Next Article in Journal
Estimation of Forest Biomass and Carbon Storage in China Based on Forest Resources Inventory Data
Next Article in Special Issue
Sampling and Detection Strategies for the Pine Pitch Canker (PPC) Disease Pathogen Fusarium circinatum in Europe
Previous Article in Journal
Contribution of Forest Stewardship Council Certification to Sustainable Forest Management of State Forests in Selected Southeast European Countries
Previous Article in Special Issue
Pine Pitch Canker and Insects: Relationships and Implications for Disease Spread in Europe
Open AccessReview
Peer-Review Record

Pine Pitch Canker and Insects: Regional Risks, Environmental Regulation, and Practical Management Options

Forests 2019, 10(8), 649; https://doi.org/10.3390/f10080649
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Forests 2019, 10(8), 649; https://doi.org/10.3390/f10080649
Received: 11 June 2019 / Revised: 22 July 2019 / Accepted: 25 July 2019 / Published: 1 August 2019

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised MS contains very (too in some parts?) broad overview concerning the possibility of the pitch canker disease spreading in Europe, based on the review of a large set of references. The value of this review results from the involvement of many contributors representing various regions of Europe, thus having access to very broad literature. The content is logically divided into thematic sections, mostly organized with formal discipline.

1.     The format of the Latin names of insect species needs to be unified – with or without authors’ names and years; check the entire running text to ensure that the names in full format are provided only when the given taxus is mentioned for the first time, but this should concern all mentioned taxa (e.g. see section 2.3.)

2.     The same concerns Latin names of plants (and authors’ names – the year is not necessary) – this should be checked and corrected in several places,

3.     Lymantria monacha mentioned in line 289 is now in the family Erebidae (not Lymantriidae);

4.     The systematic position should be provided for every taxus mentioned for the first time – in some cases it is missing (e.g. in line 291),

5.     The correct name of the family in line 294 is Diprionidae (not Dyprionidae)

6.     Two species mentioned in line 309 belong to two different groups (but also subfamilies) – weevils and bark beetles – this should be somehow indicated

7.     I suggest to add Scolytinae after Coleoptera: Curculionidae in line 406 (cf. line 437)

8.     The species listed in lines 466-470 in full format were mentioned earlier – please use abbreviations,

9.     Not clear why only Białowieża forest is mentioned in this context – the problem is more widespread, see reference [155] and others

10.  Line 431: long horned beetle, or longhorn beetle (as in line 363)

11.  Line 444: Erichson, 1836 repeated – delete,

12.  Lines 501 and 503 – use italics in Latin names,

13.  Line 517: beetles (instead of beeltes)

14.  Lines 615-620 concerning risk assessment: the risk assessment is not a method of mechanical control – I suggest to delete;

15.  Lines 639-650: the mentioned species are not related to the main subject of the paper and the insects of concern – think about possible modification;

16.  The same concerns lines 715-726 – maybe another examples could be presented, closer related to the content

17.  Section 4.1.3: the semiochemicals, which are commonly in use for monitoring and control of many forest insects, are very poorly presented and discussed, especially in the context of the species of interest (references exist);

18.  Lines 750-752: the example is not good, as it does not concern Europe; the example described in lines 754-758 concerns trials, and not the method implemented in the practice;

19.  In this context the example of implemented method of Dendroctonus micans control using Rhizophagus grandis is missing (see reference [169]);

20.  The section 4.1.4. should be expanded based on paragraph in lines 773-782, that contains the most important conclusion – the use of biological agents for the colnrol of forest insect pests in at present limited mainly to the attempts;

21.   In the paragraph in lines 789-805 the references: Jactel et al. 2009 (doi: 10.1051/forest/2009054) and/or Jactel et al. 2012 (http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04897-170452) complementary to the reference [8] should be used;

22.  Please check carefully the list of references for correct use of italics and eliminate misspelling (e.g. In line 910).


Author Response

The revised MS contains very (too in some parts?) broad overview concerning the possibility of the pitch canker disease spreading in Europe, based on the review of a large set of references. The value of this review results from the involvement of many contributors representing various regions of Europe, thus having access to very broad literature. The content is logically divided into thematic sections, mostly organized with formal discipline.

1.     The format of the Latin names of insect species needs to be unified – with or without authors’ names and years; check the entire running text to ensure that the names in full format are provided only when the given taxus is mentioned for the first time, but this should concern all mentioned taxa (e.g. see section 2.3.)

- Thank you for this observation. I changed all the text and unified like Order+family for each new taxon.

2.     The same concerns Latin names of plants (and authors’ names – the year is not necessary) – this should be checked and corrected in several places,

- I agree. I changed in the manuscript and eliminated the year.

3.     Lymantria monacha mentioned in line 289 is now in the family Erebidae (not Lymantriidae)

-Thanks for this. I changed it.

4.     The systematic position should be provided for every taxus mentioned for the first time – in some cases it is missing (e.g. in line 291)

- I agree. I noticed some mistakes. Now, all of them are unified.

5.     The correct name of the family in line 294 is Diprionidae (not Dyprionidae).

- O.K. It was changed in the text.

6.     Two species mentioned in line 309 belong to two different groups (but also subfamilies) – weevils and bark beetles – this should be somehow indicated

- We didn´t use any subfamilies in order to homogenize and used only the Order and the Family for each taxa. In order to differentiate this two groups belonging to the same Family, we used the common name for the groups, that is: bark beetles and weevils.

7.     I suggest to add Scolytinae after Coleoptera: Curculionidae in line 406 (cf. line 437).

- The difference is already wrote in the line 130 and in order to homogenize and to avoid repetitions, we didn´t add this here. I hope it will be enough clarify in the text.

8.     The species listed in lines 466-470 in full format were mentioned earlier – please use abbreviations.

- Yes, Thank you. I changed it.

9.     Not clear why only Białowieża forest is mentioned in this context – the problem is more widespread, see reference [155] and others.

- I agree and then, I modify this in the text, using this forest as an example in this context. I hope now, it will be better.

10.  Line 431: long horned beetle, or longhorn beetle (as in line 363).

- O.K. I changed all.

11.  Line 444: Erichson, 1836 repeated – delete.

- O. K. I eliminated it.

12.  Lines 501 and 503 – use italics in Latin names.

- Sure!. I changed them.

13.  Line 517: beetles (instead of beeltes).

- Changed.

14.  Lines 615-620 concerning risk assessment: the risk assessment is not a method of mechanical control – I suggest to delete.

- I agree with you. This paragraph was deleted.

15.  Lines 639-650: the mentioned species are not related to the main subject of the paper and the insects of concern – think about possible modification.

- I agree with this. I will eliminate.

16.  The same concerns lines 715-726 – maybe another examples could be presented, closer related to the content.

- I agree. We change it on the text.

17.  Section 4.1.3: the semiochemicals, which are commonly in use for monitoring and control of many forest insects, are very poorly presented and discussed, especially in the context of the species of interest (references exist).

- O.k. Thanks!. More information has provided now as well as some new 3 references for this part.

18.  Lines 750-752: the example is not good, as it does not concern Europe; the example described in lines 754-758 concerns trials, and not the method implemented in the practice;

19.  In this context the example of implemented method of Dendroctonus micans control using Rhizophagus grandis is missing (see reference [169]).

- Sorry for this. I included the reference in the text.

20.  The section 4.1.4. should be expanded based on paragraph in lines 773-782, that contains the most important conclusion – the use of biological agents for the control of forest insect pests in at present limited mainly to the attempts.

- We agree and we add some new lines in order to expand the paragraph.

21.   In the paragraph in lines 789-805 the references: Jactel et al. 2009 (doi: 10.1051/forest/2009054) and/or Jactel et al. 2012 (http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04897-170452) complementary to the reference [8] should be used.

- Thanks for this suggestions. The two references are now included.

22.  Please check carefully the list of references for correct use of italics and eliminate misspelling (e.g. In line 910).

- It was done. Thanks!


Reviewer 2 Report

This review is a good read and informative. I just suggest to format the reference sections. Some of the article were missing the journal information.'

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review is a good read and informative. I just suggest to format the reference sections. Some of the article were missing the journal information.

-          Thank you very much. We will revise and will do it.


Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is well written and very interesting. The broad scope of the literature was reviewed presenting results achieved across Europe. However, more discussion could be considered and focused on better understanding of the environmental control of the dynamic interaction between the insects, the pathogen and host trees. Some questions could be addressed like:

Are the current management methods applied at EU and national level regulations effective enough and are they adapted to the observed changing of climate (e.g. global warming)?

Can authors propose/design some realistic and integrated intervention strategies against vector insects in different regions (e.g. pathways oriented strategy rather than based on quarantine lists)? The time needed to put pest on quarantine list (pest categorisation: detection method, biology, PRA) is long enough to let it established. It is frustrating that sooner or later is spreading further.

Is present recommended regionally monitoring (in forests and nurseries) of the populations of potential vectors rigorous enough for the realistic risk assessments that include the dynamics of the local insect fauna.


Author Response

The paper is well written and very interesting. The broad scope of the literature was reviewed presenting results achieved across Europe. However, more discussion could be considered and focused on better understanding of the environmental control of the dynamic interaction between the insects, the pathogen and host trees. Some questions could be addressed like:

Are the current management methods applied at EU and national level regulations effective enough and are they adapted to the observed changing of climate (e.g. global warming)?

Can authors propose/design some realistic and integrated intervention strategies against vector insects in different regions (e.g. pathways oriented strategy rather than based on quarantine lists)? The time needed to put pest on quarantine list (pest categorisation: detection method, biology, PRA) is long enough to let it established. It is frustrating that sooner or later is spreading further.

Is present recommended regionally monitoring (in forests and nurseries) of the populations of potential vectors rigorous enough for the realistic risk assessments that include the dynamics of the local insect fauna.

 

The referee points out issues that are indeed profoundly relevant and interesting, both from the theoretical and practical point of view. Because a more thorough examination of these broad topics might demand considerable increase in the manuscript length, we suggest to make amendments to the section “conclusions” to lift up these points (lines 830-845), while still not expanding the already lengthy manuscript too much. We hope this compromise will satisfy the Referee and the Editors. If, however, a more extensive exploration of these issues is needed, we would be happy to do it in a second revision.

 

 


Back to TopTop