INTRO: In this study the authors have investigated the effect of spatial arrangement of dead-wood resources on saproxylic beetle assemblages. I consider the topic of the study interesting and important. We already know that declining amounts of dead wood have lead to decline of saproxylic beetles, but it is important to get more knowledge of the different phenomenons linked with this decline. This study goes beyond the phenomenons and tries to find some explanations for species decline and perhaps implications for species conservation.
MERITS: Diversity and amount of tree-related microhabitats surely affects the species composition of saproxylic beetles, but this relationship is poorly explored at landscape level. This study sinks its teeth into that topic. Landscape-level studies are very welcome in general!
CRITIQUE: Why did the authors use hierarchical design? Data analysis are not described in this abstract, but I hope the nested design has been taken account of (risk of auto-correlation?).
The authors don´t tell anything about sampling methods used for beetles in this abstract. How did they sampled cavicolous beetles, as example? It is difficult to assess whether the results are valid or not, if the sampling method is not known.
DISCUSSION: The topic is important and worth publishing, though the most of results showed there are no effects. The study results show that the spatial arrangement of dead-wood resources would not affect beetle assemblages, but can you really say that this doesn´t happen at landscape-level?
The authors have data of tree microhabitats. It is not clear if this data can be combined with beetle data, so that the relationships between species and certain microhabitats could be explored, but if possible, this could give interesting results.
I still remain thinking if the sampling method was suitable or not, as it doesn´t come out in this abstract. I would ask authors write a short description of beetle sampling also in the abstract.
- - -
INTRO: The system is very interesting, also the study seems to be relevant to conservation and restoration. From the information provided, one could see that different species are preferred with specific restoration methods. Whether or not a consensus option could be found that complementsts that of mycorrhizal fungi, plants, birds and etc could be found, is the most interesting question for me.
MERITS: From this abstract, it is unclear whether or not other organism groups are included. For instance, if strong ecosystem engineers such as fungi are incorporated into the general scheme. This could be irrelevant in this specific study, but plays an important role in policy making.
CRITIQUE: From this abstract, it is unclear whether or not other organism groups are included. For instance, if strong ecosystem engineers such as fungi are incorporated into the general scheme. This could be irrelevant in this specific study, but plays an important role in policy making.
DISCUSSION: As said before, this could have important implications in saproxylic beetle population restoration, but the impact of restoration methods to other organism groups is unclear. So whether or not we could draw policy relevant conclusions from this is unclear from the abstract. All together i find this research question interesting and worthy of further discussion.
- - -
INTRO: The topic of the proposed talk is the effect of substrate (spatial) configuration on saproxylic beetles. This topic is important and up to date, since this potential effect is hitherto largely neglected in practical conservation management.
MERITS: * the study addresses important and up-to-date questions
* the study bases on field data on an ecologically important, but extremely species rich and difficult to measure species group (saproxylic beetles)
* the study design seems solid (but see the critique below) and the analyses seem to (?) base on a good and large dataset.
CRITIQUE: * the abstract opens up by emphasizing the importance of tree-related microhabitats. However, it remains unclear which tree-related microhabitats are measured; the microhabitats appear under the common name "saproxylic resources" thourghout the abstract. This decreases the information value of the results and discussion. Eg: "the amount of resources measured in a 240-m radius buffer for cavicolous and fungicolous guilds" Does this mean: the number of tree cavities and polypore fruit-bodies?
* the study setup remains somewhat unclear. What are the three nested spatial levels? What does the contrasting configuration of resources mean? These appear wording / space problems, and will hopefully be clarified in the talk / paper.
* no information on the conducted analyses. Could the authors, at least briefly, outline how they analysed the data?
DISCUSSION: Interesting research, that has a potential to guide practical conservation management. Is it possible to elaborate the practical implications? They remain rather common-worded in the abstract.
- - -
INTRO: This abstract describe a study where the importance of the distribution and quantity of dead wood and tree-related microhabitats on species associated with these habitats.
MERITS: The abstract is very well written, well structured and focused. It also cover subjects that are of high importance for biological conservation and restoration i.e. the allocation of substrate and habitat through a landscape.
CRITIQUE: The study only consider species richness and abundance in the included guilds. As assessment of assemblage composition would also be valuable to evaluate if there is turnover of species or if some species are more sensitive to fragmentation.
DISCUSSION: This study add important information to increase the knowledge about how to allocate habitats and substrates for saproxylic species in a managed landscape. However, it would be interesting to know the range of variation within the study landscape. How does the dead wood and TreeMs levels and the level of fragmentation relate to suggested tresholds?
- - -
INTRO: This is an abstract for an oral presentation, focusing on the effect of quantity and spatial configuration of deadwood and tree-related microhabitats on three guilds of saproxylic beetles - assessed on three spatial scales. Finding no support for the spatial arrangement of resources to have any influence on the community, and neither the amount nor the arrangement could explain the local species richness. Two of the guilds had higher abundances in areas with high amount of resources, at a scale of <20 hectare.
MERITS: The attempt to separate effects of amount of habitat from effects of fragmentation level for this group is interesting and not done before to my knowledge. Separating the community into three guilds with potential different requirements are also meriting.
CRITIQUE: If only measuring alpha diversity by species richness, many aspects of diversity might be missed. Including also the evenness could have captured responses to either quantity or spatial distribution in the communities. I don't understand the conclusion that increasing the abundance of individuals translates into an effective conservation strategy for maintaining diversity or preserving endangered species, since no information about which species that are increased are given. If only common generalists are increased on the expense of rare specialists, this would decrease the diversity. But perhaps the relevant information behind these conclusions are just missing from the abstract.
DISCUSSION: I find the study interesting from a conservation perspective. To really asses how it can be improved and its implications, I would need to read a further description.
- - -
INTRO: This manuscript deals with the effect habitat fragmentation on saproxylic beetles. In a large scale field study the effect of spatial distribution of dead wood and tree related microhabitats on saproxylic species richness was explored. Saproxylic beetles were divided into three ecological guilds in the analyses.
MERITS: To explore the effect of habitat fragmentation on species distribution and richness is very difficult and time consuming. Thus, one of the clear merits of this study is the attempt to do just this. Studies of this sort is very rare and therefore important.
CRITIQUE: One of the weaknesses of the abstract is that it is slightly difficult to grasp the design of the study and how sampling was performed, e.g. how was insect sampled, with window traps? Also how was dead wood sampled and how was this used in the analyses, were total dead wood volume used or divided into tree species? What other co-variables was used in the analyses, forest age, tree species composition? Furthermore, using species richness and abundance as response variables and not assemblage composition potentially limits one's ability to detect important patterns at species level.
DISCUSSION: Generally, I think these kinds of studies are very important and interesting. In this specific case the abstract lacks some important information regarding the design and methods. This being said I don't think the authors can be expected to cover everything in a short abstract. However, some additional information could be squeezed into the abstract.
