Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 18, 2017
Coevolutionary interactions between farmers and mafia
induce host acceptance of avian brood parasites
Maria Abou Chakra, Christian Hilbe and Arne Traulsen
Article citation details
R. Soc. open sci. 3: 160036.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160036
Review timeline
Original submission:
Revised submission:
Final acceptance:
20 January 2016
20 March 2016
5 April 2016
Note: Reports are unedited and appear as
submitted by the referee. The review history
appears in chronological order.
Note: This manuscript was transferred from another Royal Society journal without peer review.
Review History
RSOS-160036.R0 (Original submission)
Review form: Reviewer 1
Is the manuscript scientifically sound in its present form?
Yes
Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the results?
Yes
Is the language acceptable?
No
Is it clear how to access all supporting data?
Yes
Do you have any ethical concerns with this paper?
No
© 2016 The Authors. Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use,
provided the original author and source are credited
Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 18, 2017
2
Have you any concerns about statistical analyses in this paper?
No
Recommendation?
Accept with minor revision (please list in comments)
Comments to the Author(s)
This is an important, evolutionary-scale improvement on Hauber's (2014) paper and also on the
authors' own work published earlier. My comments are only minor:
The abstract: it is not informative. You need to list the most important outcomes of your model in
the abstract (e.g. Line 104 of the main text).
Line 24: please explain what "obvious form of parasitism" is
Line 31, 32, and elsewhere: please use ACCEPTOR host, not accepting host here and throughout
the MS--that's the regular usage in brood parasitism papers.
Line 41: RE-NEST, not re-clutch
Line 45-6: sentence incomplete.
Line 47,-8: what does THIS refer to? Please expand the sentences
Line 98: define conditional acceptor (i.e conditional rejecter)
Line 103--should be in the abstract
Lines 115-8: should be in the abstract
Review form: Reviewer 2
Is the manuscript scientifically sound in its present form?
No
Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the results?
Yes
Is the language acceptable?
Yes
Is it clear how to access all supporting data?
No
Do you have any ethical concerns with this paper?
No
Have you any concerns about statistical analyses in this paper?
I do not feel qualified to assess the statistics
Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 18, 2017
3
Recommendation?
Reject
Comments to the Author(s)
In this paper the authors develop a model to analyze the interaction between depredatory (i.e.
retaliation or farming) parasites and their hosts, a subject that has previously been modeled many
times. My main worry about this study is that it is very difficult to assess if it provides a
meaningful contribution to the literature because the theoretical background (i.e. contribution
made by previous models) in the Introduction section is too short and, mainly, the Discussion
section is almost inexistent. Thus, (1) the contribution made by previously published models
should be described in more detail, especially the results obtained by Hauber (2014) who also
modeled the effect of both farming and retaliation depredatory behaviours. (2) The relevance of
the results obtained in the present model should be discussed in detail in an independent
Discussion section separated from the results. Furthermore, (3) the relevance of the main finding
of the present model (“coevolutionary cycles between farmers and mafia can still induce host
acceptance of brood parasites”) need a detailed discussion since the biological point of view,
given that, as far as I know, there is no evidence of such coevolutionary cycles and nobody has
even suggested the existence of them.
Minor points:
Surprisingly, Soler et al. 1995 (Evolution 49, 770-775), the first experimental test of the
mafia hypothesis, is not cited in this paper. The name of “Mafia” was used for the first time in
this paper.
Lines 29-31 on coevolutionary cycles need some references supporting the meaning. Also
in the Discussion section, references on coevolutionary cycles are lacking. Good papers to be read
and cited on this subject are: Soler et al. 1998 (Oecologia 117: 381-390), Rothstein 2001 (Anim.
Behav. 61:95-107) and, mainly, Soler 2014 (Biol. Rev. 89: 688–704), a review in which evolutionary
cycles are treated in deep.
Decision letter (RSOS-160036)
12-Feb-2016
Dear Dr Abou Chakra,
The editors assigned to your paper ("Coevolutionary Cycles Between Farmers and Mafia Induce
Host Acceptance of Avian Brood Parasites") has now received comments from reviewers. We
would like you to revise your paper in accordance with the referee and Subject Editor
suggestions which can be found below (not including confidential reports to the Editor). Please
note this decision does not guarantee eventual acceptance.
Please submit a copy of your revised paper within three weeks (i.e. by the 06-Mar-2016). If we do
not hear from you within this time then it will be assumed that the paper has been withdrawn. In
exceptional circumstances, extensions may be possible if agreed with the Editorial Office in
advance.We do not allow multiple rounds of revision so we urge you to make every effort to
fully address all of the comments at this stage. If deemed necessary by the Editors, your
manuscript will be sent back to one or more of the original reviewers for assessment. If the
original reviewers are not available we may invite new reviewers.
Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 18, 2017
4
To revise your manuscript, log into http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rsos and enter your
Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with
Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." Your manuscript number has been
appended to denote a revision. Revise your manuscript and upload a new version through your
Author Centre.
When submitting your revised manuscript, you must respond to the comments made by the
referees and upload a file "Response to Referees" in "Section 6 - File Upload". Please use this to
document how you have responded to the comments, and the adjustments you have made. In
order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in
your response.
In addition to addressing all of the reviewers' and editor's comments please also ensure that your
revised manuscript contains the following sections as appropriate before the reference list:
• Ethics statement (if applicable)
If your study uses humans or animals please include details of the ethical approval received,
including the name of the committee that granted approval. For human studies please also detail
whether informed consent was obtained. For field studies on animals please include details of all
permissions, licences and/or approvals granted to carry out the fieldwork.
• Data accessibility
It is a condition of publication that all supporting data are made available either as
supplementary information or preferably in a suitable permanent repository. The data
accessibility section should state where the article's supporting data can be accessed. This section
should also include details, where possible of where to access other relevant research materials
such as statistical tools, protocols, software etc can be accessed. If the data has been deposited in
an external repository this section should list the database, accession number and link to the DOI
for all data from the article that has been made publicly available. Data sets that have been
deposited in an external repository and have a DOI should also be appropriately cited in the
manuscript and included in the reference list.
If you wish to submit your supporting data or code to Dryad (http://datadryad.org/), or modify
your current submission to dryad, please use the following link:
http://datadryad.org/submit?journalID=RSOS&manu=RSOS-160036
• Competing interests
Please declare any financial or non-financial competing interests, or state that you have no
competing interests.
• Authors’ contributions
All submissions, other than those with a single author, must include an Authors’ Contributions
section which individually lists the specific contribution of each author. The list of Authors
should meet all of the following criteria; 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or
acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or revising it
critically for important intellectual content; and 3) final approval of the version to be published.
All contributors who do not meet all of these criteria should be included in the
acknowledgements.
We suggest the following format:
AB carried out the molecular lab work, participated in data analysis, carried out sequence
alignments, participated in the design of the study and drafted the manuscript; CD carried out
Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 18, 2017
5
the statistical analyses; EF collected field data; GH conceived of the study, designed the study,
coordinated the study and helped draft the manuscript. All authors gave final approval for
publication.
• Acknowledgements
Please acknowledge anyone who contributed to the study but did not meet the authorship
criteria.
• Funding statement
Please list the source of funding for each author.
Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Royal Society Open Science and I look
forward to receiving your revision. If you have any questions at all, please do not hesitate to get
in touch.
Yours sincerely,
Matthew Allinson,
Editorial Coordinator, Royal Society Open Science
on behalf of Kevin Padian
Subject Editor, Royal Society Open Science
[email protected]
Associate Editor's comments :
Associate Editor: 1
Comments to the Author:
I appreciate that the brevity of this article is due to the fact that it was originally submitted to
Biology Letters, which has both a strict word count and a limit on the number of figures. As Open
Science has no such restriction, I encourage the authors to expand their introduction and
discussion along the lines recommended by the referees.
Comments to Author:
Reviewers' Comments to Author:
Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author(s)
In this paper the authors develop a model to analyze the interaction between depredatory (i.e.
retaliation or farming) parasites and their hosts, a subject that has previously been modeled many
times. My main worry about this study is that it is very difficult to assess if it provides a
meaningful contribution to the literature because the theoretical background (i.e. contribution
made by previous models) in the Introduction section is too short and, mainly, the Discussion
section is almost inexistent. Thus, (1) the contribution made by previously published models
should be described in more detail, especially the results obtained by Hauber (2014) who also
modeled the effect of both farming and retaliation depredatory behaviours. (2) The relevance of
the results obtained in the present model should be discussed in detail in an independent
Discussion section separated from the results. Furthermore, (3) the relevance of the main finding
of the present model (“coevolutionary cycles between farmers and mafia can still induce host
acceptance of brood parasites”) need a detailed discussion since the biological point of view,
given that, as far as I know, there is no evidence of such coevolutionary cycles and nobody has
even suggested the existence of them.
Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 18, 2017
6
Minor points:
Surprisingly, Soler et al. 1995 (Evolution 49, 770-775), the first experimental test of the
mafia hypothesis, is not cited in this paper. The name of “Mafia” was used for the first time in
this paper.
Lines 29-31 on coevolutionary cycles need some references supporting the meaning. Also
in the Discussion section, references on coevolutionary cycles are lacking. Good papers to be read
and cited on this subject are: Soler et al. 1998 (Oecologia 117: 381-390), Rothstein 2001 (Anim.
Behav. 61:95-107) and, mainly, Soler 2014 (Biol. Rev. 89: 688–704), a review in which evolutionary
cycles are treated in deep.
Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author(s)
This is an important, evolutionary-scale improvement on Hauber's (2014) paper and also on the
authors' own work published earlier. My comments are only minor:
The abstract: it is not informative. You need to list the most important outcomes of your model in
the abstract (e.g. Line 104 of the main text).
Line 24: please explain what "obvious form of parasitism" is
Line 31, 32, and elsewhere: please use ACCEPTOR host, not accepting host here and throughout
the MS--that's the regular usage in brood parasitism papers.
Line 41: RE-NEST, not re-clutch
Line 45-6: sentence incomplete.
Line 47,-8: what does THIS refer to? Please expand the sentences
Line 98: define conditional acceptor (i.e conditional rejecter)
Line 103--should be in the abstract
Lines 115-8: should be in the abstract
Author's Response to Decision Letter for (RSOS-160036)
See Appendix A.
Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 18, 2017
7
RSOS-160036.R1 (Revision)
Review form: Reviewer 1
Is the manuscript scientifically sound in its present form?
No
Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the results?
No
Is the language acceptable?
Yes
Is it clear how to access all supporting data?
This is a model
Do you have any ethical concerns with this paper?
No
Have you any concerns about statistical analyses in this paper?
I do not feel qualified to assess the statistics
Recommendation?
Reject
Comments to the Author(s)
The authors have not addressed my main comments. The Introduction has been completed
adding a few sentences but the relevance of the results obtained in the present model has not
been discussed in detail in an independent Discussion section separated from the results as I
suggested.
Decision letter (RSOS-160036.R1)
05-Apr-2016
Dear Dr Abou Chakra,
I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript entitled "Coevolutionary Interactions Between
Farmers and Mafia Induce Host Acceptance of Avian Brood Parasites" is now accepted for
publication in Royal Society Open Science.
You can expect to receive a proof of your article within approximately 10 working days. Please
contact the production office ([email protected]) to let us know if you are
likely to be away from e-mail contact during that period. Due to rapid publication and an
extremely tight schedule, if comments are not received, your paper may experience a delay in
publication.
Royal Society Open Science operates under a continuous publication model
(http://bit.ly/cpFAQ). Your article will be published straight into the next open issue and this
Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 18, 2017
8
will be the final version of the paper. As such, it can be cited immediately by other researchers.
As the issue version of your paper will be the only version to be published I would advise you to
check your proofs thoroughly as changes cannot be made once the paper is published.
In order to raise the profile of your paper once it is published, we can send through a PDF of your
paper to selected colleagues. If you wish to take advantage of this, please reply to this email with
the name and email addresses of up to 10 people who you feel would wish to read your article.
On behalf of the Editors of Royal Society Open Science, we look forward to your continued
contributions to the Journal.
Best wishes,
Dr Matthew Allinson
[email protected]
http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/
Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author(s)
The authors have not addressed my main comments. The Introduction has been completed
adding a few sentences but the relevance of the results obtained in the present model has not
been discussed in detail in an independent Discussion section separated from the results as I
suggested.
Appendix A
Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 18, 2017
First of all, we would like to thank the editor and the two referees for their
efforts. We appreciate their positive and constructive feedback, which helped
us to further improve on the manuscript. Please find our detailed response
below.
Dear Dr Abou Chakra,
The editors assigned to your paper ("Coevolutionary Cycles Between Farmers
and Mafia Induce Host Acceptance of Avian Brood Parasites") has now
received comments from reviewers. We would like you to revise your paper in
accordance with the referee and Subject Editor suggestions which can be
found below (not including confidential reports to the Editor). Please note this
decision does not guarantee eventual acceptance.
Please submit a copy of your revised paper within three weeks (i.e. by the 06Mar-2016). If we do not hear from you within this time then it will be assumed
that the paper has been withdrawn. In exceptional circumstances, extensions
may be possible if agreed with the Editorial Office in advance.We do not allow
multiple rounds of revision so we urge you to make every effort to fully
address all of the comments at this stage. If deemed necessary by the
Editors, your manuscript will be sent back to one or more of the original
reviewers for assessment. If the original reviewers are not available we may
invite new reviewers.
To revise your manuscript, log into http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rsos and
enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under
"Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision."
Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision. Revise
your manuscript and upload a new version through your Author Centre.
When submitting your revised manuscript, you must respond to the comments
made by the referees and upload a file "Response to Referees" in "Section 6 File Upload". Please use this to document how you have responded to the
comments, and the adjustments you have made. In order to expedite the
processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in
your response.
In addition to addressing all of the reviewers' and editor's comments please
also ensure that your revised manuscript contains the following sections as
appropriate before the reference list:
• Ethics statement (if applicable)
If your study uses humans or animals please include details of the ethical
approval received, including the name of the committee that granted approval.
For human studies please also detail whether informed consent was obtained.
For field studies on animals please include details of all permissions, licences
and/or approvals granted to carry out the fieldwork.
• Data accessibility
It is a condition
publication
that all supporting
data
are made available
Downloadedof
from
http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/
on June
18, 2017
either as supplementary information or preferably in a suitable permanent
repository. The data accessibility section should state where the article's
supporting data can be accessed. This section should also include details,
where possible of where to access other relevant research materials such as
statistical tools, protocols, software etc can be accessed. If the data has been
deposited in an external repository this section should list the database,
accession number and link to the DOI for all data from the article that has
been made publicly available. Data sets that have been deposited in an
external repository and have a DOI should also be appropriately cited in the
manuscript and included in the reference list.
If you wish to submit your supporting data or code to Dryad
(http://datadryad.org/), or modify your current submission to dryad, please use
the following link:
http://datadryad.org/submit?journalID=RSOS&manu=RSOS-160036
• Competing interests
Please declare any financial or non-financial competing interests, or state that
you have no competing interests.
• Authors’ contributions
All submissions, other than those with a single author, must include an
Authors’ Contributions section which individually lists the specific contribution
of each author. The list of Authors should meet all of the following criteria; 1)
substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or
analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or revising it critically
for important intellectual content; and 3) final approval of the version to be
published.
All contributors who do not meet all of these criteria should be included in the
acknowledgements.
We suggest the following format:
AB carried out the molecular lab work, participated in data analysis, carried
out sequence alignments, participated in the design of the study and drafted
the manuscript; CD carried out the statistical analyses; EF collected field data;
GH conceived of the study, designed the study, coordinated the study and
helped draft the manuscript. All authors gave final approval for publication.
• Acknowledgements
Please acknowledge anyone who contributed to the study but did not meet
the authorship criteria.
• Funding statement
Please Downloaded
list the source
of funding for each author.
from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/
on June 18, 2017
Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Royal Society Open
Science and I look forward to receiving your revision. If you have any
questions at all, please do not hesitate to get in touch.
Yours sincerely,
Matthew Allinson,
Editorial Coordinator, Royal Society Open Science
on behalf of Kevin Padian
Subject Editor, Royal Society Open Science
[email protected]
Associate Editor's comments :
Associate Editor: 1
Comments to the Author:
I appreciate that the brevity of this article is due to the fact that it was originally
submitted to Biology Letters, which has both a strict word count and a limit on
the number of figures. As Open Science has no such restriction, I encourage
the authors to expand their introduction and discussion along the lines
recommended by the referees.
Thank you we have now expanded both the introduction and discussion
accordingly
Comments to Author:
Reviewers' Comments to Author:
Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author(s)
In this paper the authors develop a model to analyze the interaction between
depredatory (i.e. retaliation or farming) parasites and their hosts, a subject
that has previously been modeled many times. My main worry about this
study is that it is very difficult to assess if it provides a meaningful contribution
to the literature because the theoretical background (i.e. contribution made by
previous models) in the Introduction section is too short and, mainly, the
Discussion section is almost inexistent. Thus, (1) the contribution made by
previously published models should be described in more detail, especially
the results obtained by Hauber (2014) who also modeled the effect of both
farming and retaliation depredatory behaviours.
We have now included more detail about the previous model, especially by
Hauber. Specifically, we discuss the conclusions and the assumptions made
by the model.
(2) The relevance of the results obtained in the present model should be
discussed in detail in an independent Discussion section separated from the
results. Furthermore, (3) the relevance of the main finding of the present
model (“coevolutionary
cycles between farmers
and18,mafia
Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/
on June
2017 can still induce host
acceptance of brood parasites”) need a detailed discussion since the
biological point of view, given that, as far as I know, there is no evidence of
such coevolutionary cycles and nobody has even suggested the existence of
them.
Minor points:
-
Surprisingly, Soler et al. 1995 (Evolution 49, 770-775), the first
experimental test of the mafia hypothesis, is not cited in this paper.
The name of “Mafia” was used for the first time in this paper.
This was a mistake we have now corrected this
-
Lines 29-31 on coevolutionary cycles need some references
supporting the meaning. Also in the Discussion section, references
on coevolutionary cycles are lacking. Good papers to be read and
cited on this subject are: Soler et al. 1998 (Oecologia 117: 381-390),
Rothstein 2001 (Anim. Behav. 61:95-107) and, mainly, Soler 2014
(Biol. Rev. 89: 688–704), a review in which evolutionary cycles are
treated in deep.
Thank you we now analyze and discuss cycles further with a new figure and
link to experiments. We include these additional references
Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author(s)
This is an important, evolutionary-scale improvement on Hauber's (2014)
paper and also on the authors' own work published earlier. My comments are
only minor:
Thank you for the positive and constructive review
The abstract: it is not informative. You need to list the most important
outcomes of your model in the abstract (e.g. Line 104 of the main text).
Thank you we have expanded and included the results in the abstract now
Line 24: please explain what "obvious form of parasitism" is
Obvious was only meant to represent examples such as the Dunnock eggs
against the Cuckoo where it is clear that there is a parasite and yet it is
accepted. We have reworded this sentence.
Line 31, 32, and elsewhere: please use ACCEPTOR host, not accepting host
here and throughout the MS--that's the regular usage in brood parasitism
papers.
Thank you we have changed this throughout the text
Line 41: RE-NEST, not re-clutch
Thank you we have changed this throughout the text
Line 45-6: sentence incomplete.
Sorry we
have completed
it
Downloaded
from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/
on June 18, 2017
Line 47,-8: what does THIS refer to? Please expand the sentences
We have expanded the sentence
Line 98: define conditional acceptor (i.e conditional rejecter)
We have defined this now
Line 103--should be in the abstract
Lines 115-8: should be in the abstract
We have included this description in the abstract now