PONE-D-20-20355

Eocene intra-plate shortening responsible for the rise of a fauna pathway in the northeastern Caribbean realm

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Philippon,

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 Oct 10 2020 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Luca Pandolfi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

two reviewers evaluated your manuscript and both suggested minor revisions. Please check and follow the detailed reviewer' comments about your manuscript and provide a detailed reply for any rebuttal.

Looking forward to receive your revised version.

Sincerely,

Luca Pandolfi

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. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

'Financial support has been provided by INSU TelluSYSTER and GAARAnti project (ANR-17-CE31-0009). DJJvH acknowledges Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) Vici grant 865.17.001.'

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, 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.

a. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 'NO'

b. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that Figures 1, 2, 3 and 5 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 (a) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (b) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1, 2, 3 and 5 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].”

b. 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/

4. One of the noted authors is a group or consortium; the GARANTI Team.

In addition to naming the author group, and listing the individual authors and affiliations within this group in the acknowledgments section of your manuscript, please also indicate clearly a lead author for this group along with a contact email address.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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: Yes

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: The authors provide critical new observations on the hypothesis framed by Iturralde-Vient (and MacPhee (1999) that a terrestrial corridor of some kind briefly linked South America with island groups in the present Caribbean Sea ~34 Ma. This work concentrates on one part of the story: evidence for uplift and emergence in the northern Lesser Antilles at the end of the Eocene. Their results are consistent with earlier work, and such corroboration is important. The missing part of the puzzle, as the authors recognize and will hopefully explore further in additional contributions, concerns how or even whether GRANOLA was related to the uplift and emergence of the Aves Rise in order to complete the landspan hypothesized in the original version of the GAARlandia hypothesis. The jury is still out on that point.

I want to emphasize to the editors of this journal that this work is properly multidisciplinary in its significance, as the subject matter is very much of interest to paleobiologists. The original GAARlandia proposal has been both criticized and supported by biologists using different data sets and means of inference. The Phillipon et al. paper adds important new information about the reorganization of the terrestrial realm in the end-Paleogene Caribbean Sea, which geologists and biologists alike will find intriguing. This paper also identifies important constraints on timing and correlated tectonic events.

I have only one recommendation. In fairness, Iturralde-Vinent and MacPhee (1999) actually provided a detailed tectonic model within the context of the then-understood geological framework and evolution of the Caribbean Plate. This modelm was the basis for the reconstruction of GAARlandia´s paleogeographic scenario, whereas the text of the present paper largely overlooks this and even seems to imply that it was largely derived by paleobiogeographical considerations. Of course paleogeography and paleobiogeography overlapped: this is why the West Indies are such an interesting problem to both disciplines.

Here are some relevant passages:

“The Cretaceous and Paleogene volcanic and plutonic rocks of island arc affinities occur in Aves Ridge [AR] (Bunceet al., 1970; Fox et al., 1971; Nagle, 1972; Bouysse et al., 1985; Westercamp et al., 1985; Holcombe et al., 1990), as do Mesozoic and Eocene volcanic rocks in Lesser Antilles LA (fig. 15). This basic compositional similarity suggests that, from Cretaceous through Eocene time, AR and LA [Lesser Antilles] were a single entity: the AR–LA Volcanic Arc (Pinet etal., 1985; Bouysse et al., 1985). This arc was presumably linked geologically to the Aruba/Tobago Belt in the south and the eastern Greater Antilles in the north, because all of these landmasses possess a similar Cretaceous volcanic arc-ophiolite basement.”

“If AR and LA once comprised a single arc, it can be concluded that, at some time in the past, the GB that now separates these two entities did not exist. However, the age of this basin has not been well constrained. Inconclusive seismic evidence suggests that Granada Basin GB is filled by sedimentary rocks of Paleocene (?) to Recent age (Pinet et al., 1985; Bouysse et al., 1985; Bird, 1991), while dredge hauls from the basin’s margins consist of mostly Eocene and younger sedimentary and volcaniclastic rocks (fig. 21).” [See also fig. 21 in Iturralde-Vinent and MacPhee (1999)].

“According to Pindell (1994), GB opened between the Paleocene and Late Eocene, but we postulate a somewhat younger date (Late Eocene or younger) for the following reasons. If GB is interpreted as a back-arc basin, the disjunction of the AR–LA arc into two independent geological units (Aves Ridge remnant arc and Lesser Antilles active arc) would have probably been caused by a local change in the subduction regime (e.g., alteration of angle of dip of lower slab, or migration of position of subduction zone). We hypothesize that this event was correlated with Late Eocene cessation of volcanic activity in AR (and a concomitantly great increase in activity in LA) and increased thickness of Oligocene and younger sediments in GB (see seismic sections in Nemec [1980] and Pinet et al. [1985])."

Obviously the present paper provides a much more thorough examination of the relevant evidence than we could have provided 20 years ago, but since the history of ideas is important in science, we request that the authors recognize the insights of the GAARlandia model as well as its limitations (such as the still-ambiguous evidence for linkage between northern GAARlandia and the eastern end of the Greater Antilles).

A minor point: In fig. 5, Puerto Rico is colored as part of GRANOLA, which is fine, but it was in fact included in GAARlandia as well. Can this be shown by overlapping coloration?

Some minor, mostly grammatical points are commented on in the text.

Reviewer #2: This is a very interesting manuscript and I am glad to have had the opportunity to review it. Overall the manuscript is well organized and the data is presented properly and analyzed thoroughly with no major issues. I only have a number of minor suggestions (listed below), mainly from a grammatical point of view and some regarding the content, which I hope the authors take into consideration. The figures are very well done and informative.

General comments:

1) One point that might be added in the discussion is that although GrANoLa does not confirm the presence of a full landspan, it does confirm and support the presence of landmasses larger than the ones currently present in the region. This in turn could support a slightly distinct view mentioned by Iturralde-Vinent (2006), that instead of a continuous landspan, it consisted of a number of closely spaced islands separated by shallow marine channels. The presence of closely-spaced islands in place of a continuous landspan, plus the short temporal duration of this event, could have acted as a filter, thus accounting for the relatively low taxonomic richness of terrestrial vertebrates in Paleogene deposits in the region.

Iturralde-Vinent, M. A. 2006. Meso-Cenozoic Caribbean Paleogeography: implications for the historical biogeography of the region. International Geology Review 48:791–827.

MacPhee, R. D. E., and M. A. Iturralde-Vinent. 2000. A short history of Greater Antillean land mammals: biogeography, paleogeography, radiations, and extinctions. Tropics 10:145–154.

2) A good part of the references with geographic names need to be capitalized properly.

Specific comments:

Line 22: I suggest changing: “... respect, is interesting...:” to “... respect, it is interesting...”

Line 34: I suggest changing: “... in the Late Eocene-Early Oligocene…” to “... in the late Eocene-early Oligocene…” Late and Early are no longer used as formal subdivisions of the Eocene and Oligocene and should not be capitalized.

Line 57: typo, delete “lies west of.”

Line 95: I suggest changing: “... a hangingwall…” to “... a hanging wall…”

Line 105: I suggest changing: “... Turborotalia possagnoensis…” to “... Turborotalia pessagnoensis…”

Figure 1 caption (page 3): I suggest changing “C) shows a Map of the …” to “C) Map of the …”

Figure 4 caption (page 5): “D)” is missing.

**********

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: Yes: Ross D. E. MacPhee

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.

Eocene intra-plate shortening responsible for the rise of a faunal pathway in the northeastern Caribbean realm

PONE-D-20-20355R1

Dear Dr. Mélody Philippon,

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,

Luca Pandolfi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Authors,

I'm glad to accept the revised version of your manuscript. You taken into account all the comments and suggestions of both reviewers and modified the manuscript accordingly.

Thank you for your very interesting submission.

Sincerely,

Luca Pandolfi

PS: concerning changing in funding information, please contact the Team at plosone@plos.org

Reviewers' comments: