PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Madsen,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

This work is well prepared and well presented, and it follows the scope of PLos one, and principle of inclusion. Reviewer 1 is very positive, but also points at several presentation and conceptual improvements that are needed in order to accept your work for publication.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 18 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Benedicte Riber Albrectsen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“The project was primarily funded by a grant from the Danish Agency for Green Transition and Aquatic En-vironment to Jesper Madsen (www.sgav.dk)(Jagttegnsmidlerne 2023; ref. 120362), with support from a grant by the 15 June Foundation to Jesper Madsen (www.15junifonden.dk) (project Samforvaltning i praksis – forsøg med bramgæs i Guldborgsund Kommune; ref. 2022-022).”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for uploading your study's underlying data set. Unfortunately, the repository you have noted in your Data Availability statement does not qualify as an acceptable data repository according to PLOS's standards.

At this time, please upload the minimal data set necessary to replicate your study's findings to a stable, public repository (such as figshare or Dryad) and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a list of recommended repositories and additional information on PLOS standards for data deposition, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories .

5. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

This work is well prepared and presented, and follow the scope of inclusion of PLos one. Reviewer 1 is very positive, but also points at several presentation and conceptual improvements that are needed in order to accept your work for publication.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Line 352: "go out into field" not in table. I assume this should read: "walking person". Likewise, Figures 2 & 3 have listed "Walking man". This should be consistent with the other references to this hazing method.

Figure 2/Line 373-375: Claims significance but does not state p-value in text. Horizontal lines indicating significance in the figure are distracting. Consider using error bars or indicate significance through: A, B, BC, C above the bar graphs.

Overall, throughout text, be sure to use past-tense and fix grammatical errors, especially the use of ", and" at the end of sentences.

Line 394/Table 3/Figure 3: Throughout the publication, choose your desired p-value and stick with it. In the text/table 3, it appears that the p-value is referring to <0.001 suggesting. Then in figure 3, it appears that the error bars are set at maybe p-value of 0.05 (scare shots/walking man/driving car/atv all show similar significance, while in the table 3 they depict differences) . . . I think 0.05 is perfectly fine for these data but be consistent throughout.

Table 4: Needs more explanation in the text and table (and format DF/p-value/F to be consistent at least). After reading numerous times, I am still not sure what table 4 is showing me. Season number vs hectare numbers that are of little value to the reader.

Table 5: Similarly, needs more explanation in text and formatting is too bad to interpret.

Figure 5: Needs more explanation in text and needs a more self-explanatory figure overall. (This data is covered exceptionally well in the discussion. Potentially remove the figure altogether and leave those data review for the text.)

Table 6: Consider moving the "Hunters come ... " portion of the first column text to the top row and change the text to "Hunters available"

I was very impressed with the Discussion. The authors have a strong understanding of the issue. Likewise, I liked figures 1, 3, 4 and tables 2 and 3. Those were great visuals. Overall, well done!

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

An analysis of farmers' experiences with deterrence methods and investment in mitigation of agricultural crop damage caused by geese

PONE-D-25-42741R1

Dear Dr. Madsen,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Benedicte Riber Albrectsen

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors have responded adequately to every question raised by the reviewer, who was already impressed with their work.

Reviewers' comments: