Effects of Different Tillage Years on Soil Composition and Ground-Dwelling Arthropod Diversity in Gravel-Sand Mulching Watermelon Fields

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.      First of all, the title should be changed. The current one is too wordy and sometimes ambiguous. I suggest “Changes in Soil Composition over Different Tillage Years Cascadingly Affects Arthropod Diversity Regulation in Gravel-Sand Mulching Watermelon Fields”.

2.      The current abstract is not qualified. Please write it again.

a.       “human production”? I think this term is not correct and the whole sentence in lines 14-15 is meaningless either. Moreover, the following background lacks a logical flow. Please rewrite from lines 14 to 18. And please reduce the background.

b.      The methods should be presented in separate sentences instead of be joining into the objective statement. Moreover, the objective statement here is not adequate. Thus, please rewrite.

c.       Because of the lack of methods, the results in the abstract are too difficult to follow.

d.      Findings should accompany with significant data (numbers).

3.      Please link the topics together. The lack of logics has been such as a serious problem in the current manuscript, though there are enough references for an introduction. In other words, the soil composition, tillage year, cascading effects, arthropod, water melon, and desert steppe should be linked in duplets or triplets. The figure does not show the content. Thus, the introduction should be revised.

4.      The materials and methods are well presented. However, there are some small problems:

a.       Are there any evidences for this “However, the lack of unified planning and management has led to extensive desertification and sand planting, particularly in the desert steppe of Zhongwei City, the primary production area for Ningxia's gravel-sand mulching watermelon cultivation.”?

b.      “Watermelon” in line 90 should not be capitalized.

c.       Are these “May, July, and September” corresponding to “spring, summer, and autumn seasons”? In my opinion, May should be included in the summer not spring.

d.      Numbers should be presented uniformly, i.e., numbers in the same category should have the same format. For instance, in line 121 “diameter 7.5 cm, height 9 cm” should be “diameter 7.5 cm, height 9.0 cm”. Please apply this to the rest of the manuscript.

e.       What is “GAM analysis”? Abbreviations should be defined before use. Please check the whole manuscript again.

5.      The results are nicely presented. However, the letters of differences in the Figures 2 and 3 should be checked again. Some bars are too different to be identical, but some are too identical to be significantly different from each other.

6.      The discussion is acceptable. However, it repeats too many details from the results. This should be limited. Moreover, many abbreviations are abbreviated again. Thus, the discussion should be revised.

7.      The conclusion should be merged in a single paragraph, and give the rules rather than the results

8.      Some references are too outdated. Please replace them with newer ones, if possible.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Comments 1: [1.First of all, the title should be changed. The current one is too wordy and sometimes ambiguous. I suggest “Changes in Soil Composition over Different Tillage Years Cascadingly Affects Arthropod Diversity Regulation in Gravel-Sand Mulching Watermelon Fields”.] Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. Agree and done (Lines 2-4). Comments 2: [2. The current abstract is not qualified. Please write it again.] Response 2: Good suggestion. Agree and done (Lines 14-22). Comments 3: [2a. “human production”? I think this term is not correct and the whole sentence in lines 14-15 is meaningless either. Moreover, the following background lacks a logical flow. Please rewrite from lines 14 to 18. And please reduce the background.] Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. Agree and done (Lines 14-22). Comments 4: [2b. The methods should be presented in separate sentences instead of be joining into the objective statement. Moreover, the objective statement here is not adequate. Thus, please rewrite.] Response 4: Thank you for your comments. We have rewritten the abstract to present the methods in separate sentences and have revised the objective statement for clarity(Lines 14-22). Comments 5: [2c. Because of the lack of methods, the results in the abstract are too difficult to follow.] Response 5: Thank you for your feedback. We have revised the abstract to include a detailed description of the methods used in our study, making the results easier to follow (Lines 19-22). Comments 6: [2d. Findings should accompany with significant data (numbers).] Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. I have revised the abstract to include specific data points that highlight key findings (Lines 24-26). Comments 7: [3. Please link the topics together. The lack of logics has been such as a serious problem in the current manuscript, though there are enough references for an introduction. In other words, the soil composition, tillage year, cascading effects, arthropod, water melon, and desert steppe should be linked in duplets or triplets. The figure does not show the content. Thus, the introduction should be revised.] Response 7: Thank you for your feedback. We have revised the introduction to better link the topics of soil composition, tillage year, cascading effects, arthropods, watermelon, and the desert steppe in a more logical flow. We also ensured the figure accurately reflects the content. (Lines 14-26). Comments 8: [4. The materials and methods are well presented. However, there are some small problems.] Response 8: Thank you for your positive feedback on the materials and methods section. We have carefully addressed the small issues you mentioned and made the necessary revisions accordingly. Comments 9: [4a. Are there any evidences for this “However, the lack of unified planning and management has led to extensive desertification and sand planting, particularly in the desert steppe of Zhongwei City, the primary production area for Ningxia's gravel-sand mulching watermelon cultivation.”?] Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added references in the corresponding section (Line 90). Comments 10: [4b. “Watermelon” in line 90 should not be capitalized.] Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. Have been modified (Line 86). Comments 11: [4c. Are these “May, July, and September” corresponding to “spring, summer, and autumn seasons”? In my opinion, May should be included in the summer not spring.] Response 11: Thank you for pointing this out. For avoiding unnecessary ambiguity, we combined with your question, "May, July, and September" in the article corresponding to the local arthropod "beginning, blooming, decline period” (Lines 117-118). Comments 12: [4d. Numbers should be presented uniformly, i.e., numbers in the same category should have the same format. For instance, in line 121 “diameter 7.5 cm, height 9 cm” should be “diameter 7.5 cm, height 9.0 cm”. Please apply this to the rest of the manuscript.] Response 12: Thank you for pointing this out. We have made the necessary corrections and have reviewed the entire manuscript to ensure uniform formatting of all numerical values. (Line 120). Comments 13: [4e. What is “GAM analysis”? Abbreviations should be defined before use. Please check the whole manuscript again.] Response 13: Thank you for pointing this out. "GAM" stands for Generalized Additive Model.  We have reviewed the entire manuscript to ensure that all abbreviations are properly defined upon their first use. Comments 14: [5. The results are nicely presented. However, the letters of differences in the Figures 2 and 3 should be checked again. Some bars are too different to be identical, but some are too identical to be significantly different from each other.] Response 14: Thank you for pointing this out. Thank you for your detailed review of Figures 2 and 3. We have rechecked the data and redrawn the figures to ensure accuracy. (Line 175,211). Comments 15: [6. The discussion is acceptable. However, it repeats too many details from the results. This should be limited. Moreover, many abbreviations are abbreviated again. Thus, the discussion should be revised.] Response 15: Thank you for your feedback on the discussion section. We have revised the discussion to limit the repetition of details from the results and have simplified the use of abbreviations. Additionally, we have marked significant modifications in red within the manuscript for your convenience (Lines 283-286,313-323). Comments 16: [7. The conclusion should be merged in a single paragraph, and give the rules rather than the results] Response 16: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the conclusion as requested, merging it into a single paragraph and focusing on rules rather than results. (Lines 324). Comments 17: [8. Some references are too outdated. Please replace them with newer ones, if possible.] Response 17: Good suggestion. We have updated the references (Line 381).

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: Moderate editing of English language required.

Response 1: Good suggestion. We have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript and sought assistance from a professional English editing service to ensure the language is clear and precise.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

First general comments:

- The topic of your article is very interesting. I would love to read a good publication about it

- The research system is sufficient. It is obvious that we would always like to conduct the widest possible research, but we have to use what is available.

- Data analysis is deeply insufficient and partly flawed. This is a reason to reject publication.

- The article is written quite well. Of course you have to make a new one, but you can write it in a similar style.

 

Field experimental design

Your research system included 5 fields with different cultivation times and 2 control sites. It's not impressive, but it's adequate. Therefore, it is very important to make maximum use of the collected data. Otherwise, the publication will be too modest. The main advantage of your work is (should be) demonstrating the impact of agriculture on the arthropod community. Unfortunately, you didn't do it correctly (which I will describe in detail below).

Tip. Next time, describe your fields in more detail. There is no information about the history of the fields (what was before watermelons - this is very important in this topic), the size of the fields (which is also very important for the interpretation of elological data) and perhaps the spatial relationship (are the fields adjacent to each other or are they separated)

 

Physiochemical data

You collected and analyzed the physicochemical data well. ANOVA is an appropriate analytical tool. However, pay attention to the charts. In your drawings, the error bars are above the bar, which shouldn't happen. The confidence interval surrounds the mean. I don't know what happened in your case (whether the error bar was raised or is it only the upper half), but the graph shouldn't look like this.

Tip 1. The R package, in particular ggplot2, requires the user to have good knowledge of what the analysis should look like and what results to expect. There are no error correction mechanisms there. If you order something inappropriate to be done, it will do it.

Tip 2. Make your charts less rainbow-colored. We mark different data series with a color; in the case of one series, there is no reason for each bar to be a different.

Tip 3. Why did you use Duncan's test and not Tukey's?

 

Arthropods community analysis

Arthropods make up about 2/3 of the species on Earth. Many of them are very difficult to recognize precisely. This study did not examine arthropods, but only a small selection of those that lived on the ground and could be caught in a cup trap. This is not an error, but should be clearly stated in the title. By the way, these cups are called a Barber trap. I recommend using this term in the text and even adding it to keywords.

The basic assumption of GAM (and most other regression methods) is the assumption of independence of data points. In this case, the data comes from 5 different fields, each with 5 sampling sites. Therefore, under no circumstances can we assume that we are dealing with independent repetitions. By the way, in this case there should only be 25 dots on each graph. Do you treat each individual cup as a separate data points? This is a very big mistake. Hence such bizarre conclusions about "non-linear correlation", which should never be drawn with so simple research design.

For similar reasons, the Mantel test should be rejected. Additionally, it is a tool currently widely and negatively discussed.

As an analytical tool, I would suggest covariance analysis (ANCOVA).

Reducing the arthropod species composition to a few simple biodiversity indicators is a significant loss of valuable information. When the study design is so simple, the only way to obtain scientific value may be to analyze species composition. All the more so because we are dealing with a very taxonomically and ecologically diverse group.

I would suggest trying the following things:

- general analysis of species composition in combination with physicochemical data using Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) or similar tool.

- assessment of the contribution of various taxonomic groups (spiders, beetles, ants...) and ecological groups (predators, herbivores, etc.)

- perhaps it is also possible to find some specific groups of species whose contribution is worth taking a closer look at (e.g. rare species, pests, species that control pests)

Tip1. Seek the help of an entomologist who knows the local fauna.

Tip 2. Seek help from an ecologist who specializes in data analysis, not a typical statistician. The key thing is the appropriate selection of statistical methods and the correct interpretation of the results.

Tip 3. Remember the problem of pseudoreplication.

 

I hope you will write an interesting, valuable publication based on your data.

Author Response

Comments 1: [1.1 The topic of your article is very interesting. I would love to read a good publication about it.]

Response 1: Thank you for your kind comments. We're glad you find the topic interesting.

Comments 2: [1.2 The research system is sufficient. It is obvious that we would always like to conduct the widest possible research, but we have to use what is available.]

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We have re-organized and analyzed the data (Lines 133-135,137-141).

Comments 3: [1.3 Data analysis is deeply insufficient and partly flawed.  This is a reason to reject publication.]

Response 3: Thank you for your feedback. We have revised our data analysis to address the concerns raised. We believe the new analysis resolves the issues and strengthens our manuscript (Lines 133-135,137-141).

Comments 4: [1.4 The article is written quite well. Of course you have to make a new one, but you can write it in a similar style.]

Response 4: Thank you for your feedback. We have revised the manuscript, including significant improvements and reductions in redundant data descriptions.  

Comments 5: [2.1 Your research system included 5 fields with different cultivation times and 2 control sites. It's not impressive, but it's adequate. Therefore, it is very important to make maximum use of the collected data. Otherwise, the publication will be too modest. The main advantage of your work is (should be) demonstrating the impact of agriculture on the arthropod community. Unfortunately, you didn't do it correctly (which I will describe in detail below).]

Response 5: Thank you for your feedback on our research. Your comments have made us realize the importance of fully utilizing the collected data to enhance the impact of our study. In the revised manuscript, we have reassessed our data analysis methods. We removed the GAM and Mantel Test analyses, which were less suitable, and added NMDS and RDA analyses. Additionally, we conducted a more detailed analysis of the arthropod community by categorizing it based on different groups.

Comments 6: [2.2 Tip. Next time, describe your fields in more detail. There is no information about the history of the fields (what was before watermelons - this is very important in this topic), the size of the fields (which is also very important for the interpretation of elological data) and perhaps the spatial relationship (are the fields adjacent to each other or are they separated)]

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out.” All research fields were previously natural grasslands with no prior history of crop cultivation. Watermelons were planted directly without any previous crop rotation. Each research area was uniformly sized, with each field measuring approximately 1 km x 1 km. The research areas were located approximately 3 km apart from each other.” We have added it in the revision draft (Lines 94-98).

Comments 7: [3.1 You collected and analyzed the physicochemical data well. ANOVA is an appropriate analytical tool. However, pay attention to the charts. In your drawings, the error bars are above the bar, which shouldn't happen. The confidence interval surrounds the mean. I don't know what happened in your case (whether the error bar was raised or is it only the upper half), but the graph shouldn't look like this.]

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. In the original version, we only displayed y + SE and omitted y – SE, resulting in only half of the confidence interval being shown. Following your guidance, we have corrected this mistake and revised the figures in the manuscript to accurately display the full confidence intervals. (Lines 175,211).

Comments 8: [3.2 Tip 1. The R package, in particular ggplot2, requires the user to have good knowledge of what the analysis should look like and what results to expect. There are no error correction mechanisms there. If you order something inappropriate to be done, it will do it.]

Response 8: Thank you for your advice. We will ensure to use ggplot2 with a clear understanding of the desired analysis and expected results to avoid any inappropriate commands.

Comments 9: [3.3 Make your charts less rainbow-colored. We mark different data series with a color; in the case of one series, there is no reason for each bar to be a different.]

Response 9: Good suggestion. We have replaced the previous colorful design with a more conventional gray scale, which is commonly used in academic papers for clarity and simplicity (Lines 175,211). 

Comments 10: [3.4 Why did you use Duncan's test and not Tukey's?]

Response 10: Good question. Duncan's Test is a stepwise comparison method where the most significant group is compared with other groups at each step. In cases with a small sample size, Duncan's Test may be relatively more sensitive. Although it is less conservative than Tukey’s Test in controlling the overall error rate, it may provide more significant findings in small sample scenarios. Therefore, Duncan's Test is relatively more suitable for our experimental objectives and data type.

Comments 11: [4.1 Arthropods make up about 2/3 of the species on Earth. Many of them are very difficult to recognize precisely. This study did not examine arthropods, but only a small selection of those that lived on the ground and could be caught in a cup trap. This is not an error, but should be clearly stated in the title. By the way, these cups are called a Barber trap. I recommend using this term in the text and even adding it to keywords.]

Response 11: Thank you for your valuable feedback. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified the title to specify "Ground-Dwelling Arthropods" and have ensured that the term "Barber trap" is consistently used throughout the text. Additionally, we have added "Barber trap" to the keywords for improved searchability and accuracy (Lines 3,34,120).

Comments 12: [4.2 The basic assumption of GAM (and most other regression methods) is the assumption of independence of data points. In this case, the data comes from 5 different fields, each with 5 sampling sites. Therefore, under no circumstances can we assume that we are dealing with independent repetitions. By the way, in this case there should only be 25 dots on each graph. Do you treat each individual cup as a separate data points? This is a very big mistake. Hence such bizarre conclusions about "non-linear correlation",  which should never be drawn with so simple research design.]

Response 12: Thank you for your feedback. We realized that the use of pseudoreplication led to some unusual results. In response, we have adopted the alternative analysis methods you recommended to replace GAM. These methods should provide more accurate and reliable results (Lines 137-140).

Comments 13: [4.3 For similar reasons, the Mantel test should be rejected. Additionally, it is a tool currently widely and negatively discussed.]

Response 13: Thank you for your feedback. We agree with your assessment regarding the Mantel test and its current criticisms. In the revised manuscript, we have removed the Mantel test and replaced it with more robust analytical methods to ensure the validity and reliability of our results (Lines 134-135,137-140).

Comments 14: [4.4 As an analytical tool, I would suggest covariance analysis (ANCOVA).]

Response 14: Thank you for your suggestion. We agree with your recommendation and have adopted ANCOVA in the revised manuscript (Lines 134-135).

Comments 15: [4.5 Reducing the arthropod species composition to a few simple biodiversity indicators is a significant loss of valuable information. When the study design is so simple, the only way to obtain scientific value may be to analyze species composition. All the more so because we are dealing with a very taxonomically and ecologically diverse group.]

Response 15: Thank you for your feedback. We have re-evaluated and reorganized the arthropod data in response to your comments. We categorized the entire arthropod community into dominant species, common species, and rare species, and further classified them into five functional groups: pollinators, carnivores, omnivores, herbivores, and detritivores (Lines 133-134,358-359).

Comments 16: [5.1 general analysis of species composition in combination with physicochemical data using Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) or similar tool.]

Response 16: Thank you for your feedback. We have implemented functional assessment and selected Redundancy Analysis (RDA) for analyzing species composition and physicochemical data. Additionally, we have combined this with Non-metric Multidimensional Scaling (NMDS) to analyze the similarities in arthropod community composition and soil physicochemical properties across different study areas (Lines 137-141).

Comments 17: [5.2 assessment of the contribution of various taxonomic groups (spiders, beetles, ants...) and ecological groups (predators, herbivores, etc.)]

Response 17: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have included an assessment of the contribution of various taxonomic groups (e.g., spiders, beetles, ants) and ecological groups (e.g., predators, herbivores) (Lines 133-134,358-359). 

Comments 18: [5.3 perhaps it is also possible to find some specific groups of species whose contribution is worth taking a closer look at (e.g. rare species, pests, species that control pests)]

Response 18: Thank you for pointing this out. We categorized the entire arthropod community into dominant species, common species, and rare species, and further classified them into five functional groups: pollinators, carnivores, omnivores, herbivores, and detritivores (Lines 133-134,358-359). 

Comments 19: [5.4 Tip1. Seek the help of an entomologist who knows the local fauna.]

Response 19: Thank you for your suggestion. We have sought the assistance of a local entomologist with expertise in the regional fauna to further refine our analysis and ensure accurate interpretation of the data.

Comments 20: [5.5 Tip 2. Seek help from an ecologist who specializes in data analysis, not a typical statistician. The key thing is the appropriate selection of statistical methods and the correct interpretation of the results.]

Response 20: Thank you for your valuable advice. We have consulted with an ecologist specializing in data analysis to ensure the appropriate selection of statistical methods and accurate interpretation of the results. This step is crucial for enhancing the robustness and relevance of our findings.

Comments 21: [5.6 Tip 3. Remember the problem of pseudoreplication.]

Response 21: Thank you for reminding us about the issue of pseudoreplication. We have carefully addressed this concern in the revised manuscript by ensuring that our statistical analyses account for the proper design and independence of data points.

Comments 22: [6 I hope you will write an interesting, valuable publication based on your data.]

Response 22: Thank you for your encouraging words.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All comments were addressed, but several errors need to solve

-Please reduce the background in the abstract

-Avoid the description in conclusion, lines 326-331

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Comments 1: [All comments were addressed, but several errors need to solve.] Response 1: Thank you for your feedback. All comments have been addressed, and the remaining issues have been resolved in the revised manuscript. Comments 2: [Please reduce the background in the abstract.] Response 2: Thank you for your feedback. The background in the abstract has been reduced as requested (Lines 15-20). Comments 3: [ Avoid the description in conclusion, lines 326-331.] Response 3: Good suggestion. The unnecessary parts in the conclusion have been removed as requested. (Lines 323-325).

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: Minor editing of English language required

Response 1: Good suggestion. We have not only thoroughly reviewed the language issues but also consulted professionals for guidance on the necessary corrections.