The text is certainly very important and has many strengths. The strengths of the text include:
1. Good choice of research location:
a) Mountain habitats have a low capacity for regeneration, while at the same time they are indeed among the few habitats that are only slightly transformed by human activity. For this reason, it is entirely justified to examine whether the benefits of conservation efforts outweigh the potential environmental damage such interventions may cause.
b) Mountain habitats are home to species that may potentially respond more strongly to climate change and habitat fragmentation — including many relict and specialist species.
2. Dragonflies are well-established model organisms used in the assessment of aquatic ecosystem health. Moreover, they are among the groups often subject to conservation efforts, so it is important to determine whether and what kind of protection practices they need. Such research also has the potential to expand our knowledge of the biology of these animals, especially in the case of the suborder Zygoptera, as their dispersal capabilities are unknown and difficult to study directly.
3. Good knowledge of the area, a large number of sites with a relatively small number of researchers (only six – which makes their observations relatively easy to compare and reliable).
4. Good choice of literature. Both the most important classical works and the latest publications are cited.

I do, however, have some comments about certain aspects that should be taken into account in the discussion:
1. Mountain habitats are characterized by low dynamism, which means that some species may have reached studied sites even with weak dispersal abilities – simply because they had a long time to do so. The method used reflects what happened in the past (possibly the distant past), i.e., that species once colonized specific sites. However, this method does not allow us to assess:
1. the current metapopulation dynamics (i.e., current movement of individuals between populations),
2. the likelihood of recolonization of habitats following a temporary disappearance of the species from a site,
3. or what might happen if some of these sites cease to be suitable – would this lead to a breakdown of the metapopulation structure?
It would be helpful if the authors addressed these issues in the discussion. We know that the current situation is favorable, but we do not necessarily know if it will remain so in the future.
2. The authors excluded from analysis sites where a low number of species was recorded, justifying this by assuming the low species count was due to insufficient sampling effort. But is it not possible that the low species richness in some locations might in fact be a result of poorer accessibility or other local conditions? If so, excluding those sites may lead to an underestimation of the impact of isolation.
3. The minimum number of surveys conducted (at least one per season) is relatively low and species with low abundances might have been not detected. Is there a chance that the weak effect of isolation found for Aeshna caerulea and Coenagrion pulchellum is, in fact, an artifact resulting from weak detection?
An additional issue with Aeshna caerulea is that it flies at lower temperatures than other Aeshna species, making it even harder to detect if we choose the time of day for research based on other species.
There is more information about the biology of this species in Sternberg’s publication (which is cited by authors) that may prove useful. Another possible explanation could be increased competition from other Aeshna species (e.g., Aeshna juncea; Smith, R. W. J., Smith, E. M., & Richards, M. A. 2000 Habitat and development of Azure Hawker Aeshna caerulea (Strom). Journal of the British Dragonfly Society 16: 1-16), whose range is expanding to higher elevations due to climate warming.
4. The explanation for the weak isolation effect for C. pulchellum and A. caerulea is unconvincing since they are not the only stenotopic species that could be affected by habitat loss.
5. Even if both open water and wetland cover are present at a site, it does not necessarily mean that a given species can inhabit both – for that species, the proximity of one of these habitat types may be irrelevant, while the presence of the other may be crucial. Many species occupy only small microhabitats within larger areas, and for them, it is the presence of such specific microhabitats that matters more than the presence of broad habitat structures.