Mass Trapping as a Sustainable Approach for Scarabaeidae Pest Management in Crops and Grasslands
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors of the paper “Mass trapping as a sustainable approach for Agriotes and Scarabaeidae pest management in crops and grasslands” attempt to provide a comprehensive review of advancements in mass trapping techniques for soil-dwelling pests. However, the paper does not offer a novel contribution to the field, as several other review papers have already covered similar topics (https://doi.org/10.3390/insects4010117; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11050436). Many of the discussed categories (e.g., 2.1.2 Life cycle and ecology, 2.1.3 Economic importance, 3.1 Pheromone-based mass trapping) lack thorough research and are presented in a disjointed manner, making them difficult to follow. Some of the information are not accurate, or only one source was consulted, like the statement in line 117, that all chafer grubs have a 3–4-year life cycle, while the cited paper refers only to Melolontha melolontha, while some species like the ones from the genus Amphimallon have a life cycle ranging from 1 to 2 years. Additionally, it is unclear why the issue of P. japonica was given a separate chapter but only briefly discussed. The presented figures are of limited practical value, particularly those related to the distribution of the Elateridae family in Europe, given that this family contains over 600 species, many of which are non-pests, and similarly for the Scarabaeidae family, which includes more than 1,000 species. It would have been more useful if the authors focused on presenting their own findings from literature rather than relying on maps sourced from external websites. Moreover, the photos in figures 4 and 5 (especially 5c, 5d, 5e) lack relevance to the topic and do not add meaningful information. Finally, the conclusions drawn are too general to be of practical use and fail to address critical issues such as the high labor and material costs of mass trapping, inconsistent efficacy across species, and the logistical challenges of landscape-level coordination, which are essential for evaluating the true viability of mass trapping as a sustainable pest management strategy. A more detailed discussion of these practical and ecological limitations, as well as a much wider research and effort, would have strengthened the paper’s contribution.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, my responses to your comments and suggestions are available in the attachment. Kind regards, Stane Trdan (the corresponding author)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe review by Zamljen et al. is a useful overview of mass-trapping prospects for two economically important insect groups. Their detection and monitoring are extensively reviewed elsewhere, whereas mass-trapping has not received that much attention so far. Although comprehensive, the manuscript could definitely be shortened, as I find it repetitive, thus redundant, in places. For example, sections 4.3, 5.3, 5.4, 7 and 8 overlap a lot, and lines 492-508 could be removed entirely to leave the rest of the conclusions to deal with future prospects.
I have the following specific comments to be addressed:
- line 39: The concept of mass-trapping should be extended here with the notion that it can be most efficient if the damage-causing life stage itself is trapped (like P. japonica). Catching lots of male click beetles, for example, does not constitute as mass-trapping, because, as the authors correctly highlight, it has little negative effect on larval populations and subsequent damage. Same for line 167 and 322.
- Figures 1-3: indicate in caption what the different colours mean.
- line 117: Don`t chafer grubs spend all their life underground?
- line 172: I wonder if efforts to mass-trap tropical rhinoceros beetles (as scarabs) are worth mentioning very briefly, as seminal examples of mass-trapping? These have caught bucket-loads of them and had some positive effect on damage-mitigation.
- line 210: "were sufficient" for what?
- line 221: delete `positive` before `attraction`
- line 287: I suggest you cite here ref [36] for trap design
- lines 307-309: This sentence is not clear to me; i.e. link between pheromone activity and soil type.
- line 332: delete either `wireworm` or `larvae` - they mean the same thing
- line 356: correct to `European`
- line 356: Mention here work by Toth Miklos on Anomala spp., another European genus, especially as they`re in the same sub-family as P. japonica! You may also include these in Table 2. Relevant literature for Anomala:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267398281_Perimeter_trapping_A_new_means_of_mass_trapping_with_sex_attractant_of_Anomala_scarabs
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289671189_Three_years_of_mass_trapping_with_sex_attractant_traps_for_control_of_Anomala_Scarabs_in_ripening_peaches
- line 448: Do you mean shorter larval period?
Author Response
Dear reviewer, my responses to your comments and suggestions are available in the attachment. Kind regards, Stane Trdan (the corresponding author)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis review paper looks at mass trapping of adults as a way to control soil-dwelling scarabs, which is an interesting idea. My concerns are that the review is too narrow in its focus: Slovenian Ariotes instead of click beetle larvae globally. Expand the scale of the review to justify its publication and make it more valuable to more readers. That means add more papers from outside Europe and outside the European genera, as well as changing the text to remove the Eruopean focus.
The title focuses on Agriotes. The review should include other genera of wireworm, so replace this with "wireworms" or "Elateridae" and modify the abstract and rest of the paper as well.
Delete all text that specifically refers to Slovenia. This review paper should cater to its international audience, or else be published in a Slovenian journal. It may also benefit from being less Europe-focused, deleting for example the parts talking about the specific economic threats to Europe. A review on mass trapping to control Elateridae and Scarabaeidae globally is better than one that focuses on Europe, as the science should be the same.
Section 2:
I generally don't like overuse of subheadings, especially if each gets a single paragraph. I would get rid of every subheading below the second level. That is, merge 2.1.1-3 into 2.1.
Figures 1-3 can be deleted. Figure 5 should be Figure 1. [If you choose to keep these figures anyway, then Figure 5 should be Figure 3, as figures must be numbered by the order they are referenced in the text.]
Table 1: There are a great many more species of pest Scarabaeidae. Include much more, or else delete the table entirely. This is not a review of pest species, but of mass trapping.
209 Add a comma before "but also"
Section 3:
This review sounds very generic about mass trapping. The content wavers between generic and specific to the Elateridae and Scarabaeidae. This is confusing. I would recommend moving the generic information about mass trapping to a single paragraph in the Section 1 introduction, and moving the content specifically about the pests to their relevant sections.
Section 4:
dd more papers from outside Europe to this review. Any research paper on mass trapping of pest wireworms or pest scarabs anywhere in the world should be included in this review. There are lessons to be learned from everywhere. [The authors may decide that Scarabaeidae is too big, and to limit their review to wireworms. That is fine, even though the comparisons presented in Section 6 are well done.]
482 Italicize Beauvaria
Author Response
Dear reviewer, my responses to your comments and suggestions are available in the attachment. Kind regards, Stane Trdan (the corresponding author)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have adequately addressed my points.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe previous version of the paper focused on scarabs and wireworms in Slovenia. This revision focuses just on Scarabs in crops and grasslands, and globally.
While there are scarab pests outside grasslands, the review does well within the narrowly defined topic. This is a great improvement.
I have no further comments. The English is superb. The review is sufficient. I say accept.
