Pluralistic Valuation of Codling Moth Regulation by Brown Long-Eared Bats in English Apple Orchards
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
You have presented a theoretical work that brings to light the pest control service rendered by P auritus in SE England.
Although your approach is interesting, the work is weighed down by a host of generalizations that you have assumed in building your model. The following are some generalizations that may potentially influence your results:
Line 270. Was deemed abundant
Line 275: 1:1 sex ratio was in captive studies. The scenario in open fields may be skewed. [The same generalization is used in the Michigan study (cited by you)].
Line 309, 310. Two of the references used are almost fifty years old. Although recent references may not be available, the effect of global change on these statistics needs to be factored in.
Adopting insect statistics developed in the US (Line 323) to your study region is not a prudent way of scientific research.
Incidentally, you have pointed out these limitations in the manuscript (Line 494). Without primary data, such modelling studies have very limited utility.
The paper could have waited till you could collect field data (Line 495). Now that the pandemic is easing off, perhaps you should try to collect the primary data and rework the theme.
In lines 390 and 391 apple production statistics appear all of a sudden. No prior mention of these in the text.
Your model presumes that the bat species you studied looks out to feed only on the specific moth and turns to other species when the number of the particular moth species dwindles.
Initial conditions, especially the density of P. auritus and its inter and intra- specific competitions are overlooked. [I could only find a tangential reference to one study in 1989. As stated above, a lot would have changed in 30 years].
In lines 194 and 195 you mention no European studies were focused on species that occur in the UK.
Please take a look at the following:
Vaughan N., 1997: The diets of British bats (Chiroptera). Mammal Review, 27: 77–94
Dietz C., Nill D. & Von Helversen O., 2009: Bats of Britain, Europe and Northwest Africa. A&C BlackPublishers Ltd., London, 400 pp
Line 84. The missing word after "economists .... such an approach... .
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
We appreciate the time you have put into engaging with our submission. Your comments are excellent and have made the paper stronger. Our responses are in red below your comments. Where we incorporate your comments, we explain how we did so. Where we differ, we do so with respect and appreciation. Several times we realized that your comment was due to a lack of clear writing on our part. In those instances, we respond with a more clear articulation and explain how we changed the manuscript to more accurately communicate our point.
Again, we thank you for your excellent review and for the time you put into this.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for this nice paper. The need to acknowledge ecosystem services and importance of biodiversity for humans are clearly shown.
Some developments are a bit lengthy, but still OK I guess.
Minor typos corrected in the uploaded file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
We appreciate the time you have put into engaging with our submission. Your highlighting of our typos made the paper stronger.
Again, we thank you for your excellent review and for the time you put into this.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors quantify the impact one individual bat might have on reducing pest damage to a 1 ha apple orchard. This study is valuable in emphasizing the—often unrecognized—service bats provide as natural enemies of crop pests. It is well written and the model is supported by published parameter estimates. I have only minor suggestions for revision below.
Minor comments:
Check that you’re consistent in your use of either the common or scientific name of the brown long-eared bat (Plecotus auritus).
Write out the genus (Plecotus) in the abstract first before using P. auritus.
Line 47: Please either provide a brief explanation and/or citation for “monism and pluralism.”
Line 83-86: Please rephrase for clarity.
Line 138: Write out Cydia, since it is the first time this appears in the paper.
Line 143: Please rephrase: …”releasing larva that then search for apples… “
Line155: Please rephrase this sentence
Line 165: (Order: Chiroptera)—do not italicize the Order
Line 178: do not italicize family names (i.e. Vespertilionidae)
Line 183: As all UK bat species are insectivorous… (remove “Chiroptera spp.”)
Line 384-388: I may be missing something here, but it is not clear from Fig 2 how the authors arrived at 79.9% of moths consumed by one bat. It is not entirely clear how they arrived at the number. Please expand this explanation for clarity. This is important given that their conclusions and broader implications of the study hinge on this number.
Line 391: Cite Fig 4 here.
Line 560: What are trap feedback loops?
Line 572: Daphnia spp.
Line 563-569: Is it possible that these bats are consuming arthropod natural enemies of apple pests? Bats are generalist predators… this has been shown in coffee.
Figure 2. The authors state clearly in the methods that the model is based on a single bat; however, I would suggest repeating this in the caption (i.e., …number consumed by a single P. auritus…).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
We appreciate the time you have put into engaging with our submission. Your comments are excellent and have made the paper stronger. Our responses are in red below your comments. Where we incorporate your comments, we explain how we did so. Where we differ, we do so with respect and appreciation. Several times we realized that your comment was due to a lack of clear writing on our part. In those instances, we respond with a more clear articulation and explain how we changed the manuscript to more accurately communicate our point.
Again, we thank you for your excellent review and for the time you put into this.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
