ι would be equally glad if the authors would somehow transform their manuscript into a more ''scientific'' article than keep it as a (very interesting indeed) narrative. 

We thank the reviewer for these comments and agree that this is an unusual paper for a scientific journal, providing an overview of the many different functions of zoos and botanic gardens in conservation partnerships, rather than results of a study or review of a field of scientific study. We think this is appropriate for the Special Issue, but leave it to the editors to make the final call. Nonetheless, we agree that the paper can be substantially improved based on the reviewers’ comments, and will address these below.

Some more specific comments: 

1. Please change your abstract! Instead of mentioning the advantages of ZBGs partnerships and how both partners may benefit from such a cooperation please tell us about the cases you refer to and review in the main text. Perhaps you can keep one or two ''general'' sentences in the beginning or at the end of the abstract (the last, as a conclusion).

We have revised the abstract as suggested, including a preview of the case studies, rather than a more general statement about the roles for zoos and aquariums.

2. Please add references! Please provide some references about the Sonora desert characteristics and biota/ecosystems (lines 60-70). References 8-11

 The same for the Ironwood Forest National Monument and surveys related to its area (lines 129-136). References 5, 16

What is the book that Dr. Gary Nabhan published (lines 140-141)? Ref. 17

Please also consider putting references to support the meanings/conclusions of lines 154-157, Ref. 5

158-159 (some characteristics of the protected area), Ref 5.

 165-170 (why the study of phenology is important; please provide some references), Ref. 18-20

204-205 (references about the habitat of Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum), Ref. 23

254-259 (references about the increased threats the aquatic and riparian habitats face, particularly in your area), Refs. 27 & 28

265-288 (references about what is already known about the threatened taxa and their conservation), Refs. 29-34

230-236 (side-effects of Cenchrus introduction). Refs. 36-39

Extra references beyond the above are also welcome. Please have in mind that reviews offer, as a rule, an abundance of references and that their role is, at least partly, important because of the many references they cite. Additional refs added in introduction: 1-7

We added 30 references covering the areas listed above, in addition to some others.

3. All scientific names should be in italics.

It appears that when we uploaded the files, the software changed italics to regular text. We have changed them back, but don’t know if this will happen again.

4. English is not my mother language, but I am wondering about the appropriate abbreviation of Zoos and Botanic Gardens words. Instead of ZBG's, I would recommend ZBGs (without the apostrophe). For me, as a foreigner, ZBG's looks somewhat possessive, i.e., something that belongs to the ΖΒG.

Changed ZBG’s to ZBGs

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, this study may have some merits. However, the paper is poorly written without clear logic and results. Also, it does not have enough literature to support essential assertions.

The authors do not explain the criteria on which the six cases are selected and whether they can cover all roles of the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum. Therefore, it is not easy to evaluate the value of the manuscript.

The qualitative analysis of the six cases only describes the people and events involved, lacking in-depth summary. Whether the six cases are related is unclear.

It has no policy recommendations in the conclusion which needs to be rewritten.

Author Response

Overall, this study may have some merits. However, the paper is poorly written without clear logic and results. Also, it does not have enough literature to support essential assertions.

We realize that this submission is not a typical scientific paper, or review of a science field. Rather, it is a series of case studies of how a regional institution partners with regional agencies and communities to achieve regional conservation goals. It may or may not be appropriate for this Special Issue, and we leave that decision up to the Editors.

We added 30 references to the original submission.

The authors do not explain the criteria on which the six cases are selected and whether they can cover all roles of the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum. Therefore, it is not easy to evaluate the value of the manuscript.

The cases were selected to illustrate the various roles, as we have characterized them. We are not aware of other characterizations of these roles in the literature. We have attempted to provide a complete description of the roles of these institutions.

The qualitative analysis of the six cases only describes the people and events involved, lacking in-depth summary. Whether the six cases are related is unclear.

The cases are provided as descriptions of the roles, and the nature of the partnerships, rather than dive in depth into the results of each project. We believe that would make this paper too long.

It has no policy recommendations in the conclusion which needs to be rewritten.

The scope of this paper did not include the development of policy recommendations, although this is an important and useful suggestion for future work. It would involve a deeper exploration of current policies at a variety of zoos and botanic gardens, at their accrediting organizations and within the organizations and agencies that partner with them and fund them.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors offer a series of specific examples demonstrating the many ways in which zoological and botanical gardens (ZBGs) can assist in a variety of conservation efforts. These examples arise from various initiatives, projects, and partnerships facilitated through their facility, the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum. As these examples are described, the authors also offer brief mentions of the outcomes of these activities as well as a contextualization of the impacts of these activities toward their respective intended goals. Finally, the authors conclude by highlighting both the breadth and depth at which various ZBGs could affect change in their respective domains according to their respective mission statements. My following comments are relatively minor and mostly related to style. Overall, I found the submission to be well-organized and informative.

Consider shifting the term "botanic" to "botanical" to reflect more common terminology.

In pluralizing "ZBG's", consider avoiding using apostrophes to indicate plurality. "ZBGs" might be more accurate.

Line 109, 113: Isla Rasa, whereas it's been "Isla Raza" previously in the manuscript.

Line 269: It may be helpful to readers to clarify to whom/what you're referring when you mention Hia-Ced O'odham and Tohono O'odham.

Line 167: The authors mention worldwide documentation of climate-change induced phenological mismatches; it may be beneficial to include a relevant citation or two.

There are a few more areas that could potentially benefit from more thorough citations, i.e., the initial introductions in each subsection under section 2. As an example, in subsection 2e, the authors mention various ways in which ZBGs can serve as ex situ conservation partners. Some citations of relevant records/other publications of these partnerships could fortify the authors' examples.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review this submission. Please see our responses to your helpful suggestions in italics below.

The authors offer a series of specific examples demonstrating the many ways in which zoological and botanical gardens (ZBGs) can assist in a variety of conservation efforts. These examples arise from various initiatives, projects, and partnerships facilitated through their facility, the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum. As these examples are described, the authors also offer brief mentions of the outcomes of these activities as well as a contextualization of the impacts of these activities toward their respective intended goals. Finally, the authors conclude by highlighting both the breadth and depth at which various ZBGs could affect change in their respective domains according to their respective mission statements. My following comments are relatively minor and mostly related to style. Overall, I found the submission to be well-organized and informative.

Consider shifting the term "botanic" to "botanical" to reflect more common terminology.

We have done this throughout

In pluralizing "ZBG's", consider avoiding using apostrophes to indicate plurality. "ZBGs" might be more accurate.

We have done this throughout

Line 109, 113: Isla Rasa, whereas it's been "Isla Raza" previously in the manuscript.

Both are used in the literature, but we decided to go with the more currently used – Rasa. Thank you for finding this inconsistency.

Line 269: It may be helpful to readers to clarify to whom/what you're referring when you mention Hia-Ced O'odham and Tohono O'odham.

Sentence was modified: Quitobaquito is a remarkable place, protected and managed by generations of Hia-Ced O’odham and Tohono O’odham, two indigenous nations of the region, as one of very few year-round sources of water.

Line 167: The authors mention worldwide documentation of climate-change induced phenological mismatches; it may be beneficial to include a relevant citation or two.

Added refs. 18-20

There are a few more areas that could potentially benefit from more thorough citations, i.e., the initial introductions in each subsection under section 2. As an example, in subsection 2e, the authors mention various ways in which ZBGs can serve as ex situ conservation partners. Some citations of relevant records/other publications of these partnerships could fortify the authors' examples.

Added refs. 1-5, as well as 26.