PONE-D-21-16734

Fossil birds from the Roof of the World: the first avian fauna from High Asia, and its implications for late Quaternary environments in Eastern Pamir

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zelenkov,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we believe it has merit although it needs some corrections to fully meet the PLOS ONE publication criteria as they currently stand. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised by the three reviewers during the review process. When you do, please pay special attention to the reviewer's questions 1.

Please submit your revised manuscript by before July 10. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Claudia Patricia Tambussi, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional location information of the study site, including geographic coordinates for the data set if available.

3. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

5. We note that Figure  in your submission contain map/satellite images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

5.1.    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

5.2.    If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting manuscript, which adds novel data on the avifaunas of Central Asia. I have only various minor comments you may wish to consider:

- lines 278 ff: For the coracoid of the Pteroclidae you characters distinguishing it from the coracoid of the Charadriiformes. However, wouldn’t it be more important to indicate how it differs from the coracoid of the Columbidae? I think the coracoids of the Pteroclidae and Columbidae are much more similar than those of the Pteroclidae and Charadriiformes.

A large-sized pigeon species that occurs in the Pamir region is the Snow pigeon, Columba leuconota, so that a differentiation from columbids would be needed.

- Line 362 ff: Concerning the identification of the lark: What about Calandrella acutirostris, which also occurs in the Pamir region?

-line 407: “first fossil bird assemblage from Eurasian highlands (above 3000 m)“ – are you sure? Are there no bird fossils from caves in the Alps (I am just asking and do not known myself)?

- Fig. 1: The style of the lettering of this figure does not correspond to that of the other figures

Minor comments:

- in the abstract, it would be good to indicate more exactly the geographic location of the Pamir plateau (i.e., that it is in eastern Tajikistan)

- abstract, line 21: "partly common with" reads awkward to me. Maybe, "which in part are shared with"?

- abstract, line 30: I think this should be "a few", not "few", since you intend to say that there are "some" species (rather than "not many species")

- line 51: "up to 2700 above sea level" - do you really mean "up to" here, or shouldn't that rather be something like "above" or "starting from"? I think the lower rather than the upper boundary should be given here.

- line 60: "by cold mountain steppes and deserts" (delete "a" before cold)

- line 65: here and elsewhere: "high altitude" may perhaps sound better than "high elevation" (elevation is, however , not wrong, so you may leave it)

- line 66: "represent the first evidence" sounds awkward. Maybe "for the first time yield insights into"

- line 75: excavated a total area of (instead of "who totally excavated an area")

- line 77: "and further excavated"

- "Table 2: Is "lithic artifacts" a correct term or should this be "stone artifacts"?

- line 95: “is deposited in” or “was transferred to”(not “referred in”)

- line 100: “diagnostibility“ is no existing word. Maybe “diagnosability” “low amount of diagnostic features”?

- line 166 and elsewhere: “capitula oticum et squamosum” (not “capituli”)

- line 175 and elsewhere: “fragment of omal extremity of left coracoid” (not “cranial fragment of left coracoid”)

- line 184: “is additionally indicated”. Better start sentence with “In addition, the…”

-line 189: “of bird carcasses” (plural)

- line 194: add author name after Phasianidae (since author names are also provided elsewhere)

- line 246: “similar in size to” (not “with”)

- line 339: “procoracoideus” (delete second “i”)

- line 350: “Rostrum maxillae” (if singular) or “Rostra maxillarum” (if plural, which I think is meant here)

- line 381: what is meant with “the trochlea intertarsorum”? Trochleae metatarsorum?

- line 385: “specimen is” or “specimens are”

- line 389: “similar in size to thrushes Turdus merula/atrogularis, Lanius excubitor, Sturnus…” It is misleading to add “thrushes” here, since most of the species you list are no thrushes

- line 397: “may not be possible based on the preserved fragment, but we preliminary assign it to M. saxatilis based on more precise identification of the other specimen” – this reads a bit confusing and I suggest to write “based on the preserved fragment of the ulna”

- line 413: “an area with”

-line 425: “Lake levels” (delete “the” at start of sentence)

- line 428: “Higher lake levels at Eastern Pamir” – I am not sure what exactly is meant with this. It reads, as if you want to indicate a higher water level of the lakes, but I assume you mean something like “lakes at higher altitude levels in the Eastern Pamir”

- line 432: “nigricollis/auritus grebe” – I suggest to add the genus here

- line 435: “ioncluding even some species that do not occur…”

- line 453: “with the above-documented”

- line 455: “increase in moisture availability” sounds awkward. Better “greater humidity”?line - line 454: “has shown”

Reviewer #2: This is a straight-forward description of new avian fossils of some interest to the paleornithological community. The writing is relatively clear and concise and most of the figures are of good quality. My comments are largely restricted to some suggestions for minor edits and additions that would improve this manuscript.

Comments:

Title: There is no need for a comma after “Asia”

Table 1: The addition of common names (e.g., Quail, grebe, etc…) would be useful to the reader. Also, some indication of the relative age of “cultural layers 1, 2, 3 would be helpful. Finally, this table seems out of place and should likely be moved down to a spot after the materials and Methods as you have not introduced the reader to most of these specimens/taxa yet. This table is a “Result” of your study.

Table 2: charcoal is both singular and plural, depending on context (delete the “s”)

Line 89: Golden Valley (capitalize?)

Line 101: “characteristic morphology, were identified and are reported…”

Line 187: “cut-marks”

Line 260: “trapezoid-shaped”

Line 270 & elsewhere throughout the entire manuscript: The use of capitalization for common/English bird names is inconsistent (should be Water Rail). All English bird names should be capitalized (e.g., Tibetan Sandgrouse on line 296). Note, that the hyphenated parts of species name modifiers are not capitalized (e.g., Red-billed Chough). Common names are not capitalized when referring to a group in a general way unless they are the first word in a sentence (e.g., Hawks eat thrushes.). Please check the entire manuscript and correct as I did not but do see lines: 331, 345, 374, 399, 432.

Lines 297-298: You state that this is the first fossil record of Tibetan Sandgrouse but above on lines 290 you mention that this species has not always been considered distinct. Some mention of whether it is possible that other material, previously referred to the group could represent this taxon might be appropriate.

Line 385: I assume you mean “Sylviidae sensu lato”. Please write out in full (and properly italicize) or clarify.

Line 411: suggest change to “with elevations of approximately 1000 m or less”

Lines 406-413: This discussion would greatly benefit from the addition of data on the paleoelevation of the site during the times of deposition. What was the altitude of the cave from 4-13ka?

Line 412-413: this statement about the study being “especially important” because “of especially severe climate” is awkward and unclear as to your meaning. Please explain why this study is especially important and why it matters that the area is today characterized by extreme climate. Does it matter that the areas’ climate is extreme today when the climate was much less extreme during the time of deposition of the fossils?

Line 432: Write out the full names of these species (nigrocollis/auritus)

Line 433: “at such high altitudes”

Line 448: The Karkorum Range should be labeled on your map (Figure 1), as should many other features (see comment on Figure 1 below).

Line 454: “has shown”

Line 459: “waterfowl from the cave display cut-marks (Fig.4…”

Figure 1: This figure needs to be revised. The globe at the top is blurry and is essentially pointless at this scale. I assume the “red area” is the study area we see at a adjacent to it but this is not clear. Panel A needs the addition of labels for modern political boundaries, mountain ranges, paleoboundaries of the lake if available, etc… Panel A lacks information that the reader will be looking for to orient themselves based on the mention of physiographic features in your text. Panels B and C are blurry.

Reviewer #3: This is the first account of the montane avifaunas, from the latest Pleistocene through to the middle Holocene, of the Eastern Pamirs; the composition of the assemblages argues for milder climatic conditions at the time compared to the present. The manuscript is very well written and the conclusions are straightforward. I only have minor suggestions that might improve readability:

- p. 2 line 27. delete “further”

-p. 3. I recommend deleting the first sentence of the introduction as it lacks the context that makes it meaningful – as it stands it reads a bit vague. Alternatively, it could be moved towards the end of the introduction.

- p.3 line 54. The “However” does not seem to follow from the previous sentence, and it does not read like these two sentences are linked.

p. 4 line 73, add “the” before SW. Also p. 8, line 138 before modern; p. 13, line 279 before somewhat; p. 18 line 414 before bird

p. 4 line 75 delete “totally”.

p. 6, line 101, add “a” before characteristic. 100, replace with generally not diagnostic.

p. 8 line 143, mention that the scapula is not figured.

p. 12 line 249, replace “unfinished” with striated, porose, or similar.

p. 17, l 382. trochleae metatarsorum

I would also recommend using capitals for the common names of birds. I note that several abbreviations are used (e.g., lig.) and these should either be spelled out (at least at first mention) or included under “Abbreviations”.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Fossil birds from the Roof of the World: the first avian fauna from High Asia, and its implications for late Quaternary environments in Eastern Pamir

PONE-D-21-16734R1

Dear Dr. Zelenkov,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Claudia Patricia Tambussi, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: