Effects of Habitat Loss on Tenebrionidae in Gravel–Sand Mulching Areas of Desert Steppe in Ningxia, China

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. [This is only a recommended summary. Please feel free to adjust it. We do suggest maintaining a neutral tone and thanking the reviewers for their contribution although the comments may be negative or off-target. If you disagree with the reviewer's comments please include any concerns you may have in the letter to the Academic Editor.]

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

[Thank you for your review of our paper and I have responded to your comments point by point.]

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes 

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: [1.Why did you use BOTH a categorical approach (I-V) as well as a directly measured (PLand) approach? Since you have the PLand values, why make arbitrary groups? This necessarily complicated your study by including these redundant analyses. The regressions alone, with the regressions of the abiotic/vegetational analyses, are enough. Why did you include the categorical approach and analysis (rda)? I don’t think that added any new insight.]

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We categorized habitat loss into five grades using PLAND values, and analyzed the insect diversity among these five grades using one-way ANOVA. This provided a basis for the subsequent RDA analysis, which can provide a direct visualization of the relationships between insect diversity indices and vegetation and soil, thus enriching the results of the entire paper. 

Comments 2: [2. Why not measure amount of vegetative biomass, either directly or by some index (% cover)? I would think that the amount of vegetation would have the greatest impact on the abundance of beetles, and perhaps also on diversity if fragmentation reduced the amount of vegetation and increased competitive exclusion by generalist species.]

Response 2: Good suggestion. We added data on vegetation biomass and coverage and analyzed it. 

Comments 3: [3. A nestedness analysis would be excellent. Fragmentation might change divetrsity, but a critical component is the change in the membership of the community, and whether the communities found on small fragments were subsets of the the species found in progressively more diverse areas.]

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. The concept of nestedness analysis seems vague in this thesis, as habitat loss categories were categorized, and we concluded that a one-factor ANOVA was sufficient for our task.

Comments 4: [4. There are some necessary changes in the paper (italicizing species names and

clarifying some terms), but the English is excellent and there are only a couple places where I have suggested very slight changes to the wording.]

Response 4: Thank you for your comments. We have checked and cross-referenced all the species names in the article and have italicized them. We have also made some corrections to the English expressions used in the article. 

Comments 5: [Page 1: line 19 Tenebrionidae is a family, not species]

Response 5: Thank you for your feedback. We have made changes in the text.

Comments 6: [Line 22: Are they graded from low to high fragmentation, or high to low?]

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. The I-V scale is graded from low to high.

Comments 7: [Line 24: what is paracelia?]

Response 7: Thank you for your feedback. This was an error caused by carelessness, which has been corrected in the text.

Comments 8: [Lines 31-34: rather than restating the goals or implications, what are the recommendations based on this research?]

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We believe that this description is unnecessary and have removed it from the text.

Comments 9: [Line 38: might be smother to say one of the world’s largest ecosystems]

Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. We contend that the term "globally" conveys the meaning of "on a worldwide scale."

Comments 10: [Line 39: It would be great to add a descriptive sentence, something like steppe is

characterized as an arid alpine/subalpine grassland, with xx mm of rainfall per year.]

Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. We added descriptive sentences to the text. 

Comments 11: [Lines 47-49: …continuous habitat patches are subdivided due to human or natural disturbance, resulting in a number of smaller separate patches.]

Response 11: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the text in this section of the manuscript. 

Comments 12: [51: “drawing… scholars” can be deleted.]

Response 12: Thank you for pointing this out. We have removed the sentence from the text.

Comments 13: [Pg. 3, line 71 What is Paraphobia?]

Response 13: Thank you for your feedback. This was an error caused by carelessness, which has been corrected in the text.

Comments 14: [Pg. 3 line 104: percentage of landscape… what kind of landscape? It seems like disturbed landscape, as values <1 are characterized as primitive grassland.]

Response 14: Thank you for pointing this out. Each site was quantified based on the percentage of gravel-sand mulching.

Comments 15: [Pg. 4 line 117. ..using the following trap method. A random…..]

Response 15: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the text in this section of the manuscript.

Comments 16: [124: what are paracytoides?]

Response 16: Thank you for your feedback. This was an error caused by carelessness, which has been corrected in the text.

Comments 17: [Lines 128-=129: The first to levels sound the same: “species with a proportion less than 1%” = rare, and those with a proportion of 1% or less as common”…. These seem the same; both less than 1% yet classified as rare or common. Should it be “less than 10%” as

common?]

Response 17:Thank you for your feedback. We can rephrase the sentence as "those with a proportion between 1% and 10% were classified as common".

Comments 18: [133-134: was AMOUNT of vegetative biomass recorded? Or percent cover? Some index of volume/amount?]

Response 18: Thank you for your feedback. We added data on vegetation biomass and coverage and analyzed it.

Comments 19: [Pg. 5: lines 150 -157: symbols for diversity need only be used once, as in:

Margalef richness index d = (S-1)…. Not index d: d = ]

Response 19: Thank you for pointing this out. We have modified the symbol for diversity in the text to once.

Comments 20: [Line 175: species names should be in italics]

Response 20: Thank you for pointing this out. We have changed the species name to italics.

Comments 21: [Pg. 7: Fgiure 3. Should include a description of what the ‘blemes’ represent mean, 95% confidence? And a statement such as “within each panel, fragmentations levels that share a letter are not significantly different from one another (p = 0.05, Bonferroni t-test????) or

whatever mean comparison test was used.]

Response 21: Thank you for pointing this out. We added annotations to each figure and provided explanations of the significance testing methods used.

Comments 22: [How does the degree of habitat fragmentation as measured by Pland differ from the categorical measures of fragmentation I-V? I would argue that since you have the measured

values, you should use them rather than the categorical values. Why use both? What is

gained? The categories are arbitrary, so you might as well use the measured values of

PLand alone. By and large they show the same patterns with diversity and abundance, as

you’d expect.Pland]

Response 22:Thank you for your feedback. We categorized habitat loss into five grades using PLAND values, and analyzed the insect diversity among these five grades using one-way ANOVA, we can determine whether there is a significant difference between the different grades.

Comments 23: [Page 11: I don’t see what the RDA adds. ]

Response 23:Thank you for your feedback. RDA analysis, which can provide a direct visualization of the relationships between insect diversity indices and vegetation and soil, thus enriching the results of the entire paper.

Comments 24: [Pg. 12, lines 256-257 what are Steatophora. Also, there are many other studies of the effects of fragmentation on insects.]

Response 24:Thank you for your feedback. This was an error caused by carelessness, which has been corrected in the text, and we have supplemented it with relevant references.

Comments 25: [Pg. 13: I think the biggest omission was including plant volume.]

Response 25:Thank you for your feedback. We have supplemented the study on vegetation biomass in the paper, enriching the content of vegetation.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: English is excellent; only a few (< 5) minor suggestions.

Response 1: Good suggestion. We have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript and sought assistance from a professional English editing service to ensure the language is clear and precise.  

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. [This is only a recommended summary. Please feel free to adjust it. We do suggest maintaining a neutral tone and thanking the reviewers for their contribution although the comments may be negative or off-target. If you disagree with the reviewer's comments please include any concerns you may have in the letter to the Academic Editor.]

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

[Thank you for your review of our paper and I have responded to your comments point by point.]

Is the research design appropriate?

Must be improved

Are the methods adequately described?

Must be improved

Are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: [A problem throughout the manuscript is the reference to habitat fragmentation. The study does NOT look at fragmentation. The impact of agricultural activities through the sand compaction method is PLAND. This appears to be an estimate of the percent of land covered by sand compaction. It takes no account of the number of patches, the shape or distribution of patches. The latter would be required if the paper is to address the effects of fragmentation. The manuscript should be written removing references to fragmentation but simply describe the impact of farming as the percent loss of semi-natural habitat.]

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. It is essential to consider the loss of steppe ecosystems resulting from desertification driven by agricultural practices, as well as the percentage decline in semi-natural habitats due to gravel-sand mulching associated with cultivation; this has been articulated more clearly in the text. 

Comments 2: [It is not always clear whether references to richness and diversity refer to the beetles or the vegetation. Please clarify this.]

Response 2: Good suggestion. We have clarified the relationship between beetles and plant diversity in the article.

Comments 3: [The direction of the Grade scale needs to be stated i.e. I = low, V = high habitat loss.]

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. The I-V scale is graded from low to high.

Comments 4: [Fig 1 – add a photo of an area of surviving semi-natural vegetation.]

Response 4: Thank you for your comments. We have added a semi-natural habitat photo to Figure 1.

Comments 5: [What is the vegetation in areas not impacted by farming sand compaction? Is this grassland/scrub vegetation? What are the dominant species etc. Please describe the habitat.]

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. we have offered a comprehensive description of the habitat and supplemented it with information on the predominant plant species.

Comments 6: [Table 1 can be deleted. The number of sites within each category of habitat loss (fragmentation) can be stated in the text.]

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We have eliminated Table 1 and provided a detailed enumeration of the specific quantities corresponding to habitat loss grades I-V.

Comments 7: [It must be stated whether the pitfall traps were placed in sand compaction areas or surviving patches of semi-natural vegetation. Did you place any traps in the compacted areas?]

Response 7: Thank you for your feedback. The pitfall traps were placed in surviving patches of semi-natural vegetation, no traps were placed in the compacted area.

Comments 8: [Were vegetation and soil data collected from the same locations as the insect samples?]

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We mentioned in the article that insect samples were collected along with vegetation and soil data at the sampling sites.

Comments 9: [A justification for the choice of diversity indices is needed. Proportional diversity indices (Simpsons, Shannon etc) are known to reflect both species-richness and evenness in different ways. For example, Simpson reflects low evenness (i.e. dominance) more than Shannon’s index. How does Margelf’s index reflect species-richness vs evenness? Why use these indices and what do they tell us?]

Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. We have provided a detailed description of the meaning behind these diversity indices in the text, making it easier to understand.

Comments 10: [If you use Simpson’s diversity index, why not also use Simpson’s index of Evenness? The two indices are complementary in their interpretation.]

Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. The Pielou evenness index is used to study the even distribution of species individuals in a community, and is a derived index from the Shannon index.

Comments 11: [More detail is needed in the description of the ordination methods – this is seen in difficulties in interpreting Fig 7 and 8..]

Response 11: Thank you for pointing this out. We have provided detailed explanations for Figures 7 and 8, and described the meaning of each factor in the figures.

Comments 12: [Throughout the Results need to be edited so that only statistically significant relationships are described in the text. If a ‘correlation’ is non-significant then there is no relationship and it should not be described as such. The same applies when describing the results of tests of difference. ]

Response 12: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised and described the results.

Comments 13: [The analyses used regression not correlation. In the text it would be better to use the word ‘relationship’ rather than ‘correlation’]

Response 13: Thank you for your feedback. We have replaced "correlation" with "relationship" based on the content of the article.

Comments 14: [Figure 2 needs to be described and interpreted more carefully and more clearly. Lines 178-180 contradict the statements about species richness in Fig 3 where no significant differences are reported.]

Response 14: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the description of Figure 2 and removed the relevant statements about species richness.

Comments 15: [Fig 2 indicates that the sampling effort was adequate for sites in grade II and III because the rarefaction curves in 2a reach a plateau. The curves for the other three grades are continuing to rise. This suggests that further sampling would have resulted in a higher number of species being found. It is concerning that sampling effort may not have been adequate – particularly because one of the major differences between grades of habitat loss (fragmentation) is the number of beetles captured. ]

Response 15: Thank you for pointing this out. Based on your analysis, we have revised the description of Figure 2.

Comments 16: [All Figure titles need to include more detail to help the reader understand the contents.]

Response 16: Thank you for your feedback. We added legends to all the charts to help readers understand the content of the legends.

Comments 17: [Lines 228-247: This section needs to be edited to improve clarity. The nature of the analyses and results are unclear.]

Response 17:Thank you for your feedback. We have made changes to this section and revised the description.

Comments 18: [The authors cite refs 10, 14 and 56. These are important publications in the field of studies of habitat fragmentation. A key point made by these papers is that studies of habitat fragmentation need to take into account the direct effects of habitat loss before attributing effects to fragmentation per se. This study of Tenebrionids does not do this. The main independent measure (PLAND) appears to be simply the relative cover of sand compaction i.e. it is effectively a measure of habitat loss. PLAND does not include any measure of fragmentation, such as the size and number of remnants of undisturbed habitat.]

Response 18: Thank you for your feedback. We reorganized the discussion to focus on habitat loss rather than habitat fragmentation.

Comments 19: [The entire manuscript must be rewritten to make it clear that the effects of habitat loss are being investigated and that fragmentation was not investigated directly. ]

Response 19: Thank you for pointing this out. "We have thoroughly revised and rewritten the manuscript to investigate the effects of habitat loss on staphylinid beetles, as opposed to habitat fragmentation."

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: There are some words that I simply do not recognize! I have highlighted these on the PDF.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have made changes to the highlighted  words.

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. [This is only a recommended summary. Please feel free to adjust it. We do suggest maintaining a neutral tone and thanking the reviewers for their contribution although the comments may be negative or off-target. If you disagree with the reviewer's comments please include any concerns you may have in the letter to the Academic Editor.]

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Can be improved

[Thank you for your review of our paper and I have responded to your comments point by point.]

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

Are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: [L23-25. Revise the sentence.]

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the sentence accordingly.

Comments 2: [L31-33. It seems one of study aims. Delete or revise please.]

Response 2: Good suggestion. We have deleted this section. 

Comments 3: [L38-39. Need citation.]

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added new references. 

Comments 4: [L62-69. In my opinion, this paragraph can be moved to between first and second paragraphs of the Introduction. And then, you can explain why habitat fragmentation is important to understand biodiversity decline and importance of Tenebrionidae.]

Response 4: Thank you for your comments. We have moved L62-69 to the first and second paragraphs of the introduction. 

Comments 5: [L72. Adaptable for what?]

Response 5: Thank you for your feedback. We have supplemented this section.

Comments 6: [L72. Do you have any references, where tenebrionid beetles are being indicators?]

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added relevant references to the article.

Comments 7: [L70-80. In my opinion, you need revise this part. As mentioned above, this paragraph is needed to improve in clarification. In addition, study aims should be written by past tense.]

Response 7: Thank you for your feedback. We have modified and revised the L70-80.

Comments 8: [L91-94. Revise please with deleting study aims in L91-93 and adding citation of ‘Figure 1’. And, in this case, is habitat fragmentation caused by watermelon fields? Or by others? Please clarify this. And add statistics for the coverage of watermelon fields in those area as possible.]

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We have removed the research objectives of L91-93 and referred to Figure 1, which shows that gravel-sand mulching has led to habitat loss, as described in the text. Unfortunately, we do not have statistical data on the covered area of the watermelon fields.

Comments 9: [L104. What kind of landscapes? In my opinion, the details of PLAND were described in L110-113, but it should be moved to after ‘percentage of landscape (PLAND, %)’ in L104.]

Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. We have adjusted and described the suction for this part.

Comments 10: [L117. What kind of trap methods? Pitfall trap or others? Please clarify.]

Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. We have provided a detailed description of the methods used to create Pitfall traps in the article.

Comments 11: [L124. What is the ‘paracytoides’? Samples of Tenebrionidae?“paracytoides”]

Response 11: Thank you for your feedback. This was an error caused by carelessness, which has been corrected in the text. 

Comments 12: [L126. population counting -> we counted number of individuals for each species]

Response 12: Thank you for pointing this out. We have made substitutions in the text.

Comments 13: [L134. richness -> species richness]

Response 13: Thank you for pointing this out. We have made substitutions in the text.

Comments 14: [L137-138. What is ‘the pseudo-step A sampling points’? Please clarify.]

Response 14: Thank you for pointing this out. We made modifications to L137-138 in the text.

Comments 15: [L139. What is ‘a five-point sampling method’? Please clarify.]

Response 15: Thank you for pointing this out. 'a five-point sampling method' is a sample collection method in which five traps are arranged in a cross pattern.

Comments 16: [L150-157. Please revise. E.g., index d: (space) d = … and those formula should be represented by italic.]

Response 16: Thank you for your feedback. We have changed all formulas to be displayed in italics.

Comments 17: [L158. Statistical analysis of data -> Data analyses]

Response 17:Thank you for your feedback. We made substitutions in the text.

Comments 18: [L159-161. Add assumption for ANOVA.]

Response 18: Thank you for your feedback. We added the assumption for ANOVA in the figure legend.

Comments 19: [L165-167. Why were you conducted both RDA or CCA? But in Figure 7 and 8, there was RDA only]

Response 19: Thank you for pointing this out. We first perform detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) on the sample. When Axis Lengths is less than 3.0, we use RDA analysis, and when Axis Lengths is greater than 4.0, we use CCA analysis. Axis Lengths is the criterion for determining whether to use RDA or CCA.

Comments 20: [L170. What is ‘Maps’? Are you means biplot or triplot?]

Response 20: Thank you for pointing this out. We have changed the word "maps" to "graphs" in the text.

Comments 21: [L175. Species names should be represented by italic.]

Response 21: Thank you for pointing this out. We have used italics for all species names in the text.

Comments 22: [L178. FIG. 2 -> Figure 2]

Response 22:Thank you for your feedback. We made substitutions in the text.

Comments 23: [L178. Was highest -> the highest, need to check other sentences in L190, 192]

Response 23:Thank you for your feedback. We made substitutions in the text.

Comments 24: [L181. Add details about ‘sample coverage curve’]

Response 24:Thank you for your feedback. We have added detailed information about the sample coverage curve in the figure caption.

Comments 25: [L187. (abundance) -> delete or use in following sentences instead of ‘the number of individuals’ in L189]

Response 25:Thank you for pointing this out. We have made substitutions in the text.

Comments 26: [L189. Figure 1 -> Figure 3, need to check other sentences in L191, 193]

Response 26:Thank you for pointing this out. We reviewed the sentences in L191-193 and made some revisions.

Comments 27: [In Figure 2, add explanation for (a) and (b)]

Response 27:Thank you for pointing this out. We have added annotations to Figures 2(a) and 2(b).

Comments 28: [In Figure 3, add explanation for different colors to figure caption. And add explanation for (a), (b), (c)…]

Response 28:Thank you for pointing this out. In Figure 3, we changed the legend to the same color and added an annotation in the caption.

Comments 29: [L200-203. You mentioned ‘…fragmentation was positively correlated with the richness of Tenebrionidae…’, but you also mentioned ‘no significant effect on species richness…’ in the same sentence. Same issue for Simpson dominance index was raised. I think this paragraph must be revised.]

Response 29:Thank you for pointing this out. We have made modifications to the sentence description of L200-203.

Comments 30: [In Figure 4, What is the difference between black and red lines? Add the explanation to figure caption with explanation for dashed lines. Same issue was found in Figure 5 and 6. And I recommend modifying figure captions as ‘Relationship between fragmentation grades and Tenebrionidae diversity: (a) richness, (b) abundance ….]

Response 30:Thank you for pointing this out. In Figure 4, we explain all the indicators shown in the chart.

Comments 31: [L222. Delete (mg/kg)]

Response 31:Thank you for pointing this out. We have removed (mg/kg).

Comments 32: [L229-247. These two paragraphs should be revised and rewritten in addition to re-analyses of RDAs. In Figure 7 and 8, species in RDAs are generally represented by points (not arrow). In addition, environmental variables, in this case habitat fragmentation grades (PLAND, %) soil properties, and indices for vegetation. You added Tenebrionidae indices as environmental variables, but this should be removed. I can't understand why two different figures were made; it can be merged. Figure caption should be rewritten. RDAs also need correlation analyses between Axes and variables.]

Response 32:Thank you for pointing this out. We reanalyzed the RDAs and added explanations for all the indicators in the legends, just to analyze the relationship between Tenebrionidae and vegetation, and the relationship between Tenebrionidae and soil, so we made two separate graphs.

Comments 33: [L258. What is ‘steatophora’?]

Response 33:Thank you for your feedback. This was an error caused by carelessness, which has been corrected in the text. 

Comments 34: [L263-265. Delete.]

Response 34:Thank you for pointing this out. We have deleted L263-265.

Comments 35: [L255-323. In my opinion, the Discussion section should be rewritten by subjects, such as 1) diversity of Tenebrionidae in desert steppe ecosystems, 2) effect of habitat fragmentation on environmental variables and Tenebrionidae, and 3) bioindicator potential of Tenebrionidae (in this case, you need to analyze IndVal (indicator value).]

Response 35:Thank you for pointing this out. We have made modifications to the discussion section based on the relevant topics you provided.

Comments 36: [L325-339. Delete because of its redundancy. Conclusion section is not abstract of the study. So you need to rewrite the ‘Conclusion’ section.]

Response 36:Thank you for pointing this out. We have reorganized the conclusion section.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: Minor english editing needed

Response 1: Good suggestion. We have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript and sought assistance from a professional English editing service to ensure the language is clear and precise.  

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. [This is only a recommended summary. Please feel free to adjust it. We do suggest maintaining a neutral tone and thanking the reviewers for their contribution although the comments may be negative or off-target. If you disagree with the reviewer's comments please include any concerns you may have in the letter to the Academic Editor.]

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

[Thank you for your review of our paper and I have responded to your comments point by point.]

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

Are the methods adequately described?

Must be improved

Are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: [In this paper the authors are trying to elucidate the effects of landscape fragmentation on the members of the Tenebrionidae family present in the desert steppe habitats in Ningxia, China. The sampling methodology was extremely extensive and elaborate and a vast area was surveyed and a fair number of specimens were sampled. I did not understand, however, if the sampling was performed simultaneously on all 24 sites? That would have involved a large amount of pitfall traps. The authors used all the major diversity indices, even though a list of species, neither for all of the 18 Tenebrionidae species nor for the plant species, was presented. I would be interested in reading more about the identification process, which taxonomic key was used, since the presentation of the species was done in an unorthodox manner (standard italic font was not used, no authors names of the species, etc.). Some figures (like figure 2) are slightly confusing and difficult to see all the parameters. In the discussion section the authors tend to explain every difference in each of the indices, however, at some points it seems that there is not enough material for drawing straightforward conclusions. Most of the conclusions in the discussion section need some additional referencing and support. Furthermore, some unusual terminology is used like: “paracolipid”, “steatophora”, “paracytoides”, or at least I am not familiar with these terms.]

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We conducted simultaneous sampling of Tenebrionidae across 24 distinct locations. Table 1 has been included, detailing all 18 species within the Tenebrionidae family. Additionally, we have refined the discussion section and rectified several less common terminologies.

Comments 2: [Line 18 - The Tenebrionidae, the most widely distributed and abundant beetle species. Tenebrionidae are a family of beetles not a species. Even then the Tenebrionidae family is not the most abundant beetle family.]

Response 2: Good suggestion. We have rephrased the sentence.

Comments 3: [Line 72 - They are considered indicators of habitat degradation. What does this mean? Can the authors provide some references?]

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added references at L72.

Comments 4: [Line 75 - …making them important pests in steppe environments [28,29]. Pests of what?]

Response 4: Thank you for your comments. We have supplemented the relevant references.

Comments 5: [Line 76 - Tenebrionidae is vital for maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem…”are” not “is”]

Response 5: Thank you for your feedback. We have changed the "is" in the text to "are".

Comments 6: [Line 86 - This region features a fragile ecological environment…is this a protected area of any kind? Reference please]

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We have also included relevant references in the paper.

Comments 7: [Line 124 - The paracytoides in the cups were collected every 10 d . What are “paracytoides”?]

Response 7: Thank you for your feedback. This was an error caused by carelessness, which has been corrected in the text.

Comments 8: [Line 119 -120- At each sampling point, five traps were arranged in a group, with a spacing of about 5 m between traps. Does this mean there were 25 traps per sampling point (standard site), resulting in 25x24=600 traps?]

Response 8: Thank you for your feedback. A total of 600 traps were set up at 24 sampling points.

Comments 9: [Line 128 - Species with a proportion of less than 1% were classified as rare, those with a proportion of 1% or less as common. And what is the difference?]

Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. We modified the sentence to read that species with proportions greater than 1% but less than 10% are common.

Comments 10: [Line 152-153 -Shannon-Wiener diversity index H´ ́: H´ ́ = −∑SPilnPi. Where Pi is the proportion of the ith individual in a monitoring area to the total number of individuals in the monitoring area. What does “ith” mean?]

Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. In the text, "ith" represents the species numbered i. 

Comments 11: [Line 157 - Pielou uniformity index E: E = H´/lnS. Explain this diversity index and better explain the others too.]

Response 11: Thank you for pointing this out. A detailed explanation of the diversity index has been provided in the text.

Comments 12: [Line 175 - Blaps fabricius, Anatolica nureti, and Pterocoma vittata were the dominant species. Species names should be written in italic and the authors name should be given. I am not familiar with a species named Blaps fabricius, is there a described species from the Blaps genus named B.fabricius? Since the genus Blaps was named by Johan Christian Fabricius (Blaps Fabricius, 1775) this seems to suggest a possible lapsus by the authors. What identification key was used? Why aren’t the other 15 species reported in a table.]

Response 12: Thank you for pointing this out. We made an error, so we have corrected "Blaps Fabricius" to "Blaps femoralis" in the text. We have also included Table 1, which lists all 18 Tenebrionid species.

Comments 13: [Line 258 - This paper is the first to investigate changes in steatophora diversity… What does “steatophora” refer to?]

Response 13: Thank you for your feedback. This was an error caused by carelessness, which has been corrected in the text.

Comments 14: [261-263 - We clarified the effects of habitat fragmentation on Tenebrionidae diversity, vegetation diversity, and soil physicochemical properties and elucidated the relationships between these factors in the Ningxia desert steppe. Sounds like an overstatement]

Response 14: Thank you for pointing this out. We rephrased the sentence in a more appropriate way.

Comments 15: [Line 301-302-This indicates that higher vegetation diversity corresponds to lower diversity and more homogeneous species distribution in the desert steppe habitat. This may sound contradictory?]

Response 15: Thank you for pointing this out. We rephrased the sentence to make it easier to understand.

Comments 16: [Line 330-331 - Specifically, the abundance, diversity index, and evenness index of paracolipid species in fragmentation level… What are “paracolipid” species?]

Response 16: Thank you for your feedback. This was an error caused by carelessness, which has been corrected in the text.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: English is excellent; only a few (< 5) minor suggestions.

Response 1: Good suggestion. We have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript and sought assistance from a professional English editing service to ensure the language is clear and precise.