Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study aims to study the effect of climate, season, and pest management against the fruit fly species Bactrocera oleae population dynamic. However, I have concerns about every part of the manuscript that needs significant revision, especially on the material and methods, results, and discussion marked on the pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for the comments. We have improved every part of the paper, especially the "material and methods" and the "discussion" as you can see in the revised version. The specific revisions are marked in the uploaded file.

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors analyzed the trap data of Bactocera oleae (Diptera: Tephridae) in the Samos Island for presenting the strategy of pest management in the olive production. I understand the necessary of authors' study, however, it is difficult for me to understand the core message and essence of authors' study. I also found many misses of description of units.  English expressions were complicated. I feel that the manuscript is unsuitable for the publication. 

I recommend that authors try to use the generalized additive mixed model (GAMM) for performing model analysis of your studies. The number of trapped B. oleae would be fluctuated during seasons, as same as other pest insects. 

I described the reference that applied the GAMM analysis for trapped insects.

Sudo et al. (2021). Time-course in attractiveness of pheromone lure on the smaller tea tortrix moth: A generalized additive mixed model approach. Ecological research 36: 603-616.

Frost et al. (2013). Seasonal patterns of aster leafhopper (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) abundance and aster yellows phytoplasma infectivity in Wisconsin carrot fields. Environmental Entomology 42: 491-502.

Requier et al. (2017). The carry-over effects of pollen shortage decrease the survival of honeybee colonies in farmlands. Journal of Applied Ecology 54: 1161-1170.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 I found that many sentences were the verbiage in this manuscript. authors sometimes used colloquialisms in the manuscript, and wordy expression in some sentences. It is difficult for me to understand the core message and essence of authors' study.  

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your comments. The paper intends to study the population dynamics of the olive fly in three consecutive seasons for the whole island of Samos and reflect on the pest management practices applied today and how these can be improved by taking into account these dynamics and factors that influence them. We have revised the objectives in the new version of the paper and we hope that now the core message and essence of our study will be clearer. We also checked and revised the English used in the paper. We hope that the revised version is improved. 

The analysis that is proposed can not be readily applied to our case study for three reasons:

(a) it refers to completely different orders than the flies (diptera) with different biology and ecology (the ones mentioned in the papers refer to hemiptera, lepidoptera and hymenoptera).

(b) The type of measurements that we have in our case study is not suitable for the model proposed as the different generations overlap and the calculation of the insects in each generation is impossible. The first generation of adults immerse from pupae in the ground and it can last up to 2 months depending on the conditions in the specific fields. Adults mature when the olive fruits become suitable (the pit hardens) and accessible for ovulation by the females again depending on weather conditions and altitude. The extensive movement of adults in the landscape complicates the issue even further.

(c) The population present at one time point is correlated with subsequent populations, but the degree of fertile infestations is also a key factor, depending again on the quality of the olive fruit, therefore again weather conditions.    

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Well-written and interesting manuscript dealing with a complex topic, pointing at future pest management options based on extended knowledge of the population dynamics of the olive fly. It also highlights important gaps in the knowledge of the olive fly.

Minor comments

ln109 'the last 10 days'. Please verify or correct the statement.

Ln152. Change OLF to OFF.

The biggest challenge in this project/manuscript is analysing and presenting the effects of different control measurements. M&M descibes how you analyse the effects; and it makes sense to do this on a 10 days basis and compare to subsequent 10 days periods. In Table 4 you have two numbers in each column. Do that represent treated and untreated, respectively? Please define that in the table text. You should consider to add a figure, which graphically could visualize the effects.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for the comments. We appreciate your assessment of our manuscript. We have addressed the minor comments in the revised text, including comments on Table 4. 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I thank the authors for revising the manuscript. However, I still find that some parts need to undergo further correction to make it clear and easy to understand. Please see each comment and or suggestion I made in the attached PDF.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

English needs to be checked by a professional editor.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you again for the detailed work on our manuscript. Most of the remarks have indeed contributed into improving it. In the appended paper the changes are noted in red colour. We have followed all the remarks on the Introduction, Methods and Data and Results. In the Discussion the comment reads: 

"The discussion looks like the repetition of Introduction, Method and Result.

A discussion should emphasize and explain the results of your study. Then, use the literature to support the explanations and conclusions of your results.  

The basic structure of the discussion should be:
Restatement of hypothesis
Review of your results
Explanations and support of your results (including references to other studies).
Limitations of your study
Generalizations of the implications of your results.
Applications, recommendations, and/or further studies."

The Discussion is structured into four parts. "4.1. Relevance of the approach", where we restate the objectives and the approach and discuss how we treated them, including limitations (that are also discussed in 4.4). Then sections "4.2. Temporal patterns of OFF populations" and "4.3. Spraying" review the results and discuss them in relation to the literature (more than 20 references are used). Section "4.4. OFF population management" provides generalization and implications for management and recommendations that are laid down very clearly.  Therefore, we merely improved the language and touched the text here and there.

The same is true in our opinion for the Conclusions. In them, we have attempted to provide insights for an international reader and one that is unfamiliar with our case study and pest. Again, we have reworded some phrases, but not made radical changes.

Some more details:

line 327 in revised text: We refer to Table S2 in the Supplementary Material

 

 

 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the quick revision. The ms now is acceptable, but please check 315-316, where the author said there is no significant effect on the result, but the result in Table 5 is pretty good. Also, table 5 needs to be cited in the text.

I am not a native English speaker. However, I think this manuscript needs to be checked by a professional editor.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

The text now in l. 315- reads:

"The findings of the linear mixed-effects models (Table 5) that combined many of the aforementioned explanatory variables on OFF numbers in the traps of our network did not show some significant results when all explanatory variables were included (altitude, sprayed, olive infestation levels, fly numbers after 10 days, fly numbers after 20 days, fly numbers after 30 days and their interactions)"

We included in table 5 only the separate variables for all of which we have significant results. The combinations did not show significant results save for the two we have in the Table. We feel that the text reflects this and kept it as it was.

Then the text changed into this:

"The removal of the 20- and 30-days fly numbers and infestation levels improved the reliability of the results."