Epigeic Carabids (Coleoptera, Carabidae) as Bioindicators in Different Variants of Scots Pine Regeneration: Implication for Forest Landscape Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study compares the carabid beetle assemblage among pine stands with different treatments. As the authors hypothesized, the total abundance of beetles was highest in naturally regenerated stands without soil ploughing; however, this trend was not necessarily observed in species diversity indices. Analyses were also conducted on a subset of data divided by beetle life-history traits. The topic is suitable for this journal, although the results were not effectively presented.

 

1. SIMPER analysis

The explanation for Table 1 (L131-133) is too simple. You should add the explanation of each column (Av. Dissim., Contrib. %, Cumulative %) of the table either in legend or footnote. Especially, there is insufficient explanation regarding the 3 columns on the right-hand side. "Forest regeneration type" is the explanation for N, NP and A, and it does not explain what is described in the table. In addition, what is the intended meaning of bold font values? If this bold fond mark is based on some statistical test, you should also describe it.

 

2. Categorization by life-history traits

Data of beetle abundance were divided by life-history traits, and GLMM analysis was conducted for each subset of data. In the legend of Table 2, it was described as "abundance of life traits" (L161) and this should be revised, "abundance of beetles of each life-history traits" for example. Descriptions in Table 2 also should be revised. Response variables of the models described in the upper part of the table are "diversity indices", and 4 kinds of indices were analyzed. It can be read from the table. However, response variables of the models described in the lower part of the table are "abundance of beetles", not the "life-history traits". The way of descriptions should be improved.

Additionally, beetle species described in Table 1 should be categorized based on the category described in Table 2, by making a new table for example.

Figures 3-5 describe changes in beetle abundance for each category of life-history traits. Increase or decrease in abundance was described based on these figures, however, they are confusing because scales of Y-axis are different among graphs. GLMM analysis was done for each category separately, therefore, it may be no problem to discuss changes in abundance separately. But the difference in scales among graphs should be noted in figure legends.

 

Specific comments

 

L2-4

Which part of this paper corresponds to "forest landscape analysis"? The title should be revised to reflect the content of the paper.

 

L13-14

Analysis itself is not the aim of the study. The aim is more properly described in Introduction (L62-64).

 

L76-84

I read Kosewska et al. (2018) but the detailed description of following information was missing. In what scales the clear cutting was done? What is the size of each plots inside each clear cutting stands?

 

L124-126

Use italic font for scientific names of beetles.

 

L199-200 "which may indicate a random occurrence of 199 brachypterous species in the habitats of the NP variant"

Indication from results should be described in discussion.

 

L214-215 "The results revealed significant differences between generalists, 214 forest and open area species (Table 2)"

Results of GLMM showed that the abundance of beetles was different among different forest regeneration type when the data were separately analyzed for each beetle habitat type, and did not show the significant difference between different beetle habitat types.

 

Figure 5

The graph for wetland species is missing.

 

L235-265

This paragraph is too long and the intended message is unclear and difficult to understand. You should divide the paragraph into 2 or 3 paragraphs.

 

L266-276

Contrary to the results of previous studies, this study found that the beetle abundance increased through ploughing. It is important to discuss the reasons for the different results.

 

L290-295

This should be stated in Introduction.

 

The paper should be proofread.

Author Response

This study compares the carabid beetle assemblage among pine stands with different treatments. As the authors hypothesized, the total abundance of beetles was highest in naturally regenerated stands without soil ploughing; however, this trend was not necessarily observed in species diversity indices. Analyses were also conducted on a subset of data divided by beetle life-history traits. The topic is suitable for this journal, although the results were not effectively presented.

Thank you for this summary of our research and your valuable comments. We have changed the manuscript according to the guidelines or explained doubts in the comments. We hope the corrections to the paper will improve its quality and readability and satisfy you.

 

1. SIMPER analysis

The explanation for Table 1 (L131-133) is too simple. You should add the explanation of each column (Av. Dissim., Contrib. %, Cumulative %) of the table either in legend or footnote. Especially, there is insufficient explanation regarding the 3 columns on the right-hand side. "Forest regeneration type" is the explanation for N, NP and A, and it does not explain what is described in the table. In addition, what is the intended meaning of bold font values? If this bold fond mark is based on some statistical test, you should also describe it.

Thank you for your valuable comments. The table and its description have been modified according to the guidelines.

 

2. Categorization by life-history traits

 Data of beetle abundance were divided by life-history traits, and GLMM analysis was conducted for each subset of data. In the legend of Table 2, it was described as "abundance of life traits" (L161) and this should be revised, "abundance of beetles of each life-history traits" for example. Descriptions in Table 2 also should be revised. Response variables of the models described in the upper part of the table are "diversity indices", and 4 kinds of indices were analyzed. It can be read from the table. However, response variables of the models described in the lower part of the table are "abundance of beetles", not the "life-history traits". The way of descriptions should be improved.

Corrected as suggested

 

Additionally, beetle species described in Table 1 should be categorized based on the category described in Table 2, by making a new table for example.

The ecological description of species has been added in Table 1

 

Figures 3-5 describe changes in beetle abundance for each category of life-history traits. Increase or decrease in abundance was described based on these figures, however, they are confusing because scales of Y-axis are different among graphs. GLMM analysis was done for each category separately, therefore, it may be no problem to discuss changes in abundance separately. But the difference in scales among graphs should be noted in figure legends.

Due to the large differences in the abundance of ground beetles from each ecological group, we tried to optimize the graphs to illustrate best the differences within life traits in the forest regeneration types studied. Using the same scale, for example, for the three graphs in one category would have flattened the graphs in the least abundant groups and thus made the results unreadable.

 

L2-4

Which part of this paper corresponds to "forest landscape analysis"? The title should be revised to reflect the content of the paper.

We agree with the remark. The title has been changed to:

Epigeic carabids (Coleoptera, Carabidae) as bioindicators in different variants of Scots pine regeneration: implication for forest landscape management

 

L13-14

Analysis itself is not the aim of the study. The aim is more properly described in Introduction (L62-64).

Corrected

 

L76-84

I read Kosewska et al. (2018) but the detailed description of following information was missing. In what scales the clear cutting was done? What is the size of each plots inside each clear cutting stands?

We have added the following text to complete the description of the study area:

'The study plots were established in fresh mixed coniferous forest habitat. The width of the clear-cuts on which the research was carried out ranged from 90 to 180 meters. Each established study plot's size was approximately 0.4-0.8 ha.'

 

L124-126

Use italic font for scientific names of beetles.

Corrected

 

L199-200 "which may indicate a random occurrence of 199 brachypterous species in the habitats of the NP variant" Indication from results should be described in discussion.

This part was reworded and moved to the discussion

 

L214-215 "The results revealed significant differences between generalists, 214 forest and open area species among different forest regeneration types (Table 2)"

Corrected

 

Results of GLMM showed that the abundance of beetles was different among different forest regeneration type when the data were separately analyzed for each beetle habitat type, and did not show the significant difference between different beetle habitat types.

 

We intended to show differences in Carabidae assemblages in different types of forest regeneration, where the dependent variables were the Carabidae parameters studied, the qualitative predictor was the type of regeneration, and the continuous predictor was the year of study. The GLMM shows whether there are significant relationships between the dependent variable and the qualitative predictor. The differences between the studied variants are shown in the graphs (2-5).

To clarify, we have restructured some parts of the text:

Line 114- '….General linear mixed models (GLMM) were used to test the effect of forest regeneration variants on carabid diversity indices….'

Line 191- '…Regarding wing development, a parameter which is especially important during the recolonization of habitats, we noted that the type of pine forest regeneration and years of observation significantly impact the abundance of brachypterous, dimorphic and macropterous species …'

Line 213- '…The results revealed that this life trait significantly depends on different forest regeneration types…'

 

Figure 5

The graph for wetland species is missing.

Figures were made only for groups where significant differences in abundance were observed (Table 2)

 

L235-265

This paragraph is too long and the intended message is unclear and difficult to understand. You should divide the paragraph into 2 or 3 paragraphs.

The paragraph has been divided into three paragraphs.

 

L266-276

Contrary to the results of previous studies, this study found that the beetle abundance increased through ploughing. It is important to discuss the reasons for the different results.

The paragraph has been rebuilt according to the guidelines.

 

L290-295

This should be stated in Introduction.

We generally pointed to ground beetles as good bioindicators in the introduction and cited more important works (lines 59-61). In the discussion related to our results, we wanted to highlight their use in more detail, supporting the research of other authors.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper should be proofread.

Dr Robert Lee, a member of the Foreign Language Department of the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, has proofread the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the comments in the text box embedded in the manuscript itself.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Excellent background but it will be complete with specific research questions. Please clearly mention your research questions based on which you planned this present study.

 

Thank you for the summary of our research and your valuable comments. We have changed the manuscript according to the guidelines. We have added the research questions as follows:

'…we attempted to answer the following questions: (i) what changes occur in the assemblages of the ground beetles during forest regeneration, (ii) whether different methods of forest regeneration affect the assemblages studied, and (iii) which ecological groups of Carabidae are most sensitive to different types of forest regeneration.'

 

Line 117: How you did this. Readers will be interested to know the procedure.

The division into different ecological groups based on life-history traits was made based on the literature describing ground beetle species in detail, quoted earlier (lines 105-106)

 

Line 124: Italicize the scientific names

Corrected

 

Line 152: non-significantly

Corrected

 

Line 255: But how the pine beetles increase their abundance with disturbance? What is their mechanism? What functional/physiological changes they bring in to respond to these changes?

We have added the following text for clarification:

'This is a mechanism often observed in newly created and disturbed habitats. As habitat conditions diversify, the abundance of ground beetles is increasing.'

 

Line 259: use 'study' in place of investigation.

Corrected

 

Line 331-339: You are doing injustice to your excellent work with too general conclusion. Please conclude based on your results. Please mention the implication and importance of your work in terms of natural resource management and conservation of biodiversity sustainably. Any limitations or problems and future scope of similar research in terms of forest landscape analysis through indicator species. Please do mention how your work can aid the forest managers to take decision in terms of adopting suitable silvicultural management.

The conclusions have been reformulated according to the guidelines.

We hope the corrections made to the paper will improve its quality and readability.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for the Manuscript “Forest landscape analysis in different variants of pine regeneration based on epigeic carabids (Coleoptera, Carabidae) as bioindicators” (Manuscript Number: sustainability-2584898)

 General comments:

Forest ecosystems are an essential component of terrestrial ecosystems and play an important role in maintaining biomass and biodiversity. This manuscript provides an important scientific basis for sustainable forest management by observing changes in ground beetles, as bioindicators, under different forest regeneration conditions. The background and significance of the study is detailed in the manuscript, and the overall content of the submitted manuscript is good, but there are still some suggestions for authors to consider. Therefore, I suggest a minor revise.

Specific comments

1.    In section 2.3, it is recommended that authors list and describe the formulas for this part of the analysis method, such as NMDS, GLMM, etc. This will allow interested readers to understand the paper better.

2.    It is recommended to include limitations and future prospects in the discussion section, as this can make interested researchers to conduct future studies better.

Author Response

Comments for the Manuscript "Forest landscape analysis in different variants of pine regeneration based on epigeic carabids (Coleoptera, Carabidae) as bioindicators" (Manuscript Number: sustainability-2584898)

General comments:

Forest ecosystems are an essential component of terrestrial ecosystems and play an important role in maintaining biomass and biodiversity. This manuscript provides an important scientific basis for sustainable forest management by observing changes in ground beetles, as bioindicators, under different forest regeneration conditions. The background and significance of the study is detailed in the manuscript, and the overall content of the submitted manuscript is good, but there are still some suggestions for authors to consider. Therefore, I suggest a minor revise.

Thank you for your summary of our research and your valuable comments. We have changed the manuscript according to the guidelines. We hope the corrections made to the paper will improve its quality and readability and satisfy you.

Specific comments

In section 2.3, it is recommended that authors list and describe the formulas for this part of the analysis method, such as NMDS, GLMM, etc. This will allow interested readers to understand the paper better.

We have added additional text in section 2.3 for clarification.

 

It is recommended to include limitations and future prospects in the discussion section, as this can make interested researchers to conduct future studies better.

 

Limitations have been indicated in the conclusions:

'…However, further studies are required to examine the effect of different pine regeneration types on carabid beetle assemblages over a longer period. Other limitations, i.e. costs and legal regulations, should be also taken into consideration during the planning of variants of forest stand regeneration.'

Reviewer 4 Report

Very interesting research to improve forest management and conserve coleopteran diversity. However, it is important to improve some aspects in the introduction (hypothesis) and especially the conclusions. Please review the comments in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. We have changed the manuscript according to the guidelines or explained doubts in the comments. We hope the corrections made to the paper will improve its quality and readability and satisfy you.

 

Line 31: These words already appear in the title, please substitute.

Corrected

 

Line 67-71: This is the first part of the research hypothesis. However, the second part is missing; the part that, according to the scientific literature, explains or justifies the first part of the hypothesis.

Corrected. We have added additional text with research questions for clarification.

 

Line 152-155: This does not correspond to results. It seems to be methods. Please do not mix methods with results.

Thank you for your valuable comment. This information was already given in the section Materials and Methods (lines 99-101), so we have decided to remove this text.

 

Line 245-246: This looks like methods. Please do not mix methods with the discussion.

The word significant has been removed in this section. However, we relate here to our results and highlight which of the parameters studied changed during the years of the study.

 

Line 332-333: This looks like a summary of the results. Please write conclusions based on your objectives, hypotheses and the results obtained.

The conclusions have been reformulated.

 

By the way I do not read anything related to the second hypothesis.

Thank you for your comment. We have addressed our second hypothesis in the following passage:

"In the other regeneration variants, the soil conditions are changed significantly through ploughing, causing a change in faunal composition, hence the high abundance and often high diversity indices in subsequent years, when the easily mobile ground beetle fauna colonized new areas, taking advantage of the abundant food base, that is also in line with our second hypothesis."