Consistent Antipredator Behavioral Responses among Populations of Red River Pupfish with Disparate Predator Communities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I like this study, and I believe that it should be published. I enjoyed reading the discussion, but I am concerned about the principal conclusion: the antipredator behaviour of this fish is independent of predator presence. However, this behaviour will correlate with the isolation of these populations among them and the real isolation of each population regarding their predator. You have to describe that and clarify that. Perhaps studied populations are isolated from only two or three generations, and maybe this is not sufficient to change the behaviour (honestly, I don’t know). In fact, the authors explain these weaknesses; then, their conclusion should consider these weaknesses. 

I am not an expert on this kind of ethological study, but, in my ignorance, I believe that the methodological proposal is explained in detail, and the essay is repeatable, feasible and credible. Only one thing: I don’t know how many fishes have been used in the study or how many specimens and replicas have been developed.

Other minor changes: 

Lines 22-24: I believe this sentence is a bit “hard”. To generalise that all the pupfish species and populations respond similarly from one study is complicated. The study cannot demonstrate a theory in all its dimensions; it is only a specific study about five populations of one species in a single river. In science, categoric sentences should be avoided because “demonstrate” something is a very uncommon fact that needs a lot of similar studies with similar results in a global dimension. 

Line 54: is there any reason to select females? Just curiosity…

Lines 63-65: please, define who is native and non-native. 

Author Response

See attached file and refer to marked up version for reported line numbers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I read the manuscript titled "Consistent antipredator behavioral responses among populations of Red River pupfish with disparate predator communities" with great interest. The predator naiveté hypothesis often used when discussing the impact of alien predatory species on native communities, therefore, the results of the experiment presented in the manuscript are so interesting. Nature is always much more complicated than it seems to us at first glance, and this is very well demonstrated by the authors. 

The only thing that, in my opinion, would be useful to expand is the presentation of approaches to statistical data analysis, in particular, how was assessed the value of categorical predictor of Population? What is the difference in this indicator between populations 1 and 2, 3 and 4? 

In addition, it seems to me that the quality of figure 1 should be improved. Maybe it is worth making it in color? 

The manuscript is well-structured, the main aspects of the problem are covered.

I recommend this paper to be accepted for publication in FISHES.

Author Response

See attached file and refer to marked up version for reported line numbers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript presents a nice, straightforward experiment that assesses whether there is a pattern of increased anti-predator responses by pupfish populations with increasing predation pressure. Although the degree and duration of each population's isolation from predatory fishes is unknown, the ms still poses an interesting question about whether defenses correspond to local predation pressure.

The statistical analyses could be improved by a little  more justification for elimination of 'outliers', especially inactive fish (see comment on ms). Also because there are two response variables, technically this calls for multivariate analysis or correction of P values. However, the relevant P values are low enough that this is not a concern for the soundness of conclusions. There are a few other comments on the ms but these are the main ones.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

See attached file and refer to marked up version for reported line numbers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf