-->PONE-D-26-09734-->-->Integrating 3-D Thermal Videography, Ultrasonic Acoustics, and Weather Radar to Characterize Bird and Bat Activity at Wind Turbines-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Corcoran,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 04 2026 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.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

• A 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 you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

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.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only  the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot  verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

James K. Sheppard

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 note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

“We have read the journal’s policy and ajc has a competing interest of being the developer of ThruTracker, a commercially available software package used in this study. All other authors declare no competing interests.”

We note that you received funding from a commercial source: “ThruTracker”

Please provide an amended Competing Interests Statement that explicitly states this commercial funder, along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, marketed products, etc.

Within this Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your amended Competing Interests Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

6. 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.

7. 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 is a strong, technically sound manuscript, and the remaining issues are pretty minor clarifications and presentation issues. Statements that birds constitute the majority of thermal detections and that avoidance is driven by cues from rotating blades are well supported by patterns in the multi-sensor data, but they still rest on assumptions about radar specificity, acoustic detectability, and potential confounding differences between stationary and operating periods. I suggest adding one short paragraph that explicitly lays out these assumptions and the limits to generalization across sites, seasons, and taxa (echoing the reviewers’ requests for clearer discussion of uncertainty).

The justification for the 60–200 m, 30–150 m spatial filters and the claim that these “effectively exclude insects and airplanes” should either be supported with citations or rephrased a bit more cautiously. Better explanations/justifications of why nightly (rather than hourly) data were used for the GLMs, and why turbine ID is treated as a fixed effect in the mixed model, will help non-specialist readers follow your modeling choices. Both reviewers note that figure resolution and legibility need improvement, so providing higher-resolution figures with fully explained symbols, colors etc will improve manuscript clarity. Consequently, minor changes are required before the manuscript can be further considered. Both reviewers provide insightful comments and suggestions that will help guide the revision process to improve this manuscript.

[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?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: The manuscript is generally well structured, provides detailed descriptions of the methodology, such as data collection and data processing procedures, and includes rigorous statistical analyses supporting the findings. The figures appear blurry and low resolution. Please provide higher-resolution versions to improve readability.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript is clearly written and describes a sound study design and appropriate statistical analyses. The interpretation of the results are reasonable and don't stray into the realm of speculation. I only have a few minor comments to improve presentation of data in figures and to clarify some aspects of the radar data and analysis.

Line 128 How far from the KDMX radar were the sampling sites? I ask since the vertical profiles from bioRad are constructed from data within 35 km of the radar. The farther from the radar the sampling sites are the lower the accuracy of the radar measures may be relative to activity at the sampling site, particularly if the sampling site is beyond 35 km from the radar.

Line 132 It seems radar based migration traffic rate is considering birds fliying up to 5 km above ground. But thermal data are restricted to targets flying between 30 and 150 m above ground. The correlation between the two measures is rather tight already, but could you also compare the radar traffic to thermal traffic by restricting the radar data to within 150 m above ground to make it more of an apples to apples comparison? Would that improve the correlation even more?

Line 145. Please provide more detail as to how your algorithms generate 3-D detections from thermal video information. There is broad variability in bird size and flight speed, so thsoe may not be reliable indicators of altitude. I recall

Figure 3. Please do not use scientific notation for the values on the x-axis for panel a. It is difficult to interpret them as them run together. Also, because the axes use logarithmic scaling for raw values, the labels should reflect the original variable name rather than 'log [Variable].' Only label it as 'log' if the numerical values shown on the scale have already been transformed. What do the shaded regions around trendlines represent?

Figure 5. Why are there two trendlines for each type of wind activity (rotating or stationary)? What do the shaded regions around trendlines represent?

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (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

Reviewer #2: 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.

-->

<p>Integrating 3-D Thermal Videography, Ultrasonic Acoustics, and Weather Radar to Characterize Bird and Bat Activity at Wind Turbines

PONE-D-26-09734R1

Dear Dr. Corcoran,

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,

James K. Sheppard

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors have satisfactorily addressed the minor concerns raised by both reviewers and myself. They have clarified the key assumptions underlying their taxonomic and behavioral inferences, provided additional justification for their spatial and analytical choices, expanded the description of the 3‑D detection methods, and supplied the requested radar comparisons. Figure quality and labeling have been improved, and the ethics, data, and competing‑interests statements now meet requirements. In my judgment, the manuscript is now suitable for publication in PLOS One and will be of clear relevance and value to wildlife professionals working at the interface of ecology and wind‑energy development.

Reviewers' comments: