Remarkable Stability of Uropodina (Acari: Mesostigmata) Communities in Artificial Microhabitats: A Case Study of Bird Nest Boxes in Bory Tucholskie National Park

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is an interesting manuscript. I am attaching a file containing my suggestions. In general, the manuscript seems well written. In addition to what I indicate in the attachment, please consider also the following:

a) In "Introduction", please insert the work done within the context of what is known about the occurrence of mites in bird's nest (something in mentioned in this regard, but I my view, not enough). 

b) Somewhere in the discussion, it seems appropriate to refer to the possible effect of the method used for mite extraction (Berlese-Tullgren funnel) on the different mite stages, mentioning the possible methodological limitations in the comparison of the abundance of the different stages in the samples.

c) I strongly suggest the authors NOT to include a discussion about the possible effect of the environmental factors on the densities in different years, as this was NOT studies here (no data on climatic factors are given). At the same time, the authors could refer to the effec of those factors (as well as of biological factors, as for example intraguild predation) as suggestions for future studies. This seems appropriate to mention at the end of "Discussion".

d) Unless it is required by the journal, I would NOT include a "Conclusion" section, as I feel everything is well presented in "Discussion".

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In my view, it is good (just a few suggestions included in the attachment.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 1

 

Remarkable stability of Uropodina (Acari: Mesostigmata) communities in artificial microhabitats: a case study of bird nest boxes in Bory Tucholskie National Park

 

The authors of the study are grateful to the Reviewer for all comments and suggestions. All of them have been considered and turned out to be extremely helpful, which obviously has considerably improved the overall quality of the manuscript. We hope that current version will be accepted by Reviewer.

 

 

Detailed responses to the Reviewer comments (marked in italics):

 

Reviewer Comments:

 

1. a) In "Introduction", please insert the work done within the context of what is known about the occurrence of mites in bird's nest (something in mentioned in this regard, but I my view, not enough).

– Thank you for this suggestion. The part of Introduction about occurrence of mites in bird’s nests have been extended. However, because of the topic of this publication and of the fact that occurrence of mites from different groups have been mentioned in many previous publications (please, see for example: 10.1515/biolog-2016-0124; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-021-00620-8; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13223567), we’ve decided to concentrate on Uropodina in nests of birds in this publication and add more information about this group in Introduction.

 

1. b) Somewhere in the discussion, it seems appropriate to refer to the possible effect of the method used for mite extraction (Berlese-Tullgren funnel) on the different mite stages, mentioning the possible methodological limitations in the comparison of the abundance of the different stages in the samples.

- In all our research, we always use the same methodology for both collecting and extracting the material (for many years, we've been using the same Berlese-Tullgren funnels), including nesting material. Therefore, losses during extraction are the same, so we omit this factor.

 

1. c) I strongly suggest the authors NOT to include a discussion about the possible effect of the environmental factors on the densities in different years, as this was NOT studies here (no data on climatic factors are given). At the same time, the authors could refer to the effect of those factors (as well as of biological factors, as for example intraguild predation) as suggestions for future studies. This seems appropriate to mention at the end of "Discussion".

- Thank you very much for this suggestion, however we’ve only mention in Discussion that different abundance may be effect of different atmospheric conditions. There is also the sentence at the end of this paragraph that this issue will be studied in the future. The part of Discussion about influence of bedding material on communities of Uropodina has been based mainly on data from literature, it has been corrected and information about future plans of studies on this subject has been added.

 

1. d) Unless it is required by the journal, I would NOT include a "Conclusion" section, as I feel everything is well presented in "Discussion".

- The Conclusion section is required by the journal so that it must be included, but we’ve corrected it and shortened in order to make it more consistent with results of the study.

 

Response to other important comments from the manuscript file:

1. “Even without showing numbers, if they are not available, it should be indicated whether other mite groups were also present, at least citing the major groups to which they belong (if possible at al, mentioning the families)” and other similar comments from results and discussion:

- We’ve decided that if we did not mention any other groups of mites in the results in this article, then mentioning them in the Abstract and Discussion would not be advisable either. Moreover, the description of the whole community of mites was not the aim of this study. The aim of the paper was to show the stability of the Uropodina communities. In our opinion it is surprising that the community in nest boxes is been reconstructed with similar structure each year in such a short time. This have not been observed before that is why our results are novel. If we decide to prepare a publication about another groups of mites inhabiting nest boxes in the future, we will prepare next publication but it demands cooperation with different specialists in order to identify other mites. This may be possible in the future, because the samples are stored in Natural History Collections of AMU.

 

1. “I strongly suggest making the table narrower! I also suggest deleting the longitudinal lines to separate columns.”

• The mode of tables depends on text editing in the Editorial office, so that they will be probably changed in the final version.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Communities in Artificial Microhabitats: A Case Study of Bird Nest Boxes in Bory Tucholskie National Park

 

This paper is devoted to comparing the mite faunal composition of the contents of nestboxes in a forest in Poland. The authors addressed a basic approach to the topic, because I guess much more material has not yet been identified, or is retained for other publications. In short, the manuscript is well done, but has not front row results. I would suggest a revision before entering the publication pipeline. Even if the authors have basic results, I am happy to see that they did not try to “inflate” the importance of their findings.

 

• I have however some questions, as follows:
• I acknowledge the comments by the authors regarding the composition of the material sinusoid the net box. However, if the habitat is transformed (modifications in the forest stands) also will be transformed the “normal” plan composition that is commonly associated to these stands. Given that birds use the material to protect against heat, etc., how this can be compared with the material the birds use in conserved forests?
• As far as I know, the presence of arthropods in the nest boxes material is becaus the birds carry specimens and then they manage to prevail and have permanent populations. This should resist the time of the year in which the birds are not using the boxes (temperature in winter). Do you think that new arthropods are transported to the boxes in spring, or that your findings reflect the self-sustained populations of arthropods?.
• Do the finding of mite immatures support my previous comment? It looks like there is only one species that remains (Leiodinychus orbicularis) and then a second one with much less importance. Since this study only address Uropodina, we cannot read about the faunal composition of i.e. Mesostigmata, Acaridae, or even immature ticks.
• Provided that you report two species of mites, I could not see how “diversity” is calculated…because there are two specie so mites. Most probably I understood wrongly your explanations, but please elaborate about this (for the readers).
• In the absence of temperature and humidity loggers inside the boxes (which is simply impossible to account for in the nesting period) one can only be speculative about the importance of the material and the survival of the mites. Even more when you have 5 categories of material, that are not used to address the faunal composition of mites. I think this section needs to be re-planned or removed, since it is not used for explanations of the mite composition or abundance Please note that your section 3.3 has the title “ The Abundance of Mites in Relation to Nest Box Bedding Material“ and there is a part of the Discussion related to the topic, but I could not find any direct indication of material of nests and mite faunal composition (diversity etc.)
• As far as my personal experience on the topic, the hair of malls is found always in nest boxes used in winter by hibernating Eliomys quercinus or Glis glis. Therefore, it is not “used by birds” but is found the next spring, and not removed. Can you confirm that efforts of identification of the hair have been done?

 

 

• In the abstract, please include death actual dates of collection. Don’t be generalist, with only th years. Note that the abstract is sometimes the only piece of information readers may have for information of the complete paper.
• Pleas note, half the length of your conclusions is devoted to the importance of the nestboxes for birds nesting (which is true) but is not related to the topic of your study.

Thank you.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

• Please check the language. I could not find “important” issues, but it is matter of improving the text. In example, in the abstract, the sentence “Among others there are, saprophagous mites from suborder Uropodina (Acari: Mesostigmata)...” (with the semi-colon) is not well read. There are many others in the text. Other, i.e. “nidicol” (nidicolous), the “young” (line 48: “chickens”?). I will stop to enumerate here these issues; please just have somebody whose mother tongue is English to read the manuscript.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 2

Remarkable stability of Uropodina (Acari: Mesostigmata) communities in artificial microhabitats: a case study of bird nest boxes in Bory Tucholskie National Park

 

The authors of the study are grateful to the Reviewer for all comments and suggestions. All of them have been considered and turned out to be extremely helpful, which obviously has considerably improved the overall quality of the manuscript. We hope that current version will be accepted by Reviewer.

 

 Detailed responses to the Reviewer comments (marked in italics):

 

Reviewer Comments:

 

I acknowledge the comments by the authors regarding the composition of the material sinusoid the net box. However, if the habitat is transformed (modifications in the forest stands) also will be transformed the “normal” plan composition that is commonly associated to these stands. Given that birds use the material to protect against heat, etc., how this can be compared with the material the birds use in conserved forests?

- If we get the point of the question correctly, we may answer that both of species which have been found in nest boxes are not present on soil and litter, so that protecting status of the forest has not important role in this case. Moreover we’ve compared the results from two following seasons from the same forest.

As far as I know, the presence of arthropods in the nest boxes material is becaus the birds carry specimens and then they manage to prevail and have permanent populations. This should resist the time of the year in which the birds are not using the boxes (temperature in winter). Do you think that new arthropods are transported to the boxes in spring, or that your findings reflect the self-sustained populations of arthropods?.

- The material from the nest boxes is removed annually in autumn (as it has been noted in the Materials and Methods), along with the arthropods that inhabit them. The boxes are empty through winter, so the community is rebuilt annually from spring onwards. Some mite species are transported by birds but some of them, i.e. L. orbicularis are phoretic (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10493-024-00912-9). In our opinion, it is surprising and worth described that the community in nest boxes has been reconstructed with a similar structure each year in such a short time. This has not been observed before and that is why our results are novel.

Do the finding of mite immatures support my previous comment? It looks like there is only one species that remains (L. orbicularis) and then a second one with much less importance. Since this study only address Uropodina, we cannot read about the faunal composition of i.e. Mesostigmata, Acaridae, or even immature ticks.

- As it was explained above – mites are not remaining in the boxes through winter but the community is rebuilt since spring each year, however the mechanism of its formation is still unclear. All and all we are grateful for Reviewer questions and suggestions because they are very inspiring and may be included in future studies which have been already planned with cooperation of stuff of Bory Tucholskie National Park.

Provided that you report two species of mites, I could not see how “diversity” is calculated…because there are two specie so mites. Most probably I understood wrongly your explanations, but please elaborate about this (for the readers).

- We’ve mentioned about “biodiversity” in Conclusion when we discussed the influence of presence of bird boxes on the entire community of Uropodina in the park. Our study has revealed that both discussed Uropodina species have been found only (in case of Ch. nidiphila) or almost only (in case of L. orbicularis-as it has been also found in reeds in BTNP but only one specimen – please, see: https://doi.org/10.3390/d16110699) in nest boxes in spite of the fact that other habitats in the park have been also studied before (https://doi.org/10.3390/d16110699).

In the absence of temperature and humidity loggers inside the boxes (which is simply impossible to account for in the nesting period) one can only be speculative about the importance of the material and the survival of the mites. Even more when you have 5 categories of material, that are not used to address the faunal composition of mites. I think this section needs to be re-planned or removed, since it is not used for explanations of the mite composition or abundance Please note that your section 3.3 has the title “ The Abundance of Mites in Relation to Nest Box Bedding Material“ and there is a part of the Discussion related to the topic, but I could not find any direct indication of material of nests and mite faunal composition (diversity etc.)

• Nesting material brought by birds can affect the arthropods that enter the box, as well as the conditions inside, which can increase or decrease the survival of particular species. Therefore, we considered it as important to analyze the potential impact of nest material on the identified Uropodina. Therefore, we prefer to retain this section, even though our results are preliminary and did not demonstrate a clear relationship. However, the section in the Discussion about the influence of bedding material on Uropodina communities has been revised, and information about future plans for studies on this topic has been added.

 

As far as my personal experience on the topic, the hair of malls is found always in nest boxes used in winter by hibernating Eliomys quercinus or Glis glis. Therefore, it is not “used by birds” but is found the next spring, and not removed. Can you confirm that efforts of identification of the hair have been done?

– Dormouse do not occur in BTNP, so the fur did not belong to them and must have been brought by the birds when building the nest.

In the abstract, please include death actual dates of collection. Don’t be generalist, with only th years. Note that the abstract is sometimes the only piece of information readers may have for information of the complete paper.

- We’ve added information about the month (October) of when material have been collected in the abstract, which is important indeed.

Please note, half the length of your conclusions is devoted to the importance of the nestboxes for birds nesting (which is true) but is not related to the topic of your study.

• We’ve corrected and shortened the Conclusions section in order to make it more consistent with results of the study.

 

The paper has been checked and corrected linguistically.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations to the authors. In my view, the work has been improved in this new format. Just two urther suggestions to be considered by the authors, before the publication (they can decide whether my suggestions below are appropriate or not, no need to return to me as a reviewer):

a) there are data in the literature about the possible different effect of the Berlese-Tullgren method on different mite developmental stages. Some data indicate that for being smaller and more fragile, younger stages (especially larvae) can be less responsive to the method, dying before falling to the collecting vials. But this effect has been observed mostly in studies of soil mites, and soil samples are certainly more compact than nest material. As the evaluation of the levels of different levels of occurrence of different mite stages is one of the objective of this work, in my view it would be very appropriate a brief discussion in this regard. I feel that would improve this beautiful work! The suggestion is not to downplay the quality of the work, but just to turn it still more enlightening. I understand the use of Burlese-Tullgren funnel is a common practice in ecologiccal mite work.

b) In relation to the inclusion of information about other mite groups probably found in the study (item "a" under: Response to other important comments ... If information about the other mites are NOT available, just forget about that suggestion. However, if some information can be provided (even if not presented as "Results"), I would still strongly suggest to be included, again because I feel this could improve the quality of this beautiful work. My suggestion refer to the fact that the paper deals with the ecology of a mite group, which migh be affected by the presence of other mites, with which they could be competing for different resources or direct interaction. 

Author Response

We would like thank the Reviewer for the above comments. We would like to respond to them as follows:

Regarding the first comment about the use of Berlese-Tullgren funnels and the potential loss of material, especially larval stages which, due to their fragility are more sensitive to these method — we agree that nest material has a different, less compact structure than soil, and this certainly affects the rate of extraction and the potential loss of individuals mainly juveniles. However, as we mentioned earlier, all samples in our research are always extracted in the same way. This also applies to the nest material collected in both seasons for the purposes of this publication, so any potential losses are consistent. In our material, we recorded all larval stages, with varying abundances for both species, which suggests that these losses were probably not very significant. Nevertheless, this methodological issue was not the aim of this study, which is why we did not address it in the article. However, it is an interesting topic and may be considered in future research.

As for the second comment, the remaining material from the nest boxes used in this study has not been elaborated yet. Therefore, we are currently unable to comment on the presence of other groups in the studied boxes. Moreover, our aim was to draw attention to the issue of the stability of Uropodina communities which is novel in interesting in our opinion, while the other groups present in the material will be analyzed in future studies.

Once again, we thank the Reviewer for all comments and suggestions, which have significantly contributed to improving the quality of our article and may serve as inspiration for future research.