Accuracy of Defoliation Estimates from Aerial and Ground Surveys in a Boreal Forest during an Outbreak of the Hemlock Looper, Lambdina fiscellaria (Guenée)
, Conrad Cloutier 3, Richard Berthiaume 1,4 and Christian Hébert 2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall, I was very pleased and impressed with the manuscript. The introduction and cited references are relevant, the methods used seem adequate and the conclusions stemming from the results sound and logical. I thus recommend it to be published in the journal Forests with minor revisions.
I have only a few corrections to highlight:
Title: This is a very minor correction that may not need to be addressed but I would probably add "a" before "boreal forest", since the manuscript pertains to a particular location.
Line 40: The outbreak studied here was located in the located in
Lines 47-49: The same references are cited twice in sequence, this is unnecessary.
Line 52: in in late summer
Line 69: From To our knowledge, the only study comparing aerial
Line 73: done with aircrafts (the plural form of aircraft is aircraft)
Line 78: while foliage on which feed budworm larvae feed
Line 105: Aircrafts flew
Line 111: GIS software - please specify app
Line 118: (400 m22)
Line 128: on in the field
Line 156: I would probably avoid stating "strongly significant". Either they are significant or they are not.
Line 164: lightly defoliated previous-year shoots lightly defoliated
Line 181: Once again, I would advise against writing "highly significant", just state "significant".
Line 213: with the strength of the relationship gradually decreasing
Line 249: Such This problem was also observed by the senior author
Line 256: that aerial surveys no longer provide
Line 258: obtained from aerial surveys are
Line 265: of the trees of in the first year of an outbreak
Author Response
Reviewer #1: Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Overall, I was very pleased and impressed with the manuscript. The introduction and cited references are relevant, the methods used seem adequate and the conclusions stemming from the results sound and logical. I thus recommend it to be published in the journal Forests with minor revisions. I have only a few corrections to highlight:
Title: This is a very minor correction that may not need to be addressed but I would probably add "a" before "boreal forest", since the manuscript pertains to a particular location. Done
Line 40: The outbreak studied here was located in the located in Done
Lines 47-49: The same references are cited twice in sequence, this is unnecessary. Right. The 2nd references were removed.
Line 52: in in late summer Done
Line 69: From To our knowledge, the only study comparing aerial Done
Line 73: done with aircrafts (the plural form of aircraft is aircraft) Done
Line 78: while foliage on which feed budworm larvae feed Done
Line 105: Aircrafts flew Done
Line 111: GIS software - please specify app We changed “a GIS software” by ArcGIS
Line 118: (400 m22) Done
Line 128: on in the field Done
Line 156: I would probably avoid stating "strongly significant".Either they are significant or they are not. Done
Line 164: lightly defoliated previous-year shoots lightly defoliated Done
Line 181: Once again, I would advise against writing "highlysignificant", just state "significant". Done
Line 213: with the strength of the relationship gradually decreasing Done
Line 249: Such This problem was also observed by the senior author Done
Line 256: that aerial surveys no longer provide Done
Line 258: obtained from aerial surveys are Done
Line 265: of the trees of in the first year of an outbreak Done
Reviewer 2 Report
It is an interesting manuscript to assess the accuracy of using aerial and ground surveys at different outbreak years. The data are unique to have a subsequent damage and natural recovery, without any human disturbance. However, the writing is hard for readers to follow easily. Figures like plot locations, damaged trees and method workflow, are highly recommended to include in the paper.
Specific comments:
L40, Introduction: located in the located, duplicated?
L110: The patches examples drawn by ArcGIS may be provided.
L112, (1-34%), what is the ratio for? defoliation rate?
L118, 400 m2, the 2 should be superscript.
L120-L137: The description is not direct for readers. Can authors provide figures or photos to show the process?
More analysis or indicator (like RMSE) other than correlation analysis may be added.
Conclusion section is missing.
Author Response
Reviewer #2: Comments and Suggestions for Authors
It is an interesting manuscript to assess the accuracy of using aerial and ground surveys at different outbreak years. The data are unique to have a subsequent damage and natural recovery, without any human disturbance. However, the writing is hard for readers to follow easily. Figures like plot locations, damaged trees and method workflow, are highly recommended to include in the paper. We added two figures showing plot locations and defoliated patches for both the 1st and 2nd year of the outbreak. This helps to understand the workflow.
Specific comments:
L40, Introduction: located in the located, duplicated? Done
L110: The patches examples drawn by ArcGIS may be provided. Done. Two figures were added.
L112, (1-34%), what is the ratio for? defoliation rate? The defoliation classes are defined in the following sentence.
L118, 400 m2, the 2 should be superscript. Done
L120-L137: The description is not direct for readers. Can authors provide figures or photos to show the process? We added two figures that show site location and defoliation patches for both the 1st and 2nd year of the outbreak.
More analysis or indicator (like RMSE) other than correlation analysis may be added. We used correlation rather than regression as there was no intention to predict defoliation on shoots of each previous years. We only wanted to see if defoliation on current-year shoots, on which we can be sure that defoliation results from current-year insect feeding, was correlated with defoliation on previous- year shoots, which is a mix of current and past defoliation. Thus, R2 and RMSE are not relevant to this purpose.
Conclusion section is missing. We added a conclusion section.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
No more comments.
