Cestode Diversity of Shrews on the Kamchatka Peninsula and Paramushir Island

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is quite interesting in its discussion of the various cestodes of shrew. There are improvements that should be made as follows :

1. In table 1 ; preferably not in total (column) because of the different species of shrews (73)

2. It would be better not to write in detail about the spesies of Hymenolepididae, Dilepididae and Mesocestoididae (99-123)

Hopefully the results of the review can be useful

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are grateful to you for taking your time for redaction and great improvement of our manuscript. We have made corrections in the manuscript diversity-2106293 entitled
“Shrew’ cestodes of the Kamchatka Peninsula and Paramushir island”.

There is some reply to the comments:

1. In table 1; preferably not in total (column) because of the different species of shrews (73). We corrected
2. It would be better not to write in detail about the spesies of Hymenolepididae, Dilepididae and Mesocestoididae. We corrected. The information about the spesies of Hymenolepididae, Dilepididae and Mesocestoididae removed in the Table 1

We hope that now the manuscript is much better and will be acceptable for publication.

Sincerely yours,

Svetlana A. Kornienko, Nikolai E. Dokuchaev

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has some important descriptions of biogeography of shrew species and their cestodes. I think he results are interesting but really need comprehensive discussion and improved introduction of previous studies within the Russian peninsula and the greater Bering Sea region to really make this a more impactful and citable publication.

The discussion is more of a summary I would expect there to be more discussion with previous studies of shrew and cestode species within the region and compare across the Bering Sea. Discuss isolation fo these shrew species within the region and the effects on the cestode species found

 

I would expect for shrew species in the region that Hope et al publications should be referenced for the biogeographical history of these species

 

This paper also sets up your isolation within the region of shrew species Phylogenetic Diversification within the Sorex cinereus Group (Soricidae) https://doi.org/10.1644/1545-1542(2003)084<0144:PDWTSC>2.0.CO;2

For an overview of biogeography in the region please cite and discuss Combe, et al. Origins and diversity of the Bering Sea Island fauna: shifting linkages across the northern continents. Biodivers Conserv 30, 1205–1232 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-021-02153-3

Discuss historical distribution of these shrew species with citations and background information on the parasites

L18 remove on

L 47 why intermittent sampling regime

L48 collected not gathered

Figure 1 please also show the whole Bering sea island / Aleutian island area in a map box

Methods, how were specimens identified to species levels, how many people did this to confirm i.e 2 identification of each specimen

L77 why did you not include these species

Table 1 can be difficult to follow consider improving

 

This should not be here

This section may be divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise 80 description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental 81 conclusions that can be drawn.

Put these number on a map as either a number or a pie chart per species may help improve your results as well as species distributions

 

L236 rare here? Rare where?

 

L243 improve legend, what is P statistical sig of

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are grateful to you very much for the improving our manuscript. We made corrections in the manuscript number diversity-2106293 entitled “Shrew’ cestodes of the Kamchatka Peninsula and Paramushir island”.

Further we are answering the comments:

1. The discussion is more of a summary I would expect there to be more discussion with previous studies of shrew and cestode species within the region and compare across the Bering Sea. Discuss isolation for these shrew species within the region and the effects on the cestode species found.

 Discuss historical distribution of these shrew species with citations and background information on the parasites

This article presents the first information on the shrew cestodes of Kamchatka and Paramushir Island. Similar data are not available for either NEAsia or Alaska. The nearest such data are available only for Yakutia. More discussion will be possible when similar data are published for NEAsia and Alaska. A detailed analysis of shrew biogeography was not the intent of this paper.

2. I would expect for shrew species in the region that Hope et al publications should be referenced for the biogeographical history of these species. We have cited

 

For an overview of biogeography in the region please cite and discuss Combe, et al. Origins and diversity of the Bering Sea Island fauna: shifting linkages across the northern continents. Biodivers Conserv 30, 1205–1232 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-021-02153-3 .We have cited

3. L18 remove on We corrected
4. L 47 why intermittent sampling regime. The gathering was held when there were opportunities to go to Kamchatka and Paramushir.
5. L48 collected not gathered. We corrected
6. Figure 1 please also show the whole Bering sea island / Aleutian island area in a map box. We corrected Figure 1
7. Methods, how were specimens identified to species levels, how many people did this to confirm i.e 2 identification of each specimen

Dr. N.E. Dokuchaev is a well-known expert in the taxonomy of Sorex and dr. S.A. Kornienko in the taxonomy of the shrew cestodes.

Trapping and identification of shrews were carried out by N.E. Dokuchaev, a leading Russian specialist in insectivorous mammals; helminths were also collected by N.E. Dokuchaev and Gulyaev V.D. The initial identification of helminths was made by V.D. Gulyaev, a leading specialist in cestodes in Russia. The final identification of helminths was carried out by Kornienko S.A. This is indicated in the section Author Contributions

8. L77 why did you not include these species. The analysis did not assess prevalence for S. daphaenodon, S. camtschaticus, and S. leucogaster because of the small number of individuals.
9. Table 1 can be difficult to follow consider improving. We corrected Table 1
10. This should not be here

This section may be divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise 80 description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental 81 conclusions that can be drawn. We deleted

11. Put these number on a map as either a number or a pie chart per species may help improve your results as well as species distributions. We corrected Figure 1
12.  L236 rare here? Rare where? We corrected
13. L243 improve legend, what is P statistical sig of. The value of P is given in the Materials and Methods.

 

We hope that now the manuscript is much better and will be acceptable for publication.

Sincerely yours,

Svetlana A. Kornienko, Nikolai E. Dokuchaev

 

Reviewer 3 Report

 This article provides important new and updated information regarding the taxonomic diversity and distribution of the cestode parasites of shrews, key groups in mammalian host-parasite communities in high latitudes which are rapidly experiencing the most severe impacts of global climate change. Such surveys and the subsequent taxonomic efforts required to document species occurrences through space and time are time-consuming and difficult, and this study is a valuable contribution to the understanding of natural host-parasite systems required for comparative ecological and systematic research. 

-The writing needs substantial editing to improve clarity, wording, and English usage. Edits have been added to the pdf.

-The authors should provide a supplementary table listing the museum catalog numbers, species IDs, and collection data for the specimens (parasites and hosts) examined and deposited to ensure replicability for future research and taxonomic updates.  In addition, the total numbers of specimens collected and examined should be clearly summarized.

-The claim that Kamchatka is a refugium for shrews and their parasites is interesting but requires additional development, support, and documentation. The authors should consider alternate hypotheses for the differences in species richness in comparison to the mainland, especially including consideration of the role of island biogeography and geographic area on peninsular and insular species diversity. In addition, a comparison of the prevalence and diversity of shrew cestodes in this study to other studies in the literature would be valuable.

-Consider including a visual diagram of the differences in major taxa between Kamchatka, Paramushir, and the mainland, potentially as colored pie diagrams.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are grateful to you for taking your time for redaction and great improvement of our manuscript. We have made corrections in the manuscript diversity-2106293 entitled “Shrew’ cestodes of the Kamchatka Peninsula and Paramushir island”.

All linguistic and grammar errors we tried to correct. We agree with your remarks and corrected.

We rearranged the manuscript according the comments of reviewer. We hope that now the manuscript is much better for the perception.

There is some reply to the comments:

-The authors should provide a supplementary table listing the museum catalog numbers, species IDs, and collection data for the specimens (parasites and hosts) examined and deposited to ensure replicability for future research and taxonomic updates.  In addition, the total numbers of specimens collected and examined should be clearly summarized.

We corrected. We added Appendix A, B

-The claim that Kamchatka is a refugium for shrews and their parasites is interesting but requires additional development, support, and documentation. The authors should consider alternate hypotheses for the differences in species richness in comparison to the mainland, especially including consideration of the role of island biogeography and geographic area on peninsular and insular species diversity. In addition, a comparison of the prevalence and diversity of shrew cestodes in this study to other studies in the literature would be valuable.

There are abundant botanical and zoological evidences that Kamchatka was a refugium. We tried to show that cestodes provide further evidence of Kamchatka's isolation.

Our aim was to provide information on shrew cestodes on Kamchatka and Paramushir Island, which was part of Kamchatka in LGM. A detailed analysis can be performed when data on shrew cestodes from adjacent areas of NE Asia and from Alaska will be available.

 

 

We hope that now the manuscript is much better and will be acceptable for publication.

Sincerely yours,

Svetlana A. Kornienko, Nikolai E. Dokuchaev

Reviewer 4 Report

This is a rare, hard, potetial valuble work for cestoder. But there are some flaws need to be imporved. 

Title:  cestode diversity of shrew in the  Kamchatka Peninsula and Paramushir  island

Abstract:

This  suggests on the existence in Kamchatka the refuge for shrews and their parasites. In Kamchatka and  Paramushir two American species (Lineolepis parva and L. pribilofensis) were found which indicates  on their penetration from North America.  This conclusion need to be rearrangement with scientific evidennce and logic. 

 The main contribution to the maintenance of the helminthic invasion of shrews in Kamchatka was made by S. caecutiens, while in Paramushir by S. isodon.  It is diffiluclt to distinguish the helminth which is in refuge or invaison one without extra molecular evidence. 

Introduction: it is too brief, some background of cestodes in the research location need to be provided 

The result: the diversity index need be given

The conclusion: need more concise

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are grateful to you very much for the improving our manuscript. We made corrections in the manuscript number diversity-2106293 entitled “Shrew’ cestodes of the Kamchatka Peninsula and Paramushir island”.

Further we are answering the comments:

1. 
   We rearranged the manuscript according the comments of reviewer. We hope that now the manuscript is much better for the perception.

 

2. We corrected the Title:  Cestode diversity of shrew in the Kamchatka Peninsula and Paramushir island
3. We corrected the Abstract. But Abstract is limited the count of the word. We provide the scientific evidence in the text.
4. The main contribution to the maintenance of the helminthic invasion of shrews in Kamchatka was made by S. caecutiens, while in Paramushir by S. isodon.  It is diffiluclt to distinguish the helminth which is in refuge or invaison one without extra molecular evidence. 

We have not studied the ways of getting cestodes to Kamchatka. The aim was to compare the prevalence of different species of hosts. It is not clear what additional molecular evidence is needed? Does it refer to shrews or cestodes?

 

5. Introduction: it is too brief, some background of cestodes in the research location need to be provided 

We have added the additional cites

 

5. The result: the diversity index need be given

The aim of the manuscript is to evaluate richness and prevalence of infection of shrew cestodes in Kamchatka and Paramushir. There was no purpose to compare diversity indices. 

We replace the diversity with richness

 

6. The conclusion: need more concise. We corrected

 

We hope that now the manuscript is much better and will be acceptable for publication.

Sincerely yours,

Svetlana A. Kornienko, Nikolai E. Dokuchaev

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

A greatly improved manuscript that will be a useful contribution to the knowledge of shrews and their parasites within the Bering Sea region. No corrections offered apart from spell checking and minor grammatical check associated with the updated text which can be completed as part of proof corrections etc.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are grateful to you for taking your time for redaction and great improvement of our manuscript. We made corrections in the manuscript number diversity-2106293 entitled “Cestode diversity of shrews on the Kamchatka Peninsula and Paramushir island”.

We hope that now the manuscript is much better and will be acceptable for publication.

Sincerely yours,

Svetlana A. Kornienko, Nikolai E. Dokuchaev

 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 4 Report

thank for your reply

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are grateful for your work with our manuscript which allowed to bring it to a much better shape. We made corrections in the manuscript number diversity-2106293 entitled “Cestode diversity of shrews on the Kamchatka Peninsula and Paramushir island”.

We hope that now the manuscript is much better and will be acceptable for publication.

Sincerely yours,

Svetlana A. Kornienko, Nikolai E. Dokuchaev

Author Response File: Author Response.doc