PONE-D-23-37663Reduction of coastal lighting decreases seabird strandingsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Burt,

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 consider carefully the detailed comments from both reviewers.  It is critical that the data depository work be functional.  Please respond specifically to the questions regarding the statistical approach by reviewer 1 (whether to model juveniles separately, using a quadratic term for date).  I believe that you will find the comments to all be useful, productive, and thorough.  The second reviewer already disclosed a potential conflict resulting from collaboration with one author, so there is no need for you to worry about that (the review is signed).

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 10 2024 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 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 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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Travis Longcore, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

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

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. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere. [The daily morning survey data were used to create Figure 2 in a pending publication manuscript in Biology Letters titled "Small tube-nosed seabirds fledge on the full moon and throughout the lunar cycle." These data were not used in any analyses and were only included in Figure 2 to show stranding occurrences relative to moon illumination and fledgling in Leach's Storm-Petrels.] Please clarify whether this publication was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript.

3. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. In the online submission form, you indicated that [Insert text from online submission form here]. 

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 

5. We note that Figure 3 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 3 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission. 

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

6. We note that Figure(s) 1 and S2 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) 1 and S2 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

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

Reviewers' comments:

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: I Don't Know

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: In this paper, the authors assess the impact of lighting management (turning the main lights off) in the fallout numbers of Leach’s storm petrels at a seafood processing plant in Canada. I feel the ms is worthy of publication, but I identify some weak points regarding to the data analyses that might be addressed by the authors (see below).

Major comments

Data analyses

1) You include the number of adults and fledglings as a response variable. However, response to light is different between adults and fledglings, but also depending on the type of bird activity (foraging, visiting the colony at flight, fledging or when they are on land). See different responses for adults, nestlings and fledglings in, for example, Syposz et al. 2021 Scientific Reports, Rodríguez et al 2022 Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution or Atchoi et al. 2023 Journal of Experimental Biology. So, my suggestion is to build separate models for adults and fledglings. Given that you might have some unaged birds during the fledging period, you could run two models: one conservative using just the fledglings, and another including fledglings + unaged birds. I bet the influence of explanatory variables will be the same. Alternatively, you might assume that all grounded birds during the fledging period are fledglings (95%!! According to your data in line 285).

2) You use GLMMs and include day of the year as a predictor, but you are not expecting a linear relationship (showed in figure 6). If you follow my previous suggestion, in the case of fledglings, you should use a quadratic term as done in Rodríguez et al 2014 Plos One. It is reasonable to think that fledging follows a quadratic term along the date. In the case of adults, you might include the simple term ‘day of the year’ as long as you are expecting that the number of grounded adults decline with the date.

3) What is the random term in your GLMM? It is not stated in lines 193-211. Then in results, you have some figures from negative binomial generalized models, but they have not been explained in Methods. Is it a misunderstanding between GLMMs and GLMs?

4) Mortality analyses. I am not sure why authors do not model mortality as a proportional response variable with a binomial model. You have the numbers of dead and alive birds, so authors can identify the variables affecting mortality rates. I would also separate adults from fledglings as variables influencing mortality rates might be different for both groups. See Rodríguez et al 2014 Plos One for a similar statistical procedure.

Widening the scope of the ms

Introduction is focussed on Leach’s storm petrel, which is great, but why do you think that Leach’s storm-petrel is going to be so different to other seabird species? Given that seabird attraction to light is a common phenomenon to underground nesting seabirds (and with multiple similarities among the species involved), I would try to widen the scope to seabirds in general (you already did it in the title!). You might include all the specific information of the Leach’s storm petrel (e.g. lines 51-58 or 61-62), in a section entitled Model species or Study species (or something like that). Then, in lines 59-83, every time you talk about storm-petrels you might interchange by seabirds (at least, in most cases).

Minor comments

Lines 50-51: You cite here Reed et al 1985 and Wilhelm et al 2021, but they don’t provide a list of species affected. In this sense, I feel more appropriate to state in this sentence that Procellariiformes is the most vulnerable with the number of affected species. In this sense, the most updated reference is the Chapter by Gilmour et al 2023 in the book Conservation of Marine Birds.

Lines 71-72: I disagree with this sentence. There are at least another two studies where light reduction has reduced fallout and you have them included in the reference list: One is the pioneer study by Reed et al 1985 running a very similar experiment to yours, another is Rodríguez et al 2014 where fallout was reduced by turning the lights of a bridge off. I think that this information should be showed to readers in the introduction (as authors have very well done with the study by Miles et al. 2010).

Lines 229-230: According to Table 1, fog is significant! Day of year may not be significant because the reasons given above.

Table 1. I do not understand why there are no estimates for all predictors nor why the dispersion model only includes fog. Are these the results of the GLMM?

Line 280. It is the first time you call LEDs. It would be great to have a better description of the type of lights were on/off during the experiment. Critical aspects are intensity of the lamps and spectrum.

Table 3. How do you assess the breeding status to complete the row ‘N of breeding individuals’? Should that information be at Methods?

Lines 306-321: The think that the first paragraph is out of the scope of the ms: 1) I miss a discussion of the Reed et al 1985 study! 2) Lines 314-317, Telfer and co-workers study is not an experiment! 3) Lines 319: “…suggesting that they also exhibit positive phototaxis.” It seems like authors are re-inventing the wheel. I think that there is a great consensus on that seabird fledglings show phototaxis in flight. This has been demonstrated by GPS-tracking flights in Rodríguez et al 2015 Scientific Reports and 2022 Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. In summary, I think that this first paragraph should be focussed on the reductions of fallout numbers by turning the lights off or shielding the lights described by Miles et al., Reed et al. and Rodríguez et al. (not sure if I am missing other critical studies).

Lines 327-330: Although it might be useful for adults, please, note that the explanation about the reduced activity of fledglings (fledging) because high moon illumination is not a valid hypothesis, at least until new evidence arise. A full explanation is available in Rodríguez et al 2023 Conservation Science and Practice. So, please, reword to address the differences between age groups.

Lines 336-339: First, note that fog is significant according to table 1. Second, it seems that the second part of the sentence is contradictory to the first one.

Lines 339-340: I would rewrite this part “ …most mass stranding events (63%)…” to something like “…six out of eight mass stranding events…” Confirm the numbers. Also about these lines and followings, could you give some information on the weather conditions? For example, was it rainy, cloudy or foggy during those six nights of mass stranding events?

Lines 359: “…suggesting that…” What is the doubt? Since long time ago, it has been widely accepted that fledglings are more affected than adults.

Lines 361: Be consistent with previous lines. 63% or 62.5%

Lines 362-365: Sorry, I don’t follow the thread or your reasoning. Why are you proposing these two hypotheses? What is the evidence to propose the second hypothesis?

Lines 372: Great!! “…based on brood patch presence.” This should be stated in Methods.

Lines 379: I would say that no eggs or nestlings would survive if one parent die. There should be plenty of references on petrels.

Lines 399-401: “…while other results suggest that red and white light attract the most seabirds and migratory birds and cause the most disorientation in foggy conditions (43,46).” Please caution here! First, Syposz et al 2021 show that ADULT manx shearwaters are more deterred with white and blue lights (not attracted!). Adult is in capital letters to highlight the differences between adults and fledglings, which support my proposal of two models to each age group. Second, Poot et al. 2008 has been replied by Evans et al 2010 (https://ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/resp1) because of their experimental design and Poot and co-workers never replied. In addition, most evidence published after that paper indicate the opposite. So, I think that paper should not be cited anymore.

Lines 408-409: Consider citing here Syposz et al 2021 as they found a smaller effect with shorter light treatments. To my best knowledge, it is the only paper testing that.

Lines 413-415: Deploying an array of bird shelters deserve a paper explaining their potential use, pros and cons!! If you are not going to do it, I would ask for providing some information in this contribution on what is the proportion of birds found in the shelters vs the birds collected out, alive vs dead, etc. It seems as a potentially useful mitigation of light-induced mortality.

In the next Review Questions, I would like to explain my selected responses:

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

I don’t know because authors are using GLMs or GLMMs. Futhermore, I feel that they should run different models for adults and fledglings (see above).

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

I have selected No because the GitHub link does not work.

I hope authors find useful these comments to improve its paper.

Reviewer #2: Please see attached.

**********

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: Yes: Airam Rodríguez

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.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: review-of-artificial-light-at-night-and-seabird-strandings.docx

PONE-D-23-37663R1Reduction of coastal lighting decreases seabird strandingsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Burt,

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. One of the reviewers has some constructive suggestions for a very minor revision that I ask that you consider.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 08 2024 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 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 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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Travis Longcore, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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:

Please consider a very minor revision to address some remaining comments and suggestions.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. 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 #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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 #2: Yes

**********

5. 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 #2: Yes

**********

6. 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 #2: Review of Burt et al.: Reduction of coastal lighting decreases seabird strandings

Taylor Brown

I appreciate the opportunity to re-evaluate this manuscript; it was a pleasure to read. The authors have done an excellent job of responding to my queries, and I find this draft to be vastly improved from the previous one, thanks also in large part to the suggestions of the other reviewer. The new, separate models for juveniles and adults help to further clarify trends in the drivers of stranding for each age group. I have no major comments, and include only a handful of minor suggestions below.

Please note that line numbers refer to the clean edited version of the manuscript.

L108-13. Here and in Figure 2, it still appears that some of the lights along the northwest side (the “front”) of the building that were un-manipulated are not mentioned or included in the overall count of how many lights are present in the immediate area of the building. Specifically, in the “reduced” lighting photo (Figure 3b) I can see five pairs of LED lights (so ten total) along the wharf, plus a cluster of four bright LED lights on the far right side of the building and two apparent High Pressure Sodium pole lights in the middle of the picture beside the wharf.

L241-42. Fog was also not significantly associated with the number of stranded birds and could be added to this sentence.

L254-62. Thank you for specifying adults in L254. It may help the reader if the rest of the paragraph also refers specifically to “stranded adults” or “stranded adult birds” rather than the more general “stranded birds” or “stranded storm-petrels”. Similarly, in L272 juveniles are specified but the rest of the paragraph could also refer specifically to juveniles for utmost clarity (L272-77).

Table 4. Please clarify in the table caption if means are accompanied by standard deviation.

L346-48. I suggest clarifying that “fewer storm-petrels of [all age classes] stranded when moon illumination was high…” and either remove or change the wording of the second clause which refers to juveniles specifically, because of the non-significance of that result. The morning survey data (indicating a significant effect of moon illumination) have much higher resolution than the night survey data anyway, so greater emphasis / confidence could be placed on that result.

L352-55. The grammatical structure of this sentence could be improved slightly for readability.

L357. Perhaps start a new paragraph here for wind and other weather effects.

L386-90. Is it possible to somehow combine this section with L365-69, or condense it, since both sections cover the potential causes of mass strandings and how they relate to light condition? This could be achieved, in part, by shifting the intervening paragraph (L370-78) down so that it immediately precedes the paragraph that currently starts at L391 (about the importance of adult mortality). This flow of ideas would seem to me to be more logical. Also, L388-89 appears to imply that a potential explanation for the random nature of mass stranding events (with respect to lighting condition) is due to a stronger phototactic response by fledglings; but if it is random, then I would assume there is no light-related explanation.

L442. This is the first time that “puffin” appears in the manuscript, so I suggest including the binomial species name.

Figure S2A. There appear to be two triangular (night survey) points in October that lack colour to indicate lighting condition. Is this a mistake, or is light condition unknown? Overall, I very much appreciate the addition of this figure to the supporting information! It’s nicely done.

**********

7. 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 #2: Yes: Taylor Brown

**********

[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.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Reduction of coastal lighting decreases seabird strandings

PONE-D-23-37663R2

Dear Dr. Burt,

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. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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,

Travis Longcore, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for your patience and diligence with revisions.

Reviewers' comments: