Multi-Scale Effects of Landscape Stucture on Epigaeic Arthropods Diversity in Arable Land System: A Case in Changtu County of Northern China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Some concepts need to be clarified, e.g. Is epigaeic arthropods the same as the natural enemies in the text (see Discussion)? How do the authors define small, medium, and large epigaeic arthropods in the text? How does the Margalef richness index be better for vegetation structure characterization? What is the difference between Ha and Sv and Ea and Hv (Lines 349 to 351)? Is HY1 the same as HT1, or HY2 as HT2, and so on?

2. What is the rationale for the plot size of 0.5 m x 0.5 m? What such plot size is supposed to be representative of? Why not choose vegetation sampling plot size after determining the minimum representative area of the plant communities as it is the rule in plant community study (Phytosociology approach)? What are the names of the four plant classes identified? It will be appropriated to make a Table with the 42 plant species' names with their family, their order, and their classes.

3. The design is not clear: in the Methods, the authors didn't mention that there are 8 habitat variables (see Table3), so the experimentation (plot points sampling should be established by crossing them with habitat types and then the trap bottles crossed with the first two factors). In another hand, the authors wrote that they sampled three points set in farmlands and adjacent habitats, and three trap bottles set at the sampling point, so a total of 363. How did they get such a number of 363? In Table 1, it could be better to give the average mean values of the biodiversity indexes (Sa, Ha, Ea) per Buffer radius before presenting their correlation coefficients.

4. There wasn't any mention of small and medium-size and large epigaeic arthropods in the Methods nor in the Results, so I couldn't get the relevancy of the discussion done on that arthropod size categories. I have the same concerns with the discussion on the scales of landscape heterogeneity which were not presented in the Methods but discussed!

Author Response

Thank you for your consideration and constructive suggestions, and for granting us the opportunity to submit a revised version of the manuscript. We greatly appreciate you for this kind recommendation, we have carefully read and thought about your suggestions, and have carefully revised the problems in the manuscript in the past. 

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I really enjoyed reading this piece of science, however, I detected some concerns mainly in the materials and methods, and results sections. I would like to an amended manuscript following all suggestion in the attachments. Good luck,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your consideration and constructive suggestions, and for granting us the opportunity to submit a revised version of the manuscript. We greatly appreciate you for this kind recommendation, we have carefully read and thought about your suggestions, and have carefully revised the problems in the manuscript in the past. 

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript titled "Multi-scale effects of landscape pattern on epigaeic arthropods diversity in arable land system: A case in Changtu County of northern China" intends to make landscape design on the spatial scale related to arthropod species. The study focuses on the influence mechanism of landscape pattern at different scales (landscape and habitat) on the diversity of epigaeic arthropods. The effect of environmental variables on biodiversity was mostly studied at the same scale, and the manuscript explored the overall effect of landscape elements on epigaeic arthropod diversity at 3 scales of landscape, habitat and field. The authors selected 11 areas to sample using trap method, screened landscape elements that significantly affect the diversity of epigaeic arthropods to construct models. The study area is the Changtu County, which is located in the south of Northeast China, with a total cultivated land area of 2,667 km2.

The research is original; it could be characterized as novel and in my opinion important to the field, it also has an almost appropriate structure and the language has been used well. In the meanwhile, the manuscript has a nice extent (about 6,774 words) and it is comprehensive. The tables (7) and figures (6) and of course the Appendixes make the paper reflect well to the reader. For this reason, paper has a "diversity look", not only tables, not only numbers, not only words.

The title, I think, is all right. The abstract did not reflect well the findings of this study, and it has not the appropriate length. Please revise the abstract of the manuscript and do not forget abstract need to encourage readers to download the paper. The Abstract needs further work. It is not clear. Abstracts should indicate the research problem/purpose of the research, provide some indication of the design/methodology/approach taken, the findings of the research and its originality/value in terms of its contribution to the international literature. The abstract has a long length (about 291 words). Please, revise the abstract, it must be up to 200 words long, for this reason I would be good to reduce [see: Instructions for Authors / Manuscript Submission Overview / Accepted File Formats - (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/instructions#submission or https://www.mdpi.com/files/word-templates/land-template.dot)].

The introduction is effective, clear, and well organized; it really introduced and puts into perspective what research is negotiating.

For the Methodology chapter, the research conduct has been tested in several areas of the world, with similar results and will probably be tested in others. Appropriate references to the methodology included in the already published bibliography. Your conclusion section is too short and does not justice to your work. Make clearer your key contributions, arguments, and findings. I believe that the conclusions section or discussion should also include the main limitations of this study and incorporate possible policy implications. More should be said about practical implications.

Please, revise the line 1 - not the title - and put the type of the Paper (Article, Review, Communication, etc.), as you can see in the template (see: Instructions for Authors / Manuscript Submission Overview / Accepted File Formats - https://www.mdpi.com/files/word-templates/land-template.dot).

Please revise the Author List and remove the last «and» with number. Please revise the correspondence author details and use the appropriate font size and style. Please complete the left side of the first page such as Citation: Lastname, F.; Lastname, F.; Lastname, F. Title. Land 2022, 11, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx - Academic Editor: Firstname Last-name and of course type Publisher’s Note and Copyright with the standard image.

Please revise the figures caption and type “Figure” than Fig.

Please, revise the reference "2.  Angelo C.G., John R., Elodie B., 2021. Agriculture and forest land use change in the continental United States: Are there tipping points? iScience, 24(7): 102772-102772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2021.102772", lines 558-559 and type the authors names correct. I think it must be revised as “2. Gurgel, A.C.; Reilly, J.; Blanc, E. Agriculture and forest land use change in the continental United States: Are there tipping points? iScience 2021, 24, doi:10.1016/j.isci.2021.102772”.

Please, revise reference 4. The doi is for another reference and delete the “290:106735” at the end.   

Please, revise the reference “8.  Newbold, T., Hudson, L.N., Hill, S.L., Contu, S., Lysenko, I., Senior, R.A., B¨orger, L., Bennett, D.J., Choimes, A., Collen, B., 2015. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nat. 520, 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14324”, lines 573-575 and type the authors names correct. I think it must be revised as “Newbold, T.; Hudson, L.N.; Hill, S.L.L.; Contu, S.; Lysenko, I.; Senior, R.A.; Börger, L.; Bennett, D.J.; Choimes, A.; Collen, B.; et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 2015, 520, 45–50, doi:10.1038/nature14324”.

I only checked the first 10 references and I found 2-3 mistakes. References must have an appropriate style, for this reason I would be good to change [see Instructions for Authors / Manuscript Preparation / Back Matter / References: - (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/instructions or https://www.mdpi.com/authors/references)]. 

Author Response

Thank you for your consideration and constructive suggestions, and for granting us the opportunity to submit a revised version of the manuscript. We greatly appreciate you for this kind recommendation, we have carefully read and thought about your suggestions, and have carefully revised the problems in the manuscript in the past. 

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The Shannon species diversity index definition was interchanged with that of Margalef which doesn't consider the abundance of each species as for the Shannon species diversity index.

The authors should retain only the Shannon species diversity index as there is no additional information from the Margalef species diversity index in that manuscript.

The authors should explain the representativeness of their plot size of 0.5 m x 0.5 m for herb sampling. Why such plot size?

The authors didn't present the plot size they used to sample wooded plant communities as obviously, the 0.5 x0.5 m is too small for wooded plant communities.

How could the authors explain why it was the same average values of Sa, Ha, and Ea in Table 1 independently of radius values?

Why the radius of 1500 m was the optimal value rather than the 2000 m? What did the authors define as optimal value?

Author Response

Thank you for your consideration and constructive suggestions, and for granting us the opportunity to submit a revised version of the manuscript. We greatly appreciate you for this kind recommendation, we have carefully read and thought about your suggestions, and have carefully revised the problems in the manuscript in the past.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx