Subterranean Fauna of the Lukina Jama–Trojama Cave System in Croatia: The Deepest Cave in the Dinaric Karst

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The paper is well structured, the descriptions are very clear and the exposition in each section is concise, informative and clearly explained. The Table is very complete and interesting and the species inventory is very useful and will be more so in the future as it is completed. I congratulate the cavers and biospeleologist (the authors?) for achieving such good results in the sampling. The dedication and perseverance shown in such harsh conditions in very deep and cold caves is commendable. The photographs of the animals in situ are very good, difficult to obtain and quite informative.

I have added small corrections directly in the text (pdf).

I recommend publishing this paper with minor corrections

The following references are not cited in the text: 44, 62, 63, 70, 71, 75, 76, 77 and 78

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We wish to thank you for your time and comments that improved our manuscript.

We have carefully evaluated all the comments and suggestions. We followed the recommendations and changed the text accordingly. In the section below, we give our responses to all comments given.

I have added small corrections directly in the text (pdf).

Answer: We have corrected all but one suggestion.

The following references are not cited in the text: 44, 62, 63, 70, 71, 75, 76, 77 and 78

Answer: Thank you for noticing this. It seems that there was a problem with reference manager. We have carefully checked all the references.

Best regards,

Jana Bedek

Reviewer 2 Report

I really enjoyed reading this paper and am amazed at the number of taxa found in the system. I admire all the people who collect animals in such a difficult cave. I also look forward to the descriptions of at least some of these undescribed taxa, especially the hygropetricolous Collembola.

I have only a few corrections and suggestions incorporated in the attached PDF file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We wish to thank you for your time and comments that improved our manuscript.

We have carefully evaluated all the comments and suggestions. We followed the recommendations and changed the text accordingly. In the section below, we give our responses to all comments given.

I have only a few corrections and suggestions incorporated in the attached PDF file.

Answer: Thank you for these suggestions. We have accepted most of them and corrected the manuscript accordingly. Below, we reply to some of the suggestions.

A clear example can be seen in the Arabika Massif in Krubera, where two Leucogeorgia species with the same mouthpart modifications have a different vertical distribution. You can cite this work if you wish. Antic & Reip (2020: page 96, paragraph 2).

Similar example is with pseudoscopripnes in the Crimean caves.

Answer: Thank you for this suggestion. We have cited Antić & Reip 2020 paper. However, we were unable to find and cite relevant paper on Crimean pseudocsorpions.

Rhagidia sp. - Who identified it?

Answer: Roman Ozimec, we added this information in the MS.

In general, I think that the use of cf. in this way is inappropriate, since the name of the species is a binomen and cf. in this way can have no place here. I suggest Proasellus cf. P. slovenicus. I think that is more correct. I will not insist on it. Use cf. in the way you wish.

Answer: We have corrected the use of cf. as suggested.

Therefore, the surface, subsurface and terrestrial deep cave habitats are in pristine condition.

Answer: The word pristine is highlighted by the reviewer but without associated comment, so we are not sure what is suggested.

I think this is just due to sampling efforts.

After 2010, some species were described from the deep caves in Arabika massif, parts of Krubera Cave, viz., L profunda Antić & Reio, 2020, as the deepest recorded terrestrial arthropod.

I think here you should rephrase your sentence that it is so far like that.

Answer: We have rephrased the sentence as requested.

Best regards,

Jana Bedek

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a straightforward and scientifically sound annotated checklist that is placed into a wider context. I have no comments on the science part, thus. The only thing that would further improve the paper would be a map of the region, ideally a map showing the entire Dinaric Karst with the system treated here highlighted. If possible, this map should also include species counts for the various parts of the Dinaric Karst. This would allow readers to better assess the species diversity of the Lukina jama–Trojama cave system in comparison to other parts of the Dinaric Karst.

The MS is generally well-written and easily understandable throughout. In a few places there is scope for improvement, though, where either the grammar or the style are deficient. For example, the second sentence of the introduction should start with a "The" ("The majority..." instead of "Majority...") and it also ends somewhat awkwardly. Thus, it would be good if a native speaker could read through the MS (or it could be run through some online tool, I suppose). No big deal, but it would make for a smoother read.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We wish to thank you for your time and comments that improved our manuscript.

We have carefully evaluated all the comments and suggestions. We followed the recommendations and changed the text accordingly. In the section below, we give our responses to all comments given.

The only thing that would further improve the paper would be a map of the region, ideally a map showing the entire Dinaric Karst with the system treated here highlighted. If possible, this map should also include species counts for the various parts of the Dinaric Karst. This would allow readers to better assess the species diversity of the Lukina jama–Trojama cave system in comparison to other parts of the Dinaric Karst.

Answer: We have added a map of the region with the position of cave system highlighted, as part of the Figure 1. We thoroughly considered an option to present species counts for parts of the Dinaric Karts. One of the options how to present this would be to highlight all species-rich localities along the Dinaric Karst; however, we recognize that this request falls beyond the scope of this manuscript. So far, only few such species rich-caves were listed in previous works (Polak et al. 2022, Diversity; Zagmajster et al. 2022 Diversity; Delić et al. in prep; Culver & Sket 2000, J. Karst & Caves), which most likely underestimate the number of such caves. Presenting only these localities might be misleading, and we do not find a scientific value in conveying such information. Delivery of an updated list of localities would require an extensive analysis of published and unpublished records, a massive task providing results that would deserve discussion on its own. We respectfully suggest that this request remains unaddressed

It would be good if a native speaker could read through the MS (or it could be run through some online tool, I suppose).

Answer: We have run the MS through InstaText and applied improvements to the text.

Best regards,

Jana Bedek