The Invasive Box Tree Moth Five Years after Introduction in Slovakia: Damage Risk to Box Trees in Urban Habitats

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A precisely prepared manuscript both in form and content. This interesting work deals with occurrence and climatic demands of the important invasive species Cydalima perspectalis in central Europe (especially in Slovakia). It brings new ecological knowledge about this species and can be a good guide and basis for control of this pest in the area. I have no important critical comments. I only made very few comments direct into the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for your valuable comments and notes on our manuscript.

We have accepted your suggestions.

Changes throuhgout the manuscript have been marked in yellow.

Number of locations 165 has been changed to the correct number 156.

Best wishes,

Peter Zach, Jan Kulfan

Reviewer 2 Report

Although many locations (156) (towns and villages) were incorporated in the study it is not clear what is the scientific output of this work. It is not known how many trees were inspected, only locations: does that mean that every box tree was damaged in the same way in one location or was the prediction an average value for a specific number of trees? Also, the natural dispersal rate of around 10 km per year (e.g. Casteels et al. 2011) is neglected in the manuscript. The ornamental plant trade inside Europe (e.g. Eschen et al. 2015) may play the key role in the moth dispersal. So, how to predict the movement and the damage to trees in the next years? How can we be sure where will C. perspectalis occur no matter of temperature or altitude? The results shown suggest that the probability of occurrence and high damage of C. perpectalis is higher up to some specified altitude and temperature, could you provide some proof of that (maybe a reference?). It looks that in higher altitudes, we can expect no problems with C. perspectalis(?), but in your study some exceptions are listed as well. could you explain what are the reasons for that?

What about simultaneous introductions, could that play a role in occurrence of C. perspectalis in some locations and surrounded locations?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for your valuable comments and notes on our manuscript.

We have accepted your suggestions.

Changes throuhgout the manuscript have been marked in yellow.

We have clarified the main scientific (research) output of our study (Introduction).

We have defined the range of inspected trees in particular locations (Materials and Methods).

We have provided more detailed description of assessment of damage to box trees by the moth (Materials and Methods).

We have provided information about the dispersal rate of the moth, citing the relevant literature (Casteels et al. 2011, Van der Straten and Muus 2010) (Introduction).

The role of trade with ornamental trees (Eschen et al. 2015) in the spread of the moth has been highlighted (Introduction and Discussion).

We have widened the discussion dealing with spatial movement of the moth into colder areas, clarified exceptions of the occurrence of high damage by the moth in colder areas and the ways of introductions (Discusion).

Best wishes,

Peter Zach, Jan Kulfan

Reviewer 3 Report

I suggest in the part of Introduction the next information concerning the first records of Cydalima perspectalis in Bulgaria to be mentioned:

Damage, as well as larvae and pupae of C. perspectalis, were found in July 2014 on boxwood (Buxus sp.) plants in the botanical garden of the city of Balčik, on the Black Sea coast (Beshkov et al., 2015). Surveys were carried out in private gardens of the city and more infestations were found. Currently, C. perpectalis is wildly distributed in many regions in the country (Georgiev et al., 2017).  

Beshkov, S., S. Abadjiev, D. Dimitrov. 2015. Cydalima perspectalis (Walker, 1859) (Lepidoptera: Pyraloidea: Crambidae: Spilomelinae). New invasive pest moth in Bulgaria. Entomologist’s Record and Journal of Vaiation, 127, 18-22. Georgiev, G., M. Georgieva, P. Mirchev, M. Zhiyanski. 2017. Main insect pests and fungal pathogens on tree and shrub vegetation in urban ecosystems. Kitanova S. (Ed.). Hlorind Ltd., Sofia, 54 pp.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for your valuable comments and notes on our manuscript.

We have accepted your suggestions.

Changes throuhgout the manuscript have been marked in yellow.

We have included information on the distribution of the moth in Bulgaria (Beshkov et al. 2015, Georgiev et al. 2017) (Introduction and Discussion).

Best wishes,

Peter Zach, Jan Kulfan

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you for improving your manuscript.

On L 97-98 you wrote that you have 1-163 trees per location. This are huge span. It is still not clear how do you get the data at the specific location. It is difficult for the reader to have an idea what is the meaning of specific damage on specific location. It is an average as I understand but how are they distributed; i.e.  maybe some data should be discarding because there are to less box plants in the location?

L 107-109 is still not clear.

 I think it would be clear if you provide all data as a table as supplement material. This material will probably clarify everything but also give a very valuable material for future studies of Cydalima perspectalis.

There are some minor errors which should be corrected:

L 103-109 please correct the format

L 501-502 delete it

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for your comments on our manuscript.

The span 1-163 trees per location is huge. It reflects great spatial variation in the number of box trees in Slovakia. Throughout the text (Materials and Methods) we have provided a total number of trees inspected in 156 locations, and a median number of trees for these locations. We have clarified how damage to trees has been assessed for particular locations. According to your suggestions we have added Table S1 with raw data used for analyses as a supplementary material. We have corrected the format of the text  (L 103-109) and have deleted L 501-502. All amendments throughout the manuscript have been marked in grey. 

Best wishes,

Peter Zach, Jan Kulfan