Ecological Interactions and Climate-Driven Dynamics of Pine Wilt Disease: Implications for Sustainable Forest Management
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIntroduction:
Lines 33-39 - no source. Yes, forests are burning, but is it solely a matter of global warming?
Lines 65-66, the space between temperature and degrees Celsius is unnecessary in my opinion; it applies to the entire work.
Line 73: Does February through August have to be italicized?
Materials and methods
Line 104 - Please try to keep the figure and description on the same page.
The entire work - no sources under the figures. Is this your own work or does the figure come from somewhere? Tables are also provided.
Lines 113-141: Are there no sources for the method? Is this your own research method?
Results
Lines 164-184 - Perhaps a table could be included? This text is difficult to read; there's too much data. A table with all the results and a description of only the most important ones would be clearer.
Line 190 - you cite Mamiya (27,28), and again, starting with a new sentence, it says Mamiya, but without the citation. Lee is next, and there is a citation. Please fill in the missing citation or rearrange [27,28].
Figure 2 - as with Figure 1, the figure and name cannot be on separate pages; there is no source.
Lines 226-246 - similarly, it might be better to compile the results in a table and describe only the most important ones.
Line 302 - once you write Mamiya (XXXX) .............. [XX], and here you write Park et al. and not the year, but the number. This should be standardized throughout the paper. Either this notation, or this one.
Despite my minor comments, which are more editorial than substantive, I sincerely congratulate the authors on their work, which provides enormous new knowledge in the field of forest health management. The work is substantive and valuable. I have no comments on the text of a substantive nature. Congratulations.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Comment:
Introduction: Lines 33–39 – no source. Yes, forests are burning, but is it solely a matter of global warming?
Reply: Thank you for your comment. We have revised this section and added appropriate references (Abatzoglou & Williams, 2016; IPCC, 2021; Jolly et al., 2015) to clarify the relationship between climate change and wildfire activity (page 3, lines 34–41).
Comment: Lines 65–66, the space between temperature and degrees Celsius is unnecessary.
Reply: This issue has been addressed throughout the manuscript (e.g., “20 °C” → “20°C”) (page 5).
Comment: Line 73: Does February through August have to be italicized?
Reply: The months are no longer italicized (page 6).
Comment: Line 104 – Please try to keep the figure and description on the same page.
Reply: The figure placement has been adjusted so that the figures and captions remain on the same page with their respective captions.
Comment: The entire work – no sources under the figures. Is this your own work or does the figure come from somewhere?
Reply: We have clarified that all figures and tables are the authors’ own work, except for the base map data in Figure 1, which has been acknowledged appropriately (page 7, Figure 1 caption).
Comment: Lines 113–141: Are there no sources for the method? Is this your own research method?
Reply: We have clarified that the sampling procedures followed the Korea Forest Service’s PWD Control Guidelines [27], and nematode extraction was conducted using the Baermann funnel method [28]. References have been added accordingly (pages 8–9, lines 115–141).
Comment: Lines 164–184 – Perhaps a table could be included? This text is difficult to read.
Reply: Thank you for your suggestion. We have reorganized the results into Table 3 with detailed statistics, and the text now describes only the most important results (page 15).
Comment: Line 190 – missing citation for Mamiya.
Reply: Corrected. Both mentions of Mamiya now include the appropriate citations [31,32] (page 16).
Comment: Figure 2 – as with Figure 1, the figure and name cannot be on separate pages; there is no source.
Reply: Corrected. Figure 2 and its caption are now presented together, and the source is indicated as “Authors’ own work” (page 17).
Comment: Lines 226–246 – it might be better to compile the results in a table.
Reply: The manuscript has been revised accordingly. We have summarized the results in Table 4 and retained only the key findings in the main text (page 18).
Comment: Line 302 – inconsistent citation style.
Reply: We have standardized all the in-text citations. The revised manuscript now consistently applies the “ [number]” citation style (pages 23–24).
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study successfully translates ecological findings into practical management recommendations. The emphasis on the timely removal of "recently dead trees" as primary nematode reservoirs is a clear, actionable strategy for forest managers. The strong negative correlation between Bursaphelenchus xylophilus and B. mucronatus densities is a compelling finding that suggests interspecific competition. This opens new avenues for research into biological control and niche dynamics.
Suggestions for Improvement
Data Presentation and Visualization:
Figures 2, 3, 5: The letters (a, b, c...) denoting significant differences from Duncan's Multiple Range Test (DMRT) should be clearly explained in the figure captions (e.g., "Bars sharing the same letter within each year and section are not significantly different (DMRT, p < 0.05)").
Tables 3-5: These tables are currently complex and difficult to read. Consider simplifying them, using a visual heatmap format for nematode load ranges, or moving detailed data to a supplementary file while keeping a summary in the main text.
Discussion Depth:
While the temperature correlation is well-handled, briefly discussing the potential influence of other climatic variables (e.g., humidity, precipitation) on vector activity and nematode survival would provide a more complete picture.
The ecological role of B. mucronatus could be explored further. Could its persistence in later decay stages be leveraged as a biological indicator or even a tool for suppressive management against PWN? A brief speculation would enrich the discussion.
Language and Clarity:
Some sentences, particularly in the abstract and conclusions, are very long. Breaking them down would improve readability and impact.
Ensure perfect consistency in terminology. For example, use "PWN (Bursaphelenchus xylophilus)" on first use and then consistently use "PWN" throughout.
Statistical Reporting:
When reporting ANOVA results (e.g., F = 8282.03, p < 0.001), please include the degrees of freedom (e.g., F(2, 23) = 8282.03, p < 0.001) for completeness and statistical rigor.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Comment: Figures 2, 3, 5: The letters (a, b, c…) denoting DMRT differences should be explained in captions.
Reply: Corrected. Figure captions now include the following explanation: “Bars sharing the same letter within each year and section are not significantly different (DMRT, p < 0.05)” (pages 17, 19, 22).
Comment: Tables 3–5 are too complex and difficult to read.
Reply: We have simplified Tables 3–5 and provided a summary in the main text. Detailed statistics have been moved to Supplementary Tables S1–S3, and a heatmap (Figure 6) has been added for visualization (pages 15, 19, and 21).
Comment: Discussion – briefly include other climatic variables (humidity, precipitation).
Reply: We have expanded the discussion to note that humidity and precipitation may also influence vector emergence and nematode survival, citing the relevant literature (pages 27–28).
Comment: Ecological role of B. mucronatus could be explored further.
Reply: We have added a discussion on the persistence of B. mucronatus in later decay stages, suggesting that it may serve as a biological indicator and potential suppressor, while noting that this remains speculative (pages 26–27).
Comment: Language and clarity.
Reply: We have shortened the long sentences in the abstract and conclusion sections to improve readability and clarity (pages 2 and 34).
Comment: Consistency in terminology.
Reply: Corrected. The first mention is now “pine wood nematode (PWN; Bursaphelenchus xylophilus)” and thereafter consistently “PWN” and “B. mucronatus” (pages 2–3, 7–8).
Comment: Statistical reporting – include degrees of freedom in ANOVA results.
Reply: Corrected. All ANOVA results now include degrees of freedom (e.g., F(2, 23) = …) (pages 15–20).
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsLee et al. investigate host (Monochamus alternatus) and environmental factors affecting Bursaphelenchus xylophilus and B. mucronatus, and seek ecological insights for managing pine-wood nematode. This is a meaningful topic. In community ecology, we emphasize negative relationships between population density and vital rates (survival, growth) to highlight niche differentiation and promote species coexistence. My main concerns lie in the choice and interpretation of statistical analyses, which lead to several over-extended claims in the discussion. Detailed points follow.
- Section 2.6 Data Analysis. The rationale for the selected statistical methods is unclear. Pearson correlations do not require normality and homoscedasticity in the way stated, and they are not suited for causal interpretation. Given that causal language is used later, a regression framework (with model diagnostics and effect sizes) would be more appropriate. As written, correlation results are repeatedly interpreted causally, which is not justified.
- Results and Discussion combined. For readability and rigor, please separate Results from Discussion.
- Results presentation. The results section lists many descriptive details. Instead, report the analyses that directly address your research questions. This also means the Introduction needs a sharper statement of the specific questions/hypotheses that the results will answer.
- Line 186 (terminology). “Spatial pattern” is used to describe different tree parts. Spatial distribution typically refers to geographical space. Please revise the wording (e.g., “vertical position within the tree”: upper canopy, middle canopy, lower trunk).
- Line 189 (wood moisture content). It is unclear how wood moisture content is linked to your data—you did not measure it. I recommend removing that section and rethinking explanations for differences in PWN densities among tree parts based on measured variables.
- Line 199 (ecological principle). Please specify exactly which ecological principle you invoke and provide a citation.
- Lines 213–218 (main conclusion). The claim that PWN density differences among tree parts and years are “mainly determined by decomposition stage and corresponding wood moisture” is not supported by your data, since decomposition stage and moisture were not measured. This conclusion should be withdrawn or supported with appropriate measurements/analyses.
- Lines 252–254 (over-interpretation). The link between microhabitat and within-tree distribution of B. mucronatus is asserted without the necessary statistical analysis. Please provide formal tests (e.g., models relating density to measured microhabitat covariates) or temper the claim.
- Line 321 (competition). Competition cannot be inferred from simple correlations. At minimum, support with prior evidence or apply analyses designed to detect competitive interactions (e.g., joint species models, partial correlations controlling for environment, or experimental evidence).
- Line 375–377 (climate and beetle abundance). To conclude that temperature/climate drive beetle abundance, you should extract local climate data and fit models relating beetle measures to those variables. Otherwise, rephrase as a hypothesis.
Conclusions.
This section needs rewriting. Summarize answers to the clearly stated questions in the Introduction and articulate the significance and limitations of the study, avoiding causal claims that are not supported by the analyses.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Comment: Section 2.6 Data Analysis – rationale for statistical methods unclear.
Reply: Revised. We clarified that Pearson correlations were used descriptively and not causally. Regression analyses with diagnostics were performed where appropriate. Interpretations are now explicitly stated as associational (pages 13–14).
Comment: Results and Discussion combined – please separate.
Reply: Revised. Results and Discussion are now presented as separate sections (pages 15–24 for Results; pages 25–33 for Discussion).
Comment: Results presentation too descriptive.
Reply: Reorganized. Analyses addressing the hypotheses have been emphasized, whereas descriptive details have been moved to tables or supplementary materials (pages 15–22).
Comment: Line 186 – “spatial pattern” terminology.
Reply: The terminology has been modified to “vertical position within the tree (upper canopy, middle canopy, lower trunk)” (page 15).
Comment: Line 189 – wood moisture content not measured.
Reply: We have omitted text-implying measurements and reframed the moisture/decay stage as hypotheses for future research (pages 25–26).
Comment: Line 199 – ecological principle unspecified.
Reply: We have revised the statement to specify the “competitive exclusion principle” and added citations (Chesson, 2000; Gause, 1934) (page 25).
Comment: Lines 213–218 – claim about decomposition stage and moisture unsupported.
Reply: Unsupported causal claims have been removed, and the text has been reframed as hypotheses for future research (page 26).
Comment: Lines 252–254 – microhabitat claim without analysis.
Reply: The claim has been tempered and clarified as associational only. Suggestions for future statistical tests are included (pages 27–28).
Comment: Line 321 – competition cannot be inferred from correlations.
Reply: We have reframed the relationship as an association rather than competition, citing relevant prior work (pages 28–29).
Comment: Line 375–377 – climate and beetle abundance.
Reply: The statement has been rephrased as a hypothesis, and we suggest future analyses linking climate data with beetle abundance (page 30).
Comment: Conclusions section requires rewriting.
Reply: The conclusions now summarize the answers to the hypotheses, highlight the study limitations, and avoid unsupported causal claims (pages 33–34).
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI am satisfied with the current revisions.
