The Destiny of Living Animals Imported into Chinese Zoos

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear  Baoxiang  and colleagues,

I have found your work interesting and timely. I have just included some minor appreciations about the way of presenting your results.

I hope my comments will be useful for your investigation

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors reported research about the import, breeding, deaths and transfers of animals in Chinese zoos. The research is both interesting and suitable for Diversity. However, some improvement is necessary, in both content and analyses, before it can be accepted for publication.

Language is generally fine; however, words are misplaced here and there. I would suggest a check by a native speaker.

Comments

---Line 19 – Give the exact number of institutions.

---Line 64 – “captive institutions”: Institutions are not captive themselves. Replace with something like “institutions breeding wildlife in captivity” or “institutions hosting wildlife”, depending on context.

---Line 74 – Not real populations. I suggest replace “population dynamics” long-term changes in the numbers of imported species”.

---Lines 78-80 – Not clear what the authors try to communicate here. Rephrase.

---Line 81 – Did the authors collect data from all the zoos and aquariums in China? Or were there more than the127 surveyed? Please clarify this. If they were not all, give the location of the surveyed (on province level).

---Line 85 – Please clarify “transfer” here. Where were animals transferred too? To other institutions than the ones surveyed? To other institutions that were also surveyed? (but then they should just be added in the total). To institutions outside China? Clarify this here because otherwise the readers will not be able to fully understand analyses.

---Line 85 – “individuals for each species…”.

---Line 90 – “some basic parameters…”.

---Line 92 – “to test annual changes…”.

---Line 92 – Data should be tested for normality, homoscedasticity and linearity. And if these assumptions are not satisfied, suitable transformations should be made before performing linear regressions.

---Lines 92-103 – Defining captive animals as population is problematic. Authors recognized this in lines 175-183. Also, λ and regression convey similar information. I suggest that the authors only report regression results.

---Line 100 – Supplementary Tables have not been provided with a title and also not in the journal style. They should be separately provided according to author guidelines. I suggest authors to see supplement from previous articles and follow their style. Supplementary Tables and figures should be given in one pdf file, in the order they are referred to in the main text. The first page of the file should be a front page similar to the main article’s first page, containing only the article title and authors’names and affiliations, without any abstract or other text.

---Lines 107-108 – “Vulnerable” is also a threatened status category and should be included in the analysis.

---Lines 116, 131 – I suggest to remove Figure 2. Fuzzy, not adding much.

---Line 121 – Trends have multiple peaks. Please correct and be precise.

---Line 122 – Data should satisfy assumptions before regressions. Please comment. See also previous comment.

---Line 124 – “Since 2009… “. Also, be precise. Check all results.

---Lines 125, 133 – I suggest to give number of individuals and number of species in separate graphs, also adding regression lines.

---Lines 136-137 – “During the past twenty years, 82% of the imported species survived in captivity (Table 1).”. Try to be simple and clear, avoiding terms referring to population dynamics.

---Lines 145-151 and figure 4 – Remove text on population growth index as suggested. Use linear regression slopes and p-values instead. Also remove Figure 4.

---Lines 155-169 -and Table 2 – Remove text and data referring to population growth index. Use regression slopes and p-values. Replace λ in Table 2 with regression slopes (b) and p-values. This would be more informative because the readers would be able to assess the significance of trend. Explain results in the text.

---Lines 155-169 -and Table 2 – As threatened species also include the “Vulnerable” category, please add it in Table 2 (relevant species with trends). I would also suggest, in addition to Figure 3 (split in two as suggested before), to add figures showing the number of individuals and number of species for (a) non-threatened species and (b) threatened species (with trendlines, and regression equations and p-values). Authors could present this in a 4-graph composite figure. This would significantly increase the value of the article, as the readers would be particularly interested in seeing how threatened captive animals fared during the study period. Abd will also allow for a more informed and focused discussion.

---Line 185 – Were there no fees for entrance to zoos and aquariums? Please clarify “non-commercial use”.

---Lines 190-200 – Please add discussion about the number of species and individuals of the threatened wildlife class. Also give some more explanations for the observed trends, with some references.

---Lines 195-196 – Increase would be something, decrease certainly not. Please clarify “conservation achievement”.

---Line 219 – ‘declined or disappeared…”.

---Lines 219-221 – Clarify this text. Not sure what the authors try to communicate.

---Line 230 – What is “Species360”? Please explain.

---Lines 233-237 – First give some information about the current state of zoos and aquariums (animal welfare issues, etc.) with some references and then propose improvements.

---Lines 245-246 – Focus on threatened species.

---Line 261 – “Finally, during the outbreak…”.

---Supplementary files. Tables: Separate, give titles, replace λ with slope and p-values, and follow Journal style as suggested before.

---Supplementary files: Figure: Give title and remove data on amphibians as they were not studied. Also add Figure S1 to a file with tables as suggested before.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have successfully addresses the reviewers' comments. The manuscript is now in a proper form for publication.