Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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.