Permanent or Transitory Crops? The Dilemma for Biodiversity Conservation: A Case Study with Dung Beetles (Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) in the Colombian Caribbean
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper by Rangel-Acosta et al. explored the potential effects of the agricultural managements, i.e., permanent and transitory crops, on the species diversity of dung beetle, and further discussed the trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and agricultural production. The results are clear and the conclusions is constructive! The manuscript has a clear logical structure and is very well written that facilitates its understanding. Even in this case, I think some suggestions could be considered to further improve its quality.
Firstly, the introduction section gives a general overview over relationship between the agriculture and conservation. It does, however, lack the ‘whole picture’ of dung beetles responding to the agriculture particularly in Colombia. Because dung beetles are a special group closely related to special resource (animal dung), general environmental factors including plant cover should not be the primary factor influencing their diversity. At least, the readers want to know what the status of beetle diversity is in different agricultural and natural ecosystems. In addition, I kindly suggest the authors provide 1-2 hypotheses in the last paragraph.
Secondly, it is very interesting that the species C. lituratus and C. mutabilis are exclusive to TC in the rainy season. Could the authors give some explanations?
It should be a period before “Furthermore” (line 409).
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we thank you for your comments that allowed us to improve the document. The decision for each comment and the location within the document is detailed below.
Comments 1.
Firstly, the introduction section gives a general overview over relationship between the agriculture and conservation. It does, however, lack the ‘whole picture’ of dung beetles responding to the agriculture particularly in Colombia. Because dung beetles are a special group closely related to special resource (animal dung), general environmental factors including plant cover should not be the primary factor influencing their diversity. At least, the readers want to know what the status of beetle diversity is in different agricultural and natural ecosystems. In addition, I kindly suggest the authors provide 1-2 hypotheses in the last paragraph.
Response. We agree with this comment, the requested information was added on page 2 from line 71 to line 91.
Comments 2.
Secondly, it is very interesting that the species C. lituratus and C. mutabilis are exclusive to TC in the rainy season. Could the authors give some explanations?
Response. We agree with this comment, the requested information was added on page 10 from line 383 to line 391.
Comments 3.
It should be a period before “Furthermore” (line 409).
Response. We agree with this comment, the requested information was added on page 11 in line 441.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComment 1: Expand the discussion on the implications of the findings for conservation and management practices. While the article concludes that permanent crops should not replace forests, it could further explore specific management recommendations for both permanent and transitory crops to enhance dung beetle diversity and the ecosystem services they provide.
Comment 2: Provide more context on the study area, particularly the Montes de María ecoregion. The article mentions the ecoregion's importance but could elaborate on its unique characteristics, threats, and conservation status. This additional information would enhance the article's relevance to a broader audience.
Comment 3: Elaborate on the ecological roles of specific dung beetle species mentioned in the study. The article lists several species but could provide more details about their feeding habits, nesting behavior, and sensitivity to habitat disturbance. Highlighting the unique ecological roles of these species would enhance the article's scientific value.
Comment 4: Include a visual representation of the study design. Adding a map showing the location of the study area and the distribution of the different crop types and the forest fragment would help readers visualize the study design and the landscape context.
Comment 5: Discuss the limitations of the study and potential areas for future research. This would strengthen the article's scientific rigor and provide direction for further investigation. For example, the authors could discuss the limited temporal scope of the study and the need for long-term monitoring to assess the impacts of agricultural practices on dung beetle communities.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe language written is good but still needs to improved
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we thank you for your comments that allowed us to improve the document. The decision for each comment and the location within the document is detailed below.
Comment 1: Expand the discussion on the implications of the findings for conservation and management practices. While the article concludes that permanent crops should not replace forests, it could further explore specific management recommendations for both permanent and transitory crops to enhance dung beetle diversity and the ecosystem services they provide.
Response. We agree with this comment, the requested information was added on page 11 and 12 from line 455 to line 474.
Comment 2: Provide more context on the study area, particularly the Montes de María ecoregion. The article mentions the ecoregion's importance but could elaborate on its unique characteristics, threats, and conservation status. This additional information would enhance the article's relevance to a broader audience.
Response. We agree with this comment, the requested information was added on page 3 from line 97 to line 114.
Comment 3: Elaborate on the ecological roles of specific dung beetle species mentioned in the study. The article lists several species but could provide more details about their feeding habits, nesting behavior, and sensitivity to habitat disturbance. Highlighting the unique ecological roles of these species would enhance the article's scientific value.
Response. We accept the comment in part, as the paper as such did not explore certain ecological aspects in depth for many of the beetle species reported. Aspects such as relocation of the resource were not explored in depth in order not to make the paper too long, and the focus was on the diversity of crop types. However, ecological information is provided on some species such as C. lituratus and C. mutabilis (page 10 from line 383 to line 391), S. aequinoctialis, C. aff. morsei, C. subhyalinus, E. caribaeus, O. viridivinosus, T. pilosum, U. micros, Deltochilum sp. 1 y D. guildingii (page 10 from line 338 to line 349), Coprophanaeus gamezi and Phanaeus hermes (page 11 from line 424 to line 427).
Comment 4: Include a visual representation of the study design. Adding a map showing the location of the study area and the distribution of the different crop types and the forest fragment would help readers visualize the study design and the landscape context.
Response. We agree with this comment, the requested information was added on page 13 a vegetation cover map of the study area is presented.
Comment 5: Discuss the limitations of the study and potential areas for future research. This would strengthen the article's scientific rigor and provide direction for further investigation. For example, the authors could discuss the limited temporal scope of the study and the need for long-term monitoring to assess the impacts of agricultural practices on dung beetle communities.
Response. We agree with this comment, the requested information was added on page 13 from line 445 to line 452.
Comment 5: The language written is good but still needs to improved
Response. we carry out the revision and the adjustment of the language.
