Why Measuring and Building Resilience Is Applicable to Zoo and Aquarium Animal Welfare

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript provides a comprehensive review of the concept of resilience in animals under professional care, with strong conceptual grounding. The overall quality of the study is very good, and the topic is relevant for advancing animal welfare practices in zoos and aquariums.

One constructive suggestion for the authors would be to expand on potential opportunities for identifying or selecting more resilient animals, even if indirectly. While the manuscript highlights important behavioral and physiological indicators, it could benefit from the inclusion of examples from other species, particularly livestock, where efforts to select for resilience traits have been more extensively studied. For instance, recent research in Holstein and Nellore cattle has shown that animals with greater resilience to environmental challenges during lactation or growth often demonstrate greater adaptability, reproductive success, and longevity. It would be interesting to explore how this perspective could apply in zoo settings. While genetic selection is not a primary focus in zoos, having an awareness of individual variation in resilience and its implications for long-term welfare, reproductive success, or adaptability could help inform management strategies and breeding decisions in conservation programs.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review article on ‘How to Measure and Build Resilience in Professionally Managed Animals: Application in Zoos .and Aquariums’ presents an interesting and potentially valuable contribution to the field. It demonstrates relevance and novelty; however, it requires improvements in conceptual clarity, methodological rigor, and presentation quality before it can be considered for publication. Here are some major and minor comments:

Major comments:

1. The manuscript discusses resilience in depth but does not consistently distinguish it from related concepts (e.g., coping, adaptation, allostasis). A clearer conceptual framework is needed to avoid overlap and ambiguity.
2. The literature review is broad but largely descriptive. It should critically synthesize existing research and position the manuscript’s contribution more explicitly within established theoretical frameworks.
3. The discussion section repeats result rather than critically interpreting them. Greater emphasis on implications, trade-offs, and potential challenges to implementing resilience-building practices in real-world settings is needed.

Minor comments:

Line 40-41: “…. Resilient animals may be capable of exhibiting their typical physiological and behavioral patterns even when faced with challenges and variations in the environment” Revise the sentence for more clarity and avoid redundancy.

Line 61–65: When describing disturbances, the terms “macro-” and “micro-environmental” could benefit from examples specific to zoos.

Line 82: Figure 1 legend is too brief; add a fuller explanation so readers can understand the figure without referring to the original source.

Line 133–134: The phrase “resilience cannot be trained” more clarity what is meant in contrast with habituation/desensitization?

Line 159–160: The phrase “rate of recovery” should be defined quantitatively, or provide an example for more clarity.

Line 356–383: Elephant and fishing cat case studies are strong but placed too late. Consider integrating earlier to ground abstract theory.

Line 437: The DOI might be…https://doi.org/10.1071/AN15297 (!)

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well written and can be published after making some minor modifications.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: How to Measure and Build Resilience in Professionally Managed Animals: Application in Zoos and Aquariums
The authors reviewing published paper on animal welfare in zoo and farming and Resilience studies in farm settings come out with a guideline as to how to measure and build resilience in professionally managed animals in Zoo and Aquarium. It is a useful SOP for the zoo and aquarium to follow and improve the resilience among managed animals. It has also outlined the role of welfare researchers and animal care specialists and the importance of multi-institutional projects.  I believe such comprehensive concept would contribute the betterment of managed animals’ standards. I did not find any major issue the paper excepting minor suggestion as listed below. Incorporating them will make the review paper much clear. 
Minor issues.        
Line No. 61-62: To examine resilience, researchers must consider the disturbance (typically episodic 61 and context-specific), response to this disturbance, and the outcome [1-2].
Among the three listed components viz. (i) disturbance (typically episodic and context-specific), (ii) response to this disturbance, and (iii) the outcome, in the subsequent lines up to Line No. 78, the first and third components viz. disturbance and outcome, are clearly described and the second component ‘response to this disturbance’ is not expressed at all, not clear to me. Please make it clear. 
Line No. 91: AMPA receptors in the dorsal hippocampus differs significantly between
In the above please expand AMPA  and put the short form after within bracket.
Line No. 181: Similar to the last suggestion, please expand PTSD before its abbreviation. 

Line No. 330-331: First, facilities should continue to construct, modify, and enrich habitats to stimulate their residents.  Not clear.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Revise it for grammatical errors and typographical mistakes as necessary

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx