Effects of Forest Management on Beetle (Coleoptera) Communities in Beech Forests (Fagus sylvatica) in the Apennines of Central Italy (Tuscany)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Effects of forest management on beetle (Coleoptera) communities in beech forests (Fagus sylvatica L.) in the Apennines of Central Italy (Tuscany)

Replies to Reviewer 1

 GENERAL COMMENTS

I have read this manuscript with interest. It reports results for beetle abundance and diversity in five beech-dominated forests with increasing management intensity in Central Italy´s Apennines, with a special focus on saproxylic species. I consider the work is a valuable contribution to the knowledge of how forest management practices affect entomological diversity and give insights for improving conservation of species that have a key role in forest ecosystems, as saproxylic beetles.

 

Authors: We are most happy that the reviewer appreciated overall our efforts to connect taxonomic and ecological studies.

 

I consider the manuscript is well written overall; however, I have found a number of issues that should be solved before acceptance for publication. My main concerns are the following:

• Authors should follow the Instructions for Authors guidelines (IAGs) concerning font sizes in tables and figures, as well as for presenting abbreviations.

Authors:  Font sizes were adjusted according to the guidelines.

• In particular, authors should delete the term “see” in expressions like “(see [18])”; instead, use the reference number alone, i.e.: “[18]”.

Authors:  the term “see” was removed throughout the manuscript.

• Authority names should be added to each scientific name, the first time being cited.

Authors:  authority names were reported where missing.

• It seems to be a mistake with the reference number in line 199, concerning the expression “Fisher's α/species richness) [31]”: Should the reference cited be those corresponding to Fisher et al. (1943), that is currently numbered as [34]? If so, the References section should be renumbered from number [31], and subsequent corrections should be made in the text, to actualize reference numbers.

Authors: “Fisher's α/species richness) [31]” is correct because this definition was firstly introduced by Simons et al. (2015). Instead, we replaced reference in line 204 from [33] to [34]. Fisher's α is an implicit function of the Fisher's log-series distribution parameter and total community abundance [34]. In this case this sentence is related with Fisher et al. (1943). The following references are then in the right order.

 

• I consider that an ANOVA should be performed to test the null hypothesis that the mean catches per trap corresponding to each of the main families presented in the current Figure 4 do not vary between sampling sites.

Authors: We agree with the reviewer and conducted an ANOVA, where each abundance value per trap per site was evaluated among families. Indeed, the differences in abundance values per family were always significantly different among sites. We also conducted a post-hoc test to evaluate the pairwise significant differences in abundances among sampling sites.

 

• I consider it would be interesting to correlate, within each sampling site, the abundance of those dominant predatory families (Staphylinidae and Cantharidae) with both the total amount of remaining beetles and the abundance of each of the most common families as cited in lines 215-216.

Authors: we agree with the reviewer that it would be interesting to evaluate such effects. However, in the present study we decided to focus on the taxonomic spectrum of the beetle community. The trophic categories as a whole were not examined here. We plan to study the trophic preferences of the species in future studies.

• Results shown in the current Figure 4 should be presented as a table. Instead, Figure 4 should present mean catches per trap for each sampling site, corresponding to each of the main families referred before (with addition of a scale parameter and significant letters).

Authors: We reported a new Figure 4 with bar plots only for abundance (total and saproxylic) and standard errors to identify variation among traps for each sampling site. We removed instead the Figure 4 for richness. The results and discussion were conveniently modified.

 Authors could consider to delete headings within the Discussion section.

 

Authors: The headings in the Discussion are directly related with the headings in the results. They help the reader in the interpretation of specific sections of the results.

 

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

A final dot is absent in the Abstract.

Line 53. The term “societal” does sound rare here. I think authors could consider to use “social” instead.

Authors: Here we left “societal” as we refer to the society as a whole not rather than to specific human communities.

Line 56: Replace “Italian National Forest Inventory” by “INFC 2015” and delete that inside the parentheses. 2

Authors: we introduced the “Italian National Forest Inventory” in line 45 and reported only the acronym in line 56.

Line 59: Is not clear what authors want to mean with the expression “leaving 60-80 standards per hectare.”. I suppose they refer to a retention of 60-80 parent trees. If so, the sentence should be rewritten.

Authors: we specified 60-80 parent trees (named “standards”).

Line 97: Authority names must be included in scientific names the first time each species is cited.

Authors: We added authorities in the scientific names.

Line 100: “[…] Ecological Transition: [21]”. Suppress colon.

Authors: Done.

Paragraph 108-115. Should be rewritten. Instead of indicating reports, It should be clearly state the aim of the work, as well as the objectives.

Authors: we restated more clearly the aims of the paper as suggested.

Line 135 and thereafter: Briefly describe how tree and dead wood volumes were measured.

Authors: we described better how to sample trees and deadwood.

Line 136: Replace “2500” by “2,500”.

Authors: Done.

Line 138: Define abbreviations the first time being used; here “DBH”.

Authors: Done.

Line 139: Refers Table 1 at the final of the sentence.

Authors: Done.

Line 149: Authors state: “conducted a sampling of saproxylic beetles”; however, other non-saproxylic species were also recorded. Thus, I consider that statement should be rewritten to correctly define what authors were really sampling.

Authors: we rewrote the sentence to specify that we sampled beetles.

Line 151: Were the traps commercially obtained or were custom made? Please, explain. Also, the dimensions of the trap elements should be described.

Authors: The traps were custom made but they respected the standards from Bouget et al. we specify this better: The collection of beetles was carried out using Window Flight Traps (WFTs) built according to the Bouget´s protocol [10].

Line 153: Which one is the rationale for placing one trap out of the 50 m square plot?

Authors: The plot dimensions refer to LIFE18ENV/IT/000124 LIFE SySTEMiC. Therefore we placed the traps within existing plots not created specifically for the study of beetle communities.

Line 184: Add SAD abbreviation here instead in line 195: “Species Abundance Distribution (SAD) models”.

Authors: Done.

Line 186: Replace “Hill number” by “Hill numbers”

Authors: Done.

Line 189: Authors state that Morisita index were based on abundance data; however, in figure 6 caption can be read that Morisita was based in presence/absence data, whiles graphic titles also indicate “_abundance”. Please correct this contradictory information.

Authors: We corrected the caption, as Morisita index is based on abundance.

Line 195: Delete the expression “species abundance distribution. Replace “(SAD)” by “SAD”.

Authors: Done.

Lines 196-199: It seems these lines comprise one repeated sentence; authors should consider to delete the first sentence (lines 196-197), or rewrite it to not repeat information.

Authors: We summarized the two sentences in one.

Line 199: I think there seems to be a mistake with the reference number in the expression “Fisher's α/species richness) [31]”: Should the reference cited be that corresponding to Fisher et al. (1943), that is currently numbered as [34]?. If so, the References section should be renumbered from number [31], and subsequent corrections should be made in the text, to actualize reference numbers.

Authors: “Fisher's α/species richness) [31]” is correct because this definition was firstly introduced by Simons et al. (2015). Instead, we replaced reference in line 204 from [33] to [34]. Fisher's α is an implicit function of the Fisher's log-series distribution parameter and total community abundance [34]. In this case this sentence is related with Fisher et al. (1943). The following references are then in the right order.

Lines 199 and 206-207: To avoid confusion, instead of repeating the expression to obtain the rarity parameter, a description of the “rarity” should be made in line 199, when this parameter is first presented.

Authors: We agree. We removed the second sentence that is redundant.

Line 208: It should be presented the software employed for the statistical analysis ¿only R-Gui?, ¿another one software in addition?). In case R was used, it should be indicated the version, and the bibliographic reference should be included. Also, the significance level used as threshold should be stated.

Further, I consider that an ANOVA should be performed to test the null hypothesis that the mean catches per trap corresponding to each of the main families presented in the current Figure 4 do not vary between sampling sites. 3

Authors: We specified the use of R and added the proper reference. We also added the ANOVA.

Lines 225-231: Please indicate the families at which each cited species belongs to

Authors: Family was added for each species.

Lines 235-237: “Three species were endangered: Epuraea silacea and Glischrochilus quadriguttatus (Nitidulidae) (Vulnerable, VU) and Brachygonus campadellii (Elateridae) (Critically Endangered, CR).”

After viewing table 3, it seems that five species, instead three, are endangered: the three species that authors already cite, plus Calambus bipustulatus and Stenagostus rhombeus. Please, revise that and make corrections in due case.

Authors: we revised the list accordingly.

Line 262: I consider it should be highlighted here that LaV site recorded the lower total evenness (Shannon) values; in addition, authors could consider indicate that the lowest Simpson values obtained for LaV suggest this site exhibites the higher number of rare species when the beetle assemblage was considered.

Authors: We expanded the paragraph about the LaV site as suggested:

“LaV instead showed higher richness and diversity values only for the saproxylic com-ponent but not for the total assemblage, where LaV showed both the lowest total di-versity (Shannon index) and evenness (Simpson index) (Figure 5).”

Line 303: Specify “collected in interception traps”: “[…] assemblages of saproxylic and non-saproxylic beetles collected in interception traps in beech forests […]”.

Authors: Done.

Line 306: Delete “according to”.

Authors: Done.

Line 324: Replace “high” by “higher”.

Authors: Done.

Line 354: Replace “Predators” by “predators”. I consider it would be interesting to correlate, within each sampling site, the abundance of those dominant predatory families (Staphylinidae and Cantharidae) with both the total amount of remaining beetles and the abundance of each of the most common families as cited in lines 215-216.

Authors: “Predators” was replaced by “predators”. we agree with the reviewer that it would be interesting to evaluate such effects. However, in the present study we decided to focus on the taxonomic spectrum of the beetle community. The trophic categories were not examined here. We plan to study the trophic preferences of the species in future studies.

Line 365: “[…] and in the Alps (4.8% […]” ¿what forest type authors wanted to refer for “Alps”: beech, chestnut, another one?.

Authors: We specify better that we refer to managed chestnut forests in the Alps, as follows:

“This percentage is in line with the richness of red-listed saproxylic species found in other Italian managed beech forests[40] (3.2%) and in managed chestnut forests of southern Italy[8] (4.5%) and in the Alps[41] (4.8%).”

Lines 386-388: “The uneven-aged Bal which was traditionally managed with single tree selection system, also showed the lowest values of saproxylic richness and diversity but high total diversity and dominance”.

It would be interesting to add a tentative explanation about that result.

Authors: We added a plausible explanation reported here:

“This is likely because, even though single-tree selection has limited impact on the total biodiversity compared to other management alternatives, it creates an impoverished forest structure in terms of deadwood compared to an unmanaged site.”

Line 402: Add “coarse woody debris”: “[…] was present with quantities of coarse woody debris (CWD, diameter ≥ […]”.

Authors: Now we have spelled out the term CWD for the first time in line 67. 

Lines 405-407: “Furthermore, the open spaces in Ca1 were rich in herbaceous plants which have attracted a high diversity of adult individuals”.

It is not evident the relation between beetle visiting herbaceous plants and a saproxylic behavior. I consider that sentence should be improved to better explain what authors want to mean.

Authors: We tried to improve the meaning of the sentence:

“Furthermore, the open spaces in Ca1 were rich in herbaceous plants which have attracted a high diversity of saproxylic beetles which are floricolous as adults[39].”

Line 415: What do authors want to mean with “The forestry system applied in our study”? This fragment is somewhat confusing. I consider authors should be more precise.

Authors: We rephrased the sentence as follows:

“The management alternatives applied in our study sites represented a mosaic of approaches reflected by a continuum of responses from the beetles´ assemblages.”

Line 429: What do authors want to mean with “passive” management”. I consider authors should be more precise.

Authors: We specified better the sentence as follows:

“Furthermore, the retention of large, old trees [45] (i.e. “passive” management) must be favored in different topographic contexts.”

Line 434: “Our study suggests useful recommendations to improve the cost-effectiveness and the conservation value of […]”.

I consider this fragment is confusing. First, authors could consider whether it would be more convenient starting the sentence with something like “Our results allow us to make some recommendations[…]”.

Authors: We changed the sentence as suggested.

In addition, is not clear how these recommendations could “improve the cost-effectiveness”. This statement should be better explained or, perhaps, replace “improve” by other expression 4, as example: “make compatible” (note that that should be made taking care not be repetitive with the sentence in lines 440-443).

Authors: We removed the term cost-effectiveness as only the conservation values is improved here.

Line 436: Replace “m3/ha” by “m3 ha-1”.

Authors: Done. We also changed the table and the text.

Line 443: Authors should consider suggesting some future research in relation to the investigated topic.

Authors: Even though we are planning to publish other research based on this dataset, at the moment we are not willing to expose our future plans.

Line 451: I consider it is not justified to cite silver fir here (at least without a convenient justification), as this tree species has not been investigated for beetle diversity in this work.

Authors: We agree and removed the tree species.

Lines 444-459: I consider these two paragraphs should relocate before the Conclusion paragraphs.

Authors: We prefer to complete the discussion with the conclusions. Sampling limitations are final considerations that do not affect directly the conclusions that instead, are directly derived from the discussion of the results.

 

TABLES AND FIGURES

Tables and figures

I suggest authors to consider reducing the size of figure 1, and also reduce font size in table 1 (compatible with the limits stated in IAGs). Authors should avoid cutting off table 1, and also cutting off column titles. By choosing a proper size for Figure 1, that figure could by placed in line 130, before the paragraph starting by “Two sampling sites (PdO, Bal) are located in the Pistoia […]”.

Authors: We reduced the size of Figure 1. We reduced the Font of Table 1 and relocated it as suggested.

I suggest authors to consider not including the entire region in Figure 1. Instead, include only part of the region, to allow showing separate points for each sampling site (i.e.; currently, Bai and PdO are represented by one single point, which sounds incorrect).

Authors: Reporting the approximate location of the sampling sites in the entire region is functional for forest managers from an administrative point of view. We have instead added latitude and longitude coordinates in Table 1.

 

In order to improve figures and tables format, it could aid to reduce table 1 size. In other hand, some information already provided within the text (as the content of the “Management system” column) could be deleted form table 1, to not repeat information.

Authors: We have reduced the Table 1 size. However, we think that reporting the management system helps the reader to quickly compare the sites when reading the results and discussion.

In Table 1, what does “Aspect” refer to?, Is that the dominant orientation of the sampling plot?

Authors: The reviewer is correct. We replaced “aspect” with “exposure” to improve clarity.

In Table 1 use units following IAGs; i.e., “m3 ha-1” instead of “m3\ha".

Authors: Done.

I consider that data exhibited in Figure 4 (whole abundance and richness per site) should be presented as a table instead of a figure, therefore figure 4 should be replaced by a single bar plot showing the mean abundance per trap for each sampling site (with either SD or SE).

Authors: We reported a new Figure 4 with bar plots only for abundance (total and saproxylic) and standard errors to identify variation among traps for each sampling site. We removed instead the Figure 4 for richness. The results were conveniently modified and ANOVA results added.

I suggest to use font sizes in figure 4 larger than those currently presented, to match IAGs.

I consider, also, both axis lines and axis ticks should be represented in Figure 4.

Authors: The font size in Figure 4 was increased and axis ticks were added.

In Table 3, overall font sizes should be slightly reduced (taking into account the IAGs; also, column’s format should be adjusted in order to create more room for those columns containing species names.

Authors: We restructured Table 3.

In figure 5, to avoid confusión, I consider the legend symbol and label for “rarefaction” should be deleted, as graphics represent just rarefation, and that is defined in the caption. In addition, as no points are represented, point symbols should be removed from symbol legends corresponding to each sampling site.

Authors: We removed points and the legend symbol “Rarefaction”.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In their study, Parisi et al. investigated how forest management affects beetle assemblages in Italian beach forests. Indeed, they did a great job manuscript is clear, well-written and reports important data. Statistical methods are correct and the conclusions are based on the results. Both the Introduction and the Discussion show the authors' knowledge on the topic. Thus, I have very little to add, only a few minor comments/suggestions:

1.       In the age of open data I strongly suggest the authors to structure their important dataset found in the appendix to comply with the Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) principles and submit the raw dataset (at least as occurrence data) to GBIF in a Darwin Core format (https://www.tdwg.org/standards/dwc/). This would make the dataset and the paper more widely used in science and, also, more often cited.

2.       Line 161: Please clarify that “risk category” here means IUCN risk categories.

3.       Lines 173, 174: I cannot see the logic behind “not specify their trophic category” of these species, rather than lumping them into Category VIII (unknown)

4.       I was wondering if Fig 4 could be improved with some creative plot types.

5.       In Fig. 5 I would make the rarefaction line thinner to increase the visibility of the shaded confidence intervals. Also, please, remove “Rarefaction” from the legend.

6.       In Fig. 6, please use A and B or in the caption left and right panel. Also, change the subtitles under the dendrograms (i.e. the clustering method on distance matrices as shown in R) understandable to those who do not use R.

7.       In line 333 there is a logical leap in the text, please have a second look to link the bits.

8.       Line 340, put comma after “niches”

9.       Line 397 “also confirmed”, not “confirmed also”

10.   Line 415 AT OUR study siteS. Please note that it’s always “at site(s)”

11.   Lines 453 and onwards. I would put this paragraph just after the second sentence in the Limitations and would reorganise logically the entire chunk.

 

12.   Line 451 “that beetle species related to beech and silver fir may be much larger than they currently appear” probably means their ABUNDANCE is larger – please clarify this sentence.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is mostly fine, I spotted some typos and unclear sentences only. I good read-through will eliminate these.

Author Response

Replies to Reviewer 2

In their study, Parisi et al. investigated how forest management affects beetle assemblages in Italian beach forests. Indeed, they did a great job manuscript is clear, well-written and reports important data. Statistical methods are correct and the conclusions are based on the results. Both the Introduction and the Discussion show the authors' knowledge on the topic. Thus, I have very little to add, only a few minor comments/suggestions:

1. In the age of open data I strongly suggest the authors to structure their important dataset found in the appendix to comply with the Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) principles and submit the raw dataset (at least as occurrence data) to GBIF in a Darwin Core format (https://www.tdwg.org/standards/dwc/). This would make the dataset and the paper more widely used in science and, also, more often cited.

Authors: We agree about the importance of standardizing our data for facilitating accessibility and sharing. We prefer to leave this setting. In the future, this data will be made available in the form of Data paper.

2. Line 161: Please clarify that “risk category” here means IUCN risk categories.

Authors: We clarified as suggested.

3. Lines 173, 174: I cannot see the logic behind “not specify their trophic category” of these species, rather than lumping them into Category VIII (unknown)

Authors: The classification of the trophic categories is used only for the species listed by Carpaneto et al. as “saproxylic”, even though their exact trophic role is “undefined”. Instead the trophic habits of the rest of the species not included in Carpaneto et al. is still “undefined” but most likely cannot be considered as “saproxylic”. In conclusion, we have saproxylic “undefined” and truly unknown species.

4. I was wondering if Fig 4 could be improved with some creative plot types.

Authors: We have improved readability of Figure 4 by increasing font size. We believe that barplots are informative here.

5. In Fig. 5 I would make the rarefaction line thinner to increase the visibility of the shaded confidence intervals. Also, please, remove “Rarefaction” from the legend.

Authors: We removed “Rarefaction” from the legend. However, as the confidence intervals are very close to each other and partl overlapping, we believe it is more important to show the main rarefaction lines.

6. In Fig. 6, please use A and B or in the caption left and right panel. Also, change the subtitles under the dendrograms (i.e. the clustering method on distance matrices as shown in R) understandable to those who do not use R.

Authors: We have improved the figure for non-R users by removing the clustering method and adding A and B. We also referred separately to Fig. 6A and 6B in the text.

7. In line 333 there is a logical leap in the text, please have a second look to link the bits.

Authors: We agree with the reviewer. Therefore, we rewrote the sentence as follows:

“In the managed sites, we found a higher abundance of families requiring small amounts of deadwood to complete their life cycle, like Scolytidae and Staphylinidae, than in the unmanaged site (Table 1S). In the unmanaged site, the number of species belonging to families requiring a large amount of deadwood was higher (i.e., Ceram-bycidae, Trogossitidae, Zopheridae) than in managed sites [18].”

8. Line 340, put comma after “niches”

Authors: Done

9. Line 397 “also confirmed”, not “confirmed also”

Authors: Changed.

10. Line 415 AT OUR study siteS. Please note that it’s always “at site(s)”

Authors: Changed.

11. Lines 453 and onwards. I would put this paragraph just after the second sentence in the Limitations and would reorganize logically the entire chunk.

Authors: We moved the paragraph following the indication.

12. Line 451 “that beetle species related to beech and silver fir may be much larger than they currently appear” probably means their ABUNDANCE is larger – please clarify this sentence.

Authors: We rephrased as follows to improve clarity:

“the number of beetle species related to beech may be much larger than it currently ap-pears, but further research is needed to evaluate this consideration.”

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Effects of forest management on beetle (Coleoptera) communities in beech forests (Fagus sylvatica L.) in the Apennines of Central Italy (Tuscany)

(Revised)

 

GENERAL COMMENTS

I consider this version of the manuscript improves the original, and also I already expressed it is a valuable scientific contribution. However, I still consider there is a number of issues that should be raised before acceptance for publication. My main concerns are related with improving clarity of the manuscript and some aspects of format:

• The Abstract should include some of the most relevant numbers the authors found (see the corresponding specific comment).
• Authority names should be added to each scientific name, the first time being cited.
• Format in tables and figures should be improved, both for improve readability and to avoid cutting off tables and cutting off words in column titles.

 

Author: We are happy that the reviewer found improvement in our work respect to the previous version. We included specifications about the main numerical results in the abstract and added all the authorities. Finally, tables and figures were improved. We are sincerely thankful for the comments that we believe, improved considerably the quality of the paper to reach publication standards.

 

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

Lines 29-30: After ANOVA results authors have included, I consider this sentence should be actualized: “We found 25 beetle families and 195 species across all sites with similar abundance and richness.

Author: we added the suggested sentence. We also included the results of the ANOVA as follow:

“However, the representation of the most abundant families varied among sampling sites (ANOVA test always significant for the total abundance of the most abundant families: F ≥ 2.77, d.f. = 4, p ≤ 0.038).”

 

Line 30: I suggest authors to consider presenting here some of the most relevant numbers found. Either relative to percentages of the main families encountered, or percentages of the main species.

Author: We agree that further specifications would be needed. However, the limited number of words for the abstract does not allow us to include further details.

 

Line 64: Authors could consider to use a dot instead of a colon in the expression: “[…] established seedlings: the object of the removal cut […]”.

Author: We replaced the colon with a dot as suggested.

 

Lines 92, 94-95, 98: Suprime colons and semicolons before the reference numbers.

Author: Done.

 

Lines 97-101: The sentence presenting threatened species, being within parentheses, result in a confusing phragment, because some authoirity names are into parentheses as well. I suggest do not employ parentheses; instead, the sentence could start this way:

 

“[…] already subject to continuous monitoring, as Cerambyx cerdo Linnaeus, 1758 and Osmoderma eremita (Scopoli, 1763) in the “Castelporziano” Presidential Estate, which is a Natura 2000 Special Area of Conservation [20]; Morimus […]”

 

(Note that the, using this expression, the final parenthesis in line 101 should be deleted)

Author: We removed the parentheses where necessary.

 

Lines 105-108: I suggest do not present this sentence in a separate paragraph. Instead, I consider better to relocate it in the previous paragraph: “[…] Europe are still rare [18]. Surveying the status […]”

Author: We merged the two paragraphs as suggested.

 

Paragraph 109-114. The way the aims of the work are described remains unclear. Besides, objectives are not presented. It seems authors have made a “mix” between aims and objectives, which is a wrong way. The aim of the work should reflect the overall goal of the study (similar than authors do in the Conclusion section -lines 426-428-); however, objectives should be specifically stated to describe steps authors followed to achieve the aim, and should be directly related to the methodology employed and the results authors do present.

Author: we introduced the main aim of the paper and the three objectives thorgh which the main aim was accomplished.

• The expression “[…] beetle ecological sampling […]“ doesn’t have sense to me.

Author: We replaced the term ecological sampling with beetle communities.

• Is not clear what authors want to mean when write “[…] along with species trophic and IUCN risk categories […]”.

Author: We modified the sentence to specify the fact that we evaluated also the species trophic association and risk category.

 

Line 130: The bibliographic reference for volume equations employed should be added.

Author: The specified equations are well established and widely used in monitoring forest characteristics, and therefore we think it is not necessary to specify a references.

 

Line 151: The sentence is uncomplete: “[…]we conducted a beetle (Coleoptera) ¿¿?? in the five beech[…].

Author: The sentence was replaced as follows: “we conducted a beetle (Coleoptera) sampling in the five beech forest sampling sites.”

 

Line 182: The new ANOVA test authors include in this version (which one?, parametric?, not parametric?, robust?), besides the test for pairwise comparisons, should be presented and described within section 2.3. “Comparison of species diversity, similarity and commonness/rarity patterns”.

Author: We added a sentence in the specified paragraph to describe the ANOVA test:

“The representation of abundances among sampling sites was evaluated via para-metric ANOVA. We tested the null hypothesis that the variance in the abundances per trap does not vary among sampling sites for each of the most abundant families, under a significance threshold p < 0.05.”

 

Lines 204-205: It seems this fragment is uncomplete: “[…] distribution parameter and total community abundance […]”. Authors could consider rewriting the last part of the sentence, i.e.:

“Fisher's α is an implicit function of the Fisher's log-series distribution of species abundance [34]”.

Author: The sentence was completed as suggested.

 

Line 209: The significance level used as threshold should be stated.

Author: The significance level was specified in the method.

 

Lines 217-218: The sentence includes a repeated phragment: “The most abundant families were Staphylinidae, Curculionidae, Cerambycidae, Salpingidae, Elateridae and Nitidulidae were the most abundant families […]”.

Author: We deleted the redundant sentence.

 

I consider percentage of catches for each family should be included, as was in the first version of the manuscript.

Author: We added the percentages.

 

Lines 227-234: Authority names must be included in scientific names the first time each species is cited.

Author: We added the missing authority names for each species.

 

Line 230: Replace “Atheta sp.” by “Atheta spp.”

Author: The replacement was done.

 

Lines 239-242: Authority names must be included in scientific names the first time each species is cited.

Author: We added the missing authority names for each species.

 

Lines 227-234: As Simpson index focuses on the dominance of abundant species, while Shannon index considers species richness and evenness, I consider is more intuitive use Shannon index to explain evenness. Besides, as LaV has the lowest Simpson values (for total species), that indicates there is a lesser degree of dominance by a few species than occurs in the remaining sites. Concerning saproxylic species, dominance was also low in LaV, with richness being between the highest, as shown in Figure 7; althought Cas1 and PdO had slightly lower dominance values than LaV).

Author: We rewrote the whole paragraph following the suggestions of the reviewers, initially attributing the term evenness to Shannon diversity and dominance to Simpson diversity.

 

Line 428: “[…] The management alternatives applied in our study sites […]”.

I consider this sentence should be rewritten, as it was not the goal of this study to apply different management systems. Instead, authors investigated beetle diversity in beech

Author: We rephrased the sentence as follows:

“The response of beetles´ assemblages in our study sites reflected a continuum in the intensity of the management regimes applied.”

 

TABLES AND FIGURES

 

Table 1: Authors should avoid cutting off table 1, and also avoid cutting off words in column titles.

 

As a description of the management systems was already done in the text, I still consider that some information within the “Management system” column could be abbreviated. Eventually, some additional description not already presented in the main text could be included in this table column.

Author: We have rearranged Table 1 and reduced the management information.

 

Table 3: Includes contradictory information, and has heterogeneous format concerning fonts:

•  
• Aggregated numbers of IUCN species does not match the number of species presented within colums “NT”, “VU” and “CR”.
• Same font sizes should be employed in the entire table (currently, Ca2-NT species present larger font size than in the rest of the table).

Author: We have rearranged Table 2 adding the correct totals and employing the same font size.

 

 

Table 2: To improve readability and to simplify the table, authors could consider abbreviating the genus name, after species were firstly cited in the table.

Author: We abbreviated the genus names as suggested.

 

 

Figure 1: I still consider figure 1 should be improved:

 

• Adding site points to the overall left map, that shows the entire region.
• The image at the right side could show a partial, instead of an entire view of the region, to allow placing separate points for each sampling site.

 

Author: We added site coordinates in Table 1 to differentiate sites. Given the allocation of the sites that spans the longitudinal range of the region, we believe the current representation favors an understanding of the relative location of the sites that would be difficult zooming on single provinces.

 

 

Figure 4: I consider this figure should be improved:

 

• Consider enlarge font sizes, to match Instructions for Authors guidelines (IAGs).
• Both axis lines and axis ticks should be highlighted (for clarity, to differentiate with respect to the grid lines).
• Significant letters should be added to show differences between sampling sites within each family.
• Change x-axis title, to correctly reflect shown data (mean abundance per trap)
• Change Figure 4 caption to better describe results. Authors could consider using and expression like the following one:

 

•  

“Mean abundance per sampling site (±standard error [SE]) (N = XXX traps per site) of the total beetle assemblage (A) and the saproxylic beetle assemblage (B) ………, in Fagus stands […]. Different letters within each family indicate significant differences (ANOVA……. followed by pairwise comparisons with ……..; P = ……for …., and P = …….for ….”.

 

Author: We enlarged font size, highlighted axis lines and ticks. The significant letters were not added in the figure because this would require describing pairwise comparisons among sites. As we did not discuss them in the text, we believe it is not necessary to report them in the Figure. Axis titles do not reflect only mean abundance per trap, but also standard errors among sites, therefore the current axis title version is correct. We changed the caption according to the Reviewer´s suggestions.

 

 

Figure 5: I don’t understand why font sizes have been reduced. I consider is more suitable to use the font sizes (bigger) that were already employed in the first version of the manuscript. For more information, see the IAGs.

Author: The font size has changed as a consequence of the changes requested since the previous version. It was difficult to maintain the same font size. However, this font size is still in the range of readability and the figure can be zoomed in, if necessary, in the online version of the article.