Monitoring Stresses Caused by Gaseous Pollutants: How Can They Affect a Fruit-Feeding Butterfly Community (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) in the Caatinga?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is interesting both for physiologists and conservation biologists. The effect of pollutants of selected butterfiles has been well-planned and conducted in the field. The results are properly analyzed statystically. There are, however, few points which need clarifications. First of all, the 'Methodology' section should go before 'Results' not vice versa. That's the rule of most scientific journals. In 'Methodology' define clearly and fully the forllowing parameters: abundance, frequency and dominance; provide formula for Shannon-Wiener index. How butterfly species were identify (in the field or in lab.), using which field guids or reference collection. In the description of the study area more detailes should be provided. i.e. dominant tree/shrub/grass species; climate; and what animals were tended there (cattle and sheep, I suppose, but no horses). 

In line 92 add a word from which family are all the tribes and subfamilies. Add this also in 'Abstract'  

--Fig. 6: the satellite image is of poor quality; lack of contrast; hard to see details

---Fig. 1. Data are not readibly for most species. Perhaps better to tabulate the data, or present the scale for two most common species on the right vertical axis, and for the all remaining species on the left axisis; or log-transform all these data.   

---Fig. 3. Expain here also what is Tansect I (with pollutants) and what is Transect II (control).   

---Fig. 4. What are the red and waht the blue dots?

Few English corrections:

---line 130: rephraze the sentebce.

--line 180: 'better preserved' rather than 'more preserved'

---line 92: 

Author Response

The Authors are grateful for the important suggestions and corrections, and provide the following clarifications: 

REVIWER 1:

1)      The structure of the article with “Results” before “Methodology” is typical of the journal Stresses, as can be seen in recently published articles (for example: Stresses 2024, 4(4), 923- 934; https://doi. org/10.3390/stresses4040062); 2)      Abundance, frequency and dominance and Shannon-Wiener index formula: the information was inserted in the text (lines 443-448.of corrected version); 3)      Dominant species of trees/shrubs/grasses; climate; and which animals were raised: the information was inserted into the text (lines 401 - 402 of corrected version);  4)      Line 92 of inicial version: included in the Nymphalidae family

 (lines 89 of corrected version);

 

• Imagem de satélite: It was replaced;

 

• 1: suggestion accepted;

 

• 3: suggestion accepted;

 

• 4: the information was entered;

 

• Line 130 of inicial version: rewritten sentence (lines 96-97 of corrected version);

 

• Line 180 of inicial version: suggestion accepted (lines 298 of corrected version).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review recommendation of the manuscript titled “Monitoring stresses caused by gaseous pollutants: how it can affect the community of fruit-feeding butterflies (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) in a Caatinga area?” submitted to the journal Stresses

 

This manuscript focuses on a case study of using butterflies as indicator species for environment pollution in the Neotropical area, which is an excellent example of applying butterfly diversity to environmental sciences, as well as elucidate how the common pollutants affect butterfly diversity (biodiversity respond). This work has the value for multiple readers, from researchers to general public, as well as policymakers. After careful review, I invite the authors to improve this manuscript based on the following comments.

 

Materials and methods: (1) Please explain the reason why you chose fruit-feeding butterflies as indicators, why are they important? Are they more sensitive to gaseous pollutant? How about other butterflies, such as Lycaenidae, which are usually more sensitive to environment changes. (2) Please also explain the reason of choosing this type of bait, as well as its ingredients. Other research also added rotten shrimps to the banana bait, the difference between bait ingredients may affect the trapping effectiveness. How to justify such differences. (3) Is the forest densiometer a device? If so, please provide its manufacturer information. (4) Usually a transect is either 1 km or 2 km in length, is your 850 m transect sufficient for such survey? Are there evidence of literature suggest so? (5) Judging from Fig. 6, the matrix of your transects are different even with in a same transect, how much would this affect the investigation results? Please explain or discuss this in the manuscript.

 

Fig. 6: The satellite image is not clear, and the markings on this map are hard to read, I recommend the authors to produce a GIS-based map to show the transects and other elements more clearly.

 

P1. The title is too long, please shorten it. My suggestion is: Stresses from gaseous pollutants on the fruit-feeding butterflies (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) in a Caatinga area in Brazil.

 

Throughout the text: NOx should be NO_x, SO2 should be SO₂.

 

Fig. 1: The legend next to each subfigure is difficult to read. Apart from the most abundant species, other species seem to be less responsive to the changes, could you please consider use the most responsive species in this figure (the first three species, for instance)? Others can be omitted here but put them in Supporting Information. Please change the colour scheme of this figure so it can be more colour-blindness friendly.

 

Fig. 3: Please remove ‘ns’ from the last subfigure and its note in figure legend. P > 0.05 only means weak evidence, ‘not significant’ is a misleading concept.

 

Fig. 4: Please change the labels of X-axis to calendar months, i.e., Jan., Feb, Mar., … Nov., Dec., or their single-letter acronyms; and the X-axis title Sampling month, should be in singular form. It would be better to unify the Y-axis range for the two charts, to enhance the comparability.

 

P7: L155-156: Please make a few examples of the plant species in this Caatinga vegetation that benefit Biblidinae butterflies.

 

P7, L156-161: It is two repetition of a same sentence “The characteristics of the Caatinga vegetation (floristic composition, climate, canopy characteristics) compared to other phytogeographic domains may justify the greater representativeness of Biblidinae in this phytogeographic domain.”

 

The usage of species and subspecies are mixing, since this is a site study, using subspecies is not necessary.

 

P8, L180-181: Only one [31] citation is needed.

 

P8, L188-189: The statement “It is possible that the presence of the pollutant plume in transect I favored the immature stages of fruit-feeding butterflies.” should be put with caution. Otherwise it is misleading that pollution is good for butterflies. NO_x can cause atmospheric nitrogen sediments and shift the vegetation configuration, than change the abundance of certain butterflies. Please check similar research and make this point clearer.

 

P8, L193-194: “In general, the diversity found in the present study was lower than those obtained in studies with fruit-feeding butterflies that used similar sampling methodologies”. Could it because of the different baits? Butterflies are very sensitive to odour, please rule out such difference before attributing everything to environment.

 

P8, L198-205: This section requires citations.

 

The different canopy conditions affect butterfly abundance and diversity obviously, therefore the author must make it clear that whether this is one of the main influencing factor in their analysis, not only a discussion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please invite a native English speaker to improve the grammar and wording of the manuscript before resubmittion.

Author Response

 The Authors are grateful for the important suggestions and corrections, and provide the following clarifications:

1)        Choice of fruit-feeding butterflies: the information was entered (lines 57-60 of corrected version); 2)      Bait: the composition of the bait used is in accordance with the standard established for studies with frugivorous butterflies (Uehara-Prado et al., 2004; Freitas et al., 2014);               

 

• Densiometer: Spherical Densiometer Model - A (Forest Densiometers, Rapid City, South Dakota, USA). The information was entered (line 439-440 of corrected version);

 

4)      Transect length: In the standard methodology established for studies with butterflies, the important thing is the distance between sampling points, which must be between 30 m and 50 m. In our work, a distance of 50 m was adopted, in accordance with the methodology for this type of study; 5)      “The matrix of your transects is different”: The aim was to involve two common environments in the region surrounding the mining company, pastures and forest fragments. The two transects were made up of the same matrices, seeking to homogenize the collection environments as much as possible (lines 415 - 416 da corrected version). 

• 6- Satellite Image: it was replaced;

 

• Títle: It has been changed;

 

• L193-194: “In general, the diversity found in the present study was lower than those obtained in studies with fruit-feeding butterflies that used similar sampling methodologies”. Could it because of the different baits?: This part of the text was changed, as comparisons had been made with studies involved in other biomes. The authors corrected and inserted works carried out in the Caatinga Biome or with a predominance of Caatinga vegetation (lines 310-313). Diversity varies in different locations within the same biome. In our case, standardized procedures (protocol for studies with frugivorous butterflies) were used, including baits. In our study, canopy openness significantly influenced abundance and diversity.

 

• NOx to NO_x, SO2 to SO_2: corrections made;

 

• Less abundant species: data were inserted in a new figure in the supplementary material. The color scheme has been changed;

 

11)  Removal of “ns” and note in the Figure caption: suggestion accepted; 12)  Change in the labels of the X and Y axes: suggestion accepted; 13)  Examples of plant species that benefit Biblidinae: this part of the text was removed because there is a lack of phytosociological studies in the region. 14)  Repetitions in the same sentence: the sentence was rewritten (lines 279-282 of corrected version); 15)  Use of subspecies is not necessary: ​​suggestion accepted, only the species were maintained; 16)  Statement “It is possible that the presence of the pollutant plume in transect I favored the immature stages of butterflies that feed on fruits”: the statement was withdrawn, new studies are needed;

 

 17)  Quality of English Language: the language was revised by the company STTA Translation and Revision. 

Finally, the Authors made changes to the conclusions, recognizing the need for studies on phytosociology and interactions with butterflies, as well as the fluctuating asymmetry of the wings of the specimens collected, for example, effects that cannot be evaluated with analyses of community structure.

 

 

The Authors

 

Correspondent author: Maria Aparecida Castellani

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version of this MS is much better than the original version. However, there are still a few places need to be modified according to my comments. After this round, the MS could be accepted for publication.

 

Minor revision:

 

L53: It is better to move “composed of some subfamilies of Nymphalidae” after “fruit feeders”.

L94: Fountainea halice can be F. halice.

Throughout the text, mathematic variables such as H’ (Shannon-Wiener index), and others, should be in italic.

Figures 2, 4, 5, 6: Please make the annotation (text) in the figures smaller, similar to other figures.

L292-293: Does “dietary specificity” mean the food plants of larvae?

L296: E. tatila bellaria and H. februa februa, use species names only, no subspecies names.

L398: Change NOx to NO_x, with subscript x.

L401-402: The vegetation composition and cattle are too vague, please be more specific, you can include the main species of cattle.

L429: “The captured specimens were identified in species and subspecies…”, please remove subspecies.

L447: The formula “1/S x 100”, please don’t use letter x for the multiply symbol.

Author Response

The revised version of this MS is much better than the original version. However, there are still a few places need to be modified according to my comments. After this round, the MS could be accepted for publication.

We are grateful for your review, and we have meticulously examined each request, providing detailed responses in the following manner:

 Minor revision:

 L53: It is better to move “composed of some subfamilies of Nymphalidae” after “fruit feeders”.

Answer: Done. Changes in Line 53.

L94: Fountainea halice can be F. halice.

Answer: Done. Changes in Line 94.

Throughout the text, mathematic variables such as H’ (Shannon-Wiener index), and others, should be in italic.

All of the mathematical variables have been changed to italic type.

Figures 2, 4, 5, 6: Please make the annotation (text) in the figures smaller, similar to other figures.

Done. The text of the figures has been standardized as follows

L292-293: Does “dietary specificity” mean the food plants of larvae?

Answer: Yes.

L296: E. tatila bellaria and H. februa februa, use species names only, no subspecies names.

Answer: Done. Changes in Line 296.

L398: Change NOx to NO_x, with subscript x.

Answer: Done. Changes in Line 394.

L401-402: The vegetation composition and cattle are too vague, please be more specific, you can include the main species of cattle.

Answer: Done. Information has been incorporated into lines 398-400

L429: “The captured specimens were identified in species and subspecies…”, please remove subspecies.

Answer: Done. Changes in Line 425.

L447: The formula “1/S x 100”, please don’t use letter x for the multiply symbol.

Answer: Done. Changes in Line 443.