Diversity of functional edaphic macrofauna in <i>Musa acuminata x Musa balbisiana</i> (AAB) agroecosystems

C. A. Zúniga-Gonzalez; A. J. Caballero-Hernández

doi:10.12688/f1000research.127300.1

Home Browse Diversity of functional edaphic macrofauna in Musa acuminata x Musa...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

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

[version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

C. A. Zúniga-Gonzalez ¹, A. J. Caballero-Hernández²

PUBLISHED 14 Nov 2022

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Agroecology, Faculty of Agrarian and Veterinary Sciences, Bioeconomy and Climate Change Research Center, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, Leon, 21000, Nicaragua
² Research Department, Quality Assurance and Post-harvest Technology Section, Del Monte Agricultural Development Corporation, S. A. PINDECO, Provincia Limón, Cantón Pococí Distrito Guápiles, 70101, Costa Rica

C. A. Zúniga-Gonzalez
Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

A. J. Caballero-Hernández
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Agriculture, Food and Nutrition gateway.

This article is included in the Ecology and Global Change gateway.

Abstract

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. Subsequently, the indices of diversity and species richness, relative abundance, by functional groups were estimated.
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 Dominion, Simpson, Shanon, Margalef, and Equity were in the normal range, with a tendency towards low diversity. Likewise, in the richness of species, the Dominant 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 greatest presence, 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.

Keywords

Eco-Intensification, Eco-system, Plantain, Diversity, Microfauna

Corresponding author: C. A. Zúniga-Gonzalez

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2022 Zúniga-Gonzalez CA and Caballero-Hernández AJ. This is an open access article 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.

How to cite: Zúniga-Gonzalez CA and Caballero-Hernández AJ. Diversity of functional edaphic macrofauna in Musa acuminata x Musa balbisiana (AAB) agroecosystems [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2022, 11:1300 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.127300.1) First published: 14 Nov 2022, 11:1300 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.127300.1) Latest published: 18 Jun 2024, 11:1300 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.127300.4)

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), McLaughlin et al. (1995), Challinor et al. (2009), Rousseau et al. (2013) 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. The combination of Musa acuminata × Musa balbisiana (AAB) constitutes a food source in the Latin American diet (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.

Similarly, authors such as McKelvie-Sebileau et al. (2022), Samudio (2010), Shiyam et al. (2010), López (1995), MIFIC (2007) and Gizzi et al. (2009) suggest that in nutritional irrigation systems where crops such as corn, beans, pumpkin, papaya, pineapple, coffee, cocoa are included, they demand the conservation of fungi, bacteria, viruses, harmful insects, nematodes and weed organisms, to do more effective environmental perceptions and producer profitability.

Likewise, Gutiérrez-Luna et al. (2022), Rodríguez et al. (2013) and Brown et al. (2001) investigated that the impact of cultural practices or soil health should be evaluated through chains that maintain soil fertility. From this perspective, soil fertility studies of plantain should include previously unexplained constituents of the macrofauna as indicators of the richness in biodiversity, abundance, and degree of alteration of the ecological functions of the population.

On the other hand, invertebrate pests attract a lot of attention, and they cost farmers and producers millions of dollars (Tresson et al., 2022; Velásquez et al., 2012; Alcaraván, 2003; Decaëns et al., 2004; Cardona et al., 1998).

Brown et al. (2001) and Pocasangre, Brown and Quesada (2009) show that limited physical-chemical elements and fertility can lead to population decline. In the same way, they added that beneficial invertebrates for their basic and fundamental functions have received little attention. In general, Velasquez et al. (2007) shows that their behavior is taken for granted and the management of agroecosystems is rarely altered for their benefit. The importance of the invertebrate edaphic macrofauna is closely related to the quantitative and qualitative analysis of biomass period (MO) and generation of genetic biology components.

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, flying worms and butterflies (Medina et al., 2021). Populations of all megafaunas reach millions per hectare and their biomass varies in tons per hectare. 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 specific ecosystems is still lacking (Anderson, 1993; Zerbino, 2010; Zerbino et al., 2008; Priego-Castillo et al., 2009; Wardle et al., 1995).

Finally, the work focused on evaluating the diversity and abundance of macrofauna in eight banana-producing farms in the North Pacific area of Nicaragua. The work was organized in an introductory section where the problem and the importance of this study are explained. In the Methods section, the procedure for the collection, classification, coding and storage of the species is presented. The Results and Discussion section presents the species found and their richness, abundance and diversity. Finally, the main conclusions based on the objective of the research are presented.

Methods

Table 1 shows the statistical description of the data used in this study. The full protocol can be found on protocols.io.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics.

Farm	N	Maximum	Mean	Std. Deviation	Variance
Farm1	30	150.00	17.3333	35.30003	1246.092
Farm2	30	325.00	18.6667	61.99184	3842.989
Farm3	30	50.00	4.8333	12.14022	147.385
Farm4	30	65.00	7.5000	17.75067	315.086
Farm5	30	150.00	12.6667	33.18530	1101.264
Farm6	30	225.00	17.1667	52.50096	2756.351
Farm7	30	155.00	11.8333	33.20478	1102.557
Farm8	30	125.00	15.0000	34.56628	1194.828

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).

Table 2. Location of banana farms in the study area.

ID farmer	Farm name	Area	Community	Municipality	Latitude	Longitude
1	Santa Isabel	266	Rio Grande N° 3	León	12,664,471	-86,848,814
2	Quinta Cony	15.2	San Pedro	León	12,664,471	-86,848,814
3	San Martin	72.2	San Pedro	León	12,664,471	-86,848,814
4	El Verdón	7.6	San Pedro	León	12,664,471	-86,848,814
5	San Joaquín	4.6	El Trianon	Posoltega	12521742	-86,994,189
6	Montes Verdes	2.3	Chiquimulapa	Posoltega	12,535,643	-86,981,141
7	María de los Ángeles	3.8	El Trianon	Posoltega	12521742	-86,994,189
8	Los Ángeles	5.3	El Trianon	Posoltega	12,521,742	-86,994,189

Figure 1. Study area.

Investigative process phase

Table 2 shows 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 was 0.7 ha delimited 1 in 1,000 m² (50 cm long × 20 cm wide), as described in Rousseau et al. (2012), Rousseau et al. (2013), Medina et al. (2021).

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, family and quantified and identified by sex, the microorganisms were placed in Petri dishes and then observed under a 4–400× stereo microscope, to detail the specific structures of each of the species. Large animals include all organisms greater than 4 mm in length.

Measured variables

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 (various population densities 1 m²)

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: Domain (D), Shannon-Wiener (H′), Margalef (Mg), Simpson (1-D), and Pielou (J′).

Domain Index (D): It is the relative importance of a species related to the degree of influence it has on the individuals of the plantain agrosystem. 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′) (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′, 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.

(1)

H^{'} = - \sum p_{i} Ln p_{i}

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:

(2)

D_{mg} = \frac{S - 1}{Ln N}

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:

(3)

λ = \sum p_{i}^{2}

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:

(4)

J^{'} = \frac{H^{'}}{H_{\max}^{'}}

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 agrosystem.

Results and Discussion

Relative and dominant abundance

Tables 1, 3 and 4, and Figure 2 (Zuniga-Gonzalez et al., 2022) 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. The genera Geophilus and Leptothorax dominate with 70 individuals per square meter (ind × m²), Philoscia with 160 ind × m² and Oxidus with 110 ind. m² and Hypoponera are 165 ind × m², and earthworms are 590 ind × m². In the municipality of Posoltega, Pheidole sp. 280 ind × m², Solenopsis sp. 290 ind × m², Asiomorpha 170 ind × m², earthworm 600 ind × m² (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. Zerbino et al. (2008) in their study presented the two most abundant groups of the subclass Oligochaeta of the order Opisthopora and insects of the order Hymenoptera, representing 46 and 20% of the total number of individuals collected, respectively. This confirms our findings with earthworms (Opisthopora) and Hymenoptera (Pheidole and Solenopsis) accounting for 37.77 and 18.25%, respectively, of all individuals collected.

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

Species number	Genus	Leon municipality								Posoltega municipality								Total %
Species number	Genus	Farm 1	p_i	Farm 2	p_i	Farm 3	p_i	Farm 4	p_i	Farm 5	p_i	Farm 6	p_i	Farm 7	p_i	Farm 8	p_i	Biomass	p_i
HERBIVORES
1	Diptera	0.00	0.00	5.00	0.50	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
2	Elateridae	15.00	0.60	0.00	0.00	5.00	0.33	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
3	Leptothorax	10.00	0.40	5.00	0.50	10.00	0.67	45.00	1.00	10.00	1.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	10.00	1.00
	Total	25.00	1.00	10.00	1.00	15.00	1.00	45.00	1.00	10.00	1.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	10.00	1.00	115.00	0.04
	p_i		0.05		0.02		0.10		0.20		0.03		0.00		0.00		0.02
DETRITIVORES
4	Philoscia	95.00	0.26	20.00	0.05	45.00	0.38	0.00	0.00	5.00	0.03	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
5	Lathrobium	35.00	0.10	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	25.00	0.08	0.00	0.00	5.00	0.01
6	Oxidus	70.00	0.19	40.00	0.10	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	5.00	0.03	30.00	0.10	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
7	Asiomorpha	15.00	0.04	0.00	0.00	5.00	0.04	10.00	0.07	0.00	0.00	5.00	0.02	40.00	0.24	125.00	0.35
8	Lombrices	150.00	0.41	325.00	0.81	50.00	0.42	65.00	0.43	150.00	0.88	225.00	0.73	100.00	0.61	125.00	0.35
9	Laboptera	0.00	0.00	5.00	0.01	15.00	0.13	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
10	Lobopoda	0.00	0.00	5.00	0.01	0.00	0.00	5.00	0.03	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
11	Bolbelamus	0.00	0.00	5.00	0.01	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
12	Reticulitermes	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	5.00	0.03	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	5.00	0.03	85.00	0.24
13	Scarabeidae	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	65.00	0.43	0.00	0.00	20.00	0.06	0.00	0.00	15.00	0.04
14	Darkling beetle	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	5.00	0.04	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	5.00	0.02	10.00	0.06	0.00	0.00
15	Cylindroiulus	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	10.00	0.06	0.00	0.00	5.00	0.03	0.00	0.00
16	Coproporus	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	5.00	0.03	0.00	0.00
	Total	365.00	1.00	400.00	1.00	120.00	1.00	150.00	1.00	170.00	1.00	310.00	1.00	165.00	1.00	355.00	1.00	2035.00	0.65
	p_i		0.70		0.71		0.83		0.67		0.45		0.60		0.46		0.79
PREDATORS
17	Geophilus	65.00	0.50	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	5.00	0.17	0.00	0.00	5.00	0.02	0.00	0.00	20.00	0.24
18	Pheidole	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	5.00	0.17	80.00	0.40	0.00	0.00	155.00	0.82	45.00	0.53
19	Carabeidae	15.00	0.12	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	5.00	0.17	15.00	0.08	5.00	0.02	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
29	Hypoponera (ponerini)	50.00	0.38	115.00	0.77	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
21	Camponotus	0.00	0.00	30.00	0.20	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
22	Euborellia	0.00	0.00	5.00	0.03	0.00	0.00	5.00	0.17	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	10.00	0.12
23	Pangaeus	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	5.00	0.50	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
24	Hymenorus	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	5.00	0.50	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
25	Plexippus	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	10.00	0.33	5.00	0.03	0.00	0.00	15.00	0.08	0.00	0.00
26	Carpophilus	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	5.00	0.03	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
27	Curculinidae	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	10.00	0.05	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	5.00	0.06
28	Solenopsis	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	85.00	0.43	190.00	0.93	10.00	0.05	5.00	0.06
29	Hahnia	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	5.00	0.02	5.00	0.03	0.00	0.00
30	Phrurolithus	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	5.00	0.03	0.00	0.00
	Total	130.00	1.00	150.00	1.00	10.00	1.00	30.00	1.00	200.00	1.00	205.00	1.00	190.00	1.00	85.00	1.00	1000.00	0.32
	p_i		0.25		0.27		0.07		0.13		0.53		0.40		0.54		0.19
Total S and p_i		520.00	3.00	560.00	3.00	145.00	3.00	225.00	3.00	380.00	3.00	515.00	2.00	355.00	2.00	450.00	3.00
															Grand total			3150.	1.00

Table 4. Total relative abundance according to functional group in the farms of the municipality of León.

Functional group	Farm 1	Farm 2	Farm 3	Farm 4	Farm 5	Farm 6	Farm 7	Farm 8	Total
Herbivores	5	2	10	20	3	0	0	2	4
Detritivores	70	71	83	67	44	60	46	79	64
Predators	25	27	7	13	53	40	54	19	32

Figure 2. Overall relative abundance of macrofauna found.

This heatmap was constructed using PAST software.

Table 5. Total population of species collected in litter strata and 0-20 cm² soil depth.

Species number	Species	Leon municipality					Posoltega municipality
Species number	Species	Farm 1	Farm 2	Farm 3	Farm 4	Total, Leon	Farm 5	Farm 6	Farm 7	Farm 8	Total, Posoltega
1	Geophilus	65	0	0	5	70	0	5	0	20	25
2	Philoscia	95	20	45	0	160	5	0	0	0	5
3	Lathrobium	35	0	0	0	35	0	25	0	5	30
4	Elateridae	15	0	5	0	20					0
5	Leptothorax	10	5	10	45	70	10	0	0	10	20
6	Carabeidae	15	0	0	5	20	15	5	0	0	20
7	Oxidus	70	40	0	0	110	5	30	0	0	35
8	Asiomorpha	15	0	5	10	30	0	5	40	125	170
9	Hypoponera (ponerini)	50	115	0	0	165	0	0	0	0	0
10	Lombrices	150	325	50	65	590	150	225	100	125	600
11	Laboptera	0	5	15	0	20	0	0	0	0	0
12	Lobopoda	0	5	0	5	10	0	0	0	0	0
13	Bolbelamus	0	5	0	0	5	0	0	0	0	0
14	Camponotus	0	30	0	0	30	0	0	0	0	0
15	Diptera	0	5	0	0	5	0	0	0	0	0
16	Euborellia	0	5	0	5	10	0	0	0	10	10
17	Pangaeus	0	0	5	0	5	0	0	0	0	0
18	Hymenorus	0	0	5	0	5	0	0	0	0	0
19	Plexippus	0	0	0	10	10	5	0	15	0	20
20	Reticulitermes	0	0	0	5	5	0	0	5	85	90
21	Scarabeidae	0	0	0	65	65	0	20	0	15	35
22	Pheidole	0	0	0	5	5	80	0	155	45	280
23	Tenebrinidae	0	0	5	0	5	0	5	10	0	15
24	Carpophilus	0	0	0	0	0	5	0	0	0	5
25	Curculinidae	0	0	0	0	0	10	0	0	5	15
26	Solenopsis	0	0	0	0	0	85	190	10	5	290
27	Cylindroiulus	0	0	0	0	0	10	0	5	0	15
28	Hahnia	0	0	0	0	0	0	5	5	0	10
29	Phrurolithus	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	5	0	5
30	Coproporus	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	5	0	5

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

Species number	Kingdom	Phylum	Class	Order	Family	Genus	Functional group
1	Animalia	Arthopoda	Insecta	Diptera		Diptera Linneaeus, 1758	Herbivores
2	Animalia	Arthopoda	Insecta	Coloptera	Elateridae	Elateridae	Herbivores
3	Animalia	Arthopoda	Insecta	Hemenoptera	Formiciae	Leptothorax Mayr, 1855	Herbivores
4	Animalia	Arthopoda	Malacostraca	Isopoda	Philosciidae	Philoscia Latreille, 1804	Detritivores
5	Animalia	Arthopoda	Insecta	Coloptera	Staphylinidae	Lathrobium Gravenhorst, 1802	Detritivores
6	Animalia	Arthopoda	Diplopoda	Polydesmida	Paraxosomatidae	Oxidus Cook, 1911	Detritivores
7	Animalia	Arthopoda	Diplopoda	Polydesmida	Paraxosomatidae	Asiomorpha coarctata Verhoeff, 1939	Detritivores
8	Animalia	Annelida	Clitellata	Opisthopora	Lumbricidae	Lombrices	Detritivores
9	Animalia	Annelida	Insecta	Blattoidea	Blattidae	Laboptera sp	Detritivores
10	Animalia	Annelida	Insecta	Coleoptera	Tenebrionidae	Lobopoda Soller, 1835	Detritivores
11	Animalia	Arthopoda	Insecta	Coleoptera	Bolboceratidae	Bolbelamus	Detritivores
12	Animalia	Arthopoda	Insecta	Isotera	Rhinotermitidae	Reticulitermes Holmgren, 1913	Detritivores
13	Animalia	Arthopoda	Insecta	Coleoptera	Scarabaeidae	Scarabaeidae Latreille, 1802	Detritivores
14	Animalia	Annelida	Insecta	Coleoptera	Tenebrionidae	Darkling beetle	Detritivores
15	Animalia	Arthopoda	Diplopoda	Julida		Cylindriuslus terutonicus Pocock, 1900	Detritivores
16	Animalia	Arthopoda	Insecta	Coleoptera	Staphylinidae	Coproporus	Detritivores
17	Animalia	Arthropoda	Chilopoda	Geophilomorpha	Geophillidae	Geophilus Leach, 1814	Predators
18	Animalia	Arthopoda	Insecta	Hymenoptera	Formocidae	Pheidole Westwood, 1839	Predators
19	Animalia	Arthopoda	Insecta	Coloptera	Carabidae	Carabeidae	Predators
20	Animalia	Arthopoda	Insecta	Hymenoptera	Formicidae	Hypoponera Santschi, 1938	Predators
21	Animalia	Arthopoda	Insecta	Hymenoptera	Formicidae	Camponotus Mayr, 1861	Predators
22	Animalia	Arthopoda	Insecta	Dermaptera	Anisolabididae	Euborellia Burr, 1910	Predators
23	Animalia	Arthopoda	Insecta	Hemiptera	Cydnidae	Pangaeus	Predators
24	Animalia	Arthopoda	Insecta	Coleoptera	Alleulidae	Hymenorus	Predators
25	Animalia	Arthopoda	Arachnida	Araneae	Salticidae	Plexippus	Predators
26	Animalia	Arthopoda	Insecta	Coleoptera	Nitidulidae	Carpophilus Stephens,1830	Predators
27	Animalia	Arthopoda	Insecta	Coleoptera	Curculionoidea	Curculinidae	Predators
28	Animalia	Arthopoda	Insecta	Hymenoptera	Formicidae	Solenopsis Westwood, 1840	Predators
29	Animalia	Arthopoda	Arachnida	Araneae	Hahnidae	Hahnia C. L. Koch, 1841	Predators
30	Animalia	Arthopoda	Arachnida	Araneae	Phrurolithidae	Phrourolithus C.l Koch, 1839	Predators

In a study by Priego-Castillo et al. (2009) and Castillo and Vera (2000), it was 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.

In the municipality of Leon, Farm 1 shows that earthworms dominate at 150 ind × m² and Oxidus dominate with 70 ind × m². In farm 2, earthworms dominate at 325 ind × m², and Hypoponera spp. with 115 ind × m², likewise in farm 4 El Verdón, stand out, genus Leptoxthorax (Opisthopora) of 45 ind × m², 65 ind × m² of Scarabaeidae and 65 ind × m² of earthworms, however, in farm 3, only the genus, Philoscia, in Farm 3, measures 45 ind × m² and earthworms dominate at 50 ind × m² (Table 5 and 6). The municipal of León has a greater wealth of sexes with 23 representative genus, but a lower overall dominance (ind × m²). In four farms (San Martín, Santa Isabel and El Verdon) earthworm frequencies were found to be similar, but less common genera such as Leptothorax and Asiomorpha were found.

These data on earthworm populations in litter and layers from 0 to 20 cm² 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.

Table 4 shows the relative abundance by farm and by functional group, noting that the detritivores group is more abundant, followed by predators. These dominant 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.

For the municipality Posoltega, in farm 6, earthworms dominate with 225 ind × m² and Solenopsis spp. with 190 ind × m², farm 8 had Asiomorpha spp. with 125 ind × m² (Table 5 and 6). Plantain plantations in Posoltega are repopulated with Solenopsis worms and ants. 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. These data are supported by Zayas et al. (2022), Quiroz-Medina et al. (2021), Castillo y Vera (2000), Pashanasi (2001), Zerbino (2010), Rousseau et al. (2012) and Rousseau et al. (2013).

Diversity indices

Table 7 shows the diversity indices per farm. In general, the farms studied present a taxonomic variety of biomass (3,150 individuals). In general, a low domain (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′ = 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.

Table 7. Diversity index by farm.

Index	Farm 1	Farm 2	Farm 3	Farm 4	Farm 5	Farm 6	Farm 7	Farm 8
Taxa_S	10	11	9	11	11	10	11	11
Individuals	520	560	145	225	380	515	355	450
Dominance (D)	0.167	0.3887	0.2366	0.2138	0.2545	0.3347	0.287	0.2044
Simpson (1-D)	0.833	0.6113	0.7634	0.7862	0.7455	0.6653	0.713	0.7956
Shannon (H)	1.989	1.358	1.73	1.824	1.673	1.393	1.6	1.828
Margalef (Mg)	1.439	1.58	1.607	1.846	1.683	1.441	1.703	1.637
Equitability (J)	0.8637	0.5663	0.7873	0.7605	0.6975	0.6051	0.6671	0.7622

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), it is shown that the discrepancies in the constitution of the megafauna’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 destroyers identified by Moore et al. (2004).

This supports the findings regarding the fact that monoculture influences the available resources and, therefore, is capable of affecting the interactions between functional groups × m² 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.

The analysis confirmed that Posoltega had lower populations of herbivores per m² and 460 carnivores per m² (Table 3).

Table 8 shows the diversity indicators by functional groups. These are predominantly detritivores and predators of 400 × m², in contrast to El Verdón on farm 4, which has a low population of herbivores of 400 × m², detritivores 85 ind. × m² due to the large population of predators found. Similarly, at Farm 8 Los Angeles there were no herbivores. This is due to the large population of 250 ind. × m² predators (Tables 3-5 and 6).

Table 8. Diversity Indexes by functional group.

Indexes	Farm 1	Farm 2	Farm 3	Farm 4	Farm 5	Farm 6	Farm 7	Farm 8
Herbivores
Taxa_S	2	2	2	1	1	0	0	1
Individuals	25	10	15	45	10	0	0	10
Dominance (D)	0.52	0.5	0.5556	1	1	0	0	1
Index (1-D)	0.48	0.5	0.4444	0	0	0	0	0
Index (H)	0.673	0.6931	0.6365	0	0	0	0	0
Index (Mg)	0.3107	0.4343	0.3693	0	0	0	0	0
Index (J)	0.971	1	0.9183	0	0	0	0	0
Detritivores
Taxa_S	5	6	5	5	4	6	6	5
Individuals	365	400	120	150	170	310	165	355
Dominance (D)	0.2843	0.6731	0.3333	0.3822	0.7837	0.5473	0.4325	0.3073
Index (1-D)	0.7157	0.3269	0.6667	0.6178	0.2163	0.4527	0.5675	0.6927
Index (H)	1.388	0.7131	1.257	1.132	0.4845	0.9716	1.135	1.271
Index (Mg)	0.678	0.8345	0.8355	0.7983	0.5841	0.8716	0.9793	0.6812
Index (J)	0.8627	0.398	0.7812	0.7034	0.3495	0.5423	0.6333	0.7898
Predators
Taxa_S	3	3	2	5	6	4	5	5
Individuals	130	150	10	30	200	205	190	85
Dominance (D)	0.4112	0.6289	0.5	0.2222	0.35	0.8608	0.6759	0.3564
Index (1-D)	0.5888	0.3711	0.5	0.7778	0.65	0.1392	0.3241	0.6436
Index (H)	0.9632	0.639	0.6931	1.561	1.259	0.3422	0.713	1.262
Index (Mg)	0.4109	0.3992	0.4343	1.176	0.9437	0.5636	0.7623	0.9004
Index (J)	0.8768	0.5816	1	0.9697	0.7025	0.2468	0.443	0.7843

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′) 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.

Three indicators dominate 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′) 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.

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 Lombrices, 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.

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 × m² were collected, followed by the Montes Verde farm (Farm 6) with 225 ind × m². Hymenoptera were dominant on the San Joaquín farm (Farm 5) with 175 ind × m² and on farm 7 with 165 ind × m² (Table 9 and Figure 3).

Table 9. Agricultural production (banana units per ha) and the abundance of earthworms and hymenopteran insects (ind × m²).

Farm ID	Community	Real production of number of fingers per ha	Hymenoptera per square meter	Worms per square meter	Estimated overall earthworm production	Estimated production by zone of worms or Hymenoptera
1	Santa Isabel	256,000	60	150	38183.9	33585.36
2	Quinta Cony	91,000	150	325	96299.82	88084.08
3	San Martin	7,500	10	50	4974.8	2206.36
4	El Verdón	1,300	50	65	9956.16	1524.32
5	San Joaquín	1,250	175	150	38183.9	25825
6	Montes Verdes	80,000	190	225	63090.72	70250
7	María de los Ángeles	10,500	165	100	21579.35	4125
8	Los Ángeles	85,000	60	125	29881.62	85000

Figure 3. Real production vs. Hymenoptera and worms.

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 y × ha in farm 8 and farm 6 with 85,000 × ha in Montes Verdes for the Posoltega area (Figures 3 and 4).

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

Pearson's correlation analysis commonly correlates agricultural production (plantain units per 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. × m² 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.

Table 10. Pearson correlation coefficients of the production of Cuerno Dwarf plantain units (AAB) with the density per square meter of earthworms and Hymenoptera insects.

Study zone	Production	Lombrices	Hymenopteras
Both areas
Production		*0.743**	0.261*
Lombrices	*0.743**		0.608*
Hymenopteras	0.261*	0.608*
León
Production		*0.988**	*0.942**
Lombrices	*0.988**		*0.968**
Hymenopteras	0.942*	0.968*
Posoltega
Production		0.465*	-0.484*
Lombrices	0.465*		0.469*
Hymenopteras	-0.484*	0.469*

* Significance p < 0.05.

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 shows the Pearson correlation coefficients by farm.

Table 11. Pearson correlation by farm.

Farm1	Farm2	Farm3	Farm4	Farm5	Farm6	Farm7	Farm8
1	.781^**	.765^**	.377^*	.502^**	.526^**	.278	.407^*
.781^**	1	.667^**	.539^**	.704^**	.686^**	.433^*	.520^**
.765^**	.667^**	1	.426^*	.513^**	.477^**	.302	.394^*
.377^*	.539^**	.426^*	1	.461^*	.450^*	.303	.462^*
.502^**	.704^**	.513^**	.461^*	1	.863^**	.747^**	.518^**
.526^**	.686^**	.477^**	.450^*	.863^**	1	.368^*	.428^*
.278	.433^*	.302	.303	.747^**	.368^*	1	.590^**
.407^*	.520^**	.394^*	.462^*	.518^**	.428^*	.590^**	1

Conclusions

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 cm², 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 m², while in the Posoltega area it was 1,700 individuals per m².

The Shannon-Wiener (H′) 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′) 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 agrosystem 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.

Data availability

Underlying data

Zenodo: Data for: Diversity of Functional Edaphic Macrofauna in Musa acuminata × Musa balbisiana (AAB) Agroecosystems. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7242968 (Zuniga-Gonzalez et al., 2022).

This project contains the following underlying data:

- DataLeon.csv (data for farms in Leon)
- DataPosoltega.csv (data for farms in Posoltega)
- Figue_2.jpg
- Figure_1.jpg
- Figure_3.jpg
- Figure_4.jpg
- NIH.csv (data on genera)
- Tabla 3.png
- Table 4_.jpg
- Table 5.png
- Table 6.png
- Table_1.jpg
- Table_10.jpg
- Table_11.jpg
- Table_2.jpg
- Table_7.jpg
- Table_8.jpg
- Table_9.jpg

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

References

Alcaraván A: Fundacion el Aura. Gobernacion de Siembra y Manejo del Cultivo de Plátano en el Departamento de Arauca. Colombia:Miro Publicidad;2003; 16.
Almonte-Espinosa H: Estructura y composición de un ensamblaje de aves asociadas al río Maimón, República Dominicana. Novitates Caribaea. 2022; 19: 24–42. Publisher Full Text
Anderson, Ingram JSI: Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility: A Handbook of Methods. 2nd ed.International, Wallingford, UK:C.A.B.;1993; 221.
Berning EH, Andersen CVH, Mertz O, et al.: Resilience of breadfruit agro-ecosystems in Hawaiʻi during the COVID-19 pandemic. CABI Agric Biosci. 2022; 3: 56. Publisher Full Text
Belalcázar S, Rosales FE, Espinosa MJ: Altas densidades de siembra en plátano, una alternativa rentable y sostenible de producción. Taller Manejo convencional y alternativo de la sigatoka negra, nematodos y otras plagas asociadas al cultivo de musáceas en los trópicos. Guayaquil, Ecuador:MUSALAC, INIBAP;2003; 55–63.
Brown, Fragoso C, Barois I, et al.: Diversidad y rol funcional de la macrofauna edáfica en los ecosistemas tropicales mexicanos. Acta Zoológica Mexicana (nueva serie). 2001; (1): 79–110. Publisher Full Text
Curry JP, Good JA:Soil faunal degradation and restoration. Soil restoration. New York, NY:Springer;1992; (pp. 171–215).
Castañeda CLZ, Hugo SIE, Diana QCZ: Análisis del comportamiento de las variables bióticas de la reserva nacional de lachay al evento el niño (1998-2001, 2010). Ecología Aplicada. 2002 Ene [citado 2022 Oct 05]; 21(1): 35–47. Epub 03-Jul-2022. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
Cardona MJG, Carvajal SLB, Salinas DGC, et al.: Seminario Internacional sobre Producción de Plátano. Armenia, Quindfo, Colombia:International Seminar on Plantain Production;1998; 322.
Castillo F, Vera L: Comparación de la biodiversidad de la macrofauna de suelos bananeros con manejo convencional y orgánico en EARTH. Guácimo, Costa Rica:Trabajo de grado Ingeniero Agrónomo. Universidad EARTH;2000.
Challinor AJ, Ewert F, Arnold S, et al.: Crops and climate change: progress, trends, and challenges in simulating impacts and informing adaptation. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2009; 60(10): 2775–2789. Publisher Full Text
Djigal, Saj S, Rabary B, et al.: Mulch type affects soil biological functioning and crop yield of conservation agriculture systems in a long-term experiment in Madagascar. Soil and Tillage Research. 2012; 118: 11–21. Publisher Full Text
Delgado, Rosales F, Trejos J, et al.: Índice de Calidad y Salud de Suelos para plantaciones bananeras en cuatro países de América Latina y el Caribe. Bioagro. 2010a; 22(1): 53–60.
Delgado E, Trejos J, Villalobos M, et al.: Determinación de un índice de calidad y salud de suelos para plantaciones bananeras en Venezuela. Interciencia. 2010b; 35(12): 927–933.
Decaëns T, Jiménez JJ, Barros E, et al.: Soil macrofaunal communities in permanent pastures derived from tropical forest or savanna. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2004; 103(2): 301–312. Publisher Full Text
Gliessman SR: Agroecology: Growing the Roots of Resistance. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems. 2013; 37: 19–31. Publisher Full Text
Gizzi AH, Castillo Á, Héctor A, et al.: Caracterización de la meso y macrofauna edáfica en sistemas de cultivo del Sudeste Bonaerense. Ciencia del suelo. 2009; 27: 1–9.
Gutiérrez-Luna R, Castillo-Quiroz D, Castillo-Reyes F, et al.: Evaluación de prácticas de manejo de suelo para la siembra de zacate Buffel (Cenchrus ciliaris L.), bajo condiciones de temporal en el sureste de Coahuila. Revista Latinoamericana De Recursos Naturales. 2022; 18(1): 39–47. Recuperado a partir de.Reference Source
Krebs JR, Wilson JD, Bradbury RB, et al.: The second silent spring? Nature. 1999; 400(6745): 611–612.
Laossia K-R, Barota S'b, Carvalhob D, et al.: Effects of plant diversity on plant biomass production and soil macrofauna in Amazonian pastures. Pedobiologia. 2008; 51: 397–407. Publisher Full Text
Leyva-Rodríguez SL, Baldoquín-Pagán A, Reynó-Manduley Y, et al.: Influencia del uso del suelo en la macrofauna edáfica en áreas de la región norte del municipio de Las Tunas. Innovación Tecnológica. 2012; 18(4): 13.
López A, Espinoza J: Manual de Nutrición y Fertilización de Banano: una visión práctica del manejo de la fertilización.1995; 86 p.
Melo Franco MC: Evaluación de la macrofauna edáfica en parcelas experimentales enmendadas con biosólidos en diferente proporción en el aula ambiental Soratama loc. Usaquén Bogotá DC:2010.
de Fomento M , Comercio I, de Nicaragua MIFIC : Ficha del Platano.Trad. Managua, Nicaragua:IFIC;2007; 21.
McKelvie-Sebileau P, Rees D, Tipene-Leach D, et al.: Community Co-Design of Regional Actions for Children’s Nutritional Health Combining Indigenous Knowledge and Systems Thinking. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19: 4936. Publisher Full Text
McLaughlin A, Mineau P: The impact of agricultural practices on biodiversity. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 1995; 55(3): 201–212. Publisher Full Text
Moore JC, Berlow EL, Coleman DC, et al.: Detritus, trophic dynamics and biodiversity. Ecology letters. 2004; 7(7): 584–600. Publisher Full Text
Medina CRQ, Castellón JD, Navas NEC, et al.: Caracterización de la macrofauna edáfica en diferentes sistemas agroforestales, en el Municipio de San Ramón, Departamento de Matagalpa, Nicaragua. Nexo Revista Científica. 2021; 34(02): 572–582. Publisher Full Text
Priego-Castillo GA, Galmiche-Tejeda A, Castelán-Estrada M, et al.: Evaluación de la sustentabilidad de dos sistemas de producción de cacao: estudios de caso en unidades de producción rural en Comalcalco, Tabasco. universidad y ciencia. 2009; 25(1): 39–57.
Pashanasi B: Estudio cuantitativo de la macrofauna del suelo en diferentes sistemas de uso de la tierra en la amazonía peruana. FOLIA AMAZÓNICA. 2001; 12(1-2): 75–97. Publisher Full Text
Pocasangre L, Brown D, Quesada L: Innovaciones Tecnologicas Para El Manejo Y Mejoramiento De La Calidad Y Salud De Suelos Bananeros De America Latina Y El Caribe. CR.2009; 94 p.
Quiroz-Medina CR, Chavez DJ, Lanuza-Reyes CR, et al.: Patogenecidad de hongos entomopatógenos en termitas en plantaciones de Moringa oleífera, Posoltega Nicaragua. Revista Iberoamericana de Bioeconomia y Cambio Climatico. 2021; 7(14): 1741–1752. Publisher Full Text
Ruiz N, Lavelle P, Jiménez J: SOIL MACROFAUNA FIELD MANUAL.2008; p. 113.
Rousseau, Fonte SJ, Téllez O, et al.: Soil macrofauna as indicators of soil quality and land use impacts in smallholder agroecosystems of western Nicaragua. Ecological Indicators. 2013; 27: 71–82. Publisher Full Text
Rousseau, Deheuvels O, Rodriguez Arias I, et al.: Indicating soil quality in cacao-based agroforestry systems and old-growth forests: The potential of soil macrofauna assemblage. Ecological Indicators. 2012; 23: 535–543. Publisher Full Text
Samudio VC: Evaluación de la producción de plátano de la variedad Curaré enano en función de dos épocas de siembra y tres programas de fertilización en Zamorano, Honduras.2010; 26 p.
Shiyam JO, Oko BFD, Obiefuna JC, et al.: Optimizing the Productivity of Plantain/Cocoyam Mixture by Mulching and Fertilizer Application. World Journal of Fungal and Plant Biology. 2010; 1(2): 42–45.
Rodríguez AT, Elena M, Vera B, et al.: Evaluación ambiental de la práctica “embolsado” en plátano (musa aab simmonds). Quindío. Colombia. Revista Luna Azul (On Line). 2013; 36: 91–109.
Tresson P, Tixier P, Puech W, et al.: Caught on camera: Field imagery reveals the unexpected importance of vertebrates for biological control of the banana weevil (Cosmopolites sordidus Col. Curculionidae). PLoS One. 2022; 17(9): e0274223. Publisher Full Text
Velásquez E, Fonte SJ, Barot S, et al.: Soil macrofauna-mediated impacts of plant species composition on soil functioning in Amazonian pastures. Applied Soil Ecology. 2012; 56: 43–50. Publisher Full Text
Velasquez E, Pelosi C, Brunet D, et al.: This ped is my ped: Visual separation and near infrared spectra allow determination of the origins of soil macroaggregates. Pedobiologia. 2007; 51(1): 75–87. Publisher Full Text
Wardle DA:Impacts of disturbance on detritus food webs in agro-ecosystems of contrasting tillage and weed management practices. Advances in ecological research. Academic Press;1995; (Vol. 26. , pp. 105–185).
Zerbino MS: Evaluación de la macrofauna del suelo en rotaciones cultivos-pasturas con laboreo convencionaL. Acta Zoológica Mexicana. 2010; 189–202.
Zerbino S, Altier N, Morón A, et al.: Evaluación de la macrofauna del suelo en sistemas de producción en siembra directa y con pastoreo. Agrociencia. 2008; 12(1): 44–55.
Zayas Sierra F, Sánches Bautista NI, Pedro Kesell I, et al.: Empleo del humus de lombriz como alternativa agroecológica para el incremento de los rendimientos agrícolas del cultivo plátano macho ¾ (musa sp.) en un sistema extra denso: Empleo del humus de lombriz como alternativa agroecológica para el incremento de los rendimientos agrícolas del cultivo plátano macho ¾ (musa sp.) en un sistema extra denso. Investigación Y Ciencia Aplicada a La Ingeniería. 2022; 5(29): 53–60. Recuperado a partir de.Reference Source
Zuniga-Gonzalez CA, Caballero-Hernandez AJ, Quiroz-Medina CR:Data for: Diversity of Functional Edaphic Macrofauna in Musa acuminata × Musa balbisiana (AAB) Agroecosystems. [Dataset]. F10000Research (Version v2, Number version 1). Zenodo. 2022. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 4

VERSION 4 PUBLISHED 14 Nov 2022

Author details Author details

C. A. Zúniga-Gonzalez
Roles: Data Curation, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

A. J. Caballero-Hernández
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (4)

version 4

Revised

Published: 18 Jun 2024, 11:1300

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.127300.4

version 3

Revised

Published: 16 Jan 2024, 11:1300

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.127300.3

version 2

Revised

Published: 20 Sep 2023, 11:1300

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.127300.2

version 1

Published: 14 Nov 2022, 11:1300

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.127300.1

© 2022 Zúniga-Gonzalez CA and Caballero-Hernández AJ. This is an open access article 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.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Zúniga-Gonzalez CA and Caballero-Hernández AJ. Diversity of functional edaphic macrofauna in Musa acuminata x Musa balbisiana (AAB) agroecosystems [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2022, 11:1300 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.127300.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 14 Nov 2022

Views

Reviewer Report 19 Jul 2023

Jérôme Mathieu, Sorbonne Universite, Paris, Île-de-France, France

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.139795.r177964

Main comments

Please improve the English language and grammar.
Please give more information about the differences between the plots and use them to explain the differences in soil macrofauna communities.

Main comments

Please improve the English language and grammar.
Please give more information about the differences between the plots and use them to explain the differences in soil macrofauna communities.
Please compare your results to past studies on similar cultures.

Minor comments

First page

Dominion = Dominance?
Conclusions: are you sure that these ants are detritivore?

Introduction

Second sentence: please reduce the number of citations.
Paragraph #2 (Similarly…) : please reduce the number of citations.

Last paragraph:

Change to "this work focused..."
Please describe the management of the plots (conventional/organic, tillage, pesticides, fertilization, irrigation and so on).
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.

Methods

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.
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.
Please delete " (various population densities 1 m2)".
Isn't it 'Dominance' instead of 'Domain'?
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.
Figure 2: The name of the taxa is difficult to read because of the low quality of the plot.
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).
Please compare your results with previous studies on banana plantations.
Table 7: please explain what is "taxa_" and "individuals".
Table 8: Please use "ind.m-2" not "x m2".
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.

Diversity and productivity

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?
Table 9:

- 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.

- What do you mean by "real"?
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?
Table 10: please say "banana production".
Figure 3 & table 11:

- If you have several replicates per farm, please use them in fig. 3 and add the regression line for all data and by plot, and include plot as a random factor in the analysis.

- Consider changing table 11 by a pairwise correlation plot the tests on one side of the diagonal (see ggpairs() in R for instance).
Figure 4: please add taxa richness and if possible functional groups' abundance.

Data availability:

Please put the data from the two sites into one file.
Please use the standard reporting template for soil macrofauna communities: https://zenodo.org/record/7691884
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).

Is 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?

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.

Reviewer Expertise: Soil ecology

I confirm that I 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.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 20 Sep 2023

C. A. Zuniga-Gonzalez, Department of Agroecology, Faculty of Agrarian and Veterinary Sciences, Bioeconomy and Climate Change Research Center, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, Leon, 21000, Nicaragua

20 Sep 2023

Author Response

Main comments
[1] Please improve the English language and grammar.
Response: Dear reviewer we appreciate your valuable observation, we are proceeding with the total revision of the article.

[2] ... Continue reading Main comments
[1] Please improve the English language and grammar.
Response: Dear reviewer we appreciate your valuable observation, we are proceeding with the total revision of the article.

[2] Please give more information about the differences between the plots and use them to explain the differences in soil macrofauna communities.
Response: Thanks for this observation. In Methods section was added this information with the subtitle farms data where explicated your characteristics and differences.

[3] Please compare your results to past studies on similar cultures.
Response: Yes, the past studies were compared with Costa Rica and Nicaragua studies.
However, were added more cites as you indicated. Table 2 (Paragraph one) is similar to Zerbino et al. (2008), we also, refers the works of Priego-Castillo et al. (2009) and Castillo and Vera (2000) for the table 4, 5 and 6, also we refer to Pashanasi (2001), Zerbino (2010), the results of table 5 are referred and similar to Melo (2010), Rousseau et al. (2012, 2013). For the results of the Table 8 and 9 were added the cites.
Response: Dear thanks for this observation, it was added. In each result was added cite as you indicated.

Minor comments
[4] First page Dominion = Dominance?
Response: Thanks for it. We checked all the article and it was changed.

[5] Conclusions: are you sure that these ants are detritivores?
Response: Dear reviewer you know that Detritivorous ants are those that primarily feed on dead organic matter and help break down and recycle organic materials in ecosystems. We find two genera (earthworms and Hymenoptera), so the ants are referred to the detritivore genus because ants feeds on dead and decaying organic matter, such as plant material (Musa acuminata x Musa balbisiana (AAB), they are moist soils with a lot of plant organic matter. Thanks for the observation.

Introduction
[6] Second sentence: please reduce the number of citations. Paragraph #2 (Similarly…) : please reduce the number of citations.
Response: Thanks for this observation, we have been checked all article and changed it.

[7] Last paragraph: Change to "this work focused..."
Response: It was changed.

[8] Please describe the management of the plots (conventional/organic, tillage, pesticides, fertilization, irrigation and so on).
Response: Thanks for this observation we have added a subsection (Agro system farms) in the methods section, there we explain the characteristics of the 8 farms and how they have been moving from conventional practices to agroecological farms.

[9] 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.oi where we explicate the methodology. Thanks for the observation.

Methods
[10] Please say in the text that sampling is based on litter and monolith extraction and is inspired by the TSBF method.
Response: It was added. Also we added the cite [47].

[11] Table 1: Please mention what these columns refer to.
Response: Thanks for this observation, a comment on this was added before Table 1.

[12] Table 2: 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"N Latitude 86°54'40.2"W Longitude)

[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 m² (50 cm long × 20 cm wide), as described in Rousseau et al. (2012), Rousseau et al. (2013), and Medina 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.

[17] Please delete " (various population densities 1 m2)".
Response: It was eliminated.

[18] Isn't it 'Dominance' instead of 'Domain'?
Response: It was changed.

[19] No need to give the formula of the Shannon index.
Response: Dear reviewer, thanks for this observation. Dear reviewer, we have decided to give the formula.

Results & Discussion

[20] 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.
Response: Ok it was made in both tables.

[21] Figure 2: The name of the taxa is difficult to read because of the low quality of the plot.
Response: Ok we sent another figure with the best resolution.

[22] Table 5: These are taxa, not species. Please translate into ind.m-2, add errors, and remove totals by location.
Response: Ok thanks for this observation. All was changed.

[23]Table 6: "lumbrices" is not a correct genus or taxa, please correct it.
Response: Yes, it is correct, thanks for this observation. All was changed.

[24] There are many typos in the name of family and genus. Please correct (e.g., Formocidae).
Response: Ok thanks for this observation. It was checked and corrected.

[25] Please compare your results with previous studies on banana plantations.
Response: Of course, it was checked and added as you indicated.

[26] Table 7: please explain what is "taxa_" and "individuals".
Response: Thanks for this observation, the taxa was change by Genus Types and individuals, by Ind. m²

[27] Table 8: Please use "ind.m-2" not "x m2".
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.
Response: Ok thanks for this observations. It was corrected.

[28] Diversity and productivity
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. m² 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. m².

[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).

[32] 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. 3 and add the regression line for all data and by plot, and include plot as a random factor in the analysis.
- Consider changing 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 us as Fig 5. Dear, we appreciate your observation, but due to a problem that we had already defined in the methodology that we work with SPSS, which suggests that we do it with SPSS and we have added fig. 6.

[34] Figure 4: please add taxa richness and if possible functional groups' abundance.
Response: Dear thanks for this observation, only we added taxa richness, the functional group’ abundances, we consider that was discussed on the table 3 and 4. Was added the Fig 5. Shannon Index.

[35] Data availability:
Please put the data from the two sites into one file.
Response: Ok

Please use the standard reporting template for soil macrofauna communities: https://zenodo.org/record/7691884
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).
Response: Ok thanks for your consideration.
Main comments
[1] Please improve the English language and grammar.
Response: Dear reviewer we appreciate your valuable observation, we are proceeding with the total revision of the article.

[2] Please give more information about the differences between the plots and use them to explain the differences in soil macrofauna communities.
Response: Thanks for this observation. In Methods section was added this information with the subtitle farms data where explicated your characteristics and differences.

[3] Please compare your results to past studies on similar cultures.
Response: Yes, the past studies were compared with Costa Rica and Nicaragua studies.
However, were added more cites as you indicated. Table 2 (Paragraph one) is similar to Zerbino et al. (2008), we also, refers the works of Priego-Castillo et al. (2009) and Castillo and Vera (2000) for the table 4, 5 and 6, also we refer to Pashanasi (2001), Zerbino (2010), the results of table 5 are referred and similar to Melo (2010), Rousseau et al. (2012, 2013). For the results of the Table 8 and 9 were added the cites.
Response: Dear thanks for this observation, it was added. In each result was added cite as you indicated.

Minor comments
[4] First page Dominion = Dominance?
Response: Thanks for it. We checked all the article and it was changed.

[5] Conclusions: are you sure that these ants are detritivores?
Response: Dear reviewer you know that Detritivorous ants are those that primarily feed on dead organic matter and help break down and recycle organic materials in ecosystems. We find two genera (earthworms and Hymenoptera), so the ants are referred to the detritivore genus because ants feeds on dead and decaying organic matter, such as plant material (Musa acuminata x Musa balbisiana (AAB), they are moist soils with a lot of plant organic matter. Thanks for the observation.

Introduction
[6] Second sentence: please reduce the number of citations. Paragraph #2 (Similarly…) : please reduce the number of citations.
Response: Thanks for this observation, we have been checked all article and changed it.

[7] Last paragraph: Change to "this work focused..."
Response: It was changed.

[8] Please describe the management of the plots (conventional/organic, tillage, pesticides, fertilization, irrigation and so on).
Response: Thanks for this observation we have added a subsection (Agro system farms) in the methods section, there we explain the characteristics of the 8 farms and how they have been moving from conventional practices to agroecological farms.

[9] 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.oi where we explicate the methodology. Thanks for the observation.

Methods
[10] Please say in the text that sampling is based on litter and monolith extraction and is inspired by the TSBF method.
Response: It was added. Also we added the cite [47].

[11] Table 1: Please mention what these columns refer to.
Response: Thanks for this observation, a comment on this was added before Table 1.

[12] Table 2: 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"N Latitude 86°54'40.2"W Longitude)

[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 m² (50 cm long × 20 cm wide), as described in Rousseau et al. (2012), Rousseau et al. (2013), and Medina 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.

[17] Please delete " (various population densities 1 m2)".
Response: It was eliminated.

[18] Isn't it 'Dominance' instead of 'Domain'?
Response: It was changed.

[19] No need to give the formula of the Shannon index.
Response: Dear reviewer, thanks for this observation. Dear reviewer, we have decided to give the formula.

Results & Discussion

[20] 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.
Response: Ok it was made in both tables.

[21] Figure 2: The name of the taxa is difficult to read because of the low quality of the plot.
Response: Ok we sent another figure with the best resolution.

[22] Table 5: These are taxa, not species. Please translate into ind.m-2, add errors, and remove totals by location.
Response: Ok thanks for this observation. All was changed.

[23]Table 6: "lumbrices" is not a correct genus or taxa, please correct it.
Response: Yes, it is correct, thanks for this observation. All was changed.

[24] There are many typos in the name of family and genus. Please correct (e.g., Formocidae).
Response: Ok thanks for this observation. It was checked and corrected.

[25] Please compare your results with previous studies on banana plantations.
Response: Of course, it was checked and added as you indicated.

[26] Table 7: please explain what is "taxa_" and "individuals".
Response: Thanks for this observation, the taxa was change by Genus Types and individuals, by Ind. m²

[27] Table 8: Please use "ind.m-2" not "x m2".
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.
Response: Ok thanks for this observations. It was corrected.

[28] Diversity and productivity
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. m² 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. m².

[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).

[32] 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. 3 and add the regression line for all data and by plot, and include plot as a random factor in the analysis.
- Consider changing 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 us as Fig 5. Dear, we appreciate your observation, but due to a problem that we had already defined in the methodology that we work with SPSS, which suggests that we do it with SPSS and we have added fig. 6.

[34] Figure 4: please add taxa richness and if possible functional groups' abundance.
Response: Dear thanks for this observation, only we added taxa richness, the functional group’ abundances, we consider that was discussed on the table 3 and 4. Was added the Fig 5. Shannon Index.

[35] Data availability:
Please put the data from the two sites into one file.
Response: Ok

Please use the standard reporting template for soil macrofauna communities: https://zenodo.org/record/7691884
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).
Response: Ok thanks for your consideration.
Competing Interests: The authors disclose that we don't have any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Close
Report a concern
Author Response 16 Jan 2024

C. A. Zuniga-Gonzalez, Department of Agroecology, Faculty of Agrarian and Veterinary Sciences, Bioeconomy and Climate Change Research Center, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, Leon, 21000, Nicaragua

16 Jan 2024

Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2, the data availability, has been duly addressed:
1. Data Compilation: The data from both sites has been consolidated into a singular file as requested.
2. Template
... Continue reading
Dear Reviewer 2, the data availability, has been duly addressed:

Data Compilation: The data from both sites has been consolidated into a singular file as requested.

Template Utilization: The standard reporting template for soil macrofauna communities, accessible at https://zenodo.org/record/7691884, has been utilized to format the dataset.

Data Format: The provided data remains in its raw form, organized either by monolith or by layer, ensuring it is not aggregated by plot, as specified.

Metadata Inclusion: Essential metadata such as coordinates, sampling date (year, month, day), management details, and other relevant information, following the template, have been added to the dataset.

By adhering to these instructions, we've ensured the data is compiled appropriately, formatted using the standard template, remains in its raw form, and includes essential metadata, thereby meeting the specified requirements for data availability.
Dear Reviewer 2, the data availability, has been duly addressed:

Data Compilation: The data from both sites has been consolidated into a singular file as requested.

Template Utilization: The standard reporting template for soil macrofauna communities, accessible at https://zenodo.org/record/7691884, has been utilized to format the dataset.

Data Format: The provided data remains in its raw form, organized either by monolith or by layer, ensuring it is not aggregated by plot, as specified.

Metadata Inclusion: Essential metadata such as coordinates, sampling date (year, month, day), management details, and other relevant information, following the template, have been added to the dataset.

By adhering to these instructions, we've ensured the data is compiled appropriately, formatted using the standard template, remains in its raw form, and includes essential metadata, thereby meeting the specified requirements for data availability.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 20 Sep 2023

C. A. Zuniga-Gonzalez, Department of Agroecology, Faculty of Agrarian and Veterinary Sciences, Bioeconomy and Climate Change Research Center, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, Leon, 21000, Nicaragua

20 Sep 2023

Author Response

Main comments
[1] Please improve the English language and grammar.
Response: Dear reviewer we appreciate your valuable observation, we are proceeding with the total revision of the article.

[2] ... Continue reading Main comments
[1] Please improve the English language and grammar.
Response: Dear reviewer we appreciate your valuable observation, we are proceeding with the total revision of the article.

[2] Please give more information about the differences between the plots and use them to explain the differences in soil macrofauna communities.
Response: Thanks for this observation. In Methods section was added this information with the subtitle farms data where explicated your characteristics and differences.

[3] Please compare your results to past studies on similar cultures.
Response: Yes, the past studies were compared with Costa Rica and Nicaragua studies.
However, were added more cites as you indicated. Table 2 (Paragraph one) is similar to Zerbino et al. (2008), we also, refers the works of Priego-Castillo et al. (2009) and Castillo and Vera (2000) for the table 4, 5 and 6, also we refer to Pashanasi (2001), Zerbino (2010), the results of table 5 are referred and similar to Melo (2010), Rousseau et al. (2012, 2013). For the results of the Table 8 and 9 were added the cites.
Response: Dear thanks for this observation, it was added. In each result was added cite as you indicated.

Minor comments
[4] First page Dominion = Dominance?
Response: Thanks for it. We checked all the article and it was changed.

[5] Conclusions: are you sure that these ants are detritivores?
Response: Dear reviewer you know that Detritivorous ants are those that primarily feed on dead organic matter and help break down and recycle organic materials in ecosystems. We find two genera (earthworms and Hymenoptera), so the ants are referred to the detritivore genus because ants feeds on dead and decaying organic matter, such as plant material (Musa acuminata x Musa balbisiana (AAB), they are moist soils with a lot of plant organic matter. Thanks for the observation.

Introduction
[6] Second sentence: please reduce the number of citations. Paragraph #2 (Similarly…) : please reduce the number of citations.
Response: Thanks for this observation, we have been checked all article and changed it.

[7] Last paragraph: Change to "this work focused..."
Response: It was changed.

[8] Please describe the management of the plots (conventional/organic, tillage, pesticides, fertilization, irrigation and so on).
Response: Thanks for this observation we have added a subsection (Agro system farms) in the methods section, there we explain the characteristics of the 8 farms and how they have been moving from conventional practices to agroecological farms.

[9] 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.oi where we explicate the methodology. Thanks for the observation.

Methods
[10] Please say in the text that sampling is based on litter and monolith extraction and is inspired by the TSBF method.
Response: It was added. Also we added the cite [47].

[11] Table 1: Please mention what these columns refer to.
Response: Thanks for this observation, a comment on this was added before Table 1.

[12] Table 2: 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"N Latitude 86°54'40.2"W Longitude)

[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 m² (50 cm long × 20 cm wide), as described in Rousseau et al. (2012), Rousseau et al. (2013), and Medina 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.

[17] Please delete " (various population densities 1 m2)".
Response: It was eliminated.

[18] Isn't it 'Dominance' instead of 'Domain'?
Response: It was changed.

[19] No need to give the formula of the Shannon index.
Response: Dear reviewer, thanks for this observation. Dear reviewer, we have decided to give the formula.

Results & Discussion

[20] 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.
Response: Ok it was made in both tables.

[21] Figure 2: The name of the taxa is difficult to read because of the low quality of the plot.
Response: Ok we sent another figure with the best resolution.

[22] Table 5: These are taxa, not species. Please translate into ind.m-2, add errors, and remove totals by location.
Response: Ok thanks for this observation. All was changed.

[23]Table 6: "lumbrices" is not a correct genus or taxa, please correct it.
Response: Yes, it is correct, thanks for this observation. All was changed.

[24] There are many typos in the name of family and genus. Please correct (e.g., Formocidae).
Response: Ok thanks for this observation. It was checked and corrected.

[25] Please compare your results with previous studies on banana plantations.
Response: Of course, it was checked and added as you indicated.

[26] Table 7: please explain what is "taxa_" and "individuals".
Response: Thanks for this observation, the taxa was change by Genus Types and individuals, by Ind. m²

[27] Table 8: Please use "ind.m-2" not "x m2".
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.
Response: Ok thanks for this observations. It was corrected.

[28] Diversity and productivity
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. m² 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. m².

[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).

[32] 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. 3 and add the regression line for all data and by plot, and include plot as a random factor in the analysis.
- Consider changing 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 us as Fig 5. Dear, we appreciate your observation, but due to a problem that we had already defined in the methodology that we work with SPSS, which suggests that we do it with SPSS and we have added fig. 6.

[34] Figure 4: please add taxa richness and if possible functional groups' abundance.
Response: Dear thanks for this observation, only we added taxa richness, the functional group’ abundances, we consider that was discussed on the table 3 and 4. Was added the Fig 5. Shannon Index.

[35] Data availability:
Please put the data from the two sites into one file.
Response: Ok

Please use the standard reporting template for soil macrofauna communities: https://zenodo.org/record/7691884
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).
Response: Ok thanks for your consideration.
Main comments
[1] Please improve the English language and grammar.
Response: Dear reviewer we appreciate your valuable observation, we are proceeding with the total revision of the article.

[2] Please give more information about the differences between the plots and use them to explain the differences in soil macrofauna communities.
Response: Thanks for this observation. In Methods section was added this information with the subtitle farms data where explicated your characteristics and differences.

[3] Please compare your results to past studies on similar cultures.
Response: Yes, the past studies were compared with Costa Rica and Nicaragua studies.
However, were added more cites as you indicated. Table 2 (Paragraph one) is similar to Zerbino et al. (2008), we also, refers the works of Priego-Castillo et al. (2009) and Castillo and Vera (2000) for the table 4, 5 and 6, also we refer to Pashanasi (2001), Zerbino (2010), the results of table 5 are referred and similar to Melo (2010), Rousseau et al. (2012, 2013). For the results of the Table 8 and 9 were added the cites.
Response: Dear thanks for this observation, it was added. In each result was added cite as you indicated.

Minor comments
[4] First page Dominion = Dominance?
Response: Thanks for it. We checked all the article and it was changed.

[5] Conclusions: are you sure that these ants are detritivores?
Response: Dear reviewer you know that Detritivorous ants are those that primarily feed on dead organic matter and help break down and recycle organic materials in ecosystems. We find two genera (earthworms and Hymenoptera), so the ants are referred to the detritivore genus because ants feeds on dead and decaying organic matter, such as plant material (Musa acuminata x Musa balbisiana (AAB), they are moist soils with a lot of plant organic matter. Thanks for the observation.

Introduction
[6] Second sentence: please reduce the number of citations. Paragraph #2 (Similarly…) : please reduce the number of citations.
Response: Thanks for this observation, we have been checked all article and changed it.

[7] Last paragraph: Change to "this work focused..."
Response: It was changed.

[8] Please describe the management of the plots (conventional/organic, tillage, pesticides, fertilization, irrigation and so on).
Response: Thanks for this observation we have added a subsection (Agro system farms) in the methods section, there we explain the characteristics of the 8 farms and how they have been moving from conventional practices to agroecological farms.

[9] 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.oi where we explicate the methodology. Thanks for the observation.

Methods
[10] Please say in the text that sampling is based on litter and monolith extraction and is inspired by the TSBF method.
Response: It was added. Also we added the cite [47].

[11] Table 1: Please mention what these columns refer to.
Response: Thanks for this observation, a comment on this was added before Table 1.

[12] Table 2: 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"N Latitude 86°54'40.2"W Longitude)

[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 m² (50 cm long × 20 cm wide), as described in Rousseau et al. (2012), Rousseau et al. (2013), and Medina 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.

[17] Please delete " (various population densities 1 m2)".
Response: It was eliminated.

[18] Isn't it 'Dominance' instead of 'Domain'?
Response: It was changed.

[19] No need to give the formula of the Shannon index.
Response: Dear reviewer, thanks for this observation. Dear reviewer, we have decided to give the formula.

Results & Discussion

[20] 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.
Response: Ok it was made in both tables.

[21] Figure 2: The name of the taxa is difficult to read because of the low quality of the plot.
Response: Ok we sent another figure with the best resolution.

[22] Table 5: These are taxa, not species. Please translate into ind.m-2, add errors, and remove totals by location.
Response: Ok thanks for this observation. All was changed.

[23]Table 6: "lumbrices" is not a correct genus or taxa, please correct it.
Response: Yes, it is correct, thanks for this observation. All was changed.

[24] There are many typos in the name of family and genus. Please correct (e.g., Formocidae).
Response: Ok thanks for this observation. It was checked and corrected.

[25] Please compare your results with previous studies on banana plantations.
Response: Of course, it was checked and added as you indicated.

[26] Table 7: please explain what is "taxa_" and "individuals".
Response: Thanks for this observation, the taxa was change by Genus Types and individuals, by Ind. m²

[27] Table 8: Please use "ind.m-2" not "x m2".
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.
Response: Ok thanks for this observations. It was corrected.

[28] Diversity and productivity
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. m² 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. m².

[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).

[32] 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. 3 and add the regression line for all data and by plot, and include plot as a random factor in the analysis.
- Consider changing 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 us as Fig 5. Dear, we appreciate your observation, but due to a problem that we had already defined in the methodology that we work with SPSS, which suggests that we do it with SPSS and we have added fig. 6.

[34] Figure 4: please add taxa richness and if possible functional groups' abundance.
Response: Dear thanks for this observation, only we added taxa richness, the functional group’ abundances, we consider that was discussed on the table 3 and 4. Was added the Fig 5. Shannon Index.

[35] Data availability:
Please put the data from the two sites into one file.
Response: Ok

Please use the standard reporting template for soil macrofauna communities: https://zenodo.org/record/7691884
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).
Response: Ok thanks for your consideration.
Competing Interests: The authors disclose that we don't have any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Close
Report a concern
Author Response 16 Jan 2024

C. A. Zuniga-Gonzalez, Department of Agroecology, Faculty of Agrarian and Veterinary Sciences, Bioeconomy and Climate Change Research Center, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, Leon, 21000, Nicaragua

16 Jan 2024

Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2, the data availability, has been duly addressed:
1. Data Compilation: The data from both sites has been consolidated into a singular file as requested.
2. Template
... Continue reading
Dear Reviewer 2, the data availability, has been duly addressed:

Data Compilation: The data from both sites has been consolidated into a singular file as requested.

Template Utilization: The standard reporting template for soil macrofauna communities, accessible at https://zenodo.org/record/7691884, has been utilized to format the dataset.

Data Format: The provided data remains in its raw form, organized either by monolith or by layer, ensuring it is not aggregated by plot, as specified.

Metadata Inclusion: Essential metadata such as coordinates, sampling date (year, month, day), management details, and other relevant information, following the template, have been added to the dataset.

By adhering to these instructions, we've ensured the data is compiled appropriately, formatted using the standard template, remains in its raw form, and includes essential metadata, thereby meeting the specified requirements for data availability.
Dear Reviewer 2, the data availability, has been duly addressed:

Data Compilation: The data from both sites has been consolidated into a singular file as requested.

Template Utilization: The standard reporting template for soil macrofauna communities, accessible at https://zenodo.org/record/7691884, has been utilized to format the dataset.

Data Format: The provided data remains in its raw form, organized either by monolith or by layer, ensuring it is not aggregated by plot, as specified.

Metadata Inclusion: Essential metadata such as coordinates, sampling date (year, month, day), management details, and other relevant information, following the template, have been added to the dataset.

By adhering to these instructions, we've ensured the data is compiled appropriately, formatted using the standard template, remains in its raw form, and includes essential metadata, thereby meeting the specified requirements for data availability.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 07 Mar 2023

Angel Sol, Campus Tabasco, Colegio de Postgraduados, Texcoco, State of Mexico, Mexico

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.139795.r155921

The article is interesting and important in the banana production activity.

"The first was.." - must say 'the first one'.
In the results, the correct way is 'ind/m²'. Example: 160 ind/m².

The article is interesting and important in the banana production activity.

"The first was.." - must say 'the first one'.
In the results, the correct way is 'ind/m²'. Example: 160 ind/m².
"In four farms (San Martín, Santa Isabel and El Verdon)…" and which one is the last?
Incorrect to cite too many authors: "These data are supported by Zayas et al. (2022), Quiroz-Medina et al. (2021), Castillo y Vera (2000), Pashanasi (2001), Zerbino (2010), Rousseau et al. (2012) and Rousseau et al. (2013)." - Maybe you could cite just three authors together in the text; because information is the same.
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 cm², 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 m², while in the Posoltega area it was 1,700 individuals per m²."
Bibliography incomplete as: Ruiz N, Lavelle P, Jiménez J: SOIL MACROFAUNA FIELD MANUAL.2008; p. 113.

Is 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?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Climate change, Ecology, Mangroves and tropical forestry

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 08 Mar 2023

C. A. Zuniga-Gonzalez, Department of Agroecology, Faculty of Agrarian and Veterinary Sciences, Bioeconomy and Climate Change Research Center, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, Leon, 21000, Nicaragua

08 Mar 2023

Author Response

I appreciate the comments of the reviewer1 and I confirm and accept the improvements to be incorporated.
Competing Interests: I have no competing interests. The reviewer's observations are valid and pertinent to improve the article's contribution.
I appreciate the comments of the reviewer1 and I confirm and accept the improvements to be incorporated.
I appreciate the comments of the reviewer1 and I confirm and accept the improvements to be incorporated.
Competing Interests: I have no competing interests. The reviewer's observations are valid and pertinent to improve the article's contribution. Close
Report a concern
Author Response 20 Sep 2023

C. A. Zuniga-Gonzalez, Department of Agroecology, Faculty of Agrarian and Veterinary Sciences, Bioeconomy and Climate Change Research Center, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, Leon, 21000, Nicaragua

20 Sep 2023

Author Response
The article is interesting and important in banana production activity.

Dear Reviewer, thanks for this.
1. "The first was.." - must say 'the first one'.
  
  Response:
... Continue reading
The article is interesting and important in banana production activity.

Dear Reviewer, thanks for this.

"The first was.." - must say 'the first one'.

Response: It was improvements.

In the results, the correct way is 'ind/m²'. Example: 160 ind/m².

Response: Dear reviewer all the results were checked and improvements.

"In four farms (San Martín, Santa Isabel and El Verdon)…" and which one is the last?

Response: The Quinta Cony was added, thanks for this observation.

Incorrect to cite too many authors: "These data are supported by Zayas et al. (2022), Quiroz-Medina et al. (2021), Castillo y Vera (2000), Pashanasi (2001), Zerbino (2010), Rousseau et al. (2012) and Rousseau et al. (2013)." - Maybe you could cite just three authors together in the text; because information is the same.

Response: It was correcting that only 3 authors were added, but in this case was putting 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 cm², 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 m², while in the Posoltega area it was 1,700 individuals per m².".

Response: Dear reviewer it was translated to the results section, thanks for this observation.

Bibliography incomplete as: Ruiz N, Lavelle P, Jiménez J: SOIL MACROFAUNA FIELD MANUAL.2008; p. 113.

Response: It was corrected and added the link https://hal-bioemco.ccsd.cnrs.fr/bioemco-00560386 and the Bioemco as a source.

Dear reviewer, thanks for all your observations.
The article is interesting and important in banana production activity.

Dear Reviewer, thanks for this.

"The first was.." - must say 'the first one'.

Response: It was improvements.

In the results, the correct way is 'ind/m²'. Example: 160 ind/m².

Response: Dear reviewer all the results were checked and improvements.

"In four farms (San Martín, Santa Isabel and El Verdon)…" and which one is the last?

Response: The Quinta Cony was added, thanks for this observation.

Incorrect to cite too many authors: "These data are supported by Zayas et al. (2022), Quiroz-Medina et al. (2021), Castillo y Vera (2000), Pashanasi (2001), Zerbino (2010), Rousseau et al. (2012) and Rousseau et al. (2013)." - Maybe you could cite just three authors together in the text; because information is the same.

Response: It was correcting that only 3 authors were added, but in this case was putting 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 cm², 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 m², while in the Posoltega area it was 1,700 individuals per m².".

Response: Dear reviewer it was translated to the results section, thanks for this observation.

Bibliography incomplete as: Ruiz N, Lavelle P, Jiménez J: SOIL MACROFAUNA FIELD MANUAL.2008; p. 113.

Response: It was corrected and added the link https://hal-bioemco.ccsd.cnrs.fr/bioemco-00560386 and the Bioemco as a source.

Dear reviewer, thanks for all your observations.
Competing Interests: The authors disclose that we don't have any competing interest. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 08 Mar 2023

C. A. Zuniga-Gonzalez, Department of Agroecology, Faculty of Agrarian and Veterinary Sciences, Bioeconomy and Climate Change Research Center, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, Leon, 21000, Nicaragua

08 Mar 2023

Author Response

I appreciate the comments of the reviewer1 and I confirm and accept the improvements to be incorporated.
Competing Interests: I have no competing interests. The reviewer's observations are valid and pertinent to improve the article's contribution.
I appreciate the comments of the reviewer1 and I confirm and accept the improvements to be incorporated.
I appreciate the comments of the reviewer1 and I confirm and accept the improvements to be incorporated.
Competing Interests: I have no competing interests. The reviewer's observations are valid and pertinent to improve the article's contribution. Close
Report a concern
Author Response 20 Sep 2023

C. A. Zuniga-Gonzalez, Department of Agroecology, Faculty of Agrarian and Veterinary Sciences, Bioeconomy and Climate Change Research Center, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, Leon, 21000, Nicaragua

20 Sep 2023

Author Response
The article is interesting and important in banana production activity.

Dear Reviewer, thanks for this.
1. "The first was.." - must say 'the first one'.
  
  Response:
... Continue reading
The article is interesting and important in banana production activity.

Dear Reviewer, thanks for this.

"The first was.." - must say 'the first one'.

Response: It was improvements.

In the results, the correct way is 'ind/m²'. Example: 160 ind/m².

Response: Dear reviewer all the results were checked and improvements.

"In four farms (San Martín, Santa Isabel and El Verdon)…" and which one is the last?

Response: The Quinta Cony was added, thanks for this observation.

Incorrect to cite too many authors: "These data are supported by Zayas et al. (2022), Quiroz-Medina et al. (2021), Castillo y Vera (2000), Pashanasi (2001), Zerbino (2010), Rousseau et al. (2012) and Rousseau et al. (2013)." - Maybe you could cite just three authors together in the text; because information is the same.

Response: It was correcting that only 3 authors were added, but in this case was putting 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 cm², 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 m², while in the Posoltega area it was 1,700 individuals per m².".

Response: Dear reviewer it was translated to the results section, thanks for this observation.

Bibliography incomplete as: Ruiz N, Lavelle P, Jiménez J: SOIL MACROFAUNA FIELD MANUAL.2008; p. 113.

Response: It was corrected and added the link https://hal-bioemco.ccsd.cnrs.fr/bioemco-00560386 and the Bioemco as a source.

Dear reviewer, thanks for all your observations.
The article is interesting and important in banana production activity.

Dear Reviewer, thanks for this.

"The first was.." - must say 'the first one'.

Response: It was improvements.

In the results, the correct way is 'ind/m²'. Example: 160 ind/m².

Response: Dear reviewer all the results were checked and improvements.

"In four farms (San Martín, Santa Isabel and El Verdon)…" and which one is the last?

Response: The Quinta Cony was added, thanks for this observation.

Incorrect to cite too many authors: "These data are supported by Zayas et al. (2022), Quiroz-Medina et al. (2021), Castillo y Vera (2000), Pashanasi (2001), Zerbino (2010), Rousseau et al. (2012) and Rousseau et al. (2013)." - Maybe you could cite just three authors together in the text; because information is the same.

Response: It was correcting that only 3 authors were added, but in this case was putting 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 cm², 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 m², while in the Posoltega area it was 1,700 individuals per m².".

Response: Dear reviewer it was translated to the results section, thanks for this observation.

Bibliography incomplete as: Ruiz N, Lavelle P, Jiménez J: SOIL MACROFAUNA FIELD MANUAL.2008; p. 113.

Response: It was corrected and added the link https://hal-bioemco.ccsd.cnrs.fr/bioemco-00560386 and the Bioemco as a source.

Dear reviewer, thanks for all your observations.
Competing Interests: The authors disclose that we don't have any competing interest. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 4

VERSION 4 PUBLISHED 14 Nov 2022

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 4 (revision) 18 Jun 24			read
Version 3 (revision) 16 Jan 24		read
Version 2 (revision) 20 Sep 23
Version 1 14 Nov 22	read	read

Angel Sol, Colegio de Postgraduados, Texcoco, Mexico
Jérôme Mathieu, Sorbonne Universite, Paris, France
Micaela Carvajal Alcaraz, CEBAS-CSIC. Campus Universitario de Espinardo, Murcia, Spain

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

3 Views

14 Aug 2024 | for Version 4

Micaela Carvajal Alcaraz, CEBAS-CSIC. Campus Universitario de Espinardo, Murcia, Spain

3 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

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.

Is 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.

Reviewer Expertise

Plant Sciences

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

8 Views

21 Mar 2024 | for Version 3

Jérôme Mathieu, Sorbonne Universite, Paris, Île-de-France, France

8 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

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.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

21 Jun 2024

C. A. Zuniga-Gonzalez, Department of Agroecology, Faculty of Agrarian and Veterinary Sciences, Bioeconomy and Climate Change Research Center, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, Leon, 21000, Nicaragua

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have thoroughly addressed all your comments and suggestions. Specifically, we have ensured the robustness of our data by applying bootstrap analysis to the correlation between production and the abundance of Hymenoptera and worms. This has strengthened the reliability of our findings and provided more insight into the relationship between agricultural productivity and soil fauna abundance. We appreciate your attention to detail and are confident that these enhancements significantly improve the quality of our study.

View more View less

Competing Interests

I want to confirm that I have no competing interests that could sway my assessment of the manuscript or peer review report.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

23 Views

19 Jul 2023 | for Version 1

Jérôme Mathieu, Sorbonne Universite, Paris, Île-de-France, France

23 Views Cite this report Responses(2)

Approved With Reservations

Main comments

Please improve the English language and grammar.
Please give more information about the differences between the plots and use them to explain the differences in soil macrofauna communities.
Please compare your results to past studies on similar cultures.

Minor comments

First page

Dominion = Dominance?
Conclusions: are you sure that these ants are detritivore?

Introduction

Second sentence: please reduce the number of citations.
Paragraph #2 (Similarly…) : please reduce the number of citations.

Last paragraph:

Change to "this work focused..."
Please describe the management of the plots (conventional/organic, tillage, pesticides, fertilization, irrigation and so on).
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.

Methods

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.
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.
Please delete " (various population densities 1 m2)".
Isn't it 'Dominance' instead of 'Domain'?
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.
Figure 2: The name of the taxa is difficult to read because of the low quality of the plot.
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).
Please compare your results with previous studies on banana plantations.
Table 7: please explain what is "taxa_" and "individuals".
Table 8: Please use "ind.m-2" not "x m2".
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.

Diversity and productivity

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?
Table 9:

- 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.

- What do you mean by "real"?
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?
Table 10: please say "banana production".
Figure 3 & table 11:

- If you have several replicates per farm, please use them in fig. 3 and add the regression line for all data and by plot, and include plot as a random factor in the analysis.

- Consider changing table 11 by a pairwise correlation plot the tests on one side of the diagonal (see ggpairs() in R for instance).
Figure 4: please add taxa richness and if possible functional groups' abundance.

Data availability:

Please put the data from the two sites into one file.
Please use the standard reporting template for soil macrofauna communities: https://zenodo.org/record/7691884
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).

Is 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?

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.

Reviewer Expertise

Soil ecology

Respond to this report

Responses (2)

Author Response

20 Sep 2023

C. A. Zuniga-Gonzalez, Department of Agroecology, Faculty of Agrarian and Veterinary Sciences, Bioeconomy and Climate Change Research Center, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, Leon, 21000, Nicaragua

Main comments
[1] Please improve the English language and grammar.
Response: Dear reviewer we appreciate your valuable observation, we are proceeding with the total revision of the article.

[2] Please give more information about the differences between the plots and use them to explain the differences in soil macrofauna communities.
Response: Thanks for this observation. In Methods section was added this information with the subtitle farms data where explicated your characteristics and differences.

[3] Please compare your results to past studies on similar cultures.
Response: Yes, the past studies were compared with Costa Rica and Nicaragua studies.
However, were added more cites as you indicated. Table 2 (Paragraph one) is similar to Zerbino et al. (2008), we also, refers the works of Priego-Castillo et al. (2009) and Castillo and Vera (2000) for the table 4, 5 and 6, also we refer to Pashanasi (2001), Zerbino (2010), the results of table 5 are referred and similar to Melo (2010), Rousseau et al. (2012, 2013). For the results of the Table 8 and 9 were added the cites.
Response: Dear thanks for this observation, it was added. In each result was added cite as you indicated.

Minor comments
[4] First page Dominion = Dominance?
Response: Thanks for it. We checked all the article and it was changed.

[5] Conclusions: are you sure that these ants are detritivores?
Response: Dear reviewer you know that Detritivorous ants are those that primarily feed on dead organic matter and help break down and recycle organic materials in ecosystems. We find two genera (earthworms and Hymenoptera), so the ants are referred to the detritivore genus because ants feeds on dead and decaying organic matter, such as plant material (Musa acuminata x Musa balbisiana (AAB), they are moist soils with a lot of plant organic matter. Thanks for the observation.

Introduction
[6] Second sentence: please reduce the number of citations. Paragraph #2 (Similarly…) : please reduce the number of citations.
Response: Thanks for this observation, we have been checked all article and changed it.

[7] Last paragraph: Change to "this work focused..."
Response: It was changed.

[8] Please describe the management of the plots (conventional/organic, tillage, pesticides, fertilization, irrigation and so on).
Response: Thanks for this observation we have added a subsection (Agro system farms) in the methods section, there we explain the characteristics of the 8 farms and how they have been moving from conventional practices to agroecological farms.

[9] 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.oi where we explicate the methodology. Thanks for the observation.

Methods
[10] Please say in the text that sampling is based on litter and monolith extraction and is inspired by the TSBF method.
Response: It was added. Also we added the cite [47].

[11] Table 1: Please mention what these columns refer to.
Response: Thanks for this observation, a comment on this was added before Table 1.

[12] Table 2: 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"N Latitude 86°54'40.2"W Longitude)

[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 m² (50 cm long × 20 cm wide), as described in Rousseau et al. (2012), Rousseau et al. (2013), and Medina 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.

[17] Please delete " (various population densities 1 m2)".
Response: It was eliminated.

[18] Isn't it 'Dominance' instead of 'Domain'?
Response: It was changed.

[19] No need to give the formula of the Shannon index.
Response: Dear reviewer, thanks for this observation. Dear reviewer, we have decided to give the formula.

Results & Discussion

[20] 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.
Response: Ok it was made in both tables.

[21] Figure 2: The name of the taxa is difficult to read because of the low quality of the plot.
Response: Ok we sent another figure with the best resolution.

[22] Table 5: These are taxa, not species. Please translate into ind.m-2, add errors, and remove totals by location.
Response: Ok thanks for this observation. All was changed.

[23]Table 6: "lumbrices" is not a correct genus or taxa, please correct it.
Response: Yes, it is correct, thanks for this observation. All was changed.

[24] There are many typos in the name of family and genus. Please correct (e.g., Formocidae).
Response: Ok thanks for this observation. It was checked and corrected.

[25] Please compare your results with previous studies on banana plantations.
Response: Of course, it was checked and added as you indicated.

[26] Table 7: please explain what is "taxa_" and "individuals".
Response: Thanks for this observation, the taxa was change by Genus Types and individuals, by Ind. m²

[27] Table 8: Please use "ind.m-2" not "x m2".
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.
Response: Ok thanks for this observations. It was corrected.

[28] Diversity and productivity
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. m² 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. m².

[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).

[32] 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. 3 and add the regression line for all data and by plot, and include plot as a random factor in the analysis.
- Consider changing 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 us as Fig 5. Dear, we appreciate your observation, but due to a problem that we had already defined in the methodology that we work with SPSS, which suggests that we do it with SPSS and we have added fig. 6.

[34] Figure 4: please add taxa richness and if possible functional groups' abundance.
Response: Dear thanks for this observation, only we added taxa richness, the functional group’ abundances, we consider that was discussed on the table 3 and 4. Was added the Fig 5. Shannon Index.

[35] Data availability:
Please put the data from the two sites into one file.
Response: Ok

Please use the standard reporting template for soil macrofauna communities: https://zenodo.org/record/7691884
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).
Response: Ok thanks for your consideration.

View more View less

Competing Interests

The authors disclose that we don't have any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance.

Author Response

16 Jan 2024

C. A. Zuniga-Gonzalez, Department of Agroecology, Faculty of Agrarian and Veterinary Sciences, Bioeconomy and Climate Change Research Center, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, Leon, 21000, Nicaragua

Dear Reviewer 2, the data availability, has been duly addressed:

Data Compilation: The data from both sites has been consolidated into a singular file as requested.
Template Utilization: The standard reporting template for soil macrofauna communities, accessible at https://zenodo.org/record/7691884, has been utilized to format the dataset.
Data Format: The provided data remains in its raw form, organized either by monolith or by layer, ensuring it is not aggregated by plot, as specified.
Metadata Inclusion: Essential metadata such as coordinates, sampling date (year, month, day), management details, and other relevant information, following the template, have been added to the dataset.

By adhering to these instructions, we've ensured the data is compiled appropriately, formatted using the standard template, remains in its raw form, and includes essential metadata, thereby meeting the specified requirements for data availability.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

25 Views

07 Mar 2023 | for Version 1

Angel Sol, Campus Tabasco, Colegio de Postgraduados, Texcoco, State of Mexico, Mexico

25 Views Cite this report Responses(2)

Approved

The article is interesting and important in the banana production activity.

"The first was.." - must say 'the first one'.
In the results, the correct way is 'ind/m²'. Example: 160 ind/m².
"In four farms (San Martín, Santa Isabel and El Verdon)…" and which one is the last?
Incorrect to cite too many authors: "These data are supported by Zayas et al. (2022), Quiroz-Medina et al. (2021), Castillo y Vera (2000), Pashanasi (2001), Zerbino (2010), Rousseau et al. (2012) and Rousseau et al. (2013)." - Maybe you could cite just three authors together in the text; because information is the same.
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 cm², 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 m², while in the Posoltega area it was 1,700 individuals per m²."
Bibliography incomplete as: Ruiz N, Lavelle P, Jiménez J: SOIL MACROFAUNA FIELD MANUAL.2008; p. 113.

Is 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?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Climate change, Ecology, Mangroves and tropical forestry

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (2)

Author Response

20 Sep 2023

C. A. Zuniga-Gonzalez, Department of Agroecology, Faculty of Agrarian and Veterinary Sciences, Bioeconomy and Climate Change Research Center, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, Leon, 21000, Nicaragua

The article is interesting and important in banana production activity.

Dear Reviewer, thanks for this.

"The first was.." - must say 'the first one'.

Response: It was improvements.
In the results, the correct way is 'ind/m²'. Example: 160 ind/m².

Response: Dear reviewer all the results were checked and improvements.
"In four farms (San Martín, Santa Isabel and El Verdon)…" and which one is the last?

Response: The Quinta Cony was added, thanks for this observation.
Incorrect to cite too many authors: "These data are supported by Zayas et al. (2022), Quiroz-Medina et al. (2021), Castillo y Vera (2000), Pashanasi (2001), Zerbino (2010), Rousseau et al. (2012) and Rousseau et al. (2013)." - Maybe you could cite just three authors together in the text; because information is the same.

Response: It was correcting that only 3 authors were added, but in this case was putting 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 cm², 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 m², while in the Posoltega area it was 1,700 individuals per m².".

Response: Dear reviewer it was translated to the results section, thanks for this observation.
Bibliography incomplete as: Ruiz N, Lavelle P, Jiménez J: SOIL MACROFAUNA FIELD MANUAL.2008; p. 113.

Response: It was corrected and added the link https://hal-bioemco.ccsd.cnrs.fr/bioemco-00560386 and the Bioemco as a source.

Dear reviewer, thanks for all your observations.

View more View less

Competing Interests

The authors disclose that we don't have any competing interest.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] Alcaraván A: Fundacion el Aura. Gobernacion de Siembra y Manejo del Cultivo de Plátano en el Departamento de Arauca. Colombia:Miro Publicidad;2003; 16.

[2] Almonte-Espinosa H: Estructura y composición de un ensamblaje de aves asociadas al río Maimón, República Dominicana. Novitates Caribaea. 2022; 19: 24–42. Publisher Full Text

[3] Anderson, Ingram JSI: Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility: A Handbook of Methods. 2nd ed.International, Wallingford, UK:C.A.B.;1993; 221.

[4] Berning EH, Andersen CVH, Mertz O, et al.: Resilience of breadfruit agro-ecosystems in Hawaiʻi during the COVID-19 pandemic. CABI Agric Biosci. 2022; 3: 56. Publisher Full Text

[5] Belalcázar S, Rosales FE, Espinosa MJ: Altas densidades de siembra en plátano, una alternativa rentable y sostenible de producción. Taller Manejo convencional y alternativo de la sigatoka negra, nematodos y otras plagas asociadas al cultivo de musáceas en los trópicos. Guayaquil, Ecuador:MUSALAC, INIBAP;2003; 55–63.

[6] Brown, Fragoso C, Barois I, et al.: Diversidad y rol funcional de la macrofauna edáfica en los ecosistemas tropicales mexicanos. Acta Zoológica Mexicana (nueva serie). 2001; (1): 79–110. Publisher Full Text

[7] Curry JP, Good JA:Soil faunal degradation and restoration. Soil restoration. New York, NY:Springer;1992; (pp. 171–215).

[8] Castañeda CLZ, Hugo SIE, Diana QCZ: Análisis del comportamiento de las variables bióticas de la reserva nacional de lachay al evento el niño (1998-2001, 2010). Ecología Aplicada. 2002 Ene [citado 2022 Oct 05]; 21(1): 35–47. Epub 03-Jul-2022. Publisher Full Text Reference Source

[9] Cardona MJG, Carvajal SLB, Salinas DGC, et al.: Seminario Internacional sobre Producción de Plátano. Armenia, Quindfo, Colombia:International Seminar on Plantain Production;1998; 322.

[10] Castillo F, Vera L: Comparación de la biodiversidad de la macrofauna de suelos bananeros con manejo convencional y orgánico en EARTH. Guácimo, Costa Rica:Trabajo de grado Ingeniero Agrónomo. Universidad EARTH;2000.

[11] Challinor AJ, Ewert F, Arnold S, et al.: Crops and climate change: progress, trends, and challenges in simulating impacts and informing adaptation. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2009; 60(10): 2775–2789. Publisher Full Text

[12] Djigal, Saj S, Rabary B, et al.: Mulch type affects soil biological functioning and crop yield of conservation agriculture systems in a long-term experiment in Madagascar. Soil and Tillage Research. 2012; 118: 11–21. Publisher Full Text

[13] Delgado, Rosales F, Trejos J, et al.: Índice de Calidad y Salud de Suelos para plantaciones bananeras en cuatro países de América Latina y el Caribe. Bioagro. 2010a; 22(1): 53–60.

[14] Delgado E, Trejos J, Villalobos M, et al.: Determinación de un índice de calidad y salud de suelos para plantaciones bananeras en Venezuela. Interciencia. 2010b; 35(12): 927–933.

[15] Decaëns T, Jiménez JJ, Barros E, et al.: Soil macrofaunal communities in permanent pastures derived from tropical forest or savanna. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2004; 103(2): 301–312. Publisher Full Text

[16] Gliessman SR: Agroecology: Growing the Roots of Resistance. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems. 2013; 37: 19–31. Publisher Full Text

[17] Gizzi AH, Castillo Á, Héctor A, et al.: Caracterización de la meso y macrofauna edáfica en sistemas de cultivo del Sudeste Bonaerense. Ciencia del suelo. 2009; 27: 1–9.

[18] Gutiérrez-Luna R, Castillo-Quiroz D, Castillo-Reyes F, et al.: Evaluación de prácticas de manejo de suelo para la siembra de zacate Buffel (Cenchrus ciliaris L.), bajo condiciones de temporal en el sureste de Coahuila. Revista Latinoamericana De Recursos Naturales. 2022; 18(1): 39–47. Recuperado a partir de.Reference Source

[19] Krebs JR, Wilson JD, Bradbury RB, et al.: The second silent spring? Nature. 1999; 400(6745): 611–612.

[20] Laossia K-R, Barota S'b, Carvalhob D, et al.: Effects of plant diversity on plant biomass production and soil macrofauna in Amazonian pastures. Pedobiologia. 2008; 51: 397–407. Publisher Full Text

[21] Leyva-Rodríguez SL, Baldoquín-Pagán A, Reynó-Manduley Y, et al.: Influencia del uso del suelo en la macrofauna edáfica en áreas de la región norte del municipio de Las Tunas. Innovación Tecnológica. 2012; 18(4): 13.

[22] López A, Espinoza J: Manual de Nutrición y Fertilización de Banano: una visión práctica del manejo de la fertilización.1995; 86 p.

[23] Melo Franco MC: Evaluación de la macrofauna edáfica en parcelas experimentales enmendadas con biosólidos en diferente proporción en el aula ambiental Soratama loc. Usaquén Bogotá DC:2010.

[24] de Fomento M , Comercio I, de Nicaragua MIFIC : Ficha del Platano.Trad. Managua, Nicaragua:IFIC;2007; 21.

[25] McKelvie-Sebileau P, Rees D, Tipene-Leach D, et al.: Community Co-Design of Regional Actions for Children’s Nutritional Health Combining Indigenous Knowledge and Systems Thinking. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19: 4936. Publisher Full Text

[26] McLaughlin A, Mineau P: The impact of agricultural practices on biodiversity. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 1995; 55(3): 201–212. Publisher Full Text

[27] Moore JC, Berlow EL, Coleman DC, et al.: Detritus, trophic dynamics and biodiversity. Ecology letters. 2004; 7(7): 584–600. Publisher Full Text

[28] Medina CRQ, Castellón JD, Navas NEC, et al.: Caracterización de la macrofauna edáfica en diferentes sistemas agroforestales, en el Municipio de San Ramón, Departamento de Matagalpa, Nicaragua. Nexo Revista Científica. 2021; 34(02): 572–582. Publisher Full Text

[29] Priego-Castillo GA, Galmiche-Tejeda A, Castelán-Estrada M, et al.: Evaluación de la sustentabilidad de dos sistemas de producción de cacao: estudios de caso en unidades de producción rural en Comalcalco, Tabasco. universidad y ciencia. 2009; 25(1): 39–57.

[30] Pashanasi B: Estudio cuantitativo de la macrofauna del suelo en diferentes sistemas de uso de la tierra en la amazonía peruana. FOLIA AMAZÓNICA. 2001; 12(1-2): 75–97. Publisher Full Text

[31] Pocasangre L, Brown D, Quesada L: Innovaciones Tecnologicas Para El Manejo Y Mejoramiento De La Calidad Y Salud De Suelos Bananeros De America Latina Y El Caribe. CR.2009; 94 p.

[32] Quiroz-Medina CR, Chavez DJ, Lanuza-Reyes CR, et al.: Patogenecidad de hongos entomopatógenos en termitas en plantaciones de Moringa oleífera, Posoltega Nicaragua. Revista Iberoamericana de Bioeconomia y Cambio Climatico. 2021; 7(14): 1741–1752. Publisher Full Text

[33] Ruiz N, Lavelle P, Jiménez J: SOIL MACROFAUNA FIELD MANUAL.2008; p. 113.

[34] Rousseau, Fonte SJ, Téllez O, et al.: Soil macrofauna as indicators of soil quality and land use impacts in smallholder agroecosystems of western Nicaragua. Ecological Indicators. 2013; 27: 71–82. Publisher Full Text

[35] Rousseau, Deheuvels O, Rodriguez Arias I, et al.: Indicating soil quality in cacao-based agroforestry systems and old-growth forests: The potential of soil macrofauna assemblage. Ecological Indicators. 2012; 23: 535–543. Publisher Full Text

[36] Samudio VC: Evaluación de la producción de plátano de la variedad Curaré enano en función de dos épocas de siembra y tres programas de fertilización en Zamorano, Honduras.2010; 26 p.

[37] Shiyam JO, Oko BFD, Obiefuna JC, et al.: Optimizing the Productivity of Plantain/Cocoyam Mixture by Mulching and Fertilizer Application. World Journal of Fungal and Plant Biology. 2010; 1(2): 42–45.

[38] Rodríguez AT, Elena M, Vera B, et al.: Evaluación ambiental de la práctica “embolsado” en plátano (musa aab simmonds). Quindío. Colombia. Revista Luna Azul (On Line). 2013; 36: 91–109.

[39] Tresson P, Tixier P, Puech W, et al.: Caught on camera: Field imagery reveals the unexpected importance of vertebrates for biological control of the banana weevil (Cosmopolites sordidus Col. Curculionidae). PLoS One. 2022; 17(9): e0274223. Publisher Full Text

[40] Velásquez E, Fonte SJ, Barot S, et al.: Soil macrofauna-mediated impacts of plant species composition on soil functioning in Amazonian pastures. Applied Soil Ecology. 2012; 56: 43–50. Publisher Full Text

[41] Velasquez E, Pelosi C, Brunet D, et al.: This ped is my ped: Visual separation and near infrared spectra allow determination of the origins of soil macroaggregates. Pedobiologia. 2007; 51(1): 75–87. Publisher Full Text

[42] Wardle DA:Impacts of disturbance on detritus food webs in agro-ecosystems of contrasting tillage and weed management practices. Advances in ecological research. Academic Press;1995; (Vol. 26. , pp. 105–185).

[43] Zerbino MS: Evaluación de la macrofauna del suelo en rotaciones cultivos-pasturas con laboreo convencionaL. Acta Zoológica Mexicana. 2010; 189–202.

[44] Zerbino S, Altier N, Morón A, et al.: Evaluación de la macrofauna del suelo en sistemas de producción en siembra directa y con pastoreo. Agrociencia. 2008; 12(1): 44–55.

[45] Zayas Sierra F, Sánches Bautista NI, Pedro Kesell I, et al.: Empleo del humus de lombriz como alternativa agroecológica para el incremento de los rendimientos agrícolas del cultivo plátano macho ¾ (musa sp.) en un sistema extra denso: Empleo del humus de lombriz como alternativa agroecológica para el incremento de los rendimientos agrícolas del cultivo plátano macho ¾ (musa sp.) en un sistema extra denso. Investigación Y Ciencia Aplicada a La Ingeniería. 2022; 5(29): 53–60. Recuperado a partir de.Reference Source

[46] Zuniga-Gonzalez CA, Caballero-Hernandez AJ, Quiroz-Medina CR:Data for: Diversity of Functional Edaphic Macrofauna in Musa acuminata × Musa balbisiana (AAB) Agroecosystems. [Dataset]. F10000Research (Version v2, Number version 1). Zenodo. 2022. Publisher Full Text

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

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Table 1. Descriptive statistics.

Geographic location of the study

Table 2. Location of banana farms in the study area.

Figure 1. Study area.

Investigative process phase

Identification of macrofauna species

Measured variables

Functional groups (various population densities 1 m2)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Data analysis

Results and Discussion

Relative and dominant abundance

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

Table 4. Total relative abundance according to functional group in the farms of the municipality of León.

Figure 2. Overall relative abundance of macrofauna found.

Table 5. Total population of species collected in litter strata and 0-20 cm2 soil depth.

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

Diversity indices

Table 7. Diversity index by farm.

Functional groups

Table 8. Diversity Indexes by functional group.

Diversity and productivity

Table 9. Agricultural production (banana units per ha) and the abundance of earthworms and hymenopteran insects (ind × m2).

Figure 3. Real production vs. Hymenoptera and worms.

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

Table 10. Pearson correlation coefficients of the production of Cuerno Dwarf plantain units (AAB) with the density per square meter of earthworms and Hymenoptera insects.

Table 11. Pearson correlation by farm.

Conclusions

Data availability

Underlying data

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Functional groups (various population densities 1 m²)

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

Table 5. Total population of species collected in litter strata and 0-20 cm² soil depth.

Table 9. Agricultural production (banana units per ha) and the abundance of earthworms and hymenopteran insects (ind × m²).