Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,
First of all, I have to say that this manuscript has a value on the topi of agroecology and the sustainable management of crops. I acknowledge the effort that was spend to conduct the research, both literature review and field work.

I have some minor points that I think would improve your manuscript.

1) In Table 1, you present some empirical studies. Ok, the table is not very easy to read, but I understand the challenge. My comment is on the value of this table. What was the process to select these certain papers, and not others? You have to state the criteria you used, otherwise, it is just a catalog.

2) Chapter 2 seems to be an interesting addition, and the paper benefits from it. I have to say that the experimental design is really complicated in the way you explain it. The Box 1 makes it easier, but I can not see anything about the number of the farms etc. So, what we need here is a more clear description of the survey design. Moreover, I tried to find the Supplemental Material that you state on line 229, and was not available.

3) Overall, you tend to have long paragraphs which at some point, for the reader, are hard to follow. This is even harder in the captions of Tables, Box, and Figures. Table 1 can be much more simpler, so it is easier for the reader to see directly what 3.1; 3.2 etc means. Box 1 is also a bit complicated. Stick to the necessary information, and if needed, explain in the text. For example, the reader knows what is an edge. If you want to include this information, do it in the text, not in the caption. Figures 1 & 2 are fine. Figure 3 caption is also very complicated. Make them simpler.

Overall, as you can see by my comments, I think that your manuscript is in a good shape, it is interesting for the reader, and it only needs minor revisions in my opininion. Also, I have to state that your graphics (Box and Figures) are very nice for the reader and add value to the manuscript.

Author Response

REVIEWER 1
I have some minor points that I think would improve your manuscript.

1) In Table 1, you present some empirical studies. Ok, the table is not very easy to read, but I understand the challenge. My comment is on the value of this table. What was the process to select these certain papers, and not others? You have to state the criteria you used, otherwise, it is just a catalog.

We thank the reviewer for this important comment, which helped us clarify the methodological basis of Table 1. We agree that the original version did not sufficiently explain the selection process, which could give the impression of a simple catalog rather than a structured synthesis.

In the revised manuscript, we now explicitly describe the criteria used to identify and include studies in Table 1. Specifically, studies were selected through a targeted and structured literature survey of peer-reviewed empirical and conceptual work addressing field borders, field margins, or vegetated strips in agroecosystems. Inclusion required that studies explicitly evaluated the effects of border vegetation on pest populations, natural enemies, or associated trophic interactions and that their findings could be interpreted within at least one of the four mechanistic pathways developed in this framework. We also clarify that the synthesis is intentionally non-exhaustive and designed to organize representative evidence rather than provide a systematic review.

These clarifications have been added both in the Table 1 caption and in the Introduction where the table is first introduced. We also added to the supplemental material a section explaining our review process and criteria in more detail.

2) Section 2 seems to be an interesting addition, and the paper benefits from it. I have to say that the experimental design is really complicated in the way you explain it. The Box 1 makes it easier, but I can not see anything about the number of the farms etc. So, what we need here is a more clear description of the survey design. Moreover, I tried to find the Supplemental Material that you state on line 229, and was not available.

We thank the reviewer for highlighting the need for greater clarity in the description of the survey design in section 2. We agree that the original version lacked sufficient detail regarding sampling structure, particularly the number of farms included in the survey.

The manuscript is a review and synthesis rather than a primary empirical study, therefore we opted for retaining detailed methodological information in the Supplemental Material to avoid disrupting the flow of the main conceptual narrative while ensuring full reproducibility and transparency of the data collection process.

In the Supplemental material, we have clarified the experimental/survey design by explicitly reporting the number of farms, sampling units, and spatial structure of the dataset. We also simplified the description of the design in the main text and retained additional procedural details in Box 1 for clarity.

In addition, we have corrected the issue regarding Supplemental Material referenced originally on line 229. The supplementary file was unintentionally omitted during submission and has now been uploaded and made available. We apologize for this oversight.

3) Overall, you tend to have long paragraphs which at some point, for the reader, are hard to follow. This is even harder in the captions of Tables, Box, and Figures. Table 1 can be much more simpler, so it is easier for the reader to see directly what 3.1; 3.2 etc means. Box 1 is also a bit complicated. Stick to the necessary information, and if needed, explain in the text. For example, the reader knows what is an edge. If you want to include this information, do it in the text, not in the caption. Figures 1 & 2 are fine. Figure 3 caption is also very complicated. Make them simpler.

We thank the reviewer for this helpful and constructive suggestion. We agree that several sections of the manuscript were overly dense and that this reduced readability, particularly in explanatory text boxes and figure/table captions.

In response, we have substantially revised the manuscript to improve clarity and readability by:

• Breaking long paragraphs into shorter, more focused units of argumentation
• Simplifying captions for Table 1, Box 1, and Figure 3 to retain only essential information needed for interpretation
• Moving explanatory details (e.g., definitions of “edge” and related concepts) from captions into the main text where appropriate
• Ensuring that mechanistic labels (3.1–3.4) are immediately interpretable without requiring extended reading of captions

We believe these revisions significantly improve the accessibility of the manuscript while preserving the conceptual depth of the framework.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript, ‘Beyond Beneficial Margins: Four Mechanisms Linking Border Vegetation to Pest Dynamics’ [MS ID biology-4237267] presents a conceptual and empirical synthesis on how vegetated field borders influence pest dynamics in agroecosystems with a framework of 4 mechanisms viz., Host reservoirs & selective filters, Colonization dynamics, Multitrophic network restructuring, and Management as a selective force. The study integrates ecological theory with field survey data and literature validation, aiming to move beyond the simplistic “beneficial borders” paradigm. The MS is well-conceived and well-written. I have a few points which may improve the MS quality.

• The abstract clearly articulates the research gap, mechanisms, key findings, with conceptual framing and relevance; however, lack of methodological details like empirical survey Vs synthesis (Please clarify the data sources). Please emphasize the practical/actionable implications of IPM.
• In the Introduction, the authors have nicely integrated weed ecology, coexistence theory, and metacommunity concepts, well-supported by the literature. Please reduce redundancy in the discussion on the diversity vs dominance. Please present the four hypotheses in a schematic diagram. Please add the conceptual figure earlier the Table 1.
• Line 41: Yet their ecological role extends beyond direct competition. Please revise the sentence.
• The Box 1. – Edge vs Border, may be mentioned as Fig. 1 with the clearer legend.
• The table 1 depicts a clear and valuable synthesis of the mechanisms and research gaps.
• Authors linked Table-1 with Table-3 (Mechanisms). Please clarify criteria for classification into mechanism. Please add a summary figure or heatmap showing distribution of studies across mechanisms. Table 1 may be presented as a supplementary table.
• In Section 2: Empirical Evidence, please clarify the sample size, replication, and statistical methods.
• Please shorten the caption in Fig. 1 and 2. Please include the statistical annotations.
• Section 3: Conceptual Framework: Please add a summary table of predictions per mechanism and include testable hypotheses or equations if possible.
• Figure 2 could be split into two panels, mechanisms and flows.
• Please carefully chack the minor grammatical errors “thus our survey thus far…” and check the ambiguous phrase “most farms we have been surveying for years” throughout the text.
• Please standardize terminology (border vs edge usage).
• Please expand section 2 with elaborated methods.
• Please strengthen the ‘link to applied IPM strategies’.
• Please add a section for management implications.
• Please rephrase the following sentences;
• ‘Many weed species serve as alternative hosts for insect herbivores, reservoirs for plant pathogens, and modifiers of soil microbial communities, thereby participating in broader agroecosystem networks that influence plant health and pest dynamics.’
• ‘Thus, our survey thus far suggests that pest risk is more closely associated’
• ‘In particular, few studies explicitly consider that border weeds may simultaneously provide’
• ‘In most cases (of all the farms we have been surveying for years).’
• ‘Species were further classified into functional groups.’ Please mention the groups.
• Please cross-check the citations and their patterns. Overall, language, grammar, and punctuation are fine; however, please cross-check minor errors, reduce the redundancy and shorten the longer sentences.

The MS presents a valuable and novel conceptual framework with potential impacts, which may be considered for publication after major revision.

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

The abstract clearly articulates the research gap, mechanisms, key findings, with conceptual framing and relevance; however, lack of methodological details like empirical survey Vs synthesis (Please clarify the data sources). Please emphasize the practical/actionable implications of IPM.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have revised the Abstract to clarify that this study is based on a structured synthesis of empirical and conceptual literature, rather than a primary empirical dataset. Specifically, we now explicitly state that we synthesize studies identified through targeted literature selection and classify them according to the proposed mechanistic framework. We also strengthened the applied relevance by adding explicit statements on how the framework informs actionable IPM strategies, particularly emphasizing composition-based border management, identification of high-risk taxa, and the role of borders in pest carryover and early-season colonization.

In the Introduction, the authors have nicely integrated weed ecology, coexistence theory, and metacommunity concepts, well-supported by the literature. Please reduce redundancy in the discussion on the diversity vs dominance. Please present the four hypotheses in a schematic diagram. Please add the conceptual figure earlier the Table 1.

We agree and have revised the Introduction to reduce redundancy, particularly in the discussion of diversity versus dominance. We streamlined these sections to emphasize that plant identity and dominance structure, rather than diversity per se, are the key predictors of pest outcomes.

In addition, we developed a new schematic diagram summarizing the four hypotheses and placed it earlier in the Introduction (now Figure 1), before the first reference to Fig 2 (the heatmap) and Table S1, as suggested.

Line 41: Yet their ecological role extends beyond direct competition. Please revise the sentence.

We revised the sentence for clarity and flow. The updated version reads:
“Weeds are typically defined as plants that interfere with human goals, particularly agricultural production, where they compete with crops for light, nutrients, water, and space, reducing yields and increasing management costs. However, their ecological role extends well beyond direct competition.”

The Box 1. – Edge vs Border, may be mentioned as Fig. 1 with the clearer legend.

We appreciate this suggestion. However, we chose to retain Box 1 as a text box rather than converting it into a figure. Our intention is to provide a concise conceptual clarification (edge vs. border) that supports terminology consistency throughout the manuscript. To address the reviewer 1’s concern, we substantially simplified the text in Box 1 to improve clarity and readability while keeping it as a compact reference element rather than a graphical figure.

The table 1 depicts a clear and valuable synthesis of the mechanisms and research gaps. Authors linked Table-1 with Table-3 (Mechanisms). Please clarify criteria for classification into mechanism. Please add a summary figure or heatmap showing distribution of studies across mechanisms. Table 1 may be presented as a supplementary table.

We agree and have clarified the classification criteria in both the table legend, fig 2  and the main text. We now explicitly state that studies were included based on (i) explicit examination of border vegetation effects on pests, natural enemies, or trophic interactions, and (ii) interpretability within at least one of the four mechanistic pathways.

We have also:

• Moved formally Table 1 to the Supplementary Material (now Table S1),
• Added a new summary heatmap figure (Fig 2) showing the distribution of studies across mechanisms,
• Referenced this figure in the main text to provide a clearer synthesis of evidence distribution.

 

In Section 2: Empirical Evidence, please clarify the sample size, replication, and statistical methods.

We appreciate this comment. Because this manuscript is a review and synthesis rather than a primary empirical study, we opted not to expand Section 2 into a full methods-style description. Instead, we clarified in the text and Supplementary Material that the empirical component reflects a structured survey of field observations and literature synthesis. Details on sampling context and data structure are now provided in the Supplementary Material, as appropriate for a review-based manuscript.

In the Supplemental material, we have clarified the experimental/survey design by explicitly reporting the number of farms, sampling units, and spatial structure of the dataset. In addition, we have corrected the issue regarding Supplemental Material. The supplementary file was unintentionally omitted during submission and has now been uploaded and made available. We apologize for this oversight.

 

Please shorten the caption in Fig. 1 and 2. Please include the statistical annotations.

We have revised all figure captions to improve clarity and conciseness, particularly now Figures 3–5. Where applicable, we added statistical annotations directly within figures and simplified caption text to focus only on essential interpretation.

 

Section 3: Conceptual Framework: Please add a summary table of predictions per mechanism and include testable hypotheses or equations if possible.

We agree and have added a new summary table in Section 3 that synthesizes the four mechanisms, their ecological processes, and associated testable predictions. Now Table 1 provides a concise link between conceptual pathways and empirically testable hypotheses.

Figure 2 could be split into two panels, mechanisms and flows.

We appreciate this suggestion. However, we have chosen to retain (now) Figure 4 as a single integrated panel to preserve the conceptual linkage between pest and weed occurrences across borders and crops. The primary purpose of this figure is not to test or imply statistical differences between habitats, but rather to illustrate the tight ecological association and co-occurrence patterns between weeds and pest communities at the border–crop interface.

To improve clarity, we have revised the figure layout and labeling to more clearly distinguish mechanisms and flow components within the same conceptual framework. We believe this approach better maintains the integrative intent of the figure while addressing readability concerns.

 

• Please carefully chack the minor grammatical errors “thus our survey thus far…” and check the ambiguous phrase “most farms we have been surveying for years” throughout the text.
• Please standardize terminology (border vs edge usage).
• Please expand section 2 with elaborated methods.
• Please strengthen the ‘link to applied IPM strategies’.
• Please add a section for management implications.
• Please rephrase the following sentences;
• ‘Many weed species serve as alternative hosts for insect herbivores, reservoirs for plant pathogens, and modifiers of soil microbial communities, thereby participating in broader agroecosystem networks that influence plant health and pest dynamics.’
• ‘Thus, our survey thus far suggests that pest risk is more closely associated’
• ‘In particular, few studies explicitly consider that border weeds may simultaneously provide’
• ‘In most cases (of all the farms we have been surveying for years).’
• ‘Species were further classified into functional groups.’ Please mention the groups.
• Please cross-check the citations and their patterns. Overall, language, grammar, and punctuation are fine; however, please cross-check minor errors, reduce the redundancy and shorten the longer sentences.

We carefully revised the manuscript to correct grammatical errors and remove ambiguous phrasing. We standardized terminology across the manuscript and clarified definitions in Box 1 to ensure consistent use of “border” and “edge.” We revised all indicated sentences for clarity, precision, and conciseness. These changes improve readability and reduce redundancy.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made a substantial effort to address the reviewer’s comments, and the manuscript has improved in overall clarity, structure, and conceptual coherence. A clearer balance between conceptual synthesis and empirical grounding would further strengthen the manuscript. In addition, although language and redundancy have been improved, minor issues in phrasing, clarity, and consistency persist and would benefit from a final careful edit.

Overall, the revised manuscript presents a coherent, well-supported, and conceptually robust contribution to the field. I recommend the manuscript for consideration of acceptance.