Responses of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities of Two Tropical, High-Mountain Lakes to Climate Change and Deacidification

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript “Responses of benthic macroinvertebrate communities of two tropical, high-mountain lakes to global change”

By Javier Alcocer, Luisa A. Oseguera, Diana Ibarra-Morales, Elva Escobar and Lucero Garcia-Cid

 

The study contributes to the knowledge on the macroinvertebrate community of high mountain lakes in tropical latitudes. The almost-twenty year interval included in the sampling represents a particularly critical period for global warming phenomena. Furthermore, these phenomena are amplified in these peculiar biotopes so as to anticipate the consequent ecological crises.

The drafting of the text must be revised to avoid some imperfections.

In addition, the manuscript should be enriched with graphical representations (figures) regarding the dynamic of macroinvertebrate species (the mean core of the study) in the 13 months of the two periods, for each lake. In this way the understanding of the reader would be greatly facilitated, and the readers could easily observe the change in the benthic community throughout the twenty years investigated.

 

2. Materials and Methods

- lines 85-90: here are reported values ​​of parameters then measured in this study (except chlorophyll). The data reported are taken from a paper published in 2004, therefore they report information that is no longer real and is actually close to that of 2000/2001, the starting point for the comparison of the study in question. I suggest removing this part and use it in discussions as a comparison.

- lines 109-110: very little information on the macroinvertebrate sampling method. What tool was used? The Ekman sampler? What was the actual surface sampled for each replicate? Since you write about density and biomass, it is important to know these characteristics. Also in which area was the sampling carried out? Littoral or pelagic area? At what depth? Were the three replicates always carried out on the same site for both lakes?

 

3. Results

This section does not discuss some of the parameters analyzed and also reported in table 1 (all the parameters related to the substrate).

- line 169: in 2000-2001 the species found are not 8, but 7, and in 2017-2018 they are not 3, but 5!

- line 199: replace “(88.5%)” with “(89.8%)”

 

4. Discussion

- line 263: replace “(48; 2017-2018 unpublished data)” with “(2003 data, [48]; 2017-2018, unpublished data).”

- lines 263-266: The sentence “In addition, it must be noted that 263 alkalinity declined from 2003 (El Sol: 27.5 ± 0 mg L-1, La Luna: 2.1 ± 0.3 mg L-1) to 2017-264 2018 (El Sol: 21.6 ± 3.1 mg L-1, La Luna: 1.1 ± 0.9 mg L-1), which also explain the increase in 265 the pH variation ranges in 2017-2018” repeats again the data, while it should be more useful to indicate the percentage of decrease!
- lines 284-288: this sentence is not completely clear, you should precise more clearly that these observations are regarding only the monthly dynamic within the considered years.

 

Tables

Replace in the tables and throughout the text“org m^-2” with  “ind m^-2”

- Table 1: add the rainfall data, since they are discussed in the results section

- Table 1: “Name”? Replace to “substrate type”

- Table 2: delete “Tubificae”, Tubifex tubifex belong to the family Naididae (subfamily Tubificinae, but in the column is indicated “family”)

For a clear analysis, for each of the 8 species found it is necessary to indicate the recurrence (i.e. the number of times it was found in the 13 inspections of 2000-01 and in those of 20017-18) and the percentage of annual abundance in both periods

- Table 3: dominant species should be removed; it will be readable from the data to be added in Table 2

 

Author Response

Referee 1

The study contributes to the knowledge on the macroinvertebrate community of high mountain lakes in tropical latitudes. The almost-twenty-year interval included in the sampling represents a particularly critical period for global warming phenomena. Furthermore, these phenomena are amplified in these peculiar biotopes so as to anticipate the consequent ecological crises.

The drafting of the text must be revised to avoid some imperfections.

DONE

In addition, the manuscript should be enriched with graphical representations (figures) regarding the dynamic of macroinvertebrate species (the mean core of the study) in the 13 months of the two periods, for each lake. In this way the understanding of the reader would be greatly facilitated, and the readers could easily observe the change in the benthic community throughout the twenty years investigated.

WE INCLUDED THE REQUESTED FIGURES FOR BOTH VARIABLES (DENSITY AND BIOMASS), BOTH LAKES (EL SOL AND LA LUNA), AND BOTH PERIODS (2000-2001 AND 2017-2018)

1. Materials and Methods

- lines 85-90: here are reported values ​​of parameters then measured in this study (except chlorophyll). The data reported are taken from a paper published in 2004, therefore they report information that is no longer real and is actually close to that of 2000/2001, the starting point for the comparison of the study in question. I suggest removing this part and use it in discussions as a comparison.

THE PARAGRAPH WAS REMOVED AS SUGGESTED

- lines 109-110: very little information on the macroinvertebrate sampling method. What tool was used? The Ekman sampler? What was the actual surface sampled for each replicate? Since you write about density and biomass, it is important to know these characteristics. Also in which area was the sampling carried out? Littoral or pelagic area? At what depth? Were the three replicates always carried out on the same site for both lakes?

WE INCLUDED THE REQUESTED INFORMATION BY PROVIDING A DETAILED METHODOLOGY

1. Results

This section does not discuss some of the parameters analyzed and also reported in table 1 (all the parameters related to the substrate).

WE INCLUDED A PARAGRAPH MENTIONING SUBSTRATE RELATED VARIABLES AS REQUESTED

- line 169: in 2000-2001 the species found are not 8, but 7, and in 2017-2018 they are not 3, but 5!

THE REFEREE IS CORRECT. IT WAS A MISTAKE. WE CORRECTED AND DOUBLE CHECKED THE NUMBERS

- line 199: replace “(88.5%)” with “(89.8%)”

4. DONE

 

1. Discussion

- line 263: replace “(48; 2017-2018 unpublished data)” with “(2003 data, [48]; 2017-2018, unpublished data).”

DONE

- lines 263-266: The sentence “In addition, it must be noted that 263 alkalinity declined from 2003 (El Sol: 27.5 ± 0 mg L-1, La Luna: 2.1 ± 0.3 mg L-1) to 2017-264 2018 (El Sol: 21.6 ± 3.1 mg L-1, La Luna: 1.1 ± 0.9 mg L-1), which also explain the increase in 265 the pH variation ranges in 2017-2018” repeats again the data, while it should be more useful to indicate the percentage of decrease!

DONE. THE REPITED DATA WERE REPLACED BY THE REDUCTION PERCENTAGES AS SUGGESTED BY THE REFEREE

- lines 284-288: this sentence is not completely clear, you should precise more clearly that these observations are regarding only the monthly dynamic within the considered years.

THE PARAGRAPH WAS RE-WRITEN FOR CLARIFICATION

Tables

Replace in the tables and throughout the text“org m^-2” with “ind m^-2”

DONE

- Table 1: add the rainfall data, since they are discussed in the results section

DONE, AIR TEMPERATURE AND RAINFALL DATA WERE INCLUDED IN THE TABLE

- Table 1: “Name”? Replace to “substrate type”

DONE

- Table 2: delete “Tubificae”, Tubifex tubifex belong to the family Naididae (subfamily Tubificinae, but in the column is indicated “family”)

DONE

For a clear analysis, for each of the 8 species found it is necessary to indicate the recurrence (i.e. the number of times it was found in the 13 inspections of 2000-01 and in those of 20017-18) and the percentage of annual abundance in both periods

AS REQUESTED, WE ADDED A TABLE INCLUDING THE SPP RECURRENCE AND THE DENSITY AND BIOMASS PERCENTAGE OF EACH SPECIES FOR EACH PERIOD

- Table 3: dominant species should be removed; it will be readable from the data to be added in Table 2

DONE.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

GENERAL COMMENTS

This is an interesting manuscript about the shift of benthic macroinvertebrate communities of two 2 tropical high-mountain lakes encompassing a 18-year period of environmental changes. The manuscript however needs some revisions before a decision can be made. One of the major concerns is that authors give too much importance comparing the BMI average annual biomass from El Sol with that of La Lune, instead of focusing on the comparison of metrics between 2000-2001 to 2017-2018. For example, in El Sol, the decrease from 00/01 to 17/18 was of 92%!! And in La Luna was of 93%!! This is indeed the most important and what the readers want to know (and what to want to explore according to the title, correct?). The same applies to the Average density metric. This should be focused on the Abstract as well as on the corresponding section in Results. Discussion needs to be better structured, by keeping to the main results and avoiding speculation (see suggestion on the specific comments). Also, to increase appealing of the manuscript, the authors should also outline management implication of the study (why the findings are important?), this should end the abstract and conclusions section. English needs improvement, the manuscript should be revised by a native English speaker. Specific comments are detailed below, should the authors want to use them to improve their work.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

L3 – Global changes seems to vague. You should specify here the main source(s) of pressure. Climate change? Global warming? Acidification?...

L19- Once again, I think you need to be more specific about the global changes, particularly outlining what type of changes are you referring to.

L25-26 (same comment on L204-208)- Much more interesting than comparing BMI average annual biomass from El Sol with that of La Lune, is to compare the shift from 2000-2001 to 2017-2018. For example, in El Sol, the decrease from 00/01 to 17/18 was of 92%!! And in La Luna was of 93%!! This is indeed the most important and what the readers want to know (and what to want to explore according to the title, correct?). The same applies to the Average density metric!

 L45 – “while less information has come from tropical latitudes [10].”. I think it would be important to outline here why this is important, why such info is needed for tropical high-mountain lakes, from the conservation point of view.

L72-73 – Add country.

L109-110 – Could you provide more details about the sampling methodology and the location/stratification of samples in the lakes?

L121 – MIB or BMI as in L48?

L126 – please check “2007- 20018”. You mean compare between the 2000-2001 and 2017-2018 periods, right?

L130-134 and throughout this section – In addition to p, include the test statistics.

L133 – Replace 20017 by 2017.

Table 1 – Texture. What does it represent? Dominant texture?

L193 – Perform the calculation and gave me 62%. Please check.

L194 – In La Luna, the decrease was of 90% (not 10%) as it passed from 7955 to 783, correct?

Table 3 – Consider include species percentages (between brackets) in the “Dominant Species” row.

L204-208 – Much more interesting than comparing BMI average annual biomass from El Sol with that of La Lune, is to compare the shift from 2000-2001 to 2017-2018. For example, in El Sol, the decrease from 00/01 to 17/18 was of 92%!! And in La Luna was of 93%!! This is indeed the most important and what the readers want to know (and what to want to explore according to the title, correct?). The same applies to the Average density metric!

L222-224 – “c) the density and biomass drastically reduced in Lakes El Sol (down to 37.5% in density, and 7.6% in biomass) and La Luna (down to 9.8% in density, and 7.3% in biomass)”. Please check your numbers: A decrease from 6541 to 2453 (density) means a % decrease of 63%. For La Luna (7955 to 783), it was a percent decrease of 90%. Concerning biomass, as referred above, percent decrease in El Sol and La Luna, were respectively of 92% and 93%.

L247 – Are there mountains in New York??? Please check if this is not the city of the publisher.

L248-251 – Do not understand the context of this sentence for the discussion.

L261-265 – Why is not alkalinity on Table 1?

L270 – But how many in these cases?

L280-281 – But why it could favor? What variable(s) could be responsible for such patterns?

L282-288 – I do not understand what you want to show with this paragraph. Basically in each Discussion paragraph, authors should address: a) outline the result you found; b) explain such result in light of the published literature and compare it with others from the literature; and c) outline with such result(s) is important for science, its implications and any eventual lines of research.

L308-310 – Sentence not clear, please re-write it.

L310 – Seem to worsen..what?

L294-301 – The same goes here. Any similar results to yours (L289-292) in the literature? Other studies?

L297-298 – “Another possibility..”. This seems speculation and should be avoided. Any reference to support it?

L321-322 – But what are the practical implications of your study? What would you recommend to managers according to your findings? This should end your conclusions as well as the abstract.

Author Response

Referee 2

This is an interesting manuscript about the shift of benthic macroinvertebrate communities of two 2 tropical high-mountain lakes encompassing a 18-year period of environmental changes. The manuscript however needs some revisions before a decision can be made. One of the major concerns is that authors give too much importance comparing the BMI average annual biomass from El Sol with that of La Lune, instead of focusing on the comparison of metrics between 2000-2001 to 2017-2018. For example, in El Sol, the decrease from 00/01 to 17/18 was of 92%!! And in La Luna was of 93%!! This is indeed the most important and what the readers want to know (and what to want to explore according to the title, correct?). The same applies to the Average density metric.

WE AGREE WITH THE REFEREE IN THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF THE PAPER IS THE COMPARISSON BETWEEN BOTH CYCLES, 2000-2001 AND 2017-2018. HOWEVER, WE THINK IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO COMPARE BOTH LAKES TO SHOW THE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES OF BENTHOS AFTER 18 YEARS. ALTHOUGH LOCATED CLOSE TO EACH OTHER (<600m APART), WITHIN THE SAME DRAINGE BASIN, BOTH LAKES WERE BIOLOGICALLY AND PHYSICOCHEMICALLY DIFFERENT IN 2000-2001, AND ALSO IN 2017-2018, AND MOST IMPORTANT, THEY RESPONDED DIFFERENTLY TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL STRESSORS. BESIDES, OTHER REFEREES ASKED TO EXPAND ON THE INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOUR BY ADDING FIGURES OF THE BMI DENSITY AND BIOMASS DYNAMICS OF EACH LAKE IN BOTH PERIODS.

This should be focused on the Abstract as well as on the corresponding section in Results. Discussion needs to be better structured, by keeping to the main results and avoiding speculation (see suggestion on the specific comments). Also, to increase appealing of the manuscript, the authors should also outline management implication of the study (why the findings are important?), this should end the abstract and conclusions section.

A PARAGRAPH ON THIS REGARD WAS ADDED IN THE INTRODUCTION AND CONCLUSIONS. THE ABSTRACT LENGTH RESTRICTIONS DOES NOT ALLOW TO INCLUDE ALL THE INFORMATION REQUESTED.

English needs improvement, the manuscript should be revised by a native English speaker. Specific comments are detailed below, should the authors want to use them to improve their work.

DONE. THE MANUSCRIPT WAS REVIEWED BY A NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKER AFTER CHECKED WITH GRAMMARILY.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

L3 – Global changes seems to vague. You should specify here the main source(s) of pressure. Climate change? Global warming? Acidification?...

DONE

L19- Once again, I think you need to be more specific about the global changes, particularly outlining what type of changes are you referring to.

FOLLOWING THE TERM “GLOBAL CHANGES”, LINES 20-22 CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE TYPE OF CHANGES FOUND

L25-26 (same comment on L204-208)- Much more interesting than comparing BMI average annual biomass from El Sol with that of La Lune, is to compare the shift from 2000-2001 to 2017-2018. For example, in El Sol, the decrease from 00/01 to 17/18 was of 92%!! And in La Luna was of 93%!! This is indeed the most important and what the readers want to know (and what to want to explore according to the title, correct?). The same applies to the Average density metric!

AS EXPLAINED BEFORE, WE DID MENTIONED THE BIOLOGICAL CHANGES FOUND BETWEEN 2000-2001 AND 2017-2018, BUT ALSO MENTIONED DIFFERENT CHANGES TOOK PLACE IN BOTH LAKES, THIS IS, THE LAKES RESPONDED DIFFERENTLY AFTER 18 YEARS, WHICH IS WORTH MENTIONING. BESIDES, THE OTHER REFEREES ASKED TO DETAIL THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE LAKES.

L45 – “while less information has come from tropical latitudes [10].”. I think it would be important to outline here why this is important, why such info is needed for tropical high-mountain lakes, from the conservation point of view.

WE ADDED A PARAGRAPH ON THIS REGARD EXPLAING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TEMPERATE AND TROPICAL LAKES IMPLYING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DIFFERENT CONSERVATION MEASURES.

L72-73 – Add country.

DONE

L109-110 – Could you provide more details about the sampling methodology and the location/stratification of samples in the lakes?

DONE, WE DETAILED THE DESCRIPTION OF THE METHODOLOGY

L121 – MIB or BMI as in L48?

REPLACED FOR BMI

L126 – please check “2007- 20018”. You mean compare between the 2000-2001 and 2017-2018 periods, right?

DONE

L130-134 and throughout this section – In addition to p, include the test statistics.

DONE

L133 – Replace 20017 by 2017.

DONE

Table 1 – Texture. What does it represent? Dominant texture?

TEXTURE REPORTED AVERAGE GRAIN SIZE (mm). THE CLARIFICATION WAS INCLUDED IN THE TABLE LEGEND.

L193 – Perform the calculation and gave me 62%. Please check.

DONE

L194 – In La Luna, the decrease was of 90% (not 10%) as it passed from 7955 to 783, correct?

THAT IS CORRECT. IN 2017-2018 THERE WAS A REDUCTION DOWN TO 38% (EL SOL) AND 10% (LA LUNA) THE VALUES OF 2000-2001. OR, THE 2017-2018 DENSITIES REPRESENT A DECREASE OF 62% IN EL SOL AND 90% IN LA LUNA REGARDING 2000-2001.

Table 3 – Consider include species percentages (between brackets) in the “Dominant Species” row.

THE OTHER REFEREE ASKED TO REMOVE THE DOMINANT SPECIES FROM THE TABLE 3 SINCE THE NEW TABLE 4 SHOWEDS THE DENSITY AND BIOMASS PERCENTAGES FOR ALL THE SPECIES.

L204-208 – Much more interesting than comparing BMI average annual biomass from El Sol with that of La Lune, is to compare the shift from 2000-2001 to 2017-2018. For example, in El Sol, the decrease from 00/01 to 17/18 was of 92%!! And in La Luna was of 93%!! This is indeed the most important and what the readers want to know (and what to want to explore according to the title, correct?). The same applies to the Average density metric!

WE HAVE CONSIDERED BOTH, THE COMPARISSON BETWEEN THE TWO SAMPLING PERIODS. WE RE-ORDERED THE RESULTS TO PROVIDE 1) DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LAKES IN 2000-2001, 2) DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LAKES IN 2017-2018, AND 3) DIFFERENCES BETWEEN 2000-2001 AND 2017-2018. THE INCLUSSION OF A NEW FIGURE 2 SHOWS BOTH COMPARISSONS (LAKES AND PERIODS). REFEREES 1 AND 3 ASKED TO PROVIDE AN WIDER DESCRIPTION/COMPARISSON BETWEEN LAKES EL SOL AND LA LUNA AT EACH PERIOD

L222-224 – “c) the density and biomass drastically reduced in Lakes El Sol (down to 37.5% in density, and 7.6% in biomass) and La Luna (down to 9.8% in density, and 7.3% in biomass)”. Please check your numbers: A decrease from 6541 to 2453 (density) means a % decrease of 63%. For La Luna (7955 to 783), it was a percent decrease of 90%. Concerning biomass, as referred above, percent decrease in El Sol and La Luna, were respectively of 92% and 93%.

CORRECTION MADE

L247 – Are there mountains in New York??? Please check if this is not the city of the publisher.

YES. THE ADIRONDACK MOUNTAINS FORM A MASSIF IN NORTHEASTERN UPSTATE NEW YORK.

L248-251 – Do not understand the context of this sentence for the discussion.

THERE ARE REPORTS OF DEACIDIFICATION (PH INCREASE) IN LAKES PREVIOUSLY ACIDIFIED THROUGH ACID PRECIPITATION. THROUGH SIGNING INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS, SEVERAL COUNTRIES DIMINISHED THEIR S & N EMISSIONS TO THE ATMOSPHERE AS A CONSEQUENCE, THE ACID PRECIPITATION BECAME LESS ACIDIC ALLOWING THE LAKES TO EVENTUALLY “RECOVER”, PROCESS WHICH IS KNOWN AS DEACIDIFICATION. THE LAKES’ PHS RETURNED TO THEIR INITIAL (PRE-POLLUTED) NATURAL VALUES (AROUND 5.6 OR HIGHER). HOWEVER, THIS IS NOT THE CASE IN LAKES EL SOL AND LA LUNA SINCE THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT HAS NOT IMPLEMENTED MEASURES TO REDUCE S & N EMISSIONS TO THE ATMOSPHERE AS SUPPORTED BY IBARRA ET AL. (2020) RECORDS SHOWING BULK DEPOSITION PH AT THE NEVADO DE TOLUCA VOLCANO REMAINED ACIDIC (ACID PRECIPITATION) ALL YEAR ROUND. IN BRIEF, THE CAUSES OF DEACIDIFICATION IN LAKES EL SOL AND LA LUNA ARE NOT ASSOCIATED TO REDUCTIONS IN ATMOSPHERIC S & N EMISSIONS AS OBSERVED IN OTHER DEACIDIFIED LAKES.

L261-265 – Why is not alkalinity on Table 1?

BECAUSE THERE ARE NO ALKALINITY DATA FROM THE 2000-2001 CYCLE. WE COMPARED DATA FROM 2003 AND 2017-2018.

L270 – But how many in these cases?

FOR EXAMPLE, 34 FAMILES IN 16 LAKES, 51 TAXA IN FOUR LAKES, AND 180 SPP IN SIX LAKES VERSUS 8 SPECIES IN TWO LAKES

L280-281 – But why it could favor? What variable(s) could be responsible for such patterns?

WE DON’T KNOW FOR SURE. WE INCLUDED MORE INFORMATION SUPPORTED BY REFERENCES ON THIS REGARD. THERE IS NO A CLEAR ANSWER SINCE BOTH ACIDITY AND ALTITUDE FAVOR CHIRONOMIDS OVER ANNELIDS. MOST STUDIES MENTIONED THE PRESENCE OF ANNELIDS IN THE BENTHOS OF HIGH MOUNTAIN LAKES, BUT NOT AS THE DOMINANT GROUP INSTEAD OF CHIRONOMIDS. MOREOVER, ANNELIDS WERE DOMINANT ALREADY IN 2000-2001.

L282-288 – I do not understand what you want to show with this paragraph. Basically in each Discussion paragraph, authors should address: a) outline the result you found; b) explain such result in light of the published literature and compare it with others from the literature; and c) outline with such result(s) is important for science, its implications and any eventual lines of research.

THE POINT IS SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS REMAINS THE SAME ALONG THE YEAR, BETWEEN LAKES, AND BETWEEN SAMPLING PERIODS. THE SEDIMENTS DO NOT EXPLAIN THE CHANGES OBSERVED IN THE BMI. DIFFERENTLY, TEMPERATURE AND PH CORRELATED WITH DENSITY AND BIOMASS, THEN HIGHER TEMPERATURES AND PHS CORRELATED WITH HIGHER BMI DENSITIES AND BIOMASSES.

L308-310 – Sentence not clear, please re-write it.

DONE, THE SENTENCE WAS RE-WRITTEN FOR CLARIFICATION

L310 – Seem to worsen..what?

THE SENTENCE WAS RE-WRITEN FOR CLARIFICATION

L294-301 – The same goes here. Any similar results to yours (L289-292) in the literature? Other studies?

1. MOST STUDIES SHOW THE EFFECTS OF ACIDIFICATION ON BMI, AND SOME OF THESE FOUND NO EFFECTS AT ALL. REFERENCES WERE PROVIDED IN THE TEXT

L297-298 – “Another possibility..”. This seems speculation and should be avoided. Any reference to support it?

THE SENTENCE WAS RE-WRITEN FOR CLARIFICATION. NO PUBLICATIONS WERE FOUND MENTIONING DEACIDIFICATION NEITHER ITS EFFECT ON THE BMI. QUICK CHANGES EXTINGUISH OR AFFECT ORGANISMS THAT ARE NOT ABLE TO COPE WITH THE FAST FLUCTUATION, FOR EXAMPLE, CLIMATE CHANGE. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A LARGE PH CHANGE IN ONE YEAR.

L321-322 – But what are the practical implications of your study? What would you recommend to managers according to your findings? This should end your conclusions as well as the abstract.

A PARAGRAPH WAS INCLUDED AT THE END OF THE CONCLUSIONS AND ALSO IN THE INTRODUCTION. AS MENTIONED BEFORE, THE ABSTRACT LENGTH RESTRICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW TO INCLUDE ALL THE INFORMATION REQUESTED IN IT BUT IT DOES IN THE CONCLUSION SECTION

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript covers a generally interesting topic; it identifies how the benthic macroinvertebrates communities of two tropical, high mountain lakes have been affected by global/regional environmental pressures. Studies on high-altitude lakes are currently limited, which makes this study essential. However, it should be revised before its publication.

In general, this work contains some critical problems related to statistical analyses. For instance, you can add an analysis to relate environmental parameters with benthic macroinvertebrates communities. Moreover, you can present the abundance and biomass of benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages at each season. Then, you can compare the differences or similarities among seasons. The Discussion is too poorly and weakly organized and developed. See attached manuscript for detailed comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Referee 3

The manuscript covers a generally interesting topic; it identifies how the benthic macroinvertebrates communities of two tropical, high mountain lakes have been affected by global/regional environmental pressures. Studies on high-altitude lakes are currently limited, which makes this study essential. However, it should be revised before its publication.

In general, this work contains some critical problems related to statistical analyses. For instance, you can add an analysis to relate environmental parameters with benthic macroinvertebrates communities. Moreover, you can present the abundance and biomass of benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages at each season. Then, you can compare the differences or similarities among seasons. The Discussion is too poorly and weakly organized and developed. See attached manuscript for detailed comments.

 

85-89. IT IS BETTER TO ADD A TABLE TO PRESENT LAKES' CHARACTERISTICS.

THE PARAGRAPH WAS REMOVED AS REQUESTED BY REFEREES 1 & 2

109- HOW DID YOU CONDUCT THE SAMPLING?

THE METHODOLOGY PROVIDES FULL DETAILED PROCEDURES

111. WHICH KEY DID YOU USE TO IDENTIFY CHIRONOMIDAE IN GENUS OR SPECIES LEVEL?

MASON (1973), WIEDERHOLM (1983) AND MORENO ET AL. (2020). WE ADDED A PARAGRAPH IN METHODS INDICATING ALL THE IDENTIFICATION KEYS USED.

130-133. IN MY OPINION, I THINK THAT IT WILL BE HELPFUL TO PRESENT THESE DATA IN A GRAPH.

A FIGURE DISPLAYING AIR TEMPERATURE AND RAINFALL TEMPORAL TRENDS WAS INCLUDED AS REQUESTED

142. It is better to use human or anthropogenic

DONE

163-165. This paragraph is unnecessary.

DONE. THE PARAGRAPH WAS REMOVED

Table 2. Please include author and date information of species names.

DONE

190-196. I think that you add a graph to present the data.

WE INCLUDED THE REQUESTED FIGURES FOR BOTH BIOTIC VARIABLES (DENSITY AND BIOMASS), BOTH LAKES (EL SOL AND LA LUNA), AND BOTH PERIODS (2000-2001 AND 2017-2018)

204-208. You can add a graph to present the data.

WE INCLUDED THE REQUESTED FIGURES FOR BOTH VARIABLES (DENSITY AND BIOMASS), BOTH LAKES (EL SOL AND LA LUNA), AND BOTH PERIODS (2000-2001 AND 2017-2018)

216-226. This paragraph is unnecessary. You can deleted. All this information are reported in the previous paragraphs.

DONE. THE PARAGRAPH WAS REMOVED

312. human or anthropogenic

DONE

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript “Responses of benthic macroinvertebrate communities of two tropical, high-mountain lakes to climate change and deacidification”  

by Javier Alcocer, Luis A. Oseguera, Diana Ibarra-Morales, Elva Escobar and Lucero García-Cid 
   

The authors answered in a precise manner to all the suggestions. 

The text, the figures and the tables were corrected or added as required.

 The investigation protocols and data analysis are now clearer, so that the manuscript is improved in clarity.   

 

To my opinion, the manuscript in the present version is now suitable for publication.  

Author Response

We thank the valuable comments and suggestions of the referee that greatly improved the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

I am overall satisfied with the comments of authors to my previous concerns. I believe this is a much better version and with significant improvements over the original submission, and can now be accepted. Just to point out, that authors should include the north indication (usually given by an arrow) on Figure 1.

Author Response

We included the last minor corrections suggested by the referee (north indication in figure 1) and double-checked to correct minor details. We thank the valuable comments and suggestions of the referee that greatly improved the paper.