Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Introduction Clarity：The abstract begins by mentioning the negative impacts of industrial logging and fires on forests but also notes that these areas attract atypical animals. It would be beneficial to more explicitly explain why this phenomenon is particularly significant in polar regions and the ecological implications of such a pattern.
2. Methodological Details: When describing the methods for collecting arthropods, you mentioned using formalin-containing pitfall traps but did not provide details on the trap placement, quantity, or sample processing methods. Adding these details could improve the reproducibility of your study and increase its transparency and reliability.
3. Clarity in Results Presentation: The results section mentions the species counts for different arthropods but lacks depth in the comparative analysis of these data. Consider using visual aids like charts or graphs to illustrate the diversity comparison between disturbed and control areas and the distribution differences among the arthropod classes.

4.  Introduction: (i)Clarification of Research Focus: The introduction broadly mentions the effects of industrial activities like logging and fires on attracting certain animal species with specific ecological preferences. Consider specifying early on why it's particularly significant to study these effects in the subarctic Khibiny Mountains, perhaps linking this directly to challenges in biodiversity conservation in polar mountain ecosystems. (ii)Streamlining Historical Context: While the historical context provides depth, the listing of numerous studies and expeditions could be streamlined to maintain focus and improve readability. You could condense this by summarizing the historical research contributions without extensive citation within the introduction, moving detailed citations to a background or literature review section. (iii)Detailing Ecological Significance: Expand on how the specific conditions of the Khibiny Mountains, like mountain microclimates and altitudinal zonality, affect the biodiversity, which is crucial for understanding the significance of your study. Linking these geographical and ecological traits more directly to your research aims could strengthen the rationale for the study; (iv)Economic Impact and Conservation Efforts: The mention of the transformation of mountainous territories outside the national park due to mining activities provides an important context. Clarifying how these transformations impact ecological studies and conservation efforts could be beneficial. Discuss the conflict between economic development and conservation, providing a clear basis for the necessity of your research. The introduction hints at long-term ecological monitoring but does not detail the methodologies used for studying arthropods in disturbed areas. A brief overview of the methods (e.g., types of ecological assessments performed) would help to set expectations for the reader about the scope of your study.

 5. The map of the study area lacks latitude and longitude coordinates; it is recommended to add them

6.The formatting is incorrect on pages 221-222.

7. Suggest increasing the depth of the discussion section and refining the conclusion section

Author Response

The authors are grateful to the respected Reviewer for his comments on our article.

We have changed the sections Annotation, Introduction and Conclusion.

We have corrected the description of arthropod trapping methods and added a scheme of trap disposition in the valley (Figure 3).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is interesting and relevant to the journal. However, some major revisions are needed:

In the introduction, it does not provide a literature relevant to the research topic.

The quality of the experimental results is good, but Authors should add new findings from their study and differences from others results in the Discussion section.

Conclusion has to be improved.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors express their gratitude to the distinguished Reviewer for his comments on improving the quality of the article!

We will supplement the Introduction section with an appropriate literature review and try to improve the interpretation of the obtained results and the Conclusion in the corrected version of the article.

Thank you very much!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

This article sought to investigate the effects of fire use and Clear-Cuttings on soil changes and arthropod diversity on sites in the Kuniyok Valley in the North of Khipiny MTS, Russia. I consider an interesting and innovative research for Fire. However, I recommend a English review by a native American translator. Some corrections are necessary for this article to be accepted and more attractive to Fire readers.

 

Some specific comments have been described below.

Title:

I suggest a change in the title: 

Effects of Fire and Clear-Cuttings on soil changes, plant cover and arthropod diversity in Polar Region: Khibiny Mountains, Russia

Abstract:

Abstract exceeded 200 words (386 words).

Instructions for Authors: The Abstract Should Be A Total of About 200 Words Maximum.

Line 25: Check out the correct order of this percentagem “... amounted to 36, 32 and 46 %, respectively, ...”

Keywords: 

Keywords exceeded (11 Keywords).

Instructions for Authors: Three to ten pertinent keywords need to be added after the abstract.

 

1. Introduction

It should define the specific hypotheses being tested.

 

2. Materials and Methods 

Line 78: 2. The "2. The Study Area" section must be changed to "2. Materials and Methods". A subtopic should be created below on line 79: "2.1 The Study Area".

Line 117: Change the subtitle to "2.2 The Chemical Analysis and Soil Temperatures"

Line 130: Insert the subtitle "2.3 Collection of arthropod diversity in monitored sites”

4. Results 

Lines 367-368: Enter Table 3 from next to page (12) to improve the format of the article.

Lines 395-396: “four species (??)” Four species were not identified? Explain better.

Author Response

The authors express their gratitude to the highly respected Reviewer for carefully reviewing the article!

We have corrected all the comments related to the structure and heading of the article, including shortened the Abstract and Keywords and changed the numbering of sections and subsections.

But we have kept the order of percentages unchanged (36, 32 and 46%), since it corresponds to the order of decreasing species diversity in three taxa (spiders – 61 species, rove beetles – 41, ground beetles – 22), and in this order, we consider the taxa in the Results section.

We also kept the title of the article unchanged, because the purpose was to analyze the increased diversity of arthropods in disturbed mountainous areas, and not the impact of fires and logging on soils and vegetation. The latest data are provided only to confirm the low rate of restoration of the disturbed territories.

The remaining corrections will be reflected in the corrected version of the article.

Thanks a lot!

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The overall language of the article is fluent and logical, but it is suggested that some sentences be refined to improve readability.Please review all data and citations to ensure their accuracy and consistency.After making some minor revisions, I would recommend accepting the article for publication

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of the article reviewed and corrected all the necessary correction points mentioned in the previous version

Therefore, this new version is acceptable for publication in this journal.