Dario Riccardo Valenzano

Detlef Weigel

eLife assessment
The author use an approach that is in principle useful, comparative meta-analysis, to contribute to our understanding of life history evolution. The advance remains limited, as both the meta-analysis and the theoretical model are incomplete, and proper statistical and mechanistic descriptions of the simulations are lacking. A major concern is that the interpretation does not properly take into account the effect of well-characterised complexities in the relationship between clutch size and fitness in birds.

anonymous

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
I have read the re-submission of the manuscript "The optimal clutch size revisited: separating individual quality from the parental survival costs of reproduction" by LA Winder and colleagues.
I have to say that I am quite disappointed not to see any formalisation of the mechanism that the authors have in mind to explain the results they have and to draw general conclusions from it. In my original review, I strongly recommended "improving the theoretical component of the analysis by providing a solid theoretical framework before, from it, drawing conclusions. This, at a minimum, requires [...] most importantly a mechanistic model describing the assumed relationships."
Without it, it is impossible to follow, agree or disagree with the authors and learn something from the meta-analysis other than: the clutch size-annual survival relationship has opposite slopes for manipulated and natural populations. Such a set of equations (would replace pages of verbose and) is not only necessary for the readers to be able to understand the authors' points and to clearly understand the simplifying assumptions, but also for the authors to ensure they conclusions are sound. For these reasons this is a central part of such studies, see, e.g. (Walker et al., 2008). This is supposedly replaced here by a figure (figure 5), which top-left part reads: "Parental survival costs of reproduction constrain intra-specific reproduction" - "no the effect size on fig 4 is too small". Figure 4 is the output of simulations where the authors have incorporated the mean effect on survival rate per egg from the manipulated populations into a model where they compute R0 for various increases in the annual fertility rate, and related decreases in annual survival rates, showing that along the slow-fast gradient, for balanced survival-reproduction (certainly not far from R0=1), R0 is not affected (or very little) by change in fertility-survival along the trade-off. Nowhere on this figure, do we have any information inferring that survival costs of reproduction do not constrain intra-specific reproduction. It is actually possible to build a simple mechanistic model with a trade-off mechanism that strongly affects the LRS and its variance between individuals and to would produce the exact same figure.
This is compounded in this manuscript by the constant verbose, imprecisions, outright mistakes, with a general confusion between magnitudes and variation of magnitudes, which makes it very hard to read. Let us just look at two examples illustrating my points. In the abstract, I read: " ... revealed that reproduction presented negligible costs, except when reproductive effort was forced beyond the level observed within species, to that seen between species" means nothing: what is the level of reproductive effort seen between species? I suppose the authors mean "forced beyond the maximum level observed within species, to that seen between species" or something like that. Caption figure 4:" Selection differentials (i.e., the difference in lifetime reproductive output between hypothetical control and brood-manipulated populations)" It cannot be how this was calculated however: the difference between equal things is 0, not 1. These errors and all the other imprecisions, lengthy definitions that are for some almost impossible to fathom are the direct result of trying at all costs not to use a single equation, the most important tool in the study of ecology and trade-offs in particular, in a paper on costs of reproduction.

The optimal clutch size revisited: separating individual quality from the parental survival costs of reproduction

Figures and data

Be the first to read new articles from eLife