All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thank you very much for the thorough revision.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Dezene Huber, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
N/A
N/A
N/A
Thank you to the authors for addressing each of my comments. I am now satisfied that the paper is of publishable quality.
Three reviewers as experts in their field have reviewed your manuscript and proposed a number of changes which you should follow in your revision. I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.
42 Remove W.
72-75 Could benefit from a little more detail and more recent references e.g. pasture fouling, greenhouse gas reduction, and pest and parasite control. Although I cannot find studies which specifically focus on O. nuchicornis, similar benefits will be provided by other Onthophagus species for which studies have been completed.
96 Agreed
98-102 For predictions b and c please add reasoning behind these predictions.
170 paper is not in sections, remove.
170 I think this is clearer “The same beetles were used for the second experiment, which began immediately after the first experiment. Dung was defrosted forty-eight hours prior and subsequently homogenized for 10 min, as described above.”
182-183 Remove sentence as described above.
260 missing full stop.
339 beetle*s*
116 was this horse dung collected from the same facilities? Please specify.
124 how was the dung homogenised?
136 where was the builders sand from, could this have contained any pollutants? Possible cause of high mortality in the control. Worth using children’s play sand in subsequent experiments.
I’m assuming there was no mortality during the first experiment? State this here.
178 – was the paint mixed cleaned before each homogenisation to remove residue ivermectin? How was it cleaned? Was the control group homogenised first?
For all analyses, why are beetles divided into ‘small’ and ‘large’? Please give reasoning for not using size (pronotal width) as a continuous trait.
268-269 would be useful to state how ivermectin concentration affected survival in text.
274 Surprising result! Add the effect at the two highest concentrations of ivermectin.
363 What kind of treatment was this? I think it is important to mention that higher concentration of IVM will be present in dung if the treatment is applied topically eg Sommer et al. 1992. Here they found concentrations of 9 mg kg-1 dry weight 24 hours after treatment. This translates to around 2 mg kg-1 wet weight if dung is 20% dry matter.
Sommer, C., Steffansen, B., Nielsen, B., Grønvold, J., Jensen, V.K., Jespersen, B.J., Springborg, J. and Nansen, P. (1992). Ivermectin excreted in cattle dung after subcutaneous injection or pour-on treatment: Concentrations and impact on dung fauna. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 82, 257-264.
365-377 Good to mention here high mortality in control group.
365-377 Although long-term studies looking at several generations of dung beetles have not been completed (to my knowledge), field studies have which compare organic and conventional farms. For example:
Sands B and Wall R (2018) Sustained parasiticide use in cattle farming affects functionally important dung beetle assemblages. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 265, 226–235.
I think the possible long-term impact of ivermectin on dung beetles should be mentioned with more emphasis.
Overall an enjoyable read with interesting results. Clear aims and results.
Line 162 remove space between for and seven
Line 176 replace or with and
Line 303 space before "The greater..."
Line 401 please correct "suppressed"
Please check reference list, e.g. Wohde et al (2016) is cited in line 364 but not listed in reference chapter.
Add moisture content of sheep dung at least or in best case add concentrations of ivermectin also per dry weight dung. This might increase comparability with other studies.
No comments
No comments
no comment
No comment
No comment
This is a well written manuscript and I can find very little to criticize. The experimental approach is nice although, as the authors acknowledge, there are some areas in which it could have been made larger and more comparisons could have been included. The authors do a very nice job of bring in past literature and showing how it could have been used in a similar set of comparisons. This manuscript is also makes use of the data in an ecological manner which is a rather novel approach to using data which is more often used as toxicological information.
I have a number of minor queries that should be addressed.
The following is from the PeerJ guide and should be followed throughout. “For three or fewer authors, list all author names (e.g. Smith, Jones & Johnson, 2004). For four or more, abbreviate with ‘first author’ et al. (e.g. Smith et al., 2005).”
Does dung beetle burial of dung ‘impair development’ of horn fly larvae? I find that this statement is rather odd. I suspect the authors are a bit to cautious; why not call a spade a spade.
Use of the phrase ‘due to’ is not correct. This phrase is used in banking to refer to funds that are ‘due to’ an account and is not indented to be used in any other context.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.