Elevational Distribution of Ants Across Seasons in a Subtropical Rainforest of Eastern Australia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study presents original results that contribute significantly to the understanding of insect ecology, particularly regarding rainforest species. I have only a few comments:

1. In the Materials and Methods section, please specify the taxonomic keys used for species identification. Cite the sources at lines 188–189:
   “This was accomplished by referring to available published taxonomic literature [??], comparing specimens to type specimens…”
   Please replace the placeholder with appropriate citations.

2. I suggest adding an additional analysis: indicator species analysis, you can use some of the functions provided in the indicspecies R package. The results from this analysis could offer further support for your findings regarding the association of specific species or species groups with particular elevation belts.

All the best.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have read the manuscript entitled “Elevational distribution of ants is persistent across seasons in a subtropical rainforest of eastern Australia” by Pitoon Kongnoo and colleagues, submitted to the Forest magazine, with a great interest. Authors present data on the ant richness and abundance, based on data collected in a subtropical rainforest in Australia, in summer, autumn, spring, and winter. I think it is interesting and good planed study, and good written manuscript. The collected data could be interesting for wider audience, and thus are worth to be published. I have several comments to the manuscript, which – I hope – can be used to improve it.

Typically, the species richness and abundance of invertebrates (including ants) are studied during the period when these invertebrates are most active. In this study, Authors decided to study richness and abundance of ants in different seasons. For me, it is interesting; however, thus I have doubt if for the cooler seasons terms like ‘richness’ and ‘abundance’ for presented results are the best ones.
See the part of the abstract (lines 32-35) “Our findings suggest that ants reduce activity in winter but maintain stable elevational distributions regardless of season or microhabitat use. Unlike highly mobile insects such as Lepidoptera, ants do not shift elevations seasonally, making their distributions a reliable indicator of their climatic niches.” To this part of Abstract I have comment (see below), but I agree: ants reduce activity in winter, and ants do not shift elevations seasonally. Thus, during the study the term “found richness …”, “observed richness …” or something like it, would be better, I think. Now, the statements suggest that, e.g., in winter richness is lower; but – probably – ants of some species were present in the study area; however, they are inactive (they overwintering below the ground level), so were not recorded using the used methods.
The same for example in lines elevations 411-412 “This suggests that species composition changes across seasons (…)”.
Thus, consider to change the terms, as well as several parts of the discussion section.

It would be interesting for many readers to see a list of species recorded in any season and elevations. It could be presented as part of the supplementary materials.
By the way, I had no possibility to see the supplementary materials – it is really pity, but the supplementary materials are not included to the version of manuscript.

In the Materials and methods section, better data on climatic parameters are strongly recommended. I am not familiar with Australian ants and Australian climate, and for me it is quite interesting that so many species are active also in the (Australian) winter; however, probably it is just effect of temperature.

And back to the end of the abstract:
Such conclusions (lines 32-35) are rather obvious: ants generally, like most ectotherms, reduce activity when temperature is lower. Also, the statement that “Unlike highly mobile insects such as Lepidoptera” is not the best conclusion of results of your study, I believe. Thus, this part of abstract should be changed, I think. In the present form, after reading the abstract only, a potential reader may think that the well-known facts are presented only; I believe it is not true, i.e., new data are presented.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is devoted to the analysis of the spatial distribution of ants in the communities of subtropical forests of Australia. The authors chose a difficult object for research: the distribution of ants is influenced primarily by biotic factors - interaction with other ants, competition for food resources with other animals, and only to a small extent by abiotic factors of the habitat. Despite this, the authors built this study as an elucidation of the distribution of ant genera depending on the altitude above sea level and the season of the year. This approach can also be used to analyze ant communities.

The study is based on quite significant material, the data are mostly correctly statistically processed. The results are substantiated and can be used for further ecological research to limit the number of forest pests in Australia. The results will also be of interest to entomologists studying ants from tropical and subtropical countries.

The article is written very well, the language is understandable, the style of presentation is professional. There are practically no errors.

1. I recommend removing the result of the study - the words "is persistent" - from the title of the article.
2. I recommend removing the factual details from the abstract and adding the Latin names of ant genera (to make it easier for ant experts to find the article in Scopus and Web of Science) and specific wording of the research results (50-65% of the abstract volume). The total volume of the abstract can be increased by 50%.
3. The keywords are local; they do not increase the attractiveness of this article for experts from South America, Africa, or South Asia. Choose 7-8 phrases that an ant expert from tropical regions most often enters into the Scopus or Web of Science database.
4. Line 125: I strongly recommend adding the exact GPS coordinates of the places where the insects were caught. This will allow you to repeat your research in 20, 50, and 100 years and detect changes in the structure of ant communities.
5. Line 140 and many others: it is incorrect to write "(1100 m. asl)", meters are always abbreviated without a dot, this is the SI system; asl should always be abbreviated with dots or better yet written in full.
6. Line 265-273: if you divide a section into subsections, you cannot leave fragments of text that do not belong to any of the subsections.
7. Line 268: The article would greatly benefit from adding a table with a list of ant species to the main text of the article. There are references to additional materials in the text (lines 277, 285-287), but I cannot evaluate them because the authors did not provide access to them. The ecological aspect of this study is very significant, but the faunistic aspect should also be added to the article. All animal species mentioned in the article in accordance with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature must be accompanied by the author's name and the year at their first mention in the Table.
8. Figure 1: the figure size should be increased by 40% both vertically and horizontally. Do not use bold font in figures.
9. Table 1, 2: do not use bold font in tables. Do not use abbreviations, for example, "Chisq". Do not use bold font.
10. Figure 2: there is no need to repeat the legend twice; the figure size should be increased by 40% both vertically and horizontally. Do not use bold font in figures.
11. Figure 3: the letters "a" should be written above all boxes if no significant differences are registered.
12. Figure 4: there is no need to repeat the legend 5 times; the figure size should be increased by 30% horizontally and decreased by 5% vertically (the entire figure title should fit on the same page). Do not use bold font in figures.
13. Figures 5, 6: there is no need to repeat the legend twice; The size of the drawing should be increased by 40% both vertically and horizontally. Do not use bold font in the drawings.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf