A Review of the Trade in Toucans (Ramphastidae): Levels of Trade in Species, Source and Sink Countries, Effects from Governance Actions and Conservation Concerns

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review report on A review of the trade in Toucans (Ramphastidae): Levels of trade in species, source and sink countries, effects from governance actions and conservation concerns

 

Line 12: the responsibility of CITES is to ensure responsible trade in wild fauna and flora. Trade quota setting is only one aspect of sustainable management. Therefore, it cannot be said CITES is responsible for sustainable management. The authors should revise the statement.

 

Line 40: However, the rather than with

 

Line 142-146: There should be an n before the figures. E.g. (n = 18080; 81.4%)

 

Table 5, Line 223: I suggest cumulative since authors add the different countries instead of accumulative, which is gradually increasing in number or amount that can best be suited for a single country.

 

Figure 4-9: can the size of the volume of trade be rescaled? At the moment, it is difficult to follow the size of the figures.

 

Figure 4, Line 249: The first reported trade was in 1985 (line 139). Since the first registered trade was in 1985, Figure 4 can only refer to trade between 1985-2019. Using 1975 does mask the almost ten years without data on trade.

 

Figure 4-9 for the trade route of the six species could be represented in one graph indicating each species with a single color. The authors could also explore using the Sanky diagram to describe the origin of species, and destinations, as it would make it easier for authors to compare in one chart.

 

Lines 287-292 should be rephrased. Reproductive biology could be separated from ecosystem service provision.

 

Line 306: Reference relating to the reduction in the plant species should be provided to bolster the statement.

 

Line 309: this needs to be clarified. Should be rephrased

 

Line 311: …CITES listing was… missing word

 

Line 308-327: The authors must choose if they want to integrate results and discussion Results cannot be presented and repeated in the discussion simultaneously.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see attached word document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for submitting your manuscript for review. I find the topic interesting. Unfortunately, your use of hesitant, vague language is completely off-putting. Your manuscript could be greatly improved, and shortened, by using direct, active language.

With regards to your introduction, it looks like your aim is to conduct a global review of toucan trade via analysis of CITES data rather than describe individual case studies as in cited works. You need to state this clearly! Further, you should mention any known weaknesses in the collection of CITES data, and your hypotheses. You should also insert a paragraph describing how past analyses of CITES data, on other species, has influenced policy or regulation of trade, as this will help the reader to understand the purpose of your research.

Further, you use a 2001 study to support your statement that no study on the trade of toucans has occurred (L80-81), and then cite papers from 2015, and 2008 on the trade in toucans (L93-97). This is inappropriate!

Cut paragraphs one through 4 down to half their size. Then add suggested information to the end of your introduction.

Regarding your methods, fluctuation in data is not a reason to exclude a dataset from analysis! Rather you should report the levels of fluctuation and look for correlations between export and imports. A lack of correlation would suggest a failure in the CITES reporting system, which is a problem worth discussing!

Further, you could use network analysis to tell me if there is significant variation in the trade networks of each species.

Regarding your results: you stated you would only analyse the import data then the first thing you report is the total number of exports! Please be consistent.

Several sections of the results need to be moved to the methods section.

Delete figure 1 as you reproduce that map in later figures.

Regarding your discussion, please move nearly all of your final paragraph to the methods!

I have submitted a pdf of your manuscript with many other small comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf