Distribution and Characteristics of Two Species of Stingless Bee Hives (Tetragonula spp.) in the Rural Landscape of Sumedang Regency (Indonesia)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Dear Editor,
the authors accepted all recommendations of the three reviewers, so I agree with the publication of this manuscript.
Author Response
Thank you so much for the comment from the reviewer.
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
The manuscript "Distribution and Characteristic of Two Species of Stingless Bees Hives (Tetragonula spp) in Rural Landscape of Sumedang Regency" by Withaningsih et al describes the environment and distribution of the hives of two species of stingless, gathered and kept by beekepers in Indonesia. The manuscript has gathered a wide variety of useful data and will be useful for future conservation efforts for these species.
I have two main points that I feel hinders the manuscript from reaching its full potential
1. The paper talks about how this research will reduce hunting of these bees (e.g. l. 471), but does not say anything about how. This seems to be part of the rationale behind the research, so clarification throughout would be helpful.
2. The arguments about correlations between body sizes and hive dimensions seems very speculative and perhaps not supported. Could the entire effect observed for _T. dresscheri_ be driven by the two largest sampling points? How would this work, causally? This is a very intersting question, and definitely worth while studying, perhaps in a larger study across several species of stingless bees (?), but it does not add much to this paper.
Minor points:
I think therese is a bit of mix between what is meant with type in this paper, please make sure it is adequately described and always refers to the same concept.
On line 383, a change of hives is mentioned. It is unclear what is meant. Does this mean that the bees abandon their hive and construct a new one? Or do they take over another hive, or do the workers return to the wrong hive? Please clarify.
On line 417, _p_ and _p-value_ are used interchangably, and do not match the table accompanying Fig. 10. Please fix.
A carefull proof read would be beneficial for the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
This manuscript reports the characteristics of two species of Tetragonula hives maintained by the local stingless beekeepers from one region of West Java, Indonesia.
Authors collected good data but still need some detailed analysis.
Data presentation in the form of table or figures is in immature.
Also writing is poor so that information which authors want to convey does not transfer appropriately.
I would suggest authors resubmit after thorough analysis and revision.
English writing is redundant. e.g. great demand by many people ==> demand by many people. wild bee hunting in nature ==> hunting bee in nature or wild bee hunting
The characteristic of the length of the hive entrance, the thickness of the hive door, the texture of the hive door and the direction of the hive door for ==> The length of the hive entrance, thickness, texture, and direction of the hive door
showed difference? showed difference between two species?
==> Better explain how those are different.
please check the writing of the location, 06034'46.18''-7000'56.25'' south latitude and 107001'45.63''-108012'59.04'' east longitude
Reference style, Please be consistent in writing the references.
This manuscript reports the characteristics of two species of Tetragonula hives maintained by the local stingless beekeepers from one region of West Java, Indonesia.
Authors collected good data but still need some detailed analysis.
Data presentation in the form of table or figures is in immature.
Also writing is poor so that information which authors want to convey does not transfer appropriately.
I would suggest authors resubmit after thorough analysis and revision.
English writing is redundant. e.g. great demand by many people ==> demand by many people. wild bee hunting in nature ==> hunting bee in nature or wild bee hunting
The characteristic of the length of the hive entrance, the thickness of the hive door, the texture of the hive door and the direction of the hive door for ==> The length of the hive entrance, thickness, texture, and direction of the hive door
showed difference? showed difference between two species?
==> Better explain how those are different.
please check the writing of the location, 06034'46.18''-7000'56.25'' south latitude and 107001'45.63''-108012'59.04'' east longitude
Reference style, Please be consistent in writing the references.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
I had suggested substantial revision before considering the review. I do not see much improvement of the detailed methodology, text contents and presentation of the results as well.
Thus I have to judge to reject this.
Even though authors claimed that they had consulted the professional writing, still I see many redundancies and unclear statements in the writing. This should be improved substantially.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
In general, I found the article interesting; it is a preliminary study with the aim of surveying and identifying the distribution of different species of meliponini in the Sumedang region (Indonesia). The study stems from the need to protect these pollinators in their natural environment since, given the supposed beneficial properties of meliponine honey, the demand for this product and its market value have increased greatly in recent years. This has led to a sudden increase in the number of local beekeepers, especially since the pandemic period (2020). However, the families of bees exploited for honey production are not 'domesticated'/breeding; they are mostly removed from their natural habitat and this practice seems to be on the increase.
Introduction
In the introduction it is specified how difficult it is to recognise the different species of meliponini belonging to the genus Tetragonula, so that morphological features and colour are often not sufficient diagnostic elements (lines 44-46).
Materials and methods
At the beginning of Materials and Methods the 6 localities in the Sumedang region where the study was conducted are listed (95-96): Conggeang, Tanjungkerta, Buahdua, Cisitu, Cimalaka, Cimarga. If one then goes and looks at the bee colony distribution map (on page 6, figure 5) one finds that the locality previously named Cimarga is not there...
Results: results should be reorganized and remove all the information that arrives from literatures that should be added in the discussion. Authors should reorganize all this part according to the data acquired. It is really complicated to read the result in the actual form because information are not linear and so the reader is not helped in its reading even if they are separated into different sections.
Besides many information from literature are inserted in the result and they should be moved in the introduction or discussion.
Few statistical data are inserted, information provided include only range of dimention, as I think that Authors have alla data related to nest entrance and bee dimention a statistic should be added. This is more informative for future reader than a quite simple description
Lines 125-131 details should be added on this information how this information was acquired? How many specimens were evaluated to separate the two species.
However, interesting identification keys are provided (in Results and Discussion) on a morphological basis for the two species considered in the study: Tetragonula laeviceps Smith and Tetragonula drescheri Schwarz (lines 132-135; 142)- However, it seems to me that these tables are only referred to in the text as 'the following table'; they do not appear to be numbered, nor is there a clear caption.
However, interesting identification keys are provided (in Results and Discussion) on a morphological basis for the two species considered in the study: Tetragonula laeviceps Smith and Tetragonula drescheri Schwarz (lines 132-135; 142)- However, it seems to me that these tables are only referred to in the text as 'the following table'; they do not appear to be numbered, nor is there a clear caption.
Interesting identification keys are provided (in Results and Discussion) on a morphological basis for the two species considered in the study: Tetragonula laeviceps Smith and Tetragonula drescheri Schwarz (lines 132-135; 142)- However, it seems to me that these tables are only referred to in the text as 'the following table'; they do not appear to be numbered, nor is there a clear caption.
At the beginning of the Results and Discussion (129-131), before the tables with the identification keys, the number of points and the number of localities in which hives were found for the respective species is given (71 points, 6 localities --> Tetragonula laeviceps Smith; 9 points, 5 localities --> Tetragonula drescheri Schwarz, in the text, however, 71 is written as a number and 9 as a word, perhaps it would be appropriate to standardise and put the number in both cases). This information is also repeated in the conclusions (412-415) and also in the abstract (19-21); however, when one looks at Figure 5 (p. 6) with the distribution map these data do not seem to emerge clearly; it seems that there are fewer than 80 points and especially with regard to Tetragonula drescheri: I find only two localities with hives (Conggeang, Cisitu). It may be that this is due to the overlapping of the points, but let us say that it does not make it any easier to read the map and interpret the data.
In line 136 it is written that “Tetragonula laeviceps, is thought to be hardier than other species of Tetragonula” but the therm "tought" is not scientific, please provide scientific reports of this affirmation
I would remove "personal documentation" from Photos (if they are of the Authors it should not be added)
Line 260 it is possible to insert medium value and relative errors of the entrance?
Line 267 provide a statistic correlation between entrance dimention and bee body
In Figure 6 on page 7, the graph lacks the description of the vertical axis, reference is made to the figure in lines 169-173.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Standardize the unit of measure of line 48.
Change the term fat to physiogastric of line 55.
Put scientific names in italics.
In table one, standardize spaces before the text.
Fig. 3 and 4 place comparison measures between the nests
Line 158 certainty that “saliva” is the term for the substance that the bee uses to build.
Standardize how to put the abbreviations of species and subspecies (one puts the whole scientific name in other abbreviated)
line 195: remove the dot after the species name
line 199: remove the capital letter of the subspecies
line 199; 205-212: remove italics from common names and put it in scientific names, check spelling
Line 195-204 avoid repeating the words and idea too much, make the paragraph short and concise
Remove the "," before the "and" at the end of the sentence
lines 215-216; 264-266; 359-360; 362-364; 376-379 put reference
line 216-218; 227-230;242; 286-287; 343-344; improve writing (it's confusing)
Phrases lost within text on lines: 225; 283-285; 326-328; 386-387.
Join the phrases from the lines: 240-242, 271-278; 298-306; 310-312; 319-325; 334-339 and make coherence without redundancy.
Line 247: Change "living things" a word better than things
Line 255; replace "honeybee" with "stingless bees"
Standardize the genre (either put them all in italics or de-italicize them all)
Line 261-262 (were the measured colonies standardized?, how many measurements were taken over time to draw these conclusions?, are you sure that nothing happened to the tubes before the measurements you made)
Line 290-291 check the unit of measure
Line 295 sure there is no propolis? what did you have?
Line 313 change pollen and honey "cells" to pots and change the term tiller cell to brood cells
Line 317, "sting" defense? for the stingless bee, improve that part, putting the defense methods that it can use
Line 318 swap aggressiveness for defensiveness
Lines 348-349 How did you come to this conclusion, references?
Line 378 replace propolis with resin
Standardize the references according to the journal's guidelines
In general, the results and discussion part needs to improve the writing, many paragraphs talking about the same thing, but in different orders, redundancy in the text, it gets confusing.
the paragraphs about the same subject there are no sequence, please align them
the data has no experimental design, please to better support the results presented, choose an application to evaluate if there is normality in data, and then, use the appropriate software to analyse them.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors spent a lot of effort trying to explain the distribution pattern of this bee species. The introduction, at first sounds good, but lacks important papers (especially Michener and Roubik) and focus a lot on honey, which is not the focus of the study. Moreover, they only showed a descriptive pattern of the genus. No actual model was provided, as the own authors acknowlledge. "Thus, further research using other methods as well as appropriate licensed software for multivariable analyses needs to be conducted to reduce bias in the research results and to find any potential correlation between the spatial location of tetragonal colonies and the environmental variables collected."
Therefore, I strongly suggest you use this database, which I acknowledge, is good and demanded a huge effort, in a robust analysis using the available software, as R (which is free).
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The language needs to be extensively reviewed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
