Study on the Ecology, Biology and Ethology of the Invasive Species Corythucha arcuata Say, 1832 (Heteroptera: Tingidae), a Danger to Quercus spp. in the Climatic Conditions of the City of Sibiu, Romania

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Introduction unnecessarily and too widely describes the chronological spread of OLB in Europe, which is already described in Csóka et al. (https://doi.org/10.1111/afe.12362). Also, it does not indicate the aim of this research. It is not well written.

2. In the Results part you should only present the results of your research and not use citations from other research. Comparison to other similar research with your research belongs to the Discussion part.

3. Tables and graphs of the Results are unclear and hard to follow

5. Conclusion part does not follow results. It is confusing and does not indicate the main results. Also, it doesn't mention the temperature and climate conditions in correlation with OLB development, nor the determination of the extent of attack which was mentioned in the abstract

6. You claim that this paper aims to address gaps in knowledge about the OLB chronology of spread, ecology, ethology, and biology of the species, but through the paper, it is hard to read out what are the results and conclusions that support this.  Even in the conclusions it is not clearly indicated what was accomplished by this study.

7. Citations were not properly used

8. Some images are unclear

*other comments are in the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Should be improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

In response to your review of our research paper titled “Study on the ecology, biology and ethology of the invasive species Corythucha arcuata Say, 1832 (Heteroptera: Tingidae), a danger to Quercus sp. in the climatic conditions of the city of Sibiu, Romania” we appreciate your time and effort in providing feedback; however, we would like to contest certain aspects of your comments concerning the introduction section. We respectfully disagree with the assertions made and would like to present our counterarguments.

Respons to “1. Introduction unnecessarily and too widely describes the chronological spread of OLB in Europe, which is already described in Csóka et al. (https://doi.org/10.1111/afe.12362). Also, it does not indicate the aim of this research. It is not well written.”

• Unnecessary and Extensive Description of Chronological Spread of OLB in Europe:

You mentioned that the introduction unnecessarily and extensively describes the chronological spread of OLB in Europe, which has already been covered in Csóka et al. (https://doi.org/10.1111/afe.12362). However, we would like to clarify that our intention was not to duplicate or repeat extensively the information presented by Csóka et al. Rather, our objective was to provide a concise and contextualized overview of the historical development of the OLB in Europe. It is the most complex study and includes a chronology of the years in which the species was detected in each country. Also cited are all the articles that have covered the subject up to date. For the first time (figure 2) a map of the spread of the species in Romania is presented, marking all the counties (in dark gray) where the insect has been reported. This approach helps our readers understand the backdrop against which our research is situated and enhances the significance and relevance of our study. We have taken care to avoid unnecessary duplication and have referenced Csóka et al. appropriately to ensure that readers are aware of the related work in the field.

• Lack of Indication of the Research Aim:

You mentioned that the introduction does not indicate the aim of the research. We would like to respectfully disagree with this statement. In our introduction, we clearly state the aim and purpose of our research. We provide a succinct overview of our research objectives and the specific questions we seek to address throughout the study. By setting these research aims, we strive to guide the readers and orient them towards the focus and direction of our work.

 

• Writing Style and Clarity:

You commented that the introduction is not well written. We acknowledge that writing style is subjective and can vary based on individual preferences. However, we have taken great care to ensure clarity and coherence in our writing. We have sent this research paper to a native speaker in English language from England, former entomologist and Montana state USA, former Forest ranger expert that checked our academic writing, including clear topic sentences, aspects regarding the structure of our research, and appropriate transitions between paragraphs. We believe that the introduction effectively introduces the topic, provides necessary background information, and outlines the structure of the paper.

We value your feedback and understand that different perspectives can arise during the review process. However, we kindly request you to reconsider your assessment of the introduction section based on the explanations provided. We are committed to continuously improving the quality of our research paper and appreciate your contribution to this endeavor.

 

Respons to 2 “In the Results part you should only present the results of your research and not use citations from other research. Comparison to other similar research with your research belongs to the Discussion part.”

2.1. Use of Citations in the Results Section:

You mentioned that in the Results part, we should only present the results of our research and refrain from using citations from other studies. While we understand your viewpoint, we believe that there are instances where referencing relevant research in the Results section is essential for providing context, supporting our findings, and facilitating the readers' understanding.

Including citations in the Results section can provide background information to our readers to comprehend the significance of our findings, can highlight comparative analysis and validation of our findings corelating them with previous studies that reinforce the results by providing strength and credibility to our research. From this approach we aim to provide the readers with the advancements in the field so they can easily corelate the contribution made to the existing body of research.

2.2. Distinction between Results and Discussion:

You mentioned that the comparison of our research with other similar studies should be reserved for the Discussion section. While we understand the distinction you are making, it is worth noting that the demarcation between the Results and Discussion sections can vary depending on the research field and the specific requirements of the journal.

In some cases, it is appropriate and necessary to include limited comparative analysis within the Results section to provide clarity and a more comprehensive understanding of our findings. By discussing the relationship between our results and the existing literature, we can offer insights into the broader context and potential implications of our research.

However, we appreciate your perspective and will carefully reconsider the placement of any comparative analysis or citation usage based on your feedback. We will ensure that the Results section remains focused primarily on the presentation of our research findings, while any extensive discussion or interpretation will be appropriately shifted to the Discussion section.

Respons to “3. Tables and graphs of the Results are unclear and hard to follow”

Please let us know exactly to what tables and graphs are you referring to. All tables and figures are numbered accordingly and we understand the importance of ensuring clear and concise data presentation.

To address your concern, we have thoroughly reevaluated the design and layout of all the tables and graphs to check their clarity. We have paid particular attention to the following aspects:

1. Labeling and titles: All tables and graphs are labeled and titled to ensure they accurately and succinctly describe the presented data. Our labels are providing help to our readers in understanding the content and purpose of each visual element.
2. Formatting and organization: We have carefully assessed the formatting and organization of the data within the tables and graphs to support our aim to present the information in a logical and intuitive manner, allowing readers to easily interpret and compare the results.
3. Axes and legends: We checked that the axes of the graphs are properly labeled and that the legends clearly explain the variables or categories being represented. Our intention in each graph was to facilitate comprehension and enable readers to grasp the key messages conveyed by the visualizations.
4. Font size and style: The legibility of the text within the tables and graphs, including the font size and style are adequate to the journal template. We can not enlarge font size and styles.

 

Respons to “5. Conclusion part does not follow results. It is confusing and does not indicate the main results. Also, it doesn't mention the temperature and climate conditions in correlation with OLB development, nor the determination of the extent of attack which was mentioned in the abstract”

5.1. Alignment with Results:

You mentioned that the conclusion part does not follow the results and is confusing, failing to indicate the main results. We apologize if the conclusion section did not meet your expectations. However, we believe that the conclusion effectively summarizes the key findings of our research.

We have carefully structured the conclusion to provide a concise overview of the main results, emphasizing their significance and implications.

 

5.2. Temperature and Climate Conditions and Extent of OLB Attack:

You noted that the conclusion does not mention the temperature and climate conditions in correlation with OLB development, nor the determination of the extent of attack, which was mentioned in the abstract. We appreciate your feedback and understand the importance of addressing these aspects in the conclusion but we have already included a discussion of the temperature and climate conditions in correlation with OLB development in the conclusion and also in several other parts of the paper (see Ethology 3.3.) were we highlighted the relevant findings from our research and emphasize their implications in relation to these factors. Furthermore, we presented for the first time the equations of the development of this species in the climatic conditions of Sibiu. All these being reported at minimum, maximum and average temperatures. This mathematical model can be replicated in any area of the world where the species is identified by calculating minimum and maximum temperatures based on local climatic data

So we consider that the extent of OLB attack, as mentioned in the abstract, is appropriately addressed in the conclusion, providing a comprehensive summary of our study's outcomes.

Respons to “6. You claim that this paper aims to address gaps in knowledge about the OLB chronology of spread, ecology, ethology, and biology of the species, but through the paper, it is hard to read out what are the results and conclusions that support this. Even in the conclusions it is not clearly indicated what was accomplished by this study.”

6.1. Addressing Gaps in Knowledge:

We disagree with the notion that the paper fails to clearly communicate the results and conclusions that support our claim of addressing gaps in knowledge about the OLB chronology of spread, ecology, ethology, and biology. Throughout the paper, we have provided comprehensive research findings and analysis to fill these gaps.

In the introduction section, we have clearly stated the aim of our study, which includes addressing the aforementioned knowledge gaps. Subsequently, in the results section, we have presented detailed data, analyses, and discussions on various aspects of OLB, including its chronology of spread, ecology, ethology, and biology. These findings have been presented in a structured and organized manner, providing a clear narrative that contributes to advancing knowledge in these areas.

6.2. Clarity in Conclusions:

We respectfully disagree with the assertion that the conclusions fail to clearly indicate what was accomplished by this study. In our conclusions section, we have succinctly summarized the main findings of our research and their significance in addressing the gaps in knowledge. We have provided a clear outline of the advancements made in understanding the OLB chronology of spread, ecology, ethology, and biology, as well as their potential implications for future research and practical applications.

We believe that our conclusions accurately reflect the accomplishments and contributions of our study, and the clarity of these conclusions has been ensured through careful consideration and revision.

While we acknowledge that different interpretations may arise during the review process, we stand by the clarity and effectiveness of our paper in communicating the achievements and significance of our research. We are confident that our findings make a valuable contribution to the understanding of OLB and its various aspects.

Respons to “7. Citations were not properly used”

7.1. Proper Use of Citations:

You mentioned that citations were not properly used in our paper. We appreciate your feedback, and we take the appropriate use of citations seriously to ensure accuracy and integrity in our research. Please let us know exactly the citation that was not properly used. We have 87 citations and we have meticulously evaluated each citation in our paper and we did not note any instances where improper usage may have occurred. We have double-checked the citations, making sure they are formatted correctly, and cross-referencing the information presented.

We genuinely appreciate your feedback, as it helps us improve the quality and integrity of our research. Our commitment is to ensure that the use of citations in our paper aligns with the highest academic standards.

Respons to “8. Some images are unclear”

Please let us know exactly what image you consider unclear.

What we have done after your review:

8.1. Image Clarity:

We have taken great care to ensure the clarity of the images included in our research paper. We have employed appropriate resolution, quality, and formatting techniques to optimize the visual presentation of the images. Moreover, we have carefully selected and processed the images to enhance their clarity and readability. All our images have more than 300 ppi (which is the HD quality, 220 ppi is print quality)

8.2. Supporting Evidence:

To support our claim of image clarity, we have conducted internal assessments and sought feedback from multiple team members and colleagues. These evaluations confirm that the images in our paper are clear, appropriately labeled, and effectively contribute to the understanding and presentation of our research findings.

8.3. Technical Limitations:

It is important to consider that the perception of image clarity can be influenced by various factors, including the resolution of the display device used to view the paper, printing quality, and individual interpretation. We acknowledge that differences in personal viewing conditions may impact how the images are perceived.

 

We value your input and strive to meet the highest standards in presenting our research.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is quite interesting and look well written and detailed in the different parts. Also the data look properly analyzed. Some notes are reported on the attached paper

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The paper is quite interesting and look well written and detailed in the different parts. Also the data look properly analyzed. Some notes are reported on the attached paper

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for taking the time to review our paper titled “Study on the ecology, biology and ethology of the invasive species Corythucha arcuata Say, 1832 (Heteroptera: Tingidae), a danger to Quercus sp. in the climatic conditions of the city of Sibiu, Romania”. We greatly appreciate your positive feedback and your acknowledgment of the paper's interesting content, well-written structure, and detailed analysis of the data.

Your comments are encouraging and validate our efforts in conducting this research, which the collective of authors has been working on for over 2 years. Also, the novelty related to the thermal constants of the development of the species in the climatic conditions of our city can be replicated in other areas where the species is reported using the climatic data of the place.

We are also grateful that you have provided some additional notes on the attached paper. We have carefully reviewed the comments you have shared and will address them accordingly. Your valuable insights will help us further improve the quality and accuracy of our research.

Once again, we sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our paper. Your positive feedback boosts our motivation, and your constructive notes will undoubtedly contribute to enhancing the overall quality of our work. We will carefully consider and incorporate your suggestions as we revise the paper.

Thank you once again for your valuable contribution.

 

Best regards,

Cristina Moise

“Lucian Blaga” University of Sibiu, Romania

cristina.moise@ulbsibiu.ro

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

- It seems to me that the introduction needs to be improved. It has subsections, which can usually be done in review manuscript. Also, illustrations are not used in the introduction of the article. Figures 1 and 2 are the results for the review manuscript, not this article.

- The Materials section constantly contains phrases that are not related to this section (line 237, line 232, line 200, line 268, etc.). The authors need to clearly write down the research methods they used.

- Line 302-303. Are you sure that Figure 1 and Figure 11 are indicated correctly?

- Line 309-310. This is not your correlation data. Why do you cite this in your results?

- Subsection 3.1. provides known information about the morphology of the species. Why do I need to duplicate this information from other publications?

- The formulas and calculations are given in subsection 3.2. All formulas must be specified in the Methods.

- It seems to me that the manuscript is very overloaded with photographs of leaves that are attacked by insects. Does this make a lot of sense? In my opinion, photos of 2-3 leaves are quite enough to understand the picture of leaf damage.

- The whole discussion of the authors boils down to the effect of temperature on the development of the insect. However, other information is provided in the results. As a result, the discussion does not contain an analysis of all the results obtained.

- The conclusion should not be so extensive. The conclusion should contain brief conclusions from the research results.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

In response to your review of our research paper titled “Study on the ecology, biology and ethology of the invasive species Corythucha arcuata Say, 1832 (Heteroptera: Tingidae), a danger to Quercus sp. in the climatic conditions of the city of Sibiu, Romania” we appreciate your time and effort in providing feedback; however, we would like to contest certain aspects of your comments concerning the introduction section. We respectfully disagree with the assertions made and would like to present our counterarguments.

1/ Response to “It seems to me that the introduction needs to be improved. It has subsections, which can usually be done in review manuscript. Also, illustrations are not used in the introduction of the article. Figures 1 and 2 are the results for the review manuscript, not this article.”

We would like to address your comments while also considering the input provided by another reviewer concerning the introduction and the specific figures mentioned.

Subsections in the Introduction:

You mentioned that the introduction contains subsections that are more commonly seen in review manuscripts. While we understand your point, we respectfully disagree with the notion that subsections are inappropriate for an original research article. Subsections are often used in research papers to present the background, context, and objectives of the study in a structured and organized manner. They aid in improving the readability and flow of information, enabling readers to navigate the content more effectively. We believe that the use of subsections in our introduction enhances the clarity and coherence of our research paper. Our subsection referred to documenting the chronology of OLB spread in Europe and then OLB in Romania.

Use of Illustrations:

You noted that Figures 1 and 2 were indicated to be introduced in the introduction part by another reviewer. We appreciate your attention to this matter. After careful consideration of both reviewers' feedback, we consider that the placement and relevance of the figures align with the content and purpose of the introduction section. If necessary, we will make adjustments to the introduction and the placement of the figures to ensure consistency and coherence throughout the paper.

We value the feedback from both reviewers and understand the importance of presenting a well-structured and cohesive introduction section. Our aim is to provide a clear and concise overview of the research objectives, background, and context, while also appropriately utilizing figures and illustrations to support and enhance the information presented.

2/ Response to “The Materials section constantly contains phrases that are not related to this section (line 237, line 232, line 200, line 268, etc.). The authors need to clearly write down the research methods they used.”

We would like to provide further clarification on this matter.

2.1. Research Methods:

In our Materials section, we have outlined the research methods employed to study the spread of OLB in Sibiu. We apologize if there were any instances where the connection between the mentioned phrases and the Materials section was not explicitly clear. Allow us to provide a more concise and direct explanation of our research methods:

1. a) Monitoring and Data Collection: Starting from the summer of 2021 and throughout 2022, we monitored OLB in Sibiu, focusing on its biology, ecology, and ethology. We conducted 18 site observations (P1-P18) in various locations, including parks, green areas, and urban districts (specifically mentioned in the text). During these observations, we collected data on OLB presence, attack intensity (percentage of attacked leaves), and spatial distribution.
2. b) Attack Severity Assessment: To determine the severity of OLB attack, we assessed the degree of leaf discoloration, using a scale based on the normal unaffected leaf color. We made sure to exclude any discoloration caused by factors other than OLB, such as other insect species, diseases, or physiological causes.
3. c) Ethological Studies and Spread Observation: Over the course of two years, we conducted ethological studies, documenting temperature accumulation at each developmental stage and the number of observed generations. We also witnessed the natural adult spread of OLB in all 18 observational districts during the summer of 2022, with adults being transported by air currents, clothing, or vehicles.

2.2. Clarity and Structure:

We understand the importance of providing a clear and concise description of our research methods. We consider that the Materials section provides a more streamlined and direct account of the methods employed in our study. We ensured that the connection between the mentioned phrases and the Materials section is explicitly stated, enhancing the overall clarity and coherence of the paper.

We appreciate your diligence in reviewing our paper and highlighting areas where we can improve. Your feedback is instrumental in enhancing the quality and effectiveness of our research.

 3/ Response to “Line 302-303. Are you sure that Figure 1 and Figure 11 are indicated correctly?”

We appreciate your attention to detail and would like to address your question regarding the correct indication of Figure 1 and Figure 11. After careful consideration, we agree with your observation and would like to clarify the reference to these figures.

In the specific section of our manuscript, there was an oversight in the numbering of the figures mentioned. We apologize for the confusion caused by this error. Upon review, we have identified the correct figures that should be referenced in the mentioned lines. The correct references should be as follows:

Line 302: The correct figure reference is Figure 3, not Figure 1.

Line 303: The correct figure reference is Figure 13, not Figure 11.

We acknowledge our mistake and appreciate your diligence in pointing out this discrepancy. We have rectified this error in the revised version of our manuscript to ensure accuracy and clarity for future readers.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention, and we apologize for any confusion or inconvenience caused by this oversight. We genuinely value your feedback, as it helps us improve the quality and accuracy of our research.

We have also verified the rest of the figure referred in the text and made the rectification of errors in the revised version.

4/ Response to “Line 309-310. This is not your correlation data. Why do you cite this in your results?”

Thank you for your review and your comment regarding the citation in our results section. We appreciate your feedback, and we would like to provide clarification on the matter.

In our research article, we cited a specific reference (73) in the results section to support and validate our observational findings on the preference of OLB adults for certain tree species and their abundance in specific areas. We understand your concern that this may not be considered direct correlation data.

However, the citation serves a valuable purpose in our paper for the following reasons:

Validation of Findings: By referencing the cited article, we demonstrate that our findings align with previous studies that have reported similar preferences of OLB adults for specific tree species. This supports the validity and generalizability of our observations.

Comparison and Discussion: The citation allows for a meaningful comparison and discussion of our results with those reported in the cited article. It provides a broader context for understanding the patterns and factors influencing OLB abundance and preference for certain tree species in the studied areas.

Supporting Interpretation: The cited reference aids in supporting the interpretation of our results by providing additional evidence for the relationship between OLB abundance and leaf water content. This strengthens the scientific basis for our conclusions and enhances the overall robustness of our findings.

Demonstrating Awareness of the Field: Including relevant citations in the results section demonstrates our engagement with the existing literature and our awareness of the broader scientific discourse surrounding OLB ecology and behavior. It shows that we have considered and integrated relevant studies into our research.

While we acknowledge that the citation may not directly represent correlation data, its inclusion serves to provide valuable support and context for our findings. We believe that the citation contributes to the overall scientific rigor and integrity of our research.

5/ Response to “Subsection 3.1. provides known information about the morphology of the species. Why do I need to duplicate this information from other publications?”

The inclusion of known information about the biology of the species C. arcuata in our subsection 3.1 serves several important purposes:

1/ Background Knowledge: By including this information, we aim to provide readers with essential background knowledge about the biology of C. arcuata. This allows readers to understand the fundamental aspects of the species' biology before delving into the specific findings and results of our study.

2/ Establishing Context: Providing information about the biology of C. arcuata helps to establish the context for our study. It allows readers to understand the ecological niche, behavior, and life cycle of the species, which in turn provides a framework for interpreting our research findings.

3/ Setting Research Objectives: The information about the biology of C. arcuata helps to establish the specific research objectives and questions addressed in our study. It clarifies the gaps in knowledge that we aim to fill and the contributions our research makes to the understanding of the species' biology.

4/ Comparisons and Contrasts: Understanding the biology of C. arcuata is crucial for making meaningful comparisons and contrasts with other studies. It enables us to highlight unique aspects of our research and identify similarities or differences with previous findings, ultimately contributing to the broader scientific discourse.

5/ Supporting Interpretation: Knowledge of the species' biology is often relevant for the interpretation of our results. It helps to explain certain observations or patterns observed in our study and provides a scientific basis for drawing conclusions.

 

We acknowledge that some information about the biology of C. arcuata may be available in other publications. However, providing a concise summary within our manuscript allows readers to access the necessary information without needing to refer to external sources. Additionally, it ensures that our research paper is self-contained and provides all relevant details for readers to understand our study in its entirety.

6/ Response to “- The formulas and calculations are given in subsection 3.2. All formulas must be specified in the Methods.”

In our Materials and Methods section (lines 248 and 263), we provided an overview of the methodology and mentioned the formulas and calculations used for analyzing the data.

7/ Response to “It seems to me that the manuscript is very overloaded with photographs of leaves that are attacked by insects. Does this make a lot of sense? In my opinion, photos of 2-3 leaves are quite enough to understand the picture of leaf damage.”

Thank you for your feedback regarding the number of photographs included in our manuscript. We respectfully disagree with your suggestion that the manuscript is overloaded with photographs of insect-attacked leaves. We believe that all the included photographs are necessary and serve specific purposes to enhance the understanding of our research findings. Allow us to explain the significance of each photograph:

Figure 4: This figure presents microscope images of sessile oak leaves at different stages of the OLB life cycle, providing visual evidence of the progression and development of the insect.

Figure 5: These microscope images showcase the nymph stage 4 of OLB on oak leaves from various observation points, highlighting the distribution and prevalence of the insect in different areas.

Figure 6: These microscope images depict sessile oak leaves at different stages of the OLB life cycle, demonstrating the morphological changes and growth patterns of the insect.

Figure 7: This figure displays microscope images of oak leaves at different stages of OLB nymphs and adults, offering insights into their appearance and behavior.

Figure 8: These microscope images showcase the adult stage of OLB on oak leaves from various observation points, illustrating the mature form and characteristics of the insect.

Figure 9: These photographs depict the presence of OLB eggs and adults on sessile oak leaves at different times, emphasizing their seasonal occurrence and impact.

Figure 10: This figure demonstrates the degree of attack by OLB adults on sessile oak leaves, providing a visual representation of the extent of damage caused by the insect.

Figure 11 and Figure 12: These photographs show the attack on oak leaves from different perspectives and dates, capturing the progressive damage inflicted by OLB over time.

Figure 13: This figure displays the extent of attack on oak leaves by OLB nymphs and adults, quantifying the level of damage and highlighting the impact on leaf health.

Each photograph serves as visual evidence and supports the observations and conclusions presented in our study. They contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the OLB infestation and its effects on the host trees. By including these photographs, we aim to provide a clear and illustrative representation of our research findings.

We believe that the inclusion of these photographs is essential for the readers to grasp the visual aspects of our study, particularly regarding the appearance, life cycle, and damage caused by OLB. The photographs effectively supplement the textual information and contribute to the overall scientific value of our manuscript.

We kindly request that you reconsider your observation regarding the number of photographs. We are confident that their inclusion significantly enhances the quality and comprehensibility of our research findings. However, we are open to any specific suggestions or modifications you may have regarding the presentation of these photographs.

 

8/ Response to “The whole discussion of the authors boils down to the effect of temperature on the development of the insect. However, other information is provided in the results. As a result, the discussion does not contain an analysis of all the results obtained.”

We appreciate your attention to the effect of temperature on the development of the insect and your observation regarding the discussion section. We would like to address your concern and clarify the purpose and focus of our discussion.

While it is true that the effect of temperature on the development of the insect is a central aspect of our study, we would like to emphasize that our discussion encompasses more than just this particular topic. We understand that the reviewer might have expected a comprehensive analysis of all the results obtained, but it is important to note that our discussion was designed to highlight the novelty and implications of our findings.

One of the main contributions of our study is the determination of the thermal constants for the development of the OLB species in the climatic conditions of our city. This information provides valuable insights into the adaptation and behavior of the species in our specific region. However, we also believe that these thermal constants have broader implications and can be applied to other areas where the species is reported.

By discussing the thermal constants and their significance, we aim to emphasize the generalizability of our findings and the potential for replication in other regions. We highlight the relevance of using climatic data from specific locations to estimate the thermal constants and predict the development patterns of OLB in those areas. This aspect of our discussion opens up avenues for further research and practical applications in pest management strategies.

We intentionally focused on the thermal constants as a key finding and its potential implications for a wider geographical context. We believe that this approach strengthens the novelty and practical relevance of our study.

9/ Response to “The conclusion should not be so extensive. The conclusion should contain brief conclusions from the research results.”

We would like to provide some explanations for the current structure and content of our conclusion.

The conclusion section serves as a summary and synthesis of the main findings and implications of our research. While we understand that in some articles the conclusions are more concise as you expected in this section, we included in our conclusion section all the key aspects of our study that were adequately addressed and conveyed to the readers.

Our research on OLB aimed to investigate various aspects of the species, including its biology, Ecology of OLB, Ethology of the species C. arcuate, population dynamics, and the influence of temperature on its development. Through our study, we made important observations and derived significant conclusions that contribute to the existing knowledge on OLB.

In the conclusion section, we have provided a concise summary of the major findings from each aspect of our research. This includes insights into the preferred tree species, abundance patterns in different areas, correlation with leaf water content, and the impact of temperature on the OLB's life cycle. By presenting these conclusions in a more comprehensive manner, we aim to ensure that readers have a holistic understanding of our research and its implications.

The conclusion section highlights the importance of early detection and control measures to prevent further spread of OLB. We acknowledge that OLB poses a serious threat to both forest ecosystems and urban green spaces, causing significant damage to tree health and aesthetics. We express concern about the future of Quercus stands in Sibiu County, particularly noting the high level of infestation observed during our study period.

To address the challenges posed by OLB, we emphasize the need for ongoing research, biosecurity measures, and support from relevant authorities. We recognize the urgency of finding effective control methods and preventing the further spread of the beetle.

Overall, while the conclusion section may be relatively extensive, we believe it adequately summarizes the key findings of our research and underscores the importance of addressing the OLB invasion in Sibiu.

Furthermore, we believe that our conclusion provides a valuable synthesis of our results and their significance in the context of pest management and ecological studies. This allows researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to grasp the broader implications of our research and consider its applicability in similar contexts or regions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

thank you for the detailed response to my assessment of your paper. With some aspects I still disagree, but I also made some mistakes while reviewing. I agree that different perspectives can arise during the review process and subjective preferences shouldn't be a key point in the paper evaluation. You have put in a lot of effort and that is why I decided to accept your manuscript for publication.

Kind regards.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors. I appreciate the time you have taken to correct your manuscript. My opinion remains the same. The submitted manuscript cannot be published. It requires a very serious revision. In my opinion, it would be better if you rewrite the manuscript again.