Bagworms in Indonesian Plantation Forests: Species Composition, Pest Status, and Factors That Contribute to Outbreaks
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
"Bagworms in Indonesian Plantation Forests: Diversity, Pest Status, and Factors that Contribute to Outbreak" is a quite interesting and well written paper concerning many forest actual topics. There are no experiments bur the review is well done and sounds actual and deserve to be pubilshed. One note related to the scientific nomenclature: all the scientific names (plants, insects, etc..) when reported for the first time in the text, should be written in full with Authority ans systematics
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors
Congratulations for the nice work of a review paper.
Anyway, I have several points to be revised and also several points to be added to make sure the final version is the best one.
1. Title: Not diversity. more to species composition/ richness
2. Sub-family, sub-species etc. - no dash in between (please check throughout the manuscript).
3. point 2.0 Diversity and Table 1 - refer comment above
4. 4.2 Climate - No space between no and symbol
5. 4.5 The major part of 4.5 need to revise again.
- We have the latest info in the Scopus.com
Please update
Interactions between Metisa plana, its hyperparasitoids and primary parasitoids from good agriculture practices (GAP) and non-gap oil palm plantations, Community Ecology.
DOI: 10.1007/s42974-022-00092-9
https://rdcu.be/cNWmr
- The taxonomic status of A. metesae, changed to D. metesae taxonomically
6. Conclusion- Prefer, the suggestion and recommendation of application based on data reviewed
E.g. molecular work related-- need for thorough study - species identification
and towards biodiversity conservation
7. References- many of references not up to date. Personal comm. not allowed for review paper usually
8. Suggestion to add:
- Several latest published paper related to bagworms must be reviewed;
Metabarcoding of Parasitic Wasp, Dolichogenidea metesae (Nixon) (Hymenoptera:
Braconidae) That Parasitizing Bagworm, Metisa plana Walker (Lepidoptera: Psychidae). Tropical Life Sciences Research. 33(1): 23-42.
New Insights into the Phylogeography of the Oil Palm Pest, Metisa plana Towards Its Management Control. Published online 3 Dec 2021. JOPR DOI: https://doi.org/10.21894/jopr.2021.0050
9. May add symptom/ damage of species generally
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The ms is a valuabale survey on the role of Psychidae as pest organisms in tropical forest plantations and on different tree species. The literature was intensively studied and all relevant publications were cited.
The ms can be printed as it is.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for the consideration for publication
Kind regards,
Author
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
This article is detailed, rather well written and overall seemed to me to be clear and pleasant to read except for a few sentences or parts that need to be revised (l 90-94 or 170 for example).
It describes the different types of forestry systems in Indonesia and reviews the bagworms in Indonesia. This review seems detailed and interesting because it gives access to information that is difficult to find (technical documents mostly in Indonesian).
The section on the forest contains a lot of repetition, especially in relation with the introduction. It seems to me to be too detailed in relation to the stated objective of the article, especially as the link with bagworms is not sufficiently made. This article gives the impression that it provides more information on the Indonesian wood economy than on bagworms in Indonesia.
The part on the diversity of bagworms repeats the general information on this group already given in the introduction.
The section on bagworms in Indonesia does not have a clear structure. It sometimes repeats exactly the information in table 2. It is presented alternatively by tree or by bagworm species. Pieces of biology and history are mixed in this section. This part should be compared with information on other plants in Indonesia (e.g. palm) but also with the diversity and distribution in neighbouring countries.
The outbreak section has a general section that is not related to the article. The list of outbreaks identifies the main outbreaks in forests but there is no mention or link with what is happening to other plants, especially oil palm, even though these plants are mentioned later as one of the factors of diffusion.
The section on key factors needs to be completely revised. It is based on lists of examples and lacks synthesis. There are too few links between, for example, Indonesia's climate and the diversity encountered or the history of outbreaks. The importance of different species is not linked to the specificities of Indonesia or to their importance in neighbouring countries.
Part 5.1 is not sufficiently structured. Some generalities are self-evident (e.g. L352 353 or 361-364). It is only partial, not at all specific to Indonesia and does not add anything to the cited reviews. Some statements are questionable (e.g. L368 if based on [12])
The 2 parts (5.2 – 5.3) on cropping systems clearly lack references, are based on personal observations. There is a commendable effort to define what a monoculture is. But the shortcut between monoculture and pest development is not sufficiently supported for species that are generally polyphagous. Moreover, the reference [107] cited does not seem to support this idea. There is recent literature on natural enemies and control in oil palm plantations in Indonesia that could be cited. Moreover, there is no section on natural enemies that could be specific at least in their distribution to Indonesia forest.
Section 5.5 is unclear. It is supposed to talk about a case in Java but remains very general with no explicit link to Java. At the end, several statements on the causes of the outbreak in Java are not supported (L 471-475, figure 6) or not explained (L 471-472: "we can assume the cause by knowing the difference between F. moluccana and other species")
This article required a great deal of bibliographical work in areas which, for some, do not seem to be familiar to the authors. However, the article deserves to be refocused on the subject (bagworms in Indonesia) and reorganised. The biology section needs to be completely revised. The links between the information need to be deepened. As it stands, the information on Indonesia corresponds mainly to table 2 (a list of statuses), which is interesting but not sufficient for an article on diversity.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript ‘Bagworms in Indonesian Plantation Forests: Diversity, Pest Status, and Factors that Contribute to Outbreak’ reviewed the pest status and history of the bagworm pests in Indonesia. In addition, authors briefly discussed the factors led to more frequent outbreaks in a few tree species.
While the information is useful, I found the manuscript hard to read, primarily due to poor flow between sentences and poor organization of enormous amount of information. I thought the last part of the manuscript is more interesting (section 5.5), however, the discussion only scratched the surface with no depth. For instance, line 473-475, authors only listed a few guesses of why more frequent outbreak was seen on F. moluccana but not the other tree species. This seems like the key to this section.
I suggest a few actions to improve this work:
1. Maybe simplify the tree species description, in particular the type of farm/plantations. Unless these types can directly impact the outbreak, I do not see that information is too relevant to the main objectives of the work, for instance, you did not even mention Table 1 anywhere in the text.
2. Get a native speaker to edit the work. There were many typos and errors.
3. Narrow down the focus of the paper. Right now, there are too much information that is not organized. Pay attention to the words that were used to connect sentences and use them correctly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific comments below:
Line 31, maybe replace “multifactor” with “multiple factors”. Also, the abstract is missing a summary sentence at the end.
Line 36, maybe add the percentage of each category of the forest (if you decided to keep this section).
Line 38. I do not see the difference of “protecting the ecosystem” vs. “protecting the diversity”. Maybe elaborate more here.
Line 40, change “USD 11.07 billion” to 11.07 billion (US dollars).
Line 98, private-owned should change to privately owned.
Line 111, does “owned land” means private land or non-public land (if you decide to keep such detailed information)?
Line 138, Table 1 is not cited in the main text. Also, might be more informative to add the purpose of each tree species in Table 1 (if you decided to keep it)?
Line 159-160, the font of the text was different here.
Line 166, what is this morphological unique feature? Please mentions it. If you need a photo to show it then show a photo. Or refer to one of the photos in your later figures.
2
Line 242, ca does not seem right here.
Line 281 -293, a big part of this paragraph is not relevant to the current work. Authors listed a few cases of outbreak in other order of insect pests (such as beetles) and non-tropical ecosystem. Maybe provide more details to the cases that are more relevant.
Line 433-434, maybe “with” should be “which”
Line 430-436, these a few sentences should be rewritten. The order was not correct here, it does not flow right.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have made an effort to seek out additional information and focused on the topic. Unfortunately, this review article does not yet seem mature to me. The information is too often listed, not always in an understandable order and not linked together. All this makes it hard to follow. The ideas supported by the information are not clear. There is still a certain amount of information that is not supported by references.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
Thank you for the valuable input, comment and suggestion for our manuscript.
We carefully improve our manuscript and highlight the changes in the text using track-changes.
We hope new version of the manuscript fulfil the reviewer suggestions.
Thank you for the consideration of this revised manuscript.
Sincerely yours,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
There are still some minor grammar issues that should be corrected.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
Thank you for the valuable input, comment and suggestion for our manuscript.
We carefully improve our manuscript and highlight the changes in the text using track-changes.
We hope new version of the manuscript fulfil the reviewer suggestions.
Thank you for the consideration of this revised manuscript.
Sincerely yours,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
