All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
I have read the MS and find it well written and almost ready for acceptance. Please consider the minor issues as given by the referees.
No comments
This manuscript by Higley and Brosius is well written and presents a well- designed study of a rare tiger beetle that has important implications for its conservation. The introduction presents the relevant literature and an effective background to this study. The data presented and the statistical analysis of these behaviors seems appropriate in providing valid evidence of difference among species.
The conclusion that these determined differences in behavior can reduce competition for food seems well supported and justified. The different behaviors of C. n. lincolniana provide a valid insight to its adaptation to the saline habitats where it is found, and can inform management by protecting habitat with seeps and other features it requires
I would offer an alternate or complementary explanation for the foraging microhabitat of togata. It is significantly smaller than the other species, with long legs and consequently can both extend higher above the substrate where it is slightly cooler and would have reduced heat loading and quicker cooling. In tiger beetles (and other insects) smaller body size can result is more effective behavioral thermoregulation that species with larger body size, thus allowing for foraging on warmer substrates or during the warmer parts of the day (Pearson and Vogler).
The authors introduce a very complex set of interactions in an understandable context of ecology and conservation. The English is solid with a minimum of unnecessary jargon. A simple but significant change should be made in lines 59 and 61. The endangered tiger beetle is not an endangered species. It is an endangered population or recognized subspecies. There are a few typos throughout (e.g., line 339 "on" should be inserted between reliance and shallow).
No comments
No comments
The authors successfully integrate a complex set of interactions and test them convincingly to accomplish both goals of ecology and conservation.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.