Laboratory and Field Soil Tunneling/Tubing by Subterranean Termites in Response to 2-Phenoxyethanol

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Prescott et al. presented a study to explore the effects of 2-phenoxyenthanol (2-PE), an artificial trail pheromone of termites, and similar glycol esters on termite following behavior in variety of surfaces or soil. They also performed field trials to investigate the efficiency of using 2-PE for termite control. The study is well designed and clearly presented. Several figures require higher resolution and improved formatting. Enhancing figure quality will greatly aid interpretation of the results. Below are specific comments intended to improve the overall quality of the manuscript.

Line 13, delete “……”

Line 24, the extra space should be deleted

Line 38, The full genus name should be written out at its first mention, rather than using the abbreviation ‘C.’

Page 2, figure 1. A higher-quality chemical structure is needed.

Line 64, an extra space, delete it

Line 73, delete “.” Between traps and consisting, add a space between them as well

Line 132, add one space between at and 2

Line 154, add a space between had and evaporated

Line 183, add a space after “,”

Line 258, change “didd” to did

Page 7, Figure 2. The significance letters are not placed above the corresponding treatment/control bars. Please position each letter directly above the relevant column to avoid confusion. The figure includes an unnecessary background frame; it should be removed to improve clarity. Please clarify in the figure legend whether the error bars represent SD or SE.

Page 8, Figure 3. Same as above suggestions for figure 2. Please clarify whether the error bar is SD or SE in the figure legend.

Figure 4. Please remove the background frame; position each letter directly above the relevant column to avoid confusion. Clarify the error bar is SD or SE in the figure legend.

Figure 5. Please replace the ‘s’ used to indicate significant differences with the more standard ‘*’, which is commonly used for Student’s t-test results. Please consider removing the background frame from this figure as well.

Figure 6. Please see about suggestions for figure 5.

Line 327, delete the extra space before “was”

Figure 7. Please clarify the statistical analysis. It is not clear whether the authors used a Student’s t-test or ANOVA. If ANOVA was used, different letters should be used to indicate statistically significant differences.

Figures 8 &9. Please replace the ‘s’ used to indicate significant differences with the more standard ‘*’, which is commonly used for Student’s t-test results. Please consider removing the background frame from this figure as well.

Author Response

Comm: Several figures require higher resolution and improved formatting:

      Reply: Figures were revised and quality was improved

Comm: corrections on lines 13, 24, 38, figure 1, lines 64, 73, 132, 154, 183, 258

      Reply: Corrections made

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper by Prescott et al seems to be interesting, but still needs a lot of work. 

I would add the term paper trail assey in the titel, as this is waht you mainly did.

add USA to the addrsses, it is not clear.

end of siple summary: .... I dont understand this

In the abstarct it is not clear what was tested and for what species of termite, why and for what?

The introduction is quite short and does not give a lot of informations. 

objectives are better formulated as reseach questions...

It took me a long time to find out that the test were perfomed on two species of termites, on ein the lab, and one in the field. This is very confusing, what not both in the field and in the lab?

maybe figures of the test would help.

the figuers dont need to be so big. there is very limited information but a lot of figures.

significance is between treatments or only between treatment and control?

In the discussion you speak about integrated pest management, but this is the first time in the text and. this need more introduction and information, how your work adds to the field of IPM.

Author Response

Comm: I would add the term paper trail assey in the titel, as this is waht you mainly did.

     Reply: The paper contains both lab assays and field test

Comm: add USA to the addresses, it is not clear.

     Reply: Done

Comm: end of siple summary: .... I dont understand this

     Reply: Done

Comm: DoneIn the abstarct it is not clear what was tested and for what species of termite, why and for what?

     Reply: Done

Comm: The introduction is quite short and does not give a lot of informations. 

     Reply: Intro was improved

Comm: objectives are better formulated as reseach questions...

     Reply: Done

Comm: It took me a long time to find out that the test were perfomed on two species of termites, on ein the lab, and one in the field. This is very confusing, what not both in the field and in the lab?

Comm: maybe figures of the test would help.

     Reply: Description imporoved.  Paper already has many figures.

Comm: the figuers dont need to be so big. there is very limited information but a lot of figures.

     Reply: Figures were improved

Comm: significance is between treatments or only between treatment and control?

     Reply: Text added to clarify

Comm: In the discussion you speak about integrated pest management, but this is the first time in the text and. this need more introduction and information, how your work adds to the field of IPM.

     Reply: IPM is a well understood concept but rerely used in termite control, in the USA.  The use of attractants to imporove bait efficacy is part of IPM

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the current manuscript, the authors investigate 2-PE as an artificial trailing pheromone for Reticulitermes flavipes. The authors used multiple behavior experiments to demonstrate the efficacy of this chemical across multiple substrates. However, the way the manuscript is arranged makes it difficult to comprehend. 

1. The introduction is somewhat haphazardly arranged. A short paragraph about subterranean termites and why specific species were chosen will be helpful.
2. The purpose of selecting R. flavipes was not clear.
3. Line 258: change 'didd' to 'did'
4. Several grammatical mistakes and missed punctuation marks across the manuscript. The authors need to fix those. 
5. The figures are poorly done. Remove the gridlines. Make sure you use a font and font color that is easy on the eyes. In the figures, make sure the letters indicating statistical significance occur right above the error bars of the correct bars. Make axis ranges consistent across figures.
6. In the figures, show all data points. Also, mention 'n' and the statistical test performed in the figure legends.

Author Response

Comm: The introduction is somewhat haphazardly arranged. A short paragraph about subterranean termites and why specific species were chosen will be helpful

     Rep:  Introduction was improved as requested.

Comm: The purpose of selecting R. flavipes was not clear

   Rep: R. flavipes is well known as an important pest in Southern USA

Comm: Line 258: change 'didd' to 'did'

     Rep: done

Comm: Several grammatical mistakes and missed punctuation marks across the manuscript. The authors need to fix those. 

     Rep: manuscript completely revised.

Comm:  The figures are poorly done. Remove the gridlines. Make sure you use a font and font color that is easy on the eyes. In the figures, make sure the letters indicating statistical significance occur right above the error bars of the correct bars. Make axis ranges consistent across figures.

     Rep:  All figures were improved

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper focuses on 2-PE, which exhibits trail-following activity against subterranean termites. The authors compared the trail-following activity of 2-PE and its analogues using R. flavipes in multiple indoor tests. and also investigated the termite-attracting effect of 2-PE at four field sites where C. formosanus is distributed. Through these experiments, it has been demonstrated that inexpensive ２-PE is effective as both a termite attractant and control agent, resulting in interesting findings.　Based on the above, I think this paper would be considered to be fit for this journal after minor revision, although the notations in the figures are noticeably rough.

I would like to make simple suggestions. If you could revise the text based on these, I believe it would be suitable for publication in ‘Insects’.

 

[Comment]

1. Introduction

L13    There are multiple unnecessary periods added after the sentence.

 

L24    There is unnecessary space between ‘activity’ and ‘only’.

 

L28  <Order of Keywords>

List ‘Eastern subterranean termite’ before ‘Formosan subterranean termite’. Also, capitalize the first letter of both words (at least for Formosan).

 

L37-39　 When compared to the primary trailing pheromone for C. formosanus and Reticulitermes spp., the only similar chemical compositional trait is a primary alcohol group (Fig. 1) (LaPorte et al. 2003)

→　When compared to the primary trailing pheromone for C. formosanus and Reticulitermes spp. (Fig. 1), the only similar chemical compositional trait is a primary alcohol group (LaPorte et al. 2003)

 

2. Materials and methods

What was the temperature in the laboratory where each indoor test was conducted?

 

L148   Two hundred eastern subterranean termite workers  →　Two hundred workers

You have already mentioned that R. flavipes was used for the bioassays(L68).

 

L154   hadevaporated → had evaporated (need space between had and evaporated)

 

L180   Two hundred eastern subterranean termite workers  →　Two hundred workers

You have already mentioned that R. flavipes was used for the bioassays(L68).

 

L210   Two hundred adult termite workers  →　Two hundred workers

What does ‘adult’ mean in this sentence ?

 

L234  stations  alternated (double space)　→  stations alternated (single space)

 

L258  didd→ did

 

Figure 1

・Please remove the citation to Chen et al. (1998) here, since it could be misunderstood as implying that they identified (Z, Z, E)-3,6,8-dodecatrien-1-ol, and rewrite the chemical structure and scientific name of (Z, Z, E)-3,6,8-dodecatrien-1-ol. ‘Z, Z, E’ should be italicized.

 

Figure２,３,４

For each glycol ether compound, I recommend setting abbreviations as shown in the figure's footnotes (e.g., 2-PE: 2-Phenoxyethernol, 2-EE: 2-Ethoxyethernol) and clearly showing these abbreviations.

 

Figure 2 & Figure 4

・The positions of the letters indicating statistical analysis results (significant differences) are shifted to the left. Please align them as shown in Figure 3.

・“monoethyl ether” in “Diethylene glycol monoethyl ether” is missing.

 

Figure 5

Please add ‘Colony’ as an explanation for the horizontal axis.

 

Figure 6 & Figure7

・The positions of the letters indicating statistical analysis results (s) are shifted below. Please align them as shown in Figure 5.

 

Figure 7

There is a significant difference between T and C, but indicating TC in this figure makes the meaning of the significant difference unclear.  Isn't TC unnecessary?

Author Response

Comm: There are multiple unnecessary periods added after the sentence.

     Rep: Corrected.

There is unnecessary space between ‘activity’ and ‘only’.

     Rep: Corrected.

Comm: What was the temperature in the laboratory where each indoor test was conducted?

     Rep: Temperature added

Comm: You have already mentioned that R. flavipes was used for the bioassays(L68).

     Rep: corrected

Comm: hadevaporated → had evaporated (need space between had and evaporated)

      Rep: corrected

Comm: Two hundred eastern subterranean termite workers  →　Two hundred workers

     Rep: corrected

Two hundred adult termite workers  →　Two hundred workers

     Rep: corrected

What does ‘adult’ mean in this sentence ?

     Rep: corrected

stations  alternated (double space)　→  stations alternated (single space)

     Rep: corrected

Comm: didd→ did

     Rep: corrected

Comm: Figure 1. Please remove the citation to Chen et al. (1998) here, since it could be misunderstood as implying that they identified (Z, Z, E)-3,6,8-dodecatrien-1-ol, and rewrite the chemical structure and scientific name of (Z, Z, E)-3,6,8-dodecatrien-1-ol. ‘Z, Z, E’ should be italicized.

     Rep: Citation necessary because that is our source for the structure in the figure

Comm:  Figure２,３,. For each glycol ether compound, I recommend setting abbreviations as shown in the figure's footnotes (e.g., 2-PE: 2-Phenoxyethernol, 2-EE: 2-Ethoxyethernol) and clearly showing these abbreviations.

     Rep: corrected

Comm: Figure 2 & Figure 4. The positions of the letters indicating statistical analysis results (significant differences) are shifted to the left. Please align them as shown in Figure 3.

     Rep: corrected

Comm: “monoethyl ether” in “Diethylene glycol monoethyl ether” is missing.

     Rep: corrected

Comm: Figure 5: Please add ‘Colony’ as an explanation for the horizontal axis.

     Rep: Figures were redrawn.

Comm:Figure 6 & Figure 7: The positions of the letters indicating statistical analysis results (s) are shifted below. Please align them as shown in Figure 5.

Comm: Figure 7: There is a significant difference between T and C, but indicating TC in this figure makes the meaning of the significant difference unclear.  Isn't TC unnecessary?

Rep: Figures were revised

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper was improved.

Author Response

Comment: Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references.

Reply: Added extra information to manuscript.  Not much is available in the scientific literture on this subject

Comment: Is the research design appropriate.

Reply:  added information to improve undertanding.

Comment: Are the methods adequately described?

Reply: Description of methods is sufficient for anyone to replicate the experiment.  We added extra information on reason for the experiment and the implications of the results

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This current study demonstrates the efficacy of 2-PE as a chemoattractant in termites. The authors have addressed many of my concerns from the previous version and the current manuscript looks much better. However, I still have some comments:
1. It will be helpful to have a schematic of the different experiments performed
2. While introducing the different experiments in the results section the authors need to first state the purpose of doing a particular experiment
3. The authors need to mention the 'n' number and the statistical test performed in each figure legend. The legends also need to mention what are meant by the different alphabets.
4. The authors need to change all bar plots to scatter plots so that all data points can be seen.

 

 

Author Response

1. It will be helpful to have a schematic of the different experiments performed.

Ans: We feel that we have rewritten the description of the experiments so the purpose and sequence of the experiments is sufficient. We feel that adding 4 more figures to the manuscript, which already has 7 data figures, would be overkill.

 

2. While introducing the different experiments in the results section the authors need to first state the purpose of doing a particular experiment.

Ans: Normally the explanation of the experiments goes in the Mat. & Met. section. So we have placed the explanation there.  This suggested addition to the results section goes against the normal format for scientific literature.

3. The authors need to mention the 'n' number and the statistical test performed in each figure legend. The legends also need to mention what are meant by the different alphabets.

Ans: Number of reps have been added to the figures along with results of the statistical tests.

 

4. The authors need to change all bar plots to scatter plots so that all data points can be seen.

Ans: We have used of bar graphs with error bars because they are a well established and acceptable way to present data in the scientific literature. We do not understand what would be accomplished with such a change. The graphs are a correct representation of the data and should require no further modification. When one performs experiments, it is good practice  to use a sufficient number of repetitions so that one minimizes the error terms (bars), which is clearly the case in the experiments presented here.

Comment: Are the methods adequately described?

Reply: Methods clearly describe methods used.

Comment: Are all figures and tables clear and well-presented?

Reply: Figure quality was improved; Table quality was improved in previous round