Singing Behavior and Availability of Golden-Cheeked Warblers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript deals with singing activity of Golden-cheeked Warbler (Setophaga chrysoparia) during the course of the breeding season, day and breeding status. The dataset includes sufficient number of singing males and covers the whole breeding period, daytime and breeding stages. There was found a clear evidence that song activity decreases during the course of the breeding season, during the day, with increasing density and from early sage of breeding to its end. The manuscript is well prepared and I have just following minor issues that can improve the manuscript.

Methods – The author probably used some sheets for recording each individual song activity, but it is not mentioned in the text. If so, please mention this in article. Alternatively, the author could use some recording equipment that is again not mentioned. Please describe in detail, how the recordings of song originated.

L146 – Add “software” after “R” and put R version

Results – Overall, I would show P values for 3 decimals (e.g. P = 0.001). If P value was below 0.001 use P < 0.001.

L206-207 – It is unclear, what the authors wanted to say. The sentence begins with „Treating the first …”. Please rewrite the sentence to be clearer.

Figure 3 – I am missing in the legend the description of breeding stages categories. For now, there is in graph just numbering from 1 to 6. Please, add more detailed description. I also did not find if authors used some post-hoc tests to uncover differences among all breeding stages.

L217-223 – This text is very long and reader cannot be well oriented. Maybe, it will be better to show these results of models in table. This will enable the reader to better compare breeding stages differences.

Author Response

REVIEWER 1:

The manuscript deals with singing activity of Golden-cheeked Warbler (Setophaga chrysoparia) during the course of the breeding season, day and breeding status. The dataset includes sufficient number of singing males and covers the whole breeding period, daytime and breeding stages. There was found a clear evidence that song activity decreases during the course of the breeding season, during the day, with increasing density and from early sage of breeding to its end. The manuscript is well prepared and I have just following minor issues that can improve the manuscript.

 

Methods – The author probably used some sheets for recording each individual song activity, but it is not mentioned in the text. If so, please mention this in article. Alternatively, the author could use some recording equipment that is again not mentioned. Please describe in detail, how the recordings of song originated.

I added “All data was recorded on data forms.”

L146 – Add “software” after “R” and put R version

I changed to “I conducted all analyses in R version 4.5.2.“ and moved the sentence to be in the beginning of the description of subsequent analyses instead of the end of the methods.

Results – Overall, I would show P values for 3 decimals (e.g. P = 0.001). If P value was below 0.001 use P < 0.001.

I changed all P values to address this comment.

L206-207 – It is unclear, what the authors wanted to say. The sentence begins with „Treating the first …”. Please rewrite the sentence to be clearer.

I changed the sentence to “I treated the first and last run in each survey as censored because their full durations were not observed;  Kaplan–Meier survival curves accounting for this censoring produced restricted mean bout length (± SE) of  9.55 ± 0.65 min for singing and 13.23 ± 1.55 min for silent bouts.” I believe this makes the idea much clearer.

Figure 3 – I am missing in the legend the description of breeding stages categories. For now, there is in graph just numbering from 1 to 6. Please, add more detailed description. I also did not find if authors used some post-hoc tests to uncover differences among all breeding stages.

I added the breeding stage info in the figure description (also described in methods). The breeding stage analysis was done in the same manner as all other analyses.

L217-223 – This text is very long and reader cannot be well oriented. Maybe, it will be better to show these results of models in table. This will enable the reader to better compare breeding stages differences.

I will deter to the editor about any changes to this text. I think it is best presented in text with the accompanying figure (Fig. 3) showing effect and is consistent with presentation of other results.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well thought out and well presented piece of research.  It is a bonus that the work was done in a well studied species whose population estimates have been contentious in the past, so this contributes to an ongoing dialog.  I don't think the specific findings are surprising in any way, but quantifying how much song declines or increases in different contexts is useful in understanding the limits of audio-based point counts, and perhaps in better modelling point count results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I have only minor suggestions for changing a word here and there.  

Line 85 eliminate the word "randomly" unless you can show that your process truly did randomize which males were included.  Ease of monitoring is fine as a criterion for including males in this study, and if there is no true randomizing process the word "randomly" doesn't belong.

line 87 substitute "them" for "him" to agree with "males" in the previous line.

lines 115 and others: you throw in "glmmTMB" as though it were an analysis technique (which I never heard of) when apparently it is a package in R?  likewise "emmeans" and other packages are in the text without a citation or other signal that they are software packages.  You don't say until much later, in the last sentence of the methods section, that you did the analysis in R.  Please put "All analyses were run in R (with citation to version)" early in the methods, before you start citing packages, and please at least say "package emmeans" and "package glmmTMB" to cue the reader to what you mean.   

line 300 change "himself or his" to "themself or their" to agree with "males" in line 298

line 332 since all the other citations are numeric, shouldn't this one be, too ("Sesnie et al. (2016)"?

Author Response

REVIEWER 2:

This is a well thought out and well presented piece of research.  It is a bonus that the work was done in a well studied species whose population estimates have been contentious in the past, so this contributes to an ongoing dialog.  I don't think the specific findings are surprising in any way, but quantifying how much song declines or increases in different contexts is useful in understanding the limits of audio-based point counts, and perhaps in better modelling point count results.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I have only minor suggestions for changing a word here and there.  

Line 85 eliminate the word "randomly" unless you can show that your process truly did randomize which males were included.  Ease of monitoring is fine as a criterion for including males in this study, and if there is no true randomizing process the word "randomly" doesn't belong.

I deleted “randomly”.

line 87 substitute "them" for "him" to agree with "males" in the previous line.

I made this change.

lines 115 and others: you throw in "glmmTMB" as though it were an analysis technique (which I never heard of) when apparently it is a package in R?  likewise "emmeans" and other packages are in the text without a citation or other signal that they are software packages.  You don't say until much later, in the last sentence of the methods section, that you did the analysis in R.  Please put "All analyses were run in R (with citation to version)" early in the methods, before you start citing packages, and please at least say "package emmeans" and "package glmmTMB" to cue the reader to what you mean.   

I changed to “I conducted all analyses in R version 4.5.2“ and moved the sentence to be in the beginning of the description of subsequent analyses instead of the end of the methods. I added “package” to each package type used for clarity.

line 300 change "himself or his" to "themself or their" to agree with "males" in line 298

I made this change.

line 332 since all the other citations are numeric, shouldn't this one be, too ("Sesnie et al. (2016)"?

Yes, I made this correction.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present a well-designed study quantifying how male Golden-cheeked Warbler singing rates influence detection probability during surveys. Males sang less when paired and later in the day or season, but more when other males were singing nearby. Minute-by-minute observations demonstrated that the probability of detecting at least one song varied with time of day, pairing status, conspecific presence, and survey duration. The authors conclude that singing rates strongly shape detectability during counts where availability varies with social and temporal context, and that survey timing and length affect population estimates. They also provide practical recommendations for future surveys under conditions of generally highest availability: early April, early morning hours after sunrise, and temperatures at or above 20°C.

The study is well structured and implemented, using repeated minute-by-minute recordings across multiple surveys and individuals to capture variability in detection probability. By evaluating numerous predictors—pairing status, presence of conspecifics, breeding stage, time of day, date, and temperature—and their interactions, the authors offer a comprehensive view of the factors influencing singing behavior and the detectability of singing. The statistical analyses are appropriate, employing binomial GLMMs with random intercepts for individual males and survey sessions, which account for hierarchical data structure and variation among individuals or visits. Reporting confidence intervals and using likelihood-ratio tests to assess model performance further strengthen the analytical rigor, and the figures clearly illustrate the main patterns in an accessible way.

The authors also explicitly acknowledge several limitations of their work, clarifying how these constraints may affect field applications. However, these limitations are not consolidated into a single paragraph in the Discussion. This transparency helps readers interpret the results realistically in the context of survey design and monitoring.

Overall, the writing is clear and engaging, making the paper both informative and enjoyable to read.

Author Response

No edits requested.