Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
Seabird diving behaviour reveals the functional significance
of shelf-sea fronts as foraging hotspots
S. L. Cox, P. I. Miller, C. B. Embling, K. L. Scales, A. W. J. Bicknell, P. J. Hosegood, G.
Morgan, S. N. Ingram and S. C. Votier
Article citation details
R. Soc. open sci. 3: 160317.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160317
Review timeline
Original submission:
Revised submission:
Final acceptance:
9 May 2016
26 July 2016
19 August 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 with peer review.
Review History
RSOS-160317.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?
Yes
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 16, 2017
2
Have you any concerns about statistical analyses in this paper?
No
Recommendation?
Accept as is
Comments to the Author(s)
Dear Editor,
The authors have answered my earlier comments in a satisfactory manner. As a result, I would
like to recommend this paper to be accepted for publication in the Royal Society Open Science.
Review form: Reviewer 2
Is the manuscript scientifically sound in its present form?
Yes
Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the results?
Yes
Is the language acceptable?
Yes
Is it clear how to access all supporting data?
Supplementary files present
Do you have any ethical concerns with this paper?
No
Have you any concerns about statistical analyses in this paper?
No
Recommendation?
Major revision is needed (please make suggestions in comments)
Comments to the Author(s)
Seabird diving behaviour reveals the functional significance of shelf-sea fronts as foraging
hotspots
Comments to the editor
The authors have done a good job adding another layer to the study of seabirds and their
association with frontal features. I only have two major comments detailed below. Inclusion of
the codes to compute Fdist, Ffrew, and Gdens, would make this research more reproducible and
suitable for publication in an Open Access journal. I find the paper easy to read, interesting and
would accept it for publication.
Major Comments
I found the discussion of V vs. U shaped dives appeared to imply that V shaped dives were a
better foraging strategy for gannets. A few more details here would be helpful to support this
idea. I can imagine that success rates between the dive types are likely different. Also, it seems
Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
3
possible that U shaped dives could be the result of catching multiple prey items during one dive.
In light of this it might be important to stress in the discussion (paragraph 1) that V shaped dives
dominate the Gannet’s foraging strategy.
From the maps in Figure 1 it looks like there are places that have high Ffreq that are within the
foraging range of the Gannets from Grassholm, but they do not use these areas. Please directly
address this in the discussion.
Inclusion of the codes to compute Fdist, Ffrew, and Gdens, would make this research more
reproducible and suitable for publication in an Open journal.
Minor Points
Methods:
Pg 11, 7-9. The amount of blood taken must be for other analysis and not just for sexing. Saying
‘a small aliquot’ was later used for molecular sexing’ would be less misleading.
Pg 11, 27. Roosting implies a perch.
Pg 12, 8-11. Sentence seems overly long and the second reference to the 2km exclusion zone
could be omitted.
Decision letter (RSOS-160317)
04-Jul-2016
Dear Dr Cox,
The editors assigned to your paper ("Seabird diving behaviour reveals the functional significance
of shelf-sea fronts as foraging hotspots") 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 27-Jul-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
Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
4
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-160317
• 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.
Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
5
• 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,
Andrew Dunn
Senior Publishing Editor
Royal Society Open Science
on behalf of Kevin Padian
Subject Editor, Royal Society Open Science
[email protected]
Reviewers' Comments to Author:
Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author(s)
Dear Editor,
The authors have answered my earlier comments in a satisfactory manner. As a result, I would
like to recommend this paper to be accepted for publication in the Royal Society Open Science.
Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author(s)
Seabird diving behaviour reveals the functional significance of shelf-sea fronts as foraging
hotspots
Comments to the editor
The authors have done a good job adding another layer to the study of seabirds and their
association with frontal features. I only have two major comments detailed below. Inclusion of
the codes to compute Fdist, Ffrew, and Gdens, would make this research more reproducible and
suitable for publication in an Open Access journal. I find the paper easy to read, interesting and
would accept it for publication.
Major Comments
I found the discussion of V vs. U shaped dives appeared to imply that V shaped dives were a
better foraging strategy for gannets. A few more details here would be helpful to support this
idea. I can imagine that success rates between the dive types are likely different. Also, it seems
possible that U shaped dives could be the result of catching multiple prey items during one dive.
In light of this it might be important to stress in the discussion (paragraph 1) that V shaped dives
dominate the Gannet’s foraging strategy.
From the maps in Figure 1 it looks like there are places that have high Ffreq that are within the
foraging range of the Gannets from Grassholm, but they do not use these areas. Please directly
address this in the discussion.
Inclusion of the codes to compute Fdist, Ffrew, and Gdens, would make this research more
reproducible and suitable for publication in an Open journal.
Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
6
Minor Points
Methods:
Pg 11, 7-9. The amount of blood taken must be for other analysis and not just for sexing. Saying
‘a small aliquot’ was later used for molecular sexing’ would be less misleading.
Pg 11, 27. Roosting implies a perch.
Pg 12, 8-11. Sentence seems overly long and the second reference to the 2km exclusion zone
could be omitted.
Author's Response to Decision Letter for (RSOS-160317)
See Appendix A.
RSOS-160317.R1 (Revision)
Review form: Reviewer 2
Is the manuscript scientifically sound in its present form?
Yes
Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the results?
Yes
Is the language acceptable?
Yes
Is it clear how to access all supporting data?
There doesn't appear to be a description of the supplementary material in the main text of the
paper. The inclusion of a statement directing readers to the supplementary methods text and
data files would be helpful. But, all of the supporting data is present.
Do you have any ethical concerns with this paper?
No
Have you any concerns about statistical analyses in this paper?
No
Recommendation?
Accept as is
Comments to the Author(s)
The authors addressed my comments and I recommend the paper for publication.
Small typo on pg 5, line 8.
Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
7
Decision letter (RSOS-160317.R1)
19-Aug-2016
Dear Dr Cox,
I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript entitled "Seabird diving behaviour reveals the
functional significance of shelf-sea fronts as foraging hotspots" 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
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,
Andrew Dunn
Senior Publishing Editor
Royal Society Open Science
http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/
Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author(s)
The authors addressed my comments and I recommend the paper for publication.
Small typo on pg 5, line 8.
from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
AppendixDownloaded
A
Response to reviewers
Dear Dr Matthew Allinson, Dr Andrew Dunn and Dr Kevin Padian,
We would like to thank the 2 reviewers for taking the time to review our manuscript a second time. We
found their further comments constructive, and have made changes in line with requests. We believe
these changes have further improved the quality of the manuscript. Please find below the reviewers
suggestions and, where necessary, our response in red italics. Edits within the manuscript have been
highlighted in red.
Best wishes,
Sam L Cox (and co-authors)
###############################################################################
##############################################################################
Reviewer: 1
The authors have answered my earlier comments in a satisfactory manner. As a result, I would like to
recommend this paper to be accepted for publication in the Royal Society Open Science.
#####################################################################################
Reviewer: 2
The authors have done a good job adding another layer to the study of seabirds and their association
with frontal features. I only have two major comments detailed below. Inclusion of the codes to
compute Fdist, Ffrew, and Gdens, would make this research more reproducible and suitable for
publication in an Open Access journal. I find the paper easy to read, interesting and would accept it for
publication.
Major Comments
I found the discussion of V vs. U shaped dives appeared to imply that V shaped dives were a better
foraging strategy for gannets. A few more details here would be helpful to support this idea. I can
imagine that success rates between the dive types are likely different. Also, it seems possible that U
shaped dives could be the result of catching multiple prey items during one dive. In light of this it might
be important to stress in the discussion (paragraph 1) that V shaped dives dominate the Gannet’s
foraging strategy.
Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
- We have added to the methods description of the two dives (section 2.3.3) a sentence that states that
U-shaped dives may be used to catch more than one prey item (see P5 L22-24).
- We have also added a sentence (see P11 L 13-15) to state that V-shaped dives dominated the gannet
dive strategy in this region, and that this was likely reflective of prey types encountered. This was
inserted into the first paragraph of section 4.2 of the discussion (as oppose to the beginning of the
discussion) to improve flow and readability, as this section refers specifically to diving behaviour.
- Also in P11 L22-23 it is highlighted that U-shaped dives may not be well suited to highly responsive prey
types that require an ambush tactic since gannets cannot swim at such high speeds.
From the maps in Figure 1 it looks like there are places that have high Ffreq that are within the foraging
range of the Gannets from Grassholm, but they do not use these areas. Please directly address this in
the discussion.
- We have included an additional paragraph that discusses this in section 4.3 of the discussion (P12 L 1320). We believe that the reason for these observations is due to external processes that can influence the
accessibility/suitability of habitat locations to individuals (e.g. competition from neighbouring colonies
and interfering oceanographic processes such as turbidity). Rather than attempting to include all these
potential mechanisms within statistical analyses (many of which may be unknown), we instead used a
habitat-use availability analysis, which included only locations that were selected based on kernel density
estimates of GPS tracks (so we know that locations are in fact accessible to individuals).
Inclusion of the codes to compute Fdist, Ffreq, and Gdens, would make this research more reproducible
and suitable for publication in an Open journal.
- We thank the reviewer for this suggestion, though currently these front metrics are implemented as
modules in a sizeable library of interconnected programs that would not work in isolation; and these are
written in several programming languages that would not be familiar to the general reader. We refer to
several other studies that have applied these metrics, indicating that these techniques are robust and
generic.
Minor Points
Pg 4, 7-9. The amount of blood taken must be for other analysis and not just for sexing. Saying ‘a small
aliquot’ was later used for molecular sexing’ would be less misleading.
- This has been altered in the text. See P4 L8.
Pg 4, 27. Roosting implies a perch.
- This word has been changed for ‘rest’. See P4 L27.
Pg 12, 8-11. Sentence seems overly long and the second reference to the 2km exclusion zone could be
omitted.
Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 16, 2017
- This sentence has been shortened and re-worded to address these concerns. The reference to the 2km
exclusion zone was kept for clarity but considerably shortened. See P5 L8-10.