Inventory of Below-Ground Biodiversity in Seven Countries and
Three Continents: An Analysis of Land Use, Species Distribution
and their Taxonomy.
A. Inventory of the Microbes
a. Inventory of the Nitrogen fixing Bacteria
1.
DENSITY AND DIVERSITY OF ASSOCIATIVE DIAZOTROPHIC
BACTERIA IN SOILS UNDER DIVERSE LAND USE SYSTEMS IN
AMAZONIA*
Master student (MSc): Krisle da Silva
Supervisor: Fátima M. S. Moreira
Colaborating Graduate students (PhD): Rafaela Nóbrega, Adriana Lima,
Alexandre Barberi
Colaborating Undergraduate student: Ligiane Florentino
Setor de Microbiologia do Solo/DCS/UFLA, Brazil
* This work is part of the Máster thesis of Krisle da Silva.
(Code: Aa1_BRA)
Code1
Nr.
Aa1_BRA 56
Date last version
Rev1
3 June 2005
C/D
Revised

Rev 2
C
Revised
Final eval
--
Review of the manuscript by da Silva et al
(i)
Contribution to knowledge on BGDB
This manuscript describes results obtained on the density and diversity of associative diazotrophic bacteria
in several land use system in Amazon. These results are quite interesting but my problem was to see why it
is important to assess the diversity of this type of bacteria in terms according to the type of land use. A lot
of scientific articles have described a possible relationship between some crops and species of associative
diazotrophic bacteria but at the ecosystem scale, I am not certain that it was demonstrated that this type of
microbial community plays a key role. It would be nice if the authors could explained that in the
Introduction section which is poor and misses totally on information regarding the role in the soil of
Azospirillum , Herbasirillum and Burkholderia. It is a big gap and I invite the authors to reconsider the
content of their Introduction in order to improve it and to introduce correctly their work. I have not found
the Discussion section. I don’t know if it has been forgotten but it would be appreciated if the authors could
discuss their results by comparison with scientific articles already published. I think that too many details
are presented in the abstract which has to be reduced. Some suggestions have been done in order to reduce
this text (I think that it is not enough) and the last sentence has to be changed because it confuses the
reader.
(ii)
Research and methodology used
The number of sites (3) and replicates par site and LUS is not high but I assume that it may be
representative of the real situation in Amazon. It suggests being very careful during the interpretation of the
results. I expected that the authors would use molecular technique such as PCR/RFLP rather than SDSPAGE which has been criticized for assessing the natural biodiversity of rhizobia for example. We have an
idea on the diversity of strain through SDS-Page pattern but it is partial view not obligatory linked with
genetic diversity. No soil characteristics are provided in the paper. It is a gap.
-1-
(iii)
Presentation of data
Some legends are missing on the protein profiles. I would appreciate if the authors have tried to link LUS /
Geographic origins of strains and the diversity of strains through their protein profiles. It has to be
discussed and it should be interesting to see if a relationship occurs. I suggest removing both Tables 4 and 5
which are not necessary for my personal point of view.
(iv)
Literature citation
The list of references is not at all correct. Full names of the authors have to be indicated. I remember to the
authors that a guideline has been provided to them by BGBD during the last meeting in Manaus / Brazil.
They have to read it and present their manuscript according to this guideline. I have noted that Im et al
(2004) is mentioned in the text but not in the list of references. I don’t know that it means GNA (page 4). I
assume that you shall cite a reference corresponding to GNA which seems to be a culture media.
(v)
Correction or revision
Many corrections and comments have been done on the hard copy of the manuscript. I encourage the
authors to correct their manuscript according to these recommendations.
(vi)
Final Evaluation
This paper may be published after major revisions according to the interest of the results obtained.
However, the interpretation of results is too limited and insufficient for a scientific article. A significant
effort shall be done to improve the quality of the manuscript for its publication in the Proceedings.
-2-
General comments for the LNB Papers
- It seems that the papers were written in a very fast way as having a too short notice to carry out all
analyses and to analyze data properly. In most case only very preliminary data are presented.
- All these papers, INCLUDING BRAZILIAN “PAPER” (not the one that was published but the one I sent
you just before AM05- they are different) are not ready for publication, even the most elaborate one
(Mexican paper).
- I think the problem is that time was too short, considering LNB needs much more time for analysis,
mainly the genetic ones (e.g.sequencing) than other functional groups. Except for Mexican paper (because
they have infrastructure for that) the other papers did not show species identification that needs sequencing
of specific genes. For instance, in the case of Brazil we gave up to sequence in UFLA because problems we
had in amplification of fragments and then we sent strains to Michigan State University. Although we had
an import permit of USDA (sent by Dr. James Tiedje) and sent the samples by FEDEX, the samples were
refused to enter in EUA and stayed traveling around 1 month in the world. It seems FEDEX committed lots
of mistakes, some of them we detected and the most important the soil permit stamp was partially removed
from the box when we received the box back. Now we are going to try by DHL.
5- Standard methods proposed in EMBU and sent to all countries were not mentioned (Mexico and
Uganda-although it seems they follow at least partially what was proposed) or mentioned in the wrong
way (Indonesia-"Swift and Bignell, 2001", India-"Standard methods for assessment of soil Biodiversity and
Land use Practices, not listed in references).Methodology is confuse or too summarized as they did not
refer properly to standard method and they did not gave all details it is difficult to know if the method was
completely followed. It is my opinion that all of them should refer to the standard method proposed in
EMBU (and include the report in the references) stating clearly what was followed. I asked this to all
of them just before AM05. However, I suppose global coordination must have a position about this
matter and it should prevail.
Other comments specific of each paper are:
India:
Soil sampling not mentioned. Trap plant species not mentioned. Only numbers of LNB calculated with
siratro (means without standard deviation) .
Number of isolates/benchmarck area presented as well as number of isolates/ main cultural characteristics.
Total number of isolates=286 including nodules from trap species and collected in the field. Same data as
present in AM05.
This paper must be revised according to suggestions, improved with new data according standard methods,
and resubmitted for re consideration.
Indonesia: Trap species: In the beginning of abstract sorghum (!!!) is mentioned as the host plant. Later ,
it is mentioned siratro and vigna were the trap species.
Numbers of LNB (calculated with both siratro and vigna?) presented (means without standard deviation),
table 1 should state if figures are means of both species, if yes, it would be more suitable to present that
separately. Total number of isolates=349 (only from trap species, no isolates from nodules collected in the
field were presented)
They mentioned "Isolate number was no correlated with nodule number and this indicated rhizobia
diversity was not directly relate to nodule abundance". There are two mistakes in the statement: firstnumber of isolates is related to success of isolation from nodules that depends on a series of factors such as
the ability of the person who is isolating in successfully eliminate surface contaminants and apply the right
time for nodule surface disinfection. Although it can have a relationship with nodule number (because of
probability!) it is not necessarily true. The other mistake is to found a relationship between diversity and
nodule abundance in this way. No accumulation or rarefation curves based in types of LNB found
(e.g.cultural, genetic, phenotypic) X number of isolates were present to support this statement.
Table 2 should specify if the figures are means considering or not only nodulated plants. Why "0" if there
were five nodulated plants?
Table 3. Isolates are "get" not "collected"
-3-
Authors stated "their results disagree with the suggestions that siratro is a promiscuous host", based only in
their data on rhizobia numbers. Although many data indicate cowpea is more promiscuous than siratro (see
method Embu), it does not mean siratro is not promiscuous. Siratro is less promiscuous than vigna but it is
promiscuous as compared to other species. Besides specificity/promiscuity is related not to rhizobia
numbers but to the number of different rhizobia "types" (usually strains or species) that establish
symbiosis. However in "conclusion" they say siratro is promiscuous what contradicts what they said before.
Same data as present in AM05.
This paper must be revised according to suggestions , improved with new data according standard methods
and resubmitted for re consideration.
Uganda: When soil was sampled?
Trap species: siratro, beans and soybean. Numbers of LNB calculated with beans , siratro
and soybean? It is not clear in M&M, although only numbers get with beans are presented (means
without standard deviation). N, P and K (in regressions), I supposed are soil contents. How they were
determined ?Method not included in M& M. Material and Methods do not explain the difference
between predicted log Mpn and log Mpn. What is the meaning of "nodulation frequency"(in the
text) and "frequency of bean, siratro and soybean nodulating bacteria in different LUT" (in the
table)? Number of sampling points/LUS with nodulated plants?
Cultural characteristics of isolates from beans and siratro presented. What about those from soybean?361
isolates from beans and 38 from siratro.
The absorption of congo red as indicator of contaminants is not a good test for LNB authentication as many
exceptions are verified in the literature, i.e. some LNB are also able to absorb congo red.
More data present than in AM05. Thus, I suppose it was sent after the AM05.
This paper must be revised according to suggestions, improved with new data according standard methods
and resubmitted for re consideration.
Mexico: Siratro, beans and vigna plant species.1607 isolates
Title: It seems confuse to me "different land use systems in the rain forest" . Is it correct?
In soil sampling stated that tools were thoroughly cleaned but not sterilized. How they were cleaned? It is
mentioned in page 9 that rhizobia may also be dispersed by the dust particles carried by the wind. It should
be considered that tools for sampling can also be responsible for dispersion of bacteria.
Samples were collected in December 2003, January 2004 and January 2005.All sampling points in each
date? Data presented are means of the three samplings? How many sampling points?
Gene sequences were determined for 89 strains randomly chosen. Why they did not chose them among
representatives of ERIC -PCR groups or cultural groups, which data were mentioned in M& M, but not
presented?
Method of counting only utilizing nodule numbers in dilutions 10 -1 and 10-2 is not described in the reference
mentioned (Vincent,1970) and in any other of our knowledge, please supply suitable reference.
Auto-citation in cases that do not apply, e.g. "Thus, the analysis of the sequences of markers genes has
become the best strategy to identify and recognize rhizobial species (Vinuesa et al., 2005a)." This is well
know since the nineties for all Prokaryote species.
Figure 1. As sampling procedure was not available in the text of this paper (but in Pérez et al.) it is difficult
to know the meaning of “percent of nodulating soil samples with the indicated trap plants”. Does it mean
the frequency of sampling points which nodulates trap species?
This paper must be revised according to suggestions and resubmitted for re consideration.
I prefer to believe all of us have to have more time to get our analysis ready ( at least partially and
sufficient for a publication) and/or to analyze data and write the paper properly. Thus, if you really need
right now "good quality papers" you should give us some more time. What about the 2 years given for data
publication in the document “Project Data Sharing and Intellectual Property Rights¨? By the way, in our
discussions in Brazil we realized that at least 3 years (instead 2) would be necessary considering the
inclusion of papers integrating different functional groups and /or site characteristics (soil, vegetation, etc.).
On the other hand, we have to take advantage of this opportunity to verify how standard methods were
carried out by the different countries.
-4-
2. Diversity of Leguminosae nodulating bacteria in diverse land
use systems in the upper Solimões River Basin, Benjamin
Constant Municipality, AM- Brazil.
Fátima M. S. Moreira(1), Adriana S. Lima(2), Alexandre Barberi(2), Rafaela S. A.
Nóbrega(2), João Paulo R. Pereira(3), Ligiane Florentino(3), Paulo A. Ferreira(3),
Michele A. Silva(3), Marlene A. Souza(4)
(1)
Supervisor; (2) Ph D Student; (3) Undergraduate Student; (4) Technician University Federal of Lavras (UFLA)
(Code: Aa2_BRA)
Code1
Nr.
Aa2_BRA 58
Date last version
Rev1
16/05/2005
C
Revised

Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
C
Reviewers’ comments
The first reviewer
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Contribution to knowledge on BGBD.
A very good number of isolates has been analyzed, shifts on rhizobial diversity are recognized on
morphological and phenotypical characteristics. The sequencing and analysis are pending.
Research and Methodology used
Proper methodology has been employed to the analysis, but the nitrogen fixation efficiency that was
performed was not originally considered among the standard protocols.
Presentation of data
Data is presented systematically but figures could be arranged to follow the same order (e.g. dry
weight distribution and density could be maintained for all legumes). Table 1 is presented for Vigna
whereas in all other cases a figure was presented instead.
Literature Citation
The literature cited is adequate, but could be more extensive.
Correction or Revision
See comments in the text.
Final Evaluation
b) Is worthy to be included after effecting minor corrections, indicated in the text, to the satisfaction
of the reviewer.
The second reviewer
Contribution to knowledge on BGBD
The paper makes a valuable contribution to the existing knowledge of nodulation and rhizobia on BGBD
benchmark areas in Brazil.
Research and Methodology used
The authors have used the proper methodology in agreement with the methods proposed for the inventory
of BGBD as far as was applicable. This paper added value by analysing most of the parameters as per the
prescribed BGBD protocols, including dry weight assessments of trap hosts species as a measure of
effectiveness of the indigenous rhizobia (Leguminosae nodulating bacteria). It is recognised that they are
now embarking on sequencing of specific marker genes of representative strains. The right statistical
methods have been used. The only weakness is lack of elaboration on how cultural characteristics were
scored, e.g. time of appearance of isolated colonies (TAIC) should clearly state the time range for each the
-5-
categories- fast, intermediate, slow etc. Similarly, pH modification/change should also describe what was
referred to as acid, neutral or alkaline.
Presentation of data
This is one of the most serious weaknesses of the paper. Logically, the authors should present (i) MPN data
and dry weights, and (ii) number of isolates and characteristics. Comparisons, especially of isolates, can be
done by parameter (i.e. MPN or characteristics of isolates).
Under Materials and Methods section, MPN assays and isolate characterization followed the sequencesiratro, cowpea, and then common bean. In the results and discussion section, cowpea results are splitMPN data are not immediately followed by dry weight and cultural characteristics of isolates as other trap
host species; they are separated by common bean results.
Results section could also be made easier to follow by having sub-sections, e.g. using either trap host
species (siratro, cowpea and common beans) or the parameters (MPN, dry weights/efficiency, and cultural
characteristics).
The authors have also unnecessarily reproduced MPN and cultural characteristics data in the text where
they have done so in the Figures or Tables. They should only highlight key important ones in the text
where they are interpreting or giving scientific reasons for such results.
Literature citation
Literature is sufficient and relevant for the study undertaken, except for the introduction where they need to
provide the authorities citing the yields of soybean production and foreign currency earnings indicated.
They should also indicate the source of information about 2,000 native legumes occurring in Brazil
Correction or Revision
The paper requires extensive correction.
Authors
No need to indicate the position of the scientists
Abstract
An abstract should be included
Introduction
Provide reference as indicated above in literature citation.
Materials and methods- not methodology
Name the trap host species.
Indicate the quantity of N supplied in the +N control treatments.
Elaborate on the way cultures were characterized (also see comments on research methodology used).
Number of isolates ideally belongs to the results section
Results and discussion
See the comments on presentation of data.
Figure captions should be placed immediately below the figure
Data presented from previous studies should be highlighted in the text or compared with those generated
from the study in a Table. It is confusing to have the exogenous data (i.e. Pereira [2001] and Jesus [2004])
next to Figure 3.
References
Use the style and format given for the Manaus conference
Final Evaluation
Must be revised according to the above suggestions and resubmitted for re-consideration. This paper
requires that more effort is given to presentation of results. The authors should ensure that the language is
corrected and the typographical errors are eliminated.
-6-
3. Investigation of rhizobia resources in the OUME Region (Centre-West
Côte d’Ivoire)
Authors: ZEZE A1, KONE K2, KIMOU A1
1
Institut National Polytechnique Félix Houphouët-Boigny (INP-HB).
Département ARA, BP 1313 Yamoussoukro. E-mail : zomure@yahoo.com
2
Université d’Abobo-Adjamé UFR des Sciences de la Nature 02 BP 801
Abidjan 02.
(Code: Aa3_CDI)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Aa3_CDI 53
Rev1
Revised

D
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
D
Reviewers’ comments
The first reviewer
(i) Contribution to knowledge on BGBD.
The paper sets the basis to proceed to establish the knowledge of rhizobial diversity in
relation to LUS in Côte d’Ivoire.
(ii) Research and Methodology used
The methodology is in general agreement but a substantial part of the established
protocols is still missing since only first results are presented. See other comments in
the text.
(iii) Presentation of data
May be improved. See other comments in the text.
(iv) Literature Citation
The literature cited is very incomplete.
(v) Correction or Revision
See comments in the text.
(vi) Final Evaluation
b) Is worthy to be included after effecting minor corrections, indicated in the text, to the
satisfaction of the reviewer.
The second reviewer’s notes
(i)
Contribution to knowledge on BGDB
The contribution of this paper which is focused on rhizobia is very limited because nodules were harvested
only on two species and in one site for the first specie and two sites for the second one. I am quite surprised
to see this poorness in indigenous rhizobia in Oume because I worked there 10 years ago and we observed a
lot of indigenous rhizobia able to nodulate native and exotic species of woody legumes in several
ecosystems. I would suggest to the authors to start again a new study and to take care about the soil samples
during the harvest and also during its storage before to be tested. The quality of the manuscript is very poor
and I have to tell that it is a shame to see that the authors didn’t use the good scientific names of the species
indicated in the paper. For example, Cacia hirsuta doesn’t occur but Cassia hirsute occurs and it is more
commonly named Senna hirsuta var hirsuta; Mucuna pruriens is not a tree legume as indicated in the text
but an annual legume; Abrus canescens occurs but not Abrus cannescens as indicated in the text. I try to get
some information on Acacia pinata but unfortunately, my researches were unsuccessful. This Acacia
species seems to not occur and may be, it has been confused with Hardwickia pinata more commonly
named Jacaranda mimosaefolia or Acacia pennata more commonly named Acacia erythrocalyx. I can not
-7-
tell more because I have no picture to check the form of leaves and fruits to confirm or not one of these
options. I assume that the authors are not very familiar with Latin names of legumes because it is Phaseolus
vulgaris that you have to read on page 2 (trapping rhizobial nodules from soil) rather than Faseolus
vulgaris as it is written in the text. It would be useful to know why the authors have decided to work with
these 4 species: are they natives or exotics?
The introduction is unclear and the bibliography has to be updated as for the description of the several
genus of rhizobia able to nodulate legumes. Recent publications such as Chen et al, 2005, Applied and
Environmental Microbiology, 71 (11), 7461-7471 & Chen et al, 2005, New Phytologist, 168, 661-675
-Rhizobia (Burkholderi) are able to nodulate legume species. Less recently, Sy et
al published in 2001 the occurrence of new species of rhizobia named “Methylobacterium” able to nodulate
Crotalaria species (Sy et al, 2001, Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 47, 503-508). Then, the Results and
Discussion section is totally poor and it is impossible for the reader to go through the results. It is more and
less un-interpretable.
(ii)
Research and methodology used
The description of the several land use is un-existing. The area description section in totally unclear and
you can’t distinguish the 8 LUS studied by the authors. I didn’t find the soil characteristics whereas it
would be very useful to have them because we know that in the Oume region you can easily find highly
acidic soils but also alkaline soils. The authors didn’t describe clearly the experimental conditions used
during the trapping of indigenous rhizobia. I have noted in the text many details which have to be provided
to the reader in order to show that the experiment has been carried out seriously. We also have no
information on the number of replicates used by the authors. Through that I read, I can trust these results.
(iii)
Presentation of data
The presentation of data is poor and unclear. Many precisions are missing in both Tables such as the name
of tree species observed in the several LUS.
(iv)
Literature citation
Too limited, only 3 references and the authors didn’t mention basic references for rhizobia culture media
such as Vincent (1970) for example.
(v)
Correction or revision
Too many corrections have to be done and the manuscript has to be totally rewritten.
(vi)
Final Evaluation
I recommend the reject of this manuscript for publication in the BGBD proceedings because it is
insufficient for a scientific article.
-8-
4. Assessment of diversity of legume nodulating bacteria (LNB) in Nilgiri
and Nandadevi Biospheres of India
A. N. Balakrishna1, M. Balasundaran2, R. K. Singh3, R.K. Maikhuri4, S. Shanker1,
Devyani Sen3, S. Binisha2 & A. Chandra4
1
University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, India
2
Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi, India
3
Benaras Hindu Unaiversity, Varanasi, India
4
G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development, Srinagar
(Garhwal), India
(Code: Aa4_INA)
Code1
Nr.
Aa4_INA 54
Date last version
Rev1
1/4/2005
C/D
Revised

Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
D
Reviewer’s comments
Contribution to knowledge on BGBD
This paper has the potential of making valuable contribution to the existing knowledge of nodulation and
rhizobia on BGBD benchmark areas in India. The main shortfall is poor presentation and interpretation of
the results.
Research and Methodology used
The authors have not described how soils were collected which was an important requisite for rhizobial
trapping and MPN assays.
It should be made clear in this section which trap host species were used for the MPN assays. Similarly,
nodules collected directly from the field should also be described in terms of host and site. Although Table
1 shows the list of legumes in the sampling windows, it is not showing which ones nodulated, and from
which hosts were field nodules collected.
The trap host plant used in the MPN enumeration is not mentioned
Not enough detail is provided on characterization of rhizobia.
Presentation of data
The presentation of data is not systematic. Logically, the authors should present the nodulation status of
the legumes occurring in the sampling windows, and also indicate from which ones field nodules were
collected. Ideally, Table 2 should be the first one, and also to include nodulation data. Then MPN data
(Table 3), showing the occurrence or abundance of rhizobia in the soil at the time of sampling should be
next. Tables 1 & 4 should be presented last. The isolates and their characteristics can be distinguished by
host of isolation, and whether they were collected/sampled from nodulated field plants or from trap host
plants used in the MPN assays. Hence the data set is incomplete as crucial information is lacking.
Literature citation
Literature is not exhaustive, especially in the introduction section. Relevant literature describing the
leguminosae nodulating bacteria (LNB) in the α- and β-Proteobacteria should be cited.
Correction or Revision
The paper requires extensive correction.
Abstract
An abstract should be included
Introduction
-9-
Re-write the starting sentence to clarify the fact Parasponia is the only non-legume currently known to be
nodulated by LNB. The current sentence suggests it is the only legume which does not nodulate!
Provide relevant literature on the various rhizobial genera mentioned
Paragraph 2, second sentence, change it to ‘Legumes have been cultivated in India for many centuries’.
There is no need to have subtitle for objectives; it is common practise to have this at the end of
introduction.
Materials and methods- not methodology
Name the trap host species
Provide the author(s) and year of publication of the Standard Methods for Assessment of Soil
Biodiversity and Land Use Practices.
Detailed description of methods used, specifically on:
-Soil sampling, size of windows, sampling plots etc.
-Characteristics of rhizobia- criteria used for designating rhizobia as fast and slow growers
Results and discussion
See the comments on presentation of data
MPN data- be consistent- use one decimal place throughout- e.g. 3.5×103 instead of 35.0×102 (see Table 3)
Do not confuse trap host plants (as used in MPN assays or nursery/glasshouse/growth chamber) with field
plants. Isolates should be clearly differentiated on the basis of their origin- MPN assays and field collected
nodules
Conclusions
Do the authors consider inoculation of the legumes inventoried in the benchmark sites necessary on the
basis of their results?
FAO citation in the text not listed
Use the style and format given for the Manaus conference
Final Evaluation
Must be revised according to the above suggestions and resubmitted for re-consideration. This paper
requires that more effort is given to detail, especially in the materials and methods section.
- 10 -
5. The Diversity of Rhizobia under Different Land Use Types in Sumberjaya,
Lampung, Sumatra, Indonesia
R.D.M. Simanungkalit1 and Agus Karyanto2
1
Research Institute for Foodcrop Biotechnology
Jln. Tentara Pelajar 26 Bogor 16114, Indonesia
e-mail: robertdms@yahoo.com
2
Faculty of Agriculture, University of Lampung
Jl. Sumantri Brojonegoro 1, Bandar Lampung 35145, Indonesia
Phone: (062) 721781820
e-mail: agsknila@yahoo.com
(Code: Aa5_IND)
Code1
Nr.
Aa5_IND 49a
Date last version
Rev1
2/4/2005
C
Revised

Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
C
Reviewer Comments
Contribution to knowledge on BGBD
The paper makes a valuable contribution to the existing knowledge of nodulation and rhizobia
(Leguminosae nodulating bacteria [LNB]) on BGBD benchmark areas in Indonesia
Research and Methodology used
Proper methods proposed for the inventory of BGBD were used. Soil samples were collected
appropriately. Nodules were collected either from the field or from the plant infection assays for most
probable number (MPN) determination. Two trap host species were used in the MPN- Macroptilium
atropurpureum (siratro) and Vigna unguiculata (cowpea- or commonly referred in this paper as yard long
bean). The characterization of rhizobia was based on growth rate, pH reaction, polysaccharide production,
and colony shape, colour and texture on yeast extract mannitol agar media (YMA). Genetic diversity of the
isolates was assessed by DNA fingerprinting of the repetitive extragenic palindromic sequences (REPPCR).
Presentation of data
The presentation of data is systematic but unclear and incomplete. MPN data for are presented in Table do
not indicate the trap host species, yet two species were used. Additionally, the MPN data are too low.
Have the authors wrongfully computed the MPN data? They are all <10 cells g -1 of soil and should
therefore not be different as depicted by the authors in the results and discussion section.
Other specific points
Table 1 should indicate the trap host species in the caption. Table 2 should indicate at which dilution were
the nodulation data recorded; if whole soil (that is strictly trapping), then the authors should state so in
materials and methods section and in the table caption.
Although analysed, the growth, pH reaction and other cultural characteristics assessments for isolates are
not presented. They also do not distinguish the isolates (and their characters- e.g. fast growers, slow
growers, intermediate, acid- or alkali-producing etc) made from nodules directly from the field and those
from plant infection assays.
It is unnecessary to attempt to correlate the number of isolates with the number of nodules as it is obvious
that the former will depend on the latter; it can only deviate from one-to-one relationship on the basis of the
success of recovery (isolation), and whether some nodules have dual or multiple rhizobial occupants.
Diversity cannot also be based on numbers alone but types of rhizobia, which have not been presented
(page 5, last paragraph).
- 11 -
Last but not least, PCR-REP data are not presented.
Literature citation
Literature citation not exhaustive, especially on cultural characterization and REP-PCR of rhizobia and
their utility
Correction or Revision
The paper requires extensive correction specifically on the following:
Abstract
The abstract needs revision. Sorghum is referred to as trap host. REP-PCR is said to be underway, i.e.
inconclusive yet in the text (page 4, paragraph 2) it states that the isolates were analysed to strain level.
Introduction
There are quite a few typographical errors.
The second paragraph (page 2) is not clear whether the authors refer to nodulation status at the global level
or in Indonesia; provide relevant literature.
Materials and Methods
It is not necessary to list materials but they should be mentioned in the descriptions. The paper requires
more detail and elaboration, especially on how the isolates were characterised; for example, how was time
of appearance of isolated colonies determined.
Results and Discussion
See comments under presentation of data. There is no need to have subsections of results and discussion.
Conclusion
Although it is common knowledge that the two trap host species are promiscuous, this study did not set out
to prove that; they were simply used as trap hosts. This conclusion is not relevant.
References
Use the format given for the Manaus conference
Final evaluation
Must be revised according to the above suggestions (including section V) and resubmitted for reconsideration
- 12 -
6. Abundance and growth characteristics of Leguminosae nodulating
bacteria in Embu and Taita benchmark sites of Kenya
David W. Odee1*, E. Makatiani1, Nancy Karanja2 and James Kahindi3
1*
Biotechnology Laboratory, Kenya Forestry Research Institute, P.O. Box 2041200200, Nairobi, Kenya.
2
Department of Soil Science, University of Nairobi, P.O. Box 30197-00200
Nairobi, Kenya.
3
United States International University, P.O. Box 14634-00800 Nairobi, Kenya
*Corresponding author: phone +254 66 33383, fax: +254 66 32844; e-mail:
dodee@africaonline.co.ke
(Code: Aa6_KEN)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised

Aa6_KEN --
- 13 -
Rev 2
D
Revised
Final eval
7. Rhizobial diversity in different land use systems in the rain forest of Los Tuxtlas,
Mexico.
Ernesto Ormeño, Marco Antonio Rogel, Lourdes Lloret, Aline López, Julio
Martínez, Pablo Vinuesa, Esperanza Martinez Romero
Centro de Ciencias Genómicas, UNAM. Apdo. Postal 565-A, Cuernavaca, Mor.
México.
(Code: Aa7_MEX)
Code1
Nr.
Aa7_MEX 47
Date last version
Rev1
Revised
Rev 2
20/2/2006
B/C
✓
B
Revised
Final eval
Reviewer’s comments
Contribution to knowledge on BGBD
This paper makes a valuable contribution to the existing knowledge of nodulation and and rhizobial
diversity on BGBD benchmark areas in Mexico. It is the only paper which has gone all the way to
sequencing work using specific marker genes for rhizobia. It has also attempted to explain some of the
relationships (or lack of it) of rhizobial diversity, species or lineages and land use systems.
Research and Methodology used
The authors have used proper methodology in agreement with the methods proposed for inventory of
BGBD for rhizobia. However, the authors should elaborate on how the growth characteristics of rhizobia
were scored. This information is in the results and discussion section but should also be stated under this
section.
Presentation of data
The data has been presented systematically and in an orderly manner. The data set is not complete,
especially with the absence of the growth characteristics of the isolates. This set of data is important
because it will allow comparisons with results from benchmark sites from other countries where
sequencing work has not yet been done.
The figures (phylogenetic trees, plates, MPN charts etc) are missing despite having the figure captions.
Literature citation
The authors have made use of current and relevant literature.
Correction or Revision
The paper requires minor correction.
Keywords
Bradyrhizobium also qualifies to be a keyword in the context of the paper.
Introduction
Page 2, paragraph 1, line – rhizobial diversity; similarly next paragraph.
Page 2, last paragraph- belowground.
Editors should ensure that citations ‘Pérez et al and Garcia et al’ are going to appear in the volume.
Materials and method
Page 3, last paragraph
78% ethanol
‘pass through’ not ‘tresspass’
Page 4, paragraph
Most Probable Number
Highest dilution
- 14 -
Why not number of nodulated plants? (cf. nodule numbers obtained)
Elaborate on cultural characteristics (see above comments on research methodology used)
Paragraph 2
Loopful
Results and discussion
Page 6, paragraph 2
Start sentence with words (see 1607)
Page 8, paragraph 2- acidic
Growth characteristics of isolates should also be presented (see above comments -presentation of data)
References
Use the style and format given for the Manaus conference
Final Evaluation
This paper is worthy to be included after effecting minor corrections, indicated above,
- 15 -
8.
Characterisation of Phaseolus vulgaris, Glycine Max, and Macroptilium
atropurpureum nodule bacteria under different land uses in Mabira Forest in
Uganda
Mary Rwakaikara-Silver, Zawedde Justine, Kizza Charles Luswata, G. Lamtoo
and M.N. J. Okwakol
(Code: Aa8_UGA)
Code1
Nr.
Aa8_UGA 50
Date last version
Rev1
12/05/2005
C
Revised

Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
C
Reviewer’s comments
Contribution to knowledge on BGBD
The paper makes a valuable contribution to the existing knowledge of nodulation and rhizobia on BGBD
benchmark areas in Uganda
Research and Methodology used
Proper methods proposed for the inventory of BGBD were used, but not all whose results are presented
were described in the materials and methods section. Soil samples were collected appropriately. Nodules
were collected from the plant infection assays for most probable number (MPN) determination. Three trap
host species were used in the MPN- Phaseolus vulgaris, Glycine max (soybean) and Macroptilium
atropurpureum (siratro). Nodules were isolated on yeast extract mannitol agar media (YEMA) and
characterized as follows: time to form visible colonies, colony features (which were not described) and pH
reaction. Although presented in the results and discussion section, growth rate types (e.g. fast growers
appeared 3-5 days after incubation…etc) are not described in materials and methods section.
Other methods not described were soil analysis for nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus.
Presentation of data
The presentation of data is systematic but not all important ones are presented. For example, MPN data for
Glycine max (soybean) and Macroptilium atropurpureum (siratro) are not presented. Results of soil
analysis are not shown although they have been used for correlation analysis with Phaseolus vulgaris MPN
data.
The terms ‘nodule bacteria’ and ‘rhizobia’ are used interchangeably. One term should be used consistently
in the text to avoid confusion- so long as it is clearly defined when first mentioned. Cultural characteristics
of P. vulgaris and M. atropurpureum are presented but not for G. max.
Presentation (outlook) of the tables should be improved. Some of them contain too much information; they
can be split into simpler tables for clarity.
It is not clear in Table 1 (or in materials and methods section) how frequency of nodulation was scoredwere they: number of nodules, number of nodulated plants or number of soils/sites in which nodulation
occurred. This should be clearly stated in the text and/or in the table caption.
Table 2 can also be split into simpler tables. Characteristics of growth e.g. fast growers, slow growers,
intermediate etc should also be presented since this was reported to have been done. The same goes for
Table 3.
Literature citation
Literature citation is relevant but not current, especially where they have listed the genera of rhizobia.
There are several other new genera which have been described.
Correction or Revision
The paper requires extensive correction specifically on the following:
Abstract
- 16 -
An abstract should be included
Introduction
The statement ‘Root or stem nodules is indicative of a positive interaction between rhizobia and a legume
host’ needs to be revised. Using the term ‘positive’ would imply symbiotic effectiveness; nodulation is not
always symbiotically effective- sometimes it can be ineffective, thus a negative interaction. The term
‘positive’ should therefore be removed.
Specifics:
Not all legume nodule bacteria are specific
g-1 and not gm-1.
Paragraph 2, line 3, add ‘and’ after ‘sequences,’
Paragraph 3, line 1, add g-1 soil
Paragraph 4, line 6, quantitatively, not quantitative
Paragraph 5, line 7, 166,000 Mt of what?
Materials and methods
Describe methods used for soil analysis.
Use either LNB or rhizobia consistently so long as you have defined or qualified the term at the first
mention
More detail how nodulation frequency was determined (also see Table 1)
Give also the common names of the species- Phaseous vulgaris, Glycine max and Macroptilium
atropurpureum.
Remove the word ‘contrary’; start straight away with Macroptilium atropurpureum seeds were ……..
Were seedlings selected or were they thinned to one?
Further description required on how growth rate, colour change etc were determined; e.g. fast growerscolonies appeared 3-5 days of incubation, acid production…….
Results and discussion
Show results of soil analysis
Where are the MPN results for Glycine max and M. atropurpureum?
Host range (or cross-inoculation) study was not done so it is not correct to infer that one host had a
narrower host range than the other.
Where are data (cultural characteristics) for isolates from G. max?
References
FAO citation in the text not listed
Use the style and format given for the Manaus conference
Final Evaluation
Must be revised according to the above suggestions (including section V) and resubmitted for reconsideration
- 17 -
b. Inventory of Fungi
1. Occurrence and Diversity of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in Different
Land Use Systems in the Upper Solimões River, Amazon
Sidney Luiz Stürmer(1), Carlos Roberto Grippa (1), Patricia Lopes Leal(2), Glaucia
Alves e Silva(2) & José Oswaldo Siqueira(2)
(1)
Departamento de Ciências Naturais (DCN), Universidade Regional de
Blumenau (FURB), Cx.P. 1507 – 89010-971 Blumenau, SC, Brazil
(2)
Departamento de Ciência do Solo (DCS), Universidade Federal de Lavras
(UFLA), Cx.P. 3037 - 32000-000 Lavras, MG, Brazil
(Code:Ab1_BRA)
Code1
Nr.
Ab1_BRA 59
Date last version
Rev1
Revised
Rev 2
16/02/2006
B/C
✓
B
Revised
Final eval
Reviewer’s comments
(i)
Contribution to knowledge on BGDB
This manuscript presents data on the diversity of AMF in different land use systems in Brazil / Amazon.
This work is interesting and original in its presentation. I appreciate very much the results presented in the
Figures 5 and 6. I suggest to the authors to re-write the Introduction section, especially the second half
which doesn’t introduce correctly the work carried out in Brazil. The discussion may be a bit more
developed and strengthened in order to go deeply in the interpretation of the results. It is a gap for my
personal point of view. A short conclusion section would be very useful to conclude on this work. Please
don’t forget to put the page numbers because it is more useful when you have to review it.
(ii)
Research and methodology used
I have one request to formulate to the authors regarding the method that they used to sterilize the soils:
Methyl Bromide 98%. How were you certain that the whole of the chemical agent responsible of the
disinfection had totally disappeared of the soil when you used it? Usually, you have to practice simple bioassay with plants very sensitive to this product. Did you practice it?
My second question is to know why the authors have decided to fertilize plants from the MPN test whereas
it could interact with mycorrhizal fungus sensitive to fertilization (especially P). It could under-estimate the
MPN results. Soils characteristics are missing. It would be nice to include them in the text.
(iii)
Presentation of data
I have no specific comments to do on the presentation of data. I just suggest adding in Figures 1, 2 and 3
according which test the authors can say that data followed by the same letter are not significantly different.
My last remark concerns the size of the legends of both Figures 5 and 6 which are reduced and bit difficult
to read. It may be possible to increase them.
(iv)
Literature citation
I just note that I have not seen where the reference Connel 1978 was mentioned in the text. I don’t know if I
missed it but I tried many times and I didn’t success. In the section M & M, section statistical analysis, you
mentioned means were separated by Tukey. Please, could you explain exactly that it means? If it is a
reference, you have to indicate the year of publication and to add it in the list.
(v)
Correction or revision
- 18 -
Several corrections and comments have been done on the hard copy of the manuscript. I encourage the
authors to correct their manuscript according to these recommendations.
(vi)
Final Evaluation
I may be published after revision (re-write the Introduction and add a conclusion)
2. Recovering Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal spores from soils in OUME
(Centre-West Côte d’Ivoire)
ZEZE A1, OUATTARA B2 and ZABOUO A.2
1
Institut National Polytechnique Félix Houphouët-Boigny (INP-HB)
2
Université d’Abobo-Adjamé UFR des Sciences de la Nature 02 BP 801 Abidjan
02
(Code: Ab2_CDI)
Code1
Nr.
Ab2_CDI 52
Date last version
Rev1
Revised

D
- 19 -
Rev 2
D
Revised
Final eval
3. Seasonal Variations in Abundance and Diversity of AM fungi Across a
Gradient of Land use Types in Western Ghats of Karnataka in the Indian
Sub-continent
A.N. Balakrishna and R. Lakshmipathy
University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, India
(Code: Ab3_INA)
Code1
Nr.
Ab3_INA 55
Date last version
Rev1
Revised
Rev 2
13/05/2006
D
✓(for
B
Revised
Final eval
Karnataka)
Reviewer’s comments
(i)
Contribution to knowledge on BGDB
This paper is not a real a scientific articles because it contains too much writing, generalities and it is very
difficult for reader to go through results and their interpretation. The introduction section is a good example
with 3 pages in which the authors describe many generalities on AMF but where they don’t introduce their
work and its interest for India. It is unacceptable and I invite the authors to reconsider this introduction
which needs to be totally re-written. I am quite surprised to see that the authors didn’t prepare an abstract
because we know that an abstract which summarizes the more important points of the manuscript has to be
joined to the rest of the manuscript. In the Results section, at the beginning, you have some comments
highlighted which had to be removed before submission. The discussion section is composed of more and
less 5 sentences. It means that the results obtained have not been interpreted, unfortunately…
(ii)
Research and methodology used
Presentation of the M & M section is really rough and totally confused because it is highly difficult to
distinguish the experimental works done in the first site (Nilgiri biosphere) from the experimental work
done in Nanda Devi Biosphere. Another difficulty is that the authors have not used the same
methodologies. It has not been explained whereas it would be better to keep the same for comparison. In
Table 1, it is indicated already the presence or not of infective propagules and the % AM colonization of
roots. When it has been assessed and who have carried out this work? No soil characteristics have been
provided in the manuscript whereas it is very important to have this type of information for interpreting our
results.
(iii)
Presentation of data
It is quite confused and the authors have done a mistake in the numbering of their tables: Table 8 becomes
table 13, table 9 becomes table 14, and…I would suggest canceling some of the tables such as Table 2
which is totally unclear for me, Tables 10 and 12 which are not really necessary. No statistical analysis of
the data has been made but in many places in the text, the authors describe some differences observed
between treatments as being significant. You can not affirm that if you don’t practice a statistical analysis
on your data. It is a big gap in this manuscript.
(iv)
Literature citation
A lot of mistakes have been observed between the references cited in the text and the list of references
placed at the end of the manuscript. I invite the authors to check it again before a possible re-submission.
The presentation of the references is not homogeneous because sometime, the name of the journal is written
in Italic, sometime it is not. An effort has to be done on this.
(v)
Correction or revision
- 20 -
Many corrections and comments have been done on the hard copy of the manuscript. I encourage the
authors to correct their manuscript according to these recommendations,
(vi)
Final Evaluation
I recommend the reject of this manuscript for publication in the BGBD proceedings but I invite the authors
to re-submit a new version of their manuscript more in accordance with the requests for a scientific
publication. I suggest them to extract from this version the more important results and to introduce them,
describe them and discuss them scientifically with a very clear M & M section in order to valorize the
important amount of works which has been done on AMF diversity.
- 21 -
4. The Effect of Intensification Agriculture Practices on Diversity of
Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Population in Different Land Use System
Yadi Setiadi1, Faiqoh Noor1, and Agus Karyanto2
1
Forest Biotechnology and Environmental Laboratory
Biotechnology Research Center, Bogor Agricultural University
e-mail : amf@indo.net.id
2
Faculty of Agriculture, University of Lampung
Jl. Sumantri Brojonegoro 1, Bandar Lampung 35145, Indonesia
Phone: (062) 721781820
e-mail: agsknila@yahoo.com
(Code: Ab4_IND)
Code1
Nr.
Ab4_IND 49b
Date last version
Rev1
Revised
Rev 2
Revised
15/11/2006
C
✓
B
✓
Final eval
Reviewer’s comments
(i)
Contribution to knowledge on BGDB
This manuscript presents results on the impact of Agricultural intensification on the AMF diversity in
Indonesia. It is quite interesting because I assume that it has not been published yet. I am bit surprised by
the low natural biodiversity found by the authors and I would suggest to extent the research activities in
order to confirm or not results presented in this manuscript. However, I have no doubt on the quality of the
work made by the authors but I expected a largely biodiversity in terms of AMF species.
Concerning the quality of the redaction of the manuscript, many improvements are necessary such as to rewrite both Abstract and Introduction sections which are unclear and not at all scientific (especially the
introduction). The fact to present a succession of sentences in the same section is not enough to introduce
your work and justify the options followed. Results obtained have not been discussed according to the
literature whereas it was expected in page 4. I suggest to the authors to read Olsson et al, New Phytologist,
2005, “The influence of external nitrogen on carbon allocation to Glomus intraradices in monoxenic
arbuscular mycorrhiza”, 168: 677-686. It may be useful to discuss their results.
(ii)
Research and methodology used
I have no specific comments to do on this point. It seems to be really in accordance with recommendations
made by the BGBD project. However, I regret to see no statistical analysis for these results whereas it
would be nice to compare the several AMF types with intensification management for example. My last
comment concerns the difficulties that I have had to link the methods described in the M & M section and
the results presented. I mean that I don’t know how the authors have enumerated the spore number of
AMF. It is not clearly explained in the text. Soils characteristics are missing. It would nice to include them
in the text.
(iii)
Presentation of data
According to the guidelines provided by the BGBD team, it was expected to present both tables and figures
on separate pages and not at all included directly in the text. For my personal point of view, the
presentation of data is not really satisfying and has to be improved: sometime the authors forgot the units
such as in the Table 2 for the spore number. In this same table, it is impossible for the reader to know that
means “Spore type” and “AMF-taxa”. I would also suggest to the authors to include the Appendix 1
directly in the text through a table because the results presented are very important and are not accessory.
- 22 -
(iv)
Literature citation
The literature cited in the manuscript is quite OK. I have noted that only one reference is missing in the list.
It should be corrected in the next version. I assume that the literature citation will be modified according to
the necessity for the authors to re-write the introduction section.
(v)
Correction or revision
Many corrections and comments have been done on the hard copy of the manuscript. I encourage the
authors to correct their manuscript according to these recommendations.
(vi)
Final Evaluation
This paper may be published after major revisions according to the interest of the results obtained. The
section introduction has to be re-written and the authors have to discuss scientifically their results. Please
read again the point “AMF extraction and identification” in the M & M section and see that you could add
concerning the AMF spores enumeration.
5.
Do land use differences affect the occurrence of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal
Fungi (AMF) in the high altitude regions of Mt. Kenya?
1
Jefwa J M, 5Mungatu J,
1
5
Okoth P, 4Muya E, 2Roimen H, P. Wachira, N. Karanja,
Njuguini S
1
The National Museums of Kenya, Herbarium Department, P.O Box 45166, Nairobi, Kenya. 2 Department
of Resource Surveys and Remote Sensing, 3 University of Nairobi, 4 Kenya Agricultural Research Institute,
5
Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility-CIAT , P.O Box 30777, Nairobi.
6.
Is the method of characterization important for determining the true
occurrence of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (AMF) in diverse land use types? The
case of Taita-Taveta in Kenya
1
Jefwa J M, 5Mungatu J, 5Okoth P, 1Murethe M 1Kimani S; 4Muya E, 2Roimen H,
6
1
Kahindi J.
The National Museums of Kenya,, Herbarium Department P.O Box 45166, Nairobi, Kenya. 2 Department
of Resource Surveys and Remote Sensing, 3 University of Nairobi, 4 Kenya Agricultural Research Institute,
5
Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Institute of CIAT, P.O Box 30777, Nairobi. 6The United States
International University
Code1
Nr.
Ab5_KEN 61
Date last version
Rev1
(7/8/2006)
C
Revised

- 23 -
Rev 2
C
Revised
Final eval
7. Land Use and Diversity of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in Mexican
tropical ecosystems
Varela, L.1*, D. Trejo2, F.J. Álvarez-Sánchez3, I, Barois 4, E. Amora-Lazcano5, P.
Guadarrama3, L. Lara2, D. Olivera3, I. Sánchez-Gallén3, W. Sangabriel2, R.
Zulueta2.
1
Hongos y Derivados S.A, 2Universidad Veracruzana, 3Facultad de Ciencias,
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 4Instituto de Ecología A C,
Instituto
Politécnico Nacional México
Corresponding author: Varela, L.
Tel. and Fax (55)2640-6151. E-mail. lvarela@ipn.mx
(Code: Ab6_MEX)
Code1
Nr.
Date
version
last
Ab6_MEX 48
Rev1
Revised

C
Rev 2
Revised
5
Final eval
B
8. Impact of Land use change on the Diversity and Abundance of
Mycorrhiza in Mabira forest ecosystem, Uganda
S.Serani1, G.J.Mutumba2, H.Kiryose3, J.Lamtoo4 and M.Okwakol5
1
Botany Department, Makerere University, P.O.Box 7062, Kampala Uganda, Tel:
256 71 869098.
E mail: serasn@yahoo.com
2 Botany Department, Makerere University, P.O.Box 7062, Kampala Uganda
3 Botany Department, Makerere University, P.o.Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda
4
Makerere University, P.O.Box 7062, Kampala- Uganda. Tel: 256 (41) 530135,
Mobile: 077 395186.
E-mail: glamtoo@muienr.com
5
Department of zoology, Makerere University, P.O.Box 7062 Kampala-Uganda.
Tel: 256 41531776/7, Fax: 25641530134, Mobile: 25677409735. E-mail:
mokwakol@ryahoo.com
(Code: Ab7_UGA)
Code1
Nr.
Ab7_UGA 51
Date last version
Rev1
12/05/2005
C
Revised

Reviewer’s comments
- 24 -
Rev 2
B
Revised
Final eval
(i)
Contribution to knowledge on BGDB
This paper is quite interesting in terms of relation between land use and abundance of
mycorrhiza in Uganda. Regarding the description of the sites, I don’t understand why the
authors decided to put in an appendix the description of the land use types. For my point
of view, this information has to be included directly in the text. I would appreciate also to
find the soil characteristics of the several sites in order to have some elements for the
interpretation of the results. However, I regret the poorness of the discussion section
which has to be improved. It is not enough to comment results obtained but also the
authors have to find out in the literature some references which provide them some
possible assumptions explaining their results. For example, I suggest them to read Olsson
et al, New Phytologist, 2005, “The influence of external nitrogen on carbon allocation to
Glomus intraradices in monoxenic arbuscular mycorrhiza”, 168: 677-686. It may be
useful for them.
(ii)
Research and methodology used
I have no specific comments to do on this point. It seems to be really in accordance with
recommendations made by the BGBD project.
(iii) Presentation of data
According to the guidelines provided by the BGBD team, it was expected to present both
tables and figures on separate pages and not at all included directly in the text. Some
suggestions have been done directly on the figures in order to improve the quality of the
presentation. Globally, it is quite satisfying and it is easy to go through the tables.
However, it is a shame to see that the authors have spelled differently the same specie
(Scutellospora) in the text. It is important to avoid this type of mistake for the future.
(iv)
Literature citation
This aspect is very poor and has to be linked with my comments above on the discussion
section. I would appreciate very much if the authors could do a significant effort in order
to cite a relevant literature and also to list it correctly in the expected section. You will
see in the reviewed paper that many references mentioned in the text are not listed in the
reference section. For the presentation, the authors have to follow the guideline provided
by the BGBD project in Manaus meeting. For this paper, the references are not correctly
presented and some indications have been made directly on the hard copy of the
manuscript.
(v)
Correction or revision
Many corrections and comments have been done on the hard copy of the manuscript. I
encourage the authors to correct their manuscript according to these recommendations.
(vi)
Final Evaluation
This paper may be published after major revisions according to the interest of the results
obtained. However, the quality of the redaction is really poor and totally insufficient for a
scientific publication. A significant effort shall be done to improve the quality of the
manuscript for its publication in the Proceedings.
- 25 -
c. Inventory of Plant Pathogenic, Antagonistic and Beneficial Fungi
1. Conservation and Sustainable Management of Below-Ground Biodiversity
Functional Group : Soil fungi
Project team: Ludwig H. Pfenning, Lucas M. de Abreu;
Janine Mendes de Oliveira, Mirian Salgado, Ricardo T.G. Pereira, Mirian
algado, Anderson R. Almeida, Jânio S.L. Coelho, Edson Luis Resende.
(Code: Ac1_BRA)
Code1
Nr.
Ac1_BRA 67
Date last version
Rev1
Revised

3/6/2005
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
C
Reviewer’s comments
(i)
Contribution to knowledge on BGBD.
Yes, it really makes a valuable and substantial contribution to the
existing body of knowledge on BGBD in the project benchmark areas.
(ii)
Research and Methodology used
As far as soil sample collection is concerned it appears that they have
done as per the protocol but failed to do it in the paper. It has been
indicated in the text to do so. Right statistical methods have been used
to achieve the paper objectives. However listing of different species
under different land use types makes more meaningful.
(iii)
Presentation of data
The authors have presented the data systematically, and in an
orderly manner to ensure that conclusions can be logically drawn
from the information gathered. Comment whether the data set can
be considered complete or whether crucial information is lacking.- it is
compleate.
(iv)
Literature Citation
No, the authors have to be insisted and ask them to discuss the results
in the light of previous work.
(v)
Correction or Revision
Indicated in the body of the text.
(vi)
Final Evaluation
Please state frankly and without ambiguity whether the paper:
a) is worthy to be included in the technical book of proceedings in
the present form;- Yes
- 26 -
b) Is worthy to be included after effecting minor corrections,
indicated in Section V, to the satisfaction of the reviewer;-can
be done after revision because ther is no literature cited,
otherwise it was OK
c) must be revised according to suggestions in Section V and
resubmitted for re consideration;- Yes
d) is not worthy being included in the proceedings.- Not at all.
9. Characterization of soil fungi in different agro-ecological units in CenterWest Côte-d’Ivoire
ABO K1., DIALLO A. H2., KOFFI N. B. C2., GANIYU K2., BABACAUH K D1.
and AGNEROH A. T1.
1
Institut National Polytechnique Houphouet-Boigny, BP 1313 Yamoussoukro,
Côte d’Ivoire. E-mail : abok65@yahoo.fr
2
Université d’Abobo-Adjamé, UFR-SN, 02 BP 801 Abidjan 02, Côte d’Ivoire.
(Code: Ac2_CDI)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised

Ac2_CDI
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
D
10. Diversity and Abundance of Cellulose and Lignin Degrading Fungi
(Decomposers) in Different Land Use Types in Lampung
Iswandi Anas1) and Titik Nur Aeny2)
1)Laboratory of Soil Biology Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture,
Institute Pertanian Bogor, Bogor, Indonesia. Jl. Raya Pajajaran Bogor.
Phone: 0251-323540;
E-mail: aiswandi@indo.net.id
2) Department of Plant Protection, Universitas Lampung, Lampung Indonesia,
Phone: (0721)7474755, E-mail address: aeny01@yahoo.com
(Code: Ac3_IND)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised

Ac3_IND
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
C
Reviewer’s Comments
(i) Contribution to knowledge on BGBD
The paper would be more informative if the diversity and abundance of the fungi is
compared with land use types that are comprehensively described, the land use types are
only mentioned and so the paper just ends up with a list of fungal names found in the
sampling points. No statistical analysis has been done to explain the variation observed.
- 27 -
(ii) Research and Methodology used
(a) Page 2, Lines 1 –8 are a repetition of the Abstract on Pg 1, lines 1 – 8. This
section of the introduction should be re phrased.
(b) The sampling and culture methodologies used are in agreement with those
proposed for the inventory of BGB. However the description of the land use types
should be expounded on since the discussion on the distribution of the fungi is
based on it.
What is the measure of intensity? What type of crops are in horticulture or vegetable
farms? Types of trees? At least some description needs to be given to the reader so that
the reader can get a view of the types of litter available for the fungi and thus the fungal
distribution and abundance.
(c) Pg 3 Lines 18 – 38 should be reconstructed into a reporting language rather than
instructive language
(iii) Presentation of data
(a) Data has been presented systematically, but would have been more informative if
treated with some analytical statistical package. More information should be included in
order to allow for statistical analysis that will bring about explanations of the
observations. Otherwise as it is, we end up with just a list of names of fungi from soils
collected from some sampling points in Lampung.
(b) What is the measure or criteria of land intensification? This needs to be made clear
before bringing out discussion on fungal distribution and land intensification. (Pg 6, line
3).
(c) Page 6, line 6-12. These are results and should be placed in results section.
(d). Page 6, line 13-27 is literature review and should come in introduction section or
should be used to explain results.
(e). Within the conclusion section, page 6, line 30-31 contradicts page 6 lines 31-33.
(iv) Literature citation
The candidate has made reference to relevant literature but would do better with more
- 28 -
to beef up his discussion.
(v) Revision.
The paper as a whole requires more information to be incorporated in the methodology,
results and discussion. The data set lacks crucial information indicated above. The
discussion requires strengthening and synthesis in order to match results with some cited
documented knowledge. This, if done, will clearly bring out the contributions that the
paper makes to the existing body of knowledge.
(vi) Final evaluation.
The paper must be revised and resubmitted for reconsideration.
11. INVENTORY AND IDENTIFICATION OF PHYTOPATHOGENIC
AND SAPROPHYTIC FUNGI FROM SOIL
R.K.Mibey, Maseno University Private Bag Maseno, Kenya;
Ludwig Pfening S.A. Okoth, Dept. of Botany University of
Nairobi, Box 30197 Nairobi, Kenya; Mara Del Pilar RodriguezGuzman, Instituto de Fitosanidad, Clegio de Postgraduados,
Carr, Mexico, Texcoco Km. 36.5, Montecillo, Texcoco. Edo. De
Mexico 56230
(Code: Ac4_KEN)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised

Ac4_KEN
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
D
12.
INVENTORY AND DIVERSITY OF SOIL-BORNE PLANT
PATHOGENIC FUNGI IN THE BIOSPHERE RESERVE OF LOS
TUXTLAS, VERACRUZ, MEXICO.
María del Pilar Rodríguez-Guzmán and Grisel Negrete-Fernández. Programa
deFitopatología, Colegio de Postgraduados. Carr. México-Texcoco Km 36.5,
Montecillo, Texcoco, Edo. de México. C.P. 56230. pilarrg@colpos.mx Tel:
01(595)95202-00 ext.1610 ó 1660.
(Code: Ac5_MEX)
Code1
Nr.
Date
version
last
Rev1
Revised

Ac5_MEX
- 29 -
Rev 2
C
Revised
Final eval
13. Relative abundance of soil-borne phytopathogens in a range of land use
types.
1
G. Kyeyune and 2A.M. Akol
1
Department of Crop Science, Makerere University; 2Department of Zoology,
Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda.
(Code: Ac6_UGA)
Code1
Nr.
Date last
version
Rev1
Revised

Ac6_UGA
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
C
14. Influence of land use types on the occurrence and spatial
distribution of Trichoderma sp. in Embu and Taita regions of Kenya.
Sheila A. Okoth*, Muya E. **, Okoth P. ***, Mungatu J. ***, Mutsotso B. *, Roimen H.
****
*University of Nairobi, P. O. Box 30197 GPO, Nairobi, Kenya
E-mail: dorisokoth@yahoo.com
**Kenya Agricultural Institute, P. O. Box 57811 City Square, Nairobi,
Kenya.
***Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility, P. O. Box 30777, Nairobi
****Department of Resource Surveys and Remote Sensing, P. O. Box
47146, City Square, Nairobi, Kenya.
(Code: Ac7_KEN)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised

Ac7_KEN
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
C
15. DISTRIBUTION AND DIVERSITY OF PYTHIUM SPP IN IRANGI
AND NGANGAO FOREST, EMBU, KENYA.
Mukundi N. David 1 Richard K Mibey 2 and Wachira M. Peter 3
1
PO
BOX
262
Kikuyu
Kenya,
Tel
0722-636623,
E-mail;
mukundidn@yahoo.co.uk
2
Maseno University, Private bag, Maseno, Kenya, Tel 0722896999,
dvcaf@maseno.ac.ke
3
University of Nairobi, Tel 0733-433332, E-mail; wachirapm@yahoo.com
(Code: Ac8_KEN)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised

Ac8_KEN
- 30 -
Rev 2
C
Revised
Final eval
16. Fungi flora inventories in soils under different agrosystems along a
gradient of cultivated fields in the Oumé region, Centre-West Côte d’Ivoire
Kouabenan ABO1*, Hortense A. DIALLO2,
GANIYU2
Clovis N. KOFFI2, Kassimu
Ecole Supérieure d’Agronomie (ESA)
Institut National Polytechnique Houphouet Boigny (INPHB)
BP 1313 Yamoussoukro
Côte d’Ivoire
2
UFR des Sciences de la Nature
Université d’Abobo-Adjamé
02 BP 801 Abidjan 02
Côte d’Ivoire
1
*Corresponding author
E-mail: abok65@yahoo.fr
Tél. +225 30 64 34 53,
(Code: Ac9_CDI)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised

Ac9_CDI
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
D
17. Diversity and Abundance of Plant Pathogenic Fungi in Sumberjaya
Lampung
Darmono Taniwiryono1, Agus Purwantara1, and Titik Nur Aeny2
1)
Biotechnology Research Institute for Estate Crop, Bogor West Java Indonesia.
Jl. Taman Kencana No.1 Bogor 16151.
Phone: 0251-324048. E-mail: darmono@indo.net.id
2)
Department of Plant Protection, Agriculture Faculty-Universitas Lampung
Indonesia, Phone: (0721)787029; E-mail: aeny01@yahoo.com
(Code: Ac10_IND)
Code1
Nr.
Date last
version
Rev1
Revised

Ac10_IND
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
C
Reviewer’s Comments
(i) Contribution to knowledge on BGBD
The paper though informative does not add much value to the knowledge on BGBD as it
is. The authors have information to give but their data have not been managed effectively.
For example no statistical analysis was done yet this would have added value and made
conclusions authentic and acceptable addition to the knowledge on BGBD.
- 31 -
(ii) Research and methodology used
1. Sampling methods used together with laboratory methodology mentioned are in line
with those recommended for inventory of BGBD.
2. Methodology lacks details on how quantification of Phtophathora and Rhizoctonia
was done yet in the results section figures are presented with quantified values (Fig 2).
More clear details needs to be added.
3. Were there replicates for the laboratory analysis? The laboratory experimental design
should be explained and the data obtained treated to a statistical package.
4. More details on the land use types is required in order to show clearly that they are
actually different because they are the basis of explanation of the differences observed.
For example how was intensification measured? Was it by number of times the land was
cultivated, use of fertilizers etc.? This should come out clearly, otherwise the fungal
population should only be related to type of land cover rather than intensification.
5. State the identification keys used.
(iii) Presentation of data
The authors have presented the data systematically and in an orderly manner. However
the report does not show that any statistical analysis was used to analyse data. The author
therefore relied exclusively on descriptive analysis, which would not be sufficient to be
used to draw conclusions. Crucial information both in the methodology and in the data
set is lacking as indicated above. The information provided is incomplete as it is even to
be treated to any statistical analysis. Some of the points on which the discussion is based
are not derived from the data collected e.g basing the abundance of phytopathogenic
fungi on loss of antagonistic microorganisms and land use intensification is not
appropriate because the presence of the latter was not measured, neither was
intensification described or measured, Pg 5, line 1-8. The experimental set up and data
management does not show loss of antagonistic fungi.
(iv) Literature citation
- 32 -
The authors have made use of current relevant literature but would do better with more to
strengthen their discussion.
(v) Revision
The paper needs to be revised taking into consideration comments stated above. The
paper could have also been more informative if the distribution and abundance of the
fungi was compared with the soil physical and chemical characteristics. This is because
land use and management affects the soil physical and chemical characteristics which
in turn influence the distribution and abundance of fungi.
(vi) Final evaluation
The paper must be revised according to suggestions indicated above and resubmitted for
re-consideration.
B. Inventory of Mesofauna
1.
ABUNDANCE AND DENSITY OF SOIL MESOFAUNA IN
DIFFERENT LAND-USE SYSTEMS IN THE UPPER SOLIMÕES RIVER,
AMAZONAS, BRAZIL
José Wellington de Morais & Sandra Celia Tapia-Coral
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia – INPA
Coordenação de Pesquisas em Entomologia – CPEN
E-mail: morais@inpa.gov.br; sandra@inpa.gov.br
PO Box 478, CEP 69011-970 – Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil.
(Code: B1_BRA)
Code1
Nr.
B1_BRA 44
Date last version
Rev1
Revised

C
Rev 2
Revised
C
2. Inventory of mesofauna in different land use systems in
the Nilgiri and Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve in India
R.V. Varma, B.K. Senapati, N.G. Kumar and R.K. Maikhuri
Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi, India
Sambalpur University, Jyotivihar, India
University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, India
- 33 -
Final eval
G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan
Development, Srinagar (Garhwal), India
(Code: B2_INA)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
B2_INA 43
Rev1
Environment
Revised

C(D)
Rev 2
and
Revised
Final eval
C
Reviewer’s comments
The BGBD project intends to generate two official project publications from the
papers presented during the technical sessions of the Conservation and Sustainable
Management of Below-Ground Biodiversity project (CSM-BGBD) annual meeting,
held in Manaus, Brazil. One publication will be on the benchmark site description and
site characterization and the second will be on the inventory of BGBD in the
benchmark sites. Because most papers were actually submitted after the annual
meeting, the papers could not be reviewed for presentation at the annual meeting but
will take place at this point of time for inclusion in the two project publications. The
BGBD technical committee met, discussed and agreed that the technical papers for
inclusion in the said project documents be guided with the following considerations:
(i) Contribution to knowledge on BGBD.
Please, state clearly whether the paper makes a valuable and
substantial contribution to the existing body of knowledge of the
socio-economic, bio-physical or land use and land cover
characteristics of the benchmark areas or on BGBD in the project
benchmark areas.
Even though we understand the effort of the authors and of the project coordinators, the
paper above cited does not give valuable and substantial contribution for the project. The
presentation of the data needs serious revision. Other main objection is that the
taxonomic identification level is very superficial. These high/rough level of taxonomic
categories encompasses many species and several categories (predators, herbivores,
social insects, etc.) in each grouping, was not enough to show their relation with the
environmental factors. The authors do not clarify the reader about the groups that they
had found in the soil. They give report about mites, nematodes, Collembola, Protura,
Diplura and “microscopic ants”. Other categories are completely ignored, even if we
think in high taxonomic level of Order or Family like Coleoptera adults and juveniles,
Hymenoptera adults and juveniles, Homoptera adults and juveniles, Thysanoptera adults
and juveniles, Embioptera, Isoptera, Psocoptera, Diptera adults and juveniles, etc.
Suggestion: The team must be concentrated in some target groups, mainly those that they
can find specialist to make the identification work. As the baseline of any ecological
study is the taxonomy, the training program in taxonomy must be one of the main targets
- 34 -
of the project. Otherwise, we will continue to work with rough taxonomic resolution
and/or a high percentage of morphospecies, which will probably be appropriate to the
question being asked in each study, but not for a comparison among the environments
being investigated.
The rest of our comments/suggestions are included in the attached copy. Some of the
main observations included in the text are:
1) It is necessary to give a definition of the term “microarthropods”; read Crossley,
D. A., Coleman, D. C. 1999. Microarthropods. In: M. E. Sumner (Edf), Handbook
of Soil Science. P: C59 – C65. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.. According to the
authors, “soil microarthropods are a major fraction of the mesofauna, with body
ranging between approximately 0.1 and 2 mm, and body lengths between 0.2 mm
and 10 mm”.
2) The nematodes are considered microfauna; Read Luxton & Petersen 1982 OIKOS
39(3): 293-339.
3) There are many mistakes related to taxonomic nomenclature (see the text).
Suggestion: Better to follow a pattern.
4) Literature is missing for many scientific statements, mainly in the introduction
section (see the text).
(ii) Research and Methodology used
Indicate whether the author has used the proper methodology in
agreement with the methods proposed for the inventory of BGBD and
site characterization as far as applicable. Also comment whether the
right statistical methods have been used to achieve the paper
objectives.
It was not possible to make a good evaluation of this section as the authors did not give
any details of the methodology. This section is very incomplete; date of sampling,
methods of sampling, number of replicates, etc. are missing.
The name of the apparatus of extractions is called “Berlese funnel” by the authors. In this
aspect, we have some observations: Fillippo Silvestri, a student of Antonio Berlese, used
this extraction system. In 1918, Tullgren modified Berlese’s original extraction method
by replacing the water jacket with an electric light bulb. All commonly used extraction
funnels depend on the differential light and moisture created by placing a water-based
collection vat beneath a funnel and an electric light and heat source over the funnel. You
will find literature references to both Berlese funnels and Tullgren funnels. Many authors
honour both innovators by calling the extraction apparatus a Berlese-Tullgren funnel. A
modified Tullgren apparatus, based on the Berlese funnel (thus often called BerleseTullgren funnel), and its various modifications, is the most commonly used method for
separating arthropods from soil and litter. Commonly used modifications of the BerleseTullgren funnel in which the extraction efficiency is improved by enhancing humidity
and temperature gradients include the Macfadyen high.
- 35 -
Continuing with the observations about the “Berlese funnel”: many questions are not
answered, like: Was the temperature of the apparatus measured?. How many days did the
samples stayed in the apparatus ? (Obs.: this is an important aspect; if the sample stayed
for more than 14 days in the apparatus, the community of animals are not the same; there
are risks of eggs eclosion, predation, etc.). Did the authors use water or alcohol as a
killing-preserving agent?
I am not capable to evaluate the methodology to sample Nematoda. Probably other
specialist can be consulted. Therefore, the table 1 does not show clearly the suggestions
of modification.
Page 2:
“2.2. Improvements/modifications suggested in the
methodology…While following the transect protocol
suggested by TSBF, there is a chance for the selected
area to be inappropriate for sampling as it will be
hard to find any soil dwelling organisms in some
particular points. Thus, monoliths may be excavated
randomly by visual purposive selection of sites in
order to represent the maximum diversity. “
This statement can’t be done and probably the authors misunderstood the protocol
suggested by TSBF. It is not recommended to make “visual selection” the sampling area
to look for the maximum diversity. If they did it, then the sampling can’t be considered as
being “randomly taken”. See others comments in the text.
(iii) Presentation of data
Indicate whether the author has presented the data systematically, and
in an orderly manner to ensure that conclusions can be logically drawn
from the information gathered. Comment whether the data set can be
considered complete or whether crucial information is lacking.
The presentation of the data does not ensure that conclusions can be logically drawn from
the information gathered. Some observations must be considered (some main examples
only):
Page 4:
“The higher abundance of litter mesofauna was noticed in Paddy ecosystem during
February 2004. This was followed by Cardamom plantation. The invertebrate’s
population in Paddy litter was significantly higher compared to the population in Coffee,
Grassland, Natural forest and Acacia litter (Table 2).”
Suggestions: The sample were not taken “during” February… this referees understands
that it was only one sampling period in February, even though the methodology is
- 36 -
incomplete. The rest of the text must be checked. As any statistic test was used, it is not
possible to say that the results were “significant”. What the author is saying is not
possible to see in Table 2. At the table, it is only possible to see the relative abundance…
Please, apply the same comment to Tables 3 to 5.
“During November 2004, the Grassland showed the maximum relative abundance of
mesofauna and the minimum was recorded in Acacia (Table 3). The probable reason
could be that the invertebrates in general do not prefer the litter of Acacia.”
Suggestions: The grassland did not “show”. The registers were done by the authors.
Please, check the text. The reasons are vague. Is it a personal comments/communication?
Give the reference or transfer this explanation to “discussion”.
“Table 2. Relative abundance of litter invertebrates in different ecosystems (Feb. 2004).”
It is obvious that even 2 primary forests are “different” (Please check the whole text for
the same word/mistake). Please, describe much better the legend of the tables. Check the
rest of the text and legends.
Do not abbreviate words in the text. Check the whole text.
“The soil mesofaunal abundance was maximum in Cardamom plantation and minimum
in Grassland during February 2004. The former land use system harboured significant
higher invertebrates compared to Grassland, Paddy and Acacia land use. Natural forest
soil provided significantly good habitat for soil invertebrates compared to Acacia and
Grassland (Table 4).”
It is not possible to “see” this affirmation in the table.
Any statistic test was used. It is not possible to say that it was significantly higher.
Page 5:
“The soil samples were also analyzed for nematodes during November 2004. However,
nematodes were not present in these samples. This may be due to long preservation of
soil samples (25 - 30 days) in the refrigerated conditions before extraction of nematodes
(Table 6).
In this case, would be better to do not include the data in the paper.
Table 6: It is not a way to construct one table. Please, follow the example of the previous
table. What does ± means in this table? Standard deviation of the mean? Which type?
Standard deviation of parameters, also called standard errors?
The rest of the text must be seriously checked, please.
Page 6:
“The nematode abundance in different layers of soil was found significantly different
from each other. In most of the land use systems, the first layer of soil (0-10 cm) was
found to have the highest number of nematodes. Variation in the moisture content of
different soil layers must be contributing to the difference in nematode abundance in the
different soil layers (Figure 2).”
- 37 -
It is not possible to use statistical nomenclature if you did not make any statistic test.
Check the rest of the text for the same detail. The soil moisture content is not given in the
results and any conclusion can be done in this aspect.
Page 7:
“microscopic ants”:
Give a definition. We believe that this term is not used.
The second “pictures” (that would be called “B”) of the Figures 3, 4, 5 and 6 are
redundant; they show the same results and conclusions as the previous “pictures” (that
would be called “A”).
Page 11:
Check the terms density and abundance in the whole text.
Page 12:
Data is not given for such conclusions.
Page 15:
“Annexure” : better to use “Appendix”; most of the “Annexure” are redundant, for
example, the information provided by the “Annexure 2” is included in the text (see page
5).
(iv)
Literature Citation
Has the candidate made use of available, current, exhaustive, and
relevant literature?
The literature is relevant, but seems to be very restricted to Asian authors. Numbers of
pages are missing in some of them.
(v)
Correction or Revision
Indicate exactly what corrections are necessary or whether the paper
needs to be revised. Occasionally theses require extensive corrections
or revision. If this is the case, please set out the corrections and
paragraphs affected. Whether minor corrections are required, please do
indicate.
The paper needs to be completely revised. The data must be analyzed again with the help
of one specialist. The suggestions are inserted as comments in the text.
(vi)
Final Evaluation
Please state frankly and without ambiguity whether the paper:
e) is worthy to be included in the technical book of proceedings in
the present form;
- 38 -
f) Is worthy to be included after effecting minor corrections,
indicated in Section V, to the satisfaction of the reviewer;
g) must be revised according to suggestions in Section V and
resubmitted for re consideration;
h) is not worthy being included in the proceedings.
Reviewer’s opinion: This paper is not worthy being included in the proceedings in the
way it is now (see v).
3. Collembola Communities of Seven Different Land Uses in Sumberjaya,
West Lampung, Indonesia
Cahyo Rahmadi1 and I Gede Swibawa2
1Zoology Division RC Biology LIPI
Jl. Raya Jakarta-Bogor Km. 46 Cibinong Indonesia
E-mail: cahyo.rahmadi@lipi.go.id
2
Department of Plant Protection, Universitas Lampung
Jl. Sumantri Brojonegoro No. 1 Bandar Lampung Indonesia
E-mail: igswibawa@yahoo.com
(Code: B3_IND)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
B3_IND 36
Rev1
Revised

C
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
B
Reviewer’s comments
1. The BGBD project intends to generate two official project publications from the
papers presented during the technical sessions of the Conservation and
Sustainable Management of Below-Ground Biodiversity project (CSM-BGBD)
annual meeting, held in Manaus, Brazil. One publication will be on the
benchmark site description and site characterization and the second will be on the
inventory of BGBD in the benchmark sites. Because most papers were actually
submitted after the annual meeting, the papers could not be reviewed for
presentation at the annual meeting but will take place at this point of time for
inclusion in the two project publications. The BGBD technical committee met,
discussed and agreed that the technical papers for inclusion in the said project
documents be guided with the following considerations:
(i)
Contribution to knowledge on BGBD.
Please, state clearly whether the paper makes a valuable and
substantial contribution to the existing body of knowledge of the
socio-economic, bio-physical or land use and land cover
characteristics of the benchmark areas or on BGBD in the project
benchmark areas.
- 39 -
The paper above cited gives a relative contribution for the project. The presentation of the
data needs serious revision.
Suggestion: are included in the text.
The rest of our comments/suggestions are included in the attached copy. Some of the
main observations included in the text are:
1) There are mistakes related to taxonomic nomenclature (see the text). Better to
follow a pattern.
2) Literature is missing for many scientific statements, mainly in the introduction
section (see the text).
3) Many references included in the text are not cited in the literature.
4) The authors need to pay attention to the verbs in the past or in the future.
5) The author is including in his conclusion that some species can be indicators of
disturbed ecosystem; why don’t add this aspect as an objective?.
6) Better to make results and discussion in separated topics.
(ii)
Research and Methodology used
Indicate whether the author has used the proper methodology in
agreement with the methods proposed for the inventory of BGBD and
site characterization as far as applicable. Also comment whether the
right statistical methods have been used to achieve the paper
objectives.
This section needs revision. See text.
The name of the apparatus of extractions is called “Berlese funnel” by the authors. In this
aspect, we have some observations: Fillippo Silvestri, a student of Antonio Berlese, used
this extraction system. In 1918, Tullgren modified Berlese’s original extraction method
by replacing the water jacket with an electric light bulb. All commonly used extraction
funnels depend on the differential light and moisture created by placing a water-based
collection vat beneath a funnel and an electric light and heat source over the funnel. You
will find literature references to both Berlese funnels and Tullgren funnels. Many authors
honour both innovators by calling the extraction apparatus a Berlese-Tullgren funnel. A
modified Tullgren apparatus, based on the Berlese funnel (thus often called BerleseTullgren funnel), and its various modifications, is the most commonly used method for
separating arthropods from soil and litter. Commonly used modifications of the BerleseTullgren funnel in which the extraction efficiency is improved by enhancing humidity
and temperature gradients include the Macfadyen high.
Continuing with the observations about the “Berlese funnel”: many questions are not
answered, like: Was the temperature of the apparatus measured?. Did the authors use
water or alcohol as a killing-preserving agent?
(iii)
Presentation of data
Indicate whether the author has presented the data systematically, and
in an orderly manner to ensure that conclusions can be logically drawn
- 40 -
from the information gathered. Comment whether the data set can be
considered complete or whether crucial information is lacking.
The presentation of the data does not ensure that conclusions can be logically drawn from
the information gathered. Some observations must be considered (some main examples
only):
Page 5, Figure 2: 10 samples were done in each site, except for CBLI. We must expect
that 10 points will be placed on the Figure per site and 6 for CBLI. Why, for example,
site number 7 is showing 13 points and why some sites shows less than 10, like site
number 2. Is that zero counting? Point overlap is not showed? Use Systat that give much
better options to represent like jittered dot density. Check the same for other Figures.
The rest of the text must be seriously checked, please.
(iv)
Literature Citation
Has the candidate made use of available, current, exhaustive, and
relevant literature?
The literature is relevant, but seems to be very restricted. Numbers of pages are missing
in some of them. Many are “unpublished” papers. Many citations are missing.
(v)
Correction or Revision
Indicate exactly what corrections are necessary or whether the paper
needs to be revised. Occasionally theses require extensive corrections
or revision. If this is the case, please set out the corrections and
paragraphs affected. Whether minor corrections are required, please do
indicate.
The paper needs to be completely revised. The suggestions are inserted as comments in
the text.
(vi)
Final Evaluation
Please state frankly and without ambiguity whether the paper:
i)
is worthy to be included in the technical book of proceedings
in the present form;
ii)
Is worthy to be included after effecting minor corrections,
indicated in Section V, to the satisfaction of the reviewer;
iii)
must be revised according to suggestions in Section V and
resubmitted for re consideration;
iv)
is not worthy being included in the proceedings.
The paper must be revised according to suggestions in Section V and resubmitted for re
consideration.
- 41 -
4. Sampling of the mesofauna of Sierra de Santa Marta in Los
Tuxtlas Veracruz, México (Abstract)
Isabelle Barois, Martín de los Santos, Antonio Angeles,
José Antonio García and Patricia Rojas.
Instituto de Ecología A.C, Xalapa Ver.
(Code: B4_MEX)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
B4_MEX
C. Inventory of Nematodes
1. NEMATODES - Brazil
Juvenil Enrique Cares, PhD (team leader)
Ednalva Patrícia de Andrade, MSc
Shiou Pin Huang, PhD (in memoriam)
Fernanda Espíndola Leal, Technician
(Code: C1_BRA)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised
C1_BRA
B
Reviewer’s comments
Contribution to knowledge on BGBD: This paper makes a valuable contribution to the
existing body of knowledge on BGBD in the benchmark area studied, and increase the
number of reports about relationships between nematodes and soil health.
Research and Methodology used: They have used the proper methodology in
agreement with the methods proposed for the inventory of BGBD. Right statistical
methods have been used to achieve the paper objectives.
Presentation of data
Author has presented the data in a complete and systematic way. Results allow him to
discuss and conclude from the information gathered. In general, data set can be
considered complete; some data are lacking but the author has established some remarks
at the final of the report which consider that kind of lacking information.
Literature Citation
It has made use of available, current and relevant literature
Correction or Revision
- 42 -
Paper has a few mistakes and needs a few style corrections, maybe. Corrections
suggested have been indicated in the file.
Final Evaluation
Paper is worthy to be included in the technical book of proceedings after effecting minor
corrections suggested.
1 a. Research on isolation of entomopathogenic fungi and nematodes from
soil samples
Prof. Dr. Alcides Moino Junior (coordinator)
Eng. Agr. (MS) Ricardo Sousa Cavalcanti
Eng. Agr. (MS) Vanessa Andaló Mendes Carvalho
(Code: C1a_BRA)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised

C1a_BRA
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
D
Reviewer’s comments
(i)
Contribution to knowledge on BGBD.
From the results, it is observed that there is a contribution to BGBD
in the project benchmark areas.
(ii)
Research and Methodology used
Though there is no methodology agreed in the methodology part of the
project, the authors seem to have used proper methodology, which I
have asked them to clarify in the text. Site characterization is OK as
they have different gradients of land use types. As far as statistical
methods are concerned, none they have used. In fact the whole
presentation of the data has been asked to re do it. If they have the data
I have asked they may be able to do some statistical analysis.
(iii)
Presentation of data
Presentation of the data is not very good but they have some good
amount of information from which they can still make a very good
meaningful presentation. They have a good recording of fungal
species which is commendable.
(iv)
Literature Citation
Has the candidate made use of available, current, exhaustive, and
relevant literature?- as regard to this not even a single paper has been
referred any whjere which I have pointed out in the text. It appears that
- 43 -
the authors are not aware that it may come out as a publication. Had
they known probably they might have done it. Therefore, a revision of
this presentation in a scientific form is required with discussion in the
light of previous work.
(v)
Correction or Revision
Corrections have been indicated in the body of the text and it requires
a thorough revision. If need be I can again go through the paper after
revision if time permits.
(vi)
Final Evaluation
Please state frankly and without ambiguity whether the paper:
(i) is worthy to be included in the technical book of proceedings in
the present form;- can only be included after revision
(ii)
Is worthy to be included after effecting minor corrections,
indicated in Section V, to the satisfaction of the reviewer;- NO
(iii)
must be revised according to suggestions in Section V and
resubmitted for re consideration;- Yes
(iv) is not worthy being included in the proceedings.- NO
2. Effects of land use types on plant parasitic nematodes in
Côte d’Ivoire
Philippe G. GNONHOURI1*, Jacob NANDJUI2, Jérôme E. TONDOH3.
1
Centre National de Recherches Agronomiques
01 BP 1740 Abidjan 01
Côte d’Ivoire
2
Laboratoire de Zoologie agricole
Ecole Supérieure d’Agronomie
BP 1313 Yamoussoukro
Côte d’Ivoire
3
UFR des Sciences de la Nature / Centre de Recherche en Ecologie
Université d’Abobo-Adjamé
02 BP 801 Abidjan 02
Côte d’Ivoire
*Corresponding author
E-mail: gnonphil@yahoo.fr
Téléphone : + 225 05 78 37 80
(Code: C2_CDI)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised
- 44 -
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval

C2_CDI
B
3. Nematode Diversity in Sumberjaya, West Lampung—Indonesia
I Gede Swibawa1), Titik Nur Aeny2, and Imam Mashyuda
Department of Plant Protection, Universitas Lampung Indonesia
Jln. Sumantri Brojonegoro No.1 Bandar Lampung 35145, Indonesia
1
E-mail: igswibawa@yahoo.com, 2 aeny01@yohoo.com
(Code: C3_IND)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised

C3_IND
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
B
Reviwer Evaluation:
(i)
Contribution to knowledge on BGBD.
With the identification of nematodes to the genus level and their placement
into functional groups, of five soil samples from each of seven land uses, I
consider a substantial contribution to the body of knowledge on BGBD in
Indonesia benchmark area of Lampung.
(ii)
Research and Methodology used
The authors followed the protocol proposed for nematodes in BGBD
inventory.
The manuscript does not include the type of statistical analyses applied to
data.
(iii)
Presentation of data
A table with identified taxa would give a better view on the nematode
diversity in the benchmark area.
Genus richness in the land uses was the only measure of diversity applied to
data.
A better understanding of the diversity should be reached by the application
of other indices such as Shannon index, Simpson´s diversity index and
Trophic diversity.
The disturbance indices (maturity index, plant-paratic index and modified
maturity index) are also important tools to evaluate soil disturbances in a
gradient of land use intensity.
(iv)
Literature Citation
- 45 -
The literature citation in the manuscript is compatible with the level of
discussion applied to this preliminary results. Additional literature will be
needed for a richer discussion on the dada obtained.
(v)
Correction or Revision
Minor corrections were applied in red in the text, but I recognize that
additional English review is still needed, since English is not my mother
language.
Figure 1. Please change the label of axis “Y” to: individuals per 300 cc soil.
For self explanation of Fig. 1, I suggest to add in the foot note, the meaning
of the codes for each land use (for example: FLI – undisturbed forest). Please
correct the label of the graphic bars, there are two land uses with the same
code (TBLI).
Figure 2. Please correct the label for axis “Y” to: Individuals per 300 cc soil.
I suggest to add the meaning of the number correspondent to each type of
land use (for example: #1 – undisturbed forest). In this case it is not
necessary to use the letter codes.
Figure 3. In the foot note, I suggest to add the meaning of the letter
codes for each land use (for example: FLI – undisturbed forest).
Figure 4: There is no reference or comments to this figure in the text. In the
foot note, I suggest to add the meaning of the letter
codes for each land use (for example: FLI – undisturbed forest). I also
suggest to add the meaning of the number correspondent to each land
use (example: #1 – undisturbed forest.
Table 1. In a foot note describe the meaning of the letter codes.
Please include in the methodology the type of statistical analyses applied to
data.
I recommend the application of other indices such as Shannon index,
Simpson´s diversity index and Trophic diversity, as well as the disturbance
indices (maturity index, plant-paratic index and modified maturity index).
(vi)
Final Evaluation
As I understood, these are only preliminary results on the BGBD inventory
that need to be completed and properly discussed. As a progress report on the
inventory, I consider that this manuscript will be worthy to be included in the
technical book of proceedings after effecting the corrections indicated in
section V.
- 46 -
4. Impact of Land Use Changes on Nematode Diversity and Abundance
Kimenju, J. W., Karanja, N.K., Mutua, G. K. Rimberia, B. M. and Nyongesa, M.
W.
Faculty of Agriculture, University of Nairobi, P. O. Box 29053
(Code: C4_KEN)
Revised edition
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised

C4_KEN
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
B
Reviewer’s comments
Contribution to knowledge on BGBD: This paper makes a valuable contribution to the
existing body of knowledge on BGBD in the benchmark areas studied (Embu and TaitaTaveta). The paper contributes to the knowledge of the relationship between structure of
nematode communities and the state of perturbation of the soil in different systems
(disturbed and non-disturbed).
Research and Methodology used: They have used the proper methodology in
agreement with the methods proposed for the inventory of BGBD. They have used the
main statistical methods to achieve the paper objectives.
Presentation of data
They have presented the data in a complete and systematic way. Part of the results allow
them to discuss and conclude from the information gathered. Most of the data can be
considered complete, but they have to discuss about soil disturbance indices which were
calculated and presented by them in the Results section. This discussion will give them
some elements to make their conclusions (preliminary or definitive).
Literature Citation
It has made use of available, current and relevant literature.
Correction or Revision
Paper has a few mistakes and needs a few style corrections, maybe. Corrections
suggested have been indicated in the file.
Final Evaluation
Paper is worthy to be included in the technical book of proceedings after effecting minor
corrections suggested and including a brief analysis of soil disturbance indices which
they estimated and presented in the Results section.
- 47 -
5. Preliminary Study About Diversity Of Nematodes Under
Four Land Use Intensities In Mexico
F. Franco-Navarroa, D. Godinez-Vidala and K. VilchisMartínezb.
a,*
Phytopathology
Program-Colegio
de
Postgraduados,
Montecillo 56230, Mexico State, Mexico. bAgricultural
Engineering-FES Cuatitlan, UNAM, Cuautitlan Izcalli, Mexico
State, Mexico.
(Code: C5_MEX)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised

C5_MEX
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
C
Reviwer Evaluation:
(i)
Contribution to knowledge on BGBD.
Although the identification of the nematodes had not been accomplished,
genera belonging to the five major trophic groups in soil. I consider an
important contribution to the knowledge on BGBD in a gradient of land
use in one of the benchmark in Mexico.
(ii)
Research and Methodology used
The authors to certain point followed the protocol proposed for
nematodes in BGBD inventory, except for the number o soil cores per
point 8, instead of 12 cores in the protocol and the soil layer collected.
They collected soil from 10 to 30 cm, instead of zero to 20 cm as agreed
in the protocol for BGBD inventory.
(iii)
Presentation of data
Generally data presentation is satisfactory.
In the figures it was not considered a logical sequence of land use
intensity.
I consider that the data set is not complete, since the identification of
morphogenera is still going on. As the authors mention, further analyses
are needed.
* Corresponding autor: Tel.: +52-595-952-02-00 ext. 1673 and 1602 (fax).
E-mail adress: ffranco@colpos.mx (Code: D1)
- 48 -
(iv)
Literature Citation
The literature citation in the manuscript is enough, although worldwide
there are much more relevant information on this subject.
(v)
Correction or Revision
There is a suggestion for alteration in the title.
I recommend that the authors deserve some effort in reviewing the text,
since I performed a through English revision of the manuscript and it
might have in some cases affected text interpretation. Since English is
not my mother language, I also recommend additional reviews of the
text.
In the section Materials and Methods I suggest that to reduce
information on the site description, since I understand that it will have a
specific publication on this topic.
In the methodology, please consider do inform the number of nematodes
randomly picked and mounted for identification.
In figure labels and in other parts of the text, I recommend that the
authors correct the names of land uses to: agroforestry, maize fields,
pasture fields and forest, instead of jungle.
Please consider to specify in the text if the evenness in this work is the
one of Shannon index or the one of Simpson`s index.
(vi)
Final Evaluation
Although, nematode identification and additional analyses need to be
accomplishe, I consider that this manuscript will be worthy to be
included in the technical book of proceedings after effecting the
corrections indicated in section V, since with available information on
the nematode community it was possible to demonstrate clearly
differences among land use systems.
- 49 -
6. INTERMEDIATE REPORT FOR THE NEMATODE
FUNCTIONAL GROUP - Uganda
Josephine M. Namaganda
Gertrude Nabulya
(Code: C6_UGA)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised

C6_UGA
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
D
Reviwer Evaluation:
(i)
Contribution to knowledge on BGBD.
Although a list of plant-parasitic nematodes was provided, the
contribution to existing knowledge on BGBD is limited, once it
represents only a fraction of soil nematode diversity.
(ii)
Research and Methodology used
The authors did not follow agreed protocol for BGBD inventory. The
experiment design and laboratory procedures were completely different
from those applied to the project
(iii)
Presentation of data
Data presentation was just for a progress report purpose, but not for a
scientific publication.
(iv)
Literature Citation
No literature citation
(v)
Correction or Revision
Not applicable
(vi)
Final Evaluation
Since the authors did not follow agreed protocol for BGBD inventory,
and the did not show substantial scientific information in their report, I
- 50 -
consider that at present status of the manuscript it is not worthy being
included in the proceedins.
D. Inventory of the Plant Pests
1. Conservation and Sustainable Management of Below Ground Biodiversity:
Biodiversity of Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) of Economic Importance
and Hosts Plants
Marques, N.; Tregue-Costa, A.P.; Ribeiro, F.
FCA/UFAM (Coord.); Bolsista Doutoranda / INPA; Bolsista Mestrando/
FCA/UFAM
(Code: D1_BRA)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised
D1_BRA
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
B
Reviewer’s comments
(i)
Contribution to knowledge on BGBD.
Fruit flies are mainly aerial insects; they are no soil pests although they
are passing some time as pupa in the soil. Only the pupae occur in the
soil, but as far as I know, no studies have been done on interaction
between fruit fly larvae/pupae and natural enemies in the soil. Hence, I
suggest that the authors clearly show the pertinence of fruit flies to the
vision of BGBD. On the other hand this work shows clearly the impact
of different types of land use on diversity and abundance of fruit flies.
(ii)
Research and Methodology used
I agree with the methodology proposed by the authors.
(iii)
Presentation of data
In general, the authors presented their results well; the data set is
complete.
(iv)
Literature Citation
Ok
(v)
Correction or Revision
I suggest that the text needs some editing since some passages are
difficult to understand. In some cases I included suggestions to
- 51 -
improve the form of narration. Other minor suggestions are indicated
in the attached text.
(vi)
Final Evaluation
b) The article should be revised according to our suggestions. Again,
the work is interesting and worthy to be included in this book.
E. Inventory of Macro-fauna
1. ANT COMMUNITY STRUCTURE IN DIFFERENT LAND USE
SYSTEMS OF THE UPPER SOLIMÕES RIVER REGION, STATE OF
AMAZONAS, BRAZIL
Ronald Zanetti1, Jacques Delabie2, Mônica Silva Santos1, Nívia Dias1, Márcia
Lídia Gomide1
(Code: E1_BRA)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised

E1_BRA
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
B
2. Diversity of soil ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in
Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve, Mexico: preliminary results
Patricia Rojas, Antonio Angeles and José Amador
Soil Biology Department. Institute of Ecology A.C.
Xalapa, Ver. MEXICO
(Code: E2_MEX)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised

E2_MEX
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
C
Reviewer’s comments
1
DEN/UFLA, Caixa Postal 37, 37200-000, Lavras, MG, zanetti@ufla.br
2
CEPEC/CEPLAC, Caixa Postal 7, 45600-000, Itabuna, Bahia, delabie@cepec.gov.br
- 52 -
1. Evaluation: although the work is good, this paper seems to be too preliminary for
publication. It includes data from only one out of three windows, with a list of partially
identified species (only 14 out of 57, or 25%). All the statistical analyses are also
preliminary. I am not an expert on ants and cannot evaluate the detail on sampling
methods, taxonomy and biology.
2. Style: (same as the termite paper) the text is clear and well written, but the English is
not fluent and there are Spanish words in some places. For instance in Figure 1: “usos del
suelo”.
3. Introduction
(a) Hymenoptera: uppercase initial for names of orders
(b) paragraph 1: “which” is monophyletic, Vespoidea or Formicidae? It seems to
be ambiguous.
(c) paragraph 2: add “terrestrial” ecosystems; there are no aquatic ants.
(d) paragraph 2: “leaf-cutting ants”, not leaf-cutter
(e) paragraph 3: “is still incomplete” — this is more than obvious and it is also
true for all other groups of animals and plants on the planet. Not necessary to include this
here.
(f) paragraph 6: replace “1 m2” with "square meter" — better style.
(g) paragraph 6: there are problems in the number of species per square meter.
Diversity is not density. Having 10 species in a square meter does not mean that you have
20 species in two square meters. And you can also have zero species in a specific square
meter. Therefore these ranges, means and standard deviations seem to be a little weird.
One can use the number of species in a square meter to compare diversity among sites,
but you can’t use this number as if it was a density. It is impossible for example to
calculate the number of species in a square meter if you know the number of species in
100 m2 (actually you can,but only if you have additional parameters on species-area
relation, which is difficult to obtain). Also, does the number of species in a square meter
show a normal distribution? Does this number depend on a specific sampling method
for comparison purposes?
4. Methods: need to include information on how the sampling points were distributed
— random, grid, etc.
5. Conclusion: the statement that “annual crops are functioning as diversity reservoirs”
does not follow from the data and the graphs. Differences are very small and there are no
statistical tests indicating they are significant. There are two hypotheses for the high
diversity of the annual crops: 1) proximity to forests and 2) agricultural practices. Both
can be measured and evaluated. Ants are social insets and their colonies may have a large
territory. Therefore, this diversity may be the result of sampling forest species which also
forage in the crop fields. This does not mean that this diversity would be preserved if the
forests would be removed. 6. Figures
(a) Figure 1: “usos de suelo” in the x axis.
- 53 -
(b) Figure 2: y axis “No. species/m2” should be only “No. species”. There is no “species
density”. The fact that the number corresponds to a sample from one square meter should
be explained in the caption.
(c) Avoid abbreviations in the figure captions.
(d) Figure 3: needs to be better explained. Which frequency is this and how was it
measured?
The second reviewer’s notes
(i) Contribution to knowledge on BGBD
The paper makes an important contribution to the knowledge on BGBD. This
preliminary result shows a trend in the change in diversity of leaf litter ants along LUT in
a forest region in Mexico.
The paper starts to discuss also about the use of ants as bioindicators for agricultural
intensification, and this is a great contribution to actual debate on the use of BGBD for
monitoring land use change.
(ii) Research and methodology used
The author has used the proper methodology similar to the one proposed by the project.
Ants where collecting from 5 Winkler quadrats (instead of 3) and 3 pitfall traps, and this
improve the sampling efficiency. Unfortunately, the methodology is not described
enough in the part method of the paper, i.e. the method for identification and data
analyses are missing. Description of statistical method is absent and nothing is said about
functional diversity of the ants.
(iii) Presentation of the data
The data are not well presented except the figure 1. The tables and figure 3 have to be
rebuilt in order to express clearly the results (see comments within the text). The
discussion is generally well made and could be improved by including the efficiency of
the methodology used in this study compare to the mandatory one and the ones in the ants
literature.
(iv) Literature Citation
Well done.
Also I would advise the author to read the two papers mentioned below:
(1) Fisher, B. L. 1999. Improving inventory efficiency: a case study of leaf litter
ant diversity in Madagascar. Ecological Application, 9: 714-731
(2) Peck, L. S., B. Macquaid and C. L. Campbell. 1998. Community and
Ecosystem Ecology. Using ant species (Hymenoptera : Formicidae) as a
biological indicator of agroecosystem condition. Environmental Entomology.
Vol. 27, no. 5: 1102-1110
(v) Correction or revision
See the corrections and questions within the text (in red)
- 54 -
(vi) Final evaluation
For a preliminary results presentation, the paper is worthy to be included in a technical
report after effecting minor corrections indicated above and within the text.
3. EFFECT OF LAND USE TYPES ON DIVERSITY AND DENSITY OF
TERMITES, ANTS AND BEETLES IN SUMBERJAYA—
WEST LAMPUNG, INDONESIA
F.X. Susilo1, F.K. Aini2, A.M. Hariri1, Indriyati1, L. Wibowo1
1
Universitas Lampung
Jl. Sumantri Brojonegoro No.
fxsusilo@telkom.net
2
Universitas Brawijaya
Jl. Veteran, Malang 65145 East Java
(Code: E3_IND)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
1,
Bandar
Revised

E3_IND
Lampung
Rev 2
35145.
Revised
email:
Final eval
B
Reviewers Comments (Ants)
(i) Contribution to knowledge on BGBD
The paper makes an important contribution to the knowledge on BGBD. It shows a trend
in the change in diversity of ants along LUT and this is a great contribution for BGBD
management and sustainable use. The paper should discussed the use of ants as
bioindicators of agricultural intensification at the end and as a key question for the
perspectives studies..
(ii) Research and methodology used
The author has used the proper methodology corresponding to the one proposed by the
project.
But the author don’t mention the use of pitfall trap which was also part of the propose
method for the project. Also the author don’t discussed enough the efficiency or validity
of the method used to estimate the ants diversity and abundance. The question about the
optimal size of sample unit (number of quadrates per sampling point) rather than the
number of replicates (see comments within the text).
Statistical analyses are fine, but they could be improved by doing an ANOVA followed a
non parametric Post-Hoc test for comparison of the diversities and abundances between
LUT.
The method used allows collecting only litter ants but not all the ants (e.g. underground
species were not sampled). So the title of the paper should mention that.
- 55 -
(iii) Presentation of the data
The data are well presented except the table where the empty cells need to be fill or to be
explain. The discussion part could be improved by comparing the results obtained with
the literature.
(iv) Literature Citation
Well done, but has I mentioned within the text the unpublished citation could be
problematic because there will not be available for people out of the country.
Also I would advise the author to read the three papers mentioned below:
(1) Fisher, B. L. 1999. Improving inventory efficiency: a case study of leaf litter
ant diversity in Madagascar. Ecological Application, 9: 714-731
(2) Kaspari, M. et J. D. Majer. 2000. Using ants to monitor environmental
change. In: D. Agosti, J. Majer, L. E. Alonso and T. R. Schultz (eds.). Ants,
Standard Methods for Measuring and Monitoring Biodiversity. Washington,
D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
(3) Peck, L. S., B. Macquaid and C. L. Campbell. 1998. Community and
Ecosystem Ecology. Using ant species (Hymenoptera : Formicidae) as a
biological indicator of agroecosystem condition. Environmental Entomology.
Vol. 27, no. 5: 1102-1110
(v) Correction or revision
See the corrections and questions within the text (in red)
(vi) Final evaluation
For a preliminary results presentation, the paper is worthy to be included in a technical
report after effecting minor corrections indicated above and within the text.
Termites
(i) Contribution to knowledge on BGBD
The paper makes an important contribution to the knowledge on BGBD. It clearly
establishes how the diversity of termite change along LUT and this is a great contribution
for BGBD management and sustainable use. The paper is also a starting point for using of
termites as bioindicators for agricultural intensification. It should end with a discussion
about potentiality for termites.
(ii) Research and methodology used
The author has used the proper methodology corresponding to the one proposed by the
project.
But the results presented here don’t evaluate clearly the efficiency of this mandatory
method for the assessment of termite diversity and abundance. It’s not clearly established
if the mean diversity (per transect) is representative of the total diversity (per LUT).
This is important because all the comparison between LUT and most of the conclusions
are based on the mean diversity. This will also allow to evaluate the sampling efficiency
and to know the minimum transect length (replicate) need for this kind of study (several
- 56 -
lengths are used in the literature according to the authors). Statistical analyses are fine,
but they could be improved by doing an ANOVA with a Post-Hoc test for comparison of
the diversities and abundances between LUT.
(iii) Presentation of the data
The data are well presented. The author could just try to see if other factors i.e soil type,
microclimatic conditions,…are not contributing to explain the change in termites
diversity.
The discussion part must be improved also.
(iv) Literature Citation
Well done, but has I mentioned within the text the unpublished citation could be
problematic because there will not be available for people out of the country.
(v) Correction or revision
See the corrections and questions within the text (in red)
(vi) Final evaluation
For a preliminary results presentation, the paper is worthy to be included in a technical
report after effecting minor corrections indicated above and within the text.
4. Diversity of termites and ants along a gradient of land
use type in a tropical forest margin (Oumé, Côte d’Ivoire)
Souleymane KONATE1*, Sylvain C. TRA-BI2, A. N. ADJA2, Simon C. KATIA1
Yéo KOLO1, Yao. TANO2
Université d’Abobo-Adjamé
UFR des Sciences de la Nature
02 B.P. 801 Abidjan 02
Côte d’Ivoire
1
2
Université de Cocody
Laboratoire de Zoologie
UFR Biosciences
22 B.P. 582 Abidjan 22
Côte d’Ivoire)
*Corresponding author
E-mail: skonate2@yahoo.fr
(Code: E4_CDI)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised

E4_CDI
- 57 -
Rev 2
B
Revised
Final eval
5. The diversity and relative abundance of ants and beetles along a land use
gradient in a lowland tropical forest, Uganda.
A.M. Akol and M.J.N. Okwakol
Department of Zoology, Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda.
(Code: E5_UGA)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised

E5_UGA
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
C
Reviewer’s comments
(i) Contribution to knowledge on BGBD
The paper makes an important contribution to the knowledge on ants and beetles
diversities along LUS in East Africa.
This result shows a trend in the diversity of these two insect groups but no real discussion
concerns the use of ants as bioindicator for land conversion.
After further analysis of the data (identification at the species/morphospecies level), the
paper could be considered as a great contribution to the knowledge on BGBD in Uganda.
(ii) Research and methodology used
The method used by the author is similar to the one proposed by the project.
The method is not described in detailed, i.e. : number of monoliths and transects by land
use type (LUT), number of replicates.
In spite their description in methods, the diversity and statistical analyses are not showed
any where in the results. The estimates of the abundance and the number of replicates are
not clearly showed in the methods.
The evaluation of the sampling efficiency is necessary, by comparing the magnitude of
the data obtains to the literature. A discussion on the optimum number of winkler,
monoliths and pitfall necessary for accurate estimates of the diversities of ants and
beetles will be welcome.
The identification at species/morphospecies level is necessary before any final
conclusions.
(iii) Presentation of the data
The paper is perfectly written but the presentation of the data needs to be improved.
All the “plot to plot” graphics shows several symbols within the same graphic without
indicating their meaning. There is no representation of the data from the use of
“Estimates software (species accumulation curves,…). The significant differences (from
statistical analyses) are not visible on the graphs.
The paper should also discuss the method used compare to the literature and field realities
in Uganda.
(iv) Literature Citation
The literature is too short compare to the important results obtained and the topic due,
maybe, to the lack of comparison with the literature in the discussion.
- 58 -
The conclusion is too brief and don’t summarize accurately the important preliminary
results sowed.
(v) Correction or revision
See the corrections and questions within the text (in blue)
(vi) Final evaluation
For a preliminary results presentation, the paper is worthy to be included in a technical
report after effecting minor corrections indicated above and within the text.
6. Termites -Brazil
Team: Reginaldo Constantino (Depto de Zoologia, Universidade de Brasília)
Agno N.S. Acioli (PPG Entomologia, INPA)
(Code: E6_BRA)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised

E6_BRA
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
C
7. Diversity of termites (Insecta: Isoptera) in four land use systems in Los
Tuxtlas, Veracruz, México
Patricia Rojas, José Amador and Antonio Angeles
Soil Biology Department. Institute of Ecology A.C., Xalapa, Ver. MEXICO
(Code: E7_MEX)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised

E7_MEX
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
B
Reviewer’s comments
1. Style: the text is clear and well written, but the English is not “fluent” and there are
Spanish words in some places.
2. Abstract: is too long and can be reduced to 1/3 of the current size.
3. Introduction
(a) 3rd paragraph: the Oriental region is currently the second in number of termite
species. The Neotropics are in third place.
(b) 8th paragraph: Termopsidae are represented in Mexico — names of families and
subfamilies are plural (in any language). The same applies to all family names in the text.
If it sounds weird, then the option is to write “family Termopsidae is”, because in this
case the verb will agree with “family”, which is singular.
4. Methods
- 59 -
(a) Sampling design: it is not clear how the sampling points were distributed. In a grid
with fixed spacing, random, or other?
(b) The protocol described is different from Jones and Eggleton (2001). The time per
section should be 30 minutes for two people, not 15 minutes. This is half the time, and
certainly resulted in fewer specimens. As a comparison, in Brazil we did 100 transects of
20m x 2m, and the result was about 1300 samples (average of 13 samples per 20m
transect), with a collecting time of 30 min.
(c) The description of the methods of data analysis is too short and should include the
software used. There are several different types of species accumulation curves and it is
also possible to calculate confidence intervals for some of them.
(d) It is a good idea to indicate the coordinates of the study sites, or a map.
5. Species account: most of this part is not a result and could be moved to an appendix.
The “Results” section usually does not include bibliographic citations and is restricted to
the findings of the project. The list of species in this section should be presented as a
table in alphabetical order with records by locality, as the following example: Species
Site A B C
Amitermes cf. emersoni Light 1 1 4
Nasutitermes corniger (Motchulsky) 2 1 0
Nasutitermes sp. 1 1 0
1
6. Species account errors:
(a) Calcaritermes: the author of C. guatemalae is Snyder, not “Zinder”.
(b) Amitermes emersoni: the author, “Light” should not be in parentheses And the
specimen I examined is not emersoni, but probably a new species.
(c) Anoplotermes fumosus: Apicotermitinae include [not “incluyes” nor “includes”] 32
soldierless neotropical species, most of which are subterranean and humivores. There are
some species with soldiers in Africa and Asia, but not in the Americas. And some South
American species feed on leaf litter.
(d) Nasutitermes is the most diverse termite genus, with 71 neotropical species [not 91].
Eliminate “Constantino is reviewing the genus...”; this is not relevant here.
(e) Nasutitermes corniger: Argentina [not Argentine]; their nests have the consistence of
carton [not cartoon] and are made with a mixture of faeces and saliva.
(f) Nasutitermes mexicanus: except that their nests are subterranean.
(g) Nasutitermes sp.: “sp.” should not be in italics.
7. Species richness: the term richness usually refers to the total number of species that
occur in a locality or habitat. We may have estimates of richness, diversity indices, etc,
but we rarely can tell the actual total number of species, especially in a group of insects
with cryptic habits such as termites. Additional sampling would certainly add more
species to the lists per land use, per site and the whole area. Therefore, I recommend
more careful use of the terms richness, diversity, diversity indices, and estimated
(extrapolated) richness. At least the text should define clearly how these terms and
concepts are being used. Conclusions about differences among sites and LUS should be
based on statistics, not only on numerical differences.
- 60 -
8. Sampling efficiency: the topic is actually “completeness of sampling” and not
“efficiency”. Efficiency makes sense only when comparing different sampling methods.
The species accumulation curves (also called rarefaction) do not seem to be correct.
There are several types of these curves, and it is possible to calculate confidence
intervals. The dots on the “observed” curves are obviously not true observed records
because it is impossible to have fractional species measurements (how can there be 6.5
species after sampling point 11?). This was a calculated curve, probably by randomized
permutations (or averages?) and should have the confidence interval, not the bootstrap
and jackknife estimates in the same graph. These estimates of total richness (as well as
Chao and others) are to be used for the total or local (LUS, site etc) assemblage. The
following figure shows an example of a species accumulation curve calculated with the
method of random permutations, with confidence interval.
0 200 400 600
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Samples
Species
9. Graphs
(a) There are two many graphs. Some can be combined, especially the bar plots by
window and LUS, by using parallel bars of different colors or patterns. There are 3 sites
and 4 LUS = 12 bars.
(b) As a rule, x and y axes meet only on 0/0 and only if both axes are numeric. Otherwise
there should be a space between them. In fig. 1 the y axis has negative values, which do
not make sense.
(c) The “samples” are specimens or transect sections? The curves are usually made
with a sampling site, transect etc, but they can also be based on specimens. Just
need to be clear which one is used.
(d) Legends need to be more informative. The graphs need to be understandable
without the need to read the text. Abbreviations and more cryptic terms should
be avoided in the graphs and legends. The term “window” makes sense in the
context of the project, but for the general public it may be confusing without
reading the text.
10. Discussion
(a) Species richness: as already indicated by Eggleton (Journal of Natural History,
1994, 28, 1209-1212), termite diversity is higher in the southern hemisphere.
Besides that, most studies in the Amazon are from localities in low latitudes,
between 0 and 3°S. Comparisons should be preferably made with forests in
similar latitudes (for example Brandão, D. Revista Brasileira de Entomologia,
1998, 41, 151-153), and even in this case we will expect a higher diversity in
South America. The discussion could be improved including additional published
data. The range of 11–93 species in the Amazon mentioned by Martius
(1994) includes swamp forests and data from several different authors, with different
methods and sampling efforts. Typical terra firme forests have 60-100
species. Swamp forests have 10-20 species.
- 61 -
(b) Paragraph 4: A “preliminary” analysis — why is this preliminary? And why
the conclusion that the equitability is “similar” if they are diversity indices?
The conclusion is incorrect. The lack of significance indicates that the samples
are not statistically different in terms of species diversity. There are numeric
differences, but they are not statistically significant. Despite the large number
of sampling points, the number of samples (147) is limited. When you divide
this sample by localities and LUS, the samples are too small for statistical tests.
It is probably possible to improve the statistical analysis, but the best solution
would be to increase the sample size.
(c) Faunal composition
i. Martius (1994—not 1998) has several important errors, and is not the only
published work on Amazonian termites.
ii. The Kalotermitidae do not “require” wood with less than 30% of moisture.
They can survive inside wood with low moisture and without contact with
the soil or external sources of water. They are actually more frequent in
humid places, especially near the coast and in islands. Probably because
they cannot live in very dry places, where the wood may be too dry. Several
species live well in damp wood. Anyway, the most important point here is
that the sampling protocol of Jones and Eggleton (2001), which we adopted
in this project, is focused on soil termites and is not adequate for sampling
dry wood termites. In other words, the method used severely underestimates
the proportion of Kalotermitidae and the discussion is a little out of
focus here. And Rebello and Martius (Sociobiology, 1994, 24, 127-146)
have a different conclusion based on alate sampling: the Kalotermitidae
are there, but probably live in the canopy and have been underestimated.
iii. Martius (1994) overestimates the proportion of Nasutitermes species in
Amazon forests, probably due to taxonomic errors. The actual proportion,
locally, is around 15% of the species (not in abundance).
iv. It is also important to compare the local proportions with the regional
(biome) and continental proportions of the various taxonomic and functional
groups. The local fauna is a subset of the regional fauna and usually
has a similar composition. Discrepancies have to be explained. For example,
the Kalotermitidae correspond to 35% of the Mexican termite fauna,
but only one species (11%) was recorded at Los Tuxtlas. Either the sampling
method is not adequate for this group (it is not) or the habitats sampled
have fewer kalotermitids for some reason. Also, the sampling effort
(147 samples) may be too small to make strong conclusions.
11. Final Evaluation: this paper presents a valuable and original contribution and I
recommend
its inclusion in the proceedings, after revision.
The second Reviewer’s notes
(i) Contribution to knowledge on BGBD
- 62 -
The paper makes an important contribution to the knowledge on termite’s biology and the
change on their diversity along LUS.
This result shows a trend in the diversity of termites, but no significant difference exists
between LUS. This could be explain by the sampling effort which is enough for
collecting termites within the litter and above ground, but too small for individual within
the soil (soil scrape sorting should take at least 30 min per section)
The paper could be considered as a great contribution to the knowledge on termite
ecology but because of the limitation in methodology, it should point out that it concern
the diversity of litter and above ground termites.
(ii) Research and methodology used
The method used by the author is not fully similar to the one proposed by the project.
Termites from soil scrape were not sampling here, only the individual above ground
where collecting by this method.
This is why the sampling effort for one transect is so small compare to the mandatory
protocol and not enough to estimate accurately the diversity of the termites. Also the
collecting of the termites from the transect have to be completed by a casual sampling
around the transect.
Description of the specimen identification and statistical method are missing and nothing
is said about functional diversity of the termites (termite functional groups).
(iii) Presentation of the data
The interline are not the same in all the text.
There is lack of synthetic table of the data and list of termite’s species could be added as
an annex.
The discussion is generally well made and could be improved by including the efficiency
of the methodology used in this study compare to the mandatory one and the ones in the
termite literature. The paper should also discuss about the use of termites as bioindicators
for agricultural intensification.
(iv) Literature Citation
Well done.
(v) Correction or revision
See the corrections and questions within the text (in red)
(vi) Final evaluation
For a preliminary results presentation, the paper is worthy to be included in a technical
report after effecting minor corrections indicated above and within the text.
8. The Impact of Land Use Change on the Diversity and
Abundance of Termites in a Tropical High Forest Ecosystem
in Uganda
S.A. Okurut, A.M. Akol and M.J.N. Okwakol
- 63 -
Department of Zoology, Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062,
Kampala, Uganda.
(Code: E8_UGA)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised

E8_UGA
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
C
Reviewer’s comments
(i) Contribution to knowledge on BGBD
The paper makes an important contribution to the knowledge on termite diversity along
LUS in East Africa.
This result shows a trend in the diversity of termites and start with interesting discussion
on the use of termites as bioindicator for land conversion.
After the complete analysis of the data (identification at the species/morphospecies level,
diversity and statistic), the paper could be considered as a great contribution to the
knowledge on termite ecology and East African biodiversity study, if it include a
discussion on the methodology and underline the limit of the method used and then about
the optimal standard method for termites diversity and abundance sampling.
(ii) Research and methodology used
The method used by the author is similar to the one proposed by the project.
The method is not described in detailed, i.e. : number of monoliths and transects by land
use type (LUT), number of replicates, full time spent per transect section (person-hour).
The methods for diversity and statistical analyses are missing, i.e. : how do the data from
the transect are used (species cumulation curves, diversity indexes, relative species
frequency,…). The estimates of the abundance from the monolith remain problematic (is
one monolith per LUT representative? The number of individual per unit is problematic
because all the individual collected from a monolith could be from only one nest…).
The evaluation of the sampling efficiency is necessary, by comparing the magnitude of
the data obtains to the literature. A discussion on the optimum length of transect and the
number of transect and monolith necessary for accurate estimates of termites diversity is
also necessary.
The identification at species/morphospecies level is necessary before definitive
conclusions.
(iii) Presentation of the data
The paper is perfectly written and the presentation of the data is well done in general.
But there is no statistic anywhere, the table 3 should be improve (quantitative values), …
The discussion is totally missing and the conclusion is too short. The paper should also
discuss the method used compare to the literature and field realities in Uganda.
(iv) Literature Citation
Essential literature are cited, but because of the lack of discussion it could be improve.
(v) Correction or revision
- 64 -
See the corrections and questions within the text (in red)
(vi) Final evaluation
For a preliminary results presentation, the paper is worthy to be included in a technical
report after effecting minor corrections indicated above and within the text.
The second reviewer’s comments
1. Introduction
(a) paragraph 1: the terms “colonial” and “communities” are non-standard for social
insects and should be avoided. There are formal classifications of levels of
sociality and termite are always treated as “eusocial” (for example in the BatraMichener classification). “Communal” and “colonial” are completely different
levels of sociality and “community” is more often used for its ecological definition.
Rahman (2003) is not a published work and should not be cited here.
(b) paragraph 1: termites are not the dominant invertebrates in all tropical soils.
This is an exageration. Ants are always more diverse and also more abundant in
most places. Earthworms are much more abundant than termites in some places.
2. Methods
(a) the protocol described in the paper is not the standard BGBD protocol. The
20m transects should also be sampled for termites in nests, wood, etc, by two
people for 30 minutes per section of 5m.
(b) There is no explanation on how termites were classified into feeding groups and
how this was done without species identification.
(c) There is no explanation on how the sampling points were distributed in the field.
3. Results: the identification is still preliminary and only to genus level. Without at
least separation of morphospecies it is not possible to run community and statistical
analyses on diversity patterns.
4. Labiotermes is endemic to South America. This is probably a typographical error,
possibly Labidotermes?
5. Table 1 appears twice in the text (pages 5 and 7). Abbreviations of land use types are
different from the ones used for the figures, which is very confusing. Tables intended
for publication do not have vertical lines and horizontal lines are not used for every
row in the table body.
6. Figures
(a) Figure 2 does not have a caption.
(b) Figs 1 and 2 are in different styles and abbreviations of land use types are different
(including font types and sizes). In both cases the abbreviations should
be explained in the caption.
- 65 -
7. No statistical analyses were performed and variation per site or land use is not
indicated.
The graphs and tables show numerical differences, but this does not mean that
there are significant differences between all sites.
8. Evaluation: this paper seems to be too preliminary for publication. It needs at least to
separate the morphospecies and run some statistical analyses. One very basic piece
of information is missing here: how many species are there in each land use system?
Comparison among sites, for example of community similarity, is also not possible.
9. Forest disturbance change earthworm communities abundance and
diversity in Côte d’Ivoire
Jérôme Ebagnerin Tondoh1*, Lazare Monin Monin1, Seydou Tiho1, Csaba Csuzdi2
1
UFR des Sciences et de la Nature
Université d’Abobo-Adjamé
02 BP 801 Abidjan 02
Côte d’Ivoire
2
Hungarian Natural History Museums,
H-1088 Budapest, Baross str. 13,
Hungary
* Corresponding author
E-mail: tondoh@uabobo.ci, tondohj@yahoo.fr
Téléphone : + 225 07 31 55 71
Fax
: + 225 20 37 81 18
(Code: E9_CDI)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised

E9_CDI
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
B
10. DIVERSITY, ABUNDANCE AND BIOMASS OF EARTHWORM IN A
RANGE OF LANDUSE TYPES IN SUMBERJAYA, WEST LAMPUNG—
INDONESIA
S. Murwani 1, Luth2, and W. S. Dewi3
1
Universitas Lampung.
Jl. Sumantri Brojonegoro No. 1 Bandar Lampung,
Indonesia
Phone: +62-721-785665 E-mail: murwanihendro@yahoo.com
2
Jl. Gintoro No. 9 Komplek Trikora Halim Perdana Kesuma. Jakarta Timur,
Indonesia. Telp. +62-21-8572269 Email: luth8@yahoo.com
3
Universitas Sebelas Maret. Jl. Ir. Sutami 36A, Surakarta, Indonesia.
Phone: +62-271-623873
Email: wsdewi2000@yahoo.com
- 66 -
(Code: E10_IND)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised

E10_IND
10a
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
Revised
Final eval
B
IMPACT OF LANDUSE CHANGE ON THE
DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE OF EARTHWORMS
IN MABIRA TROPICAL FOREST AND ADJACENT
AGRO-ECOSYSTEMS IN UGANDA
Authors
1
Nkwiine C., 2Okwakol, M., 1Rwakaikara, M., 2Akol, A.,
3
Owa, S.O. and 4Czudi, C
1
Soil Science Department, Makerere University
2
Zoology Department Makerere University
3
Olabisi Onabanjo University, Nigeria
4
Hungarian Natural History Museum, Hungary
(Code E10a_UGA)
This paper has never been revised.
Code1
Nr.
Date
version
last
Rev1
Revised

E10a_UGA
Rev 2
C
11. ESTRUTURA DE COMUNIDADES DE SCARABAEIDAE (INSECTA:
COLEIPTERA) EM DIFERENTES SISTEMAS DE USO DA TERRA NA
AMAZÔNIA
Paulo Henrique da Silva 1
Júlio Neil Cassa Louzada 1
Gustavo Schiffler 1
Luciano Cosme 1
(Code : E11_BRA) portugués paper
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised
Rev 2
Revised
E11_BRA
12. Coleoptera in Santa Marta Los Tuxtlas, Veracruz, Mexico
Miguel Angel Morón & Roberto Arce
Departamento de Entomología, Instituto de Ecología A. C.
- 67 -
Final eval
Apdo. Postal 63 Xalapa, Veracruz 91000 México
Tel. (228) 842 18 45 ext. 3304
e-mail: moron_ma@ecologia.edu.mx
(Code: E12_MEX)
Code1
Nr.
Date
version
last
Rev1
Revised

E12_MEX
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
C
13. Soil macrofauna communities in different land use systems on the upper
Solimões River, Amazonia, Brazil
Sandra Celia Tapia-Coral & José Wellington Morais
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia, Coordenação de Pesquisas em
Entomologia, INPA/CPEN. E-mail: sandra@inpa.gov.br, morais@inpa.gov.br Cx
Postal 478, 69011-970. Manaus, Am. Brasil.
(Code: E13_BRA)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised

E13_BRA
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
B
14. Inventory of macrofauna in different land use systems
in the Nilgiri and Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve in India
Radha D. Kale, N.G. Kumar, B.K. Senapati, R.V. Varma and
R.K. Maikhuri
University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, India
Sambalpur University, Jyotivihar, India
Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi, India
G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development, Srinagar
(Garhwal), India
(Code: E14_INA)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised

E14_INA
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
B
14 a MACROFAUNA DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE ACROSS
DIFFERENT LAND USE SYSTEMS IN EMBU AND TAITA, KENYA
Ayuke, F.O1, 5*, Karanja, N.K2, Musombi. B.K3, and Nyamasyo G.H.N4
1
Department of Applied Biology, Kenya Methodist University, P.O Box 267
Meru, Kenya
2
Department of Soil Science, University of Nairobi, P.O Box 30197 Nairobi,
Kenya
- 68 -
3
Department of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museums of Kenya, P.O Box
40658 Nairobi
4
Department of Zoology, University of Nairobi, P.O Box 30197, Nairobi
*Current address: Department of Soil Quality, Wageningen University, P.O Box
8005, 6700 EC Wageningen, The Netherlands
(Code E14a_KEN)
This paper has been revised
Code1
Nr.
Date
version
last
Rev1
Revised

E14a_KEN
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
B/C
15. Diversity of the Soil Macrofauna in Santa Marta Los Tuxtlas ,
Veracruz Mexico
Isabelle Barois*, Martín de los Santos, Simoneta Negrete-Yankelevich and José
Antonio García
Departamento de Biología de Suelos Instituto de Ecología A. C.
A. P. 63, Xalapa Veracruz 91000, Mexico
isabelle@ecologia.edu.mx
(Code: E15_MEX)
Code1
Nr.
Date
version
last
Rev1
Revised

E15_MEX
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
B
16. Earthworm communities from Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve: Influence
of land use systems and landscape changes
Carlos Fragoso, Luz Camarena and Leticia Coria
Soil Biology Department. Institute of Ecology A.C., Xalapa, Ver. MEXICO
(Code: E16_MEX)
Code1
Nr.
Date
version
last
Rev1
Revised

E16_MEX
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
B
Benchmark and Site characterization
1. Chemical characterization of soil samples in the Upper
Solimões river
Fátima M. S. Moreira(1), Rafaela S. A. Nóbrega(2), Adriana S. Lima(2), Alexandre
Barberi(2)
(1) Departamento de Ciência do Solo, Universidade Federal de LavrasDCS/UFLA
- 69 -
(2) PhD student
(Code: S1_BRA)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
2. Effects of Land use types on soil organic carbon and nitrogen dynamics in
the Oumé region, Centre-west Côte d’Ivoire
Michel K. Yao.1, Souleymane Konaté2, Pascal K.T. Angui1 E. Jerome Tondoh2,
Yao Tano3,
Luc Abbadie4, Danielle Benest4.
UFR des Sciences et Gestion de l’Environnement/Centre de Recherche en
Ecologie
Université d’Abobo-Adjamé
02 BP 801 Abidjan 02
Côte d’Ivoire
1
2
UFR des Sciences de la Nature/Centre de Recherche en Ecologie
Université d’Abobo-Adjamé
02 BP 801 Abidjan 02
Côte d’Ivoire
3
UFR Biosciences
Laboratoire de Zoologie
Université de Cocody
22 BP 582 Abidjan 22
Côte d’Ivoire
4
Université Paris VI
Ecole Normale Supérieure
Laboratoire d’Ecologie
46 rue d’Ulm, 75230 Paris cedex 05
France
*Corresponding author
E-mail: yao_myke@yahoo.fr
(Code: S2_CDI)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
3. CHARACTERIZATION OF NILGIRI BENCHMARK AREA, INDIA
Balakrishna Gowda1, U.M. Chandrashekara2, M.P. Sujatha3 and K.T.Prasanna1
1
University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, India
- 70 -
2
Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi, India
(Code: S3_INA)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
4. Bio-Physical Characteristics of the Jambi and Sumber Jaya Benchmark
Areas CSM BGBD Project, Indonesia
Afandi*, Muhajir Utomo*, and F.X. Susilo**
*Department of Soil Science and **Department of Plant Protection,
Faculty of Agriculture, Universitas Lampung
Jl. Sumantri Brojonegoro 1 , Bandar Lampung, Indonesia 35145
Tel : 62-721-700964; e-mail : afandiunila@telkom.net
(Code: S4_IND)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
5. Land use and biophysical characterization of BGBD benchmark sites in
Kenya
*E.M. Muya, **N. Karanja, ***H. Roimen , **B. Mutosotso, P. Wagate*, P.K.
Kimani* and P. Wachira**
*Kenya Soil Survey, KARI, P.O. Box 14733, NAIROBI
**University of Nairobi, P.O. Box 30197, NAIROBI
***Department of Resources Services and Surveys, P.O. Box 47146, NAIROBI
(Code: S5_KEN)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised
BENCHMARK SITE DESCRIPTION
VERACRUZ, MEXICO
6.
Rev 2
OF THE
Revised
Final eval
LOS TUXTLAS,
J.A. García1*, T. Fuentes3, V. Sosa1, E. Meza1, S. Negrete-Yankelevich1, I. Barois1, D.
Bennack1 and P. Okoth2
1
Instituto de Ecología, A.C., Xalapa, Veracruz, México
TSBF Institute of CIAT, Nairobi, Kenya
3
Red A. C.
2
(Code: S6_MEX)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised
- 71 -
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
Morphological, physical and chemical characteristics of soils under
different land use systems in Centre-West Côte d’Ivoire
7.
1
1
1
Pascal K.T. ANGUI *, Hervé K. ASSIE ., Mathieu D. DJEKE ., Joséphine
1
2
A.TAMIA , Tra B. TIE
UFR des Sciences de Gestion de l’Environnement
Université d’Abobo Adjamé
02 BP 801 Abidjan 02
Côte d’Ivoire
2
Ecole Supérieure d’Agronomie
Institut National Polytechnique Houphouët-Boigny
BP 1313 Yamoussoukro
Côte d’Ivoire
1
* Corresponding author
E-mail: pascalangui@hotmail.com
(Code: S7_CDI)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
8. Soil fertility of soils in different land use systems in the upper Solimões
River, Benjamin Constant County (AM)
Sonia Sena Alfaia, Fernanda Tunes Villani, Katell Uguen e Gyovanni Ribeiro
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisa da Amazônia. Coordenação de Pesquisa em Ciências
Agronômicas,
INPA/CPCA.
E-mail:
ftv@inpa.gov.br,
katell@inpa.gov.br,
gribeiro@inpa.gov.br e sonia@inpa.gov.br
C.P 478, 69011-970. Manaus, Am. Brasil
(Code: S8_BRA)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
9. Land use and land cover survey of the study area of the research project
“Conservation and Sustainable Management of Below-Ground Biodiversity:
Phase I”, Benjamin Constant county (AM), Brazil
Elaine Cristina Fidalgo 3
Maurício Rizzato Coelho 1
Fabiano de Oliveira Araújo 4
Embrapa Solos Researcher. Rua Jardim Botânico, 1024. CEP. 22460-000, Jardim Botânico, Rio
de
Janeiro,
RJ.
E-mail:
efidalgo@cnps.embrapa.br;
mrcoelho@cnps.embrapa.br;
humberto@cnps.embrapa.br; loumendonca@cnps.embrapa.br.
- 72 -
Fátima M. S. Moreira 5
Humberto Gonçalves dos Santos 1
Maria de Lourdes Mendonça Santos Brefin 1
(Code: S9_BRA)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
10. Selection of a benchmark research area in the agroecosystems of
Central-West Cote d’Ivoire: land-use typology and mapping of the study site
C N’Doumé1, N Gnessougou1, J E Tondoh2, Y Tano3
1
Centre de Cartographie et de Télédétection (BNETD), 01 BP 3862 Abidjan 01
UFR des Sciences de la Nature / Centre de Recherche en Ecologie
Université d’Abobo-Adjamé, 02 BP 801 Abidjan 02
3
UFR Biosciences
Université de Cocody Abidjan, 22 BP 582 Abidjan 22
(Code: S10_CDI)
2
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
Report of the vascular flora characterization and  and 
diversity index in 3 communities in Los Tuxtlas, Veracruz.
11.
L.Cano E.B. and Castillo Campos Ga.
a
Department of Biodiversity and Systematics. Instituto de Ecología A.C: Km 2.5
Coatepec old road No. 351 Congregación El Haya. Xalapa 91070, Veracruz,
México. A.P. 63.
(Code: S11_MEX)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
12. Flora inventory in Centre-West Côte d’Ivoire
Edouard K. N'GUESSAN*, Laurent AKE-ASSI, Edouard K.
KOUASSI, Jean Y. ASSI, Charles Y. SAGNEY
Embrapa Solos Graduate Technician. Rua Jardim Botânico, 1024. CEP. 22460-000, Jardim
Botânico, Rio de Janeiro, RJ. E-mail: fabiano@cnps.embrapa.br.
Professor Universidade Federal de Lavras-Departamento de Ciência do Solo, Caixa Postal 37,
Lavras, MG, 37200-000, Brazil .....
- 73 -
Centre National de Floristique,
Université de Cocody
22 BP 582 Abidjan 22
Côte d’Ivoire
* Cooresponding author
E-mail: knguessan@yahoo.fr
(Code : S12_CDI)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
Social-economic
1. Socio-economic characterization of Oumé benchmark site (CentreWestern Côte d’Ivoire)
Aubin AGNISSAN1*, Barry MODDY2, Bénoît K. OGNI1, Jonas I. GUEI3
Université de Cocody
22 BP 582 Abidjan 22
Côte d’Ivoire
UFR des Sciences et Gestion de l’Environnement
Université d’Abobo-Adjamé
02 BP 801 Abidjan 02
Côte d’Ivoire
(Code: SE1_CDI)
3
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
2. Land Use History, Land Use Intensity, and Socio-economic Background
of Lampung Benchmark Area, Sumberjaya Window, Indonesia
Rusdi Evizal1, Suseno Budidarsono2, F. Erry Prasmatiwi3
1. Dept. of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Lampung
Jl. Sumantri Brojonegoro 1, Bandar Lampung, Indonesia
Telp.+ 62-0721-781820
rusdievizal@yahoo.com
2. ICRAF-SE Asia, PO Box 151 Bogor, Indonesia
s.budidarsono@cgiar.org
3. Dept. of Agricultural Socio-economic, Faculty of Agriculture, Universitas
Lampung
Jl. Sumantri Brojonegoro 1, Bandar Lampung, Indonesia
- 74 -
Telp. +62-0721-781821
(Code: SE2_IND)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
3. The socio-economic aspects of sustainable conservation
and management of below-ground biodiversity (bgbd) in
Embu and Taita bench-mark sites, Kenya.
By Beneah M. Mutsotso1, Edward Muya2 and Joseph Chirchir3
1. Department of Sociology University of Nairobi P.O. Box 30197, NAIROBI
2. Kenya Agricultural Research Institute
3. National Museums of Kenya, P.O. Box 40658, NAIROBI
(Code: SE3_KEN)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
4. SAMPLING SITES SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT
THE TUXTLAS REGION AND THE BIOSPHERE RESERVE IN
VERACRUZ STATE, MEXICO
(Code: SE4_MEX)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS AND INDICATORS OF
BGBD IN MABIRA FOREST ECOSYSTEMS OF UGANDA
Elizabeth Balirwa1 , Basil Mugonola6 and Godfrey Byandala7
(Code: SE5_UGA)
Code1
Nr.
Date last version
Rev1
Revised
Rev 2
Revised
Final eval
Overview of BGBD socio-economic paper reviews (July-Nov 2005)
Paper
Originality / Research & Literature Site
Contribution Methodology
info
6
7
Perception Sections
missing?
Evaluation /
Comments
Dept of Agric Econ &Agribuz, Faculty of Agriculture, Makerere University
M.Sc. Student dept of Agric extension education, Faculty of Agriculture, Makerere university
- 75 -
 landuse
history
but too
general

v
general
Kenya
(14 pg)
OK
?re , FGD
Minimal
Uganda
(7 pg)
Weak
?re , FGD
None?
Mexico
(10 pg)
OK
not described
Minimal
 landuse
history
Côte
d’Ivoire
(10 pg)
OK
?re, economic
valuation
OK
but
could be
improved
Indonesia
(16 pg)
OK (in-depth
on land-use
types)
not described
Minimal
social
history
of site
but
weak
on
landuse
 landuse
history
INDIA –
never
received
BRAZIL
–
two
papers on
Flora,
only in
Portugese

organisms
Minimal
conclusions
65% - needs
lit,
more
detail
on
trajectories

organisms

ecosystem
services
 none
No
conclusions,
Phase ii plans
55% - major
revision and
filling
of
gaps
Perceptions,
conclusions,
Phase ii plans
soils +

organisms
Perceptions
need
interpretation,
Phase ii plans
65% - Taijin
is building
on
this
“extended
abstract” w
perceptions,
history, etc.
75% - good
start; landuse history is
weak
 none
Perceptions,
conclusions,
Phase ii plans
50%
language v
weak;
no
conclusions
drawn
??
No papers on socio-economic issues / site characterisation / land-use history have been
received from Brazil or India (both only presented ppt at Manaus).
None of the papers as submitted in June / July was really to the level of a scientific paper.
Most are very general, descriptive pieces that do not present new scientific questions or
meaningfully relate the site history information to the project’s questions. Farmer
perceptions are presented without much interpretation, or are entirely lacking (although
authors do have this data elsewhere). No paper links the content of these initial surveys
to priorities in Phase ii.
Authors have been individually advised on how to improve their papers, with special
attention to the following:
- 76 -
 Trajectories of land-use history to reach current conditions?
 Farmer perceptions of BGBD organisms? of ecosystem services?
 Phase ii plans – what technologies or interventions can be suggested from farmer /
respondent priorities
- 77 -