1. LanguageThe English is generally fine, but could still be improved. At a number of places, the article is missing. Throughout the text, weight should be replaced by body mass (currently there is a mix of both terms).2. Background/context and referencesWhile the manuscript makes a few cross-references to work performed outside Africa, it ignores important recent literatur.The recent book by Goodale, Beauchamp & Ruxton (2017; Mixed-species animal groups: behavior, community ecology and conservation) provides a broad and comprehensive background to interspecific mutualistic and commensalistic interacts. Consulting this work will help to draft a more focussed background and sharpen the research question (see below).Heymann & Hsia (2015; Biol Rev) reviewed the interactions of primates and other animals. Although they did not perform sophisticated statistical analyses, they also examined the influence of various factors (e.g., body size, group size) and reached some conclusions that might be relevant for the discussion.3. Article structure etc.The manuscript meets the expectations with regard to the structure and figures. Raw data are provided as supplements.Table 1 needs to be improved. The two separate sets of results (for full data set and for restricted data set) are not visually clearly separated. It took me a while to match the information in the text with the content of the table. I suggest to use additional headers in the table, one over the columns referring to the full data set, and another over the columns referring to the restricted data set4. Self-contained ...This is a major weakness of the manuscript. Hypotheses and predictions are not explicitly stated. This strongly diminishes the value of the manuscript, as it makes it more difficult to understand the results.
download english grammar book round up 2 PDF
2ff7e9595c
Comentarios