Non-Invasive Assessment of the Internal Condition of Urban Trees Infested by Two Cerambycid Beetles, Aromia bungii and Massicus raddei, Using Sonic Tomography
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTitle:
ok.
Introduction
-Add more details related to importance of the infested trees.
Line 31-35. Try to add more insects’ names infesting trees locally.
Line 86. Check Scientific names spellings
Line 88-89. Revise objective section. Remove brackets etc.
Materials and Methods
Line 111-116. On which criteria observation intervals / height was selected. Add details.
Results
Presented Well.
Discussion:
Lines 313-314: Rephrase to "This study is the first to use SoT to report..."
Line 316: Change "a moderate a positive correlation" to "a moderate positive correlation."
Line 324: Change "did not exhibit severe internal decay" to "did not necessarily exhibit severe internal decay."
Lines 333-336: Add more references supporting the speculation about cerambycid beetles as vectors for wood decay fungi.
Lines 353-354: Clarify the importance of sensor placement and distance measurement for accurate tomography.
Conclusion: Revise conclusion heading from conclusion to conclusion and future prospects. Also add few more clear lines for future prospects (Line: 408).
General comments
After carefully reviewing the manuscript, I must commend the author for their skillful writing and overall presentation. However, I have identified several areas where the manuscript could be improved. These suggestions will help the author further enhance the manuscript's readability, structure, and impact.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
- Add more details related to importance of the infested trees.
- Response: Thank you for the comment. In our opinion, the importance of two infested trees, × yedoensis and Q. palustris was already described in ‘2.1. Study areas and tree species’ of M & M section. Please understand.
- Line 31-35. Try to add more insects’ names infesting trees locally.
- Response: Thank you for the comment. We added some more species infesting same trees in the revised version ms.
- Line 86. Check Scientific names spellings
- Response: Thank you for the comment, but we can’t find errors on scientific names in original version ms.
- Line 88-89. Revise objective section. Remove brackets etc.
- Response: Thank you for the comment. We revised some sentences in the revised version ms.
- Line 111-116. On which criteria observation intervals / height was selected. Add details.
- Response: Thank you for the comment and we added criteria in revised version ms.
- Lines 313-314: Rephrase to "This study is the first to use SoT to report..."
- Response: Thank you for the comment. We rephrased the sentence based on reviewer’s suggestion.
- Line 316: Change "a moderate a positive correlation" to "a moderate positive correlation."
- Response: Thank you for the comment. We corrected it.
- Line 324: Change "did not exhibit severe internal decay" to "did not necessarily exhibit severe internal decay."
- Response: Thank you for the comment. We corrected it.
- Lines 333-336: Add more references supporting the speculation about cerambycid beetles as vectors for wood decay fungi.
- Response: Thank you for the comment. We added some sentences with a reference in the revised version ms.
- Lines 353-354: Clarify the importance of sensor placement and distance measurement for accurate tomography.
- Response: Thank you for the comment. We clarified it in revised version ms.
- Conclusion: Revise conclusion heading from conclusion to conclusion and future prospects. Also add few more clear lines for future prospects (Line: 408).
Response: Thank you for the comment. We revised the heading and added some sentences in the revised version ms.
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Although you claim that your paper was revised for language mistakes, I still see many of them in it. This means that a specialist in Scientific English should revise your manuscript.
Below are my remarks :
Line 109: place 'in' between measured and all.
For the rest of your text : there are many other mistakes related to the tenses, etc.
Lines 116- 120: suppress these sentences (the information was already presented, or will be explained in the following sentences highlighted in yellow).
Figure 1 :for photos other than a and e, manage to indicate to which species there are related.
Line 143 : The sentence: "SoT was different in tree by tree" is not understandable.
Line 304 : photo e is missing.
Line 311: photo d is missing
In conclusions: you should briefly indicate the limitation of your system, as well, as it is not really efficient for trees with early infestations.
Line 522 : Cadophora margaritata should be put in italics.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguagePlease see below my recommendations for language improvement
Author Response
Dear authors,
Although you claim that your paper was revised for language mistakes, I still see many of them in it. This means that a specialist in Scientific English should revise your manuscript.
Below are my remarks :
Line 109: place 'in' between measured and all.
- Response: Thank you for the comment. We corrected it.
For the rest of your text : there are many other mistakes related to the tenses, etc.
- Response: Thank you for the comment. We revised all manuscript.
Lines 116- 120: suppress these sentences (the information was already presented, or will be explained in the following sentences highlighted in yellow).
- Response: Thank you for the comment. It explained in the following sentences reviewer’s highlighted.
Figure 1 : for photos other than a and e, manage to indicate to which species there are related.
- Response: Thank you for the comment. We revised the figure legend.
Line 143 : The sentence: "SoT was different in tree by tree" is not understandable.
- Response: Thank you for the comment. We revised the sentence.
Line 304 : photo e is missing.
- Response: Thank you for the comment. We revised the figure legend.
Line 311: photo d is missing
- Response: Thank you for the comment. We revised the figure legend.
In conclusions: you should briefly indicate the limitation of your system, as well, as it is not really efficient for trees with early infestations.
- Response: Thank you for the comment. We added a sentence, especially for the inefficiency for early stage of infestations.
Line 522 : Cadophora margaritata should be put in italics.
- Response: Thank you for the comment. We corrected it.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTitle: Application of non‒invasive sonic tomography to evaluate internal status of urbans trees infested by two cerambycid beetles, Aromia bungii and Massius raddei
Author: Lee et. Al.
This article describes the use of sonic tomography to identify the level of damage caused by beetles. The article is written in a clear manner and has potential practical value.
The current title suggests that in addition to non-invasive, there is also invasive sonic tomography. Perhaps it would be better in this way:
Non‒invasive assessment of the internal condition of Urbans trees infested by two cerambycid beetles, Aromia bungii and Massius raddei, using sonic tomography
Use passiv and not active
Figure 1 – From the cross-section of the image, it can be seen that the actual cross-section of the tree and the tomography are not taken at the same position. Can you show the cross section and tomography at the same position? Enlarge the legend too! Also add a description for the green colour!
L180-182 “Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed to explore the relationships among the variables acquired from visual investigation, sonic tomography, and tree characteristics” – which tree characteristics?
Figure 3. – the Figure is not clear enough! What does x axis represent? No. of holls – Low, moderate??
L277-278 “When single gallery was found in cross-section, injured areas were represented by green color on the tomograms as their sound velocity was faster compared to that of healthy areas.” – How can the speed of sound be faster in injured areas compared to healthy areas?
Author Response
Title: Application of non‒invasive sonic tomography to evaluate internal status of urbans trees infested by two cerambycid beetles, Aromia bungii and Massius raddei
Author: Lee et. Al.
This article describes the use of sonic tomography to identify the level of damage caused by beetles. The article is written in a clear manner and has potential practical value.
The current title suggests that in addition to non-invasive, there is also invasive sonic tomography. Perhaps it would be better in this way:
Non‒invasive assessment of the internal condition of Urbans trees infested by two cerambycid beetles, Aromia bungii and Massius raddei, using sonic tomography
Use passiv and not active
- Response: Thank you for the valuable comment. We revised the title as reviewer’s suggestion.
- Figure 1 – From the cross-section of the image, it can be seen that the actual cross-section of the tree and the tomography are not taken at the same position. Can you show the cross section and tomography at the same position? Enlarge the legend too! Also add a description for the green colour!
- Response: Thank you for the comment. Are you means ‘Figure 5’ instead of ‘Figure 1’? If it is, cross-section images and tomography were taken at the similar position as possible. In our opinion, sensor position may be a reason for the difference. However, we changed the figure, especially for Prunus trees and its ST. These figures, ST and actual cross-sectional photograph, acquired in this year and we replaced the Figure 5a and 5b in original version ms. Because of important changes in Figure 5, we additionally described details in Materials and Methods. And figure legend was also changed you suggested.
- L180-182 “Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed to explore the relationships among the variables acquired from visual investigation, sonic tomography, and tree characteristics” – which tree characteristics?
- Response: Thank you for the comment. We added details about tree characteristics.
- Figure 3. – the Figure is not clear enough! What does x axis represent? No. of holls – Low, moderate??
- Response: Thank you for the comment. We changed the figure clearly and revised the figure caption in version ms.
- L277-278 “When single gallery was found in cross-section, injured areas were represented by green color on the tomograms as their sound velocity was faster compared to that of healthy areas.” – How can the speed of sound be faster in injured areas compared to healthy areas?
- Response: Thank you for pointing out this error. In our expression in the sentence, ‘injured areas’ means ‘single gallery’. We revised this sentence to understandable.
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
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study aimed to explore the internal damage status of roadside trees, specifically P. × yedoensis infested with A. bungii and Quercus palustris infested with M. raddei in urban landscapes using non-invasive SoT imaging. Additionally, the study aimed to analyze the correlation between external evidence of infestation (including wounds and adult emergence holes caused by cerambycid beetles) and the extent of interior damage based on SoT.
96 trees were investigated. Each tree was visually examined for external signs of infestation by cerambycid beetles. Each tree was counted for the number of entrance‒ and emergence‒holes caused by larvae and adults, respectively, from the base up to a height of 1.5 m.
By converting the results of visual investigation into natural logarithms, damage levels were classified incrementally by 1, such as 0 ~ 1.0, 1.1 ~ 2.0, 2.1 ~ 3.0, and 3.1 ~ 4.0. The results of entrance and emergency holes caused by larvae and adults are not shown in the paper. It is also not known how many holes determined the level of damage. According to the authors, this is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2 shows the correlation between the level of damage assessed by the tomograph and the natural logarithm. The correlation is positive. Such a result can be predicted without the use of testing tools. A more valuable result is the correlation between the level of damage and the number of holes.
However, I consider such an analysis to be flawed, since the number of holes was obtained from a 1.5 m section of the trunk. On the other hand, the level of damage can only be assessed on the cross-section of the trunk based on the CT scan. This is the first serious comment on the research method. The second is to show the results of the level of damage, which is not because of the presence of insects. Rot severely distorts the test results, as was shown by the authors. This can lead to incorrect conclusions.
I also cannot positively assess the discussion and the conclusion. This mainly concerns cracks that were not the target of the analyses. Cracks cannot be correlated with the number of holes. Cracks can affect the dynamics of rot development. However, this was not the purpose of the work.
The study evaluated trees growing in urban conditions. Thus, the results should provide information important for urban tree management. Mainly in terms of safety around trees. The presence of xylophages can affect tree statics, but it is unknown what level of damage would be critical. Simply stating that the level of damage depends on the number of holes is insufficient evidence to verify the research hypothesis. Especially since it is impossible to separate insect damage from rot damage.
I appreciate the authors for their contribution to the work. However, in my opinion, the results cannot be published.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease find the comments on the enclosed file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
English should be revised. some sentences are not well formulated, thus not giving the true meaning, others are full of mistakes (verb tenses, etc).
