The Short-Term Responses of Forest Soil Invertebrate Communities to Typhoon Disturbances

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Despite the fact that the author has carefully revised the manuscript, I am sceptical of this method, as I mentioned last time. It would have been difficult to get consistent results from soil fauna sampled under different weather conditions, and the differences cannot be attributed to changes in the "community structure" of the soil fauna.

Perhaps the authors could try to validate that perhaps there is a similar change in soil fauna numbers after an ordinary heavy rain, wind or snow (rather than a typhoon). Such transient changes are difficult to attribute to community structure changes. In addition, the authors could use the method I mentioned last time, could they collect soil animal carcasses after a drastic change in weather? Otherwise the current conclusions of the manuscript are likely to be uncritical.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I believe that the article on the short-term effects of typhoons on communities of soil invertebrates is interesting not only to specialists. The relevance of the results is emphasized by the role of soil invertebrates in carbon sequestration, especially in various natural and anthropogenic disturbances.

Some notes:

1. In the abstracts line 21, the word "week" is omitted, there should be "one week".

2. The article considers 4 research periods (T1-T4), but you are talking about 3 periods in lines 114-115 (introduction) . Approval is required.

3. In Methods, section 2.3, line 161 - it should not talk about species (they were not studied), but about taxa (for example, families, as in line 166).

4. In Results, you should pay attention to the caption to Figure 4, probably "before and after (add) the typhoons disturbance", since the periods are indicated.

5. In Conclusion, lines 547-552 - it should indicate the names of taxa for "dry" and "wet" invertebrates.

6. An improvement in the representation of the experiment design may consist in the following scheme for temporary sampling: T1 (August 30)- after 7 days - T2 (September 6) - after 10 days - T3 (September 15) - after 7 days - T4 (September 21).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.     Line 88-89: The statement, “Furthermore…among.” seems to be incomplete.

2.     Line 119: Add “be” between “should” and “more”

3.     Line 129-130: The minimum temperature is missing.

4.     Section 2.3: In view of tree falls cause by typhoons (line 80), don’t you think that (along with mites, springtails and beetles) taking termites also into account as one of the soil invertebrates would have been better? Or, they were excluded intentionally? If yes, what could have been the possible reasons?

5.     Line 118-120, 356-360: What do you hypothesize the reason for difference in sensitivity of the soil invertebrates from topsoil and litter layer to the typhoon disturbance? Is it mere insulation effect of the litter layer or quality of the soil organisms(s)-invertebrates, in particular? Or the product of a combination of both as indicated from lines 379 onwards? Laving possibilities and speculations apart, any studies which establish any of the above reasons in concrete terms, if available, may be cited.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Quality of the language and grammar may be improved

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is interesting and well-conducted. I see, that the Authors already implemented comments of the previous reviewers (blue marked fragments), which increased the strength of the analyses and improved the manuscript. I have only a few comments and remarks, as listed below.

1. Study sites
The authors used four different study sites, located in four types of forest ecosystems. However, each type of forest ecosystem was represented by only one geographical location, and all locations are situated within a 1 km diameter area.

The Authors should place the study sites in almost 3 geographical locations, and each location should be situated at a distance of 20-50 km and more from each other, then the strength of the results will be appropriate. For now, the Authors presented a case study, so general conclusions cannot be drawn from such sets of data. Please, consider it carefully for further studies.

1. Figure 2
Please, modify Figure 2. Now it is unreadable. I suggest the Authors increase the size of the Krona charts or move the charts to the supplementary materials.

2. Figure 5.
I think, here the absolute values would be more informative, than the percentage share. Please, replace "percentage share" with "absolute abundance". 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

-

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled "The short-term responses of forest soil invertebrate community to typhoon disturbances" investigated changes in the abundance of soil fauna before and after the typhoon. The results were interesting and of value, suggesting that extreme weather can have a significant impact on the number of soil fauna collected. However, I am sceptical of this method, although the authors have done a lot of sampling. It would have been difficult to get consistent results from soil fauna sampled under different weather conditions, and the differences cannot be attributed to changes in the "community structure" of the soil fauna.

 

Introduction

Lines 67-84 I think these theories mentioned by the author have obvious flaws. Soil animals are mobile and they are not passively resistant in the face of typhoons as plants are. Soil animals can hide from unfavourable weather, they are not very vulnerable. Short-term weather changes like typhoons hardly change the community structure of soil animals.

 

Materials and Methods

Lines 133-134 Were you aware of these categories at the time of the experimental design?

Lines 139-140 What's surprising?

Lines 141-143 Doesn't this weather affect your sampling process? For example, soil moisture varies greatly, etc. How can you ensure that the sampling process of the soil is uniform before and after the typhoon?

 

Results

Lines 206-208 This result seems to be in line with the theory, but in reality, it is unlikely that soil animals are still waiting outside the soil during typhoon weather. They are perfectly capable of going into the soil to hide during bad weather, and then coming out again when the weather recovers. This is not "soil fauna community structure". In other words, even if it is not a typhoon, when other larger precipitation comes, if one goes for similar sampling, one will get similar results.

Lines 292-293 The results here have a similar problem. Typhoons can be windy, and by the time the apomictic layer is violently disturbed, the soil fauna may have left the surface layer and gone to take shelter inside the soil. Temperature change is only one event with a correlation, and it is difficult to determine that it is the main factor affecting the number of soil fauna collected.

 

Discussion

Line 346-348 This does exist as well, but are these reduced numbers more of them hiding in the soil? Or are they dying in greater numbers? I think it's the former, otherwise, how would they make a rapid population density recovery in a short time? Especially since your last sampling time was only a week after the typhoon weather, is that enough time for the soil fauna to rapidly increase their density by reproducing? If you collect a lot of soil animal carcasses after a typhoon, that's what will prove the theory you're currently using.

 

Conclusions

Lines 486-502 I think the current conclusions are too hasty, you can report on the effects of extreme weather on the number of soil fauna collected but it's hard to get to the current conclusions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors Dear authors, your article is interesting and significant for the scientific
community, but some clarifying questions have arisen.
1. I suggest not talking about adaptations of invertebrates, since you cannot
consider them over such a short period. Adaptation of invertebrates in your case
should most likely be considered as a strategy for chronic exposure to typhoons
(see abstract, introduction, section 3.4, line 333, conclusion).
2. The term “invertebrate biomass” appears periodically, used along with the
density and number of invertebrate taxa. But you did not measure the biomass
of invertebrates; this is not included in the methodology. But biomass does not
change as well as density! (check section 3.1, line 193, 208, 216, 218,
conclusion, line 493-498).
3. In the introduction, line 67-83, it should be added that it is known about
soil invertebrates on tree falls, as well as the effect of the mosaic nature of
the ground cover on invertebrates.
4. In the methods, section 2.2, it is necessary to clarify that although
samples of the upper soil horizon were taken with a core of 100 cm3,
invertebrates were counted per sq.m. It is also necessary to clarify (line 142)
that the AT period (after the typhoon) is the period a week after the second
typhoon.
5. Clarifications on the figures. Could Figure 2 reflect an aspect of seasonal dynamics of the movement of
soil invertebrates into deep soil horizons? There is a high probability that
no, but it needs to be voiced!
Figure 3 - The ratio of functional groups in % is shown. Is this ratio
based on density or number of groups? It must be indicated! Figure 5 is very interesting, but also a question about the results that you
tried to explain. Line 293-295: "Moreover, soil invertebrate community in the
litter layer was significantly affected by TC and TP, while that in the topsoil
was significantly affected by soil temperature (ST) and TN". Why does TP affect?

6. Appendix is ​​a generalizing table on the analyzed material. Therefore, the
functional group must be indicated for all taxa (then there will be no questions
about Figure 3). You need to write what the numbers opposite the taxa mean.
And in the methodology you must indicate that you did not consider earthworms,
nematodes, enchytraeids, and why you did not consider them. So far, it turns
out that only from the conclusion the reader can guess that you plan to study
these most important groups of soil invertebrates in the perspective.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf