The Attractiveness of Five Common Mediterranean Weeds to Pollinators
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors
Well done. Please see minor comments in the attachment
Best regards
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
We thank the reviewer for their very valuable comments. Please find our point-by-point response to the comments below.
Point 1: However, although in Lines 38-44 the authors discuss the main causes of decline in pollinators as the transformation of agricultural landscapes, precisely conversion of forests into fields and pastures. I would have liked to see more information on the role of agricultural pesticides in reducing the population of the pollinators as well. So more information can be provided here.
Response 1: We have added information about the role of agricultural pesticides in reducing the population of pollinators. See lines 42-43 and lines 44-46.
Point 2: Line 84-85: Please provide climate averages for each year but nit an average for both. This will help to explain the differences in insect visits, flowering period, and number of flowers among other factors.
Response 2: Revised.
Point 3: Line 142- please provide equation for the average number of flowers.
Response 3: An equation has been provided on line 152.
Point 4: Line 144- please provide equation for the average number of insects.
Response 4: An equation has been provided on line 158.
Point 5: Lines 197- 201 Please incorporate this paragraph from the supplementary notes to provide further definition the true bugs. “Of the true bugs observed, in 2015, 65% were Oxycarenus lavaterae (family: Lygaeidae), 32% were larger true bugs from the families Lygaeidae or Pyrrhocoridae, likely Lygaeus equestris or Scantius aegyptius, and 3% were other species. In 2016, 96% were O. lavaterae and 4% were from the families Lygaeidae or Pyrrhocoridae”
Response 5: Done. We have also added “(Refer to Supplemental Material for more details about insect identification using pan traps.)”.
Point 6: Line 319- 320 revise the sentence; please delete “to” and replace with “the”, each flower not flowers.
Response 7: Revised.
Point 7: What order do you use to discuss each flower species? I suggest you start with the best and finish with the worst based on your findings e.g., 4.1.1. D.Carota.
Response 7: The original order was alphabetical. We like your suggestion and have revised the order accordingly.
Point 7: Line 459 delete ‘that’ after perception.
Response 8: Revised.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Morrison et al.,
Find below comments and suggestions on your manuscript "The Attractiveness of Five Common Mediterranean Weeds to Pollinators"
Abstract
Include the authority of plant names in the scientific names.
Line 137: change other to others
Results
Line199-201: Add the number of visits after the individual pollinator
Figure 1, 2, 3, 4: the values at horizontal axis are not very visible
Discussion
Italicize the scientific names in the sub-sections under 4.1
Line 357: change “suggest” to “suggested”
Line 365: change “claim” to “claimed” 388: change “have” to “did”
References
Shouldn’t the in-text citations be numbers? Check the instructions for authors and comply
Lines 341-342, 376, 387-388 and some others: check the reference style for consistency
Line 352: no need for e.g. in the in-text citation
408: change problem to problematic
Change the bibliography to the agronomy format
4.1.3 M. sylvestris: There was an initial argument that the plant “can be found as invasive in food crops” followed by another statement that the plant was not found “to be invasive in cereal crops”. How then do you state in the summary that the plant “was not determined to be especially invasive”
Supplementary data
Suggestion: Add "1.1.3. Implications of pan trap results" to the main text.
Regards
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
We thank the reviewer for their very valuable comments. Please find our point-by-point response to the comments below.
Point 1: Abstract: Include the authority of plant names in the scientific names.
Response 1: Revised. This was also added in the introduction (lines 71-74).
Point 2: Line 137: change other to others
Response 2: We changed this to “other insects” in order to remain consistent with subsequent mentions.
Point 3: Line199-201: Add the number of visits after the individual pollinator
Response 3: Done.
Point 4: Figure 1, 2, 3, 4: the values at horizontal axis are not very visible
Response 4: We updated Figures 1-5 in order to make the values on the horizontal axis more visible.
Point 5: Italicize the scientific names in the sub-sections under 4.1
Response 5: Revised.
Point 6: Line 357: change “suggest” to “suggested”
Response 6: Revised.
Point 7: Line 365: change “claim” to “claimed” 388: change “have” to “did”
Response 7: Revised.
Point 8: Shouldn’t the in-text citations be numbers? Check the instructions for authors and comply. Change the bibliography to the agronomy format.
Response 8: The referencing system was updated to the agronomy format, including in-text citations and the reference list (bibliography).
Point 9: Lines 341-342, 376, 387-388 and some others: check the reference style for consistency
Response 9: These issues were rectified when addressing the above comment.
Point 10: Line 352: no need for e.g. in the in-text citation
Response 10: Revised.
Point 11: Line 408: change problem to problematic
Response 11: Revised.
Point 12: 4.1.3 M. sylvestris: There was an initial argument that the plant “can be found as invasive in food crops” followed by another statement that the plant was not found “to be invasive in cereal crops”. How then do you state in the summary that the plant “was not determined to be especially invasive”
Response 12: The summary paragraph (lines 463-466) was reworded in order to more accurately summarize the findings referring to invasiveness.
Point 13: Suggestion: Add "1.1.3. Implications of pan trap results" to the main text.
Response 13: This section was added as section 4.3. in the discussion. After the subtitle, we added “(see Supplemental Material for methodology and results)”.