General Comments
The authors present a very interesting study of the migratory behavior of wood storks in Florida to determine how much urbanization (anthropogenic food subsidies) influences migratory behavior and fitness. The authors utilize an impressive dataset of GPS fixes on 133 individual wood storks across the species southeast range. By demonstrating the link between migratory behavior, resource selection, and fitness consequences, the authors take an important step towards understanding some of the mechanisms underlying shifting migratory behavior (and movement in general) that has a long history of being pattern-based. Overall, the manuscript was interesting and their incorporation of fitness consequences is really important however there were a few key issues --detailed below -- that weakened the overall message of manuscript. I highlight them below broadly but provide more specific details in the 'Specific Comments' section of this manuscript.

My largest criticism of the manuscript involves the framing of the manuscript around tradeoffs. I think it's a valid approach to consider for partial migrants or any alternative behavioral tactic. Still, the author's arguments in this manuscript are entirely built on the assumption that water bodies close to urban centers are more reliable and food-rich than more natural water bodies. The authors don't provide any literature to support this claim for wood storks or for wading birds in general, nor do they provide any direct assessments. Further, the authors often reference a 'novel anthropogenic tradeoff' throughout their manuscript (mostly the discussion), yet it's unclear what this tradeoff consists of and if there is even evidence to suggest that there are associated costs to foraging in more urban water bodies. In my opinion, urban environments are simply another context in which to evaluate the cost-benefits of remaining residents vs migrating (e.g., presumed increased food availability) and don't represent a novel tradeoff in and of itself. Framing it like this is quite confusing.

As for methods, although I appreciate the authors pointing to a previous publication for dataset specifics (capture numbers, sex, age, etc.), I think the authors need to incorporate more information either in the methods section or at least in the supplemental information. The sample sizes listed in this manuscript consist of 133 individuals, but the manuscript referenced only lists 64. Further, the analysis below seems to only include FL as the study region; it's unclear whether you intentionally exclude GA, SC, etc, individuals or not and for what reason. Presumably, many of the approaches you utilized to study migratory behavior could be assessed for individuals who were captured at colonies outside of Florida. If you are only going to analyze FL individuals, this should be made explicit, and the sample sizes should be adjusted throughout the manuscript. Of these 133 individuals, only 35 attempted to breed. That is quite a small fraction of the sample population, and I'm curious as to why you didn't evaluate how migration status influenced an individual's breeding status, which seems like an important consideration given that wood storks also appear to be facultative migrants. Further, this would require you to explain how sex and age influence your assessment of breeding status. Aside from that, I thought statistical treatment of tracking data to infer breeding attempts (and success!), migratory status, and resource selection were really interesting and well evaluated!

I thought the introduction, methods, and results were well-written, generally clear, and sufficient to evaluate the study. The discussion, however, felt a bit disorganized at times. It included paragraphs that felt like a major deviation from the main aims of the manuscript (e.g., behavioral syndromes) or included too much speculation/overinterpretation, given the limitations of their data. While the language in the introduction was very clear and exact, some sections of the discussion were jargon-heavy and unclear. Aside from those issues, the rest of the discussion read well and tackled some of the main questions that needed to be discussed, given the context of this manuscript.

Specific Comments
Line 43-44: Or for a reproductive advantage (early habitat/nest-site/mate selection, early breeding)

Line 51-53: I'm not sure you need to set this up as creating a novel tradeoff because it's unclear what the novel tradeoff really consists of and what evidence you have to support that it's something new. The conventional framing is that the tradeoff lies within the cost-benefits of remaining resident vs. migrating. Food supplementation decreases the costs, shifting the balance towards remaining a year-round resident. So, the urban environment (or context) just reflects a shift in the theoretical cost-benefit curves, but the tradeoffs aren't novel.

Line 68-70: Are northern populations in GA, SC, etc, partial migrants as well, or do they always migrate? Why not evaluate colony-level migration probability and display that on a map? It would be useful to determine where migrants exist across the range.

Line 87-90: Can you cite literature to support these claims? Your manuscript is dependent on these food availability and predictability assumptions.

Line 99-101: As mentioned previously, this is an important assumption being made, and it needs to be either verified directly in the manuscript or supported by the literature.

Line 109-114: In this section, I would provide more details as to what data you used for the different datasets you've generated. For instance, a statement that you use all the telemetry data to infer migratory status and just telemetry data from the breeding season to evaluate breeding attempts, resource selection, etc.

Line 113-114: The manuscript you refer to lists 64 individuals tagged. This study refers to 133 individuals. Could you provide an updated table of captures and capture locations and their sex/age composition?

Also, if your hypotheses involve reproductive success and potential tradeoffs associated with migration and residency status, are you excluding juveniles for your analyses?

Along those lines, how do the two sexes divvy up parental care, and what effect would that have on resource selection and its impact on nest success?

Line 116-119: Do you mean that you only evaluated telemetry data that occurred within the breeding season? How did you temporally define the breeding season for breeding and nonbreeding individuals?

Line 116-129: How many days of nesting behavior do you need to identify a breeding attempt? For example, if a bird attempted to breed, built a nest, and subsequently failed within a day or 2 of building, would you be able to determine if the individual nested?

Also, how often do males visit the nest, and does that influence your ability to infer breeding status?

Line 128-129: The figure only shows nest sites in FL. But your sample of tagged individuals includes birds captured outside of FL (ref 28). Did you only include residents birds from FL and migratory birds that breed in winter in Florida?

Line 140-146: I don't necessarily disagree with your approach, but an argument could be made that your assessment here assumes that water bodies that are far from urban areas are less impacted by urbanization, but that depends on how connected your hydrological system is. For instance, the canal system often extends pretty far outside of urban areas. Not to mention the fact that rural agricultural lands might have a similar effect on food availability for wood storks that urban centers do. Alternatively, why not consider an approach that evaluates the percent of the land within a XX km buffer of a foraging location that is human-modified (agricultural, urban)?

Line 216-217: How many breeding attempts do wood storks typically attempt in a season? If they fail the first attempt, do they re-attempt to nest?

Line 239: This is fine, but how does this apply specifically to wood storks? Is there any evidence that individuals are perceiving this landscape as risky? In the results, I think you demonstrate that birds are avoiding urban areas (distance = 0 km), so if they are in the suburban and semi-urbanized areas, are the risks greater?

Line 239-246: This is unnecessarily jargon and complex. This can be simplified. For instance, 'the novel anthropogenic tradeoff' isn't attenuating a pre-existing tradeoff. Tradeoff itself isn't altering the cost-benefit of either tactic. The tradeoff itself consists of the costs and benefits of overwintering at the breeding site vs. migrating and overwintering elsewhere. Food availability shifts the balance of that tradeoff by modifying the costs. Therefore, anthropogenic food supplementation reduces the costs of remaining residents year-round (because of increased food). The language and phrasing you used in the introduction were much clearer and exact.

Line 247-249: Similar to above. 'Exacerbating both….' isn't really a directional statement, so it's not clear what you mean by this. Lower carry capacity increases the cost of remaining residents, and habitat fragmentation increases the costs of migrating. Whether that results in a behavioral shift depends on what effect is the greatest, assuming benefits remain constant.

Line 252-268: This paragraph is good, but the first two lines don't add much to it. Your study isn't assessing an anthropogenic tradeoff. You are not measuring the benefits (food availability) nor the costs (risk of urban foraging) of the specific tradeoff you mention in the introduction. You do measure the fitness benefits of foraging near urban centers, but it's unclear then what the counterpoint to this is: survival? I think this paragraph is a necessary discussion on whether wood storks have become increasingly migratory or increasingly resident over time. I just don't think you need the 'evolved responses to tradeoff' setup.

Line 285-295: While I appreciate the discussion of behavioral syndromes here, I don't think it fits within this specific discussion. It's an interesting topic but requires a little more build-up for it to fit the context of this manuscript.

Line 296: You should explain portfolio effects if you are going to introduce them here.

General Comments

We appreciate the authors' careful revision of the manuscript. The discussion has been vastly improved, and the whole manuscript has become clearer. Reframing the introduction and adding literature to defend their assumptions have further strengthened the manuscript. I appreciate the addition of Figure 1, but part C of the figure needs to be clarified. That section may not be necessary or could be revised to make the message more apparent.

While I still question the use of distance to urban as a proxy for anthropogenic food subsidies, I understand the challenge of measuring food on the landscape and appreciate the authors' sufficient treatment of this criticism. Overall, I am satisfied with the authors' revisions of the manuscript. I have listed some minor comments below.

Specific Comments

Line 121: You need a space between the citation and the word ‘Florida’. There are a number of spots throughout the manuscript where a space is missing next to the citation that need to be addressed.

Line 301: Are you encountering issues with model convergence ?

Line 379-381: And retrospectively using genetic approaches to investigate the ancestral state of the population.

Line 383-384: At least just in south Florida, correct? Earlier you mentioned that wood storks in northern parts of the southeast are entirely migratory because of winter temperatures.

Figure 1: Conceptual diagram A and B are clear to me, but part C is difficult to follow. Is C necessary? Is there another way you could illustrate this?

Figure 3: In the previous version of the manuscript, there was a figure 3 that included daily nest survival as a function of urbanization. Why was that figure removed? It was useful to visualize the relationships there and the uncertainty around it.