Objective Assessment of the Damage Caused by Oulema melanopus in Winter Wheat with Intensive Cultivation Technology Under Field Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

·       Lines 15 to 21; The sentences are lengthy. Please shorten them for clarity.

·       Line 26; What does the 1758 number refer to?

·       Line 49; objectively, delete it.

·       Lines 56-58; There appears to be a discrepancy with the sowing date listed as October 10, 2023, while the study indicates that it was conducted in 2004. Please ensure that the timeline is consistent and accurate.

·       Line 56; write the full name or unit “ha”.

·       Lines 87-95; Explain the rationale for selecting 10 leaves and using throwing frames for sampling.

·       Provide more details on how GIMP software was utilized to assess pixel-based leaf surface damage.

·       The initial sentence regarding the emergence of O. melanopus adults contains some repetition.

·       Line 102; Indicate in which year the current study was conducted.

 

·       Line 137; change “prior to” to " before"

Author Response

Dear Rev#1,

firstly, we are very indebted to your valuable contributions to our manuscript, entitled „Objective assessment of the damage caused by Oulema melanopus in winter wheat with intensive cultivation technology under field conditions" [Manuscript ID: agriengineering-3298612]. We send our revised article based on the peer-reviewer's opinion.

 

We have attached a PDF file, which includes all the reactions to all the remarks of Rev#1, and a revised file with track changes. Besides, we send an additional pdf file which includes the English language improvement,

Corrections are followings, item by item:

 

 

Comments 1: Lines 15 to 21; The sentences are lengthy. Please shorten them for clarity.

Response: This paragraph was rephrased

 

Comments 2: Line 26; What does the 1758 number refer to?

Response: This number represents the description year of a species. This number is an important member of binomial numenclature.

 

Comments 3: Line 49; objectively, delete it.

Response: It is deletedc

 

Comments 4: Lines 56-58; There appears to be a discrepancy with the sowing date listed as October 10, 2023, while the study indicates that it was conducted in 2004. Please ensure that the timeline is consistent and accurate.

Response: It is clarified

 

Comments 5: Line 56; write the full name or unit “ha”.

Response: It is clarified

 

Comments 6: Lines 87-95; Explain the rationale for selecting 10 leaves and using throwing frames for sampling.

Response: It is clarified

 

Comments 7: Provide more details on how GIMP software was utilized to assess pixel-based leaf surface damage.

Response: It is clarified.

 

Comments 8: The initial sentence regarding the emergence of O. melanopus adults contains some repetition.

Response: The repetition was deleted

 

Comments 9: Line 102; Indicate in which year the current study was conducted

Response: It is clarified

 

Comments 10: Line 137; change “prior to” to " before"

Response: It is changed

 

We hope the revised MS and our given responses meet the expectations of the esteemed Reviewer and the requirements of AgriEngineering

.

 

Yours sincerely,

1. Keszthelyi

corresponding author

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: agriengineering-3298612

Title: Objective assessment of the damage caused by Oulema melanopus in winter wheat with intensive cultivation technology under field conditions

The manuscript needs some revisions, because there are some aspects of the work that should be corrected and improved. Please, review the following recommendations:

- The Abstract section lacked any information about the material and methods that include the experimental treatments.

- In all text: Please delete all the pronouns like we, our, etc. throughout the manuscript and change the text appropriately.

- The literature review could be expanded to provide a more comprehensive contextualization of the study within the existing body of knowledge and to highlight the novelty of the current research.

- The authors should be described the scientific rationale of the study (= what is the scientific problem?) in the Introduction section

- The hypothesis of the study should be clarified at the end of the Introduction section.

- Tables need to be formatted according to the journal's instructions.

- The discussion section needs more insightful comments. The results are poorly discussed.

- I suggest discussing the limitations of the present study and proposing potential directions for future research to overcome these limitations.

- A detailed "Conclusion" should be provided to state the final result that the authors have reached.

- References used should be updated, where it is noted 2 references in 2023-2024

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Dear Rev#2,

 

firstly, we are very indebted to your valuable contributions to our manuscript, entitled „Objective assessment of the damage caused by Oulema melanopus in winter wheat with intensive cultivation technology under field conditions" [Manuscript ID: agriengineering-3298612]. We send our revised article based on the peer-reviewer's opinion.

 

We have attached a PDF file, which includes all the reactions to all the remarks of Rev#2, and a revised file with track changes. Besides, we send an additional pdf file which includes the English language improvement,

Corrections are followings, item by item

Comments 1: The Abstract section lacked any information about the material and methods that include the experimental treatments.

Response:The methodological information was added to abstract

Comments 2: In all text: Please delete all the pronouns like we, our, etc. throughout the manuscript and change the text appropriately.

Response: The reached sentences were rephrased

Comments 3: The literature review could be expanded to provide a more comprehensive contextualization of the study within the existing body of knowledge and to highlight the novelty of the current research.

Response: The requiered information was added to Introduction

Comments 4: The authors should be described the scientific rationale of the study (= what is the scientific problem?) in the Introduction section

Comments 5: The study's hypothesis should be clarified at the end of the Introduction section.

Response: Both scientific problems and hypotheses were added to the Introduction.

Comments 6: Tables need to be formatted according to the journal's instructions.

Response: Table 2. is rearranged according tot he comm. 6.

Comments 7: The discussion section needs more insightful comments. The results are poorly discussed.

Response: The discussion was improved

Comments 8: I suggest discussing the limitations of the present study and proposing potential directions for future research to overcome these limitations.

Response: It is added.

Comments 9:  A detailed "Conclusion" should be provided to state the final result that the authors have reached.

Response: It is added

Comments 10: References used should be updated, where it is noted 2 references in 2023-2024

Response: Reference list was updated

 

We hope the revised MS and our given responses meet the expectations of the esteemed Reviewer and the requirements of AgriEngineering

 

Yours sincerely,

1. Keszthelyi

corresponding author

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I found several errors and mistakes throughout the manuscript. Here are some of my suggestions/comments to improve the manuscript:

1.Abstract lacks the conclusive remarks mentioning the research outcomes of this study, such as include a brief mention of potential management strategies or recommendations for pest control to provide practical value for farmers. The abstract mentions the abandonment of spraying as part of the study, but it would be helpful to clarify the control conditions. Was a comparison made between treated and untreated plots, or was the focus solely on untreated plots to assess the effect of pest damage? Clarifying the experimental design in abstract.

2.In the sentence “When no control is applied, the trend of leaf mortality is linear…”, it could be more explicit to state "when no pest control measures are applied." (Line 16)

3.The sentence "They are essential in cereals but can also cause damage in maize" seems incomplete or unclear. It could be rewritten for clarity. (Line 42)

4.The description of the life cycle of O. melanopus could be beneficial to clarify the environmental conditions that influence the development of the pest. For example, how does temperature variation affect the timing of egg laying, larval development, and pupation in different geographic regions? (Lines 32-39)

5.The sentence "Our investigations were motivated by the need to objectively understand the damage caused by crop defoliators to winter wheat" is a bit abrupt. It might be rewritten to first mention the broader research gap or challenge that motivates this study. For example: "Despite the known damage caused by O. melanopus to cereal crops, there is limited objective analysis of how leaf surface damage affects photosynthesis and nutrient content in winter wheat. Therefore, our investigation aims to fill this gap by exploring...". (Line 49)

6.While the SPAD index measurement procedure is well-explained, it would be useful to mention how leaf area was considered in the calculation of photosynthetic activity. Were measurements taken from the entire leaf area, or were only specific sections analyzed?

7.It would be helpful to clarify whether the leaf samples for image analysis were collected uniformly across the parcels or if specific areas of the field were targeted. Given that pest infestation may not be uniformly distributed, it would be useful to mention if the sampling was random or stratified in any way to ensure the representativeness of the data.

8.There are a few typographical errors that should be corrected for clarity and readability:

9."maise" should be corrected to "maize" (line 42). "carried out research into this estimation" (line 91) could be reworded to "samples were collected for this estimation" or similar. "spicas" should be "spikes" (line 119).

10.While the discussion references study on yield loss due to leaf damage, additional literature on the effects of pest-induced photosynthetic reductions in other crop systems could enrich the comparative perspective. For instance, references to similar pest impacts in crops like barley or corn may provide readers with a broader understanding of the economic and ecological significance of managing leaf-damaging pests.

11.The concluding remarks touch on the importance of IPM but could be expanded to address specific IPM strategies for managing O. melanopus. Additionally, discussing the challenges in balancing effective pest control with IPM guidelines would add practical insights for readers interested in sustainable agricultural practices. (Lines 226-230)

Author Response

Dear Rev#3,

 

firstly, we are very indebted to your valuable contributions to our manuscript, entitled „Objective assessment of the damage caused by Oulema melanopus in winter wheat with intensive cultivation technology under field conditions" [Manuscript ID: agriengineering-3298612]. We send our revised article based on the peer-reviewer's opinion.

 

We have attached a PDF file, which includes all the reactions to all the remarks of Rev#3, and a revised file with track changes. Besides, we send an additional pdf file which includes the English language improvement,

Corrections are followings, item by item

 

Comments: 1.Abstract lacks the conclusive remarks mentioning the research outcomes of this study, such as include a brief mention of potential management strategies or recommendations for pest control to provide practical value for farmers. The abstract mentions the abandonment of spraying as part of the study, but it would be helpful to clarify the control conditions. Was a comparison made between treated and untreated plots, or was the focus solely on untreated plots to assess the effect of pest damage? Clarifying the experimental design in abstract.

Response: The asked supplementations were added to Abstract

Comments: 2.In the sentence “When no control is applied, the trend of leaf mortality is linear…”, it could be more explicit to state "when no pest control measures are applied." (Line 16)

Response: The abstract was rephrased. Therefore, the marked sentence has already disappeared from this study

Comments: 3.The sentence "They are essential in cereals but can also cause damage in maize" seems incomplete or unclear. It could be rewritten for clarity. (Line 42)

Response: It was corrected.

Comments: 4.The description of the life cycle of O. melanopus could be beneficial to clarify the environmental conditions that influence the development of the pest. For example, how does temperature variation affect the timing of egg laying, larval development, and pupation in different geographic regions? (Lines 32-39)

Response: The biological constants related to this target species are permanent. Impacts of climate change on these appearance phenomena of O. melanopus will be manifested in the change of time of different developmental stages and associated damage events. Naturally, the responsibility of agricultural experts will be to adapt to these changed agricultural situations.

Comments: 5.The sentence "Our investigations were motivated by the need to objectively understand the damage caused by crop defoliators to winter wheat" is a bit abrupt. It might be rewritten to first mention the broader research gap or challenge that motivates this study. For example: "Despite the known damage caused by O. melanopus to cereal crops, there is limited objective analysis of how leaf surface damage affects photosynthesis and nutrient content in winter wheat. Therefore, our investigation aims to fill this gap by exploring...". (Line 49)

Response: It is rewritten. The marked sentences were added to aims.

Comments: 6.While the SPAD index measurement procedure is well-explained, it would be useful to mention how leaf area was considered in the calculation of photosynthetic activity. Were measurements taken from the entire leaf area, or were only specific sections analyzed?

Response: The additional explanation was added in brackets: (thus representing the entire leaf surface)

Comments: 7.It would be helpful to clarify whether the leaf samples for image analysis were collected uniformly across the parcels or if specific areas of the field were targeted. Given that pest infestation may not be uniformly distributed, it would be useful to mention if the sampling was random or stratified in any way to ensure the representativeness of the data.

Response: The asked supplementation was added.

Comments: 8.There are a few typographical errors that should be corrected for clarity and readability:

Response: The typographical errors were corrected.

Comments: 9."maise" should be corrected to "maize" (line 42). "carried out research into this estimation" (line 91) could be reworded to "samples were collected for this estimation" or similar. "spicas" should be "spikes" (line 119).

Response: The mentioned words were replaced.

Comments: 10.While the discussion references study on yield loss due to leaf damage, additional literature on the effects of pest-induced photosynthetic reductions in other crop systems could enrich the comparative perspective. For instance, references to similar pest impacts in crops like barley or corn may provide readers with a broader understanding of the economic and ecological significance of managing leaf-damaging pests.

Response: The asked supplementation was added to discussion.

Comments: 11.The concluding remarks touch on the importance of IPM but could be expanded to address specific IPM strategies for managing O. melanopus. Additionally, discussing the challenges in balancing effective pest control with IPM guidelines would add practical insights for readers interested in sustainable agricultural practices. (Lines 226-230)

Response: The asked supplementations were added to the end of conclusion

 

We hope the revised MS and our given responses meet the expectations of the esteemed Reviewer and the requirements of AgriEngineering

 

Yours sincerely,

1. Keszthelyi

corresponding author

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have substantially improved the manuscript. Revisions are satisfactory and manuscript can be accepted in its present form.