An Updated Checklist of Freshwater Gastropods (Mollusca: Gastropoda) of Bosnia and Herzegovina, with Emphasis on Crenobiotic Species

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

My only comment is to add authorships of the photoes of Fig. 2.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

 

Thank you for your comments on our work. According to your suggestion, we added the authorship of the photos of Figure 2 (Figure 3 in revised manuscript).

 

Please find enclosed document.

 

Kind regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This work is a valuable addition to our knowledge on the freshwater gastropods of the Balkans. I am very happy to read it.

I have made a few comments in the text. I want to add that the manuscript would improve if it is edited by a native speaker.

I am ok with the structure of the manuscript, but as I point out in my comments, I would like a few more details on the simper and pca analyses.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

 

Thank you for your helpful comments on our manuscript. We have made corrections in accordance with your suggestions and comments.

 

Enclosed you will find our revised Manuscript with Appendix.

 

We needed more time for language editing, so that will be done in the coming period.

 

Kind regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a valuable addition to the literature on diversity of gastropods in freshwater. The literature cited is comprehensive. The few figures are high quality. I have a few substantive comments: 1) there is no methods section explaining the parameters for the SIMPER and PCA analyses; 2) there are no measures of statistical significance of the differences in composition of freshwater habitats noted by the authors; 3) it is not explained how the authors determined which species are mainly responsible for structuring of certain habitats; 4) given this careful analysis and the experience of the authors in their comprehensive surveys of macroinvertebrate assemblages in this region, it is an opportunity missed not to make explicit recommendations on conservation status/IUCN red list categories versus simply summarizing the status quo. The manuscript requires some light editing for English grammar. Please carefully check that all species- and genus-group names in the text are italicized (see e.g., lines 83, 84).

I note the following discrepancies between the taxon list and MolluscaBase with regards to the current taxonomic combination:

Name	Name accepted
Theodoxus callosus	Theodoxus baeticus
Viviparus mamillatus	Viviparus contectus
Esperiana (Esperiana) esperi	Esperiana esperi
Esperiana (Microcolpia) daudebartii acicularis	Microcolpia daudebartii acicularis
Zavalia vjetrenicae	Narentiana vjetrenicae
Sarajana driniana	Belgrandiella driniana
Sarajana travnicensis	Belgrandiella travnicensis
Docleiana tabanensis	Kerkia tabanensis
Saxurinator montenegrinus	Paladilhiopsis montenegrina
Bythiospeum hrustovoensis	Bythiospeum hrustovoense
Bythiospeum plivensis	Bythiospeum plivense
Iglica absoloni	Paladilhiopsis absoloni
Valvata (Valvata) cristata	Valvata cristata
Valvata (Cincinna) piscinalis piscinalis	Valvata piscinalis piscinalis
Valvata (Tropidina) macrostoma	Valvata macrostoma
Valvata (Cincinna) montenegrinus	Valvata montenegrina
Radix balthica	Ampullaceana balthica
Radix labiata	Peregriana labiata
Physa acuta	Physella acuta
Anisus (Anisus) spirorbis	Anisus spirorbis
Anisus (Disculifer) vortex	Anisus vortex
Gyraulus (Gyraulus) albus	Gyraulus albus
Radomaniola germari	Radomaniola curta germari
Radomaniola mostarensis	Radomaniola curta mostarensis
Gyraulus (Torquis) laevis	Gyraulus parvus

 

I also note the following corrections to the authorities in the taxon list:

Name	Authority	Authority corrected
Viviparus acerosus	(Bourguignat, 1862)	Bourguignat, 1862
Litthabitella chilodia	(Westerlund, 1866)	(Westerlund, 1886)
Graziana glinensis	(Radoman, 1975)	Radoman, 1975
Travunijana tribunicae	Schütt, 1963	(Schütt, 1963)
Lithoglyphus pyramidatus	Möllendorff, 1873	Möllendorf, 1873
Bythinella opaca	(M. Gallenstein, 1848)	(M. von Gallenstein, 1848)
Emmericia narentana	Bourguignat, 1880	Bourguignat, 1881
Ancylus recurvus	Martens, 1873	E. von Martens, 1873

 

Other comments:

·       Table 1: introduced species should be demarcated as such

·       L96: clarify that this is uncertain taxonomic status (vs. e.g., conservation status)

·       L97: MolluscaBase is misspelled

·       L104-106: “Our study showed that the largest number of freshwater gastropods belongs to the Dalmatia ecoregion (82 species and subspecies), while a smaller number (76 species and subspecies) belongs to the Dniester-Lower Danube ecoregion”: Is this difference statistically significant?

·       L129: “Most of the endemic species of Bosnia and Herzegovina are point endemics”: how many?

·       L130: type locality instead of locus typicus

·       L137: “most of the species inhabiting these localities should be considered endangered”: how many have been assessed and how many do not have a status of endangered?

·       Table 2: why are three species in bold font?

·       L173-176: “The hydrobid species Bythinella opaca proved to be the most important species for structuring the gastropod assemblages both in permanent and intermittent springs. Another species that had a large contribution were Belgrandiella bozidarcurcici and Galba truncatula.” How did you come to this conclusion? As demonstrated by what?

·       L189-192: “Changes in environmental parameters in turn affect the structure of groups of snails in modified springs [81]. As can be seen from Figure 3, the PCA analysis of 105 springs in northwestern Bosnia did not show a clear separation of gastropod groups from modified and natural springs.” These two sentences are contradictory.

·       L194-197: “On the other hand, SIMPER analysis showed that groups of freshwater gastropods from natural springs of our dataset show greater homogeneity (similarity=7.56) than communities in-habiting modified springs (similarity=6.53).” These are not statistically different.

·       L197-199: “The hydrobioid species Bythinella opaca and Belgrandiella bozidarcurcici mainly contributed to the structuring of gastropod assemblages in both modified and natural springs.” How did you come to this conclusion? As demonstrated by what?

·       L238-241: “This updated checklist of freshwater gastropods provides a good legislative framework for the protection of endemic species of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as to help current and future conservation activities with the aim of their successful implementation”: Based on your analysis, you are in a position to make recommendations on IUCN status, especially for the most threatened species. It would be an opportunity missed not to do so explicitly.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

 

Thank you for your helpful comments on our manuscript. We have made corrections in accordance with your suggestions and comments. Please, see table below. Enclosed you will find our revised Manuscript with Appendix.

 

Reviewer 3	Authors
1) there is no methods section explaining the parameters for the SIMPER and PCA analyses	We have done.
2) there are no measures of statistical significance of the differences in composition of freshwater habitats noted by the authors	We have done.
3) it is not explained how the authors determined which species are mainly responsible for structuring of certain habitats	In section Materials and methods we added part: “In order to determine homogeneity in assemblage of springs (modified/natural and permanent/intermitent) and in order to determine species which are main contributors of assemblage we performed SIMPER analysis.” Also, we have added supplementary material (Appendix) with a table and exact values of the contribution of individual species.
4) given this careful analysis and the experience of the authors in their comprehensive surveys of macroinvertebrate assemblages in this region, it is an opportunity missed not to make explicit recommendations on conservation status/IUCN red list categories versus simply summarizing the status quo.	We have done.
The manuscript requires some light editing for English grammar.	We agree. But we needed more time for language editing, so that will be done in the coming period.
Please carefully check that all species- and genus-group names in the text are italicized	We have done.
I note the following discrepancies between the taxon list and MolluscaBase with regards to the current taxonomic combination: …	We have done.
I also note the following corrections to the authorities in the taxon list: …	We have done.
Table 1: introduced species should be demarcated as such	We have done.
L96: clarify that this is uncertain taxonomic status (vs. e.g., conservation status)	We have done.
L97: MolluscaBase is misspelled	We have done.
L104-106: “Our study showed that the largest number of freshwater gastropods belongs to the Dalmatia ecoregion (82 species and subspecies), while a smaller number (76 species and subspecies) belongs to the Dniester-Lower Danube ecoregion”: Is this difference statistically significant?	In section Materials and methods we added: “For testing uniformity of distribution of species belonging two ecoregions, we used Chi-square test.” In subchapter Diversity of freshwater gastropods in Bosnia and Herzegovina we added: “Using Chi-square test, we conclude that there is no statistically significant difference (p=0.633).”
L129: “Most of the endemic species of Bosnia and Herzegovina are point endemics”: how many?	We have done.
L130: type locality instead of locus typicus	We have done.
L137: “most of the species inhabiting these localities should be considered endangered”: how many have been assessed and how many do not have a status of endangered?	We have done. Please, see in subchapter “3.4. IUCN Red List Assessments”
Table 2: why are three species in bold font?	Based on the suggestions of one of the reviewers we deleted that table. Crenobionts are marked with a letter “k” in the column B of Table 1.
L173-176: “The hydrobid species Bythinella opaca proved to be the most important species for structuring the gastropod assemblages both in permanent and intermittent springs. Another species that had a large contribution were Belgrandiella bozidarcurcici and Galba truncatula.” How did you come to this conclusion? As demonstrated by what?	These conclusions we got from SIMPER analysis. See supplementary material (Table A1 in Appendix) which we add. Also, we added “(Table A1)” on appropriate place in text.
L189-192: “Changes in environmental parameters in turn affect the structure of groups of snails in modified springs [81]. As can be seen from Figure 3, the PCA analysis of 105 springs in northwestern Bosnia did not show a clear separation of gastropod groups from modified and natural springs.” These two sentences are contradictory.	In the cited paper (now [73]), springs belonging only to the basin of one river were considered. In our paper, the springs that belong to different watersheds were analysed, which significantly contributes to their heterogeneity. In that case, the modified/natural factor is not so dominant or noticeable.
L194-197: “On the other hand, SIMPER analysis showed that groups of freshwater gastropods from natural springs of our dataset show greater homogeneity (similarity=7.56) than communities in-habiting modified springs (similarity=6.53).” These are not statistically different.	SIMPER analysis gives the answer on the question which taxa are primarily responsible for an observed difference between groups of samples. It does not give any significance.
L197-199: “The hydrobioid species Bythinella opaca and Belgrandiella bozidarcurcici mainly contributed to the structuring of gastropod assemblages in both modified and natural springs.” How did you come to this conclusion? As demonstrated by what?	These conclusions we got from SIMPER analysis. See supplementary material (Appendix, Table A3) which we add. Also, we added “(Table A3)” on appropriate place in text.
L238-241: “This updated checklist of freshwater gastropods provides a good legislative framework for the protection of endemic species of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as to help current and future conservation activities with the aim of their successful implementation”: Based on your analysis, you are in a position to make recommendations on IUCN status, especially for the most threatened species. It would be an opportunity missed not to do so explicitly.	We acknowledge the referee's suggestion as a constructive suggestion. However, we would like to emphasize that our malacological work in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the last decade was mainly related to spring habitats, therefore we can give recommendations on the status of the IUCN, listing species threatened with regional extinction in Bosnia and Herzegovina only for crenobiont species. This is done with Table 2.

 

Kind regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The review describes changes in the freshwater gastropod fauna of Bosnia and Herzegovina and represents a rather extensive data collection. It is clear from the list of references that authors used rather recent data.
I have no special comments, except for the layout of the work. The centerpiece of the review is Table 1 located in Chapter 2, which contains a complete list of studied species and their classification. In the table legend, there is an explanation of all column names, except for the last column (conservation status), for which the explanation is given in Chapter 5. On my opinion, it would be more comfortable for readers to have all essential information about table just in the legend (in shorter form). 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4,

 

Thank you for your comments on our work. According to your suggestion, we have corrected part of the title of Table 1, which refers to IUCN categories.

 

Please find attached document.

 

Kind regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Good knowledge of the species presence and distribution is necessary to protect biodiversity. In this framework, this updated checklist of freshwater gastropods of Bosnia and Herzegovina provides a good legislative framework for the protection of endemic species, as well as to help current and future conservation activities with the aim of their successful implementation. However, the manuscript needs major modifications before acceptance.

In addition to the English polishing, in my opinion, it would be better to reorganize the manuscript according to the structure: Introduction, Material & Methods (where to put all the analyses used in the same section, including statistical analysis), Results, Discussion and conclusions. A map of the studied area is needed. Supplementary material must be offered too, especially data used in the PCA.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 5,

 

Thank you for your helpful comments on our manuscript. We have made corrections in accordance with your suggestions and comments. Enclosed you will find our revised Manuscript with Appendix.

 

We re-organized revised version of manuscript, as you suggested, separate Material and Methods Chapter (where were we putted all analyses used in this paper) and Results and Discussion Chapter with special subchapters in which the main results of the work are analyzed. We think that this structure best suits the set goals and the obtained work results.

 

Also, we added map of the studied area (Figure 1), as well as supplementary material (Appendix). Data used in PCA analysis are available in published papers, which we have provided in the text of the manuscript (see Material and Methods chapter).

 

Based on the suggestions of one of the reviewers we deleted Table 2 from subchapter Diversity of freshwater gastropods in spring habitats. In revised version of manuscript all crenobionts are marked with a letter “k” in the column B of Table 1. We have made corrections in accordance with your other suggestions from section “some small remarks” (including corrections of figures).

 

We needed more time for language editing, so that will be done in the coming period.

 

 

Kind regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 5 Report

the manuscript has been improved.