Gallery Architecture and Reproductive Strategy of Ips hauseri (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in a Picea schrenkiana Forest: Implications for Population Dynamics Under Outbreak Conditions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I have enjoyed reading your manuscript. In my opinion, it is a valuable and well-prepared work, requiring only minor (mainly technical) corrections (see PDF).
I suggest adding illustrations from the supplementary materials directly to the text. This will make it easier for readers to understand.
I cannot find the diagram with seven branches (type VII) in Figure S3.
Like any well-conducted experiment, this work raises new questions (this is not a problem):
Do you see a relationship between the body size of a particular female and the size of the gallery she created?
What factor determined which female occupied a more favorable position than others?
The differences in fecundity between Ips typographus and I. hauseri require a much more detailed explanation.
Ips hauseri galleries have already been described (e.g., by Parfentieva 1951); could you comment on them?
Sincerely,
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I suggest adding illustrations from the supplementary materials directly to the text. This will make it easier for readers to understand.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We agree that including the relevant illustrations from the supplementary materials in the main text will improve readability. Accordingly, we have now integrated these figures into the appropriate sections and revised the corresponding descriptions accordingly. We believe these changes enhance the clarity of the manuscript.
I cannot find the diagram with seven branches (type VII) in Figure S3.
Response:Thank you for pointing this out. We have added a schematic diagram of the Type VII gallery to Figure S3.
Do you see a relationship between the body size of a particular female and the size of the gallery she created?
Response:Thank you for your question. In this study, we did not directly quantify the body length of female individuals within specific galleries. Body size estimates were based on a limited number of adults. While smaller body size may limit excavation capability, this remains a hypothesis that requires direct testing.(Pages 15, Lines 483-486)
What factor determined which female occupied a more favorable position than others?
Response:Thank you for your question. Several non‑exclusive mechanisms may determine which females occupy more favorable flanking positions, including arrival order, male mate choice or spacing behavior, and female–female competition based on size or aggression. Our data do not directly resolve these factors; however, the strong correlation between female number and maternal gallery count (Fig. 2b) suggests that males do not limit female access. Controlled experiments manipulating arrival sequence and female traits are needed to disentangle these mechanisms.(Pages 16, Lines 534-541)
The differences in fecundity between Ips typographus and I. hauseri require a much more detailed explanation.
Response:Thank you for your insightful comment. We agree that the differences in fecundity between Ips typographus and I. hauseri warrant a more detailed explanation. In the revised manuscript, we have now expanded the discussion to address five potential factors: (1) female body size, (2) colonization density effects, (3) host condition (e.g., phloem quality under drought stress), (4) pressure from natural enemies and competitors, and (5) evolutionary history shaping different life-history strategies. While our current data do not fully disentangle these mechanisms, we hope this more comprehensive discussion provides a clearer framework for understanding the observed fecundity gap.(Pages 15, Lines 488-594;Pages 16, Lines 495-504)
Ips hauseri galleries have already been described (e.g., by Parfentieva 1951); could you comment on them?
Response:Thank you for your comment. We acknowledge that I. hauseri galleries were previously described by Parfentieva in the 1950s. Our observations extend those early reports; discrepancies may reflect geographic or temporal variation, outbreak‑induced shifts toward larger harems, or our more intensive sampling and quantitative approach. Parfentieva’s foundational description lacked detailed morphometrics and ecological analyses, whereas our study provides the first comprehensive, quantitative characterization of gallery architecture and its determinants in I. hauseri. Thus, our work both corroborates and substantially expands upon those earlier findings.(Pages 14, Lines 408-414)
better genus instead beetles
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We agree that using the genus name is more appropriate in this context. We have revised the manuscript accordingly.(Pages 2, Lines 52)
add author and year
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have now added the author name and year in the revised manuscript as indicated.(Pages 2, Lines 61)
Dendroctonus ponderosae (Hopkins, 1902)
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have now added the author name and year in the revised manuscript as indicated.(Pages 2, Lines 64)
Picea schrenkiana
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have italicized the Latin scientific names in the revised manuscript.(Pages 4, Lines 136)
the
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the corresponding revision.(Pages 5, Lines 189)
There is no gallery with 7 branches in supplementary file.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have added it to Figure S3.
space
Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the corresponding revision.(Pages 13, Lines 392; Pages 14, Lines 394)
Did you measured the female's body length? Is it possible, that gallery length corresponds with the body size of female?
Response:Thank you for your question. In this study, we did not directly quantify the body length of female individuals within specific galleries. Body size estimates were based on a limited number of adults. While smaller body size may limit excavation capability, this remains a hypothesis that requires direct testing.(Pages 15, Lines 483-486)
Have you observed larval competition on I. hauseri?
Response:Thank you for your question. We did not directly observe agonistic interactions among larvae (e.g., physical combat or cannibalism) in I. hauseri. However, the pronounced differences in daughter gallery dimensions between central and flanking positions provide strong indirect evidence of competitive suppression.(Pages 16, Lines 521-526)
I propose moving this chapter to Material & Methods
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have moved this section to Materials and Methods.(Pages 4, Lines 149)
Chin. Bull. Entomol.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the corresponding revision.(Pages 18, Lines 632)
Curr. For. Rep.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the corresponding revision.(Pages 18, Lines 635)
- Econ. Entomol.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the corresponding revision.(Pages 19, Lines 644)
Rev. for. fr.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the corresponding revision.(Pages 19, Lines 648)
Zool. J. Linn. Soc.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the corresponding revision.(Pages 19, Lines 650-651)
Ecol. Entomol.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the corresponding revision.(Pages 19, Lines 652)
New Phytol.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the corresponding revision.(Pages 19, Lines 655)
Entomol. Gen.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the corresponding revision.(Pages 19, Lines 659)
- Anim. Ecol.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the corresponding revision.(Pages 19, Lines 661)
1,
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the corresponding revision.(Pages 19, Lines 665)
For. Ecol. Manag.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the corresponding revision.(Pages 19, Lines 672)
- Exp. Biol.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the corresponding revision.(Pages 19, Lines 679)
Pest Manag. Sci.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the corresponding revision.(Pages 19, Lines 683)
For. Ecol. Manage.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the corresponding revision.(Pages 19, Lines 684)
Rev. for. fr.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the corresponding revision.(Pages 20, Lines 695)
Bull. Entomol. Res.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the corresponding revision.(Pages 20, Lines 702)
- Appl. Entomol.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the corresponding revision.(Pages 20, Lines 704)
439–454
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the corresponding revision.(Pages 20, Lines 704)
- Pest Sci.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the corresponding revision.(Pages 20, Lines 707)
Holarct. Ecol.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the corresponding revision.(Pages 20, Lines 712)
–
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the corresponding revision.(Pages 20, Lines 633、644、653、695、698、700、702、712)
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsINTRODUCTION
The introduction is lengthy. The authors should reduce the number of unnecessary words/sentences to make it more readable. Please see specific comments below:
L16-17: diverse type of gallery structures
L22-29: Author guidelines directly say do not use headings. See below: We strongly encourage authors to use the following style of structured abstracts, but without headings:
Please: delete “ (1) Background; (2) Methods; (3) Results; (4) Conclusions
L47: delete “fundamentally”
L53: delete “inextricably”
L55: delete “, while a marvel of insect engineering,” A manuscript should be objective. Avoid using subjective expressions, which are not appropriate for scientific writing.
L65: Dendroctonus ponderosae should be italicized
L70: Central to the population ecology of bark beetles is their reproductive behavior and gallery construction strategy. The structure of the above sentence makes it hard to understand. Please rephrase.
L71-73: Delete “The gallery system is not merely……. Environmental constrains”
L84: Dacquin et al. [?] what is the number of this citation.
L87-89: Delete “effectively bypassing the Allee effect…. Colonizing populations”
L92-93: “an area of active research” instead of “a fertile area for investigation”
L94-95: delete “yet one shrouded in relative obscurity”. Again, these expressions are not scientific writing.
L97-98: If it has long been considered a significant pest, its status is shifting towards what? secondary pest? The word significant already implies it is a highly important pest. Please clarify.
L108: delete “the existing literature provides only fragmentary information.” This is already implicit in the sentence above.
L122-123: delete “addressing these questions…… management imperative”
L126: “provide” instead of “yield”
METHODS
L149: Coordinates should be given N to E or N to W. Please correct.
L157: Picea schrenkiana should be italicized
TABLE 1. Please use a caption that is more descriptive. Perhaps is better to use words such as “sparse” or “moderate” accompanied by the percentage of canopy density. Something more descriptive than numbers.
TABLE 2. Standard sampling is not a correct table caption. Captions should be self-explanatory, please rewrite.
TABLE 2. Columns “Number of sampled plants”, “Sampling location” and “Take the number of gallery”. All these columns display only one type of information, which was already explain in the paragraph above. Please delete.
TABLE 2. “DBH range”. Hypothetically, what happens if DBH is exactly 10? or 15? or 20? Where would you put it? Please be more explicit with your ranges. See the description you have in the paragraph above.
L215: “the” instead of “t he”
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The authors mentioned that four different plots and two complementary sampling approaches were used. Suddenly, these two very important factors are missing from the analysis. My questions are:
Did the authors combine all four plots or were the plots analyzed independently? If these were combined, the authors must indicate there were no significant differences among the plots. There is no indication of that. Also, what happened to the two approaches? Were they also combined? This needs to be clarified in the statistical analysis.
L267: Which one is it? One-way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis test? Kruskal Wallis is a non-parametric test used when the data is not normally distributed such as counts.
L278-279: I don’t think June 2024 to September 2024 indicate a prolong oviposition period. I would think this is more about the seasonality of the beetles. You can determine oviposition period if you are conducting fertility life table parameters and this is not the case.
TABLE 3. “gallery width” instead of “gallery wide”.
Also, what does egg laying amount/grain mean? Number of eggs laid? What’s grain??
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
INTRODUCTION
L16-17: diverse type of gallery structures
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the corresponding revision.(Pages 1, Lines 16-17)
L22-29: Author guidelines directly say do not use headings. See below: We strongly encourage authors to use the following style of structured abstracts, but without headings:
Please: delete “ (1) Background; (2) Methods; (3) Results; (4) Conclusions
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have removed the corresponding content.
L47: delete “fundamentally”
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have removed the corresponding content.
L53: delete “inextricably”
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have removed the corresponding content.
L55: delete “, while a marvel of insect engineering,” A manuscript should be objective. Avoid using subjective expressions, which are not appropriate for scientific writing.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have removed the corresponding content.
L65: Dendroctonus ponderosae should be italicized
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the corresponding revision.(Pages 2, Lines 63-64)
L70: Central to the population ecology of bark beetles is their reproductive behavior and gallery construction strategy. The structure of the above sentence makes it hard to understand. Please rephrase.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the sentence for clarity.(Pages 2, Lines 67-68)
L71-73: Delete “The gallery system is not merely……. Environmental constrains”
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have removed the corresponding content.
L84: Dacquin et al. [?] what is the number of this citation.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have placed the corresponding reference citation after the text.(Pages 2, Lines 76)
L87-89: Delete “effectively bypassing the Allee effect…. Colonizing populations”
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have removed the corresponding content.
L92-93: “an area of active research” instead of “a fertile area for investigation”
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have modified the description accordingly, and the revised version is more appropriate for the article.(Pages 2, Lines 83)
L94-95: delete “yet one shrouded in relative obscurity”. Again, these expressions are not scientific writing.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have removed the corresponding content.
L97-98: If it has long been considered a significant pest, its status is shifting towards what? secondary pest? The word significant already implies it is a highly important pest. Please clarify.
Response:Thank you for your comment. We agree that the original phrasing was unclear. We have revised the sentence to clarify that while I. hauseri has long been regarded as a locally important pest, its status is shifting from a chronic, low‑level threat to an increasingly frequent and severe outbreak agent under climate warming and prolonged host stress. The revised wording better reflects this change in outbreak dynamics rather than a change in pest categorization.(Pages 2, Lines 87-89)
L108: delete “the existing literature provides only fragmentary information.” This is already implicit in the sentence above.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have removed the corresponding content.
L122-123: delete “addressing these questions…… management imperative”
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have removed the corresponding content.
L126: “provide” instead of “yield”
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have replaced "yield" with "provide".(Pages 3, Lines 109)
METHODS
L149: Coordinates should be given N to E or N to W. Please correct.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the corresponding revision.(Pages 3, Lines 125)
L157: Picea schrenkiana should be italicized
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have italicized the Latin scientific names in the revised manuscript.(Pages 4, Lines 136)
TABLE 1. Please use a caption that is more descriptive. Perhaps is better to use words such as “sparse” or “moderate” accompanied by the percentage of canopy density. Something more descriptive than numbers.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have replaced the title accordingly, using appropriate terminology and including the canopy density percentage.(Table 1)
TABLE 2. Standard sampling is not a correct table caption. Captions should be self-explanatory, please rewrite.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have replaced it with a more explanatory title.(Table 2)
TABLE 2. Columns “Number of sampled plants”, “Sampling location” and “Take the number of gallery”. All these columns display only one type of information, which was already explain in the paragraph above. Please delete.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have removed the corresponding content.(Table 2)
TABLE 2. “DBH range”. Hypothetically, what happens if DBH is exactly 10? or 15? or 20? Where would you put it? Please be more explicit with your ranges. See the description you have in the paragraph above.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have redefined the host DBH range to address the assignment of certain threshold values.(Pages 5, Lines 177-178; Table 2)
L215: “the” instead of “t he”
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the corresponding revision.(Pages 5, Lines 189)
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Did the authors combine all four plots or were the plots analyzed independently? If these were combined, the authors must indicate there were no significant differences among the plots. There is no indication of that. Also, what happened to the two approaches? Were they also combined? This needs to be clarified in the statistical analysis.
Response:Thank you for your question. We have now clarified in the revised Statistical Analysis section that prior to pooling, we tested for differences among plots and between sampling methods. No significant differences were detected (one-way ANOVA and t-tests, P>0.05), so data from all plots and both methods were combined for subsequent analyses.(Pages 7, Lines 242-247)
L267: Which one is it? One-way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis test? Kruskal Wallis is a non-parametric test used when the data is not normally distributed such as counts.
Response:Thank you for your question. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified the statistical tests used. For comparisons between two groups (e.g., maternal gallery direction, central vs. flanking positions), we applied independent‑samples t‑tests after verifying normality and homogeneity of variance. For multi‑group comparisons (e.g., among sampling plots), we used one‑way ANOVA when assumptions were met, and the Kruskal–Wallis test otherwise. These details are now clearly stated in the Statistical Analysis section.(Pages 8, Lines 264-268)
L278-279: I don’t think June 2024 to September 2024 indicate a prolong oviposition period. I would think this is more about the seasonality of the beetles. You can determine oviposition period if you are conducting fertility life table parameters and this is not the case.
Response:Thank you for your comment. We agree that the original phrasing was inaccurate. The period from June to September 2024 reflects the seasonal activity period of I. hauseri in this region, not a prolonged oviposition period. We have revised the sentence accordingly.(Pages 5, Lines 213-214)
TABLE 3. “gallery width” instead of “gallery wide”.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the corresponding revision.(Table 3)
Also, what does egg laying amount/grain mean? Number of eggs laid? What’s grain??
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have corrected the incorrect expression to refer to the number of eggs laid.(Table 3;Table 4)
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease find below some comments and suggestions for improvement:
Line 40: Repetition of the species name in the keywords could be avoided, as it is already included in the title. Please consider replacing it with alternative terms that provide complementary information, for example bark beetles or common name of the species.
Lines 58- 93: Although these paragraphs are informative, the Introduction could be shortened and simplified to improve clarity and flow. At present, it is overly long and difficult to follow.
Lines 115- 121: Please consider shortening this paragraph and, if appropriate, incorporating its content into the objectives section. At present, it appears repetitive and could be streamlined for clarity.
Lines 122- 129: Please consider moving this paragraph to the Discussion section.
Line 157: Please format the Latin name of the species in italics.
Tables 1, 2: It is noted that slashes (/) are used in place of parentheses ( ) in the tables and figures. It is recommended to use parentheses, as the current notation may be potentially misleading.
Line 248: Please provide references for the software used, specifically R and GraphPad Prism, in accordance with journal guidelines.
Lines 273-279: Please make the Results section more concise and consider moving this paragraph to the Materials and Methods section.
Figure 1: Please use consistent units on the X and Y axes to facilitate interpretation of the differences. Additionally, include indications of statistical significance, if applicable. It is unclear why the graph for Type VII is not presented. It is recommended to use parentheses (see previous comment).
Figure 2: a) Please include indications of statistical significance, if applicable. Check the labelling order in the figure. Currently, in the text a) represents the correlation, whereas b) shows the proportion.
Line 310: It is suggested moving this below and prioritising the presentation of the results.
Figure 3: Please provide details on the statistical test used, clarify the meaning of *,***, and n.s., specify that the values are presented as mean ± SD and include the nomenclature for the different galleries to ensure clarity and facilitate understanding of the figure. It is recommended to use parentheses (see previous comment).
Figures 4, 5, 6: Please review the comments provided for the previous figure and apply the same improvements to this figure to ensure consistency and clarity. Please use consistent units on the Y axis to facilitate interpretation of the differences.
Table 3: Please ensure that the reader can clearly understand the meaning of the different letters used to indicate significant differences, and specify the statistical test employed. It is recommended to use parentheses (see previous comment).
Figure 7: Please review the comments provided for the previous figure and apply the same improvements to this figure to ensure consistency and clarity. Please provide clarification for **** and nd to ensure the reader clearly understands their meaning.
Line 423: Schlyter and Zhang are cited, but the reference number (27) is placed at the end of the sentence. Please ensure that the reference number is inserted immediately following the authors’ names; for example: Schlyter and Zhang (27). Please ensure this formatting is applied consistently throughout the text in accordance with the MDPI reference guidelines.
Lines 530-544: Please consider rewriting this section as a continuous paragraph to improve readability and fluidity.
Figure S1: Please consider adding additional information to Supplementary Figure S1, such as the study location and the type of vegetation, to allow readers to readily understand the context without the need to consult the main text.
Figure S2: Please add the letter labels and their corresponding explanations in the text, so that the gallery system at the different stages of Ips hauseri colonization can be more easily understood.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Line 40: Repetition of the species name in the keywords could be avoided, as it is already included in the title. Please consider replacing it with alternative terms that provide complementary information, for example bark beetles or common name of the species.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have replaced "Ips hauseri" with "bark beetles" in the keywords.(Pages 1, Lines 40)
Lines 58- 93: Although these paragraphs are informative, the Introduction could be shortened and simplified to improve clarity and flow. At present, it is overly long and difficult to follow.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have condensed some paragraphs in the introduction for clarity.(Pages 2, Lines 57-83)
Lines 115- 121: Please consider shortening this paragraph and, if appropriate, incorporating its content into the objectives section. At present, it appears repetitive and could be streamlined for clarity.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have condensed this section and integrated it with the subsequent content.(Pages 3, Lines 106-119)
Lines 122- 129: Please consider moving this paragraph to the Discussion section.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have moved this content to the Discussion section.(Pages 17, Lines 574-577)
Line 157: Please format the Latin name of the species in italics.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have italicized the Latin scientific names in the revised manuscript.(Pages 4, Lines 136)
Tables 1, 2: It is noted that slashes (/) are used in place of parentheses ( ) in the tables and figures. It is recommended to use parentheses, as the current notation may be potentially misleading.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the corresponding revision.(Table1, Table2)
Line 248: Please provide references for the software used, specifically R and GraphPad Prism, in accordance with journal guidelines.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the corresponding reference for the software used.(Pages 19, Lines 686; Pages 19, Lines 687-690)
Lines 273-279: Please make the Results section more concise and consider moving this paragraph to the Materials and Methods section.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have simplified this section and moved it to the Materials and Methods section.(Pages 5, Lines 193-195; Pages 5, Lines 200,206; Pages 8, Lines 274-281)
Figure 1: Please use consistent units on the X and Y axes to facilitate interpretation of the differences. Additionally, include indications of statistical significance, if applicable. It is unclear why the graph for Type VII is not presented. It is recommended to use parentheses (see previous comment).
Response:Thank you for your suggestions regarding Figure 1. We have revised the figure to use consistent units on the X and Y axes for easier interpretation. Regarding the indication of statistical significance, it is not applicable to this figure because, the data presented are descriptive.Type VII gallery occurred at very low frequency in the field and were therefore not included in this study.(Figure 1;Pages 8, Lines 284-285)
Figure 2: a) Please include indications of statistical significance, if applicable. Check the labelling order in the figure. Currently, in the text a) represents the correlation, whereas b) shows the proportion.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have corrected the captions for Figures a and b.Regarding the indication of statistical significance, it is not applicable to this figure because, the data presented are descriptive.(Figure 2;Pages 9, Lines 303-306)
Line 310: It is suggested moving this below and prioritising the presentation of the results.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have moved some parameters to the legend of Figure 3 to make the Results section clearer.(Pages 10, Lines 316-318)
Figure 3: Please provide details on the statistical test used, clarify the meaning of *,***, and n.s., specify that the values are presented as mean ± SD and include the nomenclature for the different galleries to ensure clarity and facilitate understanding of the figure. It is recommended to use parentheses (see previous comment).
Response:Thank you for your suggestions regarding Figure 3. We have revised the legend to clarify the statistical test used (Chi‑square goodness‑of‑fit), the significance indicators (*, **, ***, ns), that values are percentages, and the alphanumeric nomenclature for gallery types. Parentheses have been applied as recommended.(Pages 10, Lines 315-328)
Figures 4, 5, 6: Please review the comments provided for the previous figure and apply the same improvements to this figure to ensure consistency and clarity. Please use consistent units on the Y axis to facilitate interpretation of the differences.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised Figures 4, 5, and 6 as suggested earlier, including labeling the statistical test methods used and applying consistent units on the vertical axes.Parentheses have been applied as recommended. (Figures 4, 5, and 6; Pages 10, Lines 337-338; Pages 11, Lines 351-352; Pages 12, Lines 368-371)
Table 3: Please ensure that the reader can clearly understand the meaning of the different letters used to indicate significant differences, and specify the statistical test employed. It is recommended to use parentheses (see previous comment).
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the note for Table 3 as follows: "Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Different lowercase letters within the same column indicate statistically significant differences among gallery types (one‑way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s HSD post-hoc test, P<0.05). Groups sharing the same letter are not significantly different." Parentheses have been used as recommended.(Pages 12, Lines 362-365)
Figure 7: Please review the comments provided for the previous figure and apply the same improvements to this figure to ensure consistency and clarity. Please provide clarification for **** and nd to ensure the reader clearly understands their meaning.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised Figure 7 for consistency with previous figures, clearly indicating that independent‑samples t‑tests were used. The legend now explains the significance asterisks (ns, nd, *, **, ***, ****) and their corresponding P‑values. Parentheses have been applied as recommended.(Pages 14, Lines 394-395)
Line 423: Schlyter and Zhang are cited, but the reference number (27) is placed at the end of the sentence. Please ensure that the reference number is inserted immediately following the authors’ names; for example: Schlyter and Zhang (27). Please ensure this formatting is applied consistently throughout the text in accordance with the MDPI reference guidelines.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have inserted the citation numbers immediately after the author names and ensured that this format is used consistently throughout the manuscript.(Pages 15, Lines 447)
Lines 530-544: Please consider rewriting this section as a continuous paragraph to improve readability and fluidity.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have merged this section into a single paragraph.(Pages 17, Lines 585-593; Pages 18, Lines 594-596)
Figure S1: Please consider adding additional information to Supplementary Figure S1, such as the study location and the type of vegetation, to allow readers to readily understand the context without the need to consult the main text.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have added information about the study site and vegetation type to the Figure S1 legend.(Pages 3, Lines 129-131)
Figure S2: Please add the letter labels and their corresponding explanations in the text, so that the gallery system at the different stages of Ips hauseri colonization can be more easily understood.
Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have added letter labels and their corresponding explanations in Figure S2.(Pages 6, Lines 216-219)
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for addressing the comments.
