Egg masses as training aids for spotted lanternfly Lycorma delicatula detection dogs

Jennifer L. Essler; Sarah A. Kane; Amanda Collins; Kaley Ryder; Annemarie DeAngelo; Patricia Kaynaroglu; Cynthia M. Otto

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0250945

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 21, 2021
16 Feb 2021 Decision Letter - Ramzi Mansour, Editor PONE-D-21-02181 Egg masses as a training aid for spotted lanternfly (Lycorma delicatula) detection dogs PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Essler, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== Throughout the manuscript, the authors focused more on the dogs used to detect egg masses of the spotted lanternfly, but they forgot in some parts to highlight important aspects supported by relevant references (biology, behavioral ecology, host plants,...) linked to the invasive insect, target of the present study. This might be obvious (but not sufficient to reach article acceptance) considering the authors are not entomologists. Therefore, it is mandatory to make major revisions regarding this issue through using correct entomological terms and aspects, adding all missing info, and deleting redundant and confusing statements. Furthermore, the potential field effectiveness (and possible natural constraints) of the detection method being investigated here should be discussed by the authors. All reviewers' comments are stated below. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 02 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Ramzi Mansour Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: 02/04/2021 Spotted lanternfly (SLF) is an exotic pest of various agricultural and forest crops in North America. The current research deals with the potential of dogs in the detection of the egg masses. It’s an exciting small study that could offer a new tool for the fast and reliable survey of this pest. It should be of interest to this journal. However, the entire manuscript suffered from the lack of discipline in writing. Mistakes in the description of SLF biology will also need to be corrected before it can be considered for publication. Major concerns: 1. Write scientifically by using clear and concise sentences. Stay focus on the subject matter for each paragraph. Exclude unrelated information. Don’t mix up information from different subjects, e.g., information belongs to Material and Methods should not be included in Results, etc. I have made some suggestions below, but more thorough editing is needed to improve the manuscript. 2. Understanding none of the authors were trained in entomology, critical review of the manuscript from a qualified entomologist is strongly recommended to ensure proper use of nomenclature and correct description of other facts about this pest. 3. The introduction portion of SLF biology (ln 55-72) need a complete overhaul, with the first paragraph focus on hosts and damages, and the second paragraph on life cycle and egg stage. 4. SLF egg masses are mostly found on tree trunks and upper branches, with a small proportion on stones and other nonliving substrates on the ground. I do not see canines being actively used to detect egg masses in real field situations. Maybe more useful in cargo and commodity inspections as part of the quarantine enforcement? 5. How do you match the controls? Ideally, you should match target odor with control odor from the same tree species for both dead and live egg masses. Was that how you set up the trials? More explanation is needed. Specific comments: 1. No need to credit photos taken by one of the co-authors. 2. ln 1. Should be “Egg mass” not “Egg Masses”. 3. ln 33-34. Awkward writing. Rephrase please. 4. ln 56. “Vietnam”. Not true anymore. Delete. 5. ln 57. “eating the phloem”. Not true. SLF is a sap feeder. Also, there is no need to include the definition of phloem. 6. ln 58-60. Awkward writing. Rephrase please. 7. ln 65. Confusing. 8. ln 84-86. This does not belong here. Move to the last paragraph n introduction as part of the study objectives. 9. ln 109-111. This should be included in the “Ethics Statement” with a few more words on the use of the canines. 10. ln 196-197. Citation needed. 11. ln 284-286. Delete. Already described in M&M. 12. ln 310-314. These equations belong to M&M, not here. 13. ln 359. “immediately spontaneously”. Awkward wording. Re-word. 14. ln 362-365. Good point. 15. ln 373-375. Would be interesting to see what’s responsible for the scent extract. Reviewer #2: In this study, the authors present detection dogs as a method to find Lycorma delicatula egg mass. Throughout the manuscript, the methodology of training detection dog is presented and analyzed well. Nevertheless, the manuscript contains two major issues to be resolved before the article is to be published: an in-depth consideration of the target organism itself and detection efficacy of the method in the field. First, although the paper focuses on the training method of detection dogs, it does not have deep enough consideration on the target organism itself. Although the paper describes general phenology of the insect, we were unable to find information on the oviposition behavior or characteristics of egg mass itself, which is the target of detection. For example, what is the major oviposition host plant of L. delicatula, or at which height or substrate are the egg masses often be found? Without the considering the biology of L. delicatula and its egg mass, we may not be able to apply the method in the field. Second, there is no field testing of the method presented in the study. As L. delicatula lays eggs on a variety of substrates including metal fence or host plants, the efficacy of the method may vary on the environment. Furthermore, recent study suggests that L. delicatula eggs can be found on tree-of-heaven or black walnut trees from up to 18 m above the ground (Liu and Hartlieb 2020). Especially, most favored egg heights were 8-10 m for tree-of-heaven and 4-6 m for black walnut. In this case, can dogs detect eggs at this height, or even if it does, is there a way to confirm its presence? The paper at least should address a more in-depth concerns on lack of efficacy experiment. The following contains comments on the manuscript: Manuscript 1) L65 – 72: Although the paragraph describes oviposition of L. delicatula, it lacks a more in-depth information on egg mass, which is the target of detection. For example, what is the most preferred host plant/ substrate? How big is an egg mass? Is there just one egg mass per tree or can more than one egg mass be found? What are the characteristics of the egg mass substrate (height/ surface texture etc.) 2) L407 – 412: It describes that further research is required to test the efficacy of the detection method. Nevertheless, we would appreciate if this can be described in more details. For example, how confident are you that the method will work perfectly outdoor as well? Where would you find L. delicatula egg masses and what potential factors may limit the application of the methods? Also, if you find them, what is to be done for control of the egg masses? Limitation of the manuscript needs to be discussed in more detail. 3) Few editorial corrections are to be made in references – scientific names of insects need to be italicized ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250945.r001
Revision 1
22 Mar 2021 Author Response The following is included with proper formatting in the "Response to Reviewers" file. Reviewer #1: 02/04/2021 Spotted lanternfly (SLF) is an exotic pest of various agricultural and forest crops in North America. The current research deals with the potential of dogs in the detection of the egg masses. It’s an exciting small study that could offer a new tool for the fast and reliable survey of this pest. It should be of interest to this journal. However, the entire manuscript suffered from the lack of discipline in writing. Mistakes in the description of SLF biology will also need to be corrected before it can be considered for publication. Major concerns: 1. Write scientifically by using clear and concise sentences. Stay focus on the subject matter for each paragraph. Exclude unrelated information. Don’t mix up information from different subjects, e.g., information belongs to Material and Methods should not be included in Results, etc. I have made some suggestions below, but more thorough editing is needed to improve the manuscript. Thank you, the manuscript has been edited for clarity. 2. Understanding none of the authors were trained in entomology, critical review of the manuscript from a qualified entomologist is strongly recommended to ensure proper use of nomenclature and correct description of other facts about this pest. We have spoken with Dr. Julie Urban, who works with SLF extensively, and have made comments based off of her reading of the manuscript as well. She is also acknowledged the acknowledgments. 3. The introduction portion of SLF biology (ln 55-72) need a complete overhaul, with the first paragraph focus on hosts and damages, and the second paragraph on life cycle and egg stage. 4. SLF egg masses are mostly found on tree trunks and upper branches, with a small proportion on stones and other nonliving substrates on the ground. I do not see canines being actively used to detect egg masses in real field situations. Maybe more useful in cargo and commodity inspections as part of the quarantine enforcement? It is true that since the drafting of this MS and the introduction of an SLF detection canine by PA Dept of Ag, implementation of this work has been utilized in cargo and commodity inspections as well as nurseries. We have modified the manuscript to better capture that. 5. How do you match the controls? Ideally, you should match target odor with control odor from the same tree species for both dead and live egg masses. Was that how you set up the trials? More explanation is needed. In general, with the training sets, we did not always have the knowledge of the exact tree that a mass was from. We did include controls of the same species of tree. In particular with the double-blind testing, the controls were from the same exact tree as the egg mass. This is now more clearly expressed in the manuscript. Specific comments: 1. No need to credit photos taken by one of the co-authors. Photo credit has been removed. 2. ln 1. Should be “Egg mass” not “Egg Masses”. Reworded title. 3. ln 33-34. Awkward writing. Rephrase please. Modified writing. 4. ln 56. “Vietnam”. Not true anymore. Delete. Thank you – removed. 5. ln 57. “eating the phloem”. Not true. SLF is a sap feeder. Also, there is no need to include the definition of phloem. Given our discussion with Dr. Urban we have modified this section and the information on the SLF generally. 6. ln 58-60. Awkward writing. Rephrase please. Modified. 7. ln 65. Confusing. Modified. 8. ln 84-86. This does not belong here. Move to the last paragraph n introduction as part of the study objectives. This sentence is about the Wallner and Ellis study from the prior sentence and has been modified to be clearer. 9. ln 109-111. This should be included in the “Ethics Statement” with a few more words on the use of the canines. We have added an “Ethics Statement” section within the Methods section of the manuscript. 10. ln 196-197. Citation needed. We have updated this sentence and added a citation. 11. ln 284-286. Delete. Already described in M&M. Deleted. 12. ln 310-314. These equations belong to M&M, not here. Moved. 13. ln 359. “immediately spontaneously”. Awkward wording. Re-word. Removed “immediately”. 14. ln 362-365. Good point. 15. ln 373-375. Would be interesting to see what’s responsible for the scent extract. Reviewer #2: In this study, the authors present detection dogs as a method to find Lycorma delicatula egg mass. Throughout the manuscript, the methodology of training detection dog is presented and analyzed well. Nevertheless, the manuscript contains two major issues to be resolved before the article is to be published: an in-depth consideration of the target organism itself and detection efficacy of the method in the field. First, although the paper focuses on the training method of detection dogs, it does not have deep enough consideration on the target organism itself. Although the paper describes general phenology of the insect, we were unable to find information on the oviposition behavior or characteristics of egg mass itself, which is the target of detection. For example, what is the major oviposition host plant of L. delicatula, or at which height or substrate are the egg masses often be found? Without the considering the biology of L. delicatula and its egg mass, we may not be able to apply the method in the field. We agree with this comment, and have reframed the introduction to describe search scenarios that dogs are more likely to be utilized for, including nurseries, cargo, and automobiles, rather than trees specifically where, it is true, many of the egg masses are far too high up for the dogs to (likely) be especially effective. Second, there is no field testing of the method presented in the study. As L. delicatula lays eggs on a variety of substrates including metal fence or host plants, the efficacy of the method may vary on the environment. Furthermore, recent study suggests that L. delicatula eggs can be found on tree-of-heaven or black walnut trees from up to 18 m above the ground (Liu and Hartlieb 2020). Especially, most favored egg heights were 8-10 m for tree-of-heaven and 4-6 m for black walnut. In this case, can dogs detect eggs at this height, or even if it does, is there a way to confirm its presence? The paper at least should address a more in-depth concerns on lack of efficacy experiment. We agree with this and like above, it is unlikely that dogs used for this will be searching trees, but rather cargo, rail and cars, among other lower items. We have included in the introduction more specifics about the likely implementation of these dogs, once trained. The following contains comments on the manuscript: Manuscript 1) L65 – 72: Although the paragraph describes oviposition of L. delicatula, it lacks a more in-depth information on egg mass, which is the target of detection. For example, what is the most preferred host plant/ substrate? How big is an egg mass? Is there just one egg mass per tree or can more than one egg mass be found? What are the characteristics of the egg mass substrate (height/ surface texture etc.) We have modified and added to the introduction significantly, including these suggestions. 2) L407 – 412: It describes that further research is required to test the efficacy of the detection method. Nevertheless, we would appreciate if this can be described in more details. For example, how confident are you that the method will work perfectly outdoor as well? Where would you find L. delicatula egg masses and what potential factors may limit the application of the methods? Also, if you find them, what is to be done for control of the egg masses? Limitation of the manuscript needs to be discussed in more detail. We have modified the discussion to include more appropriately the likely use of detection dogs in this arena, and how the data presented here may help future spotted lanternfly detection dogs. 3) Few editorial corrections are to be made in references – scientific names of insects need to be italicized References have been modified. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: SLF_MS_ResponseToReviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250945.r002
6 Apr 2021 Decision Letter - Ramzi Mansour, Editor PONE-D-21-02181R1 Egg masses as training aids for spotted lanternfly (Lycorma delicatula) detection dogs PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Essler, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by 20 April 2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Ramzi Mansour Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: 03/26/2021 All previous concerns have been properly addressed by the authors. Therefore, I recommend its publication by the journal with a few minor changes below: 1. At the first citation of a genus/species, authority, order, and family should be given in parentheses. 2. Be consistent when using the insect or plant names, e.g., don’t not use “The spotted lanternfly” in one sentence, and use “SLF” in another. 3. ln 33. Replace “The spotted lanternfly” with “It” since it was used in the previous sentence. 4. ln 192-193. I believe the correct common name for Prunus serrullata is Japanese flowering cherry. 5. ln 271, 274, 277, etc. acronym “SLF” was not defined and therefore should not be used. Reviewer #2: Overall, the authors revised the manuscript according to the comments made by the reviewers. Once the following minor points are addressed by author, the manuscript is ready to be published. First, this is a minor recommendation that may improve the manuscript. Because the paper focuses on detection of L. delicatula egg mass on artificial substrates including cargo, rail, and automobiles it may strengthen the importance of screening for these substrates by highlighting the potential spread of L. delicatula via these transportation means. This can be done by 1) citing different invasive insects that rapidly expanded its geographical range by hijacking trains and automobiles, 2) citing previous studies that observed potential L. delicatula dispersal via train (Flight Dispersal Capabilities of Female Spotted Lanternflies (Lycorma delicatula) Related to Size and Mating Status, Wolfin et al. 2019). Second, the authors must describe the order and family of an insect when first mentioning its scientific name for all the insects. E.g. Lycorma delicatula (Hemipera: Fulgoridae). Also, if scientific name of an organism has already been mentioned, abbreviate its generic name in second time. E.g. Ailanthus altissima -> A. altissima. Finally, the following comments address some minor editorial changes to be made and confusing sentences that need to be rephrased. 1. Ln 55: missing a period 2. Ln 68: space 3. Ln 72 – 75: confusing. Rephrase. 4. Ln 82 – 84: rephrase 5. Ln 101 – 104: add references 6. Ln 107 – 109: rephrase 7. Ln 360 – 362: rephrase ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Review_PlosOne.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250945.r003
Revision 2
12 Apr 2021 Author Response Reviewer #1 All previous concerns have been properly addressed by the authors. Therefore, I recommend its publication by the journal with a few minor changes below: 1. At the first citation of a genus/species, authority, order, and family should be given in parentheses. We have added (Order: Family) for each insect and tree species noted in the manuscript, on their first citation. 2. Be consistent when using the insect or plant names, e.g., don’t not use “The spotted lanternfly” in one sentence, and use “SLF” in another. We have replaced “SLF” in the manuscript with spotted lanternfly. 3. ln 33. Replace “The spotted lanternfly” with “It” since it was used in the previous sentence. Replaced. 4. ln 192-193. I believe the correct common name for Prunus serrullata is Japanese flowering cherry. Thank you – replaced. 5. ln 271, 274, 277, etc. acronym “SLF” was not defined and therefore should not be used. The acronym “SLF” was removed throughout the manuscript and replaced. Reviewer # 2 Overall, the authors revised the manuscript according to the comments made by the reviewers. Once the following minor points are addressed by author, the manuscript is ready to be published. First, this is a minor recommendation that may improve the manuscript. Because the paper focuses on detection of L. delicatula egg mass on artificial substrates including cargo, rail, and automobiles it may strengthen the importance of screening for these substrates by highlighting the potential spread of L. delicatula via these transportation means. This can be done by 1) citing different invasive insects that rapidly expanded its geographical range by hijacking trains and automobiles, 2) citing previous studies that observed potential L. delicatula dispersal via train (Flight Dispersal Capabilities of Female Spotted Lanternflies (Lycorma delicatula) Related to Size and Mating Status, Wolfin et al. 2019). Specific highlight of this species (and invasive insects in general) using railways as a means of transport has been added to the introduction, thank you. Second, the authors must describe the order and family of an insect when first mentioning its scientific name for all the insects. E.g. Lycorma delicatula (Hemipera: Fulgoridae). Also, if scientific name of an organism has already been mentioned, abbreviate its generic name in second time. E.g. Ailanthus altissima -> A. altissima. Thank you – the order and family for the spotted lanternfly were added, and scientific names were abbreviated where necessary. Finally, the following comments address some minor editorial changes to be made and confusing sentences that need to be rephrased. 1. Ln 55: missing a period 2. Ln 68: space 3. Ln 72 – 75: confusing. Rephrase. 4. Ln 82 – 84: rephrase 5. Ln 101 – 104: add references 6. Ln 107 – 109: rephrase 7. Ln 360 – 362: rephrase Thank you – all of the above have been modified. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: SLF_PLOSONE_ResponsetoReviewers2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250945.r004
19 Apr 2021 Decision Letter - Ramzi Mansour, Editor Egg masses as training aids for spotted lanternfly (Lycorma delicatula) detection dogs PONE-D-21-02181R2 Dear Dr. Essler, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication (please see ADDITIONAL EDITOR COMMENTS below) and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Ramzi Mansour Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: The following minor revisions should be made by the authors on the PROOFS of their accepted article, before its publication: L2 (Title): delete the brackets (replace "(Lycorma delicatula)" with "Lycorma delicatula" L33 (Abstract): to avoid repetition, replace "The spotted lanternfly feeds" with "This insect feeds" L33-34: replace "severe damage to vineyards and leaves a sooty mold that" with "severe damage in vineyards such as the occurrence of sooty mold fungus that" L35: replace "It eggs that" with "It lays eggs that" L39: change "this overwinter period" to "the overwintering period" L53: add the authorship "(White)" to the species and delete the brackets as indicated here: The spotted lanternfly Lycorma delicatula (White) (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae) L 56: change to "and further damage is induced by" L57: delete the “ ” (this should be written: the honeydew without “ ” ) L69: change to "their most preferred host plant [6]" L71: delete the " . " after "ground" L73-74: replace "and those in the field are taking" with "and technical professionals in the field are taking" L78: replace "could make a significant impact on this problem" with "could be a promising pest management approach, reducing its serious damage on host plants" L84: change to "during the overwintering period" L93: add the authorship "L." to the species: Lymantria dispar L. L94: In that study, dogs L96: of citrus huanglongbing (citrus greening disease) long before L207: plant from the genus L212: write the full species as this is a caption: "Figure 5. Picture of one............from Ailanthus altissima" L216-217: Barks from other plant species were introduced at L227: add the authorship "(L.)" to the species: Mantis religiosa (L.) L261: allowed the latter to spontaneously or L264: genus Morus L269: there are no letters "A" and "B" on this Figure 7, please add both letters, and change the caption to "Figure 7A-B. (A) Live egg masses on bark and (B) scraped. L311: All three dogs showed rapid L325-326: add the three letters "A" , "B" and "C" on the Figure 8 (no letters can be seen on this figure) L407 : delete "generally" L419: delete "generally" Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250945.r005
Formally Accepted
22 Apr 2021 Acceptance Letter - Ramzi Mansour, Editor PONE-D-21-02181R2 Egg masses as training aids for spotted lanternfly Lycorma delicatula detection dogs Dear Dr. Essler: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Ramzi Mansour Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250945.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .