Simple Is Best: Pine Twigs Are Better Than Artificial Lures for Trapping of Pine Weevils in Pitfall Traps
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have found that the presence of pine twigs will enhance weevil capture in pitfall traps in areas where high density of weevil populations are present, due to site conditions such as harvesting, bark beetle attack, or windthrow. The results are not surprising since this has been reported in the past by V. ZUMR and P. STARY 1992. J. Appl. Ent. 113, 451-455. (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1439-0418.1992.tb00688.x)
This is just one paper I was able to find quickly, but there are many, many other papers on this topic. A case can be made for perhaps a fresh look at attractant baits for pitfall traps, but I’m not sure how much new information is provided here. Both the paper cited above and this manuscript are from work carried out in the Czech Republic, so it is not like they are investigating in a different location. Also one wonders why the paper cited above was not cited here.
The results in figures and tables are not always presented clearly. I provide specific comments below. Also the Discussion is limited and does not address the purpose of this study, increasing the effectiveness of mass trapping. I cannot recommend this manuscript for publication in its current form.
Some specific comments:
L. 105. Incomplete sentence at start.
L 178-180, Fig 5 caption. - X axis label abbreviations are from Table 2, not Fig. 1. Nevertheless, the abbreviations should be filled out for each caption separately.
L 181-182, Fig 6 caption - X axis label abbreviations are from Table 2, not Fig. 1. Nevertheless, the abbreviations should be filled out for each caption separately.
It is redundant to show data in Figs 5 and 6 and Table 3.
L 183. “Numbers trapped individuals significantly differed….” Where are the Stats for this statement? Same for the rest of the paragraph. Stats need to be presented.
Fig 7. Is the x-axis time? It is not labeled clearly and I do not know what the numbers represent.
Tab 5, 6. Seems really inefficient to do so many pairwise comparisons. Maybe the authors were limited based on the statistical tests they run, but it would be much easier to follow if they used multiple means tests.
L. 209, replace As traps, we used 1.2-litre buckets 1.2-liter buckets were used as traps…
Discussion,
The effort described for replacing trap barks would also be so for the pine twigs.
What is missing is a Discussion about the practicality of mass trapping using pine twigs. By having to replace them weekly to get maximum capture, there would be an enormous effort at any one particular site. This of course could be offset by trapping only from April through June rather than going to the end of August. Seems like this is a worthy topic of Discussion that was not addressed.
Author Response
The authors have found that the presence of pine twigs will enhance weevil capture in pitfall traps in areas where high density of weevil populations are present, due to site conditions such as harvesting, bark beetle attack, or windthrow. The results are not surprising since this has been reported in the past by V. ZUMR and P. STARY 1992. J. Appl. Ent. 113, 451-455. (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1439-0418.1992.tb00688.x)
Thank you very much, we have omitted this work☹ We have used it on several places.
This is just one paper I was able to find quickly, but there are many, many other papers on this topic. A case can be made for perhaps a fresh look at attractant baits for pitfall traps, but I’m not sure how much new information is provided here.
We think that we have found majority of papers dealing with attractants for Hylobiues abietis. Our work is new in point, that nobody compares pine twig.
Both the paper cited above and this manuscript are from work carried out in the Czech Republic, so it is not like they are investigating in a different location. Also one wonders why the paper cited above was not cited here. Although Zumr et Starý (1992) studied Hylobius only in South Bohemia, we studied this topic in more places throughout Czech as well as Slovak Republic.
The results in figures and tables are not always presented clearly. I provide specific comments below. Also the Discussion is limited and does not address the purpose of this study, increasing the effectiveness of mass trapping. I cannot recommend this manuscript for publication in its current form.
We deleted „mass trapping“ in title. Such i tis comparison of several attractants and suggestions of using pine twig and pitfall strap for mass trappping.
Some specific comments:
L. 105. Incomplete sentence at start. corrected
L 178-180, Fig 5 caption. - X axis label abbreviations are from Table 2, not Fig. 1. Nevertheless, the abbreviations should be filled out for each caption separately. corrected
L 181-182, Fig 6 caption - X axis label abbreviations are from Table 2, not Fig. 1. Nevertheless, the abbreviations should be filled out for each caption separately. corrected
It is redundant to show data in Figs 5 and 6 and Table 3. yes we have deleted Fig 6. We thing that Fig 5 is better for clean visualisation.
L 183. “Numbers trapped individuals significantly differed….” Where are the Stats for this statement? Same for the rest of the paragraph. Stats need to be presented.
Descriptive statistics is presented in Table 4, the stats information is in Appendix
Fig 7. Is the x-axis time? It is not labeled clearly and I do not know what the numbers represent.
We have used clean version of date on x-axis.
Tab 5, 6. Seems really inefficient to do so many pairwise comparisons. Maybe the authors were limited based on the statistical tests they run, but it would be much easier to follow if they used multiple means tests.
This pairwise comparison is result of Generalized linear model, simpler multiple test like ANOVA
are not possible to deploy due to the non-normal distribution of the data.
This pairwise comparison presented in table 5 is ANOVA resulting from this model.
The multiple mean result is presented in Appendix 1 (as the result of GLM)
L. 209, replace As traps, we used 1.2-litre buckets 1.2-liter buckets were used as traps…corrected
Discussion,
The effort described for replacing trap barks would also be so for the pine twigs. It is not true, spruce bark is necessary to check 2.5 days in comparison with one to two weeks as we suggested.
What is missing is a Discussion about the practicality of mass trapping using pine twigs. By having to replace them weekly to get maximum capture, there would be an enormous effort at any one particular site. Yes, effort is high but because of press of European union to restrict synthetic pyrethroids it could be a way. This of course could be offset by trapping only from April through June rather than going to the end of August. Seems like this is a worthy topic of Discussion that was not addressed. We used this very good point in conclusion.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors, you will find my suggestion as comments into the e.pdf file. The recommendations consist of minor changes and editing issues.
Hope you find all points acceptable and useful to enhance the excellent overall quality of your submission, eventually.
The Reviewer
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Let me suggest just a short discussion about the trouble by forgotten pitfall traps in "natural evironments": added
the author of a name must be stated one time at least, for each of the cited Taxa: Acceptid.
Change in: "in white pitfall" : Change.
a note about the presence of the propylene/water/Tween mixure with attractants may help to explain the status of control traps with any attractant : Nvm čo tým chcel povedať
Keywords should not be in Title or Abstract: acceptid
Please change in: "they do": Change
Please change in : "the consequent control action": Change
Change in: "but the": Change
Insert: "been" : insert
H. abietis [37], it caught significantly: it delete
P2 L93 one or a small number? One
[ ? and other changes: Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst) : no this is OK
??? please check orphans and widows: Added
It is rather obvious that cohetaneous twigs were chosen. Nevertheless, a clear statement about the twigs age is welcome. : Added
tubes were filled, they were sealed, and: added
P5 L 146 twigs derivate from a single collection?: Yes this informacion is in the P3 L110
P6 L161-173 Latin names italic and H.pinasti change H. pinastri.
P12 L277 by? Lalík, Holuša, Galko, Resnerová, Kunca, Nikolov, Mudrončeková3 or Surový? please consider the further similar statements... added
A total cost analysis, even a simple one, had materials, + attractives + trap management will convince that your porposal is truly vantagious...
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed many of the issues presented in the first review. There are a few new issues to address.
L. 73 If Low numbers of traps are used (20-30 traps per ha), they do a for monitoring [26].
L. 76-78 Only [31] have compared several attractants, including 76 bark and twig. It is Only one single modern work with using twig but evaluated twigs was from Norway spruce as well as bark [31].
L 111-113 Pine twigs and four chemical attractants were tested. All twigs (50 mm long and 12 ± 2 mm in diameter) were cut from a single 50-year-old Pinus sylvestris (L.) the age of the twigs 4-6 year tree on 10 April 2018.[Office1]
While the Discussion focuses on the differences among treatments, it presents the natural wood treatments (twigs I assume) as problematic because of the need to replace every 2 weeks. But then in the Conclusion section, use of twigs are recommended not only for monitoring but perhaps for mass trapping. So there is an inconsistency here that should be addressed.
An important issue never really addressed comes from Table 2. The “vapour” rates are vastly different among treatments. This is not ideal. While I understand the difficulties given the different types of sources, it seems like a fairer test between the number 1 and 2 attractants (PC and B) if the vapour rates were similar. Perhaps it becomes too expensive, and the authors focused on practical options. Some more discussion of this is warranted, however.
Lastly, the concept of monitoring is really not explored. It seems critical that for so much effort put into monitoring, then the purposes of monitoring should be discussed. What do land managers do with the monitoring data?
[Office1]This portion of the sentence makes no sense.
Author Response
L. 73 If Low numbers of traps are used (20-30 traps per ha), they do a for monitoring [26].
Deleted
L. 76-78 Only [31] have compared several attractants, including 76 bark and twig. It is Only one single modern work with using twig but evaluated twigs was from Norway spruce as well as bark [31].
Deleted
L 111-113 Pine twigs and four chemical attractants were tested. All twigs (50 mm long and 12 ± 2 mm in diameter) were cut from a single 50-year-old Pinus sylvestris (L.) the age of the twigs 4-6 year tree on 10 April 2018.[Office1]
Changed
While the Discussion focuses on the differences among treatments, it presents the natural wood treatments (twigs I assume) as problematic because of the need to replace every 2 weeks. But then in the Conclusion section, use of twigs are recommended not only for monitoring but perhaps for mass trapping. So there is an inconsistency here that should be addressed.
Added L309-310
An important issue never really addressed comes from Table 2. The “vapour” rates are vastly different among treatments. This is not ideal. While I understand the difficulties given the different types of sources, it seems like a fairer test between the number 1 and 2 attractants (PC and B) if the vapour rates were similar. Perhaps it becomes too expensive, and the authors focused on practical options. Some more discussion of this is warranted, however.
Added L219-226
Lastly, the concept of monitoring is really not explored. It seems critical that for so much effort put into monitoring, then the purposes of monitoring should be discussed. What do land managers do with the monitoring data?
Added L219-226
[Office1]This portion of the sentence makes no sense.
