First Short-Term Study of the Relationship between Native and Invasive Earthworms in the Zone of Soil Freezing in Western Siberia—Experiments in Mesocosms
, Stanislav Yu. Kniazev 1, Kamil Karaban 2, Kirill A. Babiy 1 and Sergei V. Shekhovtsov 3,4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
My apologies up front for some keen young researchers who are working under difficult conditions and publishing in a second (or third) language (I know as I also struggle with two or three languages, despite being native English speaker).
Really, truly sorry but this paper does not pass first gate as the taxa involved are not adequately described. If you just said "we tested species A against species B and C" that would be OK. But you gave names. You must prove it.
Where is the identification, authority or DNA support? You cannot just say it.
You work for "Systematics and Ecology of Invertebrates". Me too. But for the last 20 years I have tried always to support my identifications with COI barcodes, at least.
E.g. https://nh.kanagawa-museum.jp/www/contents/1646461957953/simple/B51_89-94_Blakemore_et_al_New_report_Japan.pdf . Yes, sure, I know L. terrestris from more than 40 years study in Europe, US, Australia (Tamania actually!) and Asia. But I cannot just say it without some proof or support. DNA does that.
You will need to support your species with DNA or just say A, B, C....
Not pedantic. Essential. Your main reference Blouin et al. (2012) exemplifies that. Not one of the authors is a sole taxonomist. They make up names, e.g. "Amynthas hilgendorfi, Michaelsen" for Metaphire hildengdorfi (Michaelsen, 1892)... Some of those authors (not authorities) sent me specimens to identify. Then ignored my advice. That is not Science nor Systematics.
You could have referenced my summary of Russia diversity - http://www.annelida.net/earthworm/Russian%20taxa%20updated%20from%20Perel.pdf or my colleagues studies on natives or exotics - e.g. https://zoologicalstudies.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40555-014-0052-0 or you could have cited my 30 year inventory of exotic earthworms globally (it is called Cosmopolitan Earthworms that I published and update regularly). Instead you say "Eisenia nordenskioldi (Eisen, 1873)".
You need to do better systematics... Small petty point, but it is Eisen, 1879. And with that, I support your work but not your laxity. You take up my time...
We all have things to do/obligations. But our duty to Science is to try better.
Please fix your identifications. Correct, then resubmit. But not to me. Best, RB.
Author Response
Point 1:
My apologies up front for some keen young researchers who are working under difficult conditions and publishing in a second (or third) language (I know as I also struggle with two or three languages, despite being native English speaker).
Really, truly sorry but this paper does not pass first gate as the taxa involved are not adequately described. If you just said "we tested species A against species B and C" that would be OK. But you gave names. You must prove it.
Where is the identification, authority or DNA support? You cannot just say it.
You work for "Systematics and Ecology of Invertebrates". Me too. But for the last 20 years I have tried always to support my identifications with COI barcodes, at least.
E.g. https://nh.kanagawa-museum.jp/www/contents/1646461957953/simple/B51_89-94_Blakemore_et_al_New_report_Japan.pdf . Yes, sure, I know L. terrestris from more than 40 years study in Europe, US, Australia (Tamania actually!) and Asia. But I cannot just say it without some proof or support. DNA does that.
You will need to support your species with DNA or just say A, B, C....
Not pedantic. Essential. Your main reference Blouin et al. (2012) exemplifies that. Not one of the authors is a sole taxonomist. They make up names, e.g. "Amynthas hilgendorfi, Michaelsen" for Metaphire hildengdorfi (Michaelsen, 1892)... Some of those authors (not authorities) sent me specimens to identify. Then ignored my advice. That is not Science nor Systematics.
Response 1: We have added information on the genetic identification of earthworm species to section 2.1 (74-82).
Point 2: You could have referenced my summary of Russia diversity - http://www.annelida.net/earthworm/Russian%20taxa%20updated%20from%20Perel.pdf or my colleagues studies on natives or exotics - e.g. https://zoologicalstudies.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40555-014-0052-0 or you could have cited my 30 year inventory of exotic earthworms globally (it is called Cosmopolitan Earthworms that I published and update regularly). Instead you say "Eisenia nordenskioldi (Eisen, 1873)".
You need to do better systematics... Small petty point, but it is Eisen, 1879. And with that, I support your work but not your laxity. You take up my time...
Response 2: We added a link to your database in paragraph 2.1 (78). The year has been corrected (44).
Reviewer 2 Report
In site description I suggest always accompany units by parameter organic matter mean LOI or percentage of C or something else, either refer to some published sources or describe method how individual parameters were measured, not clear why size fraction 1-5 mm is called valuable call it gravel instead.
Mention few dominant plant species.
The same for litter, Litter of which species was used and how the litter was collected.
Author Response
Point 1: In site description I suggest always accompany units by parameter organic matter mean LOI or percentage of C or something else, either refer to some published sources or describe method how individual parameters were measured
Response 1: We specified what was meant by organic matter content and added a test method in paragraph 2.1 (83).
Point 2: not clear why size fraction 1-5 mm is called valuable call it gravel instead.
Response 2: This phrase is not about the mechanical composition of the soil, but about the ratio of fractions in the soil structure (determined by the sieve method). From an agronomic point of view, the most valuable soil fraction is structural clods ranging in size from 1 to 5 mm.
And further in the proposal we are already talking about the ratio of clay and sand in the mechanical composition of soils. Sorry for misleading you.
Point 3: Mention few dominant plant species.
Response 3: We have added the name of the plant association to paragraph 2.1 (69-71).
Point 4: The same for litter, Litter of which species was used and how the litter was collected.
Response 4: We have added information on litter composition to paragraph 2.1 (72-73). We have also specified where the litter was collected and the specifics of litter preparation in paragraph 2.2 (92).
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is devoted to an interesting topic, namely the interaction of native and invasive earthworms. The results of the authors are convincing and statistically substantiated. In general, the manuscript is suitable for publication in this form. However, I would like to ask the authors to make the following additions and corrections:
- When printing a document and viewing at a scale of 100%, the captions of almost all drawings are fuzzy and blurry. Please redo the drawings, increase the size of the fonts used. I recommend inserting the figure into a document in .tiff format so that clarity is not lost. It is convenient to take screenshots of drawings in the Corel Capture application (not advertising, but as an example). Well, revise the design of the illustrations to look more modern. Get inspired by the style of the illustrations in the journals of the Nature group.
- Be sure to add a final synthetic drawing, or flowchart, where you summarize graphically your results.
- Name the soil for the experiment differently, not Vorony-Calcic Chernozems, but Calcic Chernozem.
Author Response
Point 1: Please redo the drawings, increase the size of the fonts used.
Response 1: We have increased the font size in the drawings.
Point 2: I recommend inserting the figure into a document in .tiff format so that clarity is not lost.
Response 2: We did this for figure 1. On the Diversity magazine website, all figures will be in their original format (tif) with a higher image resolution.
Point 3: Well, revise the design of the illustrations to look more modern. Get inspired by the style of the illustrations in the journals of the Nature group.
Response 3: We have added raw data to figures 1, 2, 4.
Point 4: Be sure to add a final synthetic drawing, or flowchart, where you summarize graphically your results.
Response 4: We have added a graphic abstract of the article
Point 4: Name the soil for the experiment differently, not Vorony-Calcic Chernozems, but Calcic Chernozem.
Response 5: We have changed the name of the soils (70)
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for taxonomic corrections and added DNA information. I was hoping for DNA from a representative of each of the three species you used rather than earlier sampled (from Omsk, but from 2013 I believe). Also I did not find the L. rubellus COI barcode, if it is there can you please indicate this. As well as the actual sub-species you used, there is often a problem with L. rubellus as worm-growers claim this when in fact they use E. fetida. Anyway, perhaps next time you can run DNA or at least keep specimens in an institution for later reference.
Introduction: if you wish to talk about global spread of exotic earthworms you may like to cite Blakemore (2009) - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/9780470455203.ch14 online here - https://archive.org/details/Blakemore2009COSMOPOLITANEARTHWOMSAGLOBALANDHISTORICALPERSPECTIVE . This I mention as the main text book on "Cosmopolitan Earthworms" has the most complete and up-to-date information on all exotic species records from around the World.
Another study for your Introduction may be the status of all the E. nordenskioldi sub-species from Blakemore (2013) - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690755/ Appendix 2. This paper also has information that you may care to add about the temperature tolerances and freezing ability of Eisenia spp. (E. nordenskioldi to -30°C ! ).
In your Introduction or Conclusions you may also like to add reference to L. rubellus in kurils (DOI: https://doi.org/10.32800/abc.2018.41.0009) and also the recent paper by Sergei et al. (2022 - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2020.598196/full) figs. 1-2 on distribution of E. nordenskioldi that for some reason seems to exclude the Kurils.
For Methods please check the mesocosm moisture level was kept at 60%. This seems high. Also, because of this can you clarify whether they were under some sort of shelter or exposed to natural rain/snow.
I note the map co-ordinates show site is in a parkland area in town near the airport. Possibly this site has had considerable disturbances compared to more natural sites. This is not a major issue as many research facilities are in towns.
Please check the few spelling and punctuation errors (and in the new references the species names should be formatted correctly, thanks).
Please do keep up your worm studies, perhaps with DNA next time.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments and recommendations!
New changes in the text of the article are highlighted in green.
Point 1: Thank you for taxonomic corrections and added DNA information. I was hoping for DNA from a representative of each of the three species you used rather than earlier sampled (from Omsk, but from 2013 I believe). Also I did not find the L. rubellus COI barcode, if it is there can you please indicate this. As well as the actual sub-species you used, there is often a problem with L. rubellus as worm-growers claim this when in fact they use E. fetida. Anyway, perhaps next time you can run DNA or at least keep specimens in an institution for later reference.
Answer 1: We have added the Lumbricus Genbank number in section 2.1 (L 083). All sequences of Eisenia nordeskioldi and Aporrectodea caliginosa presented in the article were selected at the sites where we collected earthworms for the experiment. In these sites, earthworm species were represented by only one genetic lineage.
Point 2: Introduction: if you wish to talk about global spread of exotic earthworms you may like to cite Blakemore (2009) - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/9780470455203.ch14 online here - https://archive.org/details/Blakemore2009COSMOPOLITANEARTHWOMSAGLOBALANDHISTORICALPERSPECTIVE . This I mention as the main text book on "Cosmopolitan Earthworms" has the most complete and up-to-date information on all exotic species records from around the World.
Answer 2: We have added a link to the article in section 1 (L 037).
Point 3: Another study for your Introduction may be the status of all the E. nordenskioldi sub-species from Blakemore (2013) - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690755/ Appendix 2. This paper also has information that you may care to add about the temperature tolerances and freezing ability of Eisenia spp. (E. nordenskioldi to -30°C ! ).
Answer 3: We have added a link to the article in the discussion (L 342).
Point 4: In your Introduction or Conclusions you may also like to add reference to L. rubellus in kurils (DOI: https://doi.org/10.32800/abc.2018.41.0009) and also the recent paper by Sergei et al. (2022 - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2020.598196/full) figs. 1-2 on distribution of E. nordenskioldi that for some reason seems to exclude the Kurils.
Answer 4: in our article, we will discuss the distribution of Lumbricus rubellus in Western Siberia. The Kuril Islands are part of the Russian Far East. The list of earthworm species of the Kuril Islands does not include Eisenia nordenskiöldi, so there is no interaction of these earthworm species.
Point 5: For Methods please check the mesocosm moisture level was kept at 60%. This seems high. Also, because of this can you clarify whether they were under some sort of shelter or exposed to natural rain/snow.
Answer 5: We have added information about the absence of additional shelters for mesocosms in the experiment in the "Materials and Methods" section (L107)
In the Omsk region, more than 80% of precipitation falls during the growing season, so 60% soil moisture is the usual value. In the dry period, we measured the soil moisture and watered the mesocosms so that there was no diapause of the worms.
Point 6: I note the map co-ordinates show site is in a parkland area in town near the airport. Possibly this site has had considerable disturbances compared to more natural sites. This is not a major issue as many research facilities are in towns.
Answer 6: The experimental site was located behind a fence in an undisturbed part with natural meadows and birch groves. There were no walking paths in this area. The content of heavy metals in the soils of the site, according to the monitoring service, is several times less than the average values for the city of Omsk.
Point 7: Please check the few spelling and punctuation errors (and in the new references the species names should be formatted correctly, thanks).
Answer7: We did it. Also, the editorial services of the journal provide for the correction of spelling and punctuation.
Sincerely, the authors of the article.
