Correlation of Climatic Factors with the Weight of an Apis mellifera Beehive
, Felipe Kreimeier 2 and Adriano Mendonça Souza 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In summing up the detailed considerations presented in the Introduction chapter, it would be worth formulating a research problem. The presented material allows for the formulation of the research problem and gaps in the current state of knowledge in the area under consideration. I propose to write the sentence: The research problem is ... Moreover, the research goal presented in the last paragraph of the Introduction should be expanded to include a scientific (cognitive) goal and a utilitarian (useful) goal. Thanks to this, it would be easier to indicate in the Conclusions whether the particular categories of goals set in the research have been achieved and to what extent.
Instead of writing “Swithanek et al. (2017) [11] ... "(line: 54) you can write" Ref. [11]… ”.
In my opinion, in the Introduction or in the Materials and Methods chapter, it would be good to write more about the VAR method than that it is a method widely used in econometrics. I think that among the readers there would be many people interested in providing details of the VAR method that will allow its application in the practice of the research issues under consideration. It is true that the description is given in the paragraph (lines: 125-130), but more details can be given, for example, what the symbol Yt means in formula (4). In the description (line: 133) the authors gave what Yt refers to, but it would be worth writing what it is or what the name Yt is. Besides, I am not sure if Yt in formula (4) is the same concept as in the description (line: 133), because there is a different symbol in the description, i.e. yt.
In the description of the formula (4), the authors used the term "white noise". It can be assumed that everyone should know what it means and how to interpret the concept, but this assumption may turn out to be wrong.
If the research was placed in a specific reality, taking into account, for example, the location of the hive, meteorological / climatic data and other variables, it would be worth supplementing this practical information with data on a plantation or other place that bees used to produce honey. I mean, for example, what was the area of ​​the plantation, what plants dominated, what was the average distance between the plantation and the hive, etc. You could specify what breed / line of bees was included in the experiment. In addition, in the description of the experiment, it would be worth mentioning how many (approximately) bees were in the swarm in the tested hive, at least at the beginning of the study.
The production of honey, and thus changes in the weight of the hive, are determined not only by external climatic factors, but also by the access to honey plants, their area, efficiency and others. Therefore, it would be worth mentioning, for example in the Conclusions, that the developed model may be extended in the future with data on the source of honey production - a biological / natural factor, i.e. various plant species.
In the discussion of the research results and in the Conclusions, the authors could also elaborate on the issue of linking honey production with factors dependent and independent of humans. In the research study presented by the authors, a group of factors independent of humans was taken into account. On the other hand, there is a need to continue modeling studies that take into account a group of human-dependent factors, including the characteristics of plantations that form the basis of honey production.
When describing the data in Table 2, it would be worth adding that the variables were arranged in the order taking into account the correlation from the largest to the smallest. The criterion of the order of compiling the test results could also be given in the case of Table 4.
I would like to ask about the description of the abscissa and ordinate axes in Figure 3. Only the numbers on the axes are given, and it would be worthwhile to mention what they mean as well. From the paragraph under Figure 3, I could see that the x axis takes into account consecutive days, but it has to be written on the axes of individual graphs. The same remark, but concerning the description of the ordinate (y) axes only, also applies to the graphs presented in Figure 2. Apart from the description of individual axes, it would also be worthwhile to specify the units in which the parameters under consideration were expressed.
I would like to ask, does the first graph in Figure 2, showing the changes in BW (Beehive Weight) over one year, include the receipt of honey from the hive? What is the point on the abscissa? Perhaps it is worth highlighting this point.
In the text, the Authors use the acronym BW, while Beehive Weight or hive weight is given in the full wording. In my opinion, it would be worth using one and the same full term in the text, i.e. Beehive Weight.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewers for the relevant contributions to the manuscript. All suggestions were accepted and added to the revised submission.
Reviewer 1: In summing up the detailed considerations presented in the Introduction chapter, it would be worth formulating a research problem. The presented material allows for the formulation of the research problem and gaps in the current state of knowledge in the area under consideration. I propose to write the sentence: The research problem is ... Moreover, the research goal presented in the last paragraph of the Introduction should be expanded to include a scientific (cognitive) goal and a utilitarian (useful) goal. Thanks to this, it would be easier to indicate in the Conclusions whether the particular categories of goals set in the research have been achieved and to what extent.
Answer: Thank you! The introduction of the article was reformulated in order to answer this suggestion. The following text has been added: “The research problem is presented in the form of a question: are VAR models capable of helping to understand the interrelationship between climate variables and the weight of Apis mellifera beehives? In the context presented, the objective of this article is divided into scientific (cognitive) and utilitarian. As a cognitive objective, we intend to adjust a VAR model capable of explaining the interrelationships between climatic variables and the weight of Apis mellifera beehives. In utilitarian terms, it is expected that this methodology will help beekeepers in decision making, especially at the right time for honey collection.”
Reviewer 1: Instead of writing “Swithanek et al. (2017) [11] ... "(line: 54) you can write" Ref. [11]… ”.
Answer: Thank you! This has been corrected in the manuscript.
Reviewer 1: In my opinion, in the Introduction or in the Materials and Methods chapter, it would be good to write more about the VAR method than that it is a method widely used in econometrics. I think that among the readers there would be many people interested in providing details of the VAR method that will allow its application in the practice of the research issues under consideration. It is true that the description is given in the paragraph (lines: 125-130), but more details can be given, for example, what the symbol Yt means in formula (4). In the description (line: 133) the authors gave what Yt refers to, but it would be worth writing what it is or what the name Yt is. Besides, I am not sure if Yt in formula (4) is the same concept as in the description (line: 133), because there is a different symbol in the description, i.e. yt.
Answer: More details were given in the cited paragraphs, and the meanings of Yt and yt in formula (4) were described.
Reviewer 1: In the description of the formula (4), the authors used the term "white noise". It can be assumed that everyone should know what it means and how to interpret the concept, but this assumption may turn out to be wrong.
Answer: The authors are grateful for the suggestion. To facilitate the reader's understanding, right after the appearance of the term "white noise" we put a description.
Reviewer 1: If the research was placed in a specific reality, taking into account, for example, the location of the hive, meteorological / climatic data and other variables, it would be worth supplementing this practical information with data on a plantation or other place that bees used to produce honey. I mean, for example, what was the area of ​​the plantation, what plants dominated, what was the average distance between the plantation and the hive, etc. You could specify what breed / line of bees was included in the experiment. In addition, in the description of the experiment, it would be worth mentioning how many (approximately) bees were in the swarm in the tested hive, at least at the beginning of the study.
Answer: It was complemented in the manuscript: “The forests that make up the mountains of Asheville are populated by species of beeches, oaks, and pines (OAKMAN; HAGAN; WALDROP; BARRETT, 2019). These plant species contribute to the production of honey and mainly resin (propolis), including the hive used in this study.” As for the plantation area, distance from the hive and number of bees, it cannot be estimated. The data used for this study do not present this information. The species is also not well specified whether it is Apis mellifera ligustica or Apis mellifera carnica.
Reviewer 1: The production of honey, and thus changes in the weight of the hive, are determined not only by external climatic factors, but also by the access to honey plants, their area, efficiency and others. Therefore, it would be worth mentioning, for example in the Conclusions, that the developed model may be extended in the future with data on the source of honey production - a biological / natural factor, i.e. various plant species.
Answer: A comment was added at the conclusion to address this suggestion.
Reviewer 1: In the discussion of the research results and in the Conclusions, the authors could also elaborate on the issue of linking honey production with factors dependent and independent of humans. In the research study presented by the authors, a group of factors independent of humans was taken into account. On the other hand, there is a need to continue modeling studies that take into account a group of human-dependent factors, including the characteristics of plantations that form the basis of honey production.
Answer: Thank you for the sugestion! It was added in the last paragraph (item c), in the conclusions, which says: “use of data on the source of honey production, that is, access to honey plants, such as number of species, area and efficiency”.
Reviewer 1: When describing the data in Table 2, it would be worth adding that the variables were arranged in the order taking into account the correlation from the largest to the smallest. The criterion of the order of compiling the test results could also be given in the case of Table 4.
Answer: In the description, regarding tables 2 and 4, it was added: “The variables were arranged in order taking into account the correlation from highest to lowest.”
Reviewer 1: I would like to ask about the description of the abscissa and ordinate axes in Figure 3. Only the numbers on the axes are given, and it would be worthwhile to mention what they mean as well. From the paragraph under Figure 3, I could see that the x axis takes into account consecutive days, but it has to be written on the axes of individual graphs. The same remark, but concerning the description of the ordinate (y) axes only, also applies to the graphs presented in Figure 2. Apart from the description of individual axes, it would also be worthwhile to specify the units in which the parameters under consideration were expressed.
Answer: Thank you! The figures have been updated to meet this important suggestion.
Reviewer 1: I would like to ask, does the first graph in Figure 2, showing the changes in BW (Beehive Weight) over one year, include the receipt of honey from the hive? What is the point on the abscissa? Perhaps it is worth highlighting this point.
Answer: The authors are grateful for the suggestion. The hive weight variable actually encompasses the receipt of honey from the hive, however, the hive weight used in the study corresponds to the entire hive, without distinction of honey production, wax and number of bees. In addition, the data of the variable in question started to be measured when the hive was already producing. It is assumed that with increasing weight the hive increases the amount of honey stored. Therefore, it is not possible to highlight the point on the abscissa referring to the receipt of honey. This justification has been added to the text.
Reviewer 1: In the text, the Authors use the acronym BW, while Beehive Weight or hive weight is given in the full wording. In my opinion, it would be worth using one and the same full term in the text, i.e. Beehive Weight.
Answer: This was adjusted in the manuscript, as suggested by the reviewer.
Reviewer 2 Report
-It is necessary to include “beehive” in the title.
-The introduction should include some reference that supports the use of the "VAR" model.
-The tables are confusing, acronyms such as MiT, MaDP, etc, should be included as legends below the table.
-Improve and better describe figure legends.
-The results are generally confusing, improve them.
-With the study it should not be concluded conclusively that the maximum temperature would be the most important with 7.5%, it is a very low percentage, review.
-Check the bibliographic references, for example 4, the year and other necessary descriptions are missing.....
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewers for the relevant contributions to the manuscript. All suggestions were accepted and added to the revised submission.
Reviewer 2: It is necessary to include “beehive” in the title.
Answer: Thank you! The word “beehive” was added in the title.
Reviewer 2: The introduction should include some reference that supports the use of the "VAR" model.
Answer: The authors are grateful for the suggestion. Added some references to support the use of the VAR methodology.
Reviewer 2: The tables are confusing, acronyms such as MiT, MaDP, etc, should be included as legends below the table.
Answer: Subtitles have been added.
Reviewer 2: Improve and better describe figure legends.
Answer: Figure captions have been improved.
Reviewer 2: The results are generally confusing, improve them
Answer: Thank you! The results have been reviewed and corrected.
Reviewer 2: With the study it should not be concluded conclusively that the maximum temperature would be the most important with 7.5%, it is a very low percentage, review.
Answer: The text in the manuscript was adjusted to meet the suggestion. It was added: “Among the variables analyzed, the one that most impacted the weight of the hive, after 20 days, was the maximum temperature, with only 7.50%.”
Reviewer 2: Check the bibliographic references, for example 4, the year and other necessary descriptions are missing.....
Answer: References have been reviewed and adjusted. Thank you!
Reviewer 3 Report
The aim of this paper “is to explain the interrelationship between climatic 12
variables and the weight of an Apis mellifera beehive using vector autoregressive (VAR) model.”
Relevance: very relevant
The paper is “very relevant” due to the following elements:
- the subject is very well defined and tangible
- the technical aspects are well justified and detailed
The paper is significant due to the following arguments:
- the authors' original contribution is very clearly explained
- the used methods are well described
From a quality point of view, the manuscript is technically correct. The entire manuscript is well written. Meantime, new references can be added and a comparison of the obtained results vs data literature would be welcome.
Anyway, the paper can be used by any person desiring to become familiar with the field and to develop an interest regarding "interrelationships between climatic variables and the weight of an Apis mellifera hive."
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewers for the relevant contributions to the manuscript. All suggestions were accepted and added to the revised submission.
Reviewer 3: The aim of this paper “is to explain the interrelationship between climatic variables and the weight of an Apis mellifera beehive using vector autoregressive (VAR) model.”
Relevance: very relevant
The paper is “very relevant” due to the following elements:
the subject is very well defined and tangible
the technical aspects are well justified and detailed
The paper is significant due to the following arguments:
the authors' original contribution is very clearly explained
the used methods are well described
Answer: Thank you very much for the important considerations.
Reviewer 3: From a quality point of view, the manuscript is technically correct. The entire manuscript is well written. Meantime, new references can be added and a comparison of the obtained results vs data literature would be welcome.
Answer: The authors are grateful for the important considerations. No studies were found in the databases with data from beehives and econometric models, so the results were not compared with similar studies.
Reviewer 3: Anyway, the paper can be used by any person desiring to become familiar with the field and to develop an interest regarding "interrelationships between climatic variables and the weight of an Apis mellifera hive."
Answer: Thank you for the considerations.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments on the study have been raised, I think the work can be published. In my case, I accept the publication.
