The Effect of Artificial Field Margins on Epigeic Arthropod Functional Groups within Adjacent Arable Land of Northeast China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, your manuscript is interesting and in general well written. Even if, I believe that you have a problem concerning data independence. In fact, the two replica per location, 50 (or a little more) meters apart were not proven to be independent (should be merged) while the three-pitfall grouping into a sample placed circa 15 meters are also (probably) non-independent. In this way, the authors should first tackle this issue in order to perform the subsequent analysis – that were based on the samples structure. Additional comments in the commented PDF.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We appreciate your help and your patience. Based on your comments, I would like to explain that we selected 2 sampling areas for each field margin type, and set two transects under each sampling site in order to make the number of samples more than 3 and meet the requirements of statistical test. On the basis of combining the characteristics of the study area, the experimental design fully refers to other relevant literature. For field experiments, the interval between transects is 50 meters, which exceeds the general range of epigeic arthropods. For example, Carabidae usually travel less than 1 m in a day, and a few carabids move more than 30 m. In the case of intercropping, the range of movement of Carabidae is the largest, but no more than 60m, so it is considered that two groups of independent transects can be used. In addition, based on the team's previous experiments (e.g. Reference10 and Reference37), we believe that three trap bottles (trap spacing greater than 10 m) were set at each sampling point, and the combined data of the three traps could represent the diversity of epigeic arthropods at the sampling site. Of course, in the future experimental design, we will consider directly repeating the three sampling areas or increasing the distance between the transects, so as to improve the scientific research level according to your suggestion. L146-149, 158-159
With this submission, we provided a version (marked) of the revised manuscript. Responses to reviewers’ comments on the manuscript of marked are detailed below.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The study of Wang and co-authors entitled “The effect of artificial field margins on epigeic arthropod functional groups within adjacent arable land of northeast China”, tests different of field margins, both natural and artificial, and their effects on arthropods funcional guilds, biodiversity, and network stability. The authors measured several factors and co-variables contributing or explaining their results. The results are more or less what I would expect: natural or semi-natural margins had better results overall. The article is well written, designed, and nicely explained, even for non experts. The Figures and analyses are also well done. I overall have few comments on this paper, see them below.
Abstract
L.11. Change “challenge. Though semi-natural” for “challenge. Although semi-natural”.
L.12-13. This phrase is not well constructed, make it clearer.
L.17. Change “there are lower epigeic” for “there is lower epigeic”.
L.18. Change “ecological network traits within” for “ecological networks within”.
L.21. Change “resilient ecological network traits than” for “resilient ecological networks than”.
L.24. Change “abundance (HA) and herb” for “abundance (HA), and herb”.
L.27-30. This phrase is not understandable, make the Abstract conclusion way clearer.
Introduction
L.41. Change “and the simplification” for “and in the simplification”.
L.49. Here, put “in situ” in italics.
L.51. I doubt this a lot, what about fungi? Or soil bacteria?
L.52. Change “[9], because they” for “[9]; and because they”. Change “changes, are often” for “changes, they are often”.
L.55. Change “considered as one of the most” for “considered one of the most”.
L.61. What do you mean by “influences more diversity”? This is not clear.
L.65. Change “attention not only natural” for “attention not only to natural”.
L.66. Change “also the ecological” for “also to the ecological”. Change “co-occurrence law among” for “co-occurrence among”.
L.72. Change “groups, the ecological” for “groups, an ecological”.
L.73. Change “and understand the role of species in different” for “and understand their role in different”.
L.79. Change “ecological network” for “ecological networks”.
L.84. Change “margins，it has an unique corridor” for “margins，as they have an unique corridor”.
L.89. This part: “when no crops in the arable land” reads incomplete.
L.93. Change “pests and” for “pests, and”.
L.94. Positive or negative effects? Be a bit more specific.
L.105. Change “explored relationships” for “explored the relationships”.
Materials and Methods
L.110. Change “and methods” for “and Methods”.
L.113. Please indicate the altitude next to the coordinates.
L.123. Change “margins, and dirt” for “margins, dirt”.
L.124. Change “road), paved” for “road), and paved”.
L.141. Change “Table 1. 5 types” for “Table 1. Five types”.
L.147. This needs to be better written, especially this part: “that the data were statistically significant inspection standards”.
L.149. Change “of 4 gradient” for “of four gradient”.
L.181. Change “richness and N is the” for “richness, and N is the”.
L.187-188. Indicate the vegan function used to calculate the NMDS. Cite vegan as well.
L.191. This part is not clear.
L.202. Indicate the functions used.
L.210. Change “Prospirobolus joannsi and Harpalus calceatus” for “Prospirobolus joannsi, and Harpalus calceatus”.
L.213. Indicate the functions used, and cite vegan and ggplot2.
Results
L.218. Change “herbivores and neutrals” for “herbivores, and neutrals”.
L.226. Is this term: “Poaceae Barnhart” correct?
L.238-239. This part is not understandable.
L.248. Add a comma (,) before “and insect herbivores”.
L.267. Change “complex network” for “complex networks”.
L.272. Change “of DR was” for “of DR had a”.
Discussion
L.304-305. The reasoning here is not clear, the phrase reads incomplete.
L.307. Change “network than semi-natural field” for “networks compared with semi-natural field”.
L.354-355. This here should not be in parenthesis. The second species is incorrectly written. Add a comma (,) before “and Harpalus rubefactus”.
L.357. Change “process and play a certain” for “process, and can play a certain”.
L.376. Why sometimes you mention the name of the descriptor of the species and sometimes you don’t? Change “crusgalli (L.) Beauv. and other common” for “crusgalli (L.) Beauv., and other common”.
L.382. Same comment as for L.376.
L.392. Change “area undertakes the important” for “area, undertakes the important”.
L.395. What do you mean by “replace the natural state of biodiversity”? This is too ambiguous.
L.400. Change “woodlands and” for “woodlands, and”.
L.402. Change “roles and are necessary” for “roles and is necessary”.
L.404. Change “retention and windbreak” for “retention, and windbreak”.
L.404-405. Change “vegetation communities” for “plant communities”.
L.411, 412. Change “need to” for “needs to”.
Conclusions
L.426. Change “(HA) and herb” for “(HA), and herb”.
Author Response
We appreciate your help and your patience. With this submission, we provided a version (marked) of the revised manuscript. Responses to reviewers’ comments on the manuscript of marked are detailed below.
Detailed comments
1.L.11. Change “challenge. Though semi-natural” for “challenge. Although semi-natural”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L11
2.L.12-13. This phrase is not well constructed, make it clearer.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L12-13
3.L.17. Change “there are lower epigeic” for “there is lower epigeic”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L17
4.L.18. Change “ecological network traits within” for “ecological networks within”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L18
5.L.21. Change “resilient ecological network traits than” for “resilient ecological networks than”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L21
6.L.24. Change “abundance (HA) and herb” for “abundance (HA), and herb”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L24
7.L.27-30. This phrase is not understandable, make the Abstract conclusion way clearer.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L27-30
8.L.41. Change “and the simplification” for “and in the simplification”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L41
9.L.49. Here, put “in situ” in italics.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L49
10.L.51. I doubt this a lot, what about fungi? Or soil bacteria?
REPLY: We want to express is that epigeic arthropods can act as transmitters of energy and matter. It may not be clearly expressed, but it has been modified according to your comments. L51
11.L.52. Change “[9], because they” for “[9]; and because they”. Change “changes, are often” for “changes, they are often”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L52
12.L.55. Change “considered as one of the most” for “considered one of the most”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L55
13.L.61. What do you mean by “influences more diversity”? This is not clear.
REPLY: Due to ambiguity caused by language inaccuracies. Sentences have been changed according to comments. L61
14.L.65. Change “attention not only natural” for “attention not only to natural”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L65
15.L.66. Change “also the ecological” for “also to the ecological”. Change “co-occurrence law among” for “co-occurrence among”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L66
16.L.72. Change “groups, the ecological” for “groups, an ecological”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L72
17.L.73. Change “and understand the role of species in different” for “and understand their role in different”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L73
18.L.79. Change “ecological network” for “ecological networks”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L79
19.L.84. Change “margins，it has an unique corridor” for “margins，as they have an unique corridor”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L84
20.L.89. This part: “when no crops in the arable land” reads incomplete.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L89
21.L.93. Change “pests and” for “pests, and”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L93
22.L.94. Positive or negative effects? Be a bit more specific.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L94
23.L.105. Change “explored relationships” for “explored the relationships”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L105
24.L.110. Change “and methods” for “and Methods”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L110
25.L.113. Please indicate the altitude next to the coordinates.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L113
26.L.123. Change “margins, and dirt” for “margins, dirt”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L123
27.L.124. Change “road), paved” for “road), and paved”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L124
28.L.141. Change “Table 1. 5 types” for “Table 1. Five types”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L141
29.L.147. This needs to be better written, especially this part: “that the data were statistically significant inspection standards”.
REPLY: Based on your comments, we have revised sentences. The statistical test is explained in the analysis. L147
30.L.149. Change “of 4 gradient” for “of four gradient”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L149
31.L.181. Change “richness and N is the” for “richness, and N is the”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L181
32.L.187-188. Indicate the vegan function used to calculate the NMDS. Cite vegan as well.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L187-188
33.L.191. This part is not clear.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L191
34.L.202. Indicate the functions used.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L202
35.L.210. Change “Prospirobolus joannsi and Harpalus calceatus” for “Prospirobolus joannsi, and Harpalus calceatus”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L210
36.L.213. Indicate the functions used, and cite vegan and ggplot2.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L213
37.L.218. Change “herbivores and neutrals” for “herbivores, and neutrals”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L218
38.L.226. Is this term: “Poaceae Barnhart” correct?
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L226
39.L.238-239. This part is not understandable.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L238-239
40.L.248. Add a comma (,) before “and insect herbivores”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L248
41.L.267. Change “complex network” for “complex networks”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L267
42.L.272. Change “of DR was” for “of DR had a”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L272
43.L.304-305. The reasoning here is not clear, the phrase reads incomplete.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L304-305
44.L.307. Change “network than semi-natural field” for “networks compared with semi-natural field”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L307
45.L.354-355. This here should not be in parenthesis. The second species is incorrectly written. Add a comma (,) before “and Harpalus rubefactus”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L354-355
46.L.357. Change “process and play a certain” for “process, and can play a certain”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L357
47.L.376. Why sometimes you mention the name of the descriptor of the species and sometimes you don’t? Change “crusgalli (L.) Beauv. and other common” for “crusgalli (L.) Beauv., and other common”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L376
48.L.382. Same comment as for L.376.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L382
49.L.392. Change “area undertakes the important” for “area, undertakes the important”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L392
50.L.395. What do you mean by “replace the natural state of biodiversity”? This is too ambiguous.
REPLY: This is because it is common in China to reduce the non-cultivated habitat in order to expand the arable land area. L395
51.L.400. Change “woodlands and” for “woodlands, and”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L400
52.L.402. Change “roles and are necessary” for “roles and is necessary”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L402
53.L.404. Change “retention and windbreak” for “retention, and windbreak”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L404
54.L.404-405. Change “vegetation communities” for “plant communities”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L404-405
55.L.411, 412. Change “need to” for “needs to”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L411-412
56.L.426. Change “(HA) and herb” for “(HA), and herb”.
Reply: Based on your comments, we have done the replacement. L426
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper compared epigeic arthropods within adjacent arable land with artificial field margin (paved road, dirt road) and semi-natural field margin (ditch, woodland, grassland), and vegetation community characteristics at field scale for identifying ecological effects of different field margin types. Suggestions are provided as follows:
1. The introduction of the article describes too much the introductory background of the research question. Combined with the scientific issues of the article, the introduction part suggests that the reasons for choosing the research area and its particularity can be introduced, and the necessity and practicability of the evaluation method proposed in this article can be explained on the basis.
2. Using the latitude and longitude grid in Figure 2, no compass is required. In addition, the red symbol is similar to the background color and is not prominent enough. It is recommended to beautify Figure 2.
3. The area of corn arable land in Changtu is 2,588 square kilometers, but only 2 of each type are selected for this study, with a total of 10 research points. Is the sample size sufficient to support the conclusions of this study? And what were the reasons for choosing these fields as research sites?
4. Will the time of sampling and the environmental conditions of different sampling points have a greater impact on the results? If so, how can the influence of these factors be eliminated?
Author Response
We appreciate your help and your patience. With this submission, we provided a version (marked) of the revised manuscript. Responses to reviewers’ comments on the manuscript of marked are detailed below. Based on your comments, we have changed the Figure 2. L137
Based on your comments, I would like to explain that we selected 2 sampling areas for each field margin type, and set two transects under each sampling site in order to make the number of samples more than 3 and meet the requirements of statistical test. On the basis of combining the characteristics of the study area, the experimental design fully refers to other relevant literature. For field experiments, the interval between transects is 50 meters, which exceeds the general range of epigeic arthropods, so it is considered that two groups of independent transects can be used. In addition, based on the team's previous experiments, we believe that three trap bottles (trap spacing greater than 10 m) were set at each sampling point, and the combined data of the three traps could represent the diversity of epigeic arthropods at the sampling site. Of course, in the future experimental design, we will consider directly repeating the three sampling areas or increasing the distance between the transects, so as to improve the scientific research level according to your suggestion. L144-146
In order to control variables, on the premise of ensuring that the field margin types meet the research needs, the spatial distance between sampling areas should be reduced as much as possible, and sampling areas should be selected in the range where there is no spatial difference in conditions such as climate and hydrology. Figure 1 shows the spatial distribution and spacing distances of the ten sampling areas. Limited by the range of epigeic arthropods, the transects are independent of each other. L128-131
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, you were not able top solve the major issue that I asked for. Please consider proving that your traps are really independent from each other, previously to performing additional stattistical treatments. You justification based on your "knowledge" and perception is incomplete. It neeeds testing spatial indepence. Only after your results and discussion might be reviewed.
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive comments on my manuscript. We have carefully considered the suggestion of independence issue and make some changes. We believe that 50 m transect distance can ensure data independence. Because our team has carried out long-term epigeic arthropod field experiments in Changtu County, there are shelterbelts around Changtu study area, which play a good barrier role between habitats. In addition, rural roads are subject to mechanisation levels and human disturbance, which can also hinder connectivity between transects.
We arranged 3 pitfall traps as a sample point to prevent a single pitfall trap from being easily affected by the interference of external factors such as weather and human activities, which would affect the integrity of the data.Therefore, we choose three pitfall traps to reflect the overall situation of the sampling point.
Both the layout of pitfall traps and the selection of transect are based on the range of activities of epigeic arthropods. In general, we believe that a distance of 50 meters can be used for subsequent statistical analysis, and we will also carefully consider your opinions in future research to constantly improve the experimental design.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I like to thank the authors as they both improved the manuscript after taking all my suggestions into consideration and provided me with a satisfying reply (in the response letter). Hence, I'm pleased to recommend the editor to accept manuscript's current version for publication.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your revisions and comments on the manuscript, and we appreciate it very much for your improvement of the quality and content of the manuscript.
