Where is the jury?
Although the general patterns prove robust, I disagree with the comment that the “jury” lies in the “generality” nor the previous meta-analysis “challenges” this generality. Both Radersma et al. (2018) and Uller et al. (2013) revealed an overall positive (albeit non-significant) effect, and a pattern of generality is thus anticipated. We may find nothing more than they anticipated, but the significance of our study, the “jury”, is to obtain the most detailed picture to show when and for which taxa such an effect is beneficial. Instead of always being beneficial, this picture shows transgenerational effects are disadvantageous for some taxa in some environments, consistent to the high heterogeneity revealed by Sánchez-Tójar et al.
The comment also suggests focusing on F2 and F3 generations and excluding the effect of parental condition transfer (Engqvist & Reinhold 2016). While these concerns are important for experimental studies, I wonder whether it is feasible to the evidence-demanding meta-analysis, given the difficulty of conducting multi-generation experiments and separating parental “cues” and “conditions” (Engqvist & Reinhold 2016). Furthermore, whether condition transfer should be considered adaptive is still controversial (Bonduriansky & Crean 2018; Engqvist & Reinhold 2018). Our study thus represents a first feasible step, which draws a picture compatible with these concerns.