PONE-D-24-27519Megafauna mobility: assessing the foraging range of an extinct macropodid, from central eastern Queensland, Australia.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Laurikainen Gaete,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 01 2024 11:59PM. 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: https://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,

Julien Louys

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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 manuscript, please provide additional information regarding the specimens used in your study. Ensure that you have reported human remain specimen numbers and complete repository information, including museum name and geographic location.

If permits were required, please ensure that you have provided details for all permits that were obtained, including the full name of the issuing authority, and add the following statement:

'All necessary permits were obtained for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.'

If no permits were required, please include the following statement:

'No permits were required for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.'

For more information on PLOS ONE's requirements for paleontology and archeology research, see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-paleontology-and-archaeology-research .

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. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript.

5. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

6. Please amend either the title on the online submission form [(macropodid, from) via Edit Submission] or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

7. We note that Figures 1 and 6 in your submission contain map 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:

1) You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1 and 6 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].”

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/

8. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments:

Both reviewers found your manuscript of great interest, but similar points were raised by both that will need to be addressed before this can be publsihed. Points raised by both reviewers:

1. Your background Sr values need to be derived and calculated from the local Mt Etna region, not similar rock units. Without these, the Sr values from the fossils can't be meaningfully contextualised. This will require additional analytical work.

2. Your interpretations of the palaeobiology of Protemnodon needs to be improved, both in terms of accuracy in our current understanding of the ecological requirements of the genus and constituent species, and the specific individuals found in Mt Etna. This will likely require additional analytical work, or at the very least a thorough and well-reasoned discussion and/or meta-analysis.

In addition, Reviewer 1 has highlighted some significance discrepencies in how your geochronological data was interepreted. This is an important point that will need to be properly addressed. They also pointed out issues with how your data was presented, and emphasised clarity of written expression.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: 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

**********

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: Introduction

Lines 52-54: Mentions a “significant amount of research” but cites none of it. Be sure to add in relevant citations here for studies that both focus on mechanisms, and those that focus on life history. There are several on both accounts, so be sure to cite them.

Lines 56-57: “a large body size provides opportunities for greater geographical range…” greater than what? Need to be clear.

Lines 57-60: “Whilst body mass is considered a strong indicator in placental mammals [5], external factors including habitat type [6] – specifically relationships between opened and closed habitats – may also play a role in dictating the extent of home range.” I’m having trouble understanding the phrasing here. Suggest a re-write to be clear to emphasise exactly what “relationships” you’re talking about.

Lines 60-64: Again, I’m having trouble understanding the arguments here. The paragraph opens with the specific research question about the extinction of Quaternary megafauna, but later deviates to ecological aspects of South American and African extant communities. It’s unclear what the link to late Quaternary extinctions in Australia is here.

Lines 71-76. I’m sorry, but I’m having trouble making of the phrasing through here and the inference with respect to geology, botany, or feeding activities of herbivores.

Lines 78-79: “Strontium isotope ratios in terrestrial consumers are predominately derived from diet.” No, ratios are something that are measured and not derived from diet. I know what you mean, but you need to think about phrasing. Keep in mind too that the accumulation of strontium isotopes in biological tissues is not from ‘diet’, but ‘feeding activities’ (‘diet’ is something we observe but is not the activity itself).

Lines 88-90: Need to clearly state what the “trends” in mineralisation are- i.e., as related to ontogeny.

Lines 100-101: The position of the genus is not poorly understood as implied in this sentence. It’s a sister taxon to Macropus and member of the same family; this is an inference that has been unchallenged for the past 50+ years if not more and is one of the principal findings of the study that is cited here (reference 35- Cascini et al.).

Lines 91-106: This paragraph needs attention. It covers all sorts of themes including introduction of a study site, geography, climate change, extinction, a specific taxon, its taxonomic position, then merging into palaeobiology touching on dentition and post-cranial functional morphology. It’s very hard to follow. Best to think about paragraph structure and their themes.

Line 107: “Given megafaunal macropodids dominate Australia’s fauna…” what does this mean? Macropodids are the largest-bodied endemic herbivores today, but that is not true across geologic time. The largest-bodied mega-herbivores were the diprotodons and ancestors for most of the Quaternary, and all of the 25-odd million years before that.

Materials and Methods

Lines 127-147. You need to cite the primary literature for this source of geological information rather than an unpublished thesis. Most of the synopsis presented in this section does not appear to have come from Deer’s 2011 thesis.

Lines 155-156. The first supplementary table referred to in the manuscript is “Supplementary Table S16”. You need to have data cited in order through the text from 1 to N, not randomly starting at 16. In any case, there is no Table 16 in the Supplementary files- it only goes to S14 so I’m having trouble understanding what you’ve done.

Lines 156-157: “Data were obtained from Tucker et al. [5] and Goldingay [48].” What type of data? Need to be specific if you are using data from multiple sources. Does this pertain to mass and home range?

Looking at Supplementary Table 14, there are numerous and out-dated taxonomic errors in there. If this is the primary source of the manuscript and meant to be “S16”, then it needs to be substantially revised.

Lines 157-159. Need to state what the protocols were, and more specifically, what this means for the submitted study. What is the “weighted average” calculated from?

Lines 159-160. “Phylogeny included in the model...” What model? I’m having trouble understanding the rationale here. A database of extant macropodids was collated (Line 155-157) but the rest of the paragraph does not explain why or how those data were used except for something about an R analysis. You need to be explicit in how you can use this data to make foraging range estimates in a meaningful way.

Lines 165-169. The paper here cites reference 34 (Kerr et al.) as a source of information, but the taxonomy presented in the manuscript does not follow Kerr et al. at all, at least for some of the species mentioned. The authors need to be clear in their methodology.

Lines 173-176. Mentions that some samples were chosen for analysis but doesn’t say what the analysis is. Need to also specifically say what the teeth numbers were, i.e., m1, m2, etc.

------

At this stage, I can’t go much further with this review. I’ve been bogged down in the Introduction and Methods for some time now, and there are numerous things that already need to be addressed for this study to be publishable. I really encourage the authors to spend more time revising the manuscript. I think that there is something really good here and is quite novel, but the significance of the study is lost in the framework as presented. I’m not going to recommend publication at this stage but urge the authors to not give up on what could be an excellent scientific contribution.

For what it’s worth, I’ve briefly read over the rest of the manuscript. Some basic things to note include:

1) Cite and integrate supplementary data properly, and present it logically and in order following the main text.

2) I appreciate that Sr data of local geological formations may not be available, but I strongly do not recommend using Sr values of apparently similar rock types from other continents as substitutes in the construction of an isoscape- this is methodologically unsound for a variety of reasons and ultimately may affect the overall findings (Lines 293-295 and Supplementary Table 5- and noting too, most of the references in this supp. table are to a bibliographic database of the literature, not the actual studies themselves that published the Sr data);

3) You need to better consider the implications of the new ages and not overreach. This has major implications for the study’s findings (e.g., Lines 415-427) that play into aspects of understanding the timing of climate change / habitat loss / extinctions in the region. The new interpretation that the mid-Bruhnes climate change event caused rapid impacts on Mt Etna ecosystems is not supported by the data presented.

a. For example, the oldest previous minimum age for site QML1311H is 454+-48 ka (U-series dated calcite infill of bone), but the burial age from the new luminescence dating is around 100 millennia younger. There must be something wrong somewhere here- do not ignore this discrepancy.

b. For QML1311C/D, the previous maximum age (326+-22 ka from a U-series dated basal flowstone) is consistent with the new burial luminescence age (291+-28.3 ka). The new U-series ages of teeth are much younger (as young as 222+4/-3 ka) but are minimum ages; they are not inconsistent with the burial age, but you then can’t make the argument that the deposit dates to as young as 210 ka (Lines 404-405). There is no evidence for that at all; this is a misinterpretation of the data and premise of the dating approach being that they are not a closed system.

c. For QML1384LU, the youngest minimum age comes from the previously U-series dated calcite infill in bone (332 +-14 ka; although there is a typo in the manuscript where it reports this age as “323”- Line 412). The new U-series dates on teeth are minimum ages (as young as 213+-13/9 ka) and are not inconsistent with the minimum age of the calcite infill, but you can’t then argue that the deposit is as young as 210 ka (Line 416)- this cannot possibly be true. The minimum age of the fossil cannot be younger than the oldest minimum age of the deposit- in this case 332 +-14 ka dated from calcite infill in bone. To argue this is another misinterpretation of the data and approach.

4) The underlying assumption is that species within the study taxon, Protemnodon, are directly analogous, biologically and ecologically speaking, with extant macropodines (e.g., Methods, Results, Discussion). However, that interpretation deviates significantly with current palaeobiological understandings of species within the genus that show that they are unlike anything extant today (Janis et al. 2020 J Mamm. Evol.; Jones et al. 2022 J. Mamm. Evol.; Kerr et al. 2024 Megataxa; papers of which are cited in the manuscript but that general finding is ignored). I strongly encourage the authors to better consider the palaeo-biological/ecological significance of the study taxon in order to best interpret it.

Reviewer #2: This study Is the result of original research and as far as I can discern results have not been reported elsewhere. Methods are well described and rigorously performed to a high standard. The article is intelligible and written in standard English. Data availability guidelines are also met. However, conclusions are not fully supported by the data as follows.

I have two concerns. First, the authors indicate that Sr values associated with Mt Etna Protemnodon suggest short scale movements (Lines 448-449) but “…to reliably estimate the extent of these, a more extensive surveying of bio-available strontium and an isoscape quantifying spatial variability of 87Sr/86Sr will be required” (Lines 452-454). A background Sr dataset is always required for such a study to meet standards of research integrity. Whereas Mt Etna limestone 87Sr/86Sr data were available, using “common…values for corresponding rock types” (Line 294-295) does not meet this standard. A Sr sampling regime that encompasses the estimated home range of Protemnodon based on the taxon’s body mass is needed to support the argument that Protemnodon’s foraging range was smaller than expected, thus not scaled to its body mass but “…likely due to a unique combination of behaviour, diet and/or locomotion” (Lines 40-41, 463-466).

Secondly, the authors argue that Protemnodon was foraging in a “biodiverse rainforest ecosystem” characteristic of Mt Etna prior to 210 ka. Thus, Protemnodon was likely browsing not grazing and a smaller than expected foraging range was not surprising given that “…Mt Etna’s tropical rainforest environment provided a productive ecosystem where dietary needs could be met with relatively small foraging ranges” (Lines 476-477). Yet, no data are provided in support of Protemnodon’s hypothesized dietary intake. Such evidence would be useful adding credence to the author’s explanation for a smaller than expected foraging range relative to body mass. Tooth enamel sampled for Sr yielded very little evidence of diagenetic alteration, (Supplemental Materials.S3). Thus, Protemnodon enamel can also be sampled for hydroxyapatite stable carbon isotope values. Methods are well established and d13C enamel data are commonly considered reliable even in mya settings. If Protemnodon was foraging in a closed canopy rainforest enamel d13C values will be diagnostic of that setting, more negative than expected of a C3 open foraging environment given the recycling of atmospheric CO2. Results will either support or call into questions the authors’ argument that Protemnodon’s foraging range was determined by climate rather than scaled to body mass. A wider sampling of the Sr isoscape is needed to confirm that argument.

**********

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

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

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.

PONE-D-24-27519R1Megafauna mobility: assessing the foraging range of an extinct macropodid from central eastern Queensland, Australia.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Laurikainen Gaete,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

While both reviewers felt your manuscript was publishable with somewhat minor revisions, these changes will be essential before the manuscript can be accepted. In addition to their comments, there are further moderate revisions that need to be undertaken, as detailed below. 

Reviewer 1 was no longer able to review your MS. Reviewer 2 noted the manuscript overall is solid, however there are some notable discrepencies in your presentation and interpretations that they have highlighted. Firstly, they indicate that there are insufficient details related to the plant sampling and Sr results. I agree with this comment - none of the methodology mentions how the plant Sr values were arrived at, and your discussion pays scant attention to these results. It would also enormously aid the reader if you mapped both the locality and Sr values obtained from the plants on one of your maps. Secondly, their observation that most of your Sr values for Protemnodon have values outside the range of the Mt Etna limestone directly contradicts the substantive claims you make. While some individuals may have been restricted to the Mt Etna limestone, several others clearly were not. This needs to be much better discussed - it doesn't negate all your results but clearly it's more complex than you make out. Reviewer 3 drew attention to your section 197-207. This section is repetitive and confusing - please revise accordingly.

In addition, please address the following:

1. Lines 36-38. I don't think any ecologist would argue that foraging range in eutherians is only dictated by body size, and your results and discussion invalidate this statement in any case (e.g. line 324). Please remove, or reword accordingly.

2. Lines 89-90. This sentence is incomplete.

3. Lines 171-172. You draw attention to the size of one specimen, and clearly the size of the teeth are an important indicator of body size. What about the other teeth? You need to add dimensions of the teeth, or at the very least if this is no longer possible, at least indicate if they likely represent small, medium, or large Protemnodons.

4. Line 191. You've not established that these represent eight individuals, only that they represent eight individual teeth. Please provide molar position for each molar, so you and the reader can determine if there is a possibility that different teeth from the same individual may be present in a unit in Table B, and provide MNIs per unit in the body of the text.

5. Line 204-205. This sentence is incomplete. But also, they don't represent a natural population, which has an ecological definition implying individuals within the population can reproduce. At best, you have individuals of a palaeocommunity.

6. Line 480 - not may, does account for some variation, based on the statistically significant results you reported!

7. Line 483 - first mention of Petrogale so spell out in full. More importantly, how were outliers established? 

8. Line 485 - as above.

9. Lines 517-519. This statement is contradicted by your results (see Reviewer 2 comments). Also, to what does the Funck reference relate to?

10. Lines 524-525. This sentence isn't grammatically correct. More importantly, it's not a fair comparison - one genus of marsupial vs all placentals. I'm sure placentals have their fair share of outliers, as indeed you point out further down.

11. Lines 530-532 - but isn't it analgous to at least P. penicillata? And then in lines 547-550 you rely on them being analgous to form your hypothesis, despite saying they aren't. You need to be internally consistent with your arguments.

12. Line 593 - these animals aren't sedentary, which implies inactive, they just have a small range (although see point 9).

13. Line 618 - what do lemurs have to do with Australian megafauna? No clear link established

Figure 1 - show where in Australia this is. Merge with Figure 6. Add plant localities

Figure 2 - add species labels

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 28 2025 11:59PM. 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: https://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,

Julien Louys

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

While both reviewers felt your manuscript was publishable with somewhat minor revisions, these changes will be essential before the manuscript can be accepted. In addition to their comments, there are further moderate revisions that need to be undertaken, as detailed below.

Reviewer 1 was no longer able to review your MS. Reviewer 2 noted the manuscript overall is solid, however there are some notable discrepencies in your presentation and interpretations that they have highlighted. Firstly, they indicate that there are insufficient details related to the plant sampling and Sr results. I agree with this comment - none of the methodology mentions how the plant Sr values were arrived at, and your discussion pays scant attention to these results. It would also enormously aid the reader if you mapped both the locality and Sr values obtained from the plants on one of your maps. Secondly, their observation that most of your Sr values for Protemnodon have values outside the range of the Mt Etna limestone directly contradicts the substantive claims you make. While some individuals may have been restricted to the Mt Etna limestone, several others clearly were not. This needs to be much better discussed - it doesn't negate all your results but clearly it's more complex than you make out. Reviewer 3 drew attention to your section 197-207. This section is repetitive and confusing - please revise accordingly.

In addition, please address the following:

1. Lines 36-38. I don't think any ecologist would argue that foraging range in eutherians is only dictated by body size, and your results and discussion invalidate this statement in any case (e.g. line 324). Please remove, or reword accordingly.

2. Lines 89-90. This sentence is incomplete.

3. Lines 171-172. You draw attention to the size of one specimen, and clearly the size of the teeth are an important indicator of body size. What about the other teeth? You need to add dimensions of the teeth, or at the very least if this is no longer possible, at least indicate if they likely represent small, medium, or large Protemnodons.

4. Line 191. You've not established that these represent eight individuals, only that they represent eight individual teeth. Please provide molar position for each molar, so you and the reader can determine if there is a possibility that different teeth from the same individual may be present in a unit in Table B, and provide MNIs per unit in the body of the text.

5. Line 204-205. This sentence is incomplete. But also, they don't represent a natural population, which has an ecological definition implying individuals within the population can reproduce. At best, you have individuals of a palaeocommunity.

6. Line 480 - not may, does account for some variation, based on the statistically significant results you reported!

7. Line 483 - first mention of Petrogale so spell out in full. More importantly, how were outliers established?

8. Line 485 - as above.

9. Lines 517-519. This statement is contradicted by your results (see Reviewer 2 comments). Also, to what does the Funck reference relate to?

10. Lines 524-525. This sentence isn't grammatically correct. More importantly, it's not a fair comparison - one genus of marsupial vs all placentals. I'm sure placentals have their fair share of outliers, as indeed you point out further down.

11. Lines 530-532 - but isn't it analgous to at least P. penicillata? And then in lines 547-550 you rely on them being analgous to form your hypothesis, despite saying they aren't. You need to be internally consistent with your arguments.

12. Line 593 - these animals aren't sedentary, which implies inactive, they just have a small range (although see point 9).

13. Line 618 - what do lemurs have to do with Australian megafauna? No clear link established

Figure 1 - show where in Australia this is. Merge with Figure 6. Add plant localities

Figure 2 - add species labels

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. 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 #2: Once again, this study Is the result of original research and as far as I can discern results have not been reported elsewhere. Methods are well described and rigorously performed to a high standard. The article is intelligible and written in standard English. Data availability guidelines are also met. However, I am puzzled by seemingly contradictory narratives even though the manuscript has been significantly revised and new temporal data added.

First, the authors note that 24 local plants were sampled for Sr, in an attempt to meet the need for a background Sr dataset suggested in previous reviews. Values are reported in S1_Table, ranging from 0.705817-0.709395, a much wider range of Sr values than those seen in Protemnodon. These data appear to support the authors’ argument but are not discussed in the manuscript. Were these samples collected within the foraging range of Protemnodon based on estimates of body mass or within the narrower foraging range proposed by the authors? The plant study is mentioned in Lines 314-316 only. A more in-depth treatment of these data would be useful.

I am also puzzled by conclusions the authors’ reach based on S5_Fig. This figure shows that a substantial subset of measured Sr values falls outside the Mt Etna caves’ range in five of the eight teeth sampled, given that dotted lines mark the range of Sr values on Mt Etna limestone (Line 410-412). Rather than fully acknowledging this finding the authors argue that most sampling units overlap those of Mt Etna limestone attributing the bulk of the variability to a single dental sample with Sr values entirely outside this range (Line 46-418). A more conservative interpretation of reported Sr data would argue that whereas four of the individuals sampled appear to have foraged within a narrow Mt Etna home range, others foraged more widely. Given a relatively wide range of body mass estimates for this taxon (50-170kg, Lines 325-328), this finding seems reasonable. U-Th ages reported in Table 2 do not suggest that these differences are temporally patterned. Thus, variability in foraging behavior seems a parsimonious interpretation of the data.

Moreover, if Protemnodon was foraging in a closed canopy rainforest enamel d13C values will be diagnostic of that setting, more negative than expected of a C3 open foraging environment given the recycling of atmospheric CO2. Results will either support or call into question the authors’ argument that Protemnodon’s foraging range was narrow and determined by climate rather than scaled to body mass. This is a straightforward analytical procedure, well established methodologically. It was suggested in a previous review but not conducted or reported here.

Reviewer #3: The study presents novel and original research into the mobility and foraging ranges of mid-Pleistocene Mt Etna Protemnodon populations, as well as further dating constraints on two Mt Etna stratigraphic units. Overall, the paper is written succinctly, with a detailed methodology outlining how the study was conducted. Moreover, the data presented in the paper appears to support the conclusions made by the authors. Measured Sr values within the teeth appear to be similar to the bio-available strontium levels within the Mt Etna region, suggesting that the local Protemnodon had limited foraging ranges. The dates also appear to be consistent with previously published data on the sites.

Lines 197-207: This section is difficult to follow. I think the authors are saying that: 1) the selected teeth could be assigned to the genus Protemnodon, but not to a species; and 2) the dataset represents home ranges and mobility of mid-Pleistocene Mt Etna Protemnodon populations, not the genera as a whole. This section should be written more succinctly.

Lines 502-506 and 536-539: These sections use two different listing styles (“1”, “2” and then “i”, “ii”, “iii”). I recommend choosing one style and keeping it consistent throughout the paper.

**********

7. 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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

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.

Megafauna mobility: assessing the foraging range of an extinct macropodid from central eastern Queensland, Australia.

PONE-D-24-27519R2

Dear Dr. Laurikainen Gaete,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Julien Louys

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: