Space, Habitat and Isolation are the Key Determinants of Tree Colonization by the Carpenter Ant in Plantation Forests
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The subject of the paper touches important problem decline of Norway spruce forest in Europe which is very crucial to forest communities from the ecological and economic point of view. The carpenter ant (Camponotus ligniperdus) was shown as important indicator species in habitats Norway spruce and a possible marker species to estimate fovourable conditions for establishment and growth of the species.
The authors have studied and used the relevant number of bibliography sources used and quoted in the thesis. It is the evidence of the deep theoretical background of the paper and very good orientation in the problem investigated during the research.
The structure of the manuscript conforms to principles and requests to the structure of the scientific paper. The word processing of the thesis is adequate. In the structure of the text, using many paragraphs is proper and helps the reader to better orientation in the text.
The research was performed according to the proper methods as well as statistical analysis.
The discussion was elaborated using wide references aspects and not only new one literature but as well as older one, historical bibliography.
My only suggestion is to improve the quality of figures 2-6 to make them more informative – add some more explanation. The legend should provide important information to make it readable as a separate image, not to force the readers to look at them only reading the results parallelly.
The punctuation, grammar, the used of abbreviations, the citations were properly used. The objectives and hypothesis were formulated correct. The description of methods were completed as well properly. The discussion of results in context of phytopathology was as very worth to total added/innovative value of the paper. Conclusions were discussed on the basis of relevant published literature.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We greatly appreciate your thoughtful comments that helped improve the manuscript. We modified some legends and added one picture for better interpretation of our results. English grammar was rechecked by MDPI English editing services.
Thank you very much for your effort.
Reviewer 2 Report
Generally well conducted study but reporting should be improved. Some details are lacking in the methods and the results section is a bit haphazardly written down. This should be improved. The discussion is written in a ‘summing up’ fashion. This should be improved to get a better flow for readability. There is only one small paragraph on the potential role of the ant as a predator in the discussion, whilst you do introduce this as an important fact in the introduction. Please balance this out. I would also like a discussion on whether the results may have been different if the area was dominated by Norway spruce instead of by Scots pine? You draw some conclusions from your study that you cannot draw based on your results. Please see the specific comments below. English grammar has to be improved.
L18: ‘the carpenter and windstorm habitat’ something is missing in this sentence
L62: they often occur
L68: predators of what?
L92, remind the reader that the ants do not build their nests in live trees, and that that is the reason you looked for snapped trees
L95. Please explain better. I assume the transects were 50m apart from another, so each 50m there was a transect. The transect was not just 50m long? I guess it was along the entire stand? In any case we need more detail here.
L96. Here also thickening transects can be misinterpreted
L100-101: timber stocks in the forest?
L103. Please tell us the exact period during which the study too place
L121/131: ‘We searched for (2) 121 four habitat characteristics.’ ‘We also collected (3) two patch-based characteristics’. This is a confusing way of numbering the independent variables. Please change so it becomes more clear.
L119-137: The text would benefit from a table with the variables used.
L140: explain Moran’s I and SAM a little. Let us know what it does.
L141. You used coordinates of the snapped trees to do what?
L141/142. Which distances? To forest track or clearcut?
L144: explain VIF
L145: from the generalized
L159: Positive values on short distances (up to 1.5 km) indicated. Distance to what? Forest track or clearcut?
L167: again, distance to what?
L174: Figure 3 is hard to understand. I would like to see where the snapped trees were and where the ant’s nests were.
L177: to what of the rotten wood? Presence? Abundance? Stage? Type?
L180: but did height have a significant relation? Seeing from fig 4 it did not. Mention.
L204: it is only interesting that they were more frequent in the eastern area if we also know what characterizes the eastern area
L205: ‘The most important parameter’ For what? Obviously for the ant’s nests being present. Please add.
L206. Ant’s nests instead of tree nests
L219: appears to be
L219: What do you mean with this sentence? This also appears be the cause of our finding of closely inhabited trees. Please elaborate and explain better.
L220: again, distance to what?
L223: ‘of a relationship’ and ‘ with a strong effect’
L236: ‘in alignment with non-forest nest 235 habitats mentioned in the literature’ What exactly is in alignment? What is it with these non-forest nests. Don’t leave the reader guessing but spell it out.
L240: One.... species... rephrase the sentence. It is not clear what you mean right now.
L244: which poorer environmental conditions do you mean?
L263: “This means that nest creation is easier than in healthy wood” in brown rot? Or also in white rot? How does it compare?
L180-181: “We found that 280 carpenter ants are often found in coniferous trees in plantation forests.” This is a rather bold statement seeing that you only have one study area
L282: ant presence
L282: “ ants presence in forest plantations appears to be beneficial” this is not a conclusion you can draw from your results. You did not investigate the potential benefit at all
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We greatly appreciate your thoughtful comments that helped improve the manuscript. We trust that all of your comments have been addressed accordingly in a revised manuscript. MDPI English editing services rechecked English grammar and style.
Thank you very much for your effort.
In the following, we give a point-by-point reply to your comments:
L18: ‘the carpenter and windstorm habitat’ something is missing in this sentence
We added the word into the sentence (L19). Thank you for your recommendation.
L62: they often occur
We used your suggestion (L62). Thank you for your recommendation.
L68: predators of what?
We added „of insect“ (L69). Thank you for your recommendation.
L92, remind the reader that the ants do not build their nests in live trees, and that that is the reason you looked for snapped trees
We added this information (L92-93). Thank you for your recommendation.
L95. Please explain better. I assume the transects were 50m apart from another, so each 50m there was a transect. The transect was not just 50m long? I guess it was along the entire stand? In any case we need more detail here.
We added another information and rephrased the sentence (L95-97). Thank you for your recommendation.
L96. Here also thickening transects can be misinterpreted
We modified the sentence (97-98). Thank you for your recommendation.
L100-101: timber stocks in the forest?
We changed the term (L102). Thank you for your recommendation.
L103. Please tell us the exact period during which the study too place
We have added this information (L103-104). Thank you for your recommendation.
L121/131: ‘We searched for (2) 121 four habitat characteristics.’ ‘We also collected (3) two patch-based characteristics’. This is a confusing way of numbering the independent variables. Please change so it becomes more clear.
We've edited the text (L123-144). Thank you for your recommendation.
L119-137: The text would benefit from a table with the variables used.
We modified the text to make it clearer (L123-144). Thank you for your recommendation.
L140: explain Moran’s I and SAM a little. Let us know what it does.
We explained Marans´s I (L147). SAM is free statistical software, for details, please, see the reference 26. Thank you for your recommendation.
L141. You used coordinates of the snapped trees to do what?
We have added the information to the sentence (L147-148). Thank you for your recommendation.
L141/142. Which distances? To forest track or clearcut?
We changed the sentence (149-150). Thank you for your recommendation.
L144: explain VIF
We explained it (L152). Thank you for your recommendation.
L145: from the generalized
We corrected the grammar (L153). Thank you for your recommendation.
L159: Positive values on short distances (up to 1.5 km) indicated. Distance to what? Forest track or clearcut?
We have added the information to the sentence (L167). Thank you for your recommendation.
L167: again, distance to what?
We added this information and edited the sentence (L175). Thank you for your recommendation.
L174: Figure 3 is hard to understand. I would like to see where the snapped trees were and where the ant’s nests were.
Please, see new Figure 1 for this information (L113). Thank you for your recommendation.
L177: to what of the rotten wood? Presence? Abundance? Stage? Type?
We have added „presence“ to the sentence (L186). Thank you for your recommendation.
L180: but did height have a significant relation? Seeing from fig 4 it did not. Mention.
We removed this information to the methods section, thank you for your recommendation.
L204: it is only interesting that they were more frequent in the eastern area if we also know what characterizes the eastern area
We added characterizes of the eastern area (L212-213). Thank you for your idea.
L205: ‘The most important parameter’ For what? Obviously for the ant’s nests being present. Please add.
We modified the sentence (L213). Thank you for your recommendation.
L206. Ant’s nests instead of tree nests
We corrected the grammar (L214). Thank you for your notification.
L219: appears to be
We used your suggestion (L228). Thank you for your recommendation.
L219: What do you mean with this sentence? This also appears be the cause of our finding of closely inhabited trees. Please elaborate and explain better.
We modified the sentence (L228-229). Thank you for your recommendation.
L220: again, distance to what?
We added this information (L230). Thank you for your recommendation.
L223: ‘of a relationship’ and ‘ with a strong effect’
We corrected the grammar (L233). Thank you for your suggestion.
L236: ‘in alignment with non-forest nest habitats mentioned in the literature’ What exactly is in alignment? What is it with these non-forest nests. Don’t leave the reader guessing but spell it out.
We added the information and modified the sentence (L245-246). Thank you for your recommendation.
L240: One.... species... rephrase the sentence. It is not clear what you mean right now.
We edited the text (L250-252). Thank you for your recommendation.
L244: which poorer environmental conditions do you mean?
We added „temperature“ (L245). Thank you for your recommendation.
L263: “This means that nest creation is easier than in healthy wood” in brown rot? Or also in white rot? How does it compare?
We changed the sentence (L273-274). Thank you for your recommendation.
L180-181: “We found that carpenter ants are often found in coniferous trees in plantation forests.” This is a rather bold statement seeing that you only have one study area
We rephrased the sentence (296). Thank you for your recommendation.
L282: ant presence
We corrected the grammar. Thank you for your suggestion.
L282: “ ants presence in forest plantations appears to be beneficial” this is not a conclusion you can draw from your results. You did not investigate the potential benefit at all
We changed the sentence (L298-300). Thank you for your recommendation.
There is only one small paragraph on the potential role of the ant as a predator in the discussion, whilst you do introduce this as an important fact in the introduction. Please balance this out.
We added information about predation (L280-283). Thank you very much for your idea.
I would also like a discussion on whether the results may have been different if the area was dominated by Norway spruce instead of by Scots pine?
We've inserted this discussion to the text (L258-287). Thank you very much for your suggestion.
