Association of the Female Flight Ability of Asian Spongy Moths (Lymantria dispar asiatica) with Locality, Age and Mating: A Case Study from China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General comments:
This new version of the manuscript by Akram and colleagues et al. shows clear improvements and successfully addressed many of the comments from my previous reviews. The methodological description is clearer with subheadings that improve understanding and flow of ideas (although I have some specific comments that will bring up later to improve this section). Figure 1 is also clearer. The description of the statistical analyzes clearly lists the response variables and their measurement scale, but this section still needs improvements. The figures with results are larger and more readable, but I do not think it looks very smooth when single figure panels are spread over 2-3 pages, please improve distribution of panels and font size of axes labels so figures are clear enough to read/understand and single figures can fit in no more than one page.
I found some little details in the English writing (e.g., lines 13, 122). I previously recommended to the authors to have the English of their manuscript reviewed before submission to the journal. But there is no indication in the response to reviewer letter on how the authors addressed this recommendation, despite in my previous review I complained about the response of authors to reviewers did not include a point-by-point response to each of the comments. I strongly insist to the authors that, without exception, all the comments made by reviewers should be copied into the response to reviewers’ letter and answered one by one. It is not correct to select comments to be excluded from the response to reviewers’ letter. If the authors disagree with any of the reviewers' comments and recommendations, they should refute it. But never deliberately ignore any of the comments when you reply to reviewers. Doing it is not correct.
The statistical analyses section lacks an explanation on how the assumptions of normal distribution and equal variance were assessed. Although not correctly done, this statement was included in previous versions of the manuscript. In my previous reviews I recommended authors to check assumption on model residuals based on relevant literature on the topic. But in this new version of the manuscript the authors completely failed to indicate how they check for normality and homoscedasticity of the residuals of their models. I recommend authors to follow the practice of checking these assumptions graphically and have the graphics at hand in case they are requested.
The flow of ideas in the discussion is very hard to follow. I recommend authors restructuring their discussion to follow the structure that is common practice in scientific writing. That is, go from the particular to the general. Start by drawing readers attention to the most relevant results of your research citing relevant tables and figures where appropriate. Highlight your findings related to the link between morphological features of moths from different sites and their flying features. Compare your results with those of previous studies. Indicate how your results fit in the bigger picture and how they contribute to managing of the pest. Indicate if your results provide evidence that support your working hypothesis (once this is improved). Inform to readers of future research plans to investigating the effects of the host plants in flying of the moths or other future research plans. State your conclusions. The information is somehow already present in the manuscript, but the way it is presented is hard to follow and needs to be better presented to flush out the significance of the work.
Throughout the manuscript, it would be a more formal writing if you use the scientific name "L. dispar asiatica" instead of "ASM".
Specific comment:
L 96-99, I insist that the way the hypothesis is formulated is not a scientific hypothesis. An hypothesis is a possible explanation to a research problem. Hypotheses should be formulated based on theoretical understanding about the study system. Where is the theory in saying that different factors affect flight ability? Remember that the hypotheses must be falsifiable and that they are evaluated indirectly through the consequences derived from them if they are true.
In legend of Figure 2, indicate that the red dots mark the collection sites.
L 109-110, specify the family of each species.
L 110, include a period after "spp", i.e., "spp.".
L 122, "Insects" with an "s".
L 131, "before used in experiments". What is "moths engaged"?
L 162, how is the age calculated as a percentage? I do not understand, that does not make sense to me.
L 168, revise "50 50 50 cm".
L 170, define "scotophase".
L 180, I do not recall previous explanation on how "insect's mass" was measured. Explain.
Be consistent with the use of upper- or lower-case letters to distinguish the panels of figures 3-7.
L 190-192, only main effects were assessed or also interactive effects?
L 194-195, you must be accurate to describe analyses. ANOVA is used to assess whether there are statistically significant differences between treatment means for each response variable.
L 195-197, please check the wording of this sentence because as it stands it is not easily understood.
In the data analysis section (use analyses in the plural), it would also be helpful to indicate the independent variables and their levels when you mention each of the analyses performed.
The results section cannot start with a Table if there is no text before it that mentions that Table.
In Table 2, "independent variables" instead of "factors".
L 256-258, revise writing.
L 311-313, I do not understand the meaning of physiologically significant. Revise to improve clarity.
L 317, what do you mean by infection?
L 331, correct informal writing (i.e., use of "&").
L 365-367, this sentence is hard to understand, please revise to improve clarity.
Author Response
Reviewer-1
Note: All the changes in the manuscript are highlighted with blue color.
This new version of the manuscript by Akram and colleagues et al. shows clear improvements and successfully addressed many of the comments from my previous reviews. The methodological description is clearer with subheadings that improve understanding and flow of ideas (although I have some specific comments that will bring up later to improve this section). Figure 1 is also clearer. The description of the statistical analyzes clearly lists the response variables and their measurement scale, but this section still needs improvements. The figures with results are larger and more readable, but I do not think it looks very smooth when single figure panels are spread over 2-3 pages, please improve distribution of panels and font size of axes labels so figures are clear enough to read/understand and single figures can fit in no more than one page.
Answer:
Noted. Thanks for admiring our efforts.
Statistical analyzes section has been modified as you suggested below.
Figures are modified and rearranged as suggested.
I found some little details in the English writing (e.g., lines 13, 122). I previously recommended to the authors to have the English of their manuscript reviewed before submission to the journal. But there is no indication in the response to reviewer letter on how the authors addressed this recommendation, despite in my previous review I complained about the response of authors to reviewers did not include a point-by-point response to each of the comments. I strongly insist to the authors that, without exception, all the comments made by reviewers should be copied into the response to reviewers’ letter and answered one by one. It is not correct to select comments to be excluded from the response to reviewers’ letter. If the authors disagree with any of the reviewers' comments and recommendations, they should refute it. But never deliberately ignore any of the comments when you reply to reviewers. Doing it is not correct.
Answer:
Copy that. We will not ignore any of reviewer’s comment this time. As far as English language is concern, we send our manuscript to a fellow (professional researcher/native English speaker) for manuscript revision and English language check. He made some changes/correction throughout manuscript and send back to us. We then finalize the manuscript and resubmit the manuscript for revision. We are really sorry for not mentioning it in last ‘response to reviewer file’. Please accept our apology.
The statistical analyses section lacks an explanation on how the assumptions of normal distribution and equal variance were assessed. Although not correctly done, this statement was included in previous versions of the manuscript. In my previous reviews I recommended authors to check assumption on model residuals based on relevant literature on the topic. But in this new version of the manuscript the authors completely failed to indicate how they check for normality and homoscedasticity of the residuals of their models. I recommend authors to follow the practice of checking these assumptions graphically and have the graphics at hand in case they are requested.
Answer:
Residual data from all five response variables was subjected to Normality Probability Test (QQ Plot) to check the normal distribution of data, and Chi Squared Test for Homogeneity of variance. L 185-187
The flow of ideas in the discussion is very hard to follow. I recommend authors restructuring their discussion to follow the structure that is common practice in scientific writing. That is, go from the particular to the general. Start by drawing readers attention to the most relevant results of your research citing relevant tables and figures where appropriate. Highlight your findings related to the link between morphological features of moths from different sites and their flying features. Compare your results with those of previous studies. Indicate how your results fit in the bigger picture and how they contribute to managing of the pest. Indicate if your results provide evidence that support your working hypothesis (once this is improved). Inform to readers of future research plans to investigating the effects of the host plants in flying of the moths or other future research plans. State your conclusions. The information is somehow already present in the manuscript, but the way it is presented is hard to follow and needs to be better presented to flush out the significance of the work.
Answer:
We have rearranged the discussion section according to your suggestions.
Throughout the manuscript, it would be a more formal writing if you use the scientific name "L. dispar asiatica" instead of "ASM".
Answer:
Copy that. We have replaced ASM with L. dispar asiatica throughout the manuscript.
L 96-99, I insist that the way the hypothesis is formulated is not a scientific hypothesis. An hypothesis is a possible explanation to a research problem. Hypotheses should be formulated based on theoretical understanding about the study system. Where is the theory in saying that different factors affect flight ability? Remember that the hypotheses must be falsifiable and that they are evaluated indirectly through the consequences derived from them if they are true.
Answer:
As you suggested we modified our study hypothesis.
We hypothesized that the flight ability of female L. dispar asiatica in China are age and geographical locality dependent, whereas morphological features and mating status may follow a different pattern in response to age and geographical locality. To test this hypothesis, flight related variables of female L. dispar asiatica from five different geographical locations were investigated in China.
In legend of Figure 2, indicate that the red dots mark the collection sites.
Answer:
In Figure 2 legend, we mentioned the red dots as collection site whereas upon your suggestion we also added it in the figure caption. L 112
L 109-110, specify the family of each species.
Answer:
Pinus tabuliformis, P. sylvestris, P. radiata belong to the family ‘Pinaceae’, while Populus spp belongs to the ‘Salicaceae’ family. L 105-107
L 110, include a period after "spp", i.e., "spp.".
Answer:
Modified.
L 122, "Insects" with an "s".
Answer:
Modified. L 118
L 131, "before used in experiments". What is "moths engaged"?
Answer:
Complete sentence has been rewritten/modified. L 127
L 162, how is the age calculated as a percentage? I do not understand, that does not make sense to me.
Answer:
Thanks for highlighting, because age was calculated as an average of nights post-eclosion. L 157
L 168, revise "50 50 50 cm".
Answer:
Revised. L 163
L 170, define "scotophase".
Answer:
Scotophase is a period of darkness, especially one that is artificially imposed (an artificial night). In the sentence it does mean that females ASM did not start laying eggs until they completed their flight after mating or beginning of dark period (night). L 165
L 180, I do not recall previous explanation on how "insect's mass" was measured. Explain.
Answer:
Insect body mass is usually calculated from body length. Each insect body length was calculated using two methods (i) vernier caliper (ii) digital imaging. In our case we computed the body length with wing size to calculate wing loading.
Be consistent with the use of upper- or lower-case letters to distinguish the panels of figures 3-7.
Answer:
Copy that. Corrected.
L 190-192, only main effects were assessed or also interactive effects?
Answer:
Well initially we run the two-way ANOVA to accessed the significance difference for age and locality, later we used two-way ANOVA to accessed interactive effects also. Overall, we accessed both main effects and interactive effects.
L 194-195, you must be accurate to describe analyses. ANOVA is used to assess whether there are statistically significant differences between treatment means for each response variable.
Answer:
Copy that, Modified. L 195-199
L 195-197, please check the wording of this sentence because as it stands it is not easily understood.
Answer:
Rewritten & modified. L 195-199
In the data analysis section (use analyses in the plural), it would also be helpful to indicate the independent variables and their levels when you mention each of the analyses performed.
Answer:
Copy that. Modified. L 185
The results section cannot start with a Table if there is no text before it that mentions that Table.
Answer:
Copy that modified.
In Table 2, "independent variables" instead of "factors".
Answer:
Modified.
L 256-258, revise writing.
Answer:
Copy that. Revised.
L 311-313, I do not understand the meaning of physiologically significant. Revise to improve clarity.
Answer:
Revised. L 312
L 317, what do you mean by infection?
Answer:
Area to be damaged due to the invasion of ASM females with ability to fly.
L 331, correct informal writing (i.e., use of "&").
Answer:
Corrected. L 332
L 365-367, this sentence is hard to understand, please revise to improve clarity.
Answer:
Rewritten. L 359-361
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
L19-L26: Such a list of results is unnecessarily detailed for the abstract. I would at least reduce the information that there is a difference between the days. This trend is more or less general for your data and is already contained in the sentence „distance decreasing dramatically as age increases“.
L40: Please correct „Quersus“ on „Quercus.
L59-L70: This paragraph (or two) is worded a little awkwardly. I assume that the authors implicitly compare the US invasion of ASM and ESM, claiming, for example, that ASM and JSM have more extensive, more evolved wings and a more vigorous flight. More than what? This information is missing from the paragraph and may be insufficient for readers. I would change the order of information throughout the paragraph. E.g.: while the ESM invaded US as early as 1869, the ASM invaded until 1991. The ASM has been decimated but must be considered that has more evolved wings and higher probability of new invasion… than the ESM.
L76-L77: The division of paragraphs is sometimes strange, here I could imagine, for example, that the last sentence of a paragraph should rather be the first sentence of a new one.
L86-L87: „Pinus massoniana and other broadleaf species“ – It sounds like Pinus is a broadleaf tree - not true, reformulate.
Figure 1: I really like this tutorial picture!
L107: The authors state that they collected eggs from these trees at each site. They further state that they used 30 eggs in each treatment group for the experiment. How many eggs they used from each locality in each tree species. The same number? Because SM success varies between host plants, the original host plant on which the mother fed may explain some of the variability, if the design is unbalanced.
L182-L183: „Raw data collected from examination of residuals of a fitted model was logarithmically transformed or classified before analysis to ensure equal normality and variance“. I don't understand this sentence, I don't know what are „raw data collected from examination of residuals“, no fitted model is mentioned before either. Please explain or correct.
L187: „F-test was performed to check the status of unmated and mated females“. This is not wrong in principle, as females can also differ in variability, but you probably wanted to test the difference in average between the groups - the correct test would be a t-test or a Wilcoxon test. Fix it. It may be confusing that ANOVA is given with F values, but ANOVA (for three groups) and t-test (for two groups) test the difference in average. F-test (for two groups) and e.g. Levene test (for two or more groups) test the difference in variance. But the test of variance (if the populations have more different individuals) is a good idea, you can add this analysis, if you want.
Table 2: Maximum speed (Km/h) – The official unit of the SI system is m/s. Please recalculate. Fix „f“ on „F“. p-value < 0.000 is strange, if the symbol “<” is used, than “< 0.0001” is correct way. Since multiple comparisons are performed, it may also be appropriate to perform a p-value adjustment.
L195: „Correlations between age…“ correlation is term for completely different analysis, please replace.
Figure 5 and further: Plots are with SE or SD? Please add this information.
L206-L208: If the individual localities differ in the parameters in different ways, then it might also be interesting to analyze the range between the minimum and maximum for each individual (or calculate the variance) and test the differences in this parameter as well. Just an idea, it doesn't have to be used.
L221-L230: If I'm not mistaken, this information is already given completely in the table and this part of the manuscript can be omitted.
L248 and further: Here, the authors use the original data to examine the different effect of age on different flight parameters that differ between locations. It's a little confusing. Did the authors consider subtracting the change between the first and second days (and the second and third days) and testing this difference as a new variable that would make interpretability more intuitive and also allow new graphs to be created instead of rearranging the information already mentioned?
L267: „different geographically locations“ replace by „geographically different locations“ or “different geographic locations”.
L278 and further: I know you have five locations, which is enough to detect the differences between them, but it is not enough for further regressions with quantitative parameters of localities, nor is it the focus of the manuscript. However, can you please at least discuss what latent parameter of localities could have affected the differences between localities? Is it, for example, the average annual temperature, the amount of precipitation, .... with which the flight ability of SM decreases / increases? Studying these parameters would help you generate new hypotheses and would also lead to a much greater possibility of generalizing results. Without insult, for me as a European, the information that the populations from different Chinese counties differ is not so interesting, but if there was a connection with temperature, for example, I would be much more interested as a reader.
L372-L378: I don't quite understand the meaning of this paragraph and I think the manuscript would make sense without it.
Author Response
Reviewer-2
Note: All the changes in the manuscript are highlighted in blue color.
L19-L26: Such a list of results is unnecessarily detailed for the abstract. I would at least reduce the information that there is a difference between the days. This trend is more or less general for your data and is already contained in the sentence „distance decreasing dramatically as age increases“.
Answer:
Modified. Rewritten. L 18-25
L40: Please correct „Quersus“ on „Quercus.
Answer:
Corrected. L 38
L59-L70: This paragraph (or two) is worded a little awkwardly. I assume that the authors implicitly compare the US invasion of ASM and ESM, claiming, for example, that ASM and JSM have more extensive, more evolved wings and a more vigorous flight. More than what? This information is missing from the paragraph and may be insufficient for readers. I would change the order of information throughout the paragraph. E.g.: while the ESM invaded US as early as 1869, the ASM invaded until 1991. The ASM has been decimated but must be considered that has more evolved wings and higher probability of new invasion… than the ESM.
Answer:
Modified and rewritten. L 59-66
L76-L77: The division of paragraphs is sometimes strange, here I could imagine, for example, that the last sentence of a paragraph should rather be the first sentence of a new one.
Answer:
Modified.
L86-L87: „Pinus massoniana and other broadleaf species“ – It sounds like Pinus is a broadleaf tree - not true, reformulate.
Answer:
Modified. L 82
Figure 1: I really like this tutorial picture!
Answer:
Thanks.
L107: The authors state that they collected eggs from these trees at each site. They further state that they used 30 eggs in each treatment group for the experiment. How many eggs they used from each locality in each tree species. The same number? Because SM success varies between host plants, the original host plant on which the mother fed may explain some of the variability, if the design is unbalanced.
Answer:
We collected different number of egg masses from all five localities from 4 respected tree species. Single egg mass of ASM contains 100-1000 eggs.
L182-L183: „Raw data collected from examination of residuals of a fitted model was logarithmically transformed or classified before analysis to ensure equal normality and variance“. I don't understand this sentence, I don't know what are „raw data collected from examination of residuals“, no fitted model is mentioned before either. Please explain or correct.
Answer:
Residual data from all five response variables was subjected to Normality Probability Test (QQ Plot) to check the normal distribution of data, and Chi Squared Test for Homogeneity of variance. L 189-191
L187: „F-test was performed to check the status of unmated and mated females“. This is not wrong in principle, as females can also differ in variability, but you probably wanted to test the difference in average between the groups - the correct test would be a t-test or a Wilcoxon test. Fix it. It may be confusing that ANOVA is given with F values, but ANOVA (for three groups) and t-test (for two groups) test the difference in average. F-test (for two groups) and e.g. Levene test (for two or more groups) test the difference in variance. But the test of variance (if the populations have more different individuals) is a good idea, you can add this analysis, if you want.
Answer:
Thanks for your suggestion. According to your suggestion we run the t-test and replaced the results in manuscript.
Table 2: Maximum speed (Km/h) – The official unit of the SI system is m/s. Please recalculate. Fix „f“ on „F“. p-value < 0.000 is strange, if the symbol “<” is used, than “< 0.0001” is correct way. Since multiple comparisons are performed, it may also be appropriate to perform a p-value adjustment.
Answer:
Appreciated your suggestion. We calculated values in km/h for better representation of results. Beside that we found many studies that presented their results in the same way. We run the statistical analysis using the same data (calculated in km/h).
L195: „Correlations between age…“ correlation is term for completely different analysis, please replace.
Answer:
Replaced with ‘association.’
Figure 5 and further: Plots are with SE or SD? Please add this information.
Answer:
Added.
L206-L208: If the individual localities differ in the parameters in different ways, then it might also be interesting to analyze the range between the minimum and maximum for each individual (or calculate the variance) and test the differences in this parameter as well. Just an idea, it doesn't have to be used.
Answer:
We really like your idea. We will definitely consider in it our upcoming research article after this.
L221-L230: If I'm not mistaken, this information is already given completely in the table and this part of the manuscript can be omitted.
Answer:
We think it would be great if we keep this part so that reader can understand the presented information easily.
L248 and further: Here, the authors use the original data to examine the different effect of age on different flight parameters that differ between locations. It's a little confusing. Did the authors consider subtracting the change between the first and second days (and the second and third days) and testing this difference as a new variable that would make interpretability more intuitive and also allow new graphs to be created instead of rearranging the information already mentioned?
Answer:
In this experimental study we used 30 moths/day for each location. We did 10 replications for each day, and for each replication we used single individual. In total 30 replications were done and total of 90 moths from each location were used. 30 moths (1 day old) used to calculate 5 response variables for 24 hours. On 2nd day 30 fresh moth (2 days old) used to calculate 5 response variables for next 24 hours. On 3rd day 30 fresh moth (3 days old) used to calculate 5 response variables for next 24 hours. So, following that technique we gathered data for 72 hours (3 days). And we used that data to prepare graphs.
L267: „different geographically locations“ replace by „geographically different locations“ or “different geographic locations”.
Answer:
Corrected.
L278 and further: I know you have five locations, which is enough to detect the differences between them, but it is not enough for further regressions with quantitative parameters of localities, nor is it the focus of the manuscript. However, can you please at least discuss what latent parameter of localities could have affected the differences between localities? Is it, for example, the average annual temperature, the amount of precipitation, .... with which the flight ability of SM decreases / increases? Studying these parameters would help you generate new hypotheses and would also lead to a much greater possibility of generalizing results. Without insult, for me as a European, the information that the populations from different Chinese counties differ is not so interesting, but if there was a connection with temperature, for example, I would be much more interested as a reader.
Answer:
Very well sir! Thanks for raising this vital point. The point you have highlighted here has already in our mind. We are preparing new study and, in that study, we will gather locality base data from China, Japan, Korea to address the point you just raised here. For now, I think we have cited enough references to justify our findings.
L372-L378: I don't quite understand the meaning of this paragraph and I think the manuscript would make sense without it.
Answer:
Removed.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I struggle to see how the authors addressed my suggestions to improve the flow of ideas in the discussion. Among other suggestions that were not addressed in this revised version of the manuscript, I previously suggested beginning the discussion by drawing readers’ attention to the most relevant findings of the research, but this is not reflected in the first paragraph of the discussion. In the second paragraph of the current version of the manuscript, the authors make conclusions based on what they found, but readers are not informed in the previous paragraph about what the study found. It is necessary that readers can easily follow the line of reasoning of the study and understand its relevance to the field. Please make an effort to improve the flow of ideas based on previous recommendations. My recommendation on improving the flow of ideas in the discussion was not properly addressed, so it remains the same.
The hypothesis is better formulated, but please indicate the biological/physiological/ecological reasons why authors think that age and locality affect flight ability. For instance, "We hypothesized that age of moths and locality, by ___ (here you explain the rationale/theory behind your supposition), influence flight ability of female L. dispar asiatica in China. We predicted a higher flight ability in __ than __". Remember to revisit your hypothesis and predictions in the discussion.
L 105, "Trees from which egg masses..."
L 163, revise "50 50 50 cm".
L 165, define "scotophase" in the manuscript, not only in your response to the reviewer letter.
Include the following in the manuscript where appropriate "Insect body mass is usually calculated from body length. Each insect body length was calculated using two methods (i) verniercaliper (ii) digital imaging. In our case we computed the body length with wing size to calculate wing loading".
"Infection" is caused by a pathogen that causes disease. What disease does the moth cause to be considered to infect trees?
Author Response
Reviewer-1
Note: All revised points in the revised manuscript are highlighted in grey color.
English spelling and grammar correction are marked red.
I struggle to see how the authors addressed my suggestions to improve the flow of ideas in the discussion. Among other suggestions that were not addressed in this revised version of the manuscript, I previously suggested beginning the discussion by drawing readers’ attention to the most relevant findings of the research, but this is not reflected in the first paragraph of the discussion. In the second paragraph of the current version of the manuscript, the authors make conclusions based on what they found, but readers are not informed in the previous paragraph about what the study found. It is necessary that readers can easily follow the line of reasoning of the study and understand its relevance to the field. Please make an effort to improve the flow of ideas based on previous recommendations. My recommendation on improving the flow of ideas in the discussion was not properly addressed, so it remains the same.
Answer:
We have rearranged the discussion section once again, as you suggest. This time we started the discussion section with significant findings and then stated and related our results with previously published work.
The hypothesis is better formulated, but please indicate the biological/physiological/ecological reasons why authors think that age and locality affect flight ability. For instance, "We hypothesized that age of moths and locality, by ___ (here you explain the rationale/theory behind your supposition), influence flight ability of female L. dispar asiatica in China. We predicted a higher flight ability in __ than __". Remember to revisit your hypothesis and predictions in the discussion.
Answer:
As suggested, we formulated our hypothesis as follows; L 89
‘We hypothesized that the age of moths and locality, by which morphological features differ, influence the flight ability of female L. dispar asiatica in China.’
L 105, "Trees from which egg masses..."
Answer:
Corrected. L 105
L 163, revise "50 50 50 cm".
Answer:
Revissed. L 163
L 165, define "scotophase" in the manuscript, not only in your response to the reviewer letter.
Answer:
Added. L 165
Include the following in the manuscript where appropriate "Insect body mass is usually calculated from body length. Each insect body length was calculated using two methods (i) verniercaliper (ii) digital imaging. In our case we computed the body length with wing size to calculate wing loading".
Answer:
Added. L 178
"Infection" is caused by a pathogen that causes disease. What disease does the moth cause to be considered to infect trees?
Answer:
- dispar asiatica caterpillars, after emergence, immediately begin feeding. Voracious feeding continues until pupations, with each caterpillar capable of consuming up to 1 square meter of foliage throughout its lifetime. Defoliation caused by L. dispar asiatica can weaken tree and make it more vulnerable to secondary pests, both pathogens, and insects, which can lead to host mortality (Wallner, 2000).
Wallner, W.E. Lymantria dispar Asian biotype. EXFOR pest report. Exotic Forest Pest Information System for North America 2000, 6 pp.
We did not add this to the manuscript because we think it is unnecessary. However, if you suggested it would be better to add this information to the manuscript, then we will do it.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors dealt with all my comments - they either incorporated them into the manuscript, or reasonably explained why they did not implement them.
Author Response
We revised the manuscript and did minor English spelling and grammar corrections, all those corrections are marked red.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Akram and colleagues investigated the flight activity of a major insect pest, the Asian gypsy moth, explained by the geographical origin of the moths, the age of moths and their mating status (as indicated by the authors). The topic of the manuscript is relevant to improve understanding of the biology of this insect pest species and improve control practices to stop it from spreading and destroying forests.
Despite the relevance of the topic, I feel that the way the manuscript is presented, does not highlight properly the implications of the work for forest entomology. For instance, in the introduction authors give information on the geographical distribution of the three subspecies of the gypsy moth and provide details related to its flight ability, but there is no specific information on forests that the moth attacks and the species of host trees it has. The manuscript lacks hypothesis and predictions so it is difficult to follow the deductive capacity of authors and the idea they are testing in their study. In the discussion (L 267) it is mentioned that understanding flight of gypsy moth "is essential for calculating distribution and managing tree-killing", but it is not clearly mentioned how the study provide insights to help managing of the pest. The writing style was vague and imprecise with awkward phrasing in several instances across the manuscript.
Below I provide additional comments that I think can help improve the quality of the manuscript.
In the title and elsewhere in the text (e.g., lines 12, 32, ), Lymantria dispar and any other scientific names should be written in italics.
In line 17, AGM? Abbreviations cannot be used without previous explanation of what they refer to.
The last sentence of the abstract is confusing, does authors mean that defoliating plants is a strategy to control gypsy moth? Please explain.
In line 105, "In adult form, pupas were kept separately", it is unclear what authors mean here but please be aware that there is no such thing as a pupa in adult form.
Authors mixed results with methods in the section “2. Materials and Methods” (see lines 114-120).
In line 133, it reads "I put the Asian gypsy moth females...", but the manuscript is signed by several authors not by a single author.
In the title and abstract, authors claim they studied the mating status of moths on its flying activity, but mating status was not experimentally evaluated.
L 13, In the abstract "The gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar L. (Lepidoptera: Erebidae) is a polyphagous pest that defoliates various trees". Suggestion: "... defoliates several species of trees within __ plant families".
L 35, indicate the number of plant families.
In Figure 1, it would be very informative to include boxes indicating the host plants from which the eggs were collected at each location/site. Also, include an arrow connecting the box labeled "Males" with the box labeled "Speed test in the lab to check the male & female flight capability". It would also be very informative to readers if the ages of moths are included and explained in this figure.
The Materials and Methods section needs a better structure and details on how, exactly, the study was conducted. Include justification for the selection of the locations from which eggs were collected. Also, include details on how the eggs were transported from the field site to the laboratory. It should be made clear which were the explanatory and response variables of the experimental design, the experimental units, how the experimental units were distributed in space and time, etc. Divide in subsections to describe different methodologies/protocols clearly and succinctly.
L 100, please indicate the duration of diapause.
L 101, "contained" instead of "contains". Use past tense when you explain your methods.
L 114-120, the methods section is no place to report results.
L 146-147, Please note that data transformation should be made after examination of residuals of a fitted model and not before analysis.
L 179, "Effectiveness" not "Effeteness".
The figures with results need to improve the size of the x and y labels.
I think that the abbreviations "FDOF, SDOF & TDOF", are confusing to indicate age of moths. "Age" is a numeric continuous variable, not a categorical variable. It would be better to indicate age as: 1 day old, 2 days old and 3 days old.
In the discussion, please include possible explanation by which the origin of moths affects flight ability. Also, please include implications of the study for management of the gypsy moth in forests of China.
Author Response
Firstly, on the behalf of all the authors, I would like to thank both the reviewers for their time in reviewing our manuscript and highlighting v. important points that definitely helped us to improve our manuscript.
We have revised the manuscript as you suggested. We are sure that you will be pleased with this revised version of the manuscript.
Some datils of major changes are addressed below;
1. Title of the manuscript has been modified. A new title is; ‘Association of female flight ability of Asian spongy moth (Lymantria dispar asiatica) with locality, age, and mating. A case study from China.’
2. Figure 1 has been modified.
3. ‘Material and Methods’ and ‘Discussion’ sections have been rewritten and improved.
4. Abbreviations "FDOF, SDOF & TDOF", have been modified to “1 day old, 2 days old, and 3 days old”.
5. To address the effect of mating status on the female flight a table under the name of ‘Table 5’ has been added with a detailed description in the text (results + discussion).
6. Figures axis has been modified.
The remaining details you will find when you check the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper describes experiments with Asian spongy moth (formerly known as gypsy moth) females to evaluate their flight capabilities using flight mills. In general, this is an important topic that needs to be researched in order to better understand Asian spongy moth dispersal. However, this manuscript cannot be published in its current state. There are a lot of grammatical and factual mistakes that need to be corrected. The manuscript is poorly written and is very difficult to follow. Below are some of my specific notes and corrections, but I don't have time to edit the entire manuscript nor that is my role as a reviewer. At this time, I am not able to fully comment on the quality of the research.
General comments: gypsy moth is no longer used, you should use spongy moth instead and add (formerly known as gypsy moth) to the first mention of the common name. Flying mill is incorrect, it is called a flight mill.
Line 12: Spongy moth (formerly known as...), do not use article before spongy moth. Also, add asiatica
Line 18 - 19: use "on day" not "at day"
Line 26: what is control through defoliation? I think this needs to be corrected
Line 32: L. dispar asiatica was not introduced to US in 1860s and there is no established Asian spongy moth population here. This all needs to be rewritten and corrected.
Line 41: based on ability to fly
Line 46: use "found" instead of "spreads"
Line 59: stronger than what? I don't understand what you are trying to compare. This whole paragraph is confusing and needs to be rewritten
Lines 60 - 61: needs rewording, remove "while" or add a second part of the sentence.
Line 63 - 64: why "and"?
Line 68: "can deposit their eggs near to the lights" - what does it mean? Even more confusing is "near to the moon" This needs to be rewritten.
Line 71: change to "flight capabilities"
Line 74: remove "finally", this needs rewriting to improve readability
Lines 79 - 85: replace "study" with "research"
Line 82: spread rate
Line 83: flight ability
Line 99: collected egg masses were placed in an incubator
Line 100: did you mean incubation period ended?
Line 103: Change to "until larvae pupated".
Line 105: Pupa is not an adult form, change the sentence.
Line 133: There are 4 coauthors on this paper, do not use "I"
Line 134: to separate their wings...
Line 244: What is wing loading?
Line 249: relationship between
Line 251: flew maximum distance
Line 266: what do you mean by spongy moth is physiologically important?
Line 269: infested areas
Line 271: what are combat tracks?
Lines 274 - 275: not clear, rewrite
Line 283: species
Line 287: we have found
Line 290: other
Line 293: geographical, not geological
Line 302: as adults age
Lines 324 - 325: this sentence makes no sense, please, rewrite.
Overall, this manuscript is not ready for being reviewed, it has to be edited for clarity and resubmitted.
Author Response
Firstly, on the behalf of all the authors, I would like to thank both the reviewers for their time in reviewing our manuscript and highlighting v. important points that definitely helped us to improve our manuscript.
We have revised the manuscript as you suggested. We are sure that you will be pleased with this revised version of the manuscript.
Some datils of major changes are addressed below;
1. Title of the manuscript has been modified. The new title is; ‘Association of female flight ability of Asian spongy moth (Lymantria dispar asiatica) with locality, age, and mating. A case study from China.’
2. ‘Gypsy moth’ old name has been replaced with ‘Spongy moth’ new name.
3. Figure 1 has been modified.
4. ‘Material and Methods’ and ‘Discussion’ sections have been rewritten and improved.
5. To address the effect of mating status on the female flight a table under the name of ‘Table 5’ has been added with a detailed description in the text (results + discussion).
6. Wing loading is a measurement that compares an insect's mass to its entire wing area. The wing area-to-body weight proportion is expressed in grams per square centimetre (g/cm2) or milligrams per square centimetre (mg/cm2).
The remaining details you will find when you check the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you to the authors for their review of manuscript forests-1680998.
I first read authors response to report 1 and found it was rather vague. When I started to review the revised manuscript with track changes, I was very confused and unclear as to how the authors addressed all my comments. The revised manuscript and accompanying responses to my previous comments does not include a point-by-point response to each of my comments as is mandatory in the peer review process of scientific articles. This is very unfortunate because it limits the authors to take full advantage of the peer review process. The writing continues to be deficient in many instances. It seems to me that authors incorrectly assume that reviewers should go into a deep editing of their manuscript which is something that should be done by authors before submitting a manuscript to a journal. In a previous round of reviews another reviewer complained about this. I fully agree with this complain. I strongly recommend authors to make their manuscript checked by a professional editing service before resubmitting an improved version as the writing of the manuscript needs serious English and writing editing before publication.
I found that some of my previous comments on the structure and accuracy of the materials and methods were largely ignored. For instance, as indicated before, use past tense when you describe what you did in your methods (in L 175 "was" instead of "is"). Having subheadings to describe different methodologies/protocols will help clarity, please include these. Again: "Please note that data transformation should be made after examination of residuals of a fitted model and not before analysis" (L 175-176). In general linear models, as is anova, the idea of transforming data prior to analysis is "the most widespread myth in statistics" (see Kéry & Hatfield. 2003. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 84, 92-94); you should avoid making this mistake . Clearly and succinctly indicate your response variable and its units of measure when you describe the statistical analyses. Indicate what was considered as the experimental unit, the unit of replication, any blocking structure (if any), etc. This was brought to the attention of the authors in a previous review, but the authors did not address my comments or indicated in their responses why they did not. Ignoring reviewers’ comments is against the norms of the peer-review process. It is also rude to reviewers. If authors decide no to follow this or any other comment made by reviewers, they should explain why. I urge authors to take serious consideration of all the reviewers’ comments and give point-by-point responses to all of the comments.
Line 13, what does "various trees" means: various numbers of tress, various species of trees? I insist authors should be specific. Suggestion "various species of trees in the genera Populus, Salix, Quercus, Acer, Pinus".
L 14, "geologically"?
L 41 please indicate examples of "fruit trees, ornamental trees, and shrubs"?
L 45 "many fruit plants" such as... include examples.
L 82-83, add a reference that support these statements.
L 82-90, I think the justification is solid.
L 91-94, The stated hypothesis is not a scientific hypothesis. What authors should provide as a scientific hypothesis, is a theoretical response to their research question.
Figure 1 is illegible because font size is very small. I could not review it.
L 114, it is unclear where do authors want to include a footer.
L 137-138, the flight mill was the replicate?
In table 2, instead of “Experimental parameters” – “Response variables”
Font size of figure legends are still very small. I do not note a clear change.
As indicated before: “In the discussion, please include possible explanation by which the origin of moths affects flight ability”. This is lacking in the manuscript.
I am curios about the effect of the host plants in the results observed. Could the authors consider the host plant factor in their analysis? I think it would be worth to include a few lines about this in the discussion.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is still poorly written, there are many factual and grammatical mistakes. Here are some specific comments, but once again, I am not able to edit the language, it needs to be done prior to submission.
Most importantly, you need to explain the differences between the geographic locations, why do you think flight differs between them?
Abstract (and everywhere):
Line 14: geographical not geological
Line 17: flight activity
Line 19: besides
Lines 27 - 28: too specific, why do we care about specific regions, what are the differences about them? Spongy in the middle of the sentence does not need to be capitalized.
Introduction
The first sentence needs to be changed, it still reads as if ASM was introduced in the US in 1860s. Actually, this information is irrelevant since you are not studying European spongy moth.
Lines 64 - 65: sentence makes no sense, a verb is missing
Line 77 - 79: ASM is not established in the US, correct this sentence
Lines 104 and 106: change gypsy to spongy. I suggest running a search to make sure you changed it everywhere
Line 108: "flight research" doesn't sound right, change; also, remove "well"
Methods:
Line 255: geographical, change this everywhere. What are the differences between localities?
Line 274: remove "then"
Line 281: moths were used not engaged
Line 345: spongy moth flight ability
Line 351: moths were placed not put
Line 355: verb missing - female remained?
Line 364: what is the virgin treatment?
Line 366: mated treatment is bad English, you need to rephrase
Line 367: females were not employed, females were used
Line 374: flight test
Line 695: physiologically important sounds incorrect, find another form
Line 733: we have found
Line 893: what is impromptu conflict?
Line 900: what is the deduction that is being advised?
908 - 909: incorrect sentence, needs revision
Line 918: will help predict?
