An Analysis of Physiological Changes and Spectral Characteristics of Platanus occidentalis Leaves Infested by Corythucha ciliata (SAY) (Hemiptera:Tingidae)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear author, thank you for submitting your research.
I have a serious question about your sampling on chapter 2. Materials and Methods related to the data analysis presented in chapter 3, that should be named just Results.
In lines 61- 67: the sampling was collected from random 5 trees where you have collected one branch with 80 cm damaged by C. ciliata. From each branch you collected 1 damaged and 1 undamaged leaf. Same procedure was done on control nonhost plant.
Platanus occidentalis:
5 trees x 1 branch x (1 damaged leaf + 1 undamaged leaf) = 5 damaged + 5 undamaged leaves
Nonhost tree:
5 trees x 1 branch x 1 undamaged leaf = 5 undamaged leaves
TOTAL:
5 damaged + 10 undamaged leaves = 15 leaves
In results chapter, lines 108-122, you present statistical results where the degrees of freedom are always (2, 4). In fact, the number of variables is correct (3-1).
Concerning the numbers of samples, you present 107 poplar leaves, instead of the 15 leaves from my calculations and from statistical analysis please explain the 4 degrees of freedom of the tests.
To clear all questions regarding sampling size, please provide a table in the beginning of each results sub-chapter (3.1, 3.2 and 3.3), with basic statistics (i.e: number, mean, standard deviation, etc.)
Other comments:
Line 30 – delete “will”
Line 32 – replace “have” by “may have”
Line 32 – delete “on them”
Lines 42-45 – the examples presented should be from sucking pests…
Lines 76, 87 – replace “section 1.1” by “section 2.1”
Line 86 – apparently class 4-6 is missing
In figure 1 you need to describe the meaning of the letters above each column (eventually statistical homogeneous groups, but what test: LSD, Tukey, Duncan?). The letters in tannin content are not correct, since the undamaged has the lower values and the intermediate letter (b), where should be (c), thus being the only statistically different from control group that has the highest content.
Lines 177,180 - remove "(107 poplars)"
Conclusion and Discussion about the physiological changes involves only 5 papers (4 Chinese) while the spectral results are discussed using just 3 papers (2 Chinese teams). This chapter must be improved.
I'll be waiting to review the improved manuscript
Author Response
I found all the comments from you are quite helpful. Thank you for your help!
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I read your manuscript with interest. I suggest the following modifications to improve it.
L. 4: „Ciliata“
L. 21: please remove (F=.....)
L. 66: why did you used Populus as non host plant?
L. 103: Did the data have a normal distribution?
L. 105: Did you use only ANOVA or also Pos-hoc test to detect differences between groups?
L. 162: More appropriate would be: Discussion and Conclusions
L: 191-197: What is the reason for these differences?
How are results relate to the stated goals of your work (explore new monitoring technology infestations)?
Please add this citation: Ju al. 2009: SPREAD OF AND DAMAGE BY AN EXOTIC LACEBUG, CORYTHUCA CILIATA (SAY, 1832) (HEMIPTERA: TINGIDAE), IN CHINA
Author Response
I found all the comments from you are quite helpful. Thank you for your help!
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, thank you for reviewing your manuscript and having consider my comments and remarks, which clarify most of my doubts.
However I need to go back to the sampling
In lines 62- 68: the sampling was collected from random 5 trees where you have collected one branch with 80 cm damaged by C. ciliata. From each branch you collected 1 damaged and 1 undamaged leaf. Same procedure was done on control nonhost plant. In how many nonhost trees were collected leaves and what was the criteria for selecting the quantity of leaves per tree (one leaf in one branch per tree, resulting in 107 trees sampled)? Please clarify.
In Results chapter, line 110: “there were significant differences in tannin content among the three treatments (damaged leaves, undamaged leaves, and control (107 poplar leaves)”. Why did you collect 107 leaves from non-host trees to compare with few leaves from susceptible host tree (5 damaged and 5 undamaged)? Please explain the reason for such difference in sampled leaves and trees, when the purpose of the research was on C. ciliata damage…
The new table I is not necessary because the statistical results are along the text (lines 111-123), and apparently you compared only the damaged and undamaged leaves (not using the non-host undamaged leaves); 10 leaves and two factors (damaged and undamaged). If so you need to explain this statistical analysis in the materials and methods
Tables 2 should appear before statistical analysis. What represents the columns numbering (1-3) before the mean, since you collected 5 leaves…
The same question is placed for Tables 3, 4 and 5.
Is the numbering related to the classes of infestation, disregarding not affected (0 insects)? If so some of the values will be also means, since you sampled 5 damaged leaves and after grouped in 3 damage classes.
If my calculations are correct then the sampling is insufficient for the grouping and many of the value are from an unique leaf, wish is unacceptable for any sound analysis.
Conclusion and Discussion was improved
Author Response
Dear Reviewer：
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
