Differences of Moss Mites Communities at Different Vegetation Succession Stages in Subalpine Wetland (Jiulongchi, Fanjing Mountain), Southwest China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Journal: Forests
Manuscript ID: forests-2168886
Type of manuscript: Article
Title: Response of moss mites to vegetation degradation succession in alpine wetlands at Fanjingshan World Natural Heritage Property, China 
Authors: Hu Chen, Yuanyuan Zhou, Yifan Fei, Qiang Wei
Submitted to section: Forest Ecology and Management

 

Abstract: The authors described the soil mite communities from 4 types of wetland habitats, from The Jiulongchi Wetland in Fanjingshan World Natural Heritage Property. They selected epiphytic mosses from four typical stages of wetland degradation in Jiulongchi subalpine wetland, namely Swamp moss (SW), Grassland moss (GM),  Senecio Moss (SE) and Fargesia spathacea Moss (FM), and analysed the characteristics and trends of species composition, abundance, similarity, diversity, evenness and richness of the mite communities in the four successional stages by identifying and classifying them. They identified a total of 9058 mites belonging to 3 orders and 49 families and 69 genera.  The genera Parachipteria, Fuscozetes and Tectocepheus were the main dominant taxa, and there were some differences in the composition of the dominant taxa at different stages of succession. From SW to FM, the abundance of mites showed an overall increasing trend, and moss mites showed FM>GM>SE>SW in the number of families and genera, with the diversity index SE having the maximum.. The results showed that different vegetation types affect the abundance and richness of moss mites in different successional stages of wetland degradation. The community composition of moss mites varies significantly and changes with the degradation of alpine wetlands.  The wetlands in general, develop in a direction favorable to mite diversity during degradation succession, although they were more disturbed by the external environment.

 

POSITIVE ASPECTS:

 

•           The manuscript presents an interesting research subject, from an unique geographical location.

• Any data regarding the ecology of soil fauna and on soil mites is precious, when the methodology is correctly used and the taxonomical identification is adequate.

•           The manuscript structure is adequately presented.

•           The figures and tables reveal properly the described results/data.

 

 

COMMENTS:

 

1.      The title: I suggest that the title must be changed! The expression “to vegetation degradation succession” it is not adequately! This is available all over the manuscript! From ecological point of view, I think that correct is: "ecological succession". Ecological succession is a process of change in the species structure of an ecological community over time, including the degradation of the vegetation! Or the author refers on the level of vegetation degradation/decomposition?

 

2.      Introduction:

·         There are a lot of numbers inserted there. I suppose that is the references, but without any brackets!

·         The literature focused on the role of wetlands is limited. There are a lot of materials from Europe, as well! Please, read them!

·         The two proposed objectives are overlapped! The characterization of mite communities’ compositions involves the quantification of numerical abundance and diversity of species. These two are statistical parameters that characterize the community’s structure (composition). So, please define other main objectives of the study! No abiotic parameters were measured!

·         I strongly recommend to authors to highlight the novelty and the originality of the present paper! The authors declared that there are a few studies on diversity from subalpine wetlands… Which is this literature? Please insert the references! There are any studies regarding the mites? What about the other studies from the world, from similar ecosystems? Please, insert the literature on this topic!

3.      Materials and methods.

·         The authors described the investigated areas, with data about average annual temperature, precipitations, etc. I consider that the data is not provided by the authors from their measurements. So, they must to insert the references!

·         How you make the differences between the four degraded classes- different successional stages? Different successional stages involve different environmental conditions! In this paper, the authors did not analyze any biotic or abiotic parameters!

·         The groupings of 4 moss ecosystems are wrong! Which are the vegetation criteria for classified those 4 investigated ecosystems? From botanical point of view there is no characterization of the investigated habitats (the vegetation association, dominant plant species, etc.). It is possible that the moss species to be similar in all 4 habitats!

·         Please, describe all 4 types of habitats: dominant plant species, coverage of vegetation, altitude, geographical coordinates, slope, exposure, etc.

·         Which are the distanced between all 4 ecosystems?

·         With which type of core were the samples taken? Which is the sample depth? Which is the area of the sampling surface from each habitat?

·         When were the samples collected? The day, month and the year?

·         Does any acarologist with experience check the authors taxonomically identification? Even at genera!

4.      Results and analysis

·         The authors present some data regarding the abundance of mites. But is very difficult to follow them. I recommend inserting as reference the number of table or annex from the final of the manuscript! I also recommend inserting in this table, at the end, three lines with: Number of families, number of genera and number of individuals for each type of investigated ecosystems!  This table must be named “annex 1”.

 

5.      Discussion

·         I strongly recommend that the authors to compare their data with similar studies from China or from other parts of the world.  The discussion must to focus in the same time with the type of investigated wetland ecosystems. From the vegetation point of view, each ecosystem from those 4 has specifically structure and environmental conditions!!

·         Some sentences in the discussion chapter have no sense. They are double written!

·         The discussion must to contain information regarding the biology of the mites. The authors mention some dominant, core or rare genera. What about their biology? Why these genera were found in a habitat or another? The authors mention about Tectocepheus and Parachiptera genera.  Please, find similar studies in the world and make some comparisons!

 

6.      References

·         Please, be careful with the text. It is not similar, from the spelling point of view. Some names of the journals are italic, others are not, some of them are written with capitals, etc…Please, follow the instructions for the authors!

·         Please put in alphabetical and chronological order the references.

·         Please, check if the all references were found in the manuscript and vice versa.

 

 

7.      Figures

·         Before and after figures or tables, it must be inserted a space!

·         Figure 2: it is NOT Goups. It is genera!

·         The figure 4 is not inserted in the text. The figure 4 from the text is correctly the figure 5. On figure 5, I don’t understand what they represent on the abscissa? There are 11 bars representing….. what? Please, mention with which software was made this graphic?

 

8.      Tables

·         I strongly suggest developing the table 2. Please insert the families which contribute to this MI.

 

The English language must be checked by native speaker!

 

All comments were inserting in the manuscript!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

We are grateful and honored to receive your review comments. First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your hard work on the author's paper. Your constructive review comments have greatly enriched the author's research paper and provided the author with many new ideas and professional help, which is the best affirmation of the author's research work; I fully accept your review comments, according to your relevant suggestions, the author has made significant adjustments and changes in the corresponding parts of the newly submitted paper, as detailed below.

 

Point 1: The article's title is too long; it is necessary to state UNESCO. It needs to be adjusted. Add UNESCO to your key words.

 

Response 1: Thank you for your sincere advice. For the Title, Abstract, and Keywords sections, the author has made the following changes.

(1) The author has optimized and revised the paper's title to Characteristics of Soil Mites Communities Structure under vegetation vertical gradient in the Shibing World Natural Heritage Property, China.

(2) The author has written in the first part that "World Heritage is a cultural and natural heritage of outstanding and universal value, recognized by UNESCO and the World Heritage Committee as the common heritage of all humanity, and natural heritage is more treasured than cultural heritage because of its fragility and non-renewability."

（The specific changes can be found in the revised manuscript at：Lines 5-3.)

(3) Add UNESCO to the keywords.

 

Point 2: Introduction:

There is a lack of importance of mites in the eco-system, indication values of the presence of some species, relationships between species etc. - must be added.

Move text line 45–70 from M + M.

Define scientific hypotheses and, if necessary, set sub-objectives.

 

Response 2: Thank you for your sincere advice. For the Introduction section, the author has made the following changes.

The author has carefully considered your comments and entirely agrees with you. Hence the author has rewritten the introduction to this paper.

In the first paragraph, the author explains the background of the research, starting with the importance of the World Heritage Property, followed by a discussion of the significance of the Shibing World Natural Heritage Property, followed by an extensive introduction to the uniqueness of the Shibing Karst World Natural Karst Forest, highlighting the importance of forest biodiversity in the heritage property, and through a comparison of the literature, drawing out the lack of subsurface biodiversity research.

In the second paragraph, the author focuses on the relationship between soil mite communities and karst forests and presents the key scientific questions to be addressed in this paper (differences and changes in soil mite community structure under different vegetation types).

In the third paragraph, the author briefly explained the context and significance of this paper and discuss how to address the critical scientific questions raised in the third paragraph, the author briefly describes the context and importance of the research and outlines how to manage the critical scientific questions raised.

The author believes that the revised introduction has been improved to a certain extent compared to the previous one.

（The specific changes can be found in the revised manuscript at：Lines 36-89.)

 

Point 3: Materials and Methods:

(1) 1 - no source of information is given

(2) Finish the nomenclature system that was employed.

(3) Use SI units and replace "cm" with "m" or "mm."

(4) According to which rules the sampling sites were selected (2.2.1)

(5) Did you determine the proportion of organic matter in the samples?

 

Response 3: Thank you for your sincere advice. For the Materials and Methods section, the author has made the following changes.

(1) In the section on the overview of the study area, the author has made changes and improvements based on your comments and has included relevant references as sources of information for the paper.

(2) The works consulted by the author in naming soil mites are Pictorial Keys to Soil Animals of China, Acarology, A manual of Acarology (3rd edition), and Soil Gamasid Mites in Northeast China. These references generally agree with the works consulted by the authors in their identification, as they also contain the corresponding nomenclature for soil mites.

（The specific changes can be found in the revised manuscript at：Lines 138-140.)

(3) The author has made the appropriate changes to use SI units throughout.

(4) The author has refined the sampling design by setting up six 15 cm x 15 cm sample points in an "S" or serpentine sampling pattern in a relatively stable area of about 10 m. After removing the dead leaves from the surface, the 100 mm (D) × 64 mm (H) cylindrical swivel knife was used for sampling.

(5) The proportion of organic matter in the samples could not be determined as the corresponding physicochemical soil samples were not collected in this paper.

 

Point 4: Results:

It is not clear from the results what is the significance of the amount of biomass at the sampling site for the occurrence of mite taxa

 

Response 4: Thank you for your sincere advice. The author has made the following changes to the Results.

The author apologizes most sincerely for not being able to understand your question clearly. The author has tried to interpret your question as follows: Was the mass of the soil mites weighed? or whether to calculate individual densities of soil mites?

Firstly for testing the mass of the mites, as they are tiny and light, all weighing equipment is not sufficient for the author to achieve such a goal.

Secondly, this paper does not calculate the individual density of mites because all the sampling methods, including different soil layers and points, use the same size cylindrical swivel knife. Suppose the density is converted according to the area. In that case, it presents the same variation pattern and number of individuals, so the author has given up calculating the individual thickness of mites. If the need for this section is confirmed, the author is fully prepared to add it later.

 

Point 5: Discussion:

(1) Line 326–328: What is the reason for the variability in mite composition?

(2) Does the vegetation change with increasing altitude? Could this be the reason for the differences in mite taxa?

(3) Line 340–344: Is this your finding?

(4)I lack the discussion here about the relationship between mite taxa and vegetation

 

Response 5: Thank you for your sincere advice. The author has made the following changes to the Discussion.

(1) Based on relevant studies and the present study results, we conclude that the changes in soil mite composition are closely related to vegetation type. In contrast, the author, in the discussion, combined with previous relevant studies, concluded that the vegetation in the Heritage Property is diverse. With the rise in altitude, the vegetation type also changes with the change in hydrothermal conditions, and the composition and distribution of soil mites also vary more significantly. The number of individuals of soil mites tended to decrease and then increase with increasing altitude, and the number of groups showed a tendency to increase with increasing altitude.

Therefore, the soil mite community structure is closely related to the vegetation of the forest floor. At the same time, the change in hydrothermal conditions with the increase in altitude also impacts the soil mite community structure.

（The specific changes can be found in the revised manuscript at：Lines 413-464.)

• As altitude increases and hydrothermal conditions change, the type of mountain vegetation changes accordingly. In this research, the author discusses the trophic groupsof soil mites that play an essential role in the soil food web. Schneider (2004) et al. classified the trophic structure of oribatid mites into four major groups, namely predators, carnivores, scavengers, omnivores; secondary decomosers; primary decomposers and phytophagous, fungivores. Scavengers can regulate above-ground plant communities' structure, function, and succession by facilitating material cycling and energy flow in soil ecosystems. The primary vegetation of the Heritage Property consists of zonal top-subtropical broadleaf evergreen forest, subtropical deciduous broadleaf forest, subtropical warm coniferous broad-leaved mixed forest, and the deciduous broad-leaved mixed forest, evergreen broad-leaved forest and coniferous broad-leaved mixed forest in the study area have a certain number of scavengers, such as the Oppiella、Nothrus and Trichogalumna, which to some extent reflects the interaction between soil mites and vegetation. The conclusions drawn in this section have been inserted in the revised manuscript with relevant references.

The conclusions drawn in this section have been inserted in the revised manuscript with relevant references.

（The specific changes can be found in the revised manuscript at：Lines 413-464.)

(3) The author must sincerely apologize that the author's paper is not designed to address the role of the slope, slope orientation, and geological features on mites. This is the author's speculative conclusion based on previous research, which may not be reliable. In later studies, if possible, the authors will investigate the effects of slope, slope orientation, and geological features on soil mites.

（The specific changes can be found in the revised manuscript at：Lines 427-430.)

• The discussion of the relationship between soil mites and vegetation has been revised and refined by the authors in the new revised manuscript.

（The specific changes can be found in the revised manuscript at：Lines 413-464.)

 

Point 6: Conclusions:

(1) Limit general phrases.

(2) Formulate conclusions according to hypotheses.

(3) Which taxa can be used as indicators of changes in the environment based on your study.

 

Response 6: Thank you for your sincere advice.The author has made the following changes to the Conclusions.

• The author has corrected all the formatting errors that you have raised and has also made some minor corrections to the English language due to the magnitude of this revision and adjustment, which may cause you a lot of inconvenience in reviewing the manuscript, for which the author apologizes most sincerely.
• Based on the author's research and previous studies, we can use the dominant groups of soil mites as indicators of environmental change. In this study, Perscheloribatesand Scheloribates are the dominant groups in the study area. We can use these two soil mite species as essential indicators to detect environmental changes in forest soils.

（The specific changes can be found in the revised manuscript at：Lines 502-518.)

 

Point 7: Errors:

(1) Line 22 - …are moderately dissimilar. The Predatory gamasid mite… Consider adding a space

(2) Line 204 - "Table 4. Distributions ……" edit "Table 4. Distributions… .."

 

Response 7: Thank you for your sincere advice.

The author has corrected all the formatting errors you have raised in the text. Following your suggestions, this paper has been substantially revised, and the English writing has been improved and refined. The author apologizes most sincerely for any inconvenience this may cause you in reviewing your paper.

 

At this point, the author must once again thank you for your valuable corrections! I hope you will let me know if you find any shortcomings again during the review process, and I will take them seriously. Thank you again!

 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript title:  

 Response of moss mites to vegetation degradation succession in alpine wetlands at Fanjingshan World Natural Heritage Property, China   

 

This study has certain significance in plant science community . However, revisions are necessary for the current version of the manuscript. The following questions to be addressed/considered may be helpful to improve the manuscript.

Major comments

·       I am not sure whether the ‘’ World Natural Heritage Prop-erty’’ term is needed in the title, as it is not well discussed in the manuscript. Please consider discussing it or rephrasing it.

·       Add line number and page number, it makes difficult to comment on the manuscript without the line numbers.

·       Insufficient Abstract: It would be even better to have a sentence as a future perspective.

·       The unit/abbreviation is not mentioned before, consider defining the abbreviation when mentioned for the first time…. Please check throughout the manuscript to define the abbreviations.

·       Line 52-58, the aim or hypothesis of the study is clear, however, the approach is missing ….

·       Lake of scientific literature to support the statements and findings throughout the manuscript…... I have made some suggestions for that and more need it….

And put the reference number in brackets or parenthesis, the current format is confusing to see just a number at the eend of the sentence.

·       More information is needed for ALL TABLE captions and define the abbreviation and units that are used. And adjust the significant figures for the table and manuscript.

·       Grammar and punctuation issuers need to be addressed. I have selected/mentioned some as examples.

·       I have a major concern about the results and discussion section. The authors describe the results and compare the results with previous studies, however, insight mechanisms are still insufficient.

·       The language is generally clear, with some exceptions where the authors used unnecessarily long sentences, which are different to find, for example, the last sentence in the abstract, and the second sentence in the introduction………etc.

 

Specific comments:

Abstract

Line 17-23: A complicated sentence, please revise and check the grammar

 

Introduction:

Page 1 Line 4: This a long and complicated sentence, please revise and check the grammar.

Page 1, Paragraph 1: A reference is needed here for example:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.120210

Or

https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.16325

Page 2, paragraph 1, line 3: A reference is needed here, for example, you can use: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142822

Page 2, paragraph 2, last sentence: This a long and complicated sentence, please revise and check the grammar.

Page 2, paragraph 3, last sentence: check the grammar

 

In MM section

Literature references are missing for all sub-section. It would be better to cite the references that the procedure adopted.

In MM section, what is the quality control (QC) data? There is no mention of the QC.

In general, how many times you’ve recorded the data,? duplicate? Triplicate?..... what you mentioned in the text is not clear, please elaborate more on this

 

R&D section

These sections are repeating information already presented and explain things in an unnecessarily complicated way. The quality of the manuscript would benefit from the whole section being condensed, Page 7 paragraph 2, Page 10 paragraph 1, and Page 11 paragraph 1 and 2,

Page 5, Paragraph 6: A reference is needed:

Figure 4. The figure is rather very complicated and hard to understand, is there a way to simplify and visualized it better?- one way you can use, is by plotting fewer parameters together and then making 2 figures.

 

Conclusion

Important conclusions! However, the future perspectives for the following research are highly crucial here …..

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

We are grateful and honored to receive your review comments. First of all, we would like to express our sincere gratitude for your hard work on the authors' paper. Your constructive review comments have greatly enriched the authors' research paper and provided the authors with many new ideas and professional help, which is the best affirmation of the authors' research work; We fully accept your review comments, according to your relevant suggestions, the authors have made significant adjustments and changes in the corresponding parts of the newly submitted paper, as detailed below.

 

As the authors have made considerable changes and adjustments to this resubmission, we have attempted to categorise all the changes you have made and then answer them in turn. Please forgive the authors for taking the liberty of doing this, as it may increase your review work somewhat, but on the other hand, it will make all the changes more logical and clear.

Point 1:  I am not sure whether the ‘’ World Natural Heritage Prop-erty’’ term is needed in the title, as it is not well discussed in the manuscript. Please consider discussing it or rephrasing it.

Response 1: Thank you very much for the sincere advice. The authors strongly agree with you and have therefore changed the title of the paper in the revised version submitted, as follows: Differences of Moss Mites Communities at Different Vegetation Succession Stages in Subalpine Wetland (Jiulongchi, Fanjing Mountain), Southwest China

Point 2: Add line number and page number, it makes difficult to comment on the manuscript without the line numbers.

Response 2: Thank you very much for your sincere advice. The authors have added line numbers to the resubmitted manuscript.

Point 3: Insufficient Abstract: It would be even better to have a sentence as a future perspective.

Response 3:Thank you very much for your sincere advice.

The authors have made significant changes and modifications to the Abstract section and have added an outlook. See the revised Abstract section for details.

（The specific changes can be found in the revised manuscript at：line 9 - 39)

Point 4: The unit/abbreviation is not mentioned before, consider defining the abbreviation when mentioned for the first time…. Please check throughout the manuscript to define the abbreviations.

Response 4:Thank you very much for your sincere advice. 

The authors strongly agree with your comments and have defined the abbreviations mentioned for the first time in the revised manuscript, starting with the Abstract section and throughout the text. Notes have been added to the different abbreviations in the diagrams so that each section is independent and easier to understand.

Point 5: Line 52-58, the aim or hypothesis of the study is clear, however, the approach is missing …

Response 5:Thank you very much for your sincere advice.

The authors have rewritten the objectives of the study in the last paragraph of the Introduction and have added the research methodology. See the fourth paragraph of the revised Introduction for details. In addition, the authors have rewritten the Introduction.

（The specific changes can be found in the revised manuscript at：line 43 - 123)

Point 6: Lake of scientific literature to support the statements and findings throughout the manuscript…... I have made some suggestions for that and more need it….

Response 6:Thank you very much for your sincere advice.

In response to the revisions you made in the PDF version, the authors reply in turn at the end.

Point 7: And put the reference number in brackets or parenthesis, the current format is confusing to see just a number at the eend of the sentence.

Response 7:Thank you very much for your sincere advice.

The authors agree with the your comments. We have double-checked the insertion of references before submitting the first version of the manuscript, and it is possible that the references in the manuscript submitted to the submission system have been changed from [ ] to numbers due to a format conversion. We apologise for any inconvenience caused to your review. In the revised version we have double-checked the references to ensure that they are correctly embedded in the paper.

Point 8: More information is needed for ALL TABLE captions and define the abbreviation and units that are used. And adjust the significant figures for the table and manuscript.

Response 8:Thank you very much for your sincere advice.

In the revised version, the authors have added more detailed additional information to all the icons, so that each diagram or table is completely independent and complete.

Point 9: Grammar and punctuation issuers need to be addressed. I have selected/mentioned some as examples.

Response 9:Thank you very much for your sincere advice.

The first submitted paper contained many long, complex sentences and had grammatical problems. In response, the authors have streamlined this in the new version, while professionally touching up the language.

Point 10: I have a major concern about the results and discussion section. The authors describe the results and compare the results with previous studies, however, insight mechanisms are still insufficient.

Response 10:Thank you very much for your sincere advice.

The Results and Analysis section has been further refined to make the language logical and concise. In addition, the authors have made significant changes to the discussion section by adding an analysis of the biological properties of the dominant and core mites, based on comparisons with national and international studies.

（The specific changes can be found in the revised manuscript at：line 173 - 414)

 

Point 11: The language is generally clear, with some exceptions where the authors used unnecessarily long sentences, which are different to find, for example, the last sentence in the abstract, and the second sentence in the introduction………etc.

Response 11:Thank you very much for your sincere advice.

All authors have further sorted and revised this paper, revising long sentences that recur. In addition, the authors have made significant changes and adjustments throughout the paper, particularly in the Introduction, the Materials and Methods and the Discussion sections.

Point 12: Address all comments in the Specific comments section. Design grammar and spelling, complexity of sentences, addition of necessary references, unclear presentation, complexity of Figures 4 and 5, and the need for sublimation of future research prospects.

Response 12:Thank you very much for your sincere advice.

Firstly, the authors have carefully read the references recommended by the you, which the authors consider to be essential, and have used some of them in the revised version. Secondly,  authors have carefully and meticulously combed through and revised this text for lengthy sentences and grammatical errors, and has also worked on the language.In addition, for some of the figures presented in a way that is difficult to understand, the authors have provided detailed annotations under the icons, as well as added relevant references, and software for the production of the figures. Finally, for a grasp of the research outlook, the authors have rewritten the section and it can be found in the Abstract, Introduction and Results and Analysis sections.

（The specific changes can be found in the revised manuscript at：line 173 - 414 and line 542 -560)

 

The author has corrected all the formatting errors you have raised in the text. Following your suggestions, this paper has been substantially revised, and the English writing has been improved and refined. The author apologizes most sincerely for any inconvenience this may cause you in reviewing your paper.

At this point, the authors must thank you again for your valuable corrections! Please let us know if you find any shortcomings again during the review process, and we will take them seriously. Thank you again! At the same time, the authors sincerely wish you a happy Spring Festival in the upcoming Chinese Lunar New Year!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear colleagues! The presented work is original. The fundamental research of the group of authors presents new information about the participation of Moss Mites Communities in the Succession of Subalpine Wetland. There is competent and persuasive introduction. In chapter 2, the authors described Materials and methods in detail. The reliability of the study is beyond doubt, since a huge naturalistic material was collected, quite difficult to identify, which the authors successfully coped with. Modern methods of parametric and nonparametric statistics are used in the work Quoting about 90 literature sources does not raise doubts about the relevance and reliability of the material used. The authors also described in detail the analytical results of the work. The conclusions of the research are beyond doubt. Two hypotheses of the research were supported by specific arguments. For a small improvement of the manuscript I ask the authors to make the following additions: 1) You should place references to literature sources in the text in general brackets. 2) L. 97, 100: please indicate the author's signs of the species. 3) I recommend giving photos of several taxa of dominant ticks. 4) L. 243: I ask the authors to indicate the signs of the K-selective and-selective taxa classification. Do you mean K- and r-strategies of species? 5) According to the description of the PCA results, it is not clear with which indicators I PC and II PC are correlated? I recommend the authors to provide a table of the factor load according to the studied parameters. 6) Cluster analysis may be in this research. The results on the distribution of taxa by communities would look clearer. 7) I would like to see references to the authors' past works and their description in the text in the list of references.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Thank you very much for the recognition and support of all the authors' research results. Your valuable review comments have greatly enriched the authors' research paper. All authors have accepted your suggestions and have made line by line changes in the newly submitted revised version, taking into account your review comments. Now, in response to your request for additions, we would like to make the following clarifications.

 

Point 1: You should place references to literature sources in the text in general brackets. 

Response 1: Thank you for your sincere advice.

The authors have again carefully checked the formatting of references throughout the paper and corrected any inconsistencies. In addition, the authors have cross-referenced the references in the text by using " [1]" rather than " (1)," following the submission requirements for forest journals. The exact citation format of the references will be further checked with the editor and revised by the authors in the next few days.

 

Point 2: L. 97, 100: please indicate the author's signs of the species. 

Response 2: Thank you for your sincere advice. Taking into account your suggestions, we have revised the language in this section in the revised version. The details are as follows.

In adjacent habitat patches, the mites communities structure also exhibits individual characteristics, such as mite fauna of patches of High Arctic moss-grass tundra of Svalbard in Petuniabukta, Billefjord (moss, grasses, Salix polaris, bare soil), and adjacent to Vestpynten, Adventfjord (moss, moss mixed with grasses, Cassiope tetragona, S. polaris)[29]. The pollen, sporopollen, and 14C contents of sediments from the Jiulongchi wetland in Fanjin Mountain recorded climate change and vegetation succession in Fanjin Mountain around 10,000 years ago[30][31], with the low recesses are in a northward sequence of Polytrichum commune Hedw. Eleocharis yokoscensis (Franch. et Sav.) Tang et-Cypers sp., Senecio faberii Hemsl and Indocalamus longiauritus Hand.-Mazz. Reflect the modern vegetation succession of the region.

 

Point 3: I recommend giving photos of several taxa of dominant ticks. 

Response 3: Thank you for your sincere advice.

The authors strongly agree with you, while all our samples are kept in the laboratory after identification, we have added photographs of some of the dominant moss mites in Appendix 3.

  

  

Figure s1. Photographs of dominant genera of moss mites in the Jiulongchi wetland, Fanjing Mountain.

Point 4: L. 243: I ask the authors to indicate the signs of the K-selective and-selective taxa classification. Do you mean K- and r-strategies of species? 

Response 4: Thank you for your sincere advice.

Criteria for classifying predatory moss mites ecological taxa: 0 ≦ MI ≦ 1. MI = 0, r-selective; MI ﹤ 0.5, r-selective dominant; MI = 0.5, K-selective or r-selective; MI > 0.5, K-selective dominant; MI = 1, K-selective. （The specific changes can be found in the revised manuscript at：386—397 )

The K- and r-values for predatory mites (Mesostigmata: Gamasina) were determined based on the daily egg-laying rate and developmental speed of each family of mites, as well as the dispersal ability and population dynamics of the mites, and the specific criteria for assigning values were also based on the assignment table compiled by the authors above. In this paper, we calculate the maturity index (MI) of predatory  mites in different habitats by referring to Ruf (1998), which divided predatory mites into K- and r-selective taxa (i.e., K- and r-strategists in the life history of the species), and the K- and r-value assignments carried out by the family.

 

Point 5: According to the description of the PCA results, it is not clear with which indicators I PC and II PC are correlated? I recommend the authors to provide a table of the factor load according to the studied parameters. 

Response 5: Thank you for your sincere advice.

We tabulated the factor scores for the different moss mites in the PCA analysis, which can be found in Appendix 4. It is not included in the text because the PCA two-dimensional ordination plot is consistent with the results it presents. In addition, we must state that the score data came from what is shown in the Log file in Canoco 5.

Genus	PCA1	PCA2
Gamasellus	0.667	-0.265
Hypochthonius	0.614	-0.377
Camisia	-0.253	-0.402
Brachioppiella	0.22	0.388
Ramusella	0.305	-0.372
Tectocepheus	0.175	-0.234
Eupelops	0.711	0.509
Achipteria	0.346	0.642
Parachipteria	0.917	0.055
Haplozetes	0.299	-0.611
Fuscozetes	-0.141	0.854
Melanozetes	0.246	0.76
Trichogalumna	0.803	-0.253

Table s1. Factor loading table for PCA analysis of moss mite communities in different habitats.

 

Point 6: Cluster analysis may be in this research. The results on the distribution of taxa by communities would look clearer.

Response 6: Thank you for your sincere advice.

In response to your comments, we make the following clarification: In this article we have paid extra attention to the dominant moss mites because of their high abundance, which is a valuable source of basic data for the long-term monitoring of the ecology of the Jiulongchi wetland. We lack attention to rare taxa because their abundance is small and there are no previous studies of this wetland mite to compare to reveal the dynamics of different mite species over time scales. We have therefore used the first 13 genera of mites in the PCA analysis, which account for over 90% of their abundance, thus avoiding to some extent the influence of rare taxa and reducing the complexity of the graph, as have the authors of many similar studies. In addition, taking into account expert opinion, we tried CA analysis or two-way clustering of biological data from the four habitats in Canoco 5, but none of the presentations were very effective. We considered that the reason for this may be that in field sampling, even under plant communities with very distinct landscape differences within a smaller study area, there is a large variation in biological samples between sites, which is well reflected in the ordering of the PCA plots for the sample sites. With this in mind we looked at the variation in mite communities at a larger scale, which was further complemented and supported by the use of two similarity indices.

 

Point 7: I would like to see references to the authors' past works and their description in the text in the list of references.

Response 7: Thank you for your sincere advice.

We have cited our relevant research papers in this paper, including

[5] Zhou, Z.; Chen, H.; Lin, D. D.; Wang, P. J. Mite community of epihytic bryophytes in evergreen and deciduous broad-leaved mixed forest of Fanjingshan. Journal of Beijing Normal University (Natural Science). 2017, 53, 713-721. (In Chinese)

[6] Liu, W. J.; Yin, X. M.; Gong, T.; Liu, Y.; Chen, H. Community Structure of Epilithic Moss Mites and Their Response to Environmental Factors in Different Grades of Rocky Desertification Habitats. Sustainability. 2022, 14, 14860.

[36] Lin, D.D.; Chen, H.; Chen, H.; Liu, P.P.; Liu, Q.S. Soil mite community structure in the evergreen, broad-leaved forest of Fanjing mountain, China. Chinese Journal of Applied & Environmental Biology. 2018, 24 , 1185-1194. (In Chinese)

[37] Wang, P.J.; Chen, H.; Zhou, Z.; Lin, D.D.; Wu, R.X.; Zhu, J.Y. Soil Mite Community Structure in Mixed Evergreen and Deciduous Broad-leaved Forest of Fanjingshan. Soils. 2018, 50, 687–695. (In Chinese)

[53] Chen, H.; Jin, D.C.; Wen, Z.H. Differences in soil mite communities in Karst Areas with different degrees of rocky desertification. Chinese Journal of Applied Entomology. 2018, 55, 711-724. (In Chinese)

[54] Chen, H. Study on community structure of soil mites in the rocky desertification areas without and with ecological management. Doctor Degree, Institute of Entomology, Guizhou University, China. 2018. (In Chinese).

[66] Lin, D.D. Study on the Structures and Values of Soil Mites in Fanjingshan World Natural Heritage Nomination. Master Degree, Guizhou Normal University, Guizhou Province, China. 2018. (In Chinese).

 

At this point, the authors must once again thank you for your valuable corrections! We hope you will let us  know if you find any shortcomings again during the review process, and we will take them seriously. Thank you again!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Almost all my comments were checked by the authors and the manuscript was improved. I consider that the quality of the article increased. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Thank you very much for your appreciation and support of our basic research work. Your constructive and professional comments have been of great help and have provided us with many new ideas and insights. This article could not be better presented to the readers without your help and all of us authors are very grateful for your valuable comments.

We sincerely wish you all the best in your work.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors addressed half of my comments, mainly the major comments.

Therefore, I suggest a major revision again, so the authors can address the minor comments too... including the reference that I suggested and grammar checking.   I have attached my first review report here again to be used in the revision.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

 

Thank you very much for recognizing and supporting the authors' scientific work. Your valuable review comments have greatly enriched the authors' research article. All the authors have accepted your suggestions and made article-by-article changes in the newly submitted version, taking into account your review comments, as follows.

 

Part 1: Major comments

Point 1: I am not sure whether the ‘’ World Natural Heritage Prop-erty’’ term is needed in the title, as it is not well discussed in the manuscript. Please consider discussing it or rephrasing it.

Response 1: Thank you for your sincere advice. Fanjing Mountain, China, is a World Man and Biosphere Reserve, a World Natural Heritage Property, and a Nature Reserve in China. Located in the heart of the Fanjing Mountain Heritage Property, the Jiulongchi Wetland is a seasonally intermittent herbaceous marsh virtually undisturbed by any human activity. At present, the plant communities of Polytrichum commune Hedw. , Eleocharis yokoscensis (Franch. et Sav.) Tang et-Cypers sp., Senecio faberii Hemsl, and Indocalamus longiauritus Hand.-Mazz. are developed in the low part from south to north, which reflects the modern vegetation succession process in the area. The area provides an ideal site for studying the mechanisms of plant and animal community succession and biodiversity maintenance in a subtropical subalpine wetland environment. Based on this, the authors have revised the article's title, considering your comments, as follows.

Title (line2-4): Differences of Moss Mites Communities at Different Vegetation Succession Stages in Subalpine Wetland (Jiulongchi, Fanjing Mountain), Southwest China

 

Point 2: Add line number and page number, it makes difficult to comment on the manuscript without the line numbers.

Response 2: Thank you for your sincere advice. We are aware of the inconvenience this issue has caused the expert review process and we sincerely apologize for this. We have therefore taken your comments into account and have added line numbers and page numbers to the newly submitted revised version.

 

Point 3: Insufficient Abstract: It would be even better to have a sentence as a future perspective.

Response 3: Thank you for your sincere advice. Taking into account your comments, we have added the corresponding descriptions as outlooks in the Abstract. In addition, we have enriched the Conclusion with an outlook for the future. The details are as follows.

In the Abstract (line 36-38): This research presents the distribution pattern of moss mites in different vegetation succession stages in subtropical subalpine herbaceous wetlands. The moss mites evolution trend in response to climate change-induced plant community succession needs further investigation.

In the Conclusion (line 538-545): This research enriches the study of the biodiversity of Fanjing Mountain and its subalpine wetlands, further deepens the understanding of the value of biodiversity in the Fanjing Mountain World Natural Heritage Property and is of great significance for the conservation of biodiversity in the Heritage Property. Global climate change is a central theme of research in today's society. How climate change will affect subalpine wetland ecosystems and continuing to track the relationship between biological indicators and environmental change will be the next major task of our research.

 

Point 4: The unit/abbreviation is not mentioned before, consider defining the abbreviation when mentioned for the first time…. Please check throughout the manuscript to define the abbreviations.

Response 4: Thank you for your sincere advice. With reference to your suggestion, we have defined the four vegetation succession sequence abbreviations in the Abstract, Introduction, and Materials and Methods. After the text reappears we used the abbreviations. These are as follows.

In the Abstract (line 15-19): The succession sequence from bryophyte (hygrophyte) to shrub (mesophyte or xerophyte) in the open area of Jiulongchi wetland successively includes: Polytrichum commune Hedw. (PC), Eleocharis yokoscensis (Franch.et Sav.)Tang et - Cypers sp. (EY-C), Senecio faberii Hemsl (SF) and Indocalamus longiauritus Hand.-Mazz. (IL) 4 typical communities.

In the Introduction (line 99-105): The pollen, sporopollen, and 14C contents of sediments from the Jiulongchi wetland in Fanjin Mountain recorded climate change and vegetation succession in Fanjin Mountain around 10,000 years ago[33][34]. At present, the plant communities of Polytrichum commune Hedw. (PC), Eleocharis yokoscensis (Franch.et Sav.)Tang et - Cypers sp. (EY-C), Senecio faberii Hemsl (SF) and Indocalamus longiauritus Hand.-Mazz. (IL) are developed in the low part from south to north, which reflects the modern vegetation succession process in the area[27].

In the Materials and Methods (line 155-163): The open area of the Jiulongchi wetland as a whole forms a series of four distinctly different vegetation successions from south to north, adjacent to each other, in the order of the Polytrichum commune Hedw. (PC) community in the center of the wetland, the Eleocharis yokoscensis (Franch. et Sav.) Tang et-Cypers sp. (EY-C) community adjacent to the PC community, the Senecio faberii Hemsl (SF) community located behind the EY-C community, and the northern edge of the Indocalamus longiauritus Hand.-Mazz. (IL) community on the northern edge (Figure 1c, Figure 2). The ground surface of each vegetation community is lush with mosses and the main dominant moss taxa were shown in Table 1.

 

Point 5: Line 52-58, the aim or hypothesis of the study is clear, however, the approach is

missing ….

Response 5: Thank you for your sincere advice. Taking into account your comments, we have rewritten the research hypothesis in the new version and added to the analysis methodology. These are as follows.

In the Introduction (line 115-127): Based on the ecological importance of the Jiulongchi wetland in Fanjing Mountain, we tentatively hypothesed in this research that (1) The Jiulongchi wetland moss mites communities should be differentiated under different vegetation environments. (2) The difference or regularity of moss mites community can reflect the succession stage or process of regional vegetation from moist to mesogenic or xerotic. For this purpose, we investigated these issues by collecting, isolating and identifying moss mites, using the Shannon-Wiener diversity index (H´) and the Pielou evenness index (J), moss mites ecological taxon analysis and mathematical and statistical methods such as PCA, Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric tests and ANOVA. The research will show the distribution pattern of moss mites under different plant communities in subtropical subalpine herb wetlands, and will also provide basic comparative data for further studies on the relationship between environmental change and moss mites communities.

 

Point 6: Lack of scientific literature to support the statements and findings throughout the manuscript…... I have made some suggestions for that and more need it….

And put the reference number in brackets or parenthesis, the current format is confusing to see just a number at the eend of the sentence.

Response 6: Thank you for your sincere advice. In response to your suggestion, we have added relevant references, and their specific locations are listed in detail in the 'Specific comments' section. In addition, we have carefully checked the citation format of references throughout the article to ensure that all references are placed in "[ ]".

 

Point 7: More information is needed for ALL TABLE captions and define the abbreviation and units that are used. And adjust the significant figures for the table and manuscript.

Response 7: Thank you for your sincere advice. In response to your comments, we have added the necessary notes to each chart and table to enable each one to be presented independently. Examples of these are the following.

Materials and methods  2.1 Overview of the study area (line 164-168):

 

Figure 1. Geographical location of Fanjing Mountain (a), geographical location of                             Jiulongchi Wetland (b) and four different vegetation succession habitats (c)

Notes: PC: Polytrichum commune Hedw., EY-C: Eleocharis yokoscensis (Franch.et Sav.)Tang et-Cypers sp., SF: Senecio faberii Hemsl, IL: Indocalamus longiauritus Hand.-Mazz.

Results  3.3 Moss mites community similarity (line 345-351):

Habitats	PC	EY-C	SF	IL
PC	1	0.57	0.56	0.4
EY-C	0.37	1	0.76	0.58
SF	0.44	0.74	1	0.6
IL	0.24	0.5	0.86	1

Table 2 Similarities in the community composition of moss mites species in different vegetation succession habitats.

Notes: PC: Polytrichum commune Hedw., EY-C: Eleocharis yokoscensis (Franch.et Sav.)Tang et-Cypers sp., SF: Senecio faberii Hemsl, IL: Indocalamus longiauritus Hand.-Mazz. Sorensen-index values are shown above the diagonal and Morisita-Horn-index values are shown down the diagonal.

Results  3.3 Moss mites community similarity (line 360-370):

 

 

Figure 6 Core, exclusively, common genera of moss mites in different vegetation succession habitats.

Notes: PC: Polytrichum commune Hedw., EY-C: Eleocharis yokoscensis (Franch.et Sav.)Tang et-Cypers sp., SF: Senecio faberii Hemsl, IL: Indocalamus longiauritus Hand.-Mazz. Above is a Venn diagram of the moss mites communities' composition, the different colored circles indicated the different plant communities of moss mites. Below is the Upset diagram. The different colored circles indicate the number of exclusive genera of mites in that flora. Black circles with connecting lines indicate the presence of the same genera between flora and the rest of the flora, and the bar graph above shows the number of the same genera

 

Point 8: Grammar and punctuation issuers need to be addressed. I have selected/mentioned

some as examples.

Response 8: Thank you for your sincere advice. In the newly submitted revised version, the authors have shortened a number of long, complex, or repetitive sentences to make the article more concise. The authors have responded to some of the sentences pointed out by the experts in the 'Specific comments' section.

 

Point 9: I have a major concern about the results and discussion section. The authors describe the results and compare the results with previous studies, however, insight mechanisms are still insufficient.

Response 9: Thank you for your sincere advice. In the newly submitted revised version, the authors have rewritten the Results section and added a lot to the Discussion section. In response to the lack of depth in the Discussion section, the authors make the following clarifications.

Firstly, a detailed comparison of the dominant mite genera (Parachipteria, Fuscozetes, and Tectocepheus) investigated in this research with similar studies in China and abroad was conducted to further reveal the distinctive characteristics of the dominant mite taxa in the vegetation succession series of marsh wetlands in different geographical regions.

Secondly, for mite abundance with successional sequences, species abundance and diversity indices gradually increased and were significantly different.In comparison with similar studies, the authors found that the PC habitat had the lowest number of individuals and taxa of mites. This may be because the Jiulongchi subalpine swamp wetland is an intermittent wetland with seasonal standing water, and surface water pooling is not suitable for mites' survival.

In addition, the authors discuss the similarity of the mite communities in that the wetland environment as a whole is evolving in a direction favourable to mite diversity during the natural succession of vegetation from aquatic to dry in the Jiulongchi subalpine swamp wetland.

Finally, the authors have added a significant amount of content to the discussion focusing on a comparative analysis of the biology of the dominant and core mite species.

Due to the length and length of the Discussion section, you are invited to review the newly submitted revised version, see line 406-527 of the Discussion section.

 

Point 10: The language is generally clear, with some exceptions where the authors used unnecessarily long sentences, which are different to find, for example, the last sentence in the abstract, and the second sentence in the introduction………etc.

Response 10: Thank you for your sincere advice. The article has been carefully reviewed and revised by all the authors for lengthy sentences and grammatical errors, and the language has been adjusted. In response to the problems you have specifically identified, the authors have revised the corresponding sections of the Abstract and have rewritten the entire contents of the Introduction. The details are as follows.

In the last sentence of the Abstract (line 36-38): The results showed that different vegetation types affect the abundance and richness of moss mites in different successional stages of alpine wetland degradation, that the community composition of moss mites varies significantly and changes with the degradation of alpine wetlands, and that alpine wetlands in general, develop in a direction favourable to mite diversity during degradation succession, although they were more disturbed by the external environment.

 

 

Part 2:  Specific comments

Point 1: Abstract  Line 17-23: A complicated sentence, please revise and check the grammar

Response 1: Thank you for your sincere advice. The authors have rephrased result 1 and 2 as follows.

Abstract (line 21-28): The results showed (1) A total of 9058 moss mites belonging to 49 genera in 3 orders and 69 families were captured in the four plant communities, with the moss mites Parachipteria, Fuscozetes and Tectocepheus being the dominant taxa of moss mites in Jiulongchi wetland. The core taxa of moss mites at different successional stages were 12 genera, with IL having the largest number of exclusive taxa (20 genera). (2) The abundance of moss mites showed an overall increasing trend from PC to IL habitats, with the number of families and genera showing a pattern of IL > EY-C > SF > PC. The diversity index SF habitat possessed the maximum value, followed by IL, both of which were significantly different from PC.

 

Point 2: Introduction Page 1 Line 4: This a long and complicated sentence, please revise and check the grammar

Response 2: Thank you for your sincere advice. The authors have rewritten all of the contents of the Introduction and the first paragraph of the Introduction in the revised version is reproduced below.

First paragraph of the Introduction (line 43-61): The most critical value of ecosystems is their ability to provide multiple functions and services simultaneously, but this value is affected by changes in biodiversity [1]. Relevant studies show that protecting natural ecological environment is the most effective way to maintain biodiversity and corresponding ecological functions and services [2]. The Fanjing Mountain World Natural Heritage Property exhibits and preserves the unique biological and ecological evolutionary features of isolated mountains in the central subtropics and is the most biodiversity-rich terrestrial unit on earth, and is one of the global hotspots for biodiversity conservation. Its unique natural geography and relatively low human disturbance intensity provide habitats and refuges for many rare and endangered plants and animals [3]. Six Class I habitat types within the Heritage Property meet the IUCN/SSC criteria, including forests, scrub, grasslands, wetlands, bare rock areas, and caves. The Jiulongchi wetland was once the largest cirque lake in Fanjing Mountain and has evolved over a long history of geological change into a typical alpine wetland ecosystem in the region, providing an ideal place to research the succession of plant and animal communities and the maintenance of biodiversity in a subtropical wetland environment. Additionally, the research on the biodiversity of the Jiulongchi wetland will contribute to a better understanding of the evolution of critical ecological environments within the Heritage Property and enrich the research on the different wetlands.

 

Point 3: Page 1, Paragraph 1: A reference is needed here for example: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.120210 or https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.16325

Response 3: Thank you for your sincere advice. The authors have cited these two recommended references in the appropriate places, as follows.

First paragraph of the Introduction (line 45-47): Relevant studies show that protecting natural ecological environment is the most effective way to maintain biodiversity and corresponding ecological functions and services [2].

[2] Wang, H.; Zhang, X.L.; Shan, H.; Lv, C.C.; Ren, W.J.; Wen, Z.H.; Tian, Y.Q.;  Weige, B.; Ni, L.Y.; Cao, T. Biodiversity buffers the impact of eutrophication on ecosystem functioning of submerged macrophytes on the Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau, Southwest China. Environmental Pollution, 2022, 120210.

Second paragraph of the Introduction (line 70-73): It is universally recognized that climate change is seriously affecting global biodiversity and changing the distribution range of plants [16][17], especially in the climate transition zone, to produce rich species diversity [18].

[18] Chen, S.; Milne, R.I.; Zhou, R.; Meng, K.; Yin, Q.; Guo, W.; Ma, Y.; Mao, K.; Xu, K.; Kim, Y.D, Do, T.V., Liao, W .B.; Fang, Q.When tropical and subtropical congeners met: Multiple ancient hybridization events within Eriobotrya were detected in the Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau, a tropical-subtropical transition area in China. Molecular Ecology. 2021, 31, 1543-1561.

 

Point 4: Page 2, paragraph 1, line 3: A reference is needed here, for example, you can use:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142822

Response 4: Thank you for your sincere advice. The authors have rewritten the relevant parts of the Introduction and the expert-recommended reference is not appropriate in that location in the new version, so the authors have not cited it.

 

Point 5: Page 2, paragraph 1, line 3: A reference is needed here, for example, you can use:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142822

Response 5: Thank you for your sincere advice. The author has rewritten the Introduction and the third paragraph of the Introduction in the revised version is reproduced below.

Third paragraph of the Introduction (line 78-105): According to the 1982 revised definition (The Ramsar Convention) and the hierarchical classification of the Chinese wetland classification system, the Jiulongchi wetland in Fanjing Mountain is a herbaceous marsh with seasonal intermittent characteristics[26][27]. Wetlands are one of the world's three major ecosystems and have multiple functions in ecology and the environment. They provide essential habitats for many organisms and resources for human production and livelihood. Their sediments and extant organisms record a range of processes of environmental change and biological succession. Studies of wetland soil seed banks have shown that high soil seed bank diversity and compositional similarity between the vegetation and soil seed bank may provide a potentially crucial functional buffer against the impact of ongoing moisture changes on plant communities in wetlands[28]. Other studies have shown that anthropogenic disturbances and global climate change, Wetland drying indirectly influences plant community and seed bank diversity through soil pH[29]. Wetland moss plants keep soil temperature and moisture relatively stable, which is crucial for the survival of wetland soil animals [30]. Flora and fauna of wetlands vary in different climatic zones, from the northern subarctic frozen palsa mires to the lush swamp forests of the tropics, each with their characteristic range of fauna and flora[31]. In adjacent habitat patches, the mites communities structure also exhibits individual characteristics, such as mite fauna of patches of High Arctic moss-grass tundra of Svalbard in Petuniabukta, Billefjord (moss, grasses, Salix polaris, bare soil), and adjacent to Vestpynten, Adventfjord (moss, moss mixed with grasses, Cassiope tetragona, S. polaris)[32]. The pollen, sporopollen, and 14C contents of sediments from the Jiulongchi wetland in Fanjin Mountain recorded climate change and vegetation succession in Fanjin Mountain around 10,000 years ago[33][34]. At present, the plant communities of Polytrichum commune Hedw. (PC), Eleocharis yokoscensis (Franch.et Sav.)Tang et - Cypers sp. (EY-C), Senecio faberii Hemsl (SF) and Indocalamus longiauritus Hand.-Mazz. (IL) are developed in the low part from south to north, which reflects the modern vegetation succession process in the area[27].

 

Point 6: Materials and methods  Page 2, paragraph 3, last sentence: check the grammar In MM section

Response 6: Thank you for your sincere advice. The authors have rewritten or revised the relevant parts of the first subsection of the Materials and Methods section, 2.1 Overview of the study area, which is reproduced below in the revised version.

MM Overview of the study area (line 131-164): The Fanjing Mountain World Natural Heritage Property (27°45′6′′ - 28°3′10′′ N, 108°30′41′′ - 108°47′51′′ E) is located at the junction of Yinjiang, Jiangkou, and Songtao counties in Guizhou Province (Figure 1a), in the transition zone from the Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau to the hills of western Hunan Province. The total area of Fanjing Mountain Heritage Property is 775km2, with the highest peak elevation of 2570.5 m and the relative height difference of the mountain body of more than 2000 m. The area belongs to the subtropical monsoon climate zone, with prominent characteristics of a humid central subtropical monsoon mountain climate, with an annual average temperature of 9.2 - 16.9 °C [41], an annual average relative humidity of 78 - 79 %, and an annual average precipitation of 1080 - 2500 mm, with precipitation mainly concentrated in April - October[42]. The vegetation has significant vertical differentiation, and the vegetation in the area is well-preserved and native[7].. It can be divided into five vertical zones from the foothills (500 m) to the summit, with about 3,724 existing plants, among them, there exist 791 species of bryophytes belonging to 74 families (https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1559).

The sampling site is mainly located in the Jiulongchi wetland (2030 m above sea level) of Fanjing Mountain, at the saddle between the back-sloping dome of Fanjing Mountain and Fenghuang Mountain (Figure 1b) and was once one of the highest and largest cirque lakes in Fanjing Mountain area with uninterrupted water accumulation[27]. The Jiulongchi Wetland is an intermittent bog that is waterlogged in summer and autumn and partially waterlogged in winter and spring. Swampy meadow soils dominated by Polytrichum commune Hedw. are mainly developed in the region. The Jiulongchi subalpine wetland is constrained by moisture and special geomorphological conditions, with a narrow distribution range, about 150 m long from east to west and 30 m wide from north to south, showing an overall high north to low south topography, with a slope of about 2 - 3°, sloping due south[27]. The open area of the Jiulongchi wetland as a whole forms a series of four distinctly different vegetation successions from south to north, adjacent to each other, in the order of the Polytrichum commune Hedw. (PC) community in the center of the wetland, the Eleocharis yokoscensis (Franch. et Sav.) Tang et-Cypers sp. (EY-C) community adjacent to the PC community, the Senecio faberii Hemsl (SF) community located behind the EY-C community, and the northern edge of the Indocalamus longiauritus Hand.-Mazz. (IL) community on the northern edge (Figure 1c, Figure 2). The ground surface of each vegetation community is lush with mosses and the main dominant moss taxa were shown in Table 1.

 

Point 7: Literature references are missing for all sub-section. It would be better to cite the references that the procedure adopted.

Response 7: Thank you for your sincere advice. The authors have added sufficient references to the Materials and Methods section in the light of your comments, please see the latest submission for details of the revised version.

 

Point 8: In MM section, what is the quality control (QC) data? There is no mention of the QC.

Response 8: Thank you for your sincere advice. With reference to your comments, the study area of this article, Jiulongchi Wetland in Fanjing Mountain, is a typical natural marsh in a subtropical subalpine area, located in the core area of Fanjing Mountain World Heritage Property, where the natural ecological succession of vegetation is almost undisturbed by human activities.Therefore, there is no control group in the experimental design. Now the relevant sampling content process is copied as follows:

MM 2.2 Sample Selection and Settings (line 176-188): On 22 April 2016, we sampled surface mosses in four vegetation succession habitats in the Jiulongchi Wetland. Nine sampling sites were randomly set up in each habitat, and moss samples were collected using a 15×15 cm homemade metal frame with a sampling height of 10 cm. 36 moss organisms were obtained. All samples were collected and stored in well-ventilated cotton bags and then transferred to the laboratory for mites isolation and identification.

We did not set up sampling points in the interlacing zone between neighboring plant communities to avoid edge effects. Furthermore, in addition to the moss mound formed by the moss community dominated by Polytrichum commune Hedw. in the swamp habitat, the maximum thickness of the moss mound can reach 35 cm. In other habitats, due to the relatively flat terrain, the moss thickness at each sampling point is relatively uniform, with an average thickness of 10 - 20 cm.

 

Point 9: In general, how many times you’ve recorded the data,? duplicate? Triplicate?..... what you mentioned in the text is not clear, please elaborate more on this

Response 9: Thank you for your sincere advice. With reference to your comments on the review, the authors' four typical vegetation successional communities in the Jiulongchi Wetland, Fanjing Mountain: Polytrichum commune Hedw. (PC), Eleocharis yokoscensis (Franch.et Sav.)Tang et - Cypers sp. (EY-C), Senecio faberii Hemsl (SF) and Indocalamus longiauritus Hand.-Mazz. (IL)。The authors conducted a sampling session on 22 April 2016. Nine sampling sites were randomly set up under each habitat, i.e. nine replicate samples under each habitat. A total of 36 surface moss samples were collected for mite analysis (1 sampling month * 4 habitats * 9 sampling points). A detailed representation can be found in the Point 8 section.

 

Point 10: R&D section  These sections are repeating information already presented and explain things in an unnecessarily complicated way. The quality of the manuscript would benefit from the whole section being condensed, Page 7 paragraph 2, Page 10 paragraph 1, and Page 11 paragraph 1 and 2,

Response 10: Thank you for your sincere advice. In the light of your review comments, the authors have focused on revising the conclusion and discussion, and are now revising the sentence you pointed out as follows.

(Page 16 paragraph 1) Results 3.2 Mites community diversity (line 297-309): The abundance, species richness, and diversity indices of moss mites differed between plant successional habitats, but not the evenness index. Specifically, in terms of mean values of mite abundance in the different plant communities (Figure 4a), IL was the most abundant, followed by SF > EY-C > PC, with no significant differences in the number of individuals in IL, EY-C, and SF. However, they were all significantly higher than PC (P<0.05). In terms of mean values of species abundance ( Figure 4b), IL had the highest number of genera, followed by EY-C>SF>PC, and PC was significantly different from all other habitats in terms of species abundance (P<0.05). In terms of the mean value of the diversity index (Figure 4c), SF possessed the highest diversity, followed by IL > EY-C > PC, and the diversity index of PC was significantly different from both SF and IL (P<0.05). In terms of mean values of evenness indices (Figure 4d), SF had the highest evenness index, followed by PC>EY-C>IL, and there was no significant difference between the evenness indices of different plant communities (P>0.05).

(Page 2 paragraph 1) Results 3.3 Community structure of mites (line 353-360): According to the investigation, a total of 12 core taxa (Uropoda, Hypochthonius, Trimalaconothrus, Suctobelbella, Amerioppia, Ramusella, Tectocepheus, Eupelops, Parachipteria Haplozetes, Incabates, Fuscozetes) occurred in all four plant communities. The exclusive taxa of PC, EY-C, SF, and IL were three, seven, two, and 20 species, respectively, with 25 common taxa occurring in at least two habitats. Of the 13 common taxa (>1% dominance), seven were core taxa (Hypochthonius, Ramusella, Tectocepheus, Eupelops, Parachipteria, Haplozetes, Fuscozetes), and the remaining six were common taxa (Figure 6).

(Page 23 paragraph 1 ) Results 3.5 Differences in Oribatida (line 389-400): We found an increasing trend in community abundance and species richness of Oribatid mites with the ecological succession series of wetland vegetation. The community structure of Oribatid mites was analyzed in Table 4. Specifically, 8 families and 17 genera of 821 mites were found in PC habitat, 15 families and 29 genera and 2155 mites in EY-C, 14 families and 25 genera and 2752 mites in SF, and 18 families and 34 genera and 2905 mites in IL. The results of the MGP analysis of Oribatid mites ecotypes showed that in terms of percentage of taxon genera, all habitats were P-type, except for the moss Oribatid mites community in the IL habitat, which was O-type. In percentage abundance, all were P-type except for the PC Oribatid mites community, which was G-type. The Poronota group generally dominates the ecological taxa of Oribatid mites in the Jiulongchi wetland.

 

Point 11: Page 5, Paragraph 6: A reference is needed:

Response 11: Thank you for your sincere advice. Based on your review comments, the authors have added references in the appropriate places.

 

Point 12: Figure 4. The figure is rather very complicated and hard to understand, is there a way to simplify and visualized it better?- one way you can use, is by plotting fewer parameters together and then making 2 figures.

Response 12: Thank you for your sincere advice. With reference to your comments, the authors have annotated the figure in the revised version. The details are as follows.

Results 3.3 Moss mites community similarity  (line 316-327 and 335-344):

A total of 13 moss mites species with relative abundance greater than 1% were selected for PCA analysis ( Figure 5), accounting for 90.67% of the total number of individuals, with Axis 1 and Axis 2 explaining 35.9% and 21.56% of the total variance, respectively, cumulatively explaining 57.46% of the variance, with significant differences in moss mite community composition among the four plant communities. The mites community composition of the PC habitat differed from that of the SF and IL habitats, respectively, and there was a clear separation. The Parachipteria, Trichogalumna, Gamasellus, Hypochthonius, and Eupelop taxa were the main taxa separated from the PC1 axis, and the Melanozetes, Acipteria, Fuscozetes, Haplozetes, and Brachioppiella taxa were the main taxa separated from the PC2 axis. Meanwhile, moss mites with relative abundance greater than 1% were mainly concentrated in IL and SF habitats, while PC was the least distributed habitat.

Figure 5. Two-dimensional ordination diagram for principal component analysis of moss mites communities in different vegetation succession habitats.

Notes: PC: Polytrichum commune Hedw., EY-C: Eleocharis yokoscensis (Franch.et Sav.)Tang et-Cypers sp., SF: Senecio faberii Hemsl, IL: Indocalamus longiauritus Hand.-Mazz. Only the 13 moss mites species with relative abundance greater than 1% are shown. Blue arrows of different lengths indicate the moss mites score for the genus. Polygonal boxes of different colours indicate the distribution range of the nine sampling sites. The red dash is an auxiliary line pointing to a particular genus of mite and has no meaning in the analysis.

 

Point 13: Conclusion  Important conclusions! However, the future perspectives for the following research are highly crucial here …..

Response 13: Thank you for your sincere advice. With reference to your comments, the authors have added an outlook for future research to the Conclusion section. These are as follows.

Conclusion (line 529-545): In the research, we investigated the composition and distribution of moss mites in four different vegetation succession habitats in the subalpine wetland of Jiulongchi, Fanjing Mountain, Guizhou. We described the changes in community structure and community composition of moss mites at different succession stages. The research demonstrated that: (1) In the vegetation succession series of subalpine wetlands, moss mites with Parachipteria, Fuscozetes, and Tectocepheus as the dominant taxa, and the composition of the dominant taxa varied in different plant communities; in general, the abundance and species richness of mites gradually increased with the vegetation succession. (2) During the succession of wetland vegetation, the environment is developing in a direction favorable to the diversity of moss mites. This research enriches the study of the biodiversity of Fanjing Mountain and its subalpine wetlands, further deepens the understanding of the value of biodiversity in the Fanjing Mountain World Natural Heritage Property and is of great significance for the conservation of biodiversity in the Heritage Property. Global climate change is a central theme of research in today's society. How climate change will affect subalpine wetland ecosystems and continuing to track the relationship between biological indicators and environmental change will be the next major task of our research.