Two of the Most Promising Potential Agents from Kazakhstan for the Biocontrol of Russian Olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) in the USA with an Annotated List of Its Pest Insects from Central Asia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has a particular interest for the specialists of biological control, but it is written in very primitive English. It is surprising as one of the authors is a native speaker. It seems he didn’t even take a look at the paper. So first it is necessary to improve the English throughout all the text.

After this the text needs serious improvement. Some problems I addressed below, but there are exactly only few of them.

Let’s start with the title. The present title is unacceptably long and contains so much information that makes the further reading useless.

The possible variant is:

The most promising potential agents from Kazakhstan for the biocontrol of Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) in the USA with annotated list of its pest insects from Central Asia

Keywords are quite misleading. Should be: biological control, Russian olive, the USA, Central Asia, ets.

Introduction

The genus Elaeagnus L. (Elaeagnaceae) – with first mention it is necessary to indicate the genus with its author and family

Lines 38-41

One of these 3 species, Russian Olive E. angustifolia has a very wide range, it is  known from the countries of the European Mediterranean, Western, Central and Eastern Europe, Western Siberia, Asia Minor, the Caucasus, Iran, Northern India, Central Asia, Western China (Xinjiang) and Mongolia.

This sentence is a very good example of poor and primitive English of the whole paper.

Should be:

One of the mentioned species, Russian olive (E. angustifolia), has a wide range and is distributed in Mediterranean, Western, Central and Eastern Europe, Western Siberia, Asia Minor, the Caucasus, Iran …

Lines 43-44

Currently, it has become the subject of biological control in the United 42 States. The 6th volume of “Flora of Kazakhstan”, published in 1963, provides information 43 on the growth in Kazakhstan of only 2 species of Elaeagnus: E. oxycarpa и E. turcomanica.

Should be:

Currently, it has become the subject of biological control in the United States [what source of info?]. The 6th volume of “Flora of Kazakhstan” published in 1963 [give the complete reference] provided information of only two species of Elaeagnus (E. oxycarpa and E. turcomanica) known from Kazakhstan.

Lines 51-52 (line 62 as well)

The aim of this publication is to present the results of our research on insect species that damage Russian Olive in the natural areas of its growth in Kazakhstan and other …

Should be:

The aim of this publication is to present the results of our research on insect species feeding on Russian olive in its natural habitats in Kazakhstan and other …

Line 56 and before

Trioza magnisetosa has systematic position not (Homoptera, Psylloidea) but (Hemiptera, Triozidae).

Lines 63-64

The reference book “Harmful animals of Central Asia” [3] (1949) lists 20 species of insects living on Elaeagnus.

Should be

The reference book “Pest animals of Central Asia” [3] listed 20 species of insects feeding on Elaeagnus.

The Russian title “Vrednye zhivotnye Sredney Azii” has more correct translation as “Pest animals of Central Asia” here and in the References.

 

Table 1. Phenogram of Triosa magnisetosa development in the southern Balkhash region (Table 2 as well)

Phenogram is a branching diagrammatic tree used in phonetic classification to illustrate the degree of similarity among taxa (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phenogram)

What is presented in the paper is not at all a phenogram.

Better variant:

Table 1. Life cycle of Triosa magnisetosa in the southern Balkhash region (Table 2 as well)

 

3.3. Preliminary annotated list of insect species damaging to Russian Olive in Central Asia 

Order HOMOPTERA

Suborder Cicadinea

Family Cicadellidae

Macropsis elaeagni Emeljanov, 1964

Should be:

3.3. Preliminary annotated list of insect species feeding on Russian olive in Central Asia  

Order HEMIPTERA

Suborder Auchenorrhyncha

Family Cicadellidae

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper is written in very primitive English. It is surprising as one of the authors is a native speaker. It seems he didn’t even take a look at the paper. So first it is necessary to improve the English throughout all the text.

Author Response

Comment 1: The paper has a particular interest for the specialists of biological control, but it is written in very primitive English. It is surprising as one of the authors is a native speaker. It seems he didn’t even take a look at the paper. So first it is necessary to improve the English throughout all the text.

Response 1: On behalf of my co-authors and myself, I am grateful to the reviewer for the work done in evaluating our manuscript. First of all, I would like to note that the text of the manuscript was repeatedly edited by our co-author C. Jack DeLoach, who is a native speaker, in order to more accurately understand the meaning of the text. It is a pity that the reviewer saw primitive English here. Jack DeLoach also showed the text of the article to our colleagues at USDA and no one had any difficulties in understanding the text of the manuscript. At the same time, we will make the changes to the text that the reviewer suggests below.

Comment 2: After this the text needs serious improvement. Some problems I addressed below, but there are exactly only few of them. Let’s start with the title. The present title is unacceptably long and contains so much information that makes the further reading useless. The possible variant is: The most promising potential agents from Kazakhstan for the biocontrol of Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) in the USA with annotated list of its pest insects from Central Asia

Response 2: We agree that the title of the manuscript is quite long and not very convenient for reading. The authors discussed the article's title many times and concluded that the scientific names of the species should be indicated in the title. This will allow interested specialists to save time on thematic search and immediately evaluate the information by the article's title. In addition, we are currently working on several other species of phytophagous insects of Russian olive, which, perhaps, can also be used for biocontrol. At the same time, we agree with the reviewer on shortening the title of the article with the addition of the word 'Two': Two of the most promising potential agents from Kazakhstan for the biocontrol of Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) in the USA with an annotated list of its pest insects from Central Asia

Comment 3: Keywords are quite misleading. Should be: biological control, Russian olive, the USA, Central Asia, ets.

Response 3: We agree with the reviewer's suggestion to change the order of keywords and replace the word "Kazakhstan" with "Central Asia". However, we disagree with the indication of the word "the USA" here since all field studies were conducted in Kazakhstan, the results of which can be used in the USA. Thus, we accept the following version - Keywords: biological control, Russian olive, Central Asia, Trioza magnisetoza, Altica balassogloi.

Comment 4: The genus Elaeagnus L. (Elaeagnaceae) – with first mention it is necessary to indicate the genus with its author and family

Response 4: We agree with the reviewer’s suggestion.

Comment 5: Lines 38-41

One of these 3 species, Russian Olive E. angustifolia has a very wide range, it is  known from the countries of the European Mediterranean, Western, Central and Eastern Europe, Western Siberia, Asia Minor, the Caucasus, Iran, Northern India, Central Asia, Western China (Xinjiang) and Mongolia.

This sentence is a very good example of poor and primitive English of the whole paper.

Should be: One of the mentioned species, Russian olive (E. angustifolia), has a wide range and is distributed in Mediterranean, Western, Central and Eastern Europe, Western Siberia, Asia Minor, the Caucasus, Iran …

Response 5: We are grateful to the reviewer for his opinion on the quality of the English text, but we disagree with his assessment of “primitive English”. Every editor and reviewer has his own literary and editorial preferences, which we respect. In this case, we agree with the reviewer’s point of view to replace “it is known” with “and is distributed” and other editorial changes.

Comment 6: Lines 43-44

Currently, it has become the subject of biological control in the United States. The 6th volume of “Flora of Kazakhstan”, published in 1963, provides information on the growth in Kazakhstan of only 2 species of Elaeagnus: E. oxycarpa и E. turcomanica.

Should be: Currently, it has become the subject of biological control in the United States [what source of info?]. The 6th volume of “Flora of Kazakhstan” published in 1963 [give the complete reference] provided information of only two species of Elaeagnus (E. oxycarpa and E. turcomanica) known from Kazakhstan.

Response 6: The Russian olive has been under biological control in the United States for the past 50 years. This is a well-known fact and does not require citation. There are several dozen publications on this topic, and the USDA has even funded several projects to find biological control agents. Therefore, we disagree with the reviewer's suggestion. Regarding the Flora of Kazakhstan, we agree with the reviewer to cite in brackets the volume and pages devoted to the two Kazakhstani Elaeagnus species in this edition, as well as to make minor editorial changes suggested by the reviewer.

Comment 7: Lines 51-52 (line 62 as well)

The aim of this publication is to present the results of our research on insect species that damage Russian Olive in the natural areas of its growth in Kazakhstan and other …

Should be: The aim of this publication is to present the results of our research on insect species feeding on Russian olive in its natural habitats in Kazakhstan and other …

Response 7: The reviewer's proposal is controversial because the insects under study feed on and cause great damage to Russian olive in its natural habitats in Kazakhstan. For this reason, we have chosen these two species as the most convenient objects for biocontrol. In this regard, we disagree with the reviewer.

Comment 8: Line 56 and before

Trioza magnisetosa has systematic position not (Homoptera, Psylloidea) but (Hemiptera, Triozidae).

Response 8: There are several points of view on the taxonomic position of this species of insects at the level of order and suborder. Unlike the article's authors, the reviewer adheres to a different point of view on the taxonomic position of psyllids. This is not fundamental to this article, so the manuscript's authors accept the reviewer's proposal to change the group's taxonomy.

Comment 9: Lines 63-64

The reference book “Harmful animals of Central Asia” [3] (1949) lists 20 species of insects living on Elaeagnus.

Should be: The reference book “Pest animals of Central Asia” [3] listed 20 species of insects feeding on Elaeagnus.

Response 9: The reviewer suggests using the synonym "Pest" for the word "Harmful". We do not object to this. This is the reviewer's personal preference in choosing a word, based on experience as an editor. So, we accept this. 

Comment 10: The Russian title “Vrednye zhivotnye Sredney Azii” has more correct translation as “Pest animals of Central Asia” here and in the References.

Response 10: According to the generally accepted approach to presenting literary sources, Russian-language titles of publications are given in Latin using transliteration. After that, the translation of the publication title into English is usually given in brackets. This is the approach we used when preparing the manuscript. 

Comment 11: Table 1. Phenogram of Triosa magnisetosa development in the southern Balkhash region (Table 2 as well)

Phenogram is a branching diagrammatic tree used in phonetic classification to illustrate the degree of similarity among taxa (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phenogram). What is presented in the paper is not at all a phenogram.

Better variant: Table 1. Life cycle of Triosa magnisetosa in the southern Balkhash region (Table 2 as well)

Response 11: We are grateful to the reviewer for the comment. Indeed, the version of the table title suggested by the reviewer is more successful. In our manuscript, we used the terminology (Phenogram) accepted in entomology to describe the life cycle of a species. We agree with replacing the table title, which will be more understandable for the general public.

Comment 12: 

3.3. Preliminary annotated list of insect species damaging to Russian Olive in Central Asia 

Order HOMOPTERA

Suborder Cicadinea

Family Cicadellidae

Macropsis elaeagni Emeljanov, 1964

Should be:

3.3. Preliminary annotated list of insect species feeding on Russian olive in Central Asia  

Order HEMIPTERA

Suborder Auchenorrhyncha

Family Cicadellidae

Response 12: We have already commented on the reviewer's suggestion regarding the suprageneric taxonomy of insects above. This is not fundamental in this article, so we accept the reviewer's remark on changing the text of the manuscript.

Comment 13: The paper is written in very primitive English. It is surprising as one of the authors is a native speaker. It seems he didn’t even take a look at the paper. So first it is necessary to improve the English throughout all the text.

Response 13: We have already noted that Dr. C. Jack DeLoach (native speaker) is indeed a co-author of the text, and as a co-author, he wrote part of the text himself and edited other parts written by co-authors. In addition, the manuscript was shown to our other colleagues working at USDA to work out the best understanding of the manuscript. All comments from colleagues were taken into account. We disagree with the reviewer's assessment of the quality of the English text.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 

your manuscript entitled:  Two the most promising potential agents Trioza magnisetosa  Loginova, 1964 (Homoptera, Psyllinea, Triozidae) and Altica  balassogloi (Jakobson, 1892) (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae) from  Kazakhstan for Russian Olive biocontrol in the US with annotated list of other pest insects from Central Asia" addresses the challenge of identifying natural enemies of Elaeagnus angustifolia (Russian Olive), a species native to Kazakhstan that has become invasive in the United States. As Russian Olive lacks natural predators in the U.S., it poses a significant threat to local ecosystems, necessitating the development of biological control methods. The study proposes the introduction of two insect species, Trioza magnisetosa Loginova, 1964 (Hemiptera: Psyllidae) and Altica balassogloi (Jakobson, 1892) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), as potential biocontrol agents. While the topic is timely and addresses a critical ecological issue, several conceptual and methodological concerns require clarification to strengthen the manuscript.

 

1. By proposing two species of insects: Trioza magnisetosa Loginova, 1964 (Homoptera, Psyllinea, Triozidae) and Altica balassogloi (Jakobson, 1892) as potential agents for Russian Olive biocontrol in the US, you do not provide an argument for why these particular species are important for biocontrol. How effective are these species in controlling the spread and growth of the oleaster? How significantly do they impact the quality of oleaster in Kazakhstan?
2. The proposed work should address a specific problem and suggest possible solutions. However, the conclusions in the paper are declarative and do not offer anything new, aside from calls for the introduction of two new pest species. Please clearly outline what specifically the introduction of the two species you propose will do to help solve the problem in the United States.
3. The conclusions present concerning data regarding the population pessimum of the species proposed as introducers. Rather, they require protection than technical utilisation. How does this align with the issue of biodiversity conservation?

 

«5. Conclusions 973 The most studied species of fauna of Kazakhstan for the purposes of biological control of Russian Olive in the United States are the monophagous Russian Olive psyllid Trioza magnisetoza and the narrow oligophagous species Russian Olive leaf beetle Altica ballasogloi. Information on the distribution, biological and environmental characteristics, feeding, and damage to the host plant is sufficient for the use of these species in biological control in North America. However, due to the degradation of the natural ecosystems of the southern Balkhash region due to anthropogenic influence, the state of the populations of both species has deteriorated in the last 30 years; some populations have disappeared, while others have declined in number. For this reason, it is necessary to continue the search for this species and work out methods for establishing new artificial populations both in nature and in the laboratory.»

 

4. Despite the review nature of the article, the authors must justify the novelty of their research. What new contributions do the authors offer regarding the biocontrol of Russian Olive in the US, aside from the discovery of two additional species found in Kazakhstan on Russian Olive?
5. In proposing potential introducers, the authors should investigate the likely interactions of these species with the indigenous flora. It may turn out that they could shift from Russian Olive to native species, posing a significant threat to species conservation. Furthermore, aggressive introducers can substantially alter local ecosystems, leading to serious crises. This should also be discussed in relation to the proposed species.

Despite the sceptical questions raised above, the presented work on the potential introduction of pest species for the control of Russian Olive populations in the US can be recommended for publication, taking into account the aforementioned issues. It is essential to clearly position the importance of utilising the proposed insect species, demonstrating their potential effectiveness in controlling the spread of Russian Olive and ensuring their safety for the indigenous flora of the US. I hope the authors will be able to incorporate the necessary arguments into the discussions and conclusions of the work.

 

Author Response

Comment 1: your manuscript entitled:  Two the most promising potential agents Trioza magnisetosa  Loginova, 1964 (Homoptera, Psyllinea, Triozidae) and Altica  balassogloi (Jakobson, 1892) (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae) from  Kazakhstan for Russian Olive biocontrol in the US with annotated list of other pest insects from Central Asia" addresses the challenge of identifying natural enemies of Elaeagnus angustifolia (Russian Olive), a species native to Kazakhstan that has become invasive in the United States. As Russian Olive lacks natural predators in the U.S., it poses a significant threat to local ecosystems, necessitating the development of biological control methods. The study proposes the introduction of two insect species, Trioza magnetos Loginova, 1964 (Hemiptera: Psyllidae) and Altica balassogloi (Jakobson, 1892) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), as potential biocontrol agents. While the topic is timely and addresses a critical ecological issue, several conceptual and methodological concerns require clarification to strengthen the manuscript.

Response 1: We are very grateful to the reviewer for evaluating our manuscript and making comments and suggestions aimed at improving the quality of the publication.

Comments 2: By proposing two species of insects: Trioza magnisetosa Loginova, 1964 (Homoptera, Psyllinea, Triozidae) and Altica balassogloi (Jakobson, 1892) as potential agents for Russian Olive biocontrol in the US, you do not provide an argument for why these particular species are important for biocontrol. How effective are these species in controlling the spread and growth of the oleaster? How significantly do they impact the quality of oleaster in Kazakhstan?

Response 2: For each of the two insect species, we provide the corresponding arguments in the Efficiency for Biological Control and Testing in Nature Control subchapters on why these particular species are essential for biocontrol. It should be noted that both species in the natural ecosystems of South-Eastern Kazakhstan can cause and, in outbreaks, do cause significant damage to Russian Olive, up to the drying of individual large branches or the drying of the entire tree. Given their host specificity (monophagous and narrow oligophagous Russian Olive), both species are the most convenient for the biocontrol of Russian Olive in North America.

Comment 3: The proposed work should address a specific problem and suggest possible solutions. However, the conclusions in the paper are declarative and do not offer anything new, aside from calls for the introduction of two new pest species. Please clearly outline what specifically the introduction of the two species you propose will do to help solve the problem in the United States.

Response 3: The reviewer is generally correct in his remark. However, in our article, we set the task of proving that both species, among other phytophages, are the most suitable for biocontrol of Russian Olive in the USA due to their host-plant specificity, the severe damage that both species cause in the natural conditions of South-Eastern Kazakhstan, and the possibility of establishing new populations in suitable habitats. For this purpose, experiments were conducted in natural conditions, the results of which are presented in the manuscript.

Comment 4: The conclusions present concerning data regarding the population pessimum of the species proposed as introducers. Rather, they require protection than technical utilisation. How does this align with the issue of biodiversity conservation?

Response 4: The reviewer is correct in that anthropogenic pressure on natural ecosystems of South-Eastern Kazakhstan increases with each passing year due to economical use of the territories, and currently, the issue of preserving populations of animals and plants living in the most vulnerable ecosystems has become acute. Such ecosystems include the riparian forest. For this purpose, the authorities of Kazakhstan have established several nature protected areas in the desert, foothill, and mountainous parts of the territory: the Ile-Balkhash nature reserve in the middle reaches and delta of the Ile River, several national nature parks in foothill areas (Charyn, Ile-Alatau, Kolsay Kolderi parks) and the Almaty nature reserve in the mountain area. Some populations of both species are preserved in them. Our observations, on the one hand, show how vulnerable insect populations are and, on the other hand, the processes of colonization of new territories by these species. However, some populations of both species are pretty suitable for technical utilization.

Comment 5: Despite the review nature of the article, the authors must justify the novelty of their research. What new contributions do the authors offer regarding the biocontrol of Russian Olive in the US, aside from the discovery of two additional species found in Kazakhstan on Russian Olive?

Response 5: The research is distinguished by its novelty in the detailed knowledge of the life cycle of two species and the study of the harmfulness of Russian olive in the original natural habitats in Central Asia. For the first time, experiments were conducted on the movement of part of the populations of both species to other suitable habitats in Southeast Kazakhstan. This is the first stage in developing technologies for their use in North America (in particular, in the USA). As a result of the conducted research, it was proven that both species, among other species of phytophages of Russian olive, are the most suitable for further work on their use in biocontrol of Russian olive on another continent. We added some text about that to the conclusion.

Comment 6: In proposing potential introducers, the authors should investigate the likely interactions of these species with the indigenous flora. It may turn out that they could shift from Russian Olive to native species, posing a significant threat to species conservation. Furthermore, aggressive introducers can substantially alter local ecosystems, leading to serious crises. This should also be discussed in relation to the proposed species

Response 6: The reviewer is correct in suggesting further studies that need to be conducted in a specialized USDA-ARS laboratory for biocontrol purposes in the USA under quarantine conditions. First, this concerns the identification of food specialization (host-plant specificity) among the biotypes of plants of the local flora. The protocol requires this type of work. In our study, we did not set such a task.

Comment 7: Despite the sceptical questions raised above, the presented work on the potential introduction of pest species for the control of Russian Olive populations in the US can be recommended for publication, taking into account the aforementioned issues. It is essential to clearly position the importance of utilising the proposed insect species, demonstrating their potential effectiveness in controlling the spread of Russian Olive and ensuring their safety for the indigenous flora of the US. I hope the authors will be able to incorporate the necessary arguments into the discussions and conclusions of the work.

Response 7: We thank the reviewer for his assessment of our manuscript. We add some text to discussions and conclusions as required arguments.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors corrected only the minor issues indicated before. That’s Ok. Although they state that the manuscript was repeatedly edited by the native speakers, the text still contains several points that need correction.  They are listed below.

Abstract: Lines 12-13

Two of the most studied species: monophage Trioza magnisetoza and narrow oligophage Altica ballasogloi are offered for biological control of Russian Olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) in the USA.

The authors deleted the names of two most promising species from the title, where they were correctly given with all the info (author and systematic position). But this data is also needed in the abstract. The indications “monophage” and “narrow oligophage” don’t substitute this essential info.

Should be

Two of the most studied species: monophage Trioza magnisetoza Loginova, 1964 (Hemiptera, Triozidae) and narrow oligophage Altica ballasogloi (Jakobson, 1892) (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae) are offered for biological control of Russian Olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) in the USA.

Lines 20-21

The most suitable for biological control of Russian Olive from this list are 24 species, including 8 species of monophages and 16 species of oligophages.

Although the native speakers checked all the text (or not), this sentence should be modified:

24 species from this list, including 8 species of monophages and 16 species of oligophages, are the most suitable for biological control of Russian olive.

Introduction

Lines 33-35

Currently, there is information on the growth of 3 species of Elaeagnus in Kazakhstan [2]: 2 indigenous E. oxycarpa Schlecht. and E. angustifolia L. and E. orientalis L. were introduced probably from Transcaucasia and Turkey.

This sentence is misleading. Who can guess from it what species are indigenous and what introduced? Should be modified:

Currently, 3 species of Elaeagnus are known in Kazakhstan [2], from them E. oxycarpa Schlecht. and E. angustifolia L. are indigenous, and E. orientalis L. was  introduced probably from Transcaucasia and Turkey.

 

Lines 37-39

One of these 3 species, Russian Olive E. angustifolia has a very wide range and is distributed from the countries of the Mediterranean, Western, Central and Eastern Europe, Western Siberia, Asia Minor, the Caucasus, Iran,

Should be

One of these 3 species, Russian Olive E. angustifolia has a very wide range and is distributed in the countries of the Mediterranean, Western, Central and Eastern Europe, Western Siberia, Asia Minor, the Caucasus, Iran,

 

Lines 41-45

Currently, it has become the subject of biological control in the United States. The 6th volume of “Flora of Kazakhstan”, published in 1963 (Academy of Sciences of the KazSSR: Almaty, Kazakhstan; volume 6, pp.223-224), provided information of only two species of Elaeagnus (E. oxycarpa and E. turcomanica) known from Kazakhstan.

The authors corrected the sentence, but this correction is not better than before. Is it really logical that for the statement “Currently, it has become the subject of biological control in the United States” the authors write: “The Russian olive has been under biological control in the United States for the past 50 years. This is a well-known fact and does not require citation”. So currently = 50 years? Sure? In this case you better write your note about 50 years in the manuscript.

The correction like: The 6th volume of “Flora of Kazakhstan”, published in 1963 (Academy of Sciences of the KazSSR: Almaty, Kazakhstan; volume 6, pp.223-224), looks awkward as the authors misunderstood my idea. You just need to cite this book as other references in square brackets […] and include this info not here but to the list of references.

Line 66-67

Eulecanium (Parthenolecanium) persicae and Diaspidiotus elaeagni (Diaspididae),

Should be (italics omitted)

Eulecanium (Parthenolecanium) persicae and Diaspidiotus elaeagni (Diaspididae),

 

3.2. Altica balassogloi (Jakobson, 1892) Lepidoptera, Chrysomelidae

(=Haltica suvorovi Ogl., H. lopatini Pal.)

The Russian Olive (oleaster) leaf beetle is a representative of a large genus consisting of about 250 species and having a worldwide distribution. There are 17 known species in Kazakhstan and Central Asia.

This leaf beetle is not in order Lepidoptera but Coleoptera. The data on number of species is not proved by any citation. However, the latest key to leaf beetles of Central Asia (Lopatin I.K. Leaf beetles (Insecta, Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae) of Central Asia. Minsk, Belarus University Publ. 2010. 511 p.) gives 250 species of Altica worldwide and only 15 in Central Asia (incl. Kazakhstan).

Should be

3.2. Altica balassogloi (Jakobson, 1892) (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae)

The Russian Olive (oleaster) leaf beetle is a representative of a large genus consisting of about 250 species and having a worldwide distribution. There are 15 known species in Kazakhstan and Central Asia [Lopatin 2010].

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In general is Ok but exact sentences mentioned above need improvement.

Author Response

Comments 1. Abstract: Lines 12-13

Two of the most studied species: monophage Trioza magnisetoza and narrow oligophage Altica ballasogloi are offered for biological control of Russian Olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) in the USA.

The authors deleted the names of two most promising species from the title, where they were correctly given with all the info (author and systematic position). But this data is also needed in the abstract. The indications “monophage” and “narrow oligophage” don’t substitute this essential info.

Should be

Two of the most studied species: monophage Trioza magnisetoza Loginova, 1964 (Hemiptera, Triozidae) and narrow oligophage Altica ballasogloi (Jakobson, 1892) (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae) are offered for biological control of Russian Olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) in the USA.

Response 1.  We thank the reviewer for the work done in evaluating our manuscript and for suggesting the minor correction. We accept adding an author and systematic position to the abstract text.

Comments 2. Lines 20-21

The most suitable for biological control of Russian Olive from this list are 24 species, including 8 species of monophages and 16 species of oligophages.

Although the native speakers checked all the text (or not), this sentence should be modified:

24 species from this list, including 8 species of monophages and 16 species of oligophages, are the most suitable for biological control of Russian olive.

Response 2. We accept the reviewer’s suggestion.

Comments 3. Introduction. Lines 33-35

Currently, there is information on the growth of 3 species of Elaeagnus in Kazakhstan [2]: 2 indigenous E. oxycarpa Schlecht. and E. angustifolia L. and E. orientalis L. were introduced probably from Transcaucasia and Turkey.

This sentence is misleading. Who can guess from it what species are indigenous and what introduced? Should be modified:

Currently, 3 species of Elaeagnus are known in Kazakhstan [2], from them E. oxycarpa Schlecht. and E. angustifolia L. are indigenous, and E. orientalis L. was  introduced probably from Transcaucasia and Turkey.

Response 3. We accept the reviewer’s suggestion.

Comments 4. Lines 37-39

One of these 3 species, Russian Olive E. angustifolia has a very wide range and is distributed from the countries of the Mediterranean, Western, Central and Eastern Europe, Western Siberia, Asia Minor, the Caucasus, Iran,

Should be

One of these 3 species, Russian Olive E. angustifolia has a very wide range and is distributed in the countries of the Mediterranean, Western, Central and Eastern Europe, Western Siberia, Asia Minor, the Caucasus, Iran,

Response 4. We accept the reviewer’s suggestion.

Comments 5. Lines 41-45

Currently, it has become the subject of biological control in the United States. The 6th volume of “Flora of Kazakhstan”, published in 1963 (Academy of Sciences of the KazSSR: Almaty, Kazakhstan; volume 6, pp.223-224), provided information of only two species of Elaeagnus (E. oxycarpa and E. turcomanica) known from Kazakhstan.

The authors corrected the sentence, but this correction is not better than before. Is it really logical that for the statement “Currently, it has become the subject of biological control in the United States” the authors write: “The Russian olive has been under biological control in the United States for the past 50 years. This is a well-known fact and does not require citation”. So currently = 50 years? Sure? In this case you better write your note about 50 years in the manuscript.

The correction like: The 6th volume of “Flora of Kazakhstan”, published in 1963 (Academy of Sciences of the KazSSR: Almaty, Kazakhstan; volume 6, pp.223-224), looks awkward as the authors misunderstood my idea. You just need to cite this book as other references in square brackets […] and include this info not here but to the list of references.

Response 5. We are grateful to the reviewer for the comment. Indeed, we misunderstood the earlier comment. We agree to cite this book as other references in square brackets. We agree with this comment and have made appropriate changes in the text (including changes in numbering in the list of references).

Corrected text: It has been the subject of biological control research in the United States for almost the past 50 years. The 6th volume of “Flora of Kazakhstan” [3] provided information on only two species of Elaeagnus (E. oxycarpa and E. turcomanica) known from Kazakhstan.

Comments 6. Line 66-67

Eulecanium (Parthenolecanium) persicae and Diaspidiotus elaeagni (Diaspididae),

Should be (italics omitted)

Eulecanium (Parthenolecanium) persicae and Diaspidiotus elaeagni (Diaspididae),

Response 6. We agree, done.

Comments 7. 3.2. Altica balassogloi (Jakobson, 1892) Lepidoptera, Chrysomelidae (=Haltica suvorovi Ogl., H. lopatini Pal.)

The Russian Olive (oleaster) leaf beetle is a representative of a large genus consisting of about 250 species and having a worldwide distribution. There are 17 known species in Kazakhstan and Central Asia.

This leaf beetle is not in order Lepidoptera but Coleoptera. The data on number of species is not proved by any citation. However, the latest key to leaf beetles of Central Asia (Lopatin I.K. Leaf beetles (Insecta, Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae) of Central Asia. Minsk, Belarus University Publ. 2010. 511 p.) gives 250 species of Altica worldwide and only 15 in Central Asia (incl. Kazakhstan).

Should be

3.2. Altica balassogloi (Jakobson, 1892) (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae)

The Russian Olive (oleaster) leaf beetle is a representative of a large genus consisting of about 250 species and having a worldwide distribution. There are 15 known species in Kazakhstan and Central Asia [Lopatin 2010].

Response 7. Thank you very much for the comments. You are right on the Coleoptera. We made a technical mistake in the manuscript. We agree and have made appropriate changes in the text