Review Reports - Influence of Nesting Habitat and Nest Emplacement on the Breeding Success of the Black Francolin (<i>Francolinus francolinus</i>, Phasianidae): A Case Study from Pakistan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I went over the #3507358 manuscript (MS) entitled 'REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS OF FRANCOLINUS FRANCOLINUS IN RELATION TO NESTING HABITAT AND PLACEMENT IN TOTALI GAME RESERVE, PAKISTAN ' - submitted by Ullah and colleagues - as soon as I have got an invitation from the Assistant Editor of Birds. I have provided the authors with my review by uploading through the online system of the Journal a PDF file of their work as emended according to my comments. This file also incorporates all my small changes/edits as far as the use of the English language is concerned. I invite the authors to read this document very carefully, especially a few important remarks.

I enjoyed the reading of your work. In the years, I have been playing several times as reviewer of MS focusing on francolins from Pakistan. I find that the present study is one of the most complete I have met. The experimental set-up and the clear and robust methods are appreciated as well as the final acknowledgement from the Authors for any possible study limitation. Despite this work is based on a dataset colelcted in a single year (2023), I think that both trends and relationships herein disclosed are certainly of interest for the knowledge of the breeding biology of the black francolin. This is also the main reason why I suggested the Authors to let the breath of their MS being as larger as possible, either in the title or in some parts of both Introduction and Discussion. I think that this MS, indeed, adds value to the knowledge of the breeding biology of the species in general and not as a mere reference for Totali Reserve. Overall, I recommend revising especially the syntax (I noted a certain degree of fragmentation in the text especially in the Introduction) and improving the readibility of the paper by avoiding repetitions and a verbose style.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Authors: check for my edits/suggestions in the PDF file that I have uploaded though the Journal online system.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	Please see the Point-by-Point response below regarding specific modifications made to the introduction.
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Is the research design appropriate?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the methods adequately described?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the results clearly presented?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: [Title Modification.]
Response 1: [The title has been revised for a broader scope, incorporating the reviewer’s suggestion for improved clarity] Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and have changed the title of the manuscript accordingly.
Comments 2: [Study Scope.]
Response 2: We have added the number of nests investigated to clarify the sample size in the Methods section. This revision ensures greater transparency regarding the study’s scope. The modification can be found on the Line [11]. Comment 3: [Clarification of Nest Characteristics vs. Traits] Response 3: The definitions of ‘characteristics’ (site-based features) and ‘traits’ (specific nest properties) have been refined for better clarity. This distinction is now explicitly discussed in the Discussion section from Line 426 onwards, where we elaborate on how these factors influence breeding success in Black Francolins. Thank you for highlighting this point. Comment 4: [Terminology Adjustments] Response 4: We have revised certain terms for consistency and clarity. Specifically: ‘Moist habitat’ has been changed to ‘wetland’ ‘Dry habitat’ has been changed to ‘drylands’ ‘Field margins’ has been changed to ‘Field edges’ These changes have been implemented throughout the manuscript. Comment 5: [Distribution Details] Response 5: Additional details regarding the European population in Cyprus and a more precise description of the species’ range have been added. This revision ensures a more comprehensive discussion of the species’ distribution. The changes can be found in the Introduction and Discussion sections. Comment 6: [Grammar and Style] Response 6: Numerous minor corrections have been made to improve clarity, eliminate redundancy, and enhance logical flow. These modifications have been implemented in the Introduction and throughout the manuscript. Comment 7: [Nesting Success Factors] Response 7: An additional explanation regarding the structural stability of nesting sites and their role in breeding success has been included. This revision is found in the Discussion section.
4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language
Point 1: [Various grammatical and stylistic revisions have been made throughout the manuscript to improve readability and clarity.] Response 1: The manuscript has been carefully reviewed, and necessary adjustments have been made to ensure improved readability and consistency.

5. Additional clarifications
All requested changes and revisions have been made as per the reviewer’s comments. If there are any further suggestions, we would be happy to address them accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am not familiar with the model species, so my comments will be general.

I also will not comment in detail on the English writing style.

This is a descriptive study dealing with the basic breeding biology of a single bird species investigated during a single breeding season (2023). A novelty statement is indicated on line 63: …’no studies have been conducted on the breeding biology of black francolins in Pakistan’. This study also provides detailed information on associations between aspects of nest size on the one hand and different aspects of breeding performance on the other hand, confirming the findings of most studies in non-cavity nesting species, as recently discussed in the review paper of Lambrechts and Deeming (2025, Avian Biology Research, February online)

Abstract and throughout the text and tables

- I would present all the average values and % values in the same style and with the same scale of precision. Given the important interindividual variation in reproductive traits, I would reduce the scale of precision (e.g., 76.7% instead of 76.66% or 4.8 + 1.0 hatchlings per nest instead of 4.84 + 1.02 hatchlings per nest)

Introduction

Line 54: ‘Black francolins,’ should be ‘Black francolins’
Line 72: ‘filed margins’ should be ‘field margins’ ?
Throughout the text: Given that the authors did not examine post-fledging survival, ‘reproductive success/performance’ should be ‘breeding success/performance’?

Methods

Line 81: The area supports a population of black francolin FACING threats from human activities such as hunting, habitat disturbance, …
Given that the data from Table 1 are not exploited in the analyses, why not presenting this Table as Supplementary Information?
Line 108: Perhaps write: Nesting activity was assessed via behavior (e.g., egg laying, incubation) and nest contents (eggs, hatchlings, fledgling).
Lines 135-137: Check the writings. Example: Hatching success = (number of hatchlings/clutch size) × 100). Fledging success = (number of fledglings/number of hatchlings) × 100. Breeding success = (number of fledglings survived/clutch size) × 100.
Line 145: What is ‘dimensions’?

Results

Lines 101, 102. A word is missing in following sentence: . Additionally, eggs from moist habitat and field margin nests had greater volumes (GLMM: t = 2.48, P = 0.021) and ???? (GLMM: t = 2.31, P = 0.031)

Discussion

The stud only lasted one year. Therefore, it would be nice to have a prudent discussion. For instance, I would change following sentence of line 241: Our results indicated a preference for moist habitats, particularly within bushes, which PROBABLY provide greater protection against environmental stressors and predation.
I suggest to simply repeat in the discussion what has already been mentioned before. For instance, you might remove the information indicated on lines 241-248 given that it has already been mentioned before.
Studying ‘adaptation’ at the within-species level is a complicated task requiring long-term studies of individually-marked breeders and estimates of recruitments in following generations (e.g. see the long-term studies of Paridae). Therefore, I think that there is currently not enough information to make strong statements about ‘adaptations’ or ‘adaptive breeding strategies’.
Perhaps it would be nice to have a separate paragraph discussion the absence of associations between nest size characteristics and aspects of breeding performance (clutch size, brood size ta hatching/fledging, hatching/fledging success). Lambrechts and Deeming (2024, 2025) discuss in more detail what nest characteristics are poorly correlated with breeding performance.
Individual optimization of clutch size (e.g. Pettifor et al. 1988, Nature) assumes that clutch size is adaptively adjusted to the individual abilities to produce hatchlings and rear nestlings, i. e. a female breeder with larger clutches will be able to produce more hatchlings and rear more fledglings than a female breeder with smaller clutches. Individual optimization of clutch size also assumes that individual breeders adaptively adjust clutch size so that the success of hatching/fledging/breeding is always maximized (e.g., on average 90%) across the different clutch size classes. Consequently, clutch size should be positively associated with brood size at hatching/fledging, but not associated with the success of hatching/fledging/breeding.

References

I would keep the same presentation style for all references (e.g., the writing style of references 11, 12, 44, 66 should be changed)
There is the option to cite Lambrechts and Deeming (2025, Avian Biology Research, February online).

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable	[Please give your response if necessary. Or you can also give your corresponding response in the point-by-point response letter. The same as below]
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Is the research design appropriate?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the methods adequately described?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the results clearly presented?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: [Associations between nest size characteristics and aspects of breeding performance (clutch size, brood size at hatching/fledging, hatching/fledging success). Lambrechts and Deeming (2024, 2025) discuss in more detail what nest characteristics are poorly correlated with breeding performance]
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have now added a separate paragraph in the Discussion section to elaborate on the absence of associations between nest size characteristics and breeding performance, citing the relevant literature. These changes can be found in the Discussion section
Comments 2: Individual optimization of clutch size (e.g. Pettifor et al. 1988, Nature) assumes that clutch size is adaptively adjusted to the individual abilities to produce hatchlings and rear nestlings, i.e., a female breeder with larger clutches will be able to produce more hatchlings and rear more fledglings than a female breeder with smaller clutches. Individual optimization of clutch size also assumes that individual breeders adaptively adjust clutch size so that the success of hatching/fledging/breeding is always maximized (e.g., on average 90%) across the different clutch size classes. Consequently, clutch size should be positively associated with brood size at hatching/fledging, but not associated with the success of hatching/fledging/breeding.
Response 2: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, revised the Discussion section to clarify the concept of individual optimization of clutch size. The expected relationships between clutch size, brood size, and breeding success are now explicitly discussed, referring to the relevant literature (e.g., Pettifor et al., 1988, Nature). These changes can be found in the Discussion section Comments 3: References: I would keep the same presentation style for all references (e.g., the writing style of references 11, 12, 44, 66 should be changed). There is the option to cite Lambrechts and Deeming (2025, Avian Biology Research, February online). Response 3: We have ensured consistency in the reference formatting throughout the manuscript. Specifically, references 11, 12, 44, and 66 have been formatted according to the journal’s citation style. Additionally, we have cited Lambrechts and Deeming (2025, Avian Biology Research, February online) where appropriate. Comments 4: Additional Revisions Response 4: Abstract and Throughout the Text and Tables: All average values and percentage values have been presented in a consistent style with a reduced scale of precision. Comments 5: Introduction: Response 5: Line 54: Corrected ‘Black francolins,’ to ‘Black francolins’. Line 72: Corrected ‘filed margins’ to ‘field edges’. Throughout the text: ‘Reproductive success/performance’ has been replaced with ‘breeding success/performance’ to reflect the scope of our study. Comments 6: Methods Response 6: Line 81: Revised to state that the area supports a population of black francolin facing threats from human activities such as hunting and habitat disturbance. Table 1: Since it was not used in the analyses, it has been moved to Supplementary Information. Line 108: Revised to clarify that nesting activity was assessed via behavior (e.g., egg laying, incubation) and nest contents (e.g., eggs, hatchlings, fledglings). Lines 135-137: Corrected formula writing (e.g., Hatching success = (number of hatchlings/clutch size) × 100). Line 145: Clarified the meaning of ‘dimensions’ Comments 7: Results Response 7: Lines 101-102: Revised to include the missing word in the sentence regarding egg volume differences. Comments 8: Discussion Response 8: Adjusted wording in line 241 to reflect a more cautious interpretation: “Our results indicated a preference for moist habitats, particularly within bushes, which probably provide greater protection against environmental stressors and predation.” Removed redundant discussion content (lines 241-248) that was already mentioned earlier. Adjusted statements regarding adaptation to acknowledge the need for long-term studies for definitive conclusions. Discussed individual optimization of clutch size, referring to relevant literature (e.g., Pettifor et al., 1988, Nature), and clarified the expected relationships between clutch size, brood size, and breeding success.
4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language
Point 1:
Response 1: (in red)
5. Additional clarifications
[Here, mention any other clarifications you would like to provide to the journal editor/reviewer.]

For review article

Response to Reviewer X Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. [This is only a recommended summary. Please feel free to adjust it. We do suggest maintaining a neutral tone and thanking the reviewers for their contribution although the comments may be negative or off-target. If you disagree with the reviewer's comments please include any concerns you may have in the letter to the Academic Editor.]
2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Is the work a significant contribution to the field?		[Please give your response if necessary. Or you can also give your corresponding response in the point-by-point response letter. The same as below]
Is the work well organized and comprehensively described?
Is the work scientifically sound and not misleading?
Are there appropriate and adequate references to related and previous work?
Is the English used correct and readable?
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: [Paste the full reviewer comment here.]
Response 1: [Type your response here and mark your revisions in red] Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have….[Explain what change you have made. Mention exactly where in the revised manuscript this change can be found – page number, paragraph, and line.] “[updated text in the manuscript if necessary]”
Comments 2: [Paste the full reviewer comment here.]
Response 2: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, done/revised/changed/modified…..to emphasize this point. Discuss the changes made, providing the necessary explanation/clarification. Mention exactly where in the revised manuscript this change can be found – page number, paragraph, and line.] “[updated text in the manuscript if necessary]”
4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language
Point 1:
Response 1: (in red)
5. Additional clarifications
[Here, mention any other clarifications you would like to provide to the journal editor/reviewer.]

Author Response File: Author Response.docx