Propensity of Predator Mimicry in Steller’s Jays

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

REF: birds-2863551

Harvey, Gabriel and Black: Propensity of Predator Mimicry in Wild Steller’s Jays

This study is based on a large sample size, the text of the paper is well-written, the details are well-explained, and I enjoyed reading this excellent manuscript. My comments are generally minor since almost all my possible questions have been explained in detail in the text.

Line 87: This paragraph should be called "2.2. Study Site and Birds" because the authors do not only talk about the study site in this paragraph.

Lines 233-234: How many jays of this kind do you have in your samples: “False zeros may have occurred when a jay did perform imitations, but was never observed doing so during any surveys”? Could you add the corresponding numbers to Figure 3?

Lines 312-313: Do the authors have any data on the survival/life span of mimics and non-mimics? Does this behavior have any survival value in the long term?

Line 379: Please, replace “Parus montanus” with “Poecile montanus” as the scientific name of the willow tit has been changed.

Line 396-397: However, the authors cannot rule out the possibility that the jays saw the predator while the observers did not. The possibility that the predator had left the place of observation a few seconds or minutes ago cannot be ruled out either. It would be enough for the authors to mention such scenarios in the text.

Lines 449-450: As pygmy owls only attacked silent dummy birds and female jays were more likely to imitate, why do "female jays take greater risks than males concerning predator mimicry behavior?"

Line 462: Change “weren’t” to “were not.”

Author Response

Please find it in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors report the results of an interesting study aimed at analysing the propensity of predator mimicry in wild Steller’s Jays. In an observational study, authors recorded the occurrence and context of mimicked red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) calls emitted by jacks. They related the occurrence of such mimic calls to conditions and characteristics of birds. The manuscript is well written, the statistical analysis is appropriate, and the conclusions are mainly based on the results. I only would like to mention, to try to improve the manuscript, that the hypothesis and predictions are not clear. Thus, I suggest clarifying the hypothesis and expanding the predictions. Also, as only 14 jays performed mimic calls, I suggest authors explain in the discussion that sample size is small, and the results should be taken with caution. Please, I also suggest that authors focus on results, as for example, authors mentioned “Bolder jays were more likely to perform imitations, with bolder females more likely to mimic than bold males (Figure 6c).” Only five females and nine males were observed emitting mimic calls, and authors found thar mimic propensity was related to boldness, but they did not include the interaction between sex and boldness in the model, therefore I suggest to removed the comparison between males and females about the relationship between propensity of mimic calls and boldness in the discussion.

Minor comments:

Lines 105-106 “Physical measurements during banding included tarsus length (mm)”. If you only measured tarsus length, please rephased, or include other measuremen

Author Response

Please find it in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have improved the manuscript. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review.