Diversity and Community Structure of Typhlocybinae in the Typical Karst Rocky Ecosystem, Southwest China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, I had got attracted to your submission which in part is truly interesting to see more ecological works on leafhoppers as you have presented. However, in general the work needs improvement, especially in the sections of introduction (concordance and include more citations as evidece) and the discussion, which in terms of context is very poor and there are many other leafhoppers articles that could enrich substantially such section. Focus deeply on English grammar because in many lines is not clear the meaning of your statements. All figures are flurry, I strongly recommend increasing dpi (300 as a minimum) in each one. The word Karst is so repetitive in the Introduction please put attention to making it more attractive to several audiences.
As a final comment, I see it suitable to accept your submission after a deep review of these points mentioned above, and looking forward to reviewing it a second time.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for returning our manuscript entitled “Diversity and Community Structure of Typhlocybinae in the Typical Karst Rocky Ecosystem, Southwest China” with valuable comments and suggestions from you. We have revised the manuscript comprehensively based on these comments and suggestions, and here would like to submit the revised manuscript for publication in Diversity.
We also responded to all comments point-by-point. The file “manuscript_20230131.docx” is a clean revised manuscript with the changed part blue highlighted. We hope that our revised paper is suitable for publication in Diversity.
Point-by-point responses to the nice reviewer are listed below this letter. If there are any other modifications we could make, we would like very much to modify them and we really appreciate your help.
Yours faithfully,
First author, Jinqiu Wang
Corresponding author, Prof. Yuehua Song
Response to Reviewer 12 Comments
Point 1: Focus deeply on English grammar because in many lines is not clear the meaning of your statements.
Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion, we revised the whole manuscript carefully to avoid language errors. In addition, we used a paid editing service from MDPI to improve our language. We believe that the language is now acceptable for the review process.
Point 2: All figures are flurry, I strongly recommend increasing dpi (300 as a minimum) in each one. The word Karst is so repetitive in the Introduction please put attention to making it more attractive to several audiences.
Response 2: We have used higher dpi figures in the manuscript. In addition, we add the research status of leafhoppers in karst ecosystems to make it more attractive to the audience in the Introduction.
Point 3: L34-46. “Organisms are closely related to the environment......but there are few studies on the relationship between insects and environment.” This section needs more feedback because many ideas are merely opinions and aren't supported by citations. Please increase this section widely because there are plenty of papers showing leafhoppers' biodiversity in several regions of the world, mostly agricultural.
Response 3: We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. We have checked the literature carefully and added more references on leafhopper and karst ecosystem into the INTRODUCTION part in the revised manuscript.
Point 4: L49-52, “Leafhoppers (Hemiptera, Cephaloptera) is a typical 3 feet 2 winged insects, widely distributed in the world animal geographical area,......” what is Cephaloptera? Why Leafhoppers is a typical 3 feet 2 winged insects?
Response 4: We have rewritten this part according to the reviewer 's suggestion. “Leafhoppers (Hemiptera, Cephaloptera) is a typical 3 feet 2 winged insects, widely distributed in the world animal geographical area,.......” was changed to “ Leafhoppers (Hemiptera, Auchenorrhyncha, Cicadellidae) are distributed worldwide and include around 2,550 genera, more than 21,000 species, including almost 2,000 species in China”
Point 5: L53-54, ”As a phytophagous insect, the leafhopper lives by sucking plant sap, and the small body size is not easy to migrate to the host plant.” This is not true at all, it has been proved that leafhoppers can migrate to other host plants, see for literature in the New World in specific in the tropics below Mexico until Argentina, few pest species have been evaluated as models of such pattern.
Response 5: We have rewritten this part according to the reviewer 's suggestion. “As a phytophagous insect, the leafhopper lives by sucking plant sap, and the small body size is not easy to migrate to the host plant.” was changed to “As phytophagous insects, leafhoppers live by sucking plant sap, and their small body size makes it difficult for them to migrate long distance”
Point 6: L73, “Three typical karst regions in Guizhou were selected as the study area, including......” what is a typical karst area? describe it to make audiences get more feedback and knowledge about these ecosystems.
Response 6: As the center of karst in southern China, Guizhou Province has the largest area of rocky desertification area in China. In recent years, combined with the rocky desertification control project, three types of rocky desertification control demonstration areas representing different geographical environments have been selected on the karst plateau in Guizhou. Bijie, Shibing and Huajiang rocky desertification demonstration Zones respectively represent typical karst plateau mountainous , karst peak cluster and karst plateau canyon landforms.
Xiong, K.N.; Li, J.; Long, M.Z. Features of soil and water loss and key issues in demonstration areas for combating karst rocky desertification. Acta Geographica Sinica. 2012 ,67, 7, 878-888.
Point 7: L123-130, “In the laboratory, Typhlocybinae male specimens were sorted from the leafhopper specimens, and then......”This whole section needs a separate subtitle "identification of samples"
Response 7: According to the reviewer 's suggestion, we have added a separate subtitle "identification of samples" to this section.
Point 8: L167, what is in general? describe it.
Response 8: We intended to express air humidity on the overall trend is Shibing > Bijie > Huajiang. But we find this description is inaccurate, so in the manuscript we change this sentence to ”The air humidity in May and July is: Shibing > Bijie > Huajiang, while in September, Bijie is the largest, followed by Shibing and Huajiang. “
Point 9: All genera already mentioned above must be stated as an abbreviation.
Response 9: Thanks for your careful checks. All genera already mentioned above have be stated as an abbreviation in the revised manuscript.
Point 10: L260-263, “The Shannon-Wiener diversity index (H´) and......,which may be related to its extreme high temperature in summer.” Is it tested and confirmed by the RDA? what are the values?
Response 10: This conclusion is based on the temperature data in Fig.2.The temperature in Shibing in July is the highest, so we believe that the low community diversity is related to high temperature. However, this conclusion is not confirmed by RDA analysis. So we've deleted this sentence in the manuscript.
Point 11: The discussion need a deeply improvement by compare data with other leafhopper manuscripts, even in other ecosystems.
Response 11: We sincerely thank the reviewer for careful reading. As suggested by the reviewer, we extensively increased this part and compared our results with data from other leafhopper manuscripts.
Point 12: L314, what about other leafhoppers diversity citations?
Response 12: We think this is an excellent suggestion. We have re-written this part and refered to the leafhopper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Please find my comments in attachment.
Best regards
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for returning our manuscript entitled “Diversity and Community Structure of Typhlocybinae in the Typical Karst Rocky Ecosystem, Southwest China” with valuable comments and suggestions from you. We have revised the manuscript comprehensively based on these comments and suggestions, and here would like to submit the revised manuscript for publication in Diversity.
We also responded to all comments point-by-point. The file “manuscript_20230131.docx” is a clean revised manuscript with the changed part blue highlighted. We hope that our revised paper is suitable for publication in Diversity.
Point-by-point responses to the nice reviewer are listed below this letter. If there are any other modifications we could make, we would like very much to modify them and we really appreciate your help.
Yours faithfully,
First author, Jinqiu Wang
Corresponding author, Prof. Yuehua Song
Response to Reviewer 56 Comments
General responses:
Thank you for the comment. Since the purpose of the manuscript was to study the community structure and diversity of Typhlocybinae in different grades of karst rocky desertification, and to explore its relationship with environmental factors, the focus was more on population community than taxonomy. In addition, because the Typhlocybinae leafhopper of this study is a large community, there are more than 4000 species in the world and more than 1000 species in China. Therefore, based on our years of identification experience and some literature, we can identify the genera accurately. It is very difficult to identify all species to the species level. However, the failure to identify all species does not affect the correctness and authenticity of our results and discussions.
Over the years, our team has been mainly engaged in the identification of Erythroneurini and Zyginellini, and has very rich experience. Therefore, we can accurately identify a genus in the Erythroneurini as a new genus. Regarding the reviewer 's question about the new species, we have restored them to unidentified species in the table. In addition, ' fm ' is an unidentified female species. These species are collected in a small number, often only 1 to 3, and there is no male, so ' fm ' is used here. We can accurately distinguish different species by microscopic observation, but further identification of species requires dissection and observation of genitalia. We appreciate your suggestion very much.We will publish more taxonomic articles in the future to support future community ecology research.
We are sorry for our carelessness. Based on the comments, we revised the whole manuscript carefully to avoid language errors. In addition, we used a paid editing service from MDPI to improve our language. We hope that the revised manuscript could be acceptable for you.
Abstract
Point 1: 9- karst areas, determining community compositions and biotic interactions.
Response 1: We have rewritten this part according to the reviewer 's suggestion. ‘affecting community composition and altering biotic interactions.’’ was changed to “determining community compositions and biotic interactions.’’
Point 2: 10- use karst only once
Response 2: “ in the center of karst area” was deleted.
Point 3: 11, 39-karst area in southern China or South China Karst? the latter name is recognised by UNESCO.
Response 3: We have rewritten this part according to the reviewer 's suggestion. “karst area in southern China” was changed to “karst area in South China Karst”
Point 4: 15- Zhenfeng-Huajiang Demonstration Zone, Bijie Salaxi Demonstration Zone. what does demonstration zone mean?
Response 4: As the center of karst in southern China, Guizhou Province has the largest area of rocky desertification area in China. In recent years, combined with the rocky desertification control project, three types of rocky desertification control demonstration areas representing different geographical environments have been selected on the karst plateau in Guizhou. Bijie, Shibing and Huajiang rocky desertification demonstration Zones respectively represent typical karst plateau mountainous , karst peak cluster and karst plateau canyon landforms.
Xiong, K.N.; Li, J.; Long, M.Z. Features of soil and water loss and key issues in demonstration areas for combating karst rocky desertification. Acta Geographica Sinica. 2012 ,67, 7, 878-888.
Point 5: 23-24, The order of the number of units at different levels of the taxa, better The number of taxa in the three areas was…,
Response 5: We have rewritten this part according to the reviewer 's suggestion.
Introduction
Point 6: 35- Through matter and energy, the environment influences organisms, and organisms, while adapting to it, constantly influence it. Shortening this sentence
Response 6: We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. We have rewritten this part according to the reviewer 's suggestion.
Point 7: 37- delete reference 1, does not support the statement
Response 7: Thanks for your suggestion, reference 1 was deleted.
Point 8: 42-instead of serious, use severe
Response 8: We are sorry for our carelessness. We have rewritten this part, “serious soil erosion” was changed to “severe soil erosion”
Point 9: 49- it is not clear what is meant by global research hotspot.
Response 9: It means “an important global issue”
Point 10: 49- what do you mean by Cephaloptera? There is no such taxon within Cicadellidae
Response 10: We were really sorry for our careless mistake. As suggested by the reviewer, we have corrected the “Leafhoppers (Hemiptera, Cephaloptera) into “Leafhoppers (Hemiptera, Auchenorrhyncha, Cicadellidae)”
Point 11: 49-51, Leafhoppers (Hemiptera, Cephaloptera) is a typical 3 feet 2 winged insects, widely distributed in the world animal geographical area, about 1,500 genera, more than 22,000 species, including nearly 2,000 species in China [9,10];
Correct the phrase. Leafhoppers (Hemiptera) are world distributed and include, around 1,500 genera, more than 22,000 species, including almost 2,000 species in China [9,10]
Worldwide are less than 22000 species and has 2550 genera, see Bartlett, C. R., Deitz, L. L., Dmitriev, D. A., Sanborn, A. F., Soulier‐Perkins, A., & Wallace, M. S. (2018). The diversity of the true hoppers (Hemiptera: Auchenorrhyncha). Insect biodiversity: science and society, 2, 501-590.
Response 11: Thank you for your reminder. we have corrected the “Leafhoppers (Hemiptera, Cephaloptera) is a typical 3 feet 2 winged insects, widely distributed in the world animal geographical area, about 1,500 genera, more than 22,000 species, including nearly 2,000 species in China [9,10];” into “Leafhoppers (Hemiptera, Auchenorrhyncha, Cicadellidae) are distributed worldwide and include around 2,550 genera, more than 21,000 species, including almost 2,000 species in China”
Point 12: 52- leafhopper family replace by Cicadellidae family. The term leafhopper is broadly used
Response 12: We have rewritten this part,leafhopper family replace by Cicadellidae family.
Point 13: 54- and the small body size is not easy to migrate to the host plant, in fact it is easier for a small body insect to migrate from plant to plant; delete reference 11 because it does not support the statement.
Ex. Nickel, H., & Hildebrandt, J. (2003). Auchenorrhyncha communities as indicators of disturbance in grasslands (Insecta, Hemiptera)—a case study from the Elbe flood plains (northern Germany). Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 98(1-3), 183-199.
Response 13: We have rewritten this part according to the reviewer 's suggestion. “As a phytophagous insect, the leafhopper lives by sucking plant sap, and the small body size is not easy to migrate to the host plant.” was changed to “As phytophagous insects, leafhoppers live by sucking plant sap, and their small body size makes it difficult for them to migrate long distance”
Point 14: 55- number of what?
Response 14: “number of host plants”. Because this study did not discuss the correlation between leafhoppers and the number of host plants, “number” was deleted in our resubmitted manuscript.
Point 15: 60- has positive significance in, better is useful
Response 15: We have rewritten this part according to the reviewer 's suggestion.
Point 16: 66- replace full stop with comma
Response 16: We have rewritten this part according to the reviewer 's suggestion.
Point 17: 65-70. this long sentence should be split
Response 17: We have rewritten this part according to the reviewer 's suggestion.
Material and methods
Point 18: What criteria were used for the rocky desertification classification of the three sites?
Response 18: The rocky desertification grade is divided according to “Xiong, K.N.; Li, J.; Long, M.Z. Features of soil and water loss and key issues in demonstration areas for combating karst rocky desertification. Acta Geographica Sinica. 2012 ,67, 7, 878-888.”
Point 19: How many times was each plant species sampled? At each of the three sites, 5 plant species are selected. At each study site, 180 nets were collected but it is not clear whether these are for all five plants or for each of them.
Response 19: Four host plants of the same species, 15 sweeps of each plant. Each plot was collected three times, 60 nets at a time, a total of 180 nets.
Point 20: Are the tree plant samples taken from the same site or from the whole area? This is important because the areas range from 400 to 2200 m altitude
Response 20: The samples were collected from the study area. We recorded the altitude of the sample collection site in Table 1.
Point 21: Do the affected areas have other anthropogenic disturbances?
Response 21: The sampling sites were geographically distant, and all avoided areas with strong anthropogenic disturbance.
Point 22: How many sweeps were made on each plant before the insects were removed? If there are 60 at a time, this is too many and the insects are damaged.
Response 22: In order to avoid the flight of leafhoppers, after 15 sweeps of each plant, leafhoppers were collected with a centrifuge tube with a diameter of 1.5 cm containing absolute ethanol.
Point 23: How many trees of each plant species were sampled? Also, there are many differences between individuals depending on exposure, plant size, etc., so at least 3 plants of each species should be sampled at each site
Response 23: Four host plants of the same species with uniform height were selected for leafhopper specimens sampling in each plot
Point 24: What was the tree canopy like? The number of species and individuals differ from tree to tree, therefore, to have similar results the trees should be of similar size.
Response 24: Although the height of different host plants is different, the same host plant is similar in height when we collect leafhopper samples.
Point 25: What were the time and dates of sampling and the weather at the time of sampling? These are important to understand if differences can be related to dates. In many species males live for a shorter period and differences of weeks between sampling may be relevant especially as this is a male-only study.
Response 25: Sampling was performed at warmer hours of the day (between 9: 00 and 18: 00), on a sunny day from the 25th to the 30th day of the month. If it rained, it was postponed for one day and was always collected by the same person.
Point 26: Was the same person taking the samples?
Response 26: it was always collected by the same person.
Point 27: The cape size of the sampling net is also important to know how they reach the canopy.
Response 27: Specimens were collected by the sweeping method, and the net was swept back and forth on the host plant with a net with a diameter of 30 cm, a depth of 50 cm and a rod length of 150 cm.
Point 28: How were insects removed from the net? Typhlocybinae are active flyers, and some are expected to fly away if removed with an aspirator.
Response 28: In order to avoid the flight of leafhoppers, after 15 sweeps of each plant, leafhoppers were collected with a centrifuge tube with a diameter of 1.5 cm containing absolute ethanol. The collector needs to hold and tighten the middle of the net with hand, so that the leafhopper is at the bottom of the net, and then extend the centrifuge tube into the net to collect. For the dead leafhoppers during the collection process, they were collected into a centrifuge tube using brush.
Point 29: How many were damaged and could not be identified? It is also unclear how they were not considered females. For many species females may be associated with males in the same sample.
Response 29: We collected all the leafhoppers when we collected them, including females and males, as well as dead ones. For the dead leafhoppers during the collection process, they were collected into a centrifuge tube using brush.
Point 30: It is not clear how the environmental data were obtained.
- How were recorded the environmental variables?
- The measures are daily? In that case maximum and minimum may be also important. This information should be in a table.
Response 30: Thank you for your reminder. In our resubmitted manuscript, we added Table 2: Climate data in each plot.
Point 31: It is not explained why the percentages of common, rare and dominant species were chosen.
Response 31: Here we refer to other papers on leafhopper Community structure in karst areas to define the percentages of common, rare and dominant species
Point 32: Redundancy analysis (RDA) does not explain why they selected this analysis instead of others e.g. canonical correlation analysis and which programme was used. ‘
Response 32: Before correlation analysis, Detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) was performed using species data. The value of gradient length was 0.35, so RDA was selected (if gradient length was greater than 4.0, CCA was selected, if gradient length was small than 3.0, RDA was selected).
Point 33: 77- were areas with anthropogenic disturbance avoided?
Response 33: The sampling sites were geographically distant, and in all of them, areas with strong an-thropogenic disturbance were avoided.
Point 34: 79- add spaces between coordinates in text and table 1.
Response 34: This incorrect format has been modified according to the reviewer 's suggestion.
Point 35: 99- what do you mean by “The hydrothermal conditions in this area are well?
Response 35: “The area has a mild climate and abundant rainfall”
Point 36: 101- what do you mean by non-slightly rocky desertification area?
Response 36: Thank you for your reminder. we have corrected the “ non-slightly rocky desertification area” into “without-potential rocky desertification area”
Point 37: 105- used plant species
Response 37: We have rewritten this part according to the reviewer 's suggestion. “plant species” was used.
Point 38: 106-117- sentences too long, split them up
Response 38: Thanks for your suggestion, we have rewritten this part according to the reviewer 's suggestion.
Point 39: 113-114- Plant specimens were collected from healthy, unbroken leaves or plant leaves were collected from plant species?
Response 39: Leaf specimens were collected from 6~15 healthy, unbroken leaves (the number of leaves sampled depended on the size of the leaves) growing on the sunny side of the plant tree.
Point 40: 118- ….in a 4°C fridge for backup. What does it refer to?
Response 40: This is a mistake, we have deleted this part in the resubmitted manuscript.
Point 41: 127- report reference for 3i interactive keys ex.
Dmitriev, D. A. (2014). 3i Typhlocybinae: 3i interactive keys and taxonomic databases, subfamily Typhlocybinae-Oct 2011 version., Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life. Species 2000. Reading, United Kingdom.
Response 41: As the suggested by the reviewer, we have added this reference.
Point 42: 129- is there museum of Cicadellidae or a Museum of Karst Science School / Guizhou Normal University?
Response 42: We were really sorry for our careless mistake. As suggested by the reviewer, we have corrected the “Museum” into “Cicadellidae specimen room”
Point 43: 135- add the model of the vernier caliper and electronic balance
Response 43: Thanks for your suggestion, the model of the vernier caliper and electronic balance was added in the resubmitted manuscript.
Point 44: 144-148-Pieluo uniformity index BUT Pielou's uniformity index
Response 44: We have rewritten this part according to the reviewer 's suggestion.
Results
Point 45: As males are usually fewer in number than females, and females were not studied, it is not possible to speak of dominant species. Some may be dominant but have less males.
Response 45: We must admit that this is a problem caused by the lack of rigor in our language. We collected all the leafhoppers when we collected them, including females and males, as well as dead ones. All leafhopper specimens are counted in the results. Usually, when identifying leafhopper specimens, we need to observe the male genitalia, which is an important evidence that leafhoppers are identified as a specific species.
Point 46: Tribes are not abundant, and genera are not dominant, species are. It is not clear what you are talking about ex. represent about 99.0 % of the total. Is it the total of species, genera, tribes?
Response 47: we describe the community Structure characteristics of Typhlocybinae from different taxonomic levels.The number of individuals and Ra of tribes, genera and species are calculated, but due to the limitation of table size, we only indicate the number and Ra of species in table 2. “the number of individuals accounting for about 99.0% of the total”
Discussion
Point 47: The discussion should be broader in comparison to many other works related to the ecology of Typhlocybinae. Most of the literature refers to other insect groups. For example, references 33, 34 and 35 should refer to the leafhopper Typhlocybinae.
Response 47: We sincerely thank the reviewer for careful reading. As suggested by the reviewer, we extensively increased this part and compared our results with data from other leafhopper manuscripts.
Tables and Figures
Point 48: Legend to Fig. 1; add the name of the province.
Response 48: Thanks for your careful checks. We have added the name of the province based on your comment.
Point 49:Figure 2. The scale used for each variable is not indicated. Values as they refer to means and different sites should not be a continuous lineage, but a bar chart.
Response 49: As suggested by the reviewer, Figure 2 was replaced by a bar chart.
Point 50: Figure 4.d, species, genera and individuals should not be shown on the same bar as the numbers are very different.
Response 50: As suggested by the reviewer, We have redrawn the Figure 4d in the resubmitted manuscript.
Point 51: Figure 7, it should be a bar chart
Response 51: As suggested by the reviewer, Figure 7 was replaced by a bar chart.
Point 52: Figure 5b, the colours are very similar, change the colour scheme.
Response 52: As suggested by the reviewer, we have changed the colour scheme in the resubmitted manuscript.
Point 53: Table 1. All species should have the author's name and data.
Response 53: Thanks to the reviewers, we added the author 's name when we first used the species in the abstract.
Point 54: Table 2. Indicate what the numbers or the + symbol mean.
Response 53: As suggested by the reviewer, We have added notes to Table 2 to explain the meaning of some symbols in the table.
References
Point 55: Check for uniformity
6,10,17,18,24, 34. Titles are in capital letters
24-check the title; remove Insects (Cephalus) from v
25-Alebrini
Response 56: We are sorry for our carelessness. In our resubmitted manuscript, we checked the uniformity of the literature and made a comprehensive correction according to the journal format to ensure the correct format.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
You need to re-read your article and correct a few things. First of all, the language and style of expression. Some sentences are hard to understand, and you make many grammatical mistakes. I tried to correct the introduction, but there were many mistakes. Therefore, there are only selective suggestions in the rest of the text.
You must review the literature. For example, in item 13, you did not enter the journal's name. Some journal names are abbreviated, while others are not.
It would be best to verify the current species names, such as Amygdalus persica = Prunus persica.
Other comments can be found in the manuscript.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for returning our manuscript entitled “Diversity and Community Structure of Typhlocybinae in the Typical Karst Rocky Ecosystem, Southwest China” with valuable comments and suggestions from you. We have revised the manuscript comprehensively based on these comments and suggestions, and here would like to submit the revised manuscript for publication in Diversity.
We also responded to all comments point-by-point. The file “manuscript_20230131.docx” is a clean revised manuscript with the changed part blue highlighted. We hope that our revised paper is suitable for publication in Diversity.
Point-by-point responses to the nice reviewer are listed below this letter. If there are any other modifications we could make, we would like very much to modify them and we really appreciate your help.
Yours faithfully,
First author, Jinqiu Wang
Corresponding author, Prof. Yuehua Song
Response to Reviewer 14 Comments
Point 1: The language and style of expression. Some sentences are hard to understand, and you make many grammatical mistakes.
Response 1: Thanks for your careful checks. We are sorry for our carelessness. Based on the comments, we revised the whole manuscript carefully to avoid language errors. In addition, we used a paid editing service from MDPI to improve our language. We hope that the revised manuscript could be acceptable for you.
Point 2: You must review the literature. For example, in item 13, you did not enter the journal's name. Some journal names are abbreviated, while others are not.
Response 2: We are sorry for our carelessness. In our resubmitted manuscript, we checked the uniformity of the literature and made a comprehensive correction according to the journal format to ensure the correct format.
Point 3: there is no need to capitalize Typhlocybinae throughout the manuscript.
Response 3: Thanks for your suggestion, Typhlocybinae is one of the subfamilies of leafhopper and it is a proper noun, so we capitalized it in the manuscript. And in many articles about Typhlocybinae, Typhlocybinae is also capitalize.
Point 4: L43-46, “ In recent years, many scholars have studied the biology......but there are few studies on the relationship between insects and environment.” Please quote them?
Response 4: As suggested by the reviewer, we have added more references to support this idea.
Point5 : L53-54, ”As a phytophagous insect, the leafhopper lives by sucking plant sap, and the small body size is not easy to migrate to the host plant.” This sentence is poorly constructed, secondly, it is unnecessary. Insects don't have three feet, only three pairs of legs. This sentence sounds incorrect, please change the order.
Response 5: We have rewritten this part according to the reviewer 's suggestion.
“As a phytophagous insect, the leafhopper lives by sucking plant sap, and the small body size is not easy to migrate to the host plant.” was changed to “As phytophagous insects, leafhoppers live by sucking plant sap, and their small body size makes it difficult for them to migrate long distance”
“Leafhoppers (Hemiptera, Cephaloptera) is a typical 3 feet 2 winged insects, widely distributed in the world animal geographical area,.......” was changed to “ Leafhoppers (Hemiptera, Auchenorrhyncha, Cicadellidae) are distributed worldwide and include around 2,550 genera, more than 21,000 species, including almost 2,000 species in China”
Point 6: Throughout the text you write from 1 to 10 in numbers, not words, it's a mistake.
Response 6: Thank you for the reviewer 's careful checks, according to the comment, we made corrections.
Point 7: L65-66, ”In order to clarify the effects of environmental differences on leafhoppers.” This sentence sounds unfinished.
Response 7: We have rewritten this part according to the reviewer 's suggestion.
”In order to clarify the effects of environmental differences on leafhoppers.” was changed to “In order to clarify the effects of environmental differences on leafhoppers, this study ana-lyzed the community structure and diversity characteristics of Typhlocybinae on host plants in different regions with different grades of karst rocky desertification.
Point 8: L105-106, “Based on the vegetation species in the three study areas, samples were collected in the three study areas in September 2020, May 2021 and July 2021 respectively.“ it's a bit unclear - did you meet three times in each place on the dates mentioned, or did you only visit each place once?
Response 8: We sincerely thank the reviewer for careful reading. According to the reviewer 's opinion, we have clarified and rewritten this part in the manuscript.
“Samples were collected in three study areas in September 2020, May 2021 and July 2021, and all study areas were collected once a month, for a total of 9 times.”
Point 9: It would be best to verify the current species names, such as Amygdalus persica = Prunus persica.
L107-108, “Five wide-spread host plants: Juglans regia (J.), Rhus chinensis (G.), Amygdalus persica (A.), Prunus salicina (P.) and Debregeasia orientalis (D.) were selected.”
What are the letters in parentheses? because certainly not the initials of the authors of the species of these plants. It's probably an abbreviation for a plant - but it's very confusing - you don't do that with the name of the species. Or put your own designations in square brackets, e.g. Rhus chinensis Mill. [R] (by the way, why is G?)
Juglans regia L.
Rhus chinensis Mill.
Amygdalus persica = Prunus persica (L.) Batsch
Prunus salicina Lindl.
Debregeasia orientalis C.J. Chen
Response 9: The letters in parentheses represent the abbreviations of plants. These plant names are abbreviated when used in the figure so that the figure is clearer. Initials of the genus name are used to define this abbreviation. We don 't use species names because there are too many repetitions, e.g. Juglans regia (R.) or Margalef species richness index (R); Rhus chinensis (C.) or Simpson dominance index (C). Rhus chinensis (G.) is abbreviated to G. because Rhus chinensis (R.) and Margalef species richness index (R) will produce ambiguity. We noticed that Rhus chinensis=Galla chinensis, so here is ‘G.’.
Point 10: L153, Citation for Microsoft Excel 2016, SPSS 22.0 and Canoco 5.
Response 10: As suggested by the reviewer, we have added references to support this sentence.
Point 11: L145, change “Typhlocybine leafhopper” to “Typhlocybinae leafhopper”
Response 11: If “Typhlocybinae” is followed by a noun as an adjective, it should become “Typhlocybine”, which is the adjective form.
Point 12: L193, “At the species level,......” This is a strange expression.
Response 12: At the species level = From the perspective of the species level
Point 13: L195, “15 species such as Empoasca rybiogon, Zyginella minuta, Tautoneura unicolor are common taxon.” You can't start a sentence with a number, you have to express it with the word 'Fifteen'...
Response 13: We sincerely thank the reviewer for careful reading. As suggested by the reviewer, we have corrected the “15” into “Fifteen”.
Point 14: “Table 2” Why aren't these species labeled? What is the point of describing the structure of an insect community when specific species have not been described? Good conclusions cannot be drawn.
Response 14: Thank you for the comment. Since the purpose of the manuscript was to study the community structure and diversity of Typhlocybinae in different grades of karst rocky desertification, and to explore its relationship with environmental factors, the focus was more on population community than taxonomy. In addition, because the Typhlocybinae leafhopper of this study is a large community, there are more than 4000 species in the world and more than 1000 species in China. Therefore, based on our years of identification experience and some literature, we can identify the genera accurately. It is very difficult to identify all species to the species level. However, the failure to identify all species does not affect the correctness and authenticity of our results and discussions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors thanks for proving your second version in line, this presentation seems much better than the first. All suggestions apparently were covered.
However, a few things need to be improved:
1. in the introduction before to main objective (lines 71-76) I deeply suggest add a broad conceptualization of how important is to study leafhoppers in such region (as justification).
2. in M&M is still a little bit unclear if leafhoppers were also collected (essentially the method) by entomological aspirator or only by sweeping?
3. line 146-147, is it really a Cicadelldiae room? or is part of the Entomological/Arthropod Collection, please clarify
4. there are some genera names written in full when should be abbreviated.
e.g.
line 216 stated Empoasca rybiogon
line 217 stated Zyginella minuta, and Tautoneura unicolor
line 218 satated Typhlocyba babai
line 243 stated Arboridia agrillacea
line 245 stated Arboridia suzukii and Arboridia remmi
line 243 stated Aguriahana juglan-
reason: line 208 to 211 stated most genera, in consequence, either of those should be abbreviated
Focus on all nominated names and correct accordingly
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for returning our manuscript entitled “Diversity and Community Structure of Typhlocybinae in the Typical Karst Rocky Ecosystem, Southwest China” with valuable comments and suggestions from you. We have revised the manuscript comprehensively based on these comments and suggestions, and here would like to submit the revised manuscript for publication in Diversity.
We tried my best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. We also responded to all comments point-by-point. The file “manuscript_20230220.docx” is a clean revised manuscript with the changed part blue highlighted. We hope that our revised paper is suitable for publication in Diversity.
Point-by-point responses to the nice reviewer are listed below this letter. If there are any other modifications we could make, we would like very much to modify them and we really appreciate your help.
Yours faithfully,
First author, Jinqiu Wang
Corresponding author, Prof. Yuehua Song
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
Point 1: in the introduction before to main objective (lines 71-76) I deeply suggest add a broad conceptualization of how important is to study leafhoppers in such region (as justification).
Response 1: Thank you for this valuable opinion. In the resubmitted manuscript, we have added a point of view on the importance of studying leafhoppers in karst areas.
Point 2: in M&M is still a little bit unclear if leafhoppers were also collected (essentially the method) by entomological aspirator or only by sweeping?
Response 2: Thanks for your careful checks. We only use the sweeping method to collect leafhoppers in this study, we sweep the net back and forth to collect leafhoppers. Live leafhoppers are collected using centrifuge tubes containing alcohol, and dead or damaged leafhoppers are collected with a brush during this process.
Point 3: line 146-147, is it really a Cicadelldiae room? or is part of the Entomological/Arthropod Collection, please clarify
Response 3: There is a really Cicadellidae specimen room in School of Karst Science of Guizhou Normal University. Although its size the room is not large, it contains leafhopper specimens collected by our team in China and some Southeast Asian countries over the years. At present, we mainly take leafhoppers as the research object, so there are only leafhoppers in this room without other insects.
Point 4: there are some genera names written in full when should be abbreviated.
e.g.
line 216 stated Empoasca rybiogon
line 217 stated Zyginella minuta, and Tautoneura unicolor
line 218 satated Typhlocyba babai
line 243 stated Arboridia agrillacea
line 245 stated Arboridia suzukii and Arboridia remmi
line 243 stated Aguriahana juglan-
reason: line 208 to 211 stated most genera, in consequence, either of those should be abbreviated
Focus on all nominated names and correct accordingly
Response 4: Thanks for your careful checks. In the resubmitted manuscript, we have abbreviated some species names according to your suggestions and we checked all nominated names.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you very much for all your efforts. Unfortunately I am not going to suggest the publication of this work. Please see my comments.
I wish you every success in your future work in karst areas.
Best regards
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for returning our manuscript entitled “Diversity and Community Structure of Typhlocybinae in the Typical Karst Rocky Ecosystem, Southwest China” with valuable comments and suggestions from you. We have revised the manuscript comprehensively based on these comments and suggestions, and here would like to submit the revised manuscript for publication in Diversity.
We tried my best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. We also responded to all comments point-by-point. The file “manuscript_20230220.docx” is a clean revised manuscript with the changed part blue highlighted. We hope that our revised paper is suitable for publication in Diversity.
Thank you for your decision and constructive comments on my manuscript. We are very grateful to Reviewer for reviewing the paper so carefully.We have tried our best to improve the manuscript and re-statistical analysis of some data. Here are some response to the reviewer 's comments, hope the correction and response will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Yours faithfully,
First author, Jinqiu Wang
Corresponding author, Prof. Yuehua Song
Point 1: The authors followed the general comments and improved the quality of the manuscript. The methods are now clearer and so is the English although some sentences are incomplete ex. L65 and some parts need polishing. There are also more references on the ecology of leafhoppers, although the recent work with the largest available number of distribution records of Typhlocybinae in China is not mentioned.
Yuan, S., Huang, M., Wang, X. S., Ji, L. Q., & Zhang, Y. L. (2014). Centers of endemism and diversity patterns for typhlocybine leafhoppers (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae: Typhlocybinae) in China. Insect Science, 21(4), 523-536.
Response 1: Thank you for the reviewer's careful checks, according to the comments, we rewrite some sentences in the text, and the recent work with the largest available number of distribution records of Typhlocybinae in China is added.
Point 2: The authors claim that the failure to identify all species does not affect the correctness and authenticity of our results and discussions. However, this is not entirely true. Not all species are of equal value for assessing the community structure of Typhlocybinae in areas with different degrees of karstic rocky desertification. Many species are polyphagous, i.e. Empoasca, and often have a wide distribution. These species are of little use as bio-indicators of karst areas. Such species should be eliminated from the analysis. This taxonomic work and faunistic analysis should be carried out before the ecological analysis. If the authors had identified all specimens, they could select the most suitable species for analysis. Regarding taxonomy, the authors’ names and dates of the species are not written in italics (see Table 3). It is not expected that this basic rule will be ignored in any scientific paper. Taxonomy is the basis of biodiversity studies.
Response 2:
- The reviewer pointed out that not all species are of equal value for assessing the community structure of Typhlocybinae in areas with different degrees of karstic rocky desertification, and some polyphagous species should be eliminated from the analysis. In fact, many leafhopper species are also distributed in karst and non-karst areas, and these widely distributed species can be collected in karst areas, indicating that there are host plants and habitats suitable for the growth and reproduction of these leafhopper species in karst areas. Therefore, we consider that some polyphagous and widespread species collected in this study can be used as research objects in karst areas. In other words, it is not only insects living in karst areas that can have a bio-indicators effect on rocky desertification habitats. Some insects that also exist in non-karst areas and karst areas are also affected by the environment, and may show different characteristics due to the heterogeneity of karst environment. Therefore, We consider that some leafhopper species cannot be removed at will, otherwise it may affect the results and cover up the authenticity and accuracy of the analysis results.
- We know that taxonomic work and faunistic analysis should be carried out before the ecological analysis. However, we note that in some ecological articles, due to the large variety and wide range of insects, it is often only identified to the genus, but not to the specific species. Of course, as the reviewer suggested, if each species can be identified, it couldn't be better, but in the actual identification process, due to the leafhopper species is a large community, this is not easy. We accurately identified the genus and determined the number of individuals and species of leafhopper species in different study areas. These results,as shown in Figure 4 to Figure 8,can better reflect the differences in community structure and diversity of leafhoppers in different karst rocky desertification areas. Thanks to the reviewer 's suggestion, in the future research, we will try our best to improve our knowledge and ability of species identification in order to make the analysis better.
- Our grouphas been studying leafhopper classification for 20 years. So, we are verysorry for our carelessness and the authors’ names and dates in Table 3 were rectified in our resubmitted manuscript.
Point 3: The paper is interesting as a descriptive work because it reports the biodiversity patterns in poorly known karst areas. However, it cannot be accepted because the research to study the hypothesis "Reveal the relationship between biodiversity and environmental changes in different karst habitats" was not properly conducted. The three selected areas differed in climate, vegetation, rocky desertification, and "other habitat conditions" L76 (plus plant traits). With so many independent environmental variables it is impossible to know which of them explains the community structure. As such, the following three statements cannot be affirmed L23-30:
These are consistent with the ranking of rocky desertification grades in the three study areas.
The results show that the community characteristics and diversity of Typhlocybine leafhoppers in the three study areas were different due to climate and host plant leaf traits.
This study demonstrates that there are differences in species diversity in different grades of karst rocky desertification areas and provides a theoretical basis for future rocky desertification control and regional ecological restoration.
Further research is needed, testing a single variable at a time. To do this, authors should clarify the hypothesis to be tested, select sampling sites accordingly and conduct multiple replications.
Response 3:
- The reviewer pointed out that the three selected areas differed in climate, vegetation, rocky desertification, and "other habitat conditions" L76 (plus plant traits). With so many independent environmental variables it is impossible to know which of them explains the community structure. The area of the three study areas we selected is relatively large, they represent three different grades of rocky desertificationaccording to their vegetation coverage and rocky desertification erosion extent. And their climate, vegetation and other habitat conditions are generally different. Because of this environmental difference that the species and number of leafhoppers (the community structure of leafhoppers) collected in the three study areas are also different, and Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 7 also confirm this conclusion.
- In addition, because it is uncertain which environmental variable is related to the community of leafhoppers, we analyzed the correlation between leafhoppers and environmental factors, and found that climate and plant traits would have a certain impact on the community structure and diversity of leafhoppers. For the question asked by reviewers, we have changed “The results show that the community characteristics and diversity of typhlocybine leafhoppers in the three study areas were different due to climate and host plant leaf traits.” to “The results show that environmental factors such as climate and host plant leaf traits had caused some effects on the characteristics and diversity of leafhopper communities in different grades of rocky desertification areas. ”
- In the resubmitted manuscript, we added redundancy analysis within threedifferent study areas (Fig. 9BCD), that is, independent studies on the correlation between leafhoppers and environment were conducted in Huajiang, Bijie and Shibing respectively. The study by thesame region can avoid the difference of multiple environmental variables caused by different sampling sites. The results showed that climate and plant leaf traits also affected the community structure of leafhoppers in different grades of rocky desertification habitats in the same study area, and this effect became more obvious with the increase of rocky desertification grade. Our results also show that in areas with high rocky desertification grades and low vegetation coverage, the number of leafhoppers is relatively small, and the environment will have a more obvious impact on the community structure of leafhoppers.
- As the reviewer pointed out, variables should be controlled in ecological research, but it is difficult to completely achieve all the same conditions when conducting large-scale regional studies. Therefore, we can only control some variables as much as possible to reduce the error.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
19 Change "6 tribes" to "six tribes"
Dear authors,
I see you've made corrections to the manuscript. However, it still needs some work. Below are the things that bother me the most.
lines 25-26 "6 tribes" – since it is in parentheses, let it be written with a number
line 58 useful – you have a spelling error
114 Plants are listed with the authors in the abstract, but here they appear for the first time in the body of the manuscript and must have the names of the authors for this reason in this place
And be sure to include the full generic name when you mention them for the first time.
Why do you still use the name Amygdalus persica when it is synonymous with Prunus persica? Current species names should be used.
130-131 Leaf specimens were collected from 6–15 healthy unbroken leaves (the number of leaves sampled depended on the size of the leaves) growing…
Too many repetitions of "leaves".
133-134 They were brought back to the laboratory and immediately placed in a 4 °C fridge.
Maybe instead of giving the sample a personality ("They"), it is better to write "Samples were…"
143-144 After being washed with water, the genitals were dissected under an Olympus stereoscope to observe their characteristics and…
Please specify here the model of the microscope.
161 and 171, 208 ect. Response 11: If "Typhlocybinae" is followed by a noun as an adjective, it should become "Typhlocybine", which is the adjective form.
Are you sure this rule applies to a proper subfamily name? I do not think so; it is my first time seeing something like this. If that would be an anglicization, then it is correct, but it must be lowercase (see example here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352140837_A_new_unusually_dark_typhlocybine_leafhopper_Hemiptera_Cicadellidae_Typhlocybinae_Erythroneurini_from_China). It is safest to leave the correct subfamily name saved. I always do this myself, and no taxonomist has ever pointed it out to me as a mistake.
174 The Shannon–Wiener diversity index (H') should be written with a small 'p'
H’ = -∑ pi ln pi
And the natural logarithm looks like it is written by In, not ln
191 You use abbreviations for plants in table 2, but you do not inform about this fact in the text; which abbreviation for which plant. Isn't it easier to use two letters – from the genus and species name – as abbreviations?
207-208 and so on
In terms of the composition of the various genera of Typhlocybine leafhoppers (Figure 5a), Alnetoidia, Limassolla, Empoasca, and two others were dominant
It should be remembered that it is not the genera themselves that are dominant but the individuals representing these genera.
So it should be like this: In terms of the composition of the various genera of typhlocybine leafhoppers (Figure 5a), individuals representing Alnetoidia, Limassolla, Empoasca, and two others were dominant.
212 Typhlocybine leafhopper genera
Singular and plural are incompatible here
214, 241 At the species level (Figure 5b), A. dujuanensis, L. lingchuanensis, and S. shinshana were dominant in the three study areas.
Response 12: At the species level = From the perspective of the species level
I know what it means. But the species level has no perspective...
So it should be like this: In terms of species (Figure 5b), representatives of A. dujuanensis, L. lingchuanensis, and S. shinshana were dominant in the three study areas.
232 From the time perspective…
Time also has no perspective. You use too much colloquialism, these are not scientific expressions. Please change it.
Please reformat table 3, sometimes the font size is different
I still feel that all species collected should be listed. Now some of them are marked as species, some as sp. Then the work is more valuable and has more potential for citation.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for returning our manuscript entitled “Diversity and Community Structure of Typhlocybinae in the Typical Karst Rocky Ecosystem, Southwest China” with valuable comments and suggestions from you. We have revised the manuscript comprehensively based on these comments and suggestions, and here would like to submit the revised manuscript for publication in Diversity.
We tried my best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. We also responded to all comments point-by-point. The file “manuscript_20230220.docx” is a clean revised manuscript with the changed part blue highlighted. We hope that our revised paper is suitable for publication in Diversity.
Point-by-point responses to the nice reviewer are listed below this letter. If there are any other modifications we could make, we would like very much to modify them and we really appreciate your help.
Yours faithfully,
First author, Jinqiu Wang
Corresponding author, Prof. Yuehua Song
Response to Reviewer 15 Comments
Point 1:19 Change "6 tribes" to "six tribes". lines 25-26 "6 tribes" – since it is in parentheses, let it be written with a number
Response 1: Thank you for the reviewer 's careful checks, according to the comment, we change "6 tribes" to "six tribes". In addition, it is written in parentheses with a number.
Point 2: line 58 useful – you have a spelling error
Response 2: We are sorry for our carelessness and it was rectified in our resubmitted manuscript.
Point 3: 114 Plants are listed with the authors in the abstract, but here they appear for the first time in the body of the manuscript and must have the names of the authors for this reason in this place.
And be sure to include the full generic name when you mention them for the first time.
Why do you still use the name Amygdalus persica when it is synonymous with Prunus persica? Current species names should be used.
Response 3: I am sorry for my carelessness. We have used Prunus persica as the correct species name in the resubmitted manuscript. And when they first appear in the text we use the full generic name with the names of the authors.
Point 4: 130-131 Leaf specimens were collected from 6–15 healthy unbroken leaves (the number of leaves sampled depended on the size of the leaves) growing…
Too many repetitions of "leaves".
Response 4: We have rewritten this part according to the reviewer 's suggestion. “Leaf specimens were collected from 6–15 healthy unbroken leaves (the number of leaves sampled depended on the size of the leaves) growing…” was changed to “ Leaf specimens were collected from 6–15 healthy unbroken leaves (the number of samples depended on the size of the leaves) growing...”
Point 5: 133-134 They were brought back to the laboratory and immediately placed in a 4 °C fridge.
Maybe instead of giving the sample a personality ("They"), it is better to write "Samples were…"
Response 5: We have rewritten this part according to the reviewer 's suggestion. “They” was changed to "Samples”
Point 6: 143-144 After being washed with water, the genitals were dissected under an Olympus stereoscope to observe their characteristics and…
Please specify here the model of the microscope.
Response 6: Thanks for your suggestion, the model of themicroscope was added in the resubmitted manuscript.
Point 7: 161 and 171, 208 ect. Response 11: If "Typhlocybinae" is followed by a noun as an adjective, it should become "Typhlocybine", which is the adjective form.
Are you sure this rule applies to a proper subfamily name? I do not think so; it is my first time seeing something like this. If that would be an anglicization, then it is correct, but it must be lowercase (see example here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352140837_A_new_unusually_dark_typhlocybine_leafhopper_Hemiptera_Cicadellidae_Typhlocybinae_Erythroneurini_from_China). It is safest to leave the correct subfamily name saved. I always do this myself, and no taxonomist has ever pointed it out to me as a mistake.
Response 7: Thank you for this valuable opinion. In the resubmitted manuscript, We lowercase all Typhlocybine in the entire manuscript. In the future work, we will follow this correct writing.
Point 8: 174 The Shannon–Wiener diversity index (H') should be written with a small 'p'
H’ = -∑ pi ln pi
And the natural logarithm looks like it is written by In, not ln
Response 8: Thanks for your careful checks. We carefully checked the error of the formula and re-edited it based on your suggestion.
Point 9: 191 You use abbreviations for plants in table 2, but you do not inform about this fact in the text; which abbreviation for which plant. Isn't it easier to use two letters – from the genus and species name – as abbreviations?
Response 9: Thank you for your comments, In the resubmitted manuscripts, we have used the genus and species name to abbreviate plants, and when the abbreviations first appears in the text to inform this fact.
Point10: 207-208 and so on
In terms of the composition of the various genera of Typhlocybine leafhoppers (Figure 5a), Alnetoidia, Limassolla, Empoasca, and two others were dominant
It should be remembered that it is not the genera themselves that are dominant but the individuals representing these genera.
So it should be like this: In terms of the composition of the various genera of typhlocybine leafhoppers (Figure 5a), individuals representing Alnetoidia, Limassolla, Empoasca, and two others were dominant.
Response 10: Thank you for your reminder. In our resubmitted manuscript, “In terms of the composition of the various genera of Typhlocybine leafhoppers (Figure 5a), Alnetoidia, Limassolla, Empoasca, and two others were dominant’’ was changed to “ In terms of the composition of the various genera of Typhlocybinae leafhoppers (Figure 5a), individuals representing Alnetoidia, Limassolla, Empoasca, and two others were dominant.”
Point 11: 212 Typhlocybine leafhopper genera
Singular and plural are incompatible here
Response 11: Thanks for your careful checks. In our resubmitted manuscript, we changed “Typhlocybine leafhopper genera” to “Typhlocybine leafhoppers genera”
Point 12: 214, 241 At the species level (Figure 5b), A. dujuanensis, L. lingchuanensis, and S. shinshana were dominant in the three study areas.
Response 12: At the species level = From the perspective of the species level
I know what it means. But the species level has no perspective...
So it should be like this: In terms of species (Figure 5b), representatives of A. dujuanensis, L. lingchuanensis, and S. shinshana were dominant in the three study areas.
Response 12: Thank you for your suggestions and reminders, we have rewritten this part in the resubmitted manuscript.
Point 13: 232 From the time perspective…
Time also has no perspective. You use too much colloquialism, these are not scientific expressions. Please change it.
Response 13: I must admit that this is a problem caused by the lack of rigor in our language. Thank you very much for pointing out our mistakes. In our resubmitted manuscript, “ From the time perspective” was changed to “In terms of time...”
Point 14: Please reformat table 3, sometimes the font size is different
Response 14: We are sorry for our carelessness. In our resubmitted manuscript, the font has been rechecked and unified.
Point 15: I still feel that all species collected should be listed. Now some of them are marked as species, some as sp. Then the work is more valuable and has more potential for citation.
Response 15: As the reviewer suggested, if each species can be identified, it couldn't be better, but in the actual identification process, due to the leafhopper species is a large community, this is not easy. However, we note that in some ecological articles, due to the large variety and wide range of insects, it is often only identified to the genus, but not to the specific species. And in some ecological articles on leafhoppers, there are also species marked as species and some marked as sp. e.g.
Taft, J. B., & Dietrich, C. H. (2017). A test of concordance in community structure between leafhoppers and grasslands in the central Tien Shan Mountains. Arthropod-Plant Interactions, 11(6), 843-859.
El-Hady, R. M., El-Hawagry, M. S., & Soliman, M. M. (2020). Diversity and temporal variations of the leafhopper fauna (Cicadellidae, Auchenorrhyncha, Hemiptera) in two ecological zones of Egypt. Journal of Natural History, 54(43-44), 2869-2887.
We accurately identified the genus and determined the number of individuals and species of leafhopper species in different study areas. These results, as shown in Figure 4 to Figure 8, can better reflect the differences in community structure and diversity of leafhoppers in different karst rocky desertification areas. Thanks to the reviewer 's suggestion, in the future research, we will try our best to improve our knowledge and ability of species identification in order to make the analysis better.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for the new version. Please replace abundance by frequency. The abundance of species was not calculated.
Best regards
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for returning our manuscript entitled “Diversity and Community Structure of Typhlocybinae in the Typical Karst Rocky Ecosystem, Southwest China” with valuable comments and suggestions from you. We have revised the manuscript comprehensively based on these comments and suggestions, and here would like to submit the revised manuscript for publication in Diversity.
We tried my best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. We also responded to all comments point-by-point. The file “manuscript_20230227. docx” is a clean revised manuscript with the changed part blue highlighted. We hope that our revised paper is suitable for publication in Diversity.
Point-by-point responses to the reviewer are listed below this letter. If there are any other modifications we could make, we would like very much to modify them and we really appreciate your help.
Yours faithfully,
First author, Jinqiu Wang
Corresponding author, Prof. Yuehua Song
Point 1: Thank you for the new version. Please replace abundance by frequency. The abundance of species was not calculated.
Response 1: We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. As the reviewer pointed out, we have corrected the “abundance” into “frequency” in the resubmitted manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
I can see that you have worked to correct and improve the quality of your manuscript. My only problem is that some species are not marked. I have conducted faunal studies many times and always mark all species caught. Regardless of whether it is 100 species or 500... The examples of publications you cited do not mean that they were carried out in the right way. Someone decided to publish it like this. I am having trouble deciding because of this. I know you have done much work.
If possible, try to refine the results. I leave the decision to the Editor.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for returning our manuscript entitled “Diversity and Community Structure of Typhlocybinae in the Typical Karst Rocky Ecosystem, Southwest China” with valuable comments and suggestions from you. We have revised the manuscript comprehensively based on these comments and suggestions, and here would like to submit the revised manuscript for publication in Diversity.
We tried my best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. We also responded to all comments point-by-point. The file “manuscript_20230227.docx” is a clean revised manuscript with the changed part blue highlighted. We hope that our revised paper is suitable for publication in Diversity.
Point-by-point responses to the reviewer are listed below this letter. If there are any other modifications we could make, we would like very much to modify them and we really appreciate your help.
Yours faithfully,
First author, Jinqiu Wang
Corresponding author, Prof. Yuehua Song
Point 1: I can see that you have worked to correct and improve the quality of your manuscript. My only problem is that some species are not marked. I have conducted faunal studies many times and always mark all species caught. Regardless of whether it is 100 species or 500... The examples of publications you cited do not mean that they were carried out in the right way. Someone decided to publish it like this. I am having trouble deciding because of this. I know you have done much work.
Response 1: Thank you for your decision and constructive comments on my manuscript. We are very grateful to reviewer for reviewing the paper so carefully. We have tried our best to improve the manuscript. Since the purpose of the manuscript was to study the community structure and diversity of Typhlocybinae in different grades of karst rocky desertification, and to explore its relationship with environmental factors, the focus was more on population community than taxonomy. We believe that the present results can support the conclusion of this paper. These results can better reflect the differences in community structure and diversity of leafhoppers in different karst rocky desertification areas. Typhlocybinae leafhopper of this study is a large community, there are more than 4000 species in the world and more than 1000 species in China. Because of the large number and variety of leafhopper insects, it is not easy to mark each species, and it is often only identified to the genus in many published articles. We will try our best to improve our knowledge and ability of species identification in the future research. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 4
Reviewer 3 Report
If the Editor sees no problem in the lack of identification of all species, and the detriment it causes to the results and undertaken analyses, I may consent to the publication. However, remember, I had my doubts about it. Moreover, I hold the authors to their word that they will try to identify as many species as possible in the future. Research should be conducted reliably and carefully, even if we have to spend several months more identifying the collected material.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for returning our manuscript entitled “Diversity and Community Structure of Typhlocybinae in the Typical Karst Rocky Ecosystem, Southwest China” with valuable comments and suggestions from you. We have revised the manuscript comprehensively based on these comments and suggestions, and here would like to submit the revised manuscript for publication in Diversity.
We tried my best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. We also responded to all comments point-by-point. The file “manuscript_20230305.docx” is a clean revised manuscript with the changed part blue highlighted. We hope that our revised paper is suitable for publication in Diversity.
Thank you for your decision and constructive comments on my manuscript. We are very grateful to Reviewer for reviewing the paper so carefully.We have tried our best to improve the manuscript. Here are some response to the reviewer 's comments, hope the correction and response will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Yours faithfully,
First author, Jinqiu Wang
Corresponding author, Prof. Yuehua Song
Reviewer：If the Editor sees no problem in the lack of identification of all species, and the detriment it causes to the results and undertaken analyses, I may consent to the publication. However, remember, I had my doubts about it. Moreover, I hold the authors to their word that they will try to identify as many species as possible in the future. Research should be conducted reliably and carefully, even if we have to spend several months more identifying the collected material.
Response：Thank you very much for your very kind and invaluable comments, we will try to identify as many species as possible in the future. In this study, we accurately identified the genus and determined the number of individuals and species of leafhopper species in different study areas. These results, as shown in Figure 4 to Figure 8, can better reflect the differences in community structure and diversity of leafhoppers in different karst rocky desertification areas. Therefore, we believe that as an article on ecology rather than taxonomy, the existing work does not affect the authenticity and correctness of the results. Although our group has been studying leafhopper classification for 20 years, more efforts are needed in the taxonomy and identification of leafhoppers in the future. We will accumulate more experience and knowledge of leafhopper identification as much as possible. Thank you again for your suggestions.
