Effects of Peri-Urbanization on Coastal Sage Scrub Ant Species in Baja California

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript ID ‘diversity-2509606’ entitled “Effects of Peri-Urbanization on Coastal Sage Scrub Ant Species in Baja California” was aimed to “characterize the community of ants present in the coastal sage scrub of the peri-urban area of the city of Ensenada, a sensitive area poised for increased urbanization and analyze its relationship with the geographical ecological components of the local CSS ecosystem.” This study seems important in Coastal Sage Scrub based on ant diversity, but several points should be improved. There were some duplications among Introduction, M & M, and Discussion sections. Some results should be reconsidered with improving statistical analyses. In Results section, citation should be deleted and some citations may not need, i.e., there are so many citations in my idea. In my opinion, the reconstruction of manuscript is strongly needed to publish.

Major points

L95-109. These are one of the histories about ant communities or assemblages, or data handling standards in Materials and Methods. Move to Introduction section (may be after study aims) or move to the other subsection in M & M that would be good for readers.

L125-128. Suitable to Introduction section.

L130-150. Why two different transects (unbait vs bait) were used? Were there separated between them? I think randomized block design would be better… Please add reasons and description in details. Compared to L161-164, were sampling for ants and ecological variables in same plot? It would be better that there is information about plot size for ecological variables including transect position for ant samplings.

L195-198. Add more details about RDA. For example, standards for RDA application, advantages of RDA compared to other ordinations, and so on.

L236-247. Reconsider please. Sampling was conducted with three different methods, but analyses about feeding guilds appear to be using a pooled data. So, statistical analyses should also be reconsidered.

L260. Title of subsection should be reconsidered. Cluster analysis is generally not showing a pattern in species richness, it shows just similarity among study sites.

L261-271. In Results section, it seems that results are confused with some discussion parts, so interpretation of cluster analysis should be reconsidered.

L278-279. Move to Data analysis subsection in M & M section.

L278-294. Are you sure that Fig. 4 and its explanation are showed RDA results? I think it seems to be a result of PCA (axis name based on PCA is represented as PC1, PC2,…). And there were no signs for environmental variables on figure (e.g., using arrow), or correlation analysis between axes and ant variables, and between axes and environmental variables. Authors should be reconsidered about analysis and its interpretation.

L300-303. Move to Data analysis subsection in M & M section.

L306-308. I’m not sure why ANOSIM was used here. It would be better using with cluster analysis or ordination in general.

L303-310. I can’t understand these. Do you identify treatment groups in earlier? And why were you conducted comparison of functional diversity among soil types? This part should be reconsidered.

L317-319. This sentence is just duplicate of earlier.

L327-337. Dominance and rarity are general phenomena in community ecology. More important thing is how three different sampling methods was handled as I mention above. In some cases, pooled data may have a potential to understand ant communities, but separated data also have a potential or provide better insight. Please reconsidered.

L339-L350. Based on your observation, you need to discuss about that compared to previous results or thesis. In current structure, the earlier half appears to be history or background of your study. In addition, some sentences are duplicates with those in M & M. So, this part should be reconsidered. In following discussion parts (L351-371), similar issues as mentioned earlier are found. It would be better that your findings are first in paragraph, and then discussions can be followed with rephrasing.

L372-386. There are several terms were used, such as invasive, non-native, introduced and exotic species. Each term means different thing, so you need carefully used them.

L409. What are your standards for selection of key species? Abundance? Feeding guild? RDA (or PCA)? I can’t understand this result. If key species means bioindicators, you must be conducted to indicator analysis between habitat treatment groups. If it is not, you need clearly define the term ‘key species’ what it is mean. And then, following paragraphs may be rewritten or reconstructed.

L414. This analysis -> what kind of?

Minor points

Title, L90. community -> assemblage? The term for species groups in same space and time is depending on there is definitely interaction among organisms and its uncertainty. 

L161, L173. In variables, elevation and altitude were used, but it means same thing.

L339. Ant feeding guilds, or functional groups -> functional feeding guilds (or groups)

L380. L. humile -> Linepithema humile. If species name is presented in head of sentence, full name is preferred.

L389-390. sp. 1 nd and -> sp.1 and?, I think there is no need to add ‘nd’ for sp.1

L403. ‘While writing this paper’ -> Vague. Can you describe period or year of the disturbance?

I found that there were some errors as follows:

L49-50. Check the position of ‘[15]’

L63. Check the position of ‘[23]’

L121-122. Check the sentence ‘to Ensenada, Baja California. Ensenada (N, W).’

Please check English throughout ms.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This article presents interesting results and deserve to be published. The method looks okay for me (in the limit of my knowledge) and just need some few precisions. The results are clear, I suggest including ants and their ecological function as part of them (not in appendix) because the importance of such information for the study. Discussion is interesting. I principally suggest writing more precisely study’s questions at the end of the introduction to give more fluidity in the text.

Introduction

Line 38 to 42 may be integrated in the first paragraph as general description of the situation or in the third paragraph (49-60).

Line 42 to 48 may be in description of the area in the method.

I like the information and paragraph between line 61 to 93. However, it could be nice and make the paper stronger if you finish the introduction with hypothesis or direct questions (line 90 to 93). First time I read it its looks very descriptive and not so attractive despite the great interest given by the precedent paragraph. You may use for example the 4 paragraphs of the discussion to elaborate such question ( first one “Johnson and Ward’s assumption”, 4.1 Feeding guilds and functional diversity, 4.2 Geographical distribution ranges of the species present, 4.3 Ecological characteristics and diversity measures).

Methods

The first two paragraph (95-109) may be integrated in the introduction and allow the authors to make direct hypothesis or questions.

Sampling method looks good, I have just some question/precision need.

Figure 1, is it possible to distinguish between water and land (all appear white)?

Why did you use those four types of bait ? And how you used it vs the trap ? All in the same? Please explain.

Ecological variables’ paragraph looks okay.

Data analysis.

It looks okay for me.

Results

I like the description of species collected in the first part (until line 234). I suggest the appendice A, could be integrated in the first paragraph as a table because the function of ants are important to understand ecological service the give  (according to the introduction), also they are mentioned in the next paragraph (235-247) and figure 2.

Other results look okay for me (according to my knowledge limits about these kind of studies).

Discussion

You claim: Our findings confirm that the Mediterranean vegetation associated with coastal sagebrush supports high local species richness”…why do not present these as a question (or part of) in the introduction, it look a important results for this work?

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for their detailed and very constructive review of our paper. We believe we have addressed the concerns raised and that result manuscript is significantly improved. The revised version is a much stronger and clearer analysis. The revised and rewritten areas have been highlighted in yellow to highlight the requested changes and improvements in the manuscript.

Specifically:

• We have reorganized the manuscript extensively to address the concerns of both reviewers. We have also edited and rewritten to remove redundancies.
• We have decreased the number of citations significantly, although the historic nature of the literature review sections do require more referencing than might be normal.
• We have reworked the analysis significantly which has clarified and streamlined the manuscript.

Line 38 to 42 may be integrated in the first paragraph as general description of the situation or in the third paragraph (49-60).

Thank you. We have done so.

Line 42 to 48 may be in the description of the area in the method.

Thank you. We have moved this information.

I like the information and paragraph between line 61 to 93. However, it could be nice and make the paper stronger if you finish the introduction with hypothesis or direct questions (line 90 to 93). First time I read it its looks very descriptive and not so attractive despite the great interest given by the precedent paragraph. You may use for example the 4 paragraphs of the discussion to elaborate such question ( first one “Johnson and Ward’s assumption”, 4.1 Feeding guilds and functional diversity, 4.2 Geographical distribution ranges of the species present, 4.3 Ecological characteristics and diversity measures).

We have rewritten per your excellent suggestion.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

L81. CSS ecosystem. are -> delete .

Fig. 4. In my opinion, it would be better that abbreviation for species names (e.g., Solcar) instead of full scientific names (e.g., Solenopsis carolinensis), because current biplot showed a little complex to read. But this is optional point.

Fig. 5. What does mean that red circles?

Author Response

Thank you for your comments that have significantly improved the figures. We have addressed the following concerns:

L81. CSS ecosystem. are -> delete .

Thank you - this word has been deleted

Fig. 4. In my opinion, it would be better that abbreviation for species names (e.g., Solcar) instead of full scientific names (e.g., Solenopsis carolinensis), because current biplot showed a little complex to read. But this is optional point.

This was a very good point. The figure has been relabeled to improve clarity.

Fig. 5. What does mean that red circles?

The red circles have been removed. They were in reference to an earlier ANOSIM analysis. They are no longer necessary as the cluster analysis and associated discussion illustrate the point with much greater clarity