Odonata (Insecta) Communities in a Lowland Mixed Mosaic Forest in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The submitted manuscript “Odonata (Insecta) Communities in a Lowland Mixed Mosaic Forest in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia” aims to investigate the relationship between Odonata community morphology and distribution within a heath-dominated mosaic habitat structure (on Borneo). Authors tested the hypothesis that Odonata species richness and abundance would differ between the three habitat-types studied (influenced by varying biotic and abiotic characteristics), and the hypothesis that morphological characteristics (body length, thorax size, and hindwing length) of species assemblages would differ between habitat specific communities.

Overall, I think this is a well written manuscript and provides useful insight to an interesting topic. The subject is important because kerangas are poorly researched, in addition because of the rapid threats that kerangas-dominated mosaic habitats face on Borneo. 

The paper provides a good background of the topic for readers.

Here are some questions and major comments: 

Major points

L 126-130 and elsewhere 

Authors state that they sampled in three habitat types: mixed peat-swamp, kerangas, and low-pole peat-swamp. Unfortunately, the terminology of the studied habitats is not consistent in the manuscript. In particular, habitat terminology in the text and legend of Figure 1 needs to be unified. The word kerangas is not in the legend of the figure at all. Habitat type kerangas corresponds to what, mixed heath forest? And what the authors refer to in the text as low-pole peat swamp forest (low-pole) corresponds in the figure to peat very low canopy, or low canopy heath forest, or even peat - low pole canopy?

L 133-135 

The authors claim that they studied three habitats, a total of six transects, two per habitat. 

Based on the picture, it seems otherwise: two transects in the “peat – very low canopy”, three transects in the “mixed – heath forest”, and one transect in the “mixed – riverside peat”. Could you please clarify? I would recommend both to edit the figure legend and to number the transects and assign them to the appropriate habitat types.

L 165-166

“…the presence of lotic or lentic water sources, were recorded within a 5-meter diameter at the point of capture of each individual.” What about cases where no aquatic habitat was present in the vicinity of the dragonfly capture? To which type of habitat was such a record assigned?

L 179-181

Here you used percentages as input values? Please specify.

L 231-233

I think it would be more appropriate to perform the species-accumulation curve with the randomization procedures (based on random combination of sample). 

Figure 5

This is a very strange design of Whittaker plot (with values greater than 1 and less than 1 and with an axis corresponding to O). In this type of graph, i) the original values are used without transformation (infrequent), ii) the logarithmic values are used (more frequent), iii) the logarithmic scale of species is used (the original version of this graph). What did you work with, the logarithm of percentages? Can you explain why you used that? I recommend reworking this chart. Please use the actual proportions and add the original values on the axis without logarithms (as the graph was originally designed).

Table A2 and everywhere else 

Surprisingly, there are quite a few errors in scientific names in the manuscript (especially in Table A2). The correct names are: Orthetrum chrysis, Ceriagrion cerinorubellum, Drepanosticta rufostigma, Drepanosticta sp.,Dysphaea dimidiata, Elattoneura aurantiaca. 

Minor points

L 140   What does “JAH” abbreviation mean? Jorian A. Hendriks? Does it need to be mentioned in the text? Do you use it elsewhere in the manuscript?

L 149   When marking specimens, did you use individual codes, i.e., numbers? Were you able to do that in the case of damselflies?

L 207   “A total of 306 individuals were captured…“ What about any recaptures of marked individuals, were there any? How many were there?

L 307   Explain exactly what you mean by "specialists “. Habitat specialists? It is unclear in the manuscript if the specific habitat requirements of each species are assumed or known, and what they are.

L 338 I think it would be more accurate to state “thermoconformers“ or “thermal conformers“ here. 

L 339   What does “CHE” abbreviation mean? Does it need to be mentioned in the text? Do you use it elsewhere in the manuscript?

L 356   What does “REF” abbreviation mean? Does it need to be mentioned in the text? Do you use it elsewhere in the manuscript?

L 363    The word “distribution” should start with a lower-case letter. 

L 369   What does “IHE” abbreviation mean? Does it need to be mentioned in the text? Do you use it elsewhere in the manuscript?

L 412   Wrong text formatting. 

L 422   Correct scientific name is Elattoneura aurantiaca. 

L 443   Wrong text formatting. 

L 444   Could you explain more precisely what you mean by " prefer either lotic or lentic habitats” in this context?

Table A2 and everywhere else          The "sp."/"spp." abbreviations should be never italicized, although the preceding genus name is.

Table A2          How are the species listed in this table ordered? Alphabetically in the relevant suborder? If so, then there are errors (e.g., Ceriagrion sp.). I recommend ordering the species according to the zoological system.

Figure A2        Why are some scientific genus names written in full in the Figure whereas most of them are abbreviated by using first letter of the genus? It must be unified.

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The main question is to present the Odonata assemblage in one of the most important biodiversity hotspots of the world.
The authors conceived a good field study and obtained useful results without disturbing the insect communities.
They worked in a particularly sensible insular area from an ecological point of view.
I think that the methodology is good.
The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and address the main question posed.

Among insects Odonata are important bioindicators, often living in different habitats as larvae and adults. The present paper is well written and reports many interesting data from one of the most important hotspots of biodiversity.

Thus I would recommend the editors publish it.

I only would suggest writing some lines on the migratory behavior of some species, possibly indicating if some of the 25 species found have migratory habits.

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx