Occurrence of Insect Pests and Natural Enemies in Korean Cnidium officinale Cultivation—A Survey

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No more comments, thank you.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comments.

Please find the attached file for our response to the reviewer's comments.

 

Sincerely,

Bong-Kyu Byun

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

 

Personally, here on this version of the manuscript, progress has been made more or less the same as with the last review. Now, I realize that the resubmission appeared.

 

At this point, I can only tell you that progress has been made, that I believe that the manuscript can be published, but the authors continue to communicate with frivolity because they do not edit, for example, table 6 as we agreed.

 

I still believe that the review of previous research on this topic should go into the introduction, not into the research results, because that should be the prerequisite for initiating this scientific work.

 

With respect.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear editors,

The authors have not explained anywhere in the acknowledgements (as a native English speaker reading) or in the attachment how the English language is edited, so it would be good if they could prove the accuracy of the English language.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comments.

Please find the attached file for our response to the reviewer's comments.

 

Sincerely,

Bong-Kyu Byun

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a comprehensive survey of insect pests and their natural enemies in Cnidium officinale cultivation in Korea. The research provides valuable  data for sustainable pest management strategies in this economically important medicinal crop.

The authors have conducted a thorough investigation across multiple cultivation sites in different regions of Korea, employing various collection methods to identify pests at different plant parts and soil depths. The vertical distribution analysis of soil pests provides novel insights into pest ecology that will inform targeted control measures.  The compilation of both previously reported and newly identified pests creates a valuable reference for researchers and growers.

The identification of potential biological control agents, particularly Parasitus sp., Macrocheles glaber, and Smicroplectrus erosus, represents a significant contribution toward developing integrated pest management strategies for C. officinale cultivation.

However, the are some issues the authors should address:

The sampling design is generally sound, but the uneven sampling frequency across sites (monthly in Jeongseon but only once in Yeongyang) may introduce bias when comparing regional pest distribution. This limitation should be discussed.

While the vertical distribution of pests is well-documented, the discussion would benefit from more analysis of ecological factors driving these distributions. The authors briefly mention environmental and agronomic factors (lines 191-207), but this could be expanded with references to soil conditions, moisture levels, or cultivation practices across the sites etc..

 Table 5 presents valuable data on vertical distribution, but statistical analysis comparing the distributions would strengthen the conclusions. Consider performing appropriate statistical tests to determine if the observed differences in distribution patterns are significant.

The section on natural enemies could be strengthened by including more information on the predator-prey relationships. What is known about the efficacy of these natural enemies against the identified pests? What conditions promote their establishment?

The conclusion could more explicitly address how the findings translate to practical management recommendations for growers.

Lines 250-253: When discussing D. antiqua distribution, the text states it shows "uniform distribution similar to R. robini" but then describes different patterns in Taebaek vs. Yeongyang. This appears contradictory and should be clarified.

Figures 1 and 2: The image quality could be improved, they are too small.

Line 75: "Table. 1" should be "Table 1" (no period after "Table")

Line 149: "Black light was used..." should be "A black light was used..."

Line 276: "Among flies, the optimal oviposition site..." (missing article)

Line 362: "Based on the reports and literatures reviewed..." should be "Based on the reports and literature reviewed..."

Throughout the whole manuscript: Inconsistent use of "COM" vs. "C. officinale" - standardize for clarity

Conclusion

This manuscript represents a valuable contribution to the understanding of pest ecology in C. officinale cultivation. With attention to the suggestions above, particularly regarding statistical analysis of distribution patterns and expanded discussion of ecological factors, the paper will provide even more useful information for developing sustainable pest management strategies. The identification of potential biological control agents is particularly promising for reducing chemical pesticide dependence in this medicinal crop.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comments.

Please find the attached file for our response to the reviewer's comments.

 

Sincerely,

Bong-Kyu Byun

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper conducted a one-year survey on the pests and natural enemies of Cnidium offinale in several regions of Korea. The results have certain significance for the cultivation of Cnidium offinale and the use of biological control technology to control pests. However, this study has the following issues:

1. Sampling and identification

Lines 71-74 This is a one-year field survey study, and the specific sampling time was not clearly presented in a table.

Line116-118 it mentioned “only individuals that were difficult to identify were conducted molecular identification”, only visual inspection was conducted for other samples? If so, morphological photos of those species should be presented.

2. Writing errors

Line 9 “the pests and attacking this plant,” and should be changed to that.

Lines 71-75 four collection provinces were mentioned in this paragraph; however, only three were pointed out in the graph

3. Chart and graph issues

(1) The charts and graph were not well presented. Most tables only showed scientific names. Adding common names or genus names will make it easier to follow.

(2) The article mentions visual taxonomic identification, please provide morphological photos of pests and natural enemies.

4. Analysis issues

(1) This study currently only lists pests and natural enemies at different soil depths or different damage parts but does not use charts to analyze the community differences between pests and natural enemies in different sampling sites. There are only a few descriptions in the text.

(2) What is the regression relationship between the number of major pests and natural enemy insects, or between natural enemies and pest species that are presumed to have a predator-prey relationship? Is there any correlation?

(3) The article mentions that sampling was divided into daytime and nighttime. What are the characteristics of the population occurrence during the daytime and nighttime?

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Line 9 “the pests and attacking this plant,” and should be changed to that.

Lines 71-75 four collection provinces were mentioned in this paragraph; however, only three were pointed out in the graph

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your valuable and constructive feedback has helped us significantly improve the quality and clarity of our work. We have carefully considered each of your comments and made the necessary revisions accordingly.

Please find the attached files of "Author to respond reviewer" for the detailed reponses.

Also, we upoloaded the revised manuscript with highlighted in yellow colored part for marking the correction.

Thank you once again for your insightful comments and recommendations. Your expertise and thoughtful suggestions have been instrumental in refining our manuscript. We hope that our revisions adequately address your concerns and that the updated manuscript meets your expectations.

Best regards,

Prof. Bong-Kyu Byun,

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The research is a survey. You have tried to describe the broader economic significance, but I still believe that it is of local importance. The results are not very useful except for faunal research. If we were to classify it as faunal, then it has shortcomings. Major changes are needed, namely in the title, keywords, interpretation of the results in the results and discussion, and conclusions.

Technically, the manuscript should be more refined in the description of the Latin names of species and the species should be harmonized according to the latest taxonomic classification and nomenclature, this has not been done for all species. First, the authors approach the naming of species differently in the manuscript, sometimes there is an author and the year that described the species, sometimes there is none. Usually, when the species is mentioned for the first time, the full name is given, and when it is mentioned the next time, the abbreviated form is used, in several places the authors do not practice this. The names of the species are not technically arranged in the manuscript. Finally, taxonomic harmonization was not made because the authors did not state which database or species catalogue this harmonization was checked with.

Detailed information on the researched locations is missing, apart from the GPRS coordinates, there is a series of information at least general (pedological, climatic, breeding on plot, etc.) that is not mentioned at all.

1. Reorganize the title, there are no clear guidelines that this is a research that includes altitude, what do the authors mean by altitude?

I suggest the title:

"Occurrence of Insect Pests and Natural Enemies in Korean Cnidium officinale Cultivation – a survey.

 

2. Reorganize the keywords. There are too few of them and they are repeated with the words in the title of the manuscript. Sort them alphabetically, I think that a survey is lacking and I think that a review of the literature that includes potential natural enemies should be included, because that is what the authors are also dealing with.

 

3. Pay attention to the binomial nomenclature, the author who described the species and the year when the species description was given. Please check the entire manuscript and improve it. See table 2. and other tables.

 

L 115 what deterministic keys were used for identification? You probably didn't do that roughly?

L 125 and 127, adjust the reference to the journal rules.

L 151,183, 192,194,207,222,302 start the sentence with “Species”.

L151 – do you mean a black light a hunting lamp?

 

4. Describing the results. The authors compare locations when describing the results. I believe that this cannot be done without calculating at least the dominance and frequency of occurrence, not to mention other indexes. When announcing and positioning the figures/tables in the manuscript, I believe that the order that is most palatable to the reader is as follows: 1) announce the figure/table 2) explain what it shows, then 3) show it and finally interpret it.

 

5. I suggest that subsections 3.5 and 3.4. be replaced because the interpretation of harmful species is followed by a literature review. Just as the natural enemies are followed by a literature review of natural enemies. Although I believe that the literature review of either harmful or natural enemy species is not part of the results, but rather an introduction.

 

6. Conclusion – It does not provide an answer to the hypotheses set/the aim and purpose of the research, but deals with assumptions about what should be done in the future. I agree and this can be part of the conclusion, but first it should be summarized and the question of what we did should be answered.

Literature

References in the list number: 7,41,42,48,50,51,55,56,58,59,60 should be checked and technically aligned with the journal rules.

I hope that my comments will be useful for you to improve your manuscript.

Good luck with the publication of the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your valuable and constructive feedback has helped us significantly improve the quality and clarity of our work. We have carefully considered each of your comments and made the necessary revisions accordingly.

Please find the attached files of "Author to respond reviewer" for the detailed reponses.

Also, we upoloaded the revised manuscript with highlighted in yellow colored part for marking the correction.

Thank you once again for your insightful comments and recommendations. Your expertise and thoughtful suggestions have been instrumental in refining our manuscript. We hope that our revisions adequately address your concerns and that the updated manuscript meets your expectations.

Best regards,

Prof. Bong-Kyu Byun,

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is basically a biodiversity survey on fields of Cnidium officinale. The methods such as "In the cultivation sites, insects flying or resting during the day were collected using an insect net and vials or 50 ml plastic tubes (Falcon® 50ml Conical Tubes, Corning Incorporated, Arizona, USA)." and "To investigate soil-dwelling pests, 400 ml of soil was collected from the vicinity of the cultivation site." will certainly collect arthropods but not really differentiate random collections from relevant ones. 
The survey in this study certainly has valid results for the assorted arthropods collected in and around fields. Do these results really in all cases represent relevant pests and probable bio-control and natural enemies? That is a question that would require a far more detailed and focused study.
Basically while this manuscript does describe a number of probable pests and a smaller number of observed pests that feed on Cnidium officinale along with a wide diversity of predatory and parasitoid arthropods from around the fields.  It is a good first step but the results will need real focuses attention before they have utility for agriculture.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your valuable and constructive feedback has helped us significantly improve the quality and clarity of our work. We have carefully considered each of your comments and made the necessary revisions accordingly.

Please find the attached files of "Author to respond reviewer" for the detailed reponses.

Also, we upoloaded the revised manuscript with highlighted in yellow colored part for marking the correction.

Thank you once again for your insightful comments and recommendations. Your expertise and thoughtful suggestions have been instrumental in refining our manuscript. We hope that our revisions adequately address your concerns and that the updated manuscript meets your expectations.

Best regards,

Prof. Bong-Kyu Byun,

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, I hope you will consider the suggestions below to enhance the quality of the paper.

Introduction

Lines 42-45: Are there any recent data on the production of C. officinale, considering that the presented information is over 10 years old?

Lines 57-64: I suggest providing taxonomic classification (order and family) for each listed species to enhance clarity and scientific accuracy.

Materials and Methods

Lines 91-93: I would suggest that the depth of soil sampling be clearly specified in the text, primarily to ensure the study’s reproducibility. The terms 'upper, middle, and lower points' may be ambiguous without precise quantitative data, and including these details would help other researchers replicate the study under similar conditions. 

Results and Discussion

The text mentions that pest distribution patterns vary by region (e.g., Taebaek and Yeongyang) but does not explain the potential reasons behind these regional differences. It would be useful to explore how cultivation practices, soil composition, or environmental factors (such as moisture and temperature) might influence the pest distribution.

The section on natural enemies would benefit from a more detailed discussion of how registered beneficial organisms interact with the identified pests in the field. Furthermore, addressing potential challenges associated with the use of these natural enemies in biological control would offer a more balanced and comprehensive perspective.

The distribution of pests across soil depths and cultivation areas is described, but the text would be stronger if it included statistical analyses to support these observations. This would help make the findings more credible.

The discussion would benefit from a stronger conclusion that ties the findings to practical pest management recommendations for COM cultivation. 

Overall, the study provides useful data on pests affecting Cnidium officinale and their natural enemies, but these improvements could help make the discussion section more precise, readable, and impactful.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4,

We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your valuable and constructive feedback has helped us significantly improve the quality and clarity of our work. We have carefully considered each of your comments and made the necessary revisions accordingly.

Please find the attached files of "Author to respond reviewer" for the detailed reponses.

Also, we upoloaded the revised manuscript with highlighted in yellow colored part for marking the correction.

Thank you once again for your insightful comments and recommendations. Your expertise and thoughtful suggestions have been instrumental in refining our manuscript. We hope that our revisions adequately address your concerns and that the updated manuscript meets your expectations.

Best regards,

Prof. Bong-Kyu Byun,

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your point-to-point response. The photos and sample information  provide more information about this study.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I am grateful for the accepted comments that I sent to the authors for the purpose of improving the manuscript. Most are respected, which makes me happy. It can be seen from Tables 6 and 7 and the larger part of the text that unfortunately the authors did not go through the entire manuscript in detail and improve the Latin names in accordance with the binomial nomenclature and the abbreviated spelling of Latin names after they were first mentioned in the text of D. antiqua, for example. Furthermore, I still maintain that Table 8. The checklist of natural enemy candidates for insect pests attacking COM. it is not part of the results, but part of the literature review, because the presented information is actually part of the review of what can be found according to other authors, and the findings are then discussed in the discussion.

Lastly, in the conclusions, I think that it is not necessary to convince the reviewers that the findings in the supplementary materials are credible, but the reader, and this was done earlier in the manuscript.

I believe that the conclusions should be shortened and that what was said in the first version is quite fine, with the caveat that the answer to the research goal should be given in a few sentences, and not unnecessarily expand the conclusions with interpretations already spread several times in the manuscript. Well, I hope that with this response to the attached version of the manuscript I have contributed to an even better version of the manuscript before publication.

I believe that the manuscript requires minor changes.

With respect.