The revised manuscript presents some really interesting results. However, a review of the grammatical structure used is necessary, since there are numerous errors.
Additionally, I recommend making the following changes, which will not take much time:
- Please change antibiotic to antimicrobial in the text. Is not the same.
- L19 - Page 2: they mention antimicrobial resistance for the first time, so the acronym AMR should be indicated here in parentheses.
- L29-52 - Page 3: references are required to support all this information.
- L5 - Page 4: AMR Salmonella is grammatically incorrect, since the acronym AMR refers to a name. Please change to "Resistant Salmonella".
- Sample collection: How were wild birds captured? WAS it part of a ringing program? Did they have the proper permits and ethics committee? All this must be indicated... The samples were collected in sterile bags and identified, but how were they transported? Was any means of transportation added? Were they transported refrigerated? How long did transportation to the laboratory take?
- Salmonella isolation. What ISO standard was followed? The one from 2013? The one in 2021? Please specify and add the complete code.
- L40 - Page 5: When the transfer from SS/XLD to the second XLD medium was carried out, was a single colony collected? Was the goal to achieve a monoclonal culture? Please indicate...
- L47 - Page 5: For biochemical confirmation, were 2-3 monoclonal culture colonies collected? This detail is important.
- Sections 2.4 and 2.5. I recommend merging both sections since 2.4 details the detection of invA, and 2.5 adds other pathogenicity factors. I also recommend adding the invA PCR data to Table 1 along with the rest of the PCRs.
- L28 - Page 7: what cut-off points did you use. It is specified from CLSI, but from what year? Were the cut-off points epidemiological or clinical?
- L42 - Page 7: Currently the colistin resistance test by disk diffusion is out of use since there is interference from the wherner hinton. It would be interesting to discuss this point in the discussion, perhaps in a paragraph that talks about the limitations of the study.
- L6-7 - Page 10: I don't understand that sentence... Please clarify what you mean.
- L20 - Page 11: "resistance TO tetracycline"
- L39-42 - Page 13: add reference that supports the indiscriminate use of these antimicrobials in the study region.
- L31-32 - Page 14: add references that support this statement.

Also, throughout the text: check that Salmonella is always in italics and that the name of the antimicrobials always appears in lower case, as does the word "sensitivity."

Be careful in conclusion, you are stating that infection in humans can be caused by exposure to wildlife. But this is not a conclusion from their study.... It is a conclusion from other studies. The transmission as such of specific strains of Salmonella to humans has not been investigated here...

Finally, I recommend adding a paragraph with the limitations of the study, such as the data.

Despite all my comments, I consider that the study is well carried out and that the results are very interesting, so I recommend publishing it after making the appropriate changes.

See the comments in the attachment

The authors have correctly answer all my concerns. Thank you so much for all your efforts and congratulations!