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.
Dear Dr. Pintar, I congratulate you on the acceptance of this article for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Ann Hedrick, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The author improved the manuscript according to the suggestions and comments of the reviewers and solved all issues and uncertainties that appeared in the original version of the manuscript.
I have no further comments.
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The authors have addressed all the concerns. I recommend the manuccript acceptance.
Dear Dr. Pintar, I ask you to make corrections to this manuscript and respond in writing to each of the reviewers' key comments.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
This manuscript explores the microhabitat use of the endangered and endemic dryopid beetle Stygoparnus comalensis based on a series of laboratory experiments. The results are indeed interesting and relevant for both species protection in the wild and potential breeding programs. However, I am not entirely convinced that this manuscript is best suited for PeerJ. It may be a better fit for a conservation- or entomology-focused journal. Nevertheless, I leave this decision to the Editor.
In addition to S. comalensis, the author included the more abundant co-occurring species Stenelmis sexlineata for comparison in the habitat choice experiments. Although including similar species for comparison of (micro)habitat preferences is not a bad idea for identifying key factors of niche differentiation, the main weakness of this manuscript lies in how S. sexlineata is presented across different sections of the manuscript. For instance, the habitat use of S. sexlineata is presented in the results, but its role is not discussed at all in relation to the target species. The first mention of this species appears only in the Methods, without justification in the Introduction. Thus, the main reason for including S. sexlineata is somewhat unclear to me and needs to be substantially revised across the whole manuscript.
In addition, both larvae and adults of S. sexlineata were used in the experiments; however, only adults of S. comalensis were included without explanation, resulting in a larger sample size for the non-target species. Interestingly, there is a mention in the Introduction about the presence of another endemic but more abundant species (Heterelmis comalensis), so why was this species not included in the study instead?
I also have several minor comments, please see below.
L25: Provide a clear take-home message summarizing the main findings rather than a generic closing statement.
L64–69: Rephrase to avoid repetition of “controlled experiments.”
L77: Please justify the inclusion of S. sexlineata already in the Introduction.
L83: Specify the body size; not everybody is familiar with dryopid beetles.
L130: Unfinished sentence? Please revise.
L131: Please rephrase what is “categorical position of the beetle.” Here is relatively confusing.
L134: Specify the functions used from each R package to improve reproducibility. As far as I noticed later in the text, GLMMs with a binomial distribution (and I guess log link function) were applied in most of the cases, state this here. Then, for each experiment, clarify the response, fixed effect(s), and random effect(s). Also, indicate whether responses were pre-calculated values or modeled using a two-column matrix with the cbind function.
L159: Please indicate how many individuals of each species were used in each experiment and in total. Also, justify why larvae were included for S. sexlineata but not for S. comalensis. It is important because now I do not see the point of why larval results are provided (and not discussed).
L198: Rephrase “A total of 12–24 replicates were tested.” The phrase “a total” should refer to a single number, not a range. A similar occasion also appeared at L164.
L323-325: Please revise for text flow and clarity. “Significantly fewer” and “no response” should not be in the same sentence.
L389: Clarify why S. sexlineata was included in the experiments if its results are not discussed in depth. Is there any connection between the two studied species?
I hope you will find my comments and suggestions useful.
Thank you.
Please see above.
Please see above.
Please see above.
Overall the manuscript is of high quality, well-written, with a good introduction and context of why this kind of experimentally obtained information may be of value to support conservation strategies of the endangered species. Literature appears to be adequate and sufficient, explanatory tables and figures are included. I would say the contribution is self-contained, comprehensive, a food effort given difficulties to work with small organisms obtained from the wild.
The experimental design yielded useful information to support conservation initiatives for S. comalensis, particularly in regard to type of substrate and required wood conditioning in wild conditions. I believe the experimental standard is acceptable, with good statistics. I am a bit unsure of how relevant might some of the information be strictly for improving conservation strategies, such as response to light or presence of other beetles, yet, they are interesting life history data that helps better understand general biology and ecology of these poorly known species.
Findings are well supported, particularly in regard to physical habitat structure and variation in food quality.
I have included pdf of the manuscript with a few minor comments for your consideration.
1. In the introduction, a more comprehensive description of the Comal Springs environment, such as water quality parameters, substrate type, and nearby vegetation, would provide valuable ecological context for interpreting the experimental findings.
2. Consider adding photographs of the experimental setup in the supplementary material to help readers visualize the methodology.
3. In line 130, the sentence appears to be incomplete. Please check whether any information is missing.
4. In line 183, the sentence “It has been anecdotally reported that S. comalensis occurs on wood or with Platanus spp. (sycamore) roots in the wild” would be more appropriately placed in the Introduction section rather than in the Methods. In addition, this statement should be supported by a reference. The same comment applies to line 246, where the sentence “Wood conditioned in captivity could lack microbial communities that make it more palatable to beetles, which could in turn potentially affect beetle fitness”
no comment
no comment
This manuscript presents valuable experimental study on the habitat preferences and behavioral ecology of the endangered Stygoparnus comalensis. The author aimed to determine the species’ preferences for different physical substrates - wood, leaves, rocks - light environments, and behavior in relation to the presence of conspecifics and heterospecifics, as well as to test the effects of flow and wood conditioning on feeding activity.
The study addresses an important conservation issue by providing insights into the microhabitat use and potential captive management of a species with a very limited geographic distribution. The inclusion of a comparative species, Stenelmis sexlineata, a sympatric riffle beetle, strengthens the ecological interpretation. The experiments conducted in captivity may help to define new management strategies and breeding protocols for the endangered species. Although the sample size was limited due to the species’ rarity, the study was well-designed and well-executed.
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.