The Diversity of Subterranean Terrestrial Arthropods in Resava Cave (Eastern Serbia)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Positive aspects of the manuscript discussion:

1. Geological and climatic contextualization: Helps understand the factors that influence underground biodiversity by providing a solid contextualization of the geological and climatic processes of the study area.

2. Detailed description of the fauna: Provides an exhaustive description of the diversity of arthropods found in the cave, including information on the distribution of species, enriching the understanding of the ecosystem.

3. Comparison with other caves: Allows us to contextualize the relative importance of arthropod diversity in Resava compared to other localities, providing a useful comparative perspective.

4. Conservation relevance: Highlights the importance of conservation of Resava Cave and suggests the need for responsible management.

Negative aspects of the manuscript discussion:

1. Lack of detailed analysis on conservation: Lacks a more detailed analysis on the specific threats faced by underground fauna and the conservation measures necessary to protect it.

2. Lack of discussion on ecological importance: Does not explore in depth the ecological importance of species in the context of subterranean ecosystems and their role in biogeochemical cycles.

3. Potential sampling bias: Does not discuss possible sampling biases that could have influenced the results, which could affect the representativeness of the sample of collected arthropods.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents an interesting and valuable biospeleological research on a single cave in the Serbian Carpatho-Balkanides. It is very well illustrated, and the fauna is described in detail. After minor corrections, it could be recommended for publication in Diversity.

I recommend paying attention to the following points:

1) Terminology: You mention the classification of Schinner-Racovitza (troglobites, troglophiles, trogloxenes), then provide definitions by Sket for troglobionts, subtroglophiles, eutroglophiles, and trogloxenes. Finally, you indicate that the paper recognizes three categories, including troglophiles, because the difference between sub- and eutroglophiles is unclear in Resava Cave. It is necessary to specify in the text which definition of troglophiles you mean: Racovitza's or Sket's definition (troglophile = subtroglophile + eutroglophile). These definitions differ, and the content of tables 2 and 3 depends on them. For example, species such as Scoliopteryx libatrix, Stenophylax permistus, Limonia nubeculosa, and others occur in numerous European caves and are actually subtroglophiles according to Sket's definition. However, in your list, they are categorized as trogloxenes. This discrepancy needs to be clarified.

2) Systematic classification: According to modern classification, Collembola and Diplura represent independent classes sister to Insecta. Consequently, the two Collembola species found in Resava Cave belong to the orders Entomobryomorpha (Tomocerus minor) and Symphypleona (Pygmarrhopalites cf. pygmaeus).

3) Pygmarrhopalites cf. pygmaeus: Is it a troglophile or a troglobiont? If it is indeed P. pygmaeus, then it is certainly a troglophile. However, if it is an undescribed species, it could be suspected to be a troglobiont. Of course, it may still be a troglophile, but to confirm this, a surface population should be found. Also, it is worth mentioning that potentially the number of Collembola species inhabiting such a relatively large cave is expected to be much higher (hopefully, not less than 10, but somewhat difficult to find).

4) Toponyms: Since "Pećina" translates to "Cave," the question arises whether both of these words should be included in the cave names, as seen in the text: "Resavska Pećina Cave," "Divljakovačka Pećina Cave," "Lazareva Pećina Cave," "Sesalačka Pećina Cave," "Hadži-Prodanova Pećina Cave," "Izviđačka Pećina Cave," "Mandina Pećina Cave." It seems that using only "Cave" or "Pećina" once will suffice.

Remarks are provided throughout the manuscript. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript presents original and pertinent information concerning cave biodiversity and habitats in Europe, particularly focusing on the Resava Cave in eastern Serbia. The study offers significant insights into the diversity of arthropods in karst caves, contributing valuable information to the field. Understanding cave ecosystems in such environments is crucial for comprehending the intricacies of cave ecology.

However, some areas in the manuscript require adjustments, particularly in the introduction, methodology, and discussion sections. The authors should provide more detailed descriptions of the sampling procedures and offer clear explanations regarding data sampling. This would enhance the clarity and comprehensiveness of the manuscript, enabling readers to better understand the research methodology and results. All the comments are included in the manuscript

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf