Diversity of Freshwater Macroinvertebrate Communities in Los Tuxtlas, Veracruz, Mexico

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

Please see the highlighted corrections on the attached file of the new version of the manuscript

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Can be improved

Thank you for your comment, for the moment we have been addressing other improvements to the article, if there is the possibility and availability of time, we will try to make those improvements

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Can be improved

Likewise, if there is the possibility and availability of time, we will try to search and consult other references to make these improvements.

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

For the moment, we have been able to correct errors and improved the writing and proofreading in English

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

For the moment, we have been able to correct errors and improved the writing and proofreading in English

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:  “I would include photographs of the study areas”.

Response 1: Thanks for your observation. We were unable to include photos now, we hope to be able to do so as attachments if there is no possibility to include them in a future review if requested again.

Comments 2: “Explain more about the plants that are in the area., the sustrate, etc”.

Response 2: Agree. We have included a brief paragraph that describes the vegetation and flora of the region in general and of the sites. You can see it updated in the re-submitted manuscript at page 2, first paragraph, lines 84-93.

Comments 3:  “A better map showing the sites were the samples were taken.”.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

Response 1: English language revised: References to language and language improvement have been addressed and answered in comments 4 and 5.

5. Additional clarifications

Attention: note that the changes and corrections made have changed the numbering of the lines in the new manuscript

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

Please see the highlighted corrections on the attached file of the new version of the manuscript

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

Thank you

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

Thank you

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Thank you

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

The writing and language have been reviewed and corrected in English.

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Thank you

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

Thank you

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:  “This study contributes to the knowledge of the freshwater macroinvertebrates of Los Tuxtlas, Veracruz, Mexico, where only some crustaceans and mollusks have been reported. The data presented in this paper are novel and worthy of publication”.

Response 1: We appreciate your comment, and we are glad that you find these contributions in this article of interest and we hope that in following papers we can share more findings about our work.

Comments 2: “Sampling effort is considered to significantly influence the results when measuring the diversity of biota in a particular area. Since the materials and methods section states that sampling was conducted in three different microenvironments, why not compare species diversity indexes using one set of data, two sets of data, or all three sets of data? This would allow us to estimate the total biodiversity of the area and how much more sampling effort is needed in the future.”.

Response 2: I don't quite understand your proposal for other analyses. We have not had time to do them and update the article these days. There is no doubt that more detailed analyzes can be done by site and by site groups, based on different criteria, such as analysis by subbasin. We show some evidence for analysis comparing basins: tests NMDs, ANOSIM; and no clear differences are seen between basins. In future works they will be analyzed in more detail. In this article we wanted to focus more on the list and richness of species, although some diversity indices are presented.

Comments on the quality of English Language

Response 1: English language revised: The typographical errors in the text have been corrected, a native English speaker has improved the writing.

5. Additional clarifications

Thank you for your comments, we will be considering comparing diversity indices in different microenvironments, habitats, and basins in next papers.

You can review the re-submitted manuscript and find the improvements made in general to the writing of typographical and style correction, and better translation and writing in English, with revision of a native English speaker.

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Is the research design appropriate?

Are the methods adequately described?

Are the results clearly presented?

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

 3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:  “L50-51 Why the audience can learn from the case study in the international journal”.

Response 1: They can learn that one of the most studied and known regions from a biological point of view, in its diversity and ecology, still has many fields of research, as different taxa, habitats and ecosystems that require attention, not only that of the evergreen forest, for which this region has mainly stood out. Particularly, we offer a baseline of information on aquatic macroinvertebrates, which can have many applications in evaluating the impacts of deforestation and other human impacts, providing criteria for the management of this and other similar protected areas.

Comments 2: “L55-73 In this paragraph, you can show how these indicators are applied to those areas.”.

Response 2:  Talking and going deeper into indicators based on macroinvertebrates goes beyond the scope of this first article. In this, it is intended to make known the list, richness and diversity of species, pointing out the interest of macroinvertebrates in bioindication, but not yet analyzing environmental quality.

Comments 3:  “L113-114 Please show the dimensions (e.g., 30 * 30 cm). "Just above the net" is not clear. Do you mean the bottom frame? What do you mean by "network".”.

Comments 7: “L265-276 Please move the paragraph to the place to show the abiotic factors.”

Response 7:  Note: due to different corrections and text additions, the lines your comment refers to now correspond to the last paragraph of page 9, lines 270 to 282.

We assume instead of a paragraph, you refer to Table 2, which shows the physicochemical data of the sites studied. Given that they were presented as characterization data of the sampling sites, or in any case they are a result in themselves, we do not believe it is appropriate to move them to the discussion. It is true that we needed to refer to the table, an omission that we have corrected.

Comments 8: “The discussion is largely not aligned with the authors' objective. The authors should address the application of indicators and their association with environmental influences.”

Response 8: In relation to your comment #2 and our corresponding response, in congruence with it, this article aims to provide information and knowledge of the list, richness and diversity of species, not so much about the use and application of aquatic macroinvertebrates in the bioindication of the quality of the water or the environment.  It's intended that data on the physicochemical and hydromorphological characteristics of water are used to characterize sampling sites, and we do not now focus in this publication on doing multimetric analyzes for environmental quality indices, or biotic and ecological integrity indices.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

“Point 1:

Response 1: “No comments on this point”

5. Additional clarifications

Attention: note that the changes and corrections made have changed the numbering of the lines in the new manuscript.

You can find the improvements and corrections to the manuscript in the new version of the re-submitted manuscript. Each of the corrections made to your observations have been marked with comments in an attached file to your kind comments.