Monitoring and Signaling of the Most Important Aphid Species in the Territory of Greater Poland and Silesia Provinces

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is monitoring the migration of aphids, it can provide some information if the author can analysis the data better. Some comments or suggestions as follow.

1. Abstract should be rewritten. Abstract is a short summary of your work, it should be including the main information of your manuscript. The abstract looks like introduction, have no main results, no conclusion, and no significance of the article.

2. Table 1 and 2, the “V”, “VI ” in table representative May and June? It should be explained in the note.

3. Only last two short paragraphs of “Results and Discussion” section are belong to discussion. Author should be discussion more.

4. Figure 1 and 2 are not explaining in the result section, only mention in discussion. Figure 1 and 2, author recording the aphids number from May to October, how to separate those 6 months into spring, summer, and autumn? Author could be present the data of captured aphids every month, then we know which month is the migration month.

Author Response

This study is monitoring the migration of aphids, it can provide some information if the author can analysis the data better. Some comments or suggestions as follow.
Point 1: Abstract should be rewritten. Abstract is a short summary of your work, it should be including the main information of your manuscript. The abstract looks like introduction, have no main results, no conclusion, and no significance of the article.

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment – abstract was rewritten.

Point 2: Table 1 and 2, the “V”, “VI ” in table representative May and June? It should be explained in the note.

The table has been rewritten.

Point 3: Only last two short paragraphs of “Results and Discussion” section are belong to discussion. Author should be discussion more.

The discussion has been corrected.    

Point 4: Figure 1 and 2 are not explaining in the result section, only mention in discussion. Figure 1 and 2, author recording the aphids number from May to October, how to separate those 6 months into spring, summer, and autumn? Author could be present the data of captured aphids every month, then we know which month is the migration month.

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment – information has been added to the discussion.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript by Roik et al. on “Monitoring and signaling of the most important aphid species using Johnson suction trap in 2019-2023 on the territory of Greater Poland and Silesia Provinces” presents information on sampling for the abundance of aphids using the Johnson suction trap to enable early detection and forecasting of these insects.

Abstract

The abstract lacks a lot of information such as the results or findings of the study as well as the significance of the findings. These should be provided.

Introduction

Before zeroing in on the usage of the Johnson suction trap, the authors should provide brief background information on other sampling methods, including other (modified) traps used for this purpose. Afterwards, a justification for the usage of the Johnson trap should be stated before presenting the objective.

Materials & Methods

The insect data should be transformed before performing an analysis of variance. Information on the experimental fields and their environs should be provided. Is there a distinguishing feature between both sites/fields? Were both fields or their immediate environs under cultivation? If one or both were under cultivation, the type of crop(s) on the field and its immediate environs should be stated. A picture of the trap in position should be provided.

Results & Discussion

Roman numerals in Tables 1 & 2 should be defined as footnotes beneath the tables. The data on the principal component analysis (lines 117 – 119) was not presented in the manuscript even though it was stated in the paper that this is in Table 3. The data in the current Table 3 does not present the principal component analysis.

The number of species in the various dominance classes in lines 140 – 142 is incorrect and differs from what is in the table (Table 3).

The data presented in Figures 1 & 2 is aphid numbers/abundance and not flight activity, hence the figure titles should be revised to reflect same.

Grid lines in the figures should be deleted.

Conclusion

The conclusion should not be bulleted unless this style is preferred by the journal.  

General comments

There are several errors in typography and spacing in the manuscript as indicated in the attached reviewed manuscript. These should be corrected. Other comments and corrections have also been indicated in the reviewed manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The manuscript by Roik et al. on “Monitoring and signaling of the most important aphid species using Johnson suction trap in 2019-2023 on the territory of Greater Poland and Silesia Provinces” presents information on sampling for the abundance of aphids using the Johnson suction trap to enable early detection and forecasting of these insects.
Point 1: Abstract
The abstract lacks a lot of information such as the results or findings of the study as well as the significance of the findings. These should be provided.

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment – abstract was rewritten.

Point 2: Introduction
Before zeroing in on the usage of the Johnson suction trap, the authors should provide brief background information on other sampling methods, including other (modified) traps used for this purpose. Afterwards, a justification for the usage of the Johnson trap should be stated before presenting the objective.

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment – introduction was corrected. 

Point 3: Materials & Methods
The insect data should be transformed before performing an analysis of variance. Information on the experimental fields and their environs should be provided. Is there a distinguishing feature between both sites/fields? Were both fields or their immediate environs under cultivation? If one or both were under cultivation, the type of crop(s) on the field and its immediate environs should be stated. A picture of the trap in position should be provided.

The insect data were normally distributed. Therefore, there was no need to transform them, since all the conditions required for analysis of variance were met.

Results & Discussion
Point 4: Roman numerals in Tables 1 & 2 should be defined as footnotes beneath the tables. The data on the principal component analysis (lines 117 – 119) was not presented in the manuscript even though it was stated in the paper that this is in Table 3. The data in the current Table 3 does not present the principal component analysis.

We have changed the Roman numerals to the names of the corresponding months. We have corrected this fragment of the manuscript. An error crept into the previous version. The results of the principal component analysis are presented in Figure 1.

Point 5: The number of species in the various dominance classes in lines 140 – 142 is incorrect and differs from what is in the table (Table 3).
Corrected.

Point 6: The data presented in Figures 1 & 2 is aphid numbers/abundance and not flight activity, hence the figure titles should be revised to reflect same.

Corrected.

Point 7: Grid lines in the figures should be deleted.

Corrected.

Point 8: Conclusion
The conclusion should not be bulleted unless this style is preferred by the journal.

Corrected.

Point 9: General comments
There are several errors in typography and spacing in the manuscript as indicated in the attached reviewed manuscript. These should be corrected. Other comments and corrections have also been indicated in the reviewed manuscript.
peer-review-41060035.v1.pdf

Thank you for pointing this out. Manuscript was corrected.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Some parts of the manuscript should be rewritten!

Check and correct the English language!

Title

The title should be shorter. The title does not need to include part of Materials and Methods (type of traps and years of monitoring).

Abstract

Lines:13-18: These sentences are general for the abstract. It can be written in the introduction.

Line 25: Please, include the most important results in the abstract.

Introduction

I suggest that authors use relevant literature, in English, available and readable to scientists worldwide!

Lines 29-30: This is general sentence.

Lines 32-33. Aphids are vectors of viruses, not of diseases. Viruses cause diseases.

Line 33. “Indirect pests usually cause greater yield losses than direct pests” you mean “Indirect damages are usually greater than direct”?

Lines 37-39:

“764 taxa (species and subspecies), distributed over 167 genera were recorded to date from Poland to 2015” (Wojciechowski, W., Depa, Ł., Kanturski, M., Wegierek, P., & Wieczorek, K. (2015). An annotated checklist of the Aphids (Hemiptera: Aphidomorpha) of Poland. Polish Journal of Entomology, 84(4).) About 100 - 150 species of aphids are economically important pests worldwide (Blackman and Eastop, 2022).

Use relevant literature, in English, please!

Materials and methods

Line 66: The keys for alate aphids are not the same as the keys for apterae! Reference no. 15 is the only appropriate one. Blackman R.L., Eastop V.F. Aphids on the Words Crops, an Identification and Information Guide, Second Edition. The Natural History Museum, London 2000, 466. is for apterae aphids.

Lines 77-78: Why have you used these statistical analyses?

The localities, as well as their specificities (the surrounding effects, the weather conditions) all have an impact on the development of the aphids and on the difference in their abundance.

Results and Discussion

I suggest that the authors write first about the total number of aphids in the traps, and then about the flight. What is the proportion of these ten aphids in the total number of individuals collected?

Line 88 “The 10 most dangerous aphid species” you mean “The 10 economically important aphid species in this study”?

Line 90: Why did you choose these 10 species? Anoecia corni is not an economically important aphid like the other nine. I understand that it is not difficult to identify the winged forms of this species.

In Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4: “Aphis frangulae i Aphis nasturtii Kalt.” - Aphis frangulae Kalt. and Aphis nasturtii Kalt.

Line 149: “divergent species”? or dioecious? See literature by Blackman and Eastop!!!!

Lines 157 and 160: “Comparison of apid flight activity during the spring, summer and autumn in 2019-2023…

-aphid not apid.

-Total no of aphids in traps, or total no of 10 economically important species?

The figures need to be explained in a more precise and detailed manner.

Conclusions

Conclusions are not now.

Several monitoring of aphids in Europe shows similar results.

Line 176: This conclusion is general!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language must be improved!

Author Response

Point 1: Some parts of the manuscript should be rewritten!

Thank you very much for your guidance. The manuscript has been rewritten.

Point 2: Check and correct the English language!    

Thank you very much for your guidance. The manuscript was checked by our translater.

Point 3: Title
The title should be shorter. The title does not need to include part of Materials and Methods (type of traps and years of monitoring).

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment – title  was rewritten.

Abstract
Point 4: Lines:13-18: These sentences are general for the abstract. It can be written in the introduction.

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment – abstract was rewritten.

Point 5: Line 25: Please, include the most important results in the abstract.

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment – abstract was rewritten.

Introduction
Point 6: I suggest that authors use relevant literature, in English, available and readable to scientists worldwide!

Corrected 

Point 7: Lines 29-30: This is general sentence.

Corrected.

Point 8: Lines 32-33. Aphids are vectors of viruses, not of diseases. Viruses cause diseases.

Corrected.

Point 9: Line 33. “Indirect pests usually cause greater yield losses than direct pests” you mean “Indirect damages are usually greater than direct”?

Corrected.

Point 10: Lines 37-39:
 “764 taxa (species and subspecies), distributed over 167 genera were recorded to date from Poland to 2015” (Wojciechowski, W., Depa, Ł., Kanturski, M., Wegierek, P., & Wieczorek, K. (2015). An annotated checklist of the Aphids (Hemiptera: Aphidomorpha) of Poland. Polish Journal of Entomology, 84(4).) About 100 - 150 species of aphids are economically important pests worldwide (Blackman and Eastop, 2022).

Corrected.

Materials and methods
Point 11: Line 66: The keys for alate aphids are not the same as the keys for apterae! Reference no. 15 is the only appropriate one. Blackman R.L., Eastop V.F. Aphids on the Words Crops, an Identification and Information Guide, Second Edition. The Natural History Museum, London 2000, 466. is for apterae aphids.

Corrected 

Point 12: Lines 77-78: Why have you used these statistical analyses?

The aforementioned statistical analyses were conducted to determine the significance (or lack thereof) of the effects of individual differentiating factors (year of research and location) on the number of aphids. Since the interaction of these two factors is a very important aspect, a two-way analysis of variance with interaction was conducted.

Point 13: The localities, as well as their specificities (the surrounding effects, the weather conditions) all have an impact on the development of the aphids and on the difference in their abundance.

Remark added to the text

Results and Discussion
Point 14: I suggest that the authors write first about the total number of aphids in the traps, and then about the flight. What is the proportion of these ten aphids in the total number of individuals collected?

Corrected.

Point 15: Line 88 “The 10 most dangerous aphid species” you mean “The 10 economically important aphid species in this study”?

Corrected.

Point 16: Line 90: Why did you choose these 10 species? Anoecia corni is not an economically important aphid like the other nine. I understand that it is not difficult to identify the winged forms of this species.

Studies of this type have been conducted at the Institute for several decades. In order to maintain continuity of the results, 10 aphid species were selected that have been determined in samples since the beginning of the study.

Point 17: In Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4: “Aphis frangulae i Aphis nasturtii Kalt.” - Aphis frangulae Kalt. and Aphis nasturtii Kalt.

Corrected.

Point 18: Line 149: “divergent species”? or dioecious? See literature by Blackman and Eastop!!!!

Corrected.

Point 19: Lines 157 and 160: “Comparison of apid flight activity during the spring, summer and autumn in 2019-2023…

Corrected.

Point 20: -aphid not apid.
Corrected.

Point 21: -Total no of aphids in traps, or total no of 10 economically important species?
Corrected.

Point 22: The figures need to be explained in a more precise and detailed manner.

Corrected.

Conclusions
Point 23: Conclusions are not now.
The conclusions section has been rewritten.
Point 24: Several monitoring of aphids in Europe shows similar results.
Corrected.

Point 25: Line 176: This conclusion is general!
The conclusions section has been rewritten.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Lines 131, “Table 1-2” should be “Tables 1-2”

Line 134, 165,254 should be “165253” according to “Winna Gora - 73526 and Sosnicowice 134 - 91727”

Line 136, delete one “.” behind “in Sosnicowice”;

Line 140, delete “(V)” and “(VI)”.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please find a native English speaker to refine the manuscript. I'm not a native Engligsh speaker, but found some places are easy misunderstanding.

Author Response

Thank you for pointing this out. Manuscript was corrected and checked by a specialist translator.

Thank you for pointing this out. Manuscript was corrected and checked by a specialist translator.

Lines 131, “Table 1-2” should be “Tables 1-2”
Corrected.
Line 134, 165,254 should be “165253” according to “Winna Gora - 73526 and Sosnicowice 134 - 91727”
Corrected.
Line 136, delete one “.” behind “in Sosnicowice”;
Corrected.
Line 140, delete “(V)” and “(VI)”.
Corrected.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My comments on the revised manuscript by Roik et al. are as below.

Abstract

The authors should rearrange the abstract. The background should not follow the objective of the study. It should rather be the reverse. Also, all the methodologies should be stated before stating the results.

Materials & Methods

Indicate the major crop species that were/are cultivated within about 5 – 10 km of each study site.

Results & Discussion

Support the statement that the 10 indicated species are the 10 most economically important aphid species in the area/country with a citation(s).

In lines 141-142, the statement on the specificities is unsupported by the analysis/findings since the location specificities such as the surrounding effects were not measured and then analysed to determine their impact on aphid species and population.

General comments

Rephrasing of some sentences should be done as indicated in lines 51, 54 and 55. Citations should also be provided for lines 63-67 and 220-222.  Errors in typography and grammar have been indicated for correction by the authors.

Other comments and corrections have been indicated in the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

•    Abstract
The authors should rearrange the abstract. The background should not follow the objective of the study. It should rather be the reverse. Also, all the methodologies should be stated before stating the results.

Corrected.

•    Materials & Methods
Indicate the major crop species that were/are cultivated within about 5 – 10 km of each study site.
Corrected.
•    Results & Discussion
Support the statement that the 10 indicated species are the 10 most economically important aphid species in the area/country with a citation(s).
Corrected.

In lines 141-142, the statement on the specificities is unsupported by the analysis/findings since the location specificities such as the surrounding effects were not measured and then analysed to determine their impact on aphid species and population.
During the years of the study, the course of meteorological conditions was not strictly documented. The paper includes average values for Poland, which did not differ significantly from those found in the study locations.

Corrected.
•    General comments
Rephrasing of some sentences should be done as indicated in lines 51, 54 and 55. Citations should also be provided for lines 63-67 and 220-222.  Errors in typography and grammar have been indicated for correction by the authors.
Corrected.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I suggest that authors use relevant literature, in English, available and readable to scientists worldwide!

Author Response

Thank you for pointing this out. Manuscript was corrected.

New literature items in English  have been added to the manuscript.