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

Diversity of functional edaphic macrofauna in... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1300" }, "headline": "Diversity of functional edaphic macrofauna in Musa acuminata x Musa balbisiana (AAB) agroecosystems", "datePublished": "2022-11-14T14:32:47", "dateModified": "2024-06-18T16:50:44", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "C. A. Zúniga-Gonzalez" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "A. J. Caballero-Hernández" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background This study focused on evaluating the diversity and richness of the edaphic macrofauna in eight banana farms in the western zone of Nicaragua. Methods The sampling design was random and descriptive, it was divided into two phases, the first was the collection of the sample, and the second was the classification, coding, and storage of the extracted macrofauna populations. The sampling method employed included the extraction of soil and litter samples. Soil samples were collected using a wooden frame (monolith), with each sample weighing approximately 1 kilogram and taken from a depth of 0.20 cm. Litter samples were collected from the soil surface. A total of 80 samples were collected, with 40 soil samples and 50 litter samples obtained across the 8 plantain farms. Results The results showed that the relative abundance of biodiversity was higher in the 0–20 cm soil depth stratum than in the branch and leaf biomass strata. The values of the diversity indices of Simpson's Dominance, Shanon, Margalef, and Equity were in the normal range, with a tendency towards low diversity. Likewise, in the richness of species, the Dominance or most abundant genus were earthworms (Oligochaeta) and Hymenoptera (Solenopsis, Leptothorax, Camponotus, Pheidole), indicating the directly proportional relationship, that is to say, that the greater the number of earthworms the production increases and the greater the number of Hymenoptera it decreases, confirmed with the Pearson correlation coefficient with a reliability of 95%. Conclusions It was concluded that based on the estimates of the diversity indicators, two detritivore genus (earthworms and Hymenoptera) were the ones with the more dominance, being important in the production of the banana agrosystem due to the decomposition of organic matter and its nutritional contribution to the plant. We observed a direct correlation with earthworms and an indirect relationship with Hymenoptera. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1300/v4", "name": "Diversity of functional edaphic macrofauna in Musa acuminata x Musa..." } } ] } Home Browse Diversity of functional edaphic macrofauna in Musa acuminata x Musa... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML 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 4; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 11 :1300 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.127300.4 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Revised Diversity of functional edaphic macrofauna in Musa acuminata x Musa balbisiana (AAB) agroecosystems [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] C. A. Zúniga-Gonzalez https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2545-8304 1 , A. J. Caballero-Hernández 2 C. A. Zúniga-Gonzalez https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2545-8304 1 , A. J. Caballero-Hernández 2 PUBLISHED 18 Jun 2024 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 DETAILS 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. The sampling method employed included the extraction of soil and litter samples. Soil samples were collected using a wooden frame (monolith), with each sample weighing approximately 1 kilogram and taken from a depth of 0.20 cm. Litter samples were collected from the soil surface. A total of 80 samples were collected, with 40 soil samples and 50 litter samples obtained across the 8 plantain farms. Results The results showed that the relative abundance of biodiversity was higher in the 0–20 cm soil depth stratum than in the branch and leaf biomass strata. The values of the diversity indices of Simpson's Dominance, Shanon, Margalef, and Equity were in the normal range, with a tendency towards low diversity. Likewise, in the richness of species, the Dominance or most abundant genus were earthworms (Oligochaeta) and Hymenoptera ( Solenopsis , Leptothorax , Camponotus , Pheidole ), indicating the directly proportional relationship, that is to say, that the greater the number of earthworms the production increases and the greater the number of Hymenoptera it decreases, confirmed with the Pearson correlation coefficient with a reliability of 95%. Conclusions It was concluded that based on the estimates of the diversity indicators, two detritivore genus (earthworms and Hymenoptera) were the ones with the more dominance, being important in the production of the banana agrosystem due to the decomposition of organic matter and its nutritional contribution to the plant. We observed a direct correlation with earthworms and an indirect relationship with Hymenoptera. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Eco-Intensification, Eco-system, Plantain, Diversity, Microfauna Corresponding Author(s) C. A. Zúniga-Gonzalez ( [email protected] ) Close 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: © 2024 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 4; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 11 :1300 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.127300.4 ) 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 ) Revised Amendments from Version 3 We've carefully addressed all the feedback provided, ensuring comprehensive improvements throughout the manuscript: Enhanced Abstract: The methodology section in the abstract has been clarified to provide a more detailed explanation of the monolith sampling technique. This adjustment ensures better understanding for readers. Refutation of Unsupported Claim: We've revised the section to accurately represent the data, acknowledging the lack of support for the initial claim. This ensures alignment with observed findings. Implementation of Bootstrap Technique: Following the reviewer's suggestion, we've incorporated the bootstrap technique to enhance result robustness, strengthening the validity of our conclusions. Methodology Enhancement: The methodology section now includes a detailed explanation of how the bootstrap technique was applied, enhancing transparency and credibility. Graphical Improvements: Figures 6 1, and 2 have been revised to improve clarity and presentation. Additionally, Figure 7 has been added to provide further context and visualization. Terminology Clarifications: Various terminology adjustments have been made for consistency and accuracy throughout the manuscript. Textual Refinements: We've clarified and enhanced sections for better readability and comprehension, ensuring a smoother flow of information. These revisions aim to address the reviewer's concerns comprehensively while improving the overall quality and reliability of the manuscript. The attached document reflects all the updates made in response to the feedback. We've carefully addressed all the feedback provided, ensuring comprehensive improvements throughout the manuscript: Enhanced Abstract: The methodology section in the abstract has been clarified to provide a more detailed explanation of the monolith sampling technique. This adjustment ensures better understanding for readers. Refutation of Unsupported Claim: We've revised the section to accurately represent the data, acknowledging the lack of support for the initial claim. This ensures alignment with observed findings. Implementation of Bootstrap Technique: Following the reviewer's suggestion, we've incorporated the bootstrap technique to enhance result robustness, strengthening the validity of our conclusions. Methodology Enhancement: The methodology section now includes a detailed explanation of how the bootstrap technique was applied, enhancing transparency and credibility. Graphical Improvements: Figures 6 1, and 2 have been revised to improve clarity and presentation. Additionally, Figure 7 has been added to provide further context and visualization. Terminology Clarifications: Various terminology adjustments have been made for consistency and accuracy throughout the manuscript. Textual Refinements: We've clarified and enhanced sections for better readability and comprehension, ensuring a smoother flow of information. These revisions aim to address the reviewer's concerns comprehensively while improving the overall quality and reliability of the manuscript. The attached document reflects all the updates made in response to the feedback. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Jérôme Mathieu See the authors' detailed response to the review by Angel Sol READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction Soil management in banana agroecosystems is essentially successful for resilient agro-ecological production, adapted to climate change, and biodiversity, fundamentally in Latin America. Berning et al. (2022) , Gliessman (2013) , Rousseau et al. (2012) , and Delgado et al. (2010b) indicate that agro-ecological conditions of the soil represent one of the ways to adapt precisely to the development of production in the banana sector ( McLaughlin et al. , 1995 ; Challinor et al. , 2009 ; Rousseau et al. , 2013 ). The combination of Musa acuminata × 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) , 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 ( López, 1995 ; MIFIC, 2007 ). Likewise, Gutiérrez-Luna et al. (2022) , Rodríguez et al. (2013) and Brown et al. (2001) investigated that the impact of cultural practices of 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 linked to analyzing both the quantitative and qualitative biomass period over time and the generation of genetic biological 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 ( Medina et al. , 2021 ). Populations of all macrofauna reach millions per hectare and their biomass varies in tons per hectare ( Priego-Castillo et al. , 2009 ; Wardle et al ., 1995 ). Their diversity can exceed 1,000 species in complex ecosystems (such as tropical forests), but precise data on the specific diversity of tropical edaphic megafauna in particular habitat is still lacking ( Anderson, 1993 ; Zerbino, 2010 ; Zerbino et al. , 2008 ). This work focused on evaluating the diversity and abundance of soil macrofauna in eight banana-producing farms in the North Pacific area of Nicaragua. The size of the samples is approximately 1 kilogram each. The depth of the soil samples is 0-20 centimeters. The sampling was based on litter and monolith extraction and is inspired by the TSBF method (Soil Monolith; Mulch scrutiny; CD: Direct capture). The period of sampling was in 2020 year. The taxa covered were Richness (number of species), DAFGA (RRID:SCR_003319), Relative abundance (Density number of individuals 1 m 2 for each species), Functional Groups (Density number of individuals 1 m 2 for each species), Shannon-Wiener Index (SW), Margalef Diversity Index, Proportional abundance indices, Dominance indices, Simpson index, Equity indices, and Pielou index. The taxonomical resolution depends on the degree of differentiation of morphological characteristics within the individual tribes, so in this studies the diversity by functional groups. Table 6 it is organized the Taxonomic classification of the edaphic macrofauna in kingdom, phylum, subphylum, class, order, family and genus ( Zuniga-Gonzalez et al. , 2022b ). Methods Table 1 shows the statistical description of the data used in this study. The full protocol can be found on protocols.io . The data descripts the total population of species collected in litter strata by 0-20 cm soil depth. The first column refer the number of farm studied, four in Leon municipally and other four in Posoltega municipally. The second column describe the number of species find in each find identified by 30 genus. The third and fourth column refer the maximum and minimum of ind. x species find in each farm. The column fifth, sixth and seventh refer the mean, Std. Desviation and variance of the ind. x species find by each farm. Table 1. Descriptive statistics. Farm N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance Farm1 30 0.00 150.00 17.3333 35.30003 1246.092 Farm2 30 0.00 325.00 18.6667 61.99184 3842.989 Farm3 30 0.00 50.00 4.8333 12.14022 147.385 Farm4 30 0.00 65.00 7.5000 17.75067 315.086 Farm5 30 0.00 150.00 12.6667 33.18530 1101.264 Farm6 30 0.00 225.00 17.1667 52.50096 2756.351 Farm7 30 0.00 155.00 11.8333 33.20478 1102.557 Farm8 30 0.00 125.00 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°31′15.4"N 86°54′40.2″W 2 Quinta Cony 15.2 San Pedro León 12°39′52.7"N 86°51′06.4″W 3 San Martin 72.2 San Pedro León 12°39′52.7"N 86°51′06.4″W 4 El Verdón 7.6 San Pedro León 12°39′52.7"N 86°51′06.4″W 5 San Joaquín 4.6 El Trianon Posoltega 12°30′34.3"N 86°59′14.9″W 6 Montes Verdes 2.3 Chiquimulapa Posoltega 12°32′03.0"N 86°59′09.7″W 7 María de los Ángeles 3.8 El Trianon Posoltega 12°30′34.3"N 86°59′14.9″W 8 Los Ángeles 5.3 El Trianon Posoltega 12°30′34.3"N 86°59′14.9″W * A farm typically includes one plots of land, where five point were sampled. Figure 1. Study area. Map data ©2022 Google . Agro system farms The 8 selected farms or plots are in a process of changing production systems. Previously, these farms had a monoculture production system. These were annuals like cotton, peanuts, sugar cane. These systems heavily used insecticides and mechanized labor. However, these farms are currently moving to a production system from conventional to organic or agroecological production. The cultivation of Musa acuminata × Musa balbisiana (AAB) is managed in association with horticultural items, changing chemical inputs for organic ones, such as the use of organic fertilizers and good agricultural practices. Administratively, the farms in Chinandega are managed by cooperatives, while those in Leon are managed by individual producers. Investigative process phase Tables 2 and 5 show eight farms that describe the name, area, community and municipality. In these farms, the investigation begins with the field phase where 40 edaphic samples of 0–20 cm depth and 40 biomass samples (leaf litter) were collected on the surface. A total of 80 samples of macrofauna populations were identified, coded, stored in the second phase. The study area in each farm (in each farm, samples were taken at five different points within the 1000 square meter parcel) was 0.7 ha delimited 1plot in 1,000 m 2 (50 cm long × 20 cm wide), as described in Rousseau et al. (2012 , 2013) , and Medina et al. (2021) . 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 sample were collected in 1000 m2 for 40 biomass sample and 40 edaphic sample in 0-20 cm depth. After selecting the sampling area, sampling points are placed to collect soil samples. A wooden box 20 cm wide by 20 cm long was used to mark the sampling points, and to remove approximately 1 kg of soil. Divided into two consecutive layers (fallen leaves, 0–20 cm), each of them is surrounded to prevent microorganisms from escaping from the bottom, after which the material is sieved and separated manually and the insects found are placed in an airtight plastic bottle. After measuring 500 cubic centimeters in volume, they are labeled and preserved in 70% alcohol. Identification of macrofauna species The collected individuals were analyzed by order and family, the microorganisms were placed in Petri dishes and then observed under a 4–400× stereo microscope, to detail the specific structures of each of the species. Large animals include all organisms greater than 1.5 mm in length. Diversity components The diversity and richness of species present in this study were analyzed using the indicators reported by the authors Zerbino (2010) and Rousseau et al. (2012 , 2013) . Richness (number of species): the number is the number of species for each farm, which was determined and totaled for each sampled system. The total number of individuals per species was counted and estimated. Functional groups Population abundance and species richness were determined by three main functional groups: herbivores, detritivores, and predators. To estimate the density, PAST (RRID:SCR_019129) 4.03 software was used, the indices selected for the study were: Dominance (D), Shannon-Wiener (H′), Margalef (Mg), Simpson (1-D), and Pielou (J′). Dominance Index (D): It is the comparative importance of a species related to the degree of influence it has on the individuals of the plantain agro system. It is based on competition for resources, which is why the characterization of the collected sample is used and then organized by functional group. Its inverse is the Simpson index. Shannon-Wiener Index (H′) ( 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 ′ = − ∑ 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 = 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 = ∑ 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 ′ = 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 agro system. Results and Discussion The results showed that diversity and richness of the edaphic macrofauna was evaluated in eight farms in the western area. A total of 78.72% of the individuals were identified in the soil from 0–20 cm 2 , while the remaining 21.26% in the foliage. In the first four farms in the León area, 23 genera were found, and in the Posoltega farms, 21 genera. The relative abundance of León was 1,450 individuals per m 2 , while in the Posoltega area it was 1,700 individuals per m 2 . The farms selected for this study have agro-climatic differences and in farm management, the 4 farms in the Chinandega area have a higher rainfall regime and management is by associated cooperatives. The 4 farms in Leon have less rainfall and management is individual, that is, each producer manages his own farm. Relative and dominant abundance The genera Geophilus and Leptothorax had dominance with 70 individuals (Ind. m 2 ), Philoscia with 160 Ind. m 2 and Oxidus with 110 Ind. m 2 and Hypoponera are 165 Ind. m 2 , and earthworms are 590 Ind. m 2 . Tables 1 , 3 and 4 , and Figure 2 ( Zuniga-Gonzalez et al. , 2022a ) show the general relative abundance of macrofauna found in the four banana plantations in the city of León between the litter layer and soil depths of 0–20 cm. In theses plots was less mulch and leaf litter in the streets of the plantation. In the municipality of Posoltega, Pheidole sp. 280 Ind. m 2 , Solenopsis sp. 290 Ind. m 2 , Asiomorpha 170 Ind. m 2 , Earthworm 600 Ind. m 2 . A characteristic of the Chinandega area is that there was more leaf litter on the ground, covered ground, higher soil moisture, more vegetation between the streets ( Tables 5 and 6 ). The genus Pheidole sp., was found in the soil of a banana plantation in the city of León, and the genus Solenopsis. However, the frequencies of Earthworm individuals are similar in both communities. Zerbino et al. (2008) 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 % 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 Ind. m 2 Ind. m 2 Ind. m 2 Ind. m 2 Ind. m 2 Ind. m 2 Ind. m 2 Ind. m 2 Ind. m 2 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 Earthworms 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 Standard deviation 35.3 61.95 12.14 17.75 33.19 52.50 33.20 34.57 Table 4. Total relative abundance ( p i ) according to functional group in the farms of the León and Chinandega municipality. Functional group 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 Total p i 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 Standard deviation 34.3 61.95 12.14 17.7 33.19 52.5 33.2 34.5 Figure 2. Overall relative abundance of macrofauna found. This heatmap was constructed using PAST software. Table 5. Total population of taxa collected in litter strata and 0-20 cm 2 soil depth. Taxa number Taxa Posoltega municipality Farm 1 Ind. m 2 Farm 2 Ind. m 2 Farm 3 Ind. m 2 Farm 4 Ind. m 2 Farm 5 Ind. m 2 Farm 6 Ind. m 2 Farm 7 Ind. m 2 Farm 8 Ind. m 2 Standard deviation 1 Geophilus 65 0 0 5 0 5 0 20 22.51 2 Philoscia 95 20 45 0 5 0 0 0 33.96 3 Lathrobium 35 0 0 0 0 25 0 5 13.87 4 Elateridae 15 0 5 0 7.07 5 Leptothorax 10 5 10 45 10 0 0 10 14.33 6 Carabeidae 15 0 0 5 15 5 0 0 6.55 7 Oxidus 70 40 0 0 5 30 0 0 26.18 8 Asiomorpha 15 0 5 10 0 5 40 125 44.43 9 Hypoponera (ponerini) 50 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 41.96 10 Earthworms 150 325 50 65 150 225 100 125 89.91 11 Laboptera 0 5 15 0 0 0 0 0 5.35 12 Lobopoda 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 2.31 13 Bolbelamus 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.77 14 Camponotus 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.78 15 Diptera 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.77 16 Euborellia 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 10 1.77 17 Pangaeus 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5.82 18 Hymenorus 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 29.63 19 Plexippus 0 0 0 10 5 0 15 0 5.82 20 Reticulitermes 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 85 29.63 21 Scarabeidae 0 0 0 65 0 20 0 15 22.68 22 Pheidole 0 0 0 5 80 0 155 45 56.46 23 Tenebrinidae 0 0 5 0 0 5 10 0 3.78 24 Carpophilus 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 1.77 25 Curculinidae 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 5 3.72 26 Solenopsis 0 0 0 0 85 190 10 5 68.6 27 Cylindroiulus 0 0 0 0 10 0 5 0 3.72 28 Hahnia 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 2.31 29 Phrurolithus 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1.77 30 Coproporus 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1.77 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 Housefly (Muscidae) Diptera Linneaeus, 1758 Herbivores 2 Animalia Arthopoda Insecta Coloptera Elateridae Leach, 1815 Click beetle adults and larvae (wireworms) Herbivores 3 Animalia Arthopoda Insecta Hymenoptera Myrmicinae 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 Paradoxosomatidae Oxidus Cook, 1911 Detritivores 7 Animalia Arthopoda Diplopoda Polydesmida Paraxosomatidae Orthomorpha coarctata (De Saussure, 1860) Detritivores 8 Animalia Annelida Clitellata Oligochaeta Lumbricidae Earthworms Detritivores 9 Animalia Annelida Insecta Blattidae Ectobiidae Loboptera Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1865 Detritivores 10 Animalia Annelida Insecta Coleoptera Tenebrionidae Lobopoda Soller, 1835 Detritivores 11 Animalia Arthopoda Insecta Coleoptera Bolboceratidae Bolbelasmusunicornis (Schrank, 1789) Detritivores 12 Animalia Arthopoda Insecta Isotera Rhinotermitidae Reticulitermes Holmgren, 1913 Detritivores 13 Animalia Arthopoda Insecta Coleoptera Scarabaeidae Scarab Beetle Latreille, 1802 Detritivores 14 Animalia Annelida Insecta Coleoptera Tenebrionidae Latreille, 1802 Darkling beetle Detritivores 15 Animalia Arthopoda Diplopoda Julida Julidae Cylindriuslus terutonicus Pocock, 1900 Detritivores 16 Animalia Arthopoda Insecta Coleoptera Staphylinidae Coproporus Kraatz, 1857 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 Latreille, 1802 Ground beetles Predators 20 Animalia Arthopoda Insecta Hymenoptera Ponerinae 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 Stål, 1862 Predators 24 Animalia Arthopoda Insecta Coleoptera Alleulidae Hymenorus (Mulsant, 1851) Predators 25 Animalia Arthopoda Arachnida Araneae Salticidae Plexippusi (Audouin, 1826) Predators 26 Animalia Arthopoda Insecta Coleoptera Nitidulidae Carpophilus Stephens,1830 Predators 27 Animalia Arthopoda Insecta Coleoptera Curculionidae Latreille, 1802 True weevils and bark beetles Predators 28 Animalia Arthopoda Insecta Hymenoptera Myrmicinae 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) , reported that the Hymenoptera group was the most abundant, with 62.49% of the total individuals collected during the 2,000 agricultural cycle in organic and conventional banana plantations in Guacimo, Costa Rica. This means that the soil is moist throughout the year. However, the presence of Earthworms ( Opisthopora ) was 11.92% and abundant in all stages, this is due to rainfall patterns, that is, humidity, although rainfall is higher in Chinandega. In the municipality of Leon, Farm 1 shows that Earthworms dominated at 150 Ind. m 2 and Oxidus dominate with 70 Ind. m 2 . In farm 2, Earthworms dominated at 325 Ind. m 2 , and Hypoponera spp. with 115 Ind. m 2 , likewise in farm 4 El Verdón, stand out, genus Leptoxthorax (Opisthopora) of 45 Ind. m 2 , 65 Ind. m 2 of Scarabaeidae and 65 Ind. m 2 of Earthworms , however, in farm 3, only the genus, Philoscia , in Farm 3, measures 45 Ind. m 2 and Earthworms dominated at 50 Ind. m 2 ( Tables 5 and 6 ). The municipal of León has a greater wealth of sexes with 23 representative genus, but a lower overall dominance (Ind. m 2 ). In four farms (San Martín, Santa Isabel, Quinta Cony, and El Verdon) Earthworm frequencies were found to be similar, but less common genera such as Leptothorax and Asiomorpha were found. climatic conditions and agroecological management are factors that have influenced these results that are similar to Priego-Castillo et al. (2009) in Costa Rica. These data on Earthworm populations in litter and layers from 0 to 20 cm 2 have been confirmed by Castillo and Vera (2000) , Pashanasi (2001) , Zerbino (2010) , and these populations have a beneficial role in the soil. Training is very important and sensitive to management practices in the banana farms of León and Posoltega. In this area, the rains have created favorable conditions for the macrofauna and the management of the soil make these results more notable than in Leon. Table 4 shows the relative abundance by farm and by functional group, noting that the detritivores group is more abundant, followed by predators. The leaf litter and humidity conditions make organic matter a propitious environment for the detritivores group. These dominance groups exerted a beneficial function on the soil, allowing increased production yields because they are the responsible for breaking down OM and providing nutrition for plants ( Brown et al. , 2000 ). For the municipality Posoltega, in farm 6, earthworms dominate with 225 Ind. m 2 and Solenopsis spp. with 190 Ind. m 2 , farm 8 had Asiomorpha spp. with 125 Ind. m 2 ( Tables 5 and 6 ). Plantain farms in Posoltega are repopulated with Solenopsis worms and ants ( Pashanasi, 2001 ; Zerbino, 2010 ; Rousseau et al. , 2012 ). This is likely because they occupy the same ecological niches in which they coexist, interact with similar food sources, land, husbandry and management skills, and benefit from abundant and prosperous communities. These data are supported by Zayas et al. (2022) , Quiroz-Medina et al. (2021) , Castillo y Vera (2000) , 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 dominance (less than 40%) is observed in each of the farms. The Shannon-Wiener index shows low diversity with values less than 2, except for farms 1, 4 and 8 with values close to 2, meaning normal diversity. The Shannon indexes are not superior to those of Melo (2010) , who had a high diversity value of the Shannon index of H′ = 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 Genus Typos 10 11 9 11 11 10 11 11 Ind. m 2 520 560 145 225 380 515 355 450 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) , shown that the discrepancies in the constitution of the macrofauna’s community and proportions of functional groups are aspects influenced by the species, the richness of plant species and management, and states that it affects living organisms. This is because they determine the available resources and influence the interactions between herbivores, their controllers, and the predators identified by Moore et al. (2004) . This supports the findings that monoculture influences has a significant impact on resource availability, thus affecting the interactions between functional groups per square meter in the city of Posoltega. The results indicated that the texture of the biocenosis is consistent with the edaphic properties and the quantity and quality of the residues ( Almonte, 2022 ; Leyva, 2012 ; Curry, 1992 ). In zero tillage, management practices that promote the presence of residues with spatial and temporal diversification of plant species have richer, more diverse and equitable communities, with a predominance of deterioration functional groups ( Priego et al. , 2009 ; Zerbino, 2010 ; Zerbino et al. , 2008 ). This is consistent with the findings in the present study (see Tables 3 - 8 ). 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 Genus Typos 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 1 Ind. m 2 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 Genus Typos 5 6 5 5 4 6 6 5 Ind. m 2 365 400 120 150 170 310 165 355 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 Genus Typos 3 3 2 5 6 4 5 5 Ind. m 2 130 150 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 analysis confirmed that Posoltega had lower populations of herbivores per m 2 and 460 carnivores per m 2 ( Table 3 ). This confirms the conditions for the detritivores with the decomposition of the organic matter that produces the rainy regime and the greatest amount of litter. Table 8 shows the diversity indicators by functional groups. These are predominantly detritivores of 400 Ind. m 2 , and predators 205 Ind. m 2 , in contrast to El Verdón on farm 4, which has a low population of herbivores of 45 Ind. m 2 , detritivores 150 Ind. m 2 due to the large population of predators found. Similarly, at Farm 8 Los Angeles there were only 10 Ind. m 2 herbivores. This is due to the large population of 85 Ind. m 2 predators, also to the agro climatilly conditions ( Tables 3 - 5 and 6 ). The data collected in the León area show that the herbivorous functional group has a low proportion of Diversity by the values of the Shannon-Wiener index (H) with a value close to 1 denoting low diversity, this is considered within normality, Dominance Simpson (1-D) with a value close to 1 and Pielou Equity (J′) very close to 1 as in the case of farm 2, meaning equally abundant species. However, the Margalef Diversity Index (DMg) showed a value below 2 considering for areas of low diversity, similar to the work of Frederick et al. (2018) . Three indicators dominance in the functional group of detritivorous organisms in the city of León. Margalef Diversity (DMg) with a value below 2 means that no farm with this group can be considered as having high diversity. For Simpson Dominance (1-D) it can be said that they are at a midpoint between 1 and 0 with a normal diversity and a Pielou Equity Index (J′) with a value close to 1 situation where all species are equally abundant, of the indices for the Predators group were dominated by three indices: DMg in farm 4, which almost reaches value 2, it can be said that they are within the normal range, and Shannon-Wiener Diversity (H) with values lower than 1 indicating low diversity. This contrasts with the Posoltega area, where Simpson (1-D) dominates with a value close to 0, which implies a high diversity, these organisms are favored because on these farms, litter was found in the alleys creating decomposing matter favored by humidity ( Depaquit et al. , 2016 ). Table 8 shows the estimates of the indices of population abundance and species richness, determined by functional groups. According to the DMg, the value found was less than 2 considered as a zone of low biodiversity, which assumes that the number of individuals is equal to the number of species. In the Simpson index, the probability that eight individuals taken at random are of the same species is 0.2 in the case of León and 0.19, this constitutes a low probability, since most of the farms are made up of the genus Earthworms , and that had a lot of abundance of the same species. The Pielou Equity Index (J) confirms these with values close to 1 where all species are equally abundant ( Bottinelli et al. , 2010 ). Diversity and productivity Samples were taken for the comparative study between plantain production and the two most abundant genera, earthworms and Hymenoptera, both of which are beneficial in the decomposition of OM and the supply of nutrients to the plant. In the dominance of worms, the Quinta Cony (Farm 2) was found where 325 Ind. m 2 collected, followed by the Montes Verde farm (Farm 6) with 225 Ind. m 2 . Hymenoptera were dominant on the San Joaquín farm (Farm 5) with 175 Ind. m 2 and on farm 7 with 165 Ind. m 2 ( Pimentel et al. , 1997 ) ( Table 9 and Figure 3 ). Table 9. Agricultural production (banana units per ha) and the abundance of earthworms and hymenopteran insects (Ind. m 2 ). Farm ID Community Production Units ha Hymenoptera Ind. m 2 Earthworm Ind. m 2 Abundance estimated overall Earthworm production Ind. m 2 Abundance estimated overall Hymenoptera production Ind. m 2 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. Productivity vs. Hymenoptera and Earthworms. To compare the psyllium production of each farm, the proportion of worms and insects of the two most abundant genera, the order Hymenoptera, was taken, indicating that a greater number of worms indicates a greater production. It was observed that for Hymenoptera, the production is lower. The farms with the highest production in the León area were Quinta Cony with 91,000 ha and Santa Isabel with 25,600 ha. The farm of 80,000 ha in farm 8 and farm 6 with 85,000 ha in Montes Verdes for the Posoltega area ( Figures 3 , 4 and 5 ). Figure 4. Relationship between diversity indices and productivity in plantain agroecosystems, Nicaragua. Figure 5. Shannon Index. Pearson's correlation analysis commonly correlates agricultural production (plantain units ha) and the abundance of earthworms and hymenopteran insects, projecting a correlation close to 1 with 95% confidence. The relationship between plantain production per ha and the abundance of earthworms of Ind. m 2 establishes a direct relationship, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.743, close to 1, and a perfect or strong relationship in the Pearson correlation analysis ( Table 10 ). That is, by increasing the number of earthworms in the soil, the production of plantain per ha increases in the farms studied in both regions (León and Posoltega). On the other hand, a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.261 ( Table 9 ) was obtained, which indicated that the relationship between production and abundance of Hymenoptera is very close to 0, thus showing a weak correlation between production and abundance of Hymenoptera insects ( Ma et al. , 2022 ). Table 10. Pearson correlation coefficients of the banana production with the density Ind. m 2 of earthworms and Hymenoptera insects. Study zone Banana Production Earthworms Hymenopteras Both areas Banana Production 0.743 * 0.261 * Earthworms 0.743 * 0.608 * Hymenopteras 0.261 * 0.608 * León Banana Production 0.988 * 0.942 * Earthworms 0.988 * 0.968 * Hymenopteras 0.942 * 0.968 * Posoltega Banana Production 0.465 * -0.484 * Earthworms 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 and Figure 6 show 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 * Significance p < 0.05. ** Significance p < 0.01. Figure 6. Pairwise Person correlation plot. The results of the bootstrap analysis reveal insights into the relationship between banana production and the abundance of Hymenoptera insects and earthworms ( Table 12 , Figure 7 ). The correlation analysis indicates a slight negative correlation between banana production and Hymenoptera abundance, with a coefficient of approximately -0.139. Despite a positive bias observed in the bootstrap samples, the correlation remains relatively stable, suggesting that higher banana production may be associated with lower abundance of Hymenoptera insects. Conversely, there exists a positive correlation between banana production and earthworm abundance, with a coefficient of approximately 0.351. Despite a slight positive bias, the correlation remains robust, implying that higher banana production tends to coincide with increased earthworm abundance. These findings underscore the complex interplay between agricultural productivity and the ecological dynamics of insect and soil communities, emphasizing the importance of considering multiple factors in sustainable agricultural management. Table 12. Bootstrap statistics for Hymenoptera and Worms. Original * Bias Std. error Hymenoptera -0.139 0.04 0.36 Worms 0.351 0.12 0.27 * t1. Figure 7. Bootstrap correlation distribution for Worms. Conclusions 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 agro system due to the decomposition of OM and its nutritional contribution to the plant, observing a direct correlation with earthworms and an indirect one with Hymenoptera. 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. , 2022a ). 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 - Figure_5.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. Bottinelli N, Henry-des-Tureaux T, Hallaire V, et al. :Earthworms accelerate soil porosity turnover under watering conditions, Geoderma.2010; 156 (1–2); 43–47. Publisher Full Text 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 Brown GG, Barois I, Lavelle P: Regulation of soil organic matter dynamics and microbial activityin the drilosphere and the role of interactionswith other edaphic functional domains. European Journal of Soil Biology. 2000; 36 (3-4): 177–198. Publisher Full Text Cardona MJG, Carvajal SLB, Salinas DGC, et al. : Seminario Internacional sobre Producción de Plátano. Armenia, Quindfo, Colombia: International Seminar on Plantain Production; 1998; 322. 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 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 Curry JP, Good JA: Soil faunal degradation and restoration. Soil restoration. New York, NY: Springer; 1992; (pp. 171–215). 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 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. Depaquit J, Pesson B, Augot D, et al. : Proceedings of the IX International Symposium on Phlebotomine Sandflies (ISOPS IX), Reims, France, June 28th–July 1st, 2016. Parasite, 23; 2016. 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 Frederick L, Escribano R, Morales CE, et al. : Mesozooplankton respiration and community structure in a seamount region of the eastern South Pacific. Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers. 2018; 135 : 74–87. 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. Ma Y, Wang D, Guo X, et al. : Root stoichiometry explains wheat endophytes and their link with crop production after four decades of fertilization. Science of The Total Environment. 2022; 846 : 157407. Publisher Full Text Mathieu J, Antunes AC, Barot S, et al. : sOilFauna - a global synthesis effort on the drivers of soil macrofauna communities and functioning: WORKSHOP REPORT. Soil Organisms. 2022; 94 (2): 111–126. Publisher Full Text 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 Pimentel D, Wilson C, McCullum C, et al. : Economic and environmental benefits of biodiversity. BioScience. 1997; 47 (11): 747–757. 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. HAL-BIOEMCO. 2008; p. 113. Reference Source 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. 2022a. Publisher Full Text Zuniga-Gonzalez CA, Medina CRQ, Hernandez AJC: Macrofauna Occidental Farms. protocols.io. 2022b. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 4 VERSION 4 PUBLISHED 14 Nov 2022 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment 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 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 Copyright © 2024 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 Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new 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 4; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 11 :1300 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.127300.4 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE 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 Version 4 VERSION 4 PUBLISHED 18 Jun 2024 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Carvajal Alcaraz M. Reviewer Report For: Diversity of functional edaphic macrofauna in Musa acuminata x Musa balbisiana (AAB) agroecosystems [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 11 :1300 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.164823.r309724 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1300/v4#referee-response-309724 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 14 Aug 2024 Micaela Carvajal Alcaraz , CEBAS-CSIC. Campus Universitario de Espinardo, Murcia, Spain Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.164823.r309724 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 ... Continue reading READ ALL 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. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Carvajal Alcaraz M. Reviewer Report For: Diversity of functional edaphic macrofauna in Musa acuminata x Musa balbisiana (AAB) agroecosystems [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 11 :1300 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.164823.r309724 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1300/v4#referee-response-309724 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 16 Jan 2024 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Mathieu J. Reviewer Report For: Diversity of functional edaphic macrofauna in Musa acuminata x Musa balbisiana (AAB) agroecosystems [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 11 :1300 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.161242.r238299 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1300/v3#referee-response-238299 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 21 Mar 2024 Jérôme Mathieu , Sorbonne Universite, Paris, Île-de-France, France Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.161242.r238299 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 ... Continue reading READ ALL 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. 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. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Mathieu J. Reviewer Report For: Diversity of functional edaphic macrofauna in Musa acuminata x Musa balbisiana (AAB) agroecosystems [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 11 :1300 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.161242.r238299 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1300/v3#referee-response-238299 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern 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 21 Jun 2024 Author Response 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 ... Continue reading 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. 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. Competing Interests: I want to confirm that I have no competing interests that could sway my assessment of the manuscript or peer review report. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT 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 21 Jun 2024 Author Response 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 ... Continue reading 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. 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. Competing Interests: I want to confirm that I have no competing interests that could sway my assessment of the manuscript or peer review report. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 14 Nov 2022 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Mathieu J. Reviewer Report For: Diversity of functional edaphic macrofauna in Musa acuminata x Musa balbisiana (AAB) agroecosystems [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 11 :1300 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.139795.r177964 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1300/v1#referee-response-177964 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 19 Jul 2023 Jérôme Mathieu , Sorbonne Universite, Paris, Île-de-France, France Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 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. ... Continue reading READ ALL 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. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Mathieu J. Reviewer Report For: Diversity of functional edaphic macrofauna in Musa acuminata x Musa balbisiana (AAB) agroecosystems [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 11 :1300 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.139795.r177964 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1300/v1#referee-response-177964 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS 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 m 2 (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. m 2 [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. m 2 was added. - The title of the last column is not clear, please clarify and provide the units. Response: Thanks, It was change by Abundance Estimated overall Earthworm production Ind. m 2 . [30] Figure 3: - Please use worm and Hymenoptera for the x axis and the productivity for the Y axis. - What do you mean by "real"? Response: Dear is ok the change was made. The Real is the production of Banana or plantains, during the periods studied. Measured in Units by ha. Dear reviewer by best interpretation all was change by Production (Units ha ). [31] In all the results sections, you should explain and use the difference among plots to explain the variations in soil macrofauna. For instance, don't you have soil data or management data? Response: Dear all results section was checked and added the comments that you indicated. Regarding to the management data the farmer don’t had information because the cost to get it (Laboratory of soil). [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 m 2 (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. m 2 [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. m 2 was added. - The title of the last column is not clear, please clarify and provide the units. Response: Thanks, It was change by Abundance Estimated overall Earthworm production Ind. m 2 . [30] Figure 3: - Please use worm and Hymenoptera for the x axis and the productivity for the Y axis. - What do you mean by "real"? Response: Dear is ok the change was made. The Real is the production of Banana or plantains, during the periods studied. Measured in Units by ha. Dear reviewer by best interpretation all was change by Production (Units ha ). [31] In all the results sections, you should explain and use the difference among plots to explain the variations in soil macrofauna. For instance, don't you have soil data or management data? Response: Dear all results section was checked and added the comments that you indicated. Regarding to the management data the farmer don’t had information because the cost to get it (Laboratory of soil). [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: Data Compilation : The data from both sites has been consolidated into a singular file as requested. 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 m 2 (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. m 2 [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. m 2 was added. - The title of the last column is not clear, please clarify and provide the units. Response: Thanks, It was change by Abundance Estimated overall Earthworm production Ind. m 2 . [30] Figure 3: - Please use worm and Hymenoptera for the x axis and the productivity for the Y axis. - What do you mean by "real"? Response: Dear is ok the change was made. The Real is the production of Banana or plantains, during the periods studied. Measured in Units by ha. Dear reviewer by best interpretation all was change by Production (Units ha ). [31] In all the results sections, you should explain and use the difference among plots to explain the variations in soil macrofauna. For instance, don't you have soil data or management data? Response: Dear all results section was checked and added the comments that you indicated. Regarding to the management data the farmer don’t had information because the cost to get it (Laboratory of soil). [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 m 2 (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. m 2 [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. m 2 was added. - The title of the last column is not clear, please clarify and provide the units. Response: Thanks, It was change by Abundance Estimated overall Earthworm production Ind. m 2 . [30] Figure 3: - Please use worm and Hymenoptera for the x axis and the productivity for the Y axis. - What do you mean by "real"? Response: Dear is ok the change was made. The Real is the production of Banana or plantains, during the periods studied. Measured in Units by ha. Dear reviewer by best interpretation all was change by Production (Units ha ). [31] In all the results sections, you should explain and use the difference among plots to explain the variations in soil macrofauna. For instance, don't you have soil data or management data? Response: Dear all results section was checked and added the comments that you indicated. Regarding to the management data the farmer don’t had information because the cost to get it (Laboratory of soil). [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: Data Compilation : The data from both sites has been consolidated into a singular file as requested. 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 COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Sol A. Reviewer Report For: Diversity of functional edaphic macrofauna in Musa acuminata x Musa balbisiana (AAB) agroecosystems [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 11 :1300 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.139795.r155921 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1300/v1#referee-response-155921 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 07 Mar 2023 Angel Sol , Campus Tabasco, Colegio de Postgraduados, Texcoco, State of Mexico, Mexico Approved VIEWS 0 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/m 2 '. Example: 160 ind/m 2 . ... Continue reading READ ALL 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/m 2 '. Example: 160 ind/m 2 . "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 cm 2 , while the remaining 21.26% in the foliage. In the first four farms in the León area, 23 genera were found, and in the Posoltega farms, 21 genera. The relative abundance of León was 1,450 individuals per m 2 , while in the Posoltega area it was 1,700 individuals per m 2 ." 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. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Sol A. Reviewer Report For: Diversity of functional edaphic macrofauna in Musa acuminata x Musa balbisiana (AAB) agroecosystems [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 11 :1300 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.139795.r155921 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1300/v1#referee-response-155921 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS 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. "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/m 2 '. Example: 160 ind/m 2 . 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 cm 2 , while the remaining 21.26% in the foliage. In the first four farms in the León area, 23 genera were found, and in the Posoltega farms, 21 genera. The relative abundance of León was 1,450 individuals per m 2 , while in the Posoltega area it was 1,700 individuals per m 2 .". Response: Dear reviewer it was translated to the results section, thanks for this observation. 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/m 2 '. Example: 160 ind/m 2 . 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 cm 2 , while the remaining 21.26% in the foliage. In the first four farms in the León area, 23 genera were found, and in the Posoltega farms, 21 genera. The relative abundance of León was 1,450 individuals per m 2 , while in the Posoltega area it was 1,700 individuals per m 2 .". Response: Dear reviewer it was translated to the results section, thanks for this observation. 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. "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/m 2 '. Example: 160 ind/m 2 . 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 cm 2 , while the remaining 21.26% in the foliage. In the first four farms in the León area, 23 genera were found, and in the Posoltega farms, 21 genera. The relative abundance of León was 1,450 individuals per m 2 , while in the Posoltega area it was 1,700 individuals per m 2 .". Response: Dear reviewer it was translated to the results section, thanks for this observation. 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/m 2 '. Example: 160 ind/m 2 . 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 cm 2 , while the remaining 21.26% in the foliage. In the first four farms in the León area, 23 genera were found, and in the Posoltega farms, 21 genera. The relative abundance of León was 1,450 individuals per m 2 , while in the Posoltega area it was 1,700 individuals per m 2 .". Response: Dear reviewer it was translated to the results section, thanks for this observation. 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 COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 4 VERSION 4 PUBLISHED 14 Nov 2022 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline 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 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 Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Carvajal Alcaraz M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 14 Aug 2024 | for Version 4 Micaela Carvajal Alcaraz , CEBAS-CSIC. Campus Universitario de Espinardo, Murcia, Spain 0 Views copyright © 2024 Carvajal Alcaraz M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline 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 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. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Carvajal Alcaraz M. Peer Review Report For: Diversity of functional edaphic macrofauna in Musa acuminata x Musa balbisiana (AAB) agroecosystems [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 11 :1300 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.164823.r309724) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1300/v4#referee-response-309724 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Mathieu J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 21 Mar 2024 | for Version 3 Jérôme Mathieu , Sorbonne Universite, Paris, Île-de-France, France 0 Views copyright © 2024 Mathieu J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline 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 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. 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. reply 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. reply Respond Report a concern Mathieu J. Peer Review Report For: Diversity of functional edaphic macrofauna in Musa acuminata x Musa balbisiana (AAB) agroecosystems [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 11 :1300 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.161242.r238299) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1300/v3#referee-response-238299 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2023 Mathieu J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 19 Jul 2023 | for Version 1 Jérôme Mathieu , Sorbonne Universite, Paris, Île-de-France, France 0 Views copyright © 2023 Mathieu J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (2) Approved With Reservations info_outline 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 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. reply 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 m 2 (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. m 2 [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. m 2 was added. - The title of the last column is not clear, please clarify and provide the units. Response: Thanks, It was change by Abundance Estimated overall Earthworm production Ind. m 2 . [30] Figure 3: - Please use worm and Hymenoptera for the x axis and the productivity for the Y axis. - What do you mean by "real"? Response: Dear is ok the change was made. The Real is the production of Banana or plantains, during the periods studied. Measured in Units by ha. Dear reviewer by best interpretation all was change by Production (Units ha ). [31] In all the results sections, you should explain and use the difference among plots to explain the variations in soil macrofauna. For instance, don't you have soil data or management data? Response: Dear all results section was checked and added the comments that you indicated. Regarding to the management data the farmer don’t had information because the cost to get it (Laboratory of soil). [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. reply Respond 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 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. reply Respond Report a concern Mathieu J. Peer Review Report For: Diversity of functional edaphic macrofauna in Musa acuminata x Musa balbisiana (AAB) agroecosystems [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 11 :1300 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.139795.r177964) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1300/v1#referee-response-177964 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2023 Sol A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 07 Mar 2023 | for Version 1 Angel Sol , Campus Tabasco, Colegio de Postgraduados, Texcoco, State of Mexico, Mexico 0 Views copyright © 2023 Sol A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (2) Approved info_outline 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 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/m 2 '. Example: 160 ind/m 2 . "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 cm 2 , while the remaining 21.26% in the foliage. In the first four farms in the León area, 23 genera were found, and in the Posoltega farms, 21 genera. The relative abundance of León was 1,450 individuals per m 2 , while in the Posoltega area it was 1,700 individuals per m 2 ." 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. reply Respond to this report Responses (2) 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 I appreciate the comments of the reviewer1 and I confirm and accept the improvements to be incorporated. View more View less Competing Interests I have no competing interests. The reviewer's observations are valid and pertinent to improve the article's contribution. reply Respond 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 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/m 2 '. Example: 160 ind/m 2 . 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 cm 2 , while the remaining 21.26% in the foliage. In the first four farms in the León area, 23 genera were found, and in the Posoltega farms, 21 genera. The relative abundance of León was 1,450 individuals per m 2 , while in the Posoltega area it was 1,700 individuals per m 2 .". Response: Dear reviewer it was translated to the results section, thanks for this observation. 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. reply Respond Report a concern Sol A. Peer Review Report For: Diversity of functional edaphic macrofauna in Musa acuminata x Musa balbisiana (AAB) agroecosystems [version 4; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 11 :1300 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.139795.r155921) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1300/v1#referee-response-155921 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 Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Diversity of functional edaphic macrofauna...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1300/v4" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1300/v4&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1300/v4" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Zúniga-Gonzalez CA and Caballero-Hernández AJ'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1300/v4/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1300", templates : { twitter : "Diversity of functional edaphic macrofauna in Musa acuminata.... Zúniga-Gonzalez CA and Caballero-Hernández AJ, published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1300/v4" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/127300/164823") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "164823"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "293636": 0, "293637": 0, "293638": 0, "293639": 0, "164358": 0, "293635": 0, "164357": 0, "166154": 0, "293645": 0, "166155": 0, "293640": 0, "160782": 0, "293641": 0, "293642": 0, "293643": 0, "155922": 0, "159506": 0, "159251": 0, "155923": 0, "159507": 0, "155920": 0, "159505": 0, "155921": 25, "159252": 0, "155924": 0, "188180": 0, "159253": 0, "155925": 0, "188181": 0, "156701": 0, "177198": 0, "177199": 0, "177196": 0, "177964": 25, "177197": 0, "177202": 0, "177203": 0, "177971": 0, "177200": 0, "177968": 0, "177201": 0, "177969": 0, "219959": 0, "177206": 0, "177974": 0, "219958": 0, "177204": 0, "177205": 0, "219963": 0, "208186": 0, "177979": 0, "208185": 0, "177976": 0, "222776": 0, "219966": 0, "177983": 0, "177981": 0, "158018": 0, "170306": 0, "170307": 0, "158019": 0, "177987": 0, "170304": 0, "170305": 0, "219975": 0, "170310": 0, "158022": 0, "219974": 0, "170311": 0, "158023": 0, "219973": 0, "170308": 0, "158020": 0, "219972": 0, "170309": 0, "158026": 0, "170312": 0, "158024": 0, "170313": 0, "158029": 0, "215133": 0, "299620": 0, "299621": 0, "299622": 0, "299623": 0, "299617": 0, "299618": 0, "299619": 0, "174698": 0, "174699": 0, "299624": 0, "174702": 0, "174703": 0, "174700": 0, "174701": 0, "174706": 0, "174707": 0, "174704": 0, "174705": 0, "181386": 0, "181387": 0, "181390": 0, "181389": 0, "181394": 0, "181396": 0, "181402": 0, "181403": 0, "292510": 0, "181400": 0, "292511": 0, "181401": 0, "172466": 0, "172467": 0, "172465": 0, "172470": 0, "172471": 0, "172468": 0, "172469": 0, "172474": 0, "172472": 0, "172473": 0, "164290": 0, "164802": 0, "164288": 0, "164289": 0, "164801": 0, "238299": 9, "309724": 3, "309725": 0, "309726": 0, "160728": 0, "309727": 0, "160729": 0, "238300": 0, "309723": 0, "156386": 0, "156385": 0, "167925": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "5c24a3b4-68af-4844-ac6c-7e43f711b682"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });