Bat Colony and Cave Zone Shape Arthropod Assemblages in Levantine Caves

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript “What Feeds the Underground? Energy Inputs and Cave Zone Determine Arthropod Diversity in Levantine Caves” by Ganem et al. provides a very-much-needed exploration of cave arthropod assemblages. The surveyed caves span across a climatic and ecological gradient, and represent fundamentally different cave types: caves with frugivorous bats, caves with insectivorous bats, and caves with no bats. Moreover, the researchers collected data from different zones in the cave, providing additional information on arthropods’ assemblages. The study has an important contribution to our knowledge on cave arthropod assembly rules and to our understanding of this special ecosystem.

 

The title is a little misleading, as it implies that the energy input is a key factor in the study. However, after thoroughly reading the manuscript, it seems that cave types (with/without insectivorous/frugivorous bats) is the studied factor, rather than energy input. Clearly, there is a link between the two, and the authors discuss it in the manuscript, but I feel it is not strong enough. I suggest changing the title to a more straight-forward title, linking bat presence and cave zone to arthropod assemblages.

 

I find the Results section unnecessarily long and detailed. Almost all the tables and figures are repeated in the text. This section can be shortened by at least half, making the manuscript more readable without losing any information.

 

The authors conclude that caves, and bats, are worth conserving due to the high arthropod diversity. Whilst this is correct, there is another important conservation aspect: arthropods in no-bat caves are maybe more unique, specialised, rare? At least to some extent, these caves also deserve special attention and conservation efforts.

 

In total, I find the manuscript very well done. It presents some novel information that, I hope, should be studied further in the future. I warmly recommend on accepting the manuscript for publication. I attach a pdf file with minor comments that the authors may consider, and, in my opinion, may improve the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very interesting and well written paper.  I have a couple of minor comments indicated on the manuscript. The only comment of any substance that I have is that the introduction is somewhat misleading.  There is too much information about zonation respect to light, and in my opinion it is overstated.  What is interesting and unique in this paper is that connection of diversity and abundance with food type. The zonation is the backdrop and must be accounted for, but only that

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf