Download 7261-26831-1

Review
Reviewer A
Subject: The host natural volatile emission influences Ips duplicatus
response to characteristic…
For author and editor This manuscript does describe an experiment which tests for an
interaction between one species of spruce and one species of bark
beetle. As it is mentioned in the introduction the amount of fresh
harvesting debris is playing a major role in attracting other species of
bark beetle, so it is no big surprise that the behavior of this new
(invasive) species does resemble the pattern found in other closely or
even very closely related insect species (members of the same genus).
This investigation is mainly interesting for forest entomologists. In my
opinion, the authors have failed to address this specific plant-insect
interaction in a broader context. This is well exemplified by the way in
which the authors are introducing their work. They focus on this pair
of species rather than the influence of volatile substances on insects,
which may raise more interest from the readers of Notulae Botanicae.
Specific comments:
title is not clear. I would say: Volatile emissions of Picea abies
harvesting debris do influence the response of Ips duplicatus to
synthetic pheromone
Author response: Reviewer proposed variant for title is ok, but I
thought the next version is more comprehensive: “Effects of volatile
emissions of Picea abies fresh debris on Ips duplicatus response to
characteristic synthetic pheromone”
Abstract: which is the background of this study? Most of the abstract
consists of the method you used. Ln. 12 delete "that".
Author response: The abstract was completed with the information
required; “that” word was deleted.
Introduction: first, try to convince us why this type of biotic
interaction is so important for botanists and forestry sector, and then
come to your specific case.
Where is coming this insect from? and which is the amount of
damages caused by this insect relative to the total insect damages for
this tree species?
Author response: The “Introduction” was completed with the
information required.
Use Ips duplicates once, and afterward I. duplicates.
Ln. 35 delete “having this background behind”
Author response: the requested changes has been done;
Ln. 36 are there cases in literature when bark beetles do not
concentrate in the presence of host volatiles? Why I. duplicatus may
behave in a different (atypical) way compared to other bark beetles?
Author response: In literature are not presented cases to show that as
the other species of bark beetles do not concentrate in the presence of
host volatiles. Content of this phrase was reformulated.
Ln. 37 delete “also”
Author response: the requested changes has been done;
Materials and methods
Please insert a few words about how this insect is looking about. The
majority of the readers have probably no idea about this insect and the
tree species.
Author response: Short information is presented in the introduction.
Why the experiments were located only at sites (in plantations) outside
of the natural range of Picea abies?
Author response: In these sites are the most important populations of I.
duplicatus bark beetle.
Why the emission of volatile substances was not measured (quantity
and composition), since this emission may explain best the differences
among sites?
Author response: Volatile emission was not measured because we
considered that their spectrum is similar in the three plot of fresh
debris (spruce plantation were almost same characteristics of the
stand).
Ln 54 compartment not "unit"
Ln. 59, with a synthetic
Author response: the requested changes has been done;
Results
Ln. 103 all species names must be Italic.
Ln. 113 nonsignificat not insignificant.
Author response: the requested changes has been done;
There is no explanation in this section why the temperature dynamics
is presented in figure 1.
Author response: The results was completed with the information
required.
The authors are discussing mainly their own results. About half of the
references are recent, but only few are from the last years.
In conclusion, I consider this is an interesting study; the experiment
has been well conducted, and the data was correctly analyzed.
However, the background of the study should be improved as stated
above. Therefore, after submission of a properly revised version I will
suggest the Editor to accept the manuscript.