Ecological Entomology: How Is Gibson’s Framework Useful?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript "Ecological entomology: How is Gibson’s framework useful?" is interesting, novel, and innovative. However, some minor corrections should be done. Also, please reduce the number of citations to reduce similarity. Professional language checking will benefit the paper.

Specific comments:

line 8: In the last century, Gibson developed the ecological approach …., in which

line 10: Gibson’s framework

line 16: “define scientific issues that extend current research” reformulate as the idea isn’t clear

line 18: remove “try” maybe suggest or something similar

line 26: a substitute for “can benefit”

lines 29-30: III – reformulate

The endings of the simple summary and the abstract couldn’t be identical

line 33:  ecological approach, perception, and action, low- and high order variables

lone 37: remove heavily

line 42: not “thanks” but “due”

lines 50-61: in this paragraph, there are many direct citations, maybe they can be rephrased to reduce the amount of similarity

line 81: “widens” what does this mean here?

line 110: the Gibson’s (correct in throughout the document)

lines 115-118: the same comment as above, the formulation of the III objective isn’t clear

line 154: not energy but the effort

line 157: reformulate the part of the sentence “Even if we chose, in the present review…”, as the word order and selection are not correct

line 160: “needed to control” it isn’t possible to say like this

line 172; Gibson,

line 267: performing

line 274: have described

line 518: substitute ”we have tried” demonstrate more power

 

 

 

Author Response

Please, see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this review, the authors present and describe Gibson's framework for understanding the link between perception and action. They pose this in the light of entomological studies and how such work could benefit from a united nomenclature. I think that the authors raise a very interesting and important point that several different channels of information are likely used to control flight and that these and their interactions should be considered and, to this end, I think that the paper is useful to the community of researchers working in this area.

While I do not think that the information in the review is flawed and that it is, with some editing, appropriate for publication, I am not sure it will achieve the aims of the authors for several reasons. I think that integrating/addressing the following points could improve the value of the work for the field. 1. Despite advocating for researchers to consider insect movement in light of the link between perception and action, the authors fail to address one of the important components that affect this association and that is how the animals move themselves. For example, the 3D movements of the animal are essential for understanding how visual information is being used, rather than the standard approach in the field, which is to average data over individual flights of bees (such as average flight speed) or over populations of flights. 2. There is no discussion of the importance of using naturalistic stimuli, despite the authors advocating for the consideration of all available cues. All insect visual systems have evolved and adapted to detecting movement in a 3D world, not a 2D one as is often used (and also presented in the review). I think that this paper would be more valuable if this aspect were addressed. Several works in the field have used 3D stimuli to try and address this issue but there is no mention of them in this review. For example Ravi et al. 2020 PNAS, Lecoeur et al. 2019 Scientific Reports, Ravi et al. 2019 J. Exp. B, Baird and Dacke 2012 J. Comp. Physiol.

 

Author Response

Please, see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf