Diversity of functional edaphic macrofauna in Musa acuminata x Musa balbisiana (AAB) agroecosystems

Background This study focused on evaluating the diversity and richness of the edaphic macrofauna in eight banana farms in the western zone of Nicaragua. Methods The sampling design was random and descriptive, it was divided into two phases, the first was the collection of the sample, and the second was the classification, coding, and storage of the extracted macrofauna populations. The sampling method employed included the extraction of soil and litter samples. Soil samples were collected using a wooden frame (monolith), with each sample weighing approximately 1 kilogram and taken from a depth of 0.20 cm. Litter samples were collected from the soil surface. A total of 80 samples were collected, with 40 soil samples and 50 litter samples obtained across the 8 plantain farms. Results The results showed that the relative abundance of biodiversity was higher in the 0–20 cm soil depth stratum than in the branch and leaf biomass strata. The values of the diversity indices of Simpson's Dominance, Shanon, Margalef, and Equity were in the normal range, with a tendency towards low diversity. Likewise, in the richness of species, the Dominance or most abundant genus were earthworms (Oligochaeta) and Hymenoptera ( Solenopsis, Leptothorax, Camponotus, Pheidole), indicating the directly proportional relationship, that is to say, that the greater the number of earthworms the production increases and the greater the number of Hymenoptera it decreases, confirmed with the Pearson correlation coefficient with a reliability of 95%. Conclusions It was concluded that based on the estimates of the diversity indicators, two detritivore genus (earthworms and Hymenoptera) were the ones with the more dominance, being important in the production of the banana agrosystem due to the decomposition of organic matter and its nutritional contribution to the plant. We observed a direct correlation with earthworms and an indirect relationship with Hymenoptera.


Methods
The sampling design was random and descriptive, it was divided into two phases, the first was the collection of the sample, and the second was the classification, coding, and storage of the extracted macrofauna populations.The sampling method employed included the extraction of soil and litter samples.Soil samples were collected using a wooden frame (monolith), with each sample weighing approximately 1 kilogram and taken from a depth of 0.20 cm.Litter samples were collected from the soil surface.A total of 80 samples were collected, with 40 soil samples and 50 litter samples obtained across the 8 plantain farms.

Results
The results showed that the relative abundance of biodiversity was  (Belalcázar, 2003).For this reason, it is important to develop agricultural practices linked to the benefit of edaphic biodiversity and thus have productive and intensive agriculture characterized by various degrees of intensification of traditional, customary, transitional and organic agriculture (Delgado et al., 2010a).Improving ecosystems and taking advantage of the usefulness of biodiversity in this process requires understanding the structure and function of biological and physical-chemical combinations.They include stability of the edaphic structure, reuse, storage, and supply of organic matter (OM) and nutrients, available soil moisture, and management of damage to micro, and macrofauna.

Open Peer Review
edaphic macrofauna is closely linked to analyzing both the quantitative and qualitative biomass period over time and the generation of genetic biological components., 1995).Their diversity can exceed 1,000 species in complex ecosystems (such as tropical forests), but precise data on the specific diversity of tropical edaphic megafauna in particular habitat is still lacking (Anderson, 1993;Zerbino, 2010;Zerbino et al., 2008).
This work focused on evaluating the diversity and abundance of soil macrofauna in eight banana-producing farms in the North Pacific area of Nicaragua.The size of the samples is approximately 1 kilogram each.The depth of the soil samples is 0-20 centimeters.The sampling was based on litter and monolith extraction and is inspired by the TSBF method (Soil Monolith; Mulch scrutiny; CD: Direct capture).The period of sampling was in 2020 year.The taxa covered were Richness (number of species), DAFGA (RRID:SCR_003319), Relative abundance (Density number of individuals 1 m 2 for each species), Functional Groups (Density number of individuals 1 m 2 for each species), Shannon-Wiener Index (SW), Margalef Diversity Index, Proportional abundance indices, Dominance indices, Simpson index, Equity indices, and Pielou index.The taxonomical resolution depends on the degree of differentiation of morphological characteristics within the individual tribes, so in this studies the diversity by functional groups.Table 6 it is organized the Taxonomic classification of the edaphic macrofauna in kingdom, phylum, subphylum, class, order, family and genus (Zuniga-Gonzalez et al., 2022b).

Methods
Table 1 shows the statistical description of the data used in this study.The full protocol can be found on protocols.io.The data descripts the total population of species collected in litter strata by 0-20 cm soil depth.The first column refer the number of farm studied, four in Leon municipally and other four in Posoltega municipally.The second column describe the number of species find in each find identified by 30 genus.The third and fourth column refer the maximum and minimum of ind.x species find in each farm.The column fifth, sixth and seventh refer the mean, Std.Desviation and variance of the ind.x species find by each farm.

Geographic location of the study
The study was carried out in eight banana farms in the city of León and Posoltega (Table 2).The climatic conditions in the León area are characterized by having a rainfall of 1,529.7 mm, an average temperature per year of 38°C, and an altitude of 60 meters.The Posoltega area is characterized by an average annual temperature of 39°C, 2,000 mm of rain and an altitude of 70.42 meters above sea level, both areas are located in the western region of Nicaragua, see Figure 1 (MIFIC, 2007).

Agro system farms
The 8 selected farms or plots are in a process of changing production systems.Previously, these farms had a monoculture production system.These were annuals like cotton, peanuts, sugar cane.These systems heavily used insecticides and mechanized labor.However, these farms are currently moving to a production system from conventional to organic or

Investigative process phase
Tables 2 and 5 show eight farms that describe the name, area, community and municipality.In these farms, the investigation begins with the field phase where 40 edaphic samples of 0-20 cm depth and 40 biomass samples (leaf litter) were collected on the surface.A total of 80 samples of macrofauna populations were identified, coded, stored in the second phase.The study area in each farm (in each farm, samples were taken at five different points within the 1000 square meter parcel) was 0.7 ha delimited 1plot in 1,000 m 2 (50 cm long Â 20 cm wide), as described in Rousseau et al.After selecting the sampling area, sampling points are placed to collect soil samples.A wooden box 20 cm wide by 20 cm long was used to mark the sampling points, and to remove approximately 1 kg of soil.Divided into two consecutive layers (fallen leaves, 0-20 cm), each of them is surrounded to prevent microorganisms from escaping from the bottom, after which the material is sieved and separated manually and the insects found are placed in an airtight plastic bottle.After measuring 500 cubic centimeters in volume, they are labeled and preserved in 70% alcohol.

Identification of macrofauna species
The collected individuals were analyzed by order and family, the microorganisms were placed in Petri dishes and then observed under a 4-400Â stereo microscope, to detail the specific structures of each of the species.Large animals include all organisms greater than 1.5 mm in length.

Diversity components
The diversity and richness of species present in this study were analyzed using the indicators reported by the authors Zerbino (2010) and Rousseau et al. (2012,2013).Richness (number of species): the number is the number of species for  each farm, which was determined and totaled for each sampled system.The total number of individuals per species was counted and estimated.

Functional groups
Population abundance and species richness were determined by three main functional groups: herbivores, detritivores, and predators.To estimate the density, PAST (RRID:SCR_019129) 4.03 software was used, the indices selected for the study were: Dominance (D), Shannon-Wiener (H 0 ), Margalef (Mg), Simpson (1-D), and Pielou (J 0 ).Dominance Index (D): It is the comparative importance of a species related to the degree of influence it has on the individuals of the plantain agro system.It is based on competition for resources, which is why the characterization of the collected sample is used and then organized by functional group.Its inverse is the Simpson index.
Shannon-Wiener Index (H 0 ) (Equation 1): Considers the number of species found in the study area (species richness) and the relative frequency (abundance) of each of these species.It is used to determine the number of species and how those species are distributed.It is usually expressed as H 0 , expressed as a positive number that varies between 0.5 and 5. Values between 0.5-2 indicate a situation with low diversity, 2-3 is a normal situation, and 3-5 or more indicates a situation of high diversity.
S: Richness or number of species; pi: ratio of individuals of the species (i) with respect to the total number of individuals (that is, the relative abundance of the species i).
Margalef Diversity Index (DMg) (Equation 2): measures the specific richness of an area and the relationship between individuals and the total sample.The value 0 is when there is only one species in the sample (s=1, therefore s-1=0), values less than 2 are considered areas of low biodiversity and values greater than 5 are indicative of high biodiversity.Where: S = number of species; N = total number of individuals.
Simpson's Index (1-D) (Equation 3): this index is based on dominance.This is the inverse parameter of the concept of community unity or equality.Consider the representativeness of the most important species without evaluating the contribution of the remaining species.Values from 0 to 0.5 bring the value closer to a situation of high diversity, and values from 0.5 to 1 bring the value closer to low biodiversity. Where: P i = the number of individuals among the total species (i).Strongly influenced by the importance of the dominant species.Its value is the reciprocal of fairness, so the diversity is known as 1 -λ.
Pielou Index (J) (Equation 4): stock market index.It measures the relationship between the observed diversity and the maximum expected diversity.Its value is between 0 and 0.1, so 0.1 corresponds to situations in which all species occur equally. Where:

Data analysis
Using IBM SPSS Statistics (RRID:SCR_016479) v.22 program, the data of individuals collected and ordered by categories were processed.Tables were created showing the groups of species present in each farm studied.For the analysis of the diversity indices, the PAST (RRID:SCR_019129) 4.03 software was used.Finally, Pearson's correlation was applied to identify the most dominant and most common group useful to understand the dominant interrelationship and its productivity within the plantain agro system.

Results and Discussion
The results showed that diversity and richness of the edaphic macrofauna was evaluated in eight farms in the western area.A total of 78.72% of the individuals were identified in the soil from 0-20 cm 2 , while the remaining 21.26% in the foliage.
In the first four farms in the León area, 23 genera were found, and in the Posoltega farms, 21 genera.The relative abundance of León was 1,450 individuals per m 2 , while in the Posoltega area it was 1,700 individuals per m 2 .
The farms selected for this study have agro-climatic differences and in farm management, the 4 farms in the Chinandega area have a higher rainfall regime and management is by associated cooperatives.The 4 farms in Leon have less rainfall and management is individual, that is, each producer manages his own farm.

Relative and dominant abundance
The genera Geophilus and Leptothorax had dominance with 70 individuals (Ind.m 2 ), Philoscia with 160 Ind. m 2 and Oxidus with 110 Ind. m 2 and Hypoponera are 165 Ind. m 2 , and earthworms are 590 Ind. m 2 .Tables 1, 3 and 4, and Figure 2 (Zuniga-Gonzalez et al., 2022a) show the general relative abundance of macrofauna found in the four banana plantations in the city of León between the litter layer and soil depths of 0-20 cm.In theses plots was less mulch and leaf litter in the streets of the plantation.In the municipality of Posoltega, Pheidole sp.280 Ind. m 2 , Solenopsis sp.290 Ind. m 2 , Asiomorpha 170 Ind. m 2 , Earthworm 600 Ind. m 2 .A characteristic of the Chinandega area is that there was more leaf litter on the ground, covered ground, higher soil moisture, more vegetation between the streets (Tables 5 and 6).The genus Pheidole sp., was found in the soil of a banana plantation in the city of León, and the genus Solenopsis.However, the frequencies of Earthworm individuals are similar in both communities.(2000), reported that the Hymenoptera group was the most abundant, with 62.49% of the total individuals collected during the 2,000 agricultural cycle in organic and conventional banana plantations in Guacimo, Costa Rica.This means that the soil is moist throughout the year.However, the presence of Earthworms (Opisthopora) was 11.92% and abundant in all stages, this is due to rainfall patterns, that is, humidity, although rainfall is higher in Chinandega.
In the municipality of Leon, Farm 1 shows that Earthworms dominated at 150 Ind. m 2 and Oxidus dominate with 70 Ind.m 2 .In farm 2, Earthworms dominated at 325 Ind. m 2 , and Hypoponera spp. with 115 Ind. m 2 , likewise in farm 4 El Verdón, stand out, genus Leptoxthorax (Opisthopora) of 45 Ind. m 2 , 65 Ind. m 2 of Scarabaeidae and 65 Ind. m 2 of Earthworms, however, in farm 3, only the genus, Philoscia, in Farm 3, measures 45 Ind. m 2 and Earthworms dominated at 50 Ind.m 2 (Tables 5 and 6).The municipal of León has a greater wealth of sexes with 23 representative genus, but a lower overall dominance (Ind.m 2 ).In four farms (San Martín, Santa Isabel, Quinta Cony, and El Verdon) Earthworm frequencies were found to be similar, but less common genera such as Leptothorax and Asiomorpha were found.climatic conditions and agroecological management are factors that have influenced these results that are similar to Priego-Castillo et al. (2009) in Costa Rica.
These data on Earthworm populations in litter and layers from 0 to 20 cm 2 have been confirmed by Castillo and Vera (2000), Pashanasi (2001), Zerbino (2010), and these populations have a beneficial role in the soil.Training is very important and sensitive to management practices in the banana farms of León and Posoltega.In this area, the rains have created favorable conditions for the macrofauna and the management of the soil make these results more notable than in Leon.
Table 4 shows the relative abundance by farm and by functional group, noting that the detritivores group is more abundant, followed by predators.The leaf litter and humidity conditions make organic matter a propitious environment for the detritivores group.These dominance groups exerted a beneficial function on the soil, allowing increased production yields because they are the responsible for breaking down OM and providing nutrition for plants (Brown et al., 2000).
For the municipality Posoltega, in farm 6, earthworms dominate with 225 Ind. m 2 and Solenopsis spp. with 190 Ind. m 2 , farm 8 had Asiomorpha spp. with 125 Ind. m 2 (Tables 5 and 6).Plantain farms in Posoltega are repopulated with Solenopsis worms and ants (Pashanasi, 2001;Zerbino, 2010;Rousseau et al., 2012).This is likely because they occupy the same ecological niches in which they coexist, interact with similar food sources, land, husbandry and management skills, and benefit from abundant and prosperous communities.

Diversity indices
Table 7 shows The Simpson index confirms this low diversity with values close to 1.The specific richness of the area and the relationship between individuals and the total sample reflected by the Margalet index (DMg) with values less than 2. This is considered as areas of low biodiversity.The Pielou evenness index indicates that not all farms presented situations where all species were equally abundant (Krebs, 1999).

Functional groups
Table 3 shows a summary of the relative abundance of biodiversity in the study area by functional group (Castañeda et al., 2022; Quiroz-Medina, 2021).As mentioned above, the species equity indices are not equal.The lowest percentage of taxonomic presence is in the functional group of herbivores.The biomass has a greater presence (above 50% in the group by function of detritivores and in the group of predators below 50%).
In studies reported by Zerbino et al. (2008) and Zerbino (2010), shown that the discrepancies in the constitution of the macrofauna's community and proportions of functional groups are aspects influenced by the species, the richness of plant species and management, and states that it affects living organisms.This is because they determine the available resources and influence the interactions between herbivores, their controllers, and the predators identified by Moore et al. (2004).
This supports the findings that monoculture influences has a significant impact on resource availability, thus affecting the interactions between functional groups per square meter in the city of Posoltega.The results indicated that the texture    of the biocenosis is consistent with the edaphic properties and the quantity and quality of the residues (Almonte, 2022; Leyva, 2012; Curry, 1992).In zero tillage, management practices that promote the presence of residues with spatial and temporal diversification of plant species have richer, more diverse and equitable communities, with a predominance of deterioration functional groups (Priego et al., 2009; Zerbino, 2010; Zerbino et al., 2008).This is consistent with the findings in the present study (see Tables 3-8).The analysis confirmed that Posoltega had lower populations of herbivores per m 2 and 460 carnivores per m 2 (Table 3).This confirms the conditions for the detritivores with the decomposition of the organic matter that produces the rainy regime and the greatest amount of litter.
Table 8 shows the diversity indicators by functional groups.These are predominantly detritivores of 400 Ind. m 2 , and predators 205 Ind. m 2 , in contrast to El Verdón on farm 4, which has a low population of herbivores of 45 Ind. m 2 , detritivores 150 Ind. m 2 due to the large population of predators found.Similarly, at Farm 8 Los Angeles there were only 10 Ind. m 2 herbivores.This is due to the large population of 85 Ind. m 2 predators, also to the agro climatilly conditions (Tables 3-5 and 6).
The data collected in the León area show that the herbivorous functional group has a low proportion of Diversity by the values of the Shannon-Wiener index (H) with a value close to 1 denoting low diversity, this is considered within normality, Dominance Simpson (1-D) with a value close to 1 and Pielou Equity (J 0 ) very close to 1 as in the case of farm 2, meaning equally abundant species.However, the Margalef Diversity Index (DMg) showed a value below 2 considering for areas of low diversity, similar to the work of Frederick et al. (2018).
Three indicators dominance in the functional group of detritivorous organisms in the city of León.Margalef Diversity (DMg) with a value below 2 means that no farm with this group can be considered as having high diversity.For Simpson Dominance (1-D) it can be said that they are at a midpoint between 1 and 0 with a normal diversity and a Pielou Equity Index (J 0 ) with a value close to 1 situation where all species are equally abundant, of the indices for the Predators group were dominated by three indices: DMg in farm 4, which almost reaches value 2, it can be said that they are within the normal range, and Shannon-Wiener Diversity (H) with values lower than 1 indicating low diversity.This contrasts with the Posoltega area, where Simpson (1-D) dominates with a value close to 0, which implies a high diversity, these organisms are favored because on these farms, litter was found in the alleys creating decomposing matter favored by humidity (Depaquit et al., 2016).
Table 8 shows the estimates of the indices of population abundance and species richness, determined by functional groups.According to the DMg, the value found was less than 2 considered as a zone of low biodiversity, which assumes that the number of individuals is equal to the number of species.In the Simpson index, the probability that eight individuals taken at random are of the same species is 0.2 in the case of León and 0.19, this constitutes a low probability, since most of the farms are made up of the genus Earthworms, and that had a lot of abundance of the same species.The Pielou Equity Index (J) confirms these with values close to 1 where all species are equally abundant (Bottinelli et al., 2010).

Diversity and productivity
Samples were taken for the comparative study between plantain production and the two most abundant genera, earthworms and Hymenoptera, both of which are beneficial in the decomposition of OM and the supply of nutrients to the plant.In the dominance of worms, the Quinta Cony (Farm 2) was found where 325 Ind. m 2 collected, followed by the Montes Verde farm (Farm 6) with 225 Ind. m 2 .Hymenoptera were dominant on the San Joaquín farm (Farm 5) with 175 Ind. m 2 and on farm 7 with 165 Ind. m 2 (Pimentel et al., 1997) (Table 9 and Figure 3).
To compare the psyllium production of each farm, the proportion of worms and insects of the two most abundant genera, the order Hymenoptera, was taken, indicating that a greater number of worms indicates a greater production.It was observed that for Hymenoptera, the production is lower.The farms with the highest production in the León area were Quinta Cony with 91,000 ha and Santa Isabel with 25,600 ha.The farm of 80,000 ha in farm 8 and farm 6 with 85,000 ha in Montes Verdes for the Posoltega area (Figures 3, 4 and 5).
Pearson's correlation analysis commonly correlates agricultural production (plantain units ha) and the abundance of earthworms and hymenopteran insects, projecting a correlation close to 1 with 95% confidence.The relationship between plantain production per ha and the abundance of earthworms of Ind. m 2 establishes a direct relationship, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.743, close to 1, and a perfect or strong relationship in the Pearson correlation analysis (Table 10).That is, by increasing the number of earthworms in the soil, the production of plantain per ha increases in the farms studied in both regions (León and Posoltega).On the other hand, a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.261 (Table 9) was obtained, which indicated that the relationship between production and abundance of Hymenoptera is very close to 0, thus showing a weak correlation between production and abundance of Hymenoptera insects (Ma et al., 2022).
The city of León has three strong ties.The first relationship (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.988) between productivity (psyllium units per ha on the farm) and earthworm abundance (Table 10) shows a strong correlation.The second relationship between productivity and abundance of Hymenoptera insects has a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.942 (Table 10), indicating a strong correlation.A third relationship between the abundances of earthworms and hymenopteran insects is a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.968 (Table 10), which is very strong because the coefficient is close to 1, indicating that the number of earthworms becomes a direct relationship as it increases.In the municipality of Posoltega, the relationship between earthworm production and abundance is weak, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.465.A Pearson correlation coefficient of -0.484 (Table 10) indicates a negative relationship, with a decrease in the second abundance ratio of earthworms and hymenopterans.However, the abundance of hymenopteran insects is preserved.
The increase in the number of worms increased the production and abundance of Hymenoptera, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.469, favoring a direct relationship.On the other hand, the relationship between the number of hymenopteran insects and production is inversely correlated, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of -0.484 (Table 10).That is, as the number of Hymenoptera decreases, production decreases (Table 10).Table 11 and Figure 6 show the Pearson correlation coefficients by farm.The results of the bootstrap analysis reveal insights into the relationship between banana production and the abundance of Hymenoptera insects and earthworms (Table 12, Figure 7).The correlation analysis indicates a slight negative correlation between banana production and Hymenoptera abundance, with a coefficient of approximately -0.139.Despite a positive bias observed in the bootstrap samples, the correlation remains relatively stable, suggesting that higher banana production may be associated with lower abundance of Hymenoptera insects.Conversely, there exists a positive correlation between banana production and earthworm abundance, with a coefficient of approximately 0.351.Despite a slight positive bias, the correlation remains robust, implying that higher banana production tends to coincide with increased earthworm abundance.These findings underscore the complex interplay between agricultural productivity and the ecological dynamics of insect and soil communities, emphasizing the importance of considering multiple factors in sustainable agricultural management.

Conclusions
The Shannon-Wiener (H 0 ) Diversity values were in the range of 1.6-1.9,which indicates a situation of low diversity, Margalef Diversity (D) obtained values between 1.4-1.8,lower than 2, considered as areas of low biodiversity, the Simpson's dominance (1-D) presented values between 1.4-1.8,considering that the closer it is to 1, a situation of low diversity is considered, and that of equality of Pielou (J 0 ) presents 5-.8, so that the values close to 1 correspond to situations where all species are equally abundant.These results were due to the relative abundance of two detritivore genera (earthworms and Hymenoptera), which are organisms that decompose OM and provide nutrients to the plant.
Finally, it is concluded that these two genera are important in the production of the plantain agro system due to the decomposition of OM and its nutritional contribution to the plant, observing a direct correlation with earthworms and an indirect one with Hymenoptera.

CEBAS-CSIC. Campus Universitario de Espinardo, Murcia, Spain
The study focuses on evaluating the diversity and richness of edaphic macrofauna in banana farms in Nicaragua.This is a relevant area of research as soil biodiversity plays a crucial role in agroecosystem productivity and sustainability.The specific focus on banana farms adds practical significance, considering the economic importance of bananas in tropical agriculture.This research presents a solid foundation and offers meaningful insights into soil biodiversity in banana farms.With a short additional detail and expanded discussion, it could serve as an important reference for both scientists and practitioners in the field of agroecology SMALL POINTS In one of the headings of the material and methods it is say 'Identification of macrofauna species', but the description includes "…the microorganisms were placed in Petri dishes and then observed under a 4-400× stereo microscope".Are macroorganism of microorganism?Please clarify.

○
A deeper discussion on the implications of the findings for banana farm management and broader ecological impacts would add depth to the study.Just adding some sentences in the discussion and conclusion would be enough strength the manuscript.

Jérôme Mathieu
Sorbonne Universite, Paris, Île-de-France, France My general comment is that a good effort has been done to improve the text and data availability, but there are still a few issues in the text, and most importantly, the claim that there is a strong relationship between taxa abundance and crop productivity is not supported by the data that are presented.This section needs to be changed.Please find detailed comments in the PDF linked here.

○
Please describe the management of the plots (see comment above regarding the first page).

○
The size of the sampling area is not clear.Please clarify.

○
Was it really 4mm the smallest body size covered?Usually it is 1.5 mm for soil macrofauna.

○
Please change "measured variables' by 'diversity components' or something similar.

○
No need to give the formula of the Shannon index.

Results & Discussion
Table 3 & 4: -The title should be 'total and relative…by function groups in the different plots" Please use the unit Ind. m-2 for the absolute abundances.
-Please add the standard deviation or the standard error.-Please clarify what you mean by earthworm production and add units.
-The title of the last column is not clear, please clarify and provide the units.

Figure 3:
-Please use worm and Hymenoptera for the x axis and the productivity for the Y axis.
- [13] Please describe the management of the plots (see the comment above regarding the first page).Response: Yes it was added as indicated in [8] item.Was elaborated a chart with your differences.
[14] The size of the sampling area is not clear.Please clarify.
Response: Ok thanks for this observation.The description of Tables 2 and 5 is explicating that the area is of 0.7 ha, and a total of 80 samples of macrofauna populations were identified, coded, and stored in the second phase.The study area in each farm or plot was 0.7 ha delimited 1 in 1,000 m 2 (50 cm long × 20 cm wide), as described in Rousseau et al.  2021) .However, we added this area for each plot: The area where the sample was collected are: Farm1 246.5 ha, Farm2 14.1, ha, Farm3 67 ha, Farm4 7 ha, Farm5 4.2 ha, Farm6 2.1 ha, Farm7 3.5 ha, Farm8 4.9 ha.In total 80 samples were collected in 1000 m2 for 40 biomass samples and 40 edaphic samples in 0-20 cm depth.
[15] Was it really 4mm the smallest body size covered?Usually, it is 1.5 mm for soil macrofauna.
Response: Dear thanks for this observation, it was corrected.
[16] Please change "measured variables' by 'diversity components' or something similar.
Response: It was changed.
Very interesting, but it is not clear if you did extra sampling for this topic.Please clarify.If so, please describe the sampling, if not, please explore the relationship with other taxa or functional groups.
In any case, please explain how productivity estimates were related to soil fauna sampling: was it measured in each subplot (in this case you have one measure of productivity for one soil fauna monolith), or is it at a larger scale?Response: Dear reviewers thanks for this observation.The sampling is the same that was recollected, but in this moments of the analysis we compare the populations of the Hymenoptera (Insects) and Oligochaeta (Worm or Earthworm) that were the more representative in this study.So, we the Pearson correlation coefficient that is a measure of linear correlation between two sets of data in this case the Agricultural production (banana units per ha) and the abundance of Earthworms and hymenopteran insects (Ind.m 2 ).It is the ratio between the covariance of two variables and the product of their standard deviations.
[29] Table 9: -Please clarify what you mean by earthworm production and add units.
Response: Thanks, we refer the abundance of Earthworms and the unit Ind. m 2 was added.
-The title of the last column is not clear, please clarify and provide the units.Response: Thanks, It was change by Abundance Estimated overall Earthworm production Ind. m 2 .
[30] Figure 3: -Please use worm and Hymenoptera for the x axis and the productivity for the Y axis.
-What do you mean by "real"?Response: Dear is ok the change was made.The Real is the production of Banana or plantains, during the periods studied.Measured in Units by ha.Dear reviewer by best interpretation all was change by Production (Units ha).
[31] In all the results sections, you should explain and use the difference among plots to explain the variations in soil macrofauna.For instance, don't you have soil data or management data?Response: Dear all results section was checked and added the comments that you indicated.Regarding to the management data the farmer don't had information because the cost to get it (Laboratory of soil).

4.
It is not a conclusion, but a result: "The diversity and richness of the edaphic macrofauna was evaluated in eight farms in the western area.A total of 78.72% of the individuals were identified in the soil from 0-20 cm 2 , while the remaining 21.26% in the foliage.In the first four farms in the León area, 23 genera were found, and in the Posoltega farms, 21 genera.The relative abundance of León was 1,450 individuals per m 2 , while in the Posoltega area it was 1,700 individuals per m 2 ."

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
It is not a conclusion, but a result: "The diversity and richness of the edaphic macrofauna was evaluated in eight farms in the western area.A total of 78.72% of the individuals were identified in the soil from 0-20 cm 2 , while the remaining 21.26% in the foliage.In the first four farms in the León area, 23 genera were found, and in the Posoltega farms, 21 genera.The relative abundance of León was 1,450 individuals per m 2 , while in the Posoltega area it was 1,700 individuals per m 2 .".
Response: Dear reviewer it was translated to the results section, thanks for this observation.

6.
Dear reviewer, thanks for all your observations.

Competing Interests:
The authors disclose that we don't have any competing interest.
The benefits of publishing with F1000Research: Your article is published within days, with no editorial bias • You can publish traditional articles, null/negative results, case reports, data notes and more • The peer review process is transparent and collaborative • Your article is indexed in PubMed after passing peer review • Dedicated customer support at every stage • For pre-submission enquiries, contact research@f1000.com

Introduction
Soil management in banana agroecosystems is essentially successful for resilient agro-ecological production, adapted to climate change, and biodiversity, fundamentally in Latin America.Berning et al. (2022), Gliessman (2013), Rousseau et al. (2012), and Delgado et al. (2010b) indicate that agro-ecological conditions of the soil represent one of the ways to adapt precisely to the development of production in the banana sector (McLaughlin et al., 1995; Challinor et al., 2009; Rousseau et al., 2013).The combination of Musa acuminata Â Musa balbisiana (AAB) constitutes a food source in the Latin American diet

Medina
et al. (2021), Djigal et al. (2012), Laossia et al. (2008) and Ruiz (2008) indicate that these organisms can experience a shortage of oxygen and light, fewer open spaces, poor availability and quality of food and a very strong variability of microclimates to be able to live in the soil, examples of these microorganisms are the centipedes, termites, earthworms, insects, mites (Medina et al., 2021).Populations of all macrofauna reach millions per hectare and their biomass varies in tons per hectare (Priego-Castillo et al., 2009; Wardle et al. agroecological production.The cultivation of Musa acuminata Â Musa balbisiana (AAB) is managed in association with horticultural items, changing chemical inputs for organic ones, such as the use of organic fertilizers and good agricultural practices.Administratively, the farms in Chinandega are managed by cooperatives, while those in Leon are managed by individual producers.

Ind
the diversity indices per farm.In general, the farms studied present a taxonomic variety of biomass (3,150 individuals).In general, a low dominance (less than 40%) is observed in each of the farms.The Shannon-Wiener index shows low diversity with values less than 2, except for farms 1, 4 and 8 with values close to 2, meaning normal diversity.The Shannon indexes are not superior to those of Melo (2010), who had a high diversity value of the Shannon index of H 0 = 2.61, which indicates that the Kikuyu prairie has the highest richness in both families and organisms.Rousseau et al. (2012, 2013), present low-quality data on diversity, dominance, wealth, and stock market indices.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Overall relative abundance of macrofauna found.This heatmap was constructed using PAST software.

Table 6 .
Taxonomic classification of the edaphic macrofauna in kingdom, phylum, subphylum, class, order, family and genus.

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Relationship between diversity indices and productivity in plantain agroecosystems, Nicaragua.

Figure 2 :
Figure 2: The name of the taxa is difficult to read because of the low quality of the plot.○ , Rousseau et al. (2013), and Medina et al. (

Reviewer Report 07
March 2023 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.139795.r155921© 2023 Sol-Sánchez A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Angel Sol-Sánchez Campus Tabasco, Colegio de Postgraduados, Texcoco, State of Mexico, Mexico The article is interesting and important in the banana production activity."The first was.." -must say 'the first one'.1.In the results, the correct way is 'ind/m 2 '.Example: 160 ind/m 2 .2. "In four farms (San Martín, Santa Isabel and El Verdon)…" and which one is the last? 3. Incorrect to cite too many authors: "These data are supported by Zayas et al. (2022), Quiroz-Medina et al. (

Table 2 .
Location of banana farms in the study area.
Source: Self calculation' authors.*A farm typically includes one plots of land, where five point were sampled.

Table 3 .
Total relative abundance (p i ) according to functional group by farms.

Table 4 .
Total relative abundance (p i ) according to functional group in the farms of the León and Chinandega municipality.

Table 5 .
Total population of taxa collected in litter strata and 0-20 cm 2

Table 7 .
Diversity index by farm.

Table 8 .
Diversity Indexes by functional group.

Table 9 .
Agricultural production (banana units per ha) and the abundance of earthworms and hymenopteran insects (Ind.m 2 ).

Table 10 .
Pearson correlation coefficients of the banana production with the density Ind. m 2 of earthworms and Hymenoptera insects.

Table 11 .
Pearson correlation by farm.

the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests:
No competing interests were disclosed. ○Is

have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Version 3
This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes
Please replace the second sentence and the rest by a description of the method, period of sampling, taxa covered, taxonomical resolution.No need to give the structure of the paper.Please say in the text that sampling is based on litter and monolith extraction and is inspired by the TSBF method.

Table 1 :
Please mention what these columns refer to. ○

Table 2 :
Latitude and longitude are incorrectly formatted, with two commas in some cases, no commas in other cases.Please reformat with dots (".") as decimal separators and do not use other separators.

Table 5 :
These are taxa, not species.Please translate into ind.m-2,add errors, and remove totals by location. ○

Table 6 :
"lumbrices" is not a correct genus or taxa, please correct.There are many typos in the name of family and genus.Please correct (e.g., Formocidae).

Table 8 :
Please use "ind.m-2"not"xm2".Contrary to what you say, there are herbivores in the farm 8. Please correct.You can't link the absence of herbivore to the presence of spiders, based on correlation only.You need an experiment for that.Please remove this sentence.Very interesting, but it is not clear if you did extra sampling for this topic.Please clarify.If so, please describe the sampling, if not, please explore the relationship with other taxa or functional groups.

:
What do you mean by "real"?-If you have several replicates per farm, please use them in fig.3and add the regression line for all data and by plot, and include plot as a random factor in the analysis.-Considerchanging table 11 by a pairwise correlation plot the tests on one side of the diagonal (see ggpairs() in R for instance).Please put the data from the two sites into one file.
○Table 10: please say "banana production".○Figure3&table11○Figure 4: please add taxa richness and if possible functional groups' abundance.○Dataavailability:○Important: Please provide the raw data; by monolith or by layer, not aggregated by plot.○Please also add metadata: coordinates, date of sampling (year, month, day), management, and so on (see the template).○Isthe

work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests:
No competing interests were disclosed.

have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.
Please replace the second sentence and the rest by a description of the method, period of sampling, taxa covered, taxonomical resolution.No need to give the structure of the paper.Response: Dear thanks for your observations, it was added in the last paragraph of the Introduction, second sentences as you indicated.We have added a cite of the protocol.oiwhere we explicate the methodology.Thanks for the observation.

Table 1 :
Please mention what these columns refer to.Response: Thanks for this observation, a comment on this was added before Table1.[12]Table2:Latitude and longitude are incorrectly formatted, with two commas in some cases, and no commas in other cases.Please reformat with dots (".") as decimal separators and do not use other separators.
Response: Thanks for this observation.We made the changes.(e.g., 12°31'15.4"NLatitude 86°54'40.2"WLongitude) Table 10: please say "banana production".Response: OK [33] Figure 3 & table 11: -If you have several replicates per farm, please use them in fig.3and add the regression line for all data and by plot, and include plot as a random factor in the analysis.-Considerchanging table 11 by a pairwise correlation plot the tests on one side of the diagonal (see ggpairs() in R for instance).Response: Dear reviewer thanks for your observation but our aim was to relate the plots versus the genus identified, however, yes we go to make o add the table that you suggest