Short-Interval, Severe Wildfires Alter Saproxylic Beetle Diversity in Andean Araucaria Forests in Northwest Chilean Patagonia
, Mauro E. González 1,6,7, Estefanía Micó 8, Nelson Valdivia 9,10, Fernanda Torres 4, Antonio Lara 1,6,7,11 and Alejandra García-López 8Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The reviewed manuscript titled „Short - interval severe wildfires alter saproxylic beetles diversity in Andean Araucaria forests in northwest Chilean Patagonia” presents an interesting study on ecological fires impacts to forest ecosystems, what in the light of increasing climate change and the accompanying extreme phenomena such as forest fires, is very valuable.
I rate the quality of the article very high. The authors have collected an extensive research material in the form of data on the saproxylic beetles of post-fire areas and the characteristics of dead wood, that were analysed with using diverse statistical tools. After careful reading of the text, no major errors were noticed. The introduction chapter establishes the context of the topic, the motivation for undertaking study and the importance of the research, while the four hypotheses adopted in the paper clearly specify the assumptions made for verification. The study design were proper planned and described, No negative comments relate also to result and discusstion section of the manuscript. The conclusions properly recapitulate the research achievements of the authors. The article was written in good English. I have only few comments, that should be consider by authors before publication.
Comments:
- In chapter 2.3 it is not clear how many traps were used in the experiment (one per study unit ?). In order to clarify the details related to the capture of insects, I recommend the authors to add this information.
- I suggest replacing the term "sampling unit" in the manuscript with "sampling or study plot".
- The methodology should also specify the taxonomic level to which the identification was carried out. In the table presenting the list of collected insects (Supplementary materials), there are numerous cases of identification to the genus, not species level.
- In subchapter 3.4 the first sentence seems redundant: ANOVA results of species richness.
- In the case of Figure 1, I suggest changing the order of figures, consequently to the description in the text (Fig. A - 2002 burned forest; B - 2015 burned forest; C - severe short interval; D - unburned forest).
- In the line 540 it should be „severe” instead of „sever”.
- In the line 538 it should be add comma at the end of the sentence.
- I recommend to change the subchapters titles in Duscussion part: 4.1. Impact of post-fire habitat conditions on saproxylic beeltes diversity; 4.2. Saproxylic diversity pattern induced by burned conditions; 4.4. Implication of SISF for the diversity and conservation of saproxylic beetles and forest management.
Author Response
- In chapter 2.3 it is not clear how many traps were used in the experiment (one per study unit ?). In order to clarify the details related to the capture of insects, I recommend the authors to add this information.
R: Resolved. In order to clarify the number of replies, we add the following sentence: […]In each sampling plot (24 in total) we collected adults of saproxylic beetles using tree-trunk flight-interception traps (henceforth: Wts), one in each sampling plot, […]
- I suggest replacing the term "sampling unit" in the manuscript with "sampling or study plot".
R: Accepted
- The methodology should also specify the taxonomic level to which the identification was carried out. In the table presenting the list of collected insects (Supplementary materials), there are numerous cases of identification to the genus, not species level.
R: Resolved. We added a new paragraph in chapter 2.3. that indicate the taxonomical details
- In subchapter 3.4 the first sentence seems redundant: ANOVA results of species richness.
R: Resolved. This sentence was replaced.
- In the case of Figure 1, I suggest changing the order of figures, consequently to the description in the text (Fig. A - 2002 burned forest; B - 2015 burned forest; C - severe short interval; D - unburned forest).
R: Accepted
- In the line 540 it should be „severe” instead of „sever”.
R: Resolved
- In the line 538 it should be add comma at the end of the sentence.
R: Resolved
- I recommend to change the subchapters titles in Duscussion part: 4.1. Impact of post-fire habitat conditions on saproxylic beeltes diversity; 4.2. Saproxylic diversity pattern induced by burned conditions; 4.4. Implication of SISF for the diversity and conservation of saproxylic beetles and forest management.
R: Accepted
Reviewer 2 Report
Keywords: In my opinion, ”climatic change” is an argument for intensify of wildfire, but not keyword for this study. Please replace it.
Introduction
The introduction is well written, argumentative.
- row 103: we used the sintagme ”beetle assemblage”. I didn't quite understand what you meant (I don't english native ...).
Materials and methods:
The Materials and Methods chapter is very well written. However, a few more clarifications are needed:
- please insert information about the keys used for beetle identifications.
- rows 157-158: The distance between the traps seems to me to be enough to avoid interference, but in order not to raise suspicions, please cite a study that analyzed the effect of interference between traps.
Results.
The results are very abstract, sometimes confusing.
Introductory paragraphs are needed, which clearly present information directly from the analysis of data collected in the field: number of species caught by trophic classes and by wire conditions, the amount of dead wood present in each wire conditions, by degradation classes, etc.
Saproxylic beetles catch: Yours declare that cached 7597 individuals of saproxylic beetles... But, analysing the supplementary material, it is found that there are specimens identified at the family level (example: Carabidae, sp.1 sp 2 etc), and more Carabidae beetles are predatories insects. What is the guarantee that the species of carabidae or curculionidae, or others, unidentified, depend at some point on the dead wood to be characterized as saproxylic? I propose to reanalyze the data taking into account only the known saproxylic species.
Trophic guilds response: This subchapter presents information on species richness, approached according to the trophic grouping of insect species. I would have expected to find more information on the trophic specificity of the species caught in point 3.1 of the results. We are only talking about saproxylic insects ....
In order to eliminate possible confusions, it is necessary that the information from 3.1 be presented in more detail, possibly a synthetic presentation of the captured species according to their trophic orientation.
Also, for clarity, it is necessary to insert a new column in the additional material, where to add the trophic character for each species caught.
Discutions.
Discussions can be supported by a clear and detailed presentation of the results. Thus, after completing the information on the results, the discussions will be updated.
Author Response
Keywords: In my opinion, ”climatic change” is an argument for intensify of wildfire, but not keyword for this study. Please replace it.
R: Resolved. We change “climate change” by “reburned forests”
Introduction
The introduction is well written, argumentative.
- row 103: we used the sintagme ”beetle assemblage”. I didn't quite understand what you meant (I don't english native ...).
Materials and methods:
The Materials and Methods chapter is very well written. However, a few more clarifications are needed:
- please insert information about the keys used for beetle identifications.
R: Resolved. We added the major references with emphasis in Araucarian beetles. Additionally, we added a new paragraph in the chapter 2.3. that indicates the taxonomical details. For species specific names we provided the full name in Supplementary Material 1, which includes the Author and published date.
- rows 157-158: The distance between the traps seems to me to be enough to avoid interference, but in order not to raise suspicions, please cite a study that analyzed the effect of interference between traps.
R: We based this sentence on the study made by Bouget et al. (2008) that consider 30 m as minimum distance between traps.
Results.
The results are very abstract, sometimes confusing.
Introductory paragraphs are needed, which clearly present information directly from the analysis of data collected in the field: number of species caught by trophic classes and by wire conditions, the amount of dead wood present in each wire conditions, by degradation classes, etc.
R: The abundances catched in each fire conditions and trophic traits were consigned in the text (e.g. chapter 3.4), and each analysis was accompanied with a figure summarizing the data collected in the field. Additionally, we provided the fully inventory of insect in the Supplementary Materials 1 that include the number of insect recorded for each taxa.
In order to added more information about the amount of CWD and environmental data, we provided a new Supplementary Materials 2
Saproxylic beetles catch: Yours declare that cached 7597 individuals of saproxylic beetles... But, analysing the supplementary material, it is found that there are specimens identified at the family level (example: Carabidae, sp.1 sp 2 etc), and more Carabidae beetles are predatories insects. What is the guarantee that the species of carabidae or curculionidae, or others, unidentified, depend at some point on the dead wood to be characterized as saproxylic? I propose to reanalyze the data taking into account only the known saproxylic species.
R: We used tree-trunk flight-interception traps at 1.5-2m of elevation that are recognized as a well method to collect saproxylic beetles. As mentioned Bouget et al. (2008), this method is strong because exclude the most part of the non-saproxylic beetles. Additionally, non-saproxylic beetles that occur on our study –by random effects- were previously excluded from the analysis. The exclusion or not was based on the extant literature, as we mentioned in the main text. Therefore, we suggest maintaining the species inventory that was provided originally.
Trophic guilds response: This subchapter presents information on species richness, approached according to the trophic grouping of insect species. I would have expected to find more information on the trophic specificity of the species caught in point 3.1 of the results. We are only talking about saproxylic insects ....
In order to eliminate possible confusions, it is necessary that the information from 3.1 be presented in more detail, possibly a synthetic presentation of the captured species according to their trophic orientation.
R: Our main investigation focus was studied the effects of fire in the total saproxylic beetle assemblages. In contrast, at this point reviewer 2 is asking us for an approach to the ecology of the species involved in the study. We consider that this request is beyond the focus of the study. However, underlying this study is an extensive systematic review of the insects collected in the forests studied, which, by the way, is difficult to report in an article of this type. Part of this process involved the identification of many specimens to the lowest taxonomic level possible, the review of their distribution range to determine whether or not they correspond to the species studied, and the exhaustive search for ecological information. Obviously, all of these visited publications cannot be cited in this article, due to their extension. Therefore, in the main text and in the supplementary material, we included a synthesis of the most relevant taxonomical and ecological researches for these insects.
Also, for clarity, it is necessary to insert a new column in the additional material, where to add the trophic character for each species caught.
R: Accepted. We added a new column in the Supplementary Material 1
Discutions.
Discussions can be supported by a clear and detailed presentation of the results. Thus, after completing the information on the results, the discussions will be updated.
R: Based on the comments made above, we consider it appropriate to keep the Discussion and Results sections.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is significantly improved. In this context, it can be published in the journal Forests.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We depply appreciate your suggestions and comments on the manuscript.
