Improving the Monitoring and Control of Egg Vitality of Lymantria dispar Linnaeus 1758 Using an Innovative Device and Procedure for Removing Egg Hairs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In fact I have a complicated dualistic impression from this MS. 

The study introduces a newly discovered procedure and device designed for the removal of hairs from the eggs of spongy moth (Lymantria dispar). This species is a serious pest and the counting of eggs in egg masses is the only practical method for predicting the its population oubreacks in forests. And the procedure is widespread. 

The authors propose to replace the existing (manual) method of counting eggs for a new (mechanical) procedures. Their invention is patented in Serbia. In fact the existing of the patents is enough to use this device by the interested bodies. The device is quite complicated and not easily available. 

The main problem I see that the MS is more practical than fundamental. The device itself has nothing to do with the aim and scope of the journal Forests. Although in the special issue is a special aspect "Methodology of forest insect and disease surveys". But also there are a number of practical oriented journals that can accept this publication. 

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

 

Q1:  In fact I have a complicated dualistic impression from this MS. The study introduces a newly discovered procedure and device designed for the removal of hairs from the eggs of spongy moth (Lymantria dispar). This species is a serious pest and the counting of eggs in egg masses is the only practical method for predicting its population outbreaks in forests. And the procedure is widespread.  The authors propose to replace the existing (manual) method of counting eggs for a new (mechanical) procedure. Their invention is patented in Serbia. In fact the existing of the patents is enough to use this device by the interested bodies. The device is quite complicated and not easily available. The main problem I see that the MS is more practical than fundamental. The device itself has nothing to do with the aim and scope of the journal Forests. Although in the special issue is a special aspect "Methodology of forest insect and disease surveys". But also there are a number of practical oriented journals that can accept this publication. 

A1: Our impression is that this is more of a comment for the editor rather than a question for the authors. Therefore, we will quote the editor’s words: “The article, titled "Improvement of monitoring and control of egg vitality of Lymantria dispar using an innovative device and procedure for removing egg hairs," deals with one of the most important forest pests in the northern hemisphere. It presents a new technical solution that is useful in the monitoring of Lymantria dispar. In my opinion, it corresponds to the scope of the topic of the special issue and can be sent to reviewers.”

We will also quote the sentences from our manuscript supporting the issue in more detail: ”While there are a growing number of inventions focusing on the control or prevention of damage in the field of entomology.....inventions aimed at enhancing monitoring methods in pest control have remained relatively underrepresented. Given the heightened levels of ecosystem disturbances, ongoing climate changes, introduction patterns, and shifting ranges of invasive pests globally, there exists a universal need for improving methods for studying and monitoring pest populations.”

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled "Improvement of monitoring and control of egg vitality of Lymantria dispar using an innovative device and procedure for removing egg hairs” is written very well and is of high quality. There are only a few minor comments which i would like to see addressed.

 

Abstract

 

The abstract seems disjointed in sections in its sentence structure. In an effort to make it fit the word count, it seems that words have been cut out which help with the flow. To save words and keep the flow of sentences, it might be worth re-evaluating the critical sentences needed for the abstract and those which are less important. I’d recommend re-writing the second sentence to “current methods include counting eggs within egg masses using x method.” “This study” is preferred over simply stating “study”

 

Introduction

The introduction is written well, however I would like to see more references for certain critical information. In particular, line 45-6 where you state the species being considered one of the most significant pests. Additional references from line 60-70 would support your arguments further. 

 

Methods

The new method is sound as is the analysis conducted. Is there a reference for the method which has previously been used (lines 202-208)? Maybe in the new procedure, it may be worth while adding a reference to the figure of the sieve as to not confuse the reader. Point 5 states the operator activates the device, wasn’t this done in point 1?

 

Results

Figure 11. Can you capitalize the x and y axis headings, and the “manual v mechanical”? Same for figure 12 and 13, capitalization.

Discussion

No overall comments

 

General comments

When the number is less than 10, it should be written out.

As there are a lot of figures (in particular pictures), it may be worth while merging these images into a single figure and add figure sections (i.e. a, b, c, d, etc). This would only be my personal preference however it is understandable if not done.

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

The manuscript titled "Improvement of monitoring and control of egg vitality of Lymantria dispar using an innovative device and procedure for removing egg hairs” is written very well and is of high quality. There are only a few minor comments which i would like to see addressed.

 Q1: Abstract. The abstract seems disjointed in sections in its sentence structure. In an effort to make it fit the word count, it seems that words have been cut out which help with the flow. To save words and keep the flow of sentences, it might be worth re-evaluating the critical sentences needed for the abstract and those which are less important. I’d recommend re-writing the second sentence to “current methods include counting eggs within egg masses using x method.” “This study” is preferred over simply stating “study”

 A1: We thank the reviewer for this constructive evaluation of our manuscript. We rewrote the abstract according to your suggestions. We changed the second sentence; we permuted sentences 2 and 3 for better flow, and changed “study” to “this study”.

Q2: Introduction. The introduction is written well, however I would like to see more references for certain critical information. In particular, line 45-6 where you state the species being considered one of the most significant pests. Additional references from line 60-70 would support your arguments further. 

 A2: Thank you for the constructive suggestions. We have added the references supporting the state of L. dispar as one of the most significant pests as well as those supporting those arguments further, as suggested.

Q3: Methods. The new method is sound as is the analysis conducted. Is there a reference for the method which has previously been used (lines 202-208)? Maybe in the new procedure, it may be worthwhile adding a reference to the figure of the sieve as to not confuse the reader. Point 5 states the operator activates the device, wasn’t this done in point 1?

A3:  Previously used method (lines 202-208) represents the traditional manual method for hair separation from eggs, regularly applied since the establishment of diagnostic and prognostic centers for forest protection in the former Republic of Yugoslavia. As you suggested, we have added a reference to the figure of the sieve at point 4 of the new procedure to clarify it for the reader. Additionally, to further elucidate the new procedure, we have modified point 1 to: "1. The operator activates the machine with torque by plugging it into the power source." And point 5 to: "5. The operator activates the torque-generating unit by selecting the corresponding rotation speed and starts the stopwatch."

Q4: Results. Figure 11. Can you capitalize the x and y axis headings, and the “manual v mechanical”? Same for figure 12 and 13, capitalization. 

A4: Thank you for the observation. Reviewer 3 requested the removal of Figures 11-13, stating that they do not provide enough new information compared to Tables 1-3 and mainly emphasize the differences between groups. In accordance with their request, Figures 11-13 are no longer part of the manuscript.

Q5: When the number is less than 10, it should be written out.

A5: It has been corrected in the text. Thank you for pointing out this rule, which was previously unknown to us.

Q6: As there are a lot of figures (in particular pictures), it may be worthwhile merging these images into a single figure and add figure sections (i.e. a, b, c, d, etc). This would only be my personal preference however it is understandable if not done.

A6: Thank you for the useful suggestion. In the revised version, we have reduced the total number of figures by three. Additionally, we have merged certain images where appropriate and updated the figure notes in the manuscript accordingly.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work by Stojanović et al. on “Improvement of monitoring and control of egg vitality of Lymantria dispar using an innovative device and procedure for removing egg hairs” articulates the importance of L. dispar as a monitoring indicator for forecasting outbreaks and the challenges inherent in the traditional/conventional manual dehairing process currently in us, hence necessitating the need for alternatives. They proposed the use of a new device and procedure to address the challenges of the conventional procedure.

The paper is well written and although it presents new ideas which are worthwhile and will facilitate the use of the eggs as monitoring tools, the authors should address the below to provide clarity and improve the quality of the paper.

  

Title

The title needs a slight modification to:

Improving the monitoring and control of egg vitality of Lymantria dispar using an innovative device and procedure for removing egg hairs

 

Introduction

A background of the study was provided while highlighting the problems to the addressed, the need to address them and the objectives of the study.

A citation(s) should be provided for the statement made in lines 53-56.

 

Materials & Methods

Why did the authors use uneven egg masses for the procedures?

The use of different egg masses for the groups (10 for Group 1 and 5 for Groups 2-5) results in an uneven replication (number of egg masses used) for the analysis, although the authors indicated that this was compensated for by adjusting the data using the formula stated in the manuscript.

For each procedure,  what was the time used in cleaning the device (petri dish or new device) in between transfer/dehairing of different batches of egg masses for both the manual and mechanical methods?

Results

How different is the data (sec per 100 eggs) in Figure 11 from Table 1? The same applies to Figure 12 and Table 2 as well as Figure 13 and Table 3. As much as possible, the same data should not be presented in 2 different forms (tabular and graphs) in the same paper. The authors should preferably stick to the tabular form.

The definition of the “N” in the “Valid N” in each table should be stated beneath the respective table.

The percentage of cracked and crushed eggs for each of the procedures should be provided clearly, preferably in a tabular form.

 

 

A few minor grammatical corrections have been indicated in the manuscript for the attention of the authors.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English is good.

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

The work by Stojanović et al. on “Improvement of monitoring and control of egg vitality of Lymantria dispar using an innovative device and procedure for removing egg hairs” articulates the importance of L. dispar as a monitoring indicator for forecasting outbreaks and the challenges inherent in the traditional/conventional manual dehairing process currently in us, hence necessitating the need for alternatives. They proposed the use of a new device and procedure to address the challenges of the conventional procedure.

The paper is well written and although it presents new ideas which are worthwhile and will facilitate the use of the eggs as monitoring tools, the authors should address the below to provide clarity and improve the quality of the paper.

 Q1: Title. The title needs a slight modification to: Improving the monitoring and control of egg vitality of Lymantria dispar using an innovative device and procedure for removing egg hairs

A1: Thank you for the constructive point. We have accepted your suggestion and modified the title.

Q2: Introduction. A background of the study was provided while highlighting the problems to the addressed, the need to address them and the objectives of the study. A citation(s) should be provided for the statement made in lines 53-56.

A2: Thank you for the suggestion, we have provided the suitable reference for the statement in lines 53-56.

Q3: Materials & Methods. Why did the authors use uneven egg masses for the procedures? The use of different egg masses for the groups (10 for Group 1 and 5 for Groups 2-5) results in an uneven replication (number of egg masses used) for the analysis, although the authors indicated that this was compensated for by adjusting the data using the formula stated in the manuscript.

A3:  The referee confuses two different things: (1) the number of egg masses and (2) the number of eggs in an egg mass. The probable cause of confusion is the ambiguous notation, which is now corrected (see A6). To clarify, the formula in the manuscript standardizes the number of eggs in an egg mass, which is uneven because we do not know how many eggs each mass contains before the applied procedure. This unevenness is inherent, and we corrected it using the introduced formula to ensure a fair comparison of procedure times.

On the other hand, the number of egg masses for each group is determined by experimental design and depends on the available egg masses at the time of the experiment. Statistical methods applied account for uneven sample sizes, so these differences do not jeopardize the obtained results. Moreover, only one analysis involves different sample sizes (10 vs 16), while the other two analyses deal with samples of size 8.

Q4: For each procedure,  what was the time used in cleaning the device (petri dish or new device) in between transfer/dehairing of different batches of egg masses for both the manual and mechanical methods?

A4: In the old manual procedure, egg masses were transferred into new, unused pairs of Petri dishes after hair removal. The novel device, however, is designed to automatically remove the hairs from the eggs, making the device immediately ready for the next use without the need for cleaning.

Q5. Results. How different is the data (sec per 100 eggs) in Figure 11 from Table 1? The same applies to Figure 12 and Table 2 as well as Figure 13 and Table 3. As much as possible, the same data should not be presented in 2 different forms (tabular and graphs) in the same paper. The authors should preferably stick to the tabular form.

A5: Thank you for the constructive observation. It is true that Figures 11-13 do not present much new data compared to the results in Tables 1-3. Their purpose was to emphasize the differences previously established by comparative analyses. These three figures have been removed in the revised version.

Q6: The definition of the “N” in the “Valid N” in each table should be stated beneath the respective table.

A6: Thank you for the constructive observation. We have changed the unclear notation “valid N” to its true meaning, “number of egg masses.” This prevents confusion with the number of counted eggs in each egg mass, which is also denoted by N on page 8.

Q7: The percentage of cracked and crushed eggs for each of the procedures should be provided clearly, preferably in a tabular form.

A7:  Thank you for the constructive suggestion. We have incorporated the information on the amount of cracked and crushed eggs into the text and added the average percentage of cracked and crushed eggs in the newly included Table 4 (page 10).

Q8: A few minor grammatical corrections have been indicated in the manuscript for the attention of the authors.

A8: We would like to thank you for your encouraging and constructive review of our manuscript. We have revised and improved the manuscript in line with all your suggestions.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors sufficiently addressed all the comments and this is very good.

However, in Table 4, the % of the cracked eggs varied from 0.10 to 0.79 for the mechanical Pr. while that of the crushed eggs varied from 0.08 to 0.60.

Hence, I guess the 0% to 2.4% for the cracked eggs and the 0% to 2.7% for the crushed eggs (lines 329 & 330) are the ranges of the raw data. Since the mean data with their respective SD have been presented in the table, these are the data that should be talked about in the text and not the non-presented raw data. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments: However, in Table 4, the % of the cracked eggs varied from 0.10 to 0.79 for the mechanical Pr. while that of the crushed eggs varied from 0.08 to 0.60.

Hence, I guess the 0% to 2.4% for the cracked eggs and the 0% to 2.7% for the crushed eggs (lines 329 & 330) are the ranges of the raw data. Since the mean data with their respective SD have been presented in the table, these are the data that should be talked about in the text and not the non-presented raw data. 

Response: Thank you for the constructive proposal. We have improved the presentation of the results according to your suggestion at the end of the Results section, before table 4.: ` Notably, the application of the mechanical hair removal procedure did not result in a significant number of cracked or crushed eggs, as the average percentages for all methods applied did not exceed 1%. Specifically, for the mechanical procedure, the average percentage of cracked eggs was 0.44 ± 0.82%, while the average percentage of crushed eggs was 0.34 ± 0.67%. In contrast, for the manual procedure, the average percentage of cracked eggs was 0.82 ± 0.74%, and the average percentage of crushed eggs was 0.74 ± 0.82%. Detailed results are presented in Table 4, which includes data for individual subgroups within the mechanical procedure, as well as aggregated results for all mechanically treated egg masses and the manually treated egg masses.`