Do Suburban Populations of Lizards Behave Differently from Forest Ones? An Analysis of Perch Height, Time Budget, and Display Rate in the Cuban Endemic Anolis homolechis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think this is a really interesting study, that was well conducted and provides some great insights into urban lizard behaviour. I think your approach to data collect and analysis are good and the the science is sound. Well done.

I do think, however, that the presentation of this study is what is holding the manuscript back a bit - and that with some work to re-structure the writing (mostly in the Introduction and a little in the Discussion) the manuscript can be brought up to the same professional level as the research itself. So, in short, the science is great, we just need to polish the writing a bit more. 

Notably, I think clearly stating your hypothesis and predictions would go a long way in "leveling up" the presentation of this work. I know that article, notably in ecology, do not always have to work within a hypothesis-driven framework, but I think it does your research a disservice to not frame it in this way. There is an ever-growing bodying of research out there on urban derived changes in wildlife, including lizards, that you can use to set up some solid, defensible, and testable predictions for this work. And by framing it in this way, your research can have more of a readership and scope that just the urban lizard field. By directly stating your predictions, the the literature based rationales for how you made them, you set up your work with a clear trajectory and purpose. This not only guide the readers better, but it also allows you to more cleanly present information in the Introduction that is directly relate to these prediction - ordering in the body of the text accordingly, and working to build up your readers understanding of the topic more fully. Furthermore, it allows you to discuss your finding within the context of what did or did not support your predictions (follow by why), but this give more direction to the framing of your Discussion. 

With respect structuring the writing itself, I think more attention can be given to how and where information is presented. I have made suggested through the tracked changes document where i think some improvements can be made. The Method and Results are fairly well presented. And the Discussion has the main body of the text presented fairly well too. What the Discussion could benefit from is a set of 'bookends'. A paragraph at the very beginning (before 4.1) that plainly state the major findings from the results and puts them within the context of if they did or did not align with the predictions. Once that is established, then go into explaining the rest in 4.1 and 4.2 (which make sense). Then end the Discussion with a general conclusion that pout your work into a broader and more widely applicable context. How does your work elevate our understand of urban ecology more broadly? Or even with respect to the capacity for wildlife to overcome the challenge of a changing world in general. This conclusion should be reflective of the very first paragraph you present in the Introduction (using the same themes, but explain how your work now fits in).

Within the Introduction, I think some rearranging might go a long way. I would start with (once again) setting up the final paragraph with your hypothesis and predictions, and then using this to rearrange the middle paragraph into themes that align with each of the predictions. This can help you set up a clearer narrative for the reader to follow. The first paragraph (P1) is good, but then I think you can break down the next 2 into topics relating to the idea you are about to test, and how previous literature has examined this in different ways and across taxa. Then narrowing your scope for P4 to why lizards, and anoles in particular, are excellent model systems to test the ideas you present in in P2 & P3, and what is or is not known... then in your final paragraph (P5) what you are going to examine, what you expect is happening, what you'll test, and what you predict.

Most of these components are already there, but they are a little mixed up or jumbled, and with some restructuring, and moving sections around, and the additional of maybe some more background information and examples, I think you can really make the write up for this paper shine!     

One thing that, from a writing structure perspective, should be address within the Introduction and the Discussion is setting up self contained paragraphs that begin with a strong topic sentence. I comment on this a bunch in the attached file, but make sure the first line of ever paragraph is putting the rest of that paragraph is context, and guiding the reader to what they are about to learn. Avoid starting a paragraph directly linking it to a previous one. Or opening a paragraph with a overly-specific, or uninformative statement. Use the topic sentence to give each paragraph a clear purpose that the reader will know immediately.  

I have included a TrackedChanges word file, with most of these suggestion within it. As well as some typos I found, and some rephrasing that could help with making the reading a bit smoother.  

I am looking forward to seeing the next version of this manuscript, and I hope my suggestions are helpful in your efforts to keep increasing the presentation of your work. This is a neat study, and with some more effort on increasing the presentation of the writing I think it has a lot of potential to be a great paper. 

   

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The relevance of the study is justified by the following: 1) The first publication on the impact of urbanization of the habitats of A. homolechis, an endemic species; 2) Comparison of data on the impact of urbanization on other reptile species.

- The impact of the predator's press was assessed by the occurrence of individuals with an automated tail (Cooper, 2010).

Recommendation – a more detailed analysis of the types of reactions of this group is needed in conditions of strong (maximum), medium (background) and lowest (control) degree of urbanization of habitats of reptiles of the genus anolis, as well as taxonomically and ecologically close reptile species. It should be noted that species prone to invasion have a great potential for settlement and adaptive traits, such as body size, aimed at successful reproduction, especially if it is territorial.

For example, in conditions of environmental transformation, adaptive reactions occur, or a decrease in numbers, and in conditions of isolation (Lomolino, 1999) and the subsequent extinction of populations, which can be registered by changing the ratio of age groups and the ratio of females and males. Transformation can also affect the pace and intensity of selection.

The reproductive parameters of the lizard may reflect the optimization of energy consumption for reproduction. Optimization is carried out at the population level and can be described according to the principle of "adaptive eagle game" (Kaplan, Cooper, 1984).

 

Note:

Kaplan R. H. Evolution of developmental plasticity in reproductive characteristics: application of the principle of "adaptive coin tossing" / R. H. Kaplan, W. S. Cooper // American Naturalist. 1984. vol. 123. pp. 393-410

Fairbairn D. J. Gender, size and gender roles: evolutionary studies of dimorphism of sexual dimensions / D. J. Fairbairn, W. W. Blankenhorn, T. Szekely. New York : Oxford University Press, 2007. 280 p.

Cooper, W. E. Lethality of predators, optimal escape behavior and autotomy / W. E. Cooper, W. G. Frederick // Behavioral ecology. 2010. Volume 21. pp. 91-96

Fairbairn D. J. Gender, size and gender roles: evolutionary studies of dimorphism of sexual dimensions / D. J. Fairbairn, W. W. Blankenhorn, T. Szekely. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. 280 p.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I think this manuscript is looking quite good. The revisions have certainly improved it and the authors have done a pretty good job in this respect. I would suggest that they maybe give the paper one more thorough read through to catch any little typos and some somewhat awkward phrasing. I have caught a few during my review (see below), but no doubt there are a few more that I missed. So just give it a really detailed read through with a keen eye.

I would also suggest, while you are doing a final round of edits, try to reduce the number of qualifiers that start a good number of your sentences (e.g., starting a sentence with "However", "Yet", "Interestingly", and so on). Using these every now and then aids in readability, but you want to use them sparingly. This is more of a style choice. But it is a worthwhile endeavour to polish your writing.   

 

Suggestions for minor changes: 

Line 61: Insert Oxford comma after “Europe” (i.e., United States, Europe, and Australia [40].). This should be checked across the whole manuscript. Sometimes it is there, sometimes it is not. So just double check all lists of three or more – with both “and” and “or”. I will flag more where I see them, but I am sure I will miss a few.

Line 63: move the comma before “such as” not after and add a “the” (i.e., …. Biodiversity, such as the Insular Caribbean, a…).

Line 93: Replace “little documented” with “underrepresented in the literature”.

Line 101: Insert comma after “Here” (i.e., Here, we tested…).

Line 103: Insert Oxford comma after “time budget” (i.e., … perch height, time budget, and rate of display…).

Line 103-112: You ordered your list of predictions as “perch height, time budget, and rate of display” and this is the order in which you present it in your Methods and Results (which is excellent)… so here in this section it would make the readability a bit smoother to reorder you rationale for the prediction to fit this order to. That is, maybe move up the section on perch height from 109-112 up – to discuss it first. Then time budget, and then display rate. I know it seems small and pedantic, but it does make the reading smoother and allows the reader to follow along easier.

Line 184: Remove capital on “Display” (i.e., Time budget and display rate”).

Line 290: Replace “little studied” with “understudied” (ie., … a common, albeit understudied, Cuban anole.)

Line 292: Missing a few words here, perhaps add “find” before “evidence” and “of” after (i.e., … “, allowed us to find evidence of significant behavioral differences…)

Line 390: Remove the word “obvious” from this sentence. Perhaps also consider opening this important paragraph with a more encompassing topic sentence. Or try to rework the sentence so that the lead is not buried. Perhaps it could look something like “Our study provides new and original information on the effect of urbanization on the behavior of a native, endemic lizard, despite having some limitations associated with sample size and the typical reduced activity of anoles.”.

Line 394: Adjust the wording to be more direct. Perhaps something like “In particular, we suggest research should assess behavioral plasticity and consistency in perch height among individuals from different populations along a gradient of urbanization.”

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx