Understanding the Dynamics of Sex-Specific Responses Driven by Grassland Management: Using Syrphids as a Model Insect Group

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The current investigation entitled “Understanding the dynamics of sex-specific responses driven by grassland management: Using syrphids as a model insect group” authored by Hussain et al. evaluated the dynamics of grassland managements that drive sex-specific responses by using syrphids as a model insect group. Studying the sex-specific responses can help in understanding the implications for population dynamics and colonization abilities of insects in fragmented landscapes.

Comment/suggestions

The abstract is well written However, I suggest authors to kindly revise the line 29-31. Instead of general statement the author should provide the constructive conclusive statements.

Overall, the introduction section is written well covering all the aspect that should be included. However, the author should expand the previous literature conducted in this domain. Such as, Line 59. The author should expand the information about these studies by adding the details about this investigation. The research gap is well described and hypothesis of the current investigation are also well established.

In material and method section, subsection 2.1, the author should provide a study area map with well-coordinated grids for better clarity to the readers. Moreover, the elevation of the selected maps should be indicated or it will better, if author can include it in the study area map. In the sub-section, 2.2. it will be better, if author can provide the sample plots adopted in the current investigation. Otherwise, it can be included with the study area map, if authors can accommodate that. In this particular section, I have one specific doubt, the author has not indicated, how to calculate the abundance and richness of the syrphids?? Moreover, here is one suggestion which authors can include in the manuscript if possible. Since, authors have calculated the abundance and richness; why not authors calculated the different diversity indices such Evenness index, Simpson index,  Shannon weaver index etc.

Line 178. Kindy revise the statement. Moreover, I did not think table 3, does not add any relevance to the current manuscript and thus can be moved to the supplementary file. The result of the current investigation needs to explained in more extensive way. Moreover, the authors need to present the specific results and should not be limited to just writing the population is varied significantly. In the figures as well as in tables, the authors should provide the abbreviation in the foot note for better clarity to the readers.

Discussion section need to be more conclusive and comprehensive and include more recent articles and should avoid the old references. Specifically the result of current investigation should be discussed in the light of the previous investigation.

The conclusion section need to be more conclusive and should be restricted to the finding of current investigation and shift or remove the general statement. Specially the author should move the line line 299-305 to the introduction section. Moreover at the end the author should provide the limitation of the current investigation along with the way forward.

Overall, the manuscript is written well, however the authors need to do extensive work in result, discussion and conclusion section. Thus recommend major revision.

 

Regards

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Reviewer 1.

C1. The abstract is well written However, I suggest authors to kindly revise the line 29-31. Instead of general statement the author should provide the constructive conclusive statements.

R1. Line 29-31: A revised sentence has been added.

C2. Overall, the introduction section is written well covering all the aspect that should be included. However, the author should expand the previous literature conducted in this domain. Such as, Line 59. The author should expand the information about these studies by adding the details about this investigation. The research gap is well described and hypothesis of the current investigation are also well established.

R2. Line 43, 48: We appreciate that the editor found our introduction section interesting. Literature about previous studies is highlighted in the text.

C3. In material and method section, subsection 2.1, the author should provide a study area map with well-coordinated grids for better clarity to the readers. Moreover, the elevation of the selected maps should be indicated or it will better, if author can include it in the study area map. In the sub-section, 2.2. it will be better, if author can provide the sample plots adopted in the current investigation. Otherwise, it can be included with the study area map, if authors can accommodate that. In this particular section, I have one specific doubt, the author has not indicated, how to calculate the abundance and richness of the syrphids?? Moreover, here is one suggestion which authors can include in the manuscript if possible. Since, authors have calculated the abundance and richness; why not authors calculated the different diversity indices such Evenness index, Simpson index, Shannon weaver index etc.

R3. Line 118-120: Study area map with coordinated grid has been added. The location of the sampling plot is marked on the map. The richness and abundance were calculated by GLMMS (Line 146-147). We believe by focusing on abundance, richness, and composition, we can still glean valuable insights into insects community structure and dynamics while maintaining a more straightforward analytical approach. Additionally, for studies aimed at providing practical recommendations for conservation or management strategies, emphasizing basic community metrics (i.e. abundance, richness, and assemblages) facilitates clearer communication and decision-making processes among stakeholders and policymakers. Therefore, in our cases, prioritizing abundance, richness, and composition calculations aligns with the objectives of the research, streamlines the analysis, and enhances the applicability of findings in ecological management contexts.

C4. Line 178. Kindy revise the statement. Moreover, I did not think table 3, does not add any relevance to the current manuscript and thus can be moved to the supplementary file. The result of the current investigation needs to explained in more extensive way. Moreover, the authors need to present the specific results and should not be limited to just writing the population is varied significantly. In the figures as well as in tables, the authors should provide the abbreviation in the foot note for better clarity to the readers.

R4. Line 183-184: The statement has been revised. Line 339: Table 3 moved to the appendix. Abbreviations in the foot note are provided. The key results are discussed in the result section (Line 215, 219).

C5: Discussion section need to be more conclusive and comprehensive and include more recent articles and should avoid the old references. Specifically the result of current investigation should be discussed in the light of the previous investigation.

R5. More recent articles have been added [57], [63], [67], [70]. Results are discussed in reference to previous articles (Line 285-286).

C6.The conclusion section need to be more conclusive and should be restricted to the finding of current investigation and shift or remove the general statement. Specially the author should move the line line 299-305 to the introduction section. Moreover at the end the author should provide the limitation of the current investigation along with the way forward.

R6. Line 299-305 is removed as the similar information already exists in introduction (Line 80-83), and limitations are included in the text Line 303-313.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, the manuscript entitled "Understanding the dynamics of sex-specific responses driven by grassland management: Using syrphids as a model insect group" present a well organized research.

The idea of using the sex-specific responses of syrphids based on grassland management is very interesting and brings a new generation of interdisciplinary studies.

The entire manuscript is well organized, with balanced sections and that have an appropriate length.

The Introduction is clear and set the base for the current research. 

The Material and Methods section benefits from a large database and multiple analysis.

The Results section present the main findings of the research, and it is completed by a well organized Discussion section, that make the link with international literature.

In the Conclusion section it will be better to remove the reference and to include values of the main findings.

Overall, the manuscript is interesting and present well a good reserch.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

C1. Dear authors, the manuscript entitled "Understanding the dynamics of sex-specific responses driven by grassland management: Using syrphids as a model insect group" present a well organized research.

The idea of using the sex-specific responses of syrphids based on grassland management is very interesting and brings a new generation of interdisciplinary studies.

The entire manuscript is well organized, with balanced sections and that have an appropriate length.

The Introduction is clear and set the base for the current research.

The Material and Methods section benefits from a large database and multiple analysis.

The Results section present the main findings of the research, and it is completed by a well organized Discussion section, that make the link with international literature.

In the Conclusion section it will be better to remove the reference and to include values of the main findings. Overall, the manuscript is interesting and present well a good reserch.

 

R1. We appreciate that the editor found our manuscript interesting and highlighted its value to existing research. The reference has been removed from the conclusion. The values of the main findings and limitations are mentioned (Line 3104-319).

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made considerable corrections in the manuscript.  However, the authors need to extend the result; moreover, the tables or figures should be given after the text. 

Otherwise, the manuscript looks good 

Author Response

C1.The authors have made considerable corrections in the manuscript.  However, the authors need to extend the result; moreover, the tables or figures should be given after the text.

R1. We appreciate that reviewer found our revised manuscript satisfactory. We have moved the figure 3 after the text (Line 230). Also, we included all significant and conclusive results within manuscript (Line 182).