Effects of the Weather on the Seasonal Population Trend of Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in Northern Italy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work by Carrieri et al. presents a Bayesian approach to the abundance (measured in egg counts) of Aedes albopictus in Northern Italy. The topic is of relevance due to the role of this mosquito as vector of diseases and the long-term and robustness of the dataset (4 towns, 13 years).

As I stated when I accepted the revision, although I am familiarized with multivariate analyses and GLMM I am not a specialist in Bayes approach, therefore in some passages I have more questions than suggestions. In general, the focus is on models for each month, and I feel that the very valuable long-term data (2010-2022) is not taken advantage of. For example, it would be really interesting to discuss which variables are associated with the rising trend depicted in Fig. 2. Also, an idea of why values in 2018 and 2018 are higher. I will therefore be willing to read an improved version of the MS considering this and the further suggestions below (I also attach a commented version of the MS with further input).

1. Climate change is a keyword, but is not mentioned once throughout the MS.

2. The introduction needs a little bit of work. Join sentences in more unified paragraphs, clearly state the purpose and influence of the work.

3. No need to include a point geolocalization for a town if you include a Figure. In Figure 1, please add the north row and geographic coordinates. The symbolism of the thick black lines, and the yellow, and black-gray shading is also missing. In the box, a little less zoom would be preferable (showing, for instance, the entire Italy in the regional context).

4 and more. Please see attached MS.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

please thoroughly check the MS.

Author Response

Authors answers in red

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

The work by Carrieri et al. presents a Bayesian approach to the abundance (measured in egg counts) of Aedes albopictus in Northern Italy. The topic is of relevance due to the role of this mosquito as vector of diseases and the long-term and robustness of the dataset (4 towns, 13 years).

As I stated when I accepted the revision, although I am familiarized with multivariate analyses and GLMM I am not a specialist in Bayes approach, therefore in some passages I have more questions than suggestions. In general, the focus is on models for each month, and I feel that the very valuable long-term data (2010-2022) is not taken advantage of. For example, it would be really interesting to discuss which variables are associated with the rising trend depicted in Fig. 2. Also, an idea of why values in 2018 and 2018 are higher. I will therefore be willing to read an improved version of the MS considering this and the further suggestions below (I also attach a commented version of the MS with further input).

1. Climate change is a keyword, but is not mentioned once throughout the MS.

we change the key word with “climate”

 

2. The introduction needs a little bit of work. Join sentences in more unified paragraphs, clearly state the purpose and influence of the work.

Done in the manuscript reviewed

3. No need to include a point geolocalization for a town if you include a Figure. In Figure 1, please add the north row and geographic coordinates. The symbolism of the thick black lines, and the yellow, and black-gray shading is also missing. In the box, a little less zoom would be preferable (showing, for instance, the entire Italy in the regional context).

Map updated in the manuscript reviewed

4 and more. Please see attached MS.

Corrections done in the manuscript reviewed

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article brings important information about the population dynamics of Aedes albopictus in Italy. However, the presented text is fragmented and the discussion superficial. Tables and figures are in excessive number, misconfigured and with incomplete titles.  I would  recommend:

 

1. Standardizing the size of the paragraphs, some of them are very short;

2. Line 80, replace Ae .albopictus by Aedes albopictus, as it is in the beggining of the phrase;

3. Improve the aesthetics of tables and figures.

4. Improve tables and figures tittles and include footnotes

5. The number of tables is excessive and some should be merged.

6. Table 2: Indicate the season;

7. Line 159:  replace Ae .Albopictus by Ae. albopictus 

8. Improve discussion, it is too short and should not be written as items, but in an essay form.

 

Author Response

Authors answers in red

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

The article brings important information about the population dynamics of Aedes albopictus in Italy. However, the presented text is fragmented and the discussion superficial. Tables and figures are in excessive number, misconfigured and with incomplete titles. I would recommend:

 

1. Standardizing the size of the paragraphs, some of them are very short;

Done in manuscript reviewed

 

2. Line 80, replace Ae .albopictus by Aedes albopictus, as it is in the begining of the phrase;

Done in manuscript reviewed

 

3. Improve the aesthetics of tables and figures.

Done in manuscript reviewed

 

4. Improve tables and figures titles and include footnotes

Done in manuscript reviewed (map)

 

5. The number of tables is excessive and some should be merged.

We have reduced the number of tables into one summary table

 

6. Table 2: Indicate the season;

It is indicated (mean monthly and seasonal densities from may to october)

 

7. Line 159: replace Ae .Albopictus by Ae. albopictus

Done in manuscript reviewed

8. Improve discussion, it is too short and should not be written as items, but in an essay form.

Done in reviewed manuscript

Please see the attachment

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good work, the current version of the MS has been significantly improved. I particularly liked the new shape of the Discussion section.

Just a final suggestion, don´t lower the prize of your work! At the end of the Introduction you state: "The main purpose of the conducted study is to serve as a preliminary effort to provide valuable data for the development of predictive models concerning the seasonal trend of Ae. albopictus. "

Be more specific and give credit to your paper! You don´t provide data for the development of predictive models, you run and interpret the predictive models!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Small grammar mistakes detected (e.g. the caption of Fig-1 should better read "...The number of ovitraps activated for each municipality is reported between brackets").

Author Response

Answers in red

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments (round2)

Good work, the current version of the MS has been significantly improved. I particularly liked the new shape of the Discussion section.

Just a final suggestion, don´t lower the prize of your work! At the end of the Introduction you state: "The main purpose of the conducted study is to serve as a preliminary effort to provide valuable data for the development of predictive models concerning the seasonal trend of Ae. albopictus. "

Be more specific and give credit to your paper! You don´t provide data for the development of predictive models, you run and interpret the predictive models!

Done in the reviewed manuscript

Small grammar mistakes detected (e.g. the caption of Fig-1 should better read "...The number of ovitraps activated for each municipality is reported between brackets").

Done in the reviewed manuscript

 

Last updates highlithed in yellow in the reviewed manuscript .

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has improved, the number of figures and tables nas been reduced, and the discussion has been expanded as recommended. However, the manuscript still presents aesthetic concerns. There is a sequence  very short paragraphs, the tables are non-standard and do not have a footer, preventing the compression of the abbreviations used, making it necessary to refer to the text to understand them. The figures also need editing for aesthetic improvement. I had already pointed out these issues in my first review, they were partially addressed, but the problem persists.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor revision needed.

Author Response

Answers in red

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments (round2)

The manuscript has improved, the number of figures and tables has been reduced, and the discussion has been expanded as recommended.

However, the manuscript still presents aesthetic concerns. There is a sequence very short paragraphs, the tables are non-standard and do not have a footer, preventing the compression of the abbreviations used, making it necessary to refer to the text to understand them.

Corrected in the reviewed manuscript

The figures also need editing for aesthetic improvement. I had already pointed out these issues in my first review, they were partially addressed, but the problem persists.

We have improved the aesthetic of figures and add more information on figures caption

 

Last updates highlithed in yellow in the reviewed manuscript .

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf