Egg Morphology and Chorionic Ultrastructure of Spotted Lanternfly, Lycorma delicatula (White) (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study has deep significance in observing and verifying with an electron microscope the possibility that fumigants can pass through SLF eggs and kill their larvae.

The shape of the SLF egg observed through an electron microscope, especially the discovery of the gaps and the pores through which the fumigant is likely to penetrate, appears to be very interesting, and appears to be important evidence to verify the effectiveness of fumigant use in the future.

Many important studies are being conducted on the spread and damage of SLF in the United States, and this study is one of them. Through this observation, it is judged to be of sufficient value as preliminary data for conducting future research and deriving good results. The following brief comments can be corrected and reflected.

Minor comment:

Generally, the egg mass of SLF attached to the surface of the tree is covered with mud-like wax. Can the fumigant also effectively pass this wax layer? Or should there be another treatment?

Line 2, 14, 309: lycorma delicatula belongs to the family Fulgoridae, not Pentatomidae. Please revise it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

A great, complete work with practical implications. The authors, knowing the issues, select appropriate methods to create theoretical foundations for implementation research. I am glad that modern photographic techniques are used for research such as this, and the video recording is an interesting and valuable addition. I included minor editorial comments directly in the PDF file as comments.
I wish the authors to reach their goal and develop effective methods to limit the spread of this insect.

Kind regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Editor.

I have carefully reviewed the manuscript entitled "Egg Morphology and chorionic ultrastructure of spotted lanternfly, Lycorma delicatula (White) (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae)". Overall, the authors aim to characterize the egg chorion ultrastructure of the spotted lanternfly (SLF) using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The study has the potential to contribute useful data for the control of SLF, a significant pest. However, I have concerns regarding the methodology, results, and claims made, which I outline below:

Major Comments

The authors highlight the potential role of chorion ultrastructure in informing fumigation strategies. While this is an interesting idea, it seems speculative in the absence of additional empirical data or supporting literature. The authors could either provide empirical tests to validate this claim or cite relevant studies where similar findings have led to successful fumigation techniques. Otherwise, authors could further explore the chorion and egg ultrastructure by themselves, leaving speculation for the later discussion sections. 

Other Comments

External Layer: In lines 159-161, the authors mention an external layer of oothecum that is notably insoluble in water and hexane. If the chorionic structure is important for fumigation, it seems reasonable that the role of this external layer should also be considered. I suggest that the authors elaborate on why it's not necessary to analyze this layer in terms of fumigation strategies.

Ln 108-110: Passing was not demonstrated.

Ln 156-157: It is not clear why the eggs were sonicated. Could the authors justify this choice?

Supplemental Video: A time-lapse figure in the main manuscript summarizing the major points in the Supplemental Video would be beneficial for readers.

SEM Figures: It would be helpful if the authors could include symbols or letters in the SEM figures to point to the structures of interest.

Fig 1: The egg appears to be slightly deformed. Is this natural or an artifact from high-vacuum SEM conditions? If it's the latter, I suggest the authors explore variable pressure SEM. In any case, the authors could provide images of the eggs in a stereomicroscope.

Fig 3: While I understand the progressive magnification strategy used by the authors, this resulted in figures out of regular order (A, B, D, C). I believe that the red rectangular area depicted in each picture is enough for the reader's understanding and the authors could reorganize the figure with no detriment.   

Only minor review is needed

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript written by Powell et al. is not qualified. For example, the taxnomic information of Lycorma delicatula is totally wrong. This species belongs to Hemiptera: Auchenorrhyncha: Fulgoridae, other than Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Pentadomidae. In addition, the SEM images in the MS are messy and not presented in a scientific way.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

The paper may be interesting to the readers of the journal. It describes morphological properties of eggs of lanternfly which is a significant and widely distributed invasive pest demanding measures of protection for a broad range of plant species. To control the pest spreading to new areas, transported logs and timber need to be treated with fumigants, as thoroughly covered in the introduction. And since eggs are usually tolerant to chemical treatments, it is essential to understand how to overcome this tolerance. The present paper initiates these studies. It provides clear and detailed SEM images of the insect eggs. The porous structure of the chorion is well-documented. The paper has a simple idea but rich illustrative material makes it a sound piece of work,  several minor flaws below need to be corrected.

I do not see the reason to provide the number of molecules of fumigants able to simultaneously enter the pore (Table 1). It is quite enough just to indicate that the pore diameter is billion-fold greater than the fumigant molecules.

The taxonomy at family level seems to be wrongly indicated in the Title and the Abstract.

L36: mixed use of singular vs plural (“lanternfly are”)

L40: double dot

L132-133: mixed use of singular vs plural (“temperature and humidity was”)

L302-303: repetition of items which need to be fumigated seems to be odd here

L310: I’m afraid Author Contributions section is not complete

In the References, just like everywhere, the Latin genus and species epithets should be italicized

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 6 Report

   The manuscript by Powell et al. is devoted to investigation of anatomy of eggs of Lycorma delicatula (White). This mainly descriptive work; its results can be potentially interesting for improving application of fumigation. However, there are comments and questions.

   1. The main restriction of the work is absence any investigation (experimental or model-based) of relations between anatomy of eggs and efficiency of fumigation.  Now, the results seem to be too descriptive, and conclusions about relations between egg anatomy and efficiency of fumigation require additional supporting. If it is the first investigation of anatomy the eggs of Lycorma delicatula, these results can be important (however, this novelty should be strongly stressed in the work).

   2. Section “Statistics” should be included.

   3. Section “Results and Discussion” should be extended. Results should be discussed in the broad context (to compare with other investigations); their novelty and important should be stressed.

   4. Bars should be included into photos; now, scale is not clear.

   5. Can procedure of separation of eggs influence their anatomy?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 6 Report

Authors completely considered my comments and questions. I have not additional remarks.