Talk:WikiJournal Preprints/Tree swallow
Add topic
This article has been declined for publication by the WikiJournal of Science.
It was adapted from the Wikipedia page Tree swallow and contains some or all of that page's content licensed under a CC BY-SA license.
It is archived here as a record. Discussion can be viewed below.
First submitted:
Declined:
Article text
QID: Q100400679
Suggested (provisional) preprint citation format:
"Tree swallow". WikiJournal Preprints. Wikidata Q100400679.
License: 
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction, provided the original author and source are credited.
Andrew Leung 
(handling editor) contact
Thomas Shafee contact
Douglas Wood
Article information
This article has been declined for publication by the WikiJournal of Science.
It is archived here as a record. Discussion can be viewed below.
Plagiarism check
[edit source]
Pass. Report from WMF copyvios tool: detected significant overlap with other online resources, however based on publication dates, all of these cases are reverse plagiarism (i.e. other resources copying from this article without attribution). Therefore plagiarism check passed. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 04:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Peer review 1
[edit source]
Review by Doug Wood , Southeastern Oklahoma State University
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
I reviewed the 3 overall criteria provided under the Reviewer guidelines and I think this review on Tree Swallows meets the criteria well.
Accuracy – Solid throughout with good references including recent publications. The distribution and nesting range needs updating (see comment below). Habitat section is a bit thin. Other minor corrections/suggestions are noted below related to accuracy.
Balance – I felt the balance was generally good. Perhaps a bit too much on toxicology in the Status section; could be combined with Immunology section. The Breeding section is much longer than other sections, although I think that is merited given how much interest readers typically have regarding nesting aspects of bird species. The Status section is imbalanced/skewed towards toxicology. It needs more on population trends that reflect overall population status.
Accessibility – I think a knowledgeable generalist can comprehend the bulk of the review. Admittedly, genetics, immunology, type subject are terminology laden and some readers may struggle with the terms. I think the author did admirably in defining terms when needed. The abstract/lead is fine and will encourage readers to continue to the main review.
Specific Comments by Section:
Abstract/Lead
I don’t understand the inclusion about the “debated” part about phylogenetic placement of Tree
Swallows here and in the Taxonomy section. Tree Swallows seems firmly established as a basal lineage
(see below). Without a reference to a published study that contradicts basal placement, I would remove
the “debated” phrasing.
I prefer term “iridescent” over “glossy”. Iridescent accounts for the variation in light angles hitting the
dorsal plumage and is used to describe the metallic coloration on this species and others. Glossy is more
of a generic term for anything shiny. I know it is used in some bird names, but iridescent is more apt.
The use of “first year” as an age is a bit confusing. I generally approach aging birds from a bander’s
perspective that flows with most of the published literature. Thus, does the author mean any female <1
calendar year old? Or, are you only referring to “hatch year” females in their first fall post-hatching (i.e.,
1st 6 months)? Or, a female post-January 1 going into her first nesting season (i.e., a “second year”)? I
think the author may mean both. Technically, females hatched in the previous summer that are
returning to nest the following summer would be “second year” when they are in the plumage alluded
to. If not using second year, then perhaps the best use in this type or review would be “females <1 year
old”?
Nesting by Tree Swallows has been confirmed as early as 3 April in SE OK (Wood et al. 2015, Bulletin of
the Oklahoma Ornithological Society). Ardia and Rice (2006) and Winkler’s Birds of the World account
place nesting as early as April too. I would change the wording to April instead of May to reflect recent
data.
I don’t know if the reason for high level of extra pair paternity being puzzling is needed in an abstract.
This is covered later and has several supporting hypotheses including female increasing genetic diversity
of her clutch, etc. Having observed Tree Swallows nesting, you also see forced copulations which can
account for extrapair paternity. Sounds terrible, but occurs in martins, ducks etc too.
In the conservation sentences at the end of abstract, I would add loss of wetlands given how important
they are to Tree Swallows in various parts of their range. Insecticide applications also reduce emergent
insect populations critical to Tree Swallow survival and nesting success.
Taxonomy and etymology
Follow up to comment in earlier. If both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA studies show Tree Swallow to
be the basal lineage in Tachycineta, what is unresolved? Author does not provide any published
reference that challenges the basal position within Tachycineta. I suggest rewording to show that both
mitochondrial and nuclear DNA studies support the basal position of Tree Swallow.
Description
Iridescent vs glossy (see earlier comment)
Voice
Typo at end of 3rd sentence. You have “next cavity”, but you mean “nest cavity”.
Distribution and habitat
Correction on Midwest distribution during nesting season – Tree Swallows are documented to nest in
various locations in Oklahoma all the way to southern boundary (435 km south of Kansas, which is listed
in the review as the southernmost nesting range in the Midwest). Tree Swallows nest in southeastern
Oklahoma (Red Slough Wildlife Management Area in McCurtain county – artificial cavities), Bryan
County (Lake Durant in abandoned Red-bellied Woodpecker cavities in snags in flooded reservoir) since
early 2000s. Other authors have noted nesting in Oklahoma and possibly North Texas, but I don’t have
cite for Texas. Most interesting is that it looks like a southern range “expansion”, although it is really
more a factor of migrants stopping early and nesting in sites that are available to them that likely
weren’t in the past.
I think the Habitat section could be beefed up a bit. Wetlands play a critical role for this species and I
think they should be mentioned specifically.
The use of terminology like site fidelity or philopatry is appropriate in this section as well. There is
ample evidence of it in the literature based on banding studies. I think 1-2 sentences more could
improve the review in this area.
Behaviour
Is the model organism section needed? I don’t know what this substantially adds to the review.
Breeding
A little more speculation on feathers in the nest might be interesting. Do the feathers act as potential
camouflage when female is off the nest? Do they have anti-fungal/anti-bacterial properties? Even in
southern end of range, they cover nest with feathers which is odd since ambient temperatures are high
and hyperthermia is a bigger concern than hypothermia.
In SE OK, eggs laid by 3 April, but most 14-29 April (Wood et al. 2015).
In the polygyny section, I would mention resource defense polygyny specifically. Classic case of patchy distribution of resources (e.g., emergent insects are hard to monopolize) resulting in major variation in territory quality. At the end of the 4th paragraph, there is mention of a high number of female floaters. Is it meant to imply there are female floaters that somehow breed? By definition, they would need a cavity to do that. Or, is the sentence just meant to point out that female floaters occur in the population but lack a territory/mate and don’t breed that year? One hypothesis I haven’t seen tested is if female Tree Swallows commit intraspecific brood parasitism. The genetics studies focus on male genetics, but usually assume the incubating female is the mother of all the eggs in her nest. Other species’ females commit intraspecific brood parasitism, so possible Tree Swallows are. There is a rather lengthy discussion of extra pair copulations and outcomes. If space is an issue, this would be an area that could be shortened. Lot of speculation and debate. Some of the results are “weak” and likely mean no significance. Might even be confusing to casual readers. 6 th paragraph – there is a statement “as seen in this bird”. I would change wording to “as seen in this species” rather than the generic use of bird. How does a female skew gender of her eggs either prior to fertilization or post-fertilization? I’ve read Whittingham and Dunn’s work on this in Tree Swallows and other authors that suggest it in some species of cervids, yet no mechanism is provided to show how female body condition is able to leapfrog over chromosomal sex determination. Is there a suggestion it is like temperature dependent sex determination in some reptiles (i.e., females modulate incubation temperature during nesting to create skewed sex ratio of young?)? If not, then would be worth mentioning the lack of such as mechanism. 7 th paragraph has a sentence about thermoregulatory independence for fledglings and nestlings. Minor, but I would rearrange sentence to discuss nestlings first, then fledglings second – more logical to list them chronologically.
Feeding
There is a sentence about their flight being a mix of flapping/gliding. Is this relevant to their feeding
strategy? If not, I don’t know why that sentence is needed here.
There is some awkward wording on the percentage of flies in their diet. One sentence references 40%
with supplementation, but next statement says 90% with supplementation. I think author can reword
this for more clarity.
I don’t see the need to include the sentences on fatty acids. Doesn’t seem to add much.
I think something more interesting is that Tree Swallows have pancreatic enzymes that allow them to
digest waxy covering on Myrica berries that most birds can’t digest. This allows Tree Swallows and
other species like Yellow-rumped Warblers to persist in colder environments than most insectivores.
Might be worth adding to the review.
In the breeding section, it states that nestlings are all about the same weight 12 days post-hatching, but in the feeding section it states that later hatching nestlings will not be fed as much. The parent(s) must then compensate for smaller chicks to get more feedings as nestling phase progresses. Should consider adding wording here to that effect.
Survival
No comments for this section.
Predation
2nd sentence needs period at end of sentence instead of comma.
3rd sentence typo reads “predators to the tree swallow” should be “predators of the tree swallow”.
4th sentence there is a naked decimal “.5”. I would amend it as “0.5” to avoid any confusion that it could
be “1.5”.
Parasites
2nd sentence – at end of sentence there is “(likely)”. It reads awkward. Either there is support for it or
there isn’t. Or, provide some reason/reference why you think it is likely.
Bacteria and viruses
2nd sentence typo “asymmetry”, should be “asymmetry”.
Immunology
No comments for this section.
Status
1st sentence correction. Should be “..considered to be of least concern”. Add “of”. In the range extension section, the creation of flood control reservoirs and resulting snags in the reservoirs plus wetland restoration projects have created/re-recreated habitat for Tree Swallows in many areas. I think this merits inclusion. The bulk of the section revolves around toxicology, but other aspects of Status are short changed (see below). I recognize importance of toxicology, but I think the author could reduce the emphasis in this section or combine it(?) with the Immunology section as they seem to have overlap. I strongly believe the author could add more about population trends, not just population size. There is nothing from the Breeding Bird Survey. For example, from 1966-2015, BBS showed a -1.38%/year annual range-wide decline in this species. That is more indicative of status than what is provided currently.
Thank you for your review! It was very in depth, and much appreciated.
Abstract: I added a sentence in the etymology/taxonomy section to clarify the placement; I've explained this more fully below. I changed "glossy" to "iridescent". I fixed the inconsistency in the use of/first/second year, and corrected the breeding date. The reason why I put extra-pair paternity being puzzling in the abstract is because all of the hypotheses explaining it are either unlikely, or are relatively new and therefore not well studied. In terms of forced extra-pair copulations, I don't think it's a significant reason for extra-pair paternity; Vernier & Robinson (1991) mention that "successful rejections are common". I've added wetlands as an example of the habitats near water that they use, and I've put some information about insecticides in the status section.
Etymology/taxonomy: To elaborate on the phylogeny, the studies based on mtDNA placed the tree swallow basal to a specific clade within Tachycineta; the nuclear DNA study placed the tree swallow basal to the whole genus. I changed the last sentence to "A study based on such nuclear DNA placed the tree swallow in the most basal position within Tachycineta as a whole (as a sister group to the rest of the genus), instead of including it in the North American-Caribbean clade." to reflect this.
Description: I changed "glossy" to "iridescent".
Voice: I fixed the typo.
Distribution and habitat: I corrected the Midwestern range limit and mentioned wetlands specifically, along with prairies, since I've seen multiple references to those in the literature. I've also specifically mentioned philopatry.
Behaviour: I felt that the model organism sentence was important to include, as it emphasizes that the tree swallow is very well researched compared to most birds and its importance in research.
Breeding: I've added that eggshell bacteria load may be a reason for lining the nest with feathers, with the caveat that negative effects of feather removal are seen even after hatching. I've also added a sentence about resource defense polygyny. Female floaters are non-breeding; I've clarified this. I've also corrected the beginning of egg-laying to April. I've added that there hasn't been a suitable mechanism for sex-ratio manipulation (there is one paper that suggests that skewed sex ratios in tree swallows could be due to differences in hatchability, but they are skeptical of this, and other studies show that skewed sex ratios are present before hatching, so I don't consider this a serious possibility). Brood parasitism is rare in this species, so I don't think it would significantly affect the studies I used. I've rearranged the sentence about thermoregulation to discuss younger nestlings first. I changed "in this bird" to "in this species".
Feeding: I moved how the tree swallow's flight is a mix of flapping and gliding to the introduction to the behavior section. I changed the wording about the percentage of the diet flies make up to clarify that 90% is on the high side, with 40% being the usual percentage. I've removed the information about the conversion of fatty acids; I've kept that aquatic insects are an important source of omega-3 highly unsaturated fatty acids, since it shows their importance to tree swallows. I've added how tree swallows have the ability to digest the lipids covering Myrica berries. It is not necessarily true that parents must compensate by feeding later hatching nestlings more. Figure 1 of the paper cited in the feeding section shows how nestlings that peak in mass at different times have a non-significant difference in mass at day 12. I've clarified the wording in the breeding section to read "as by 12 days after hatching, the differences are generally not significant", as opposed to "as by 12 days after hatching, there are generally no significant weight differences". Another factor accounting for this might be that last hatched nestlings with larger weight differences are more likely to die before fledging; I've added this fact to the breeding section.
Predation: I've fixed all issues.
Parasites: The "likely" before the genus Hemialges is because the authors tentatively found a new species of this genus; I've clarified this.
Bacteria and viruses: I fixed the typo.
Status: I've added "of" in the first sentence, and I've added a lot more about population trends; thanks for alerting me to that oversight. I did remove a bit about toxicology from here because it was repeating what was already in the feeding section. I've kept the rest, because environmental contamination is the result of human activity, which is a significant factor in the status. Plus, since the discussion focuses on nesting/fledging success rates, I don't feel like it'd fit into the survival section.
Again, thank you for the review! RileyBugz (discuss • contribs) 20:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Review by Doug Wood ,
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
I read the author's feedback and the new Preprint. I think the author did an excellent job with updating the account.
Peer review 2
[edit source]
Review by anonymous peer reviewer , 20+ years of research on the species and on birds in general
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
For the comment about it being a model organism, it is worth being a bit more specific on which ways they are a model, such as in ecoimmunology, incubation behavior, and changes in phenology due to climate change.
One interesting and noteworthy thing about tree swallows is that they are expanding southward, which is counter to general predictions with birds. Noting this southward range expansion is important (I see it is mentioned in brief at the end).
For behavior, a few omissions are worth including: female-female aggression (see work by Rosvall); the propensity of males to collect feathers prior to breeding; the strong selection to breed early (see recent work by Shipley et al).
Overall, very thorough.
Editorial decision
[edit source]
Comments by Andrew Leung ,
These editorial comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
After reviews has been submitted for many months, the author has responded to some of the comments and some of the issues. Despite repeated attempts to reach the author after the initial revisions, the author was unable to address all of the reviewers' comments. I have decided to decline this submission. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)