Economic Loss of Pine Wood Nematode Disease in Mainland China from 1998 to 2017

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments

In this paper, the authors work on a quantitative evaluation of the economic losses caused by the pine wood nematode disease PWD in China. PWD has been a serious threat to pine trees in the world. Detailed assessment of the economic losses by PWD is necessary to implement practical control measures against PWD. In this sense, this paper will be a nice contribution to quantitative evaluation of PWD damage.

My concern is that some of the evaluation methods deployed in this study have been suggested by previous studies and it is not clear, at least to me, what is novel in this paper. I recommend the authors to appeal the novelty of this paper about what is new.

 

Specific comments

Line 99- in page 3: Table 1 summarizes what the authors have done in this study. Economic loss by PWD is hierarchically constructed. Tertiary indicators describe most detailed information (Table A5 and A7). However, evaluation of some of the tertiary indicators have been suggested by previous studies. E.g., "Loss of forest volume", La, is estimated by eq. (1) that is suggested by the reference [30].

My concern is that which tertiary indicator(s) is(are) new and novel in this paper. Or, combination of six tertiary indicators as "Direct economic loss" is new or not?

Line 175 in page 5: ... method of Xie; in particular, it should be noted that ...
Which reference does this "method of Xie" refer to? I guess "Xie" here refers to [45]?

End of specific comments

Author Response

Reviewer #1: First assessment of the manuscript entitled "Economic Loss of Pine Wood Nematode Disasters in Mainland China from1998 to 2017" for Forest(forests-882580)

 

General comments

In this paper, the authors work on a quantitative evaluation of the economic losses caused by the pine wood nematode disease PWD in China. PWD has been a serious threat to pine trees in the world. Detailed assessment of the economic losses by PWD is necessary to implement practical control measures against PWD. In this sense, this paper will be a nice contribution to quantitative evaluation of PWD damage.

My concern is that some of the evaluation methods deployed in this study have been suggested by previous studies and it is not clear, at least to me, what is novel in this paper. I recommend the authors to appeal the novelty of this paper about what is new.

A:  Thank you for good comments on the article. The main innovation of this paper is the quantitative assessment of economic losses caused by Pine Wood Nematode Disasters in Mainland China in provincial scaler from 1998 to 2017, and we analyzed the time series variation of the 20-year economic and spatial distribution pattern of losses. In terms of methods, we have integrated the results of previous research and have not made original innovations in methods. According to the reviewers’ opinions, we have improved the description of the research method, please see Lines 99-111 in the new manuscript with tracked.

 

Specific comments

Line 99- in page 3: Table 1 summarizes what the authors have done in this study. Economic loss by PWD is hierarchically constructed. Tertiary indicators describe most detailed information (Table A5 and A7). However, evaluation of some of the tertiary indicators have been suggested by previous studies. E.g., "Loss of forest volume", La, is estimated by eq. (1) that is suggested by the reference [30].

My concern is that which tertiary indicator(s) is(are) new and novel in this paper. Or, combination of six tertiary indicators as "Direct economic loss" is new or not?

A: At present, there are relatively few studies on the economic loss evaluation index system of a single pest of pine wood nematode disease. When constructing this indicator system, we firstly referred to the Specifications for assessment of forest Ecosystem Services in China and the Disaster Criteria for Major Forestry Pests. Secondly, we read some researches on the economic loss assessment indicator system of pests and diseases, then we summarize the commonly used evaluation indicators based on this. From this perspective, we have carried out an innovative combination of direct economic loss indicators. Afterwards, we have screened the indicators based on the incidence characteristics of pine wood nematode disease. For example, the quality of forests will decline after being damaged by pests. However, the pine wood nematode disease disaster usually adopts the treatment measures of small-scale clear-cutting and incineration of infected wood, so we do not need to evaluate the economic loss caused by the decline in the quality of living timber. Please see Lines101-105 in the new manuscript with tracked. At the same time, we found that the common evaluation indicators such as standing tree value and forest land use value are mainly based on the afforestation cost, control cost and economic value of forest products in actual evaluation. In order to avoid repetitions of evaluation content, we use the indicator of costs for forestry management, please see Lines106-108 in the new manuscript with tracked. In addition, in order to meet the applicability of the assessment indicators, we have made some choices, such as the value of forest by-products, we only considered the value of pine resin. On the one hand, pine resin is the main forest by-products of pine. On the other hand, because of the feasibility of data collection. So the assessment results may be low. Please see Lines109-111 in the new manuscript with tracked.

 

Line 175 in page 5: ... method of Xie; in particular, it should be noted that ...

Which reference does this "method of Xie" refer to? I guess "Xie" here refers to [45]?

A: Thank you for the question. "Xie" here refers to [49]. We have corrected the manuscript, please see Line 229 in the new manuscript with tracked.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper provides interesting and contemporary information on the state and impact of pinewood nematode in China. It provides a simple and useful framework for quantifying different kind of impacts using an ecosystem services framework.

Throughout, the paper needs to be improved in terms of English language. Below I indicate some places where I was unable to understand the meaning, but there are more places. An English language editing service or English speaking colleague could perhaps help to correct this.

Detailed comments

60-66 The list of economic methods is not very helpful as it is just a shopping list of terms. To make it useful, a short explanation of the key traits of the methods would be needed, ending in an explanation why the current paper chooses a particular method.

Table 1 Not clear what is meant by "Invalid forestry costs" and its tertiary indicators

70 The manuscript is based on provincial data, and much of it is listed in appendix tables, which is very useful. It would be needed to describe how the authors obtained this information. Any discussion on possible inaccuracies or biases in the data used would be very useful.

111 The average price of turpentine origin? I do not get your meaning.

Table 2 What is meant by accumulated forest price? The value is very low 341 CNY/ha. Is it the yearly production value of wood?

Average price of turpentine origin. What is it?

Table 3 Adjustment service is called “Regulating service” in the English literature.

187 What was the reason for the long and steady decrease in affected area from 2002 till 2013, and what was the reason there was such a sharp recovery of the PWN after 2013?

195 The word disaster is not used appropriately. You can probably use the word “outbreak”.

206 The numbers for areas are funny. Clearly they have been achieved from original numbers in Chinese mu (15 mu = 1 ha). I wonder whether it would be acceptable for the journal to mention the areas in mu and indicate at first mention the conversion. The number would have less significant digits if expressed in mu, e.g. 22667 ha = 340.000 mu. Such a representation gives a fairer impression of the accuracy of the data value.

116 “The situation is very serious”. You need to say why it is serious. Serious is a value statement, not a statement on results.

223 What is meant by “the fluctuation range”?

230 What are “ineffective forestry costs”?

255 Omit “fluctuated”. The trend is upward.

346 long-term series of what?

383 Patents

Author Response

Reviewer #2: First assessment of the manuscript entitled "Economic Loss of Pine Wood Nematode Disasters in Mainland China from1998 to 2017" for Forest(forests-882580)

 

This paper provides interesting and contemporary information on the state and impact of pinewood nematode in China. It provides a simple and useful framework for quantifying different kind of impacts using an ecosystem services framework.

 

Throughout, the paper needs to be improved in terms of English language. Below I indicate some places where I was unable to understand the meaning, but there are more places. An English language editing service or English speaking colleague could perhaps help to correct this.

A: Thanks for the good advice. We use AJE (www.aje.com) for its linguistic assistance during the preparation of this manuscript.

 

Detailed comments

 

60-66 The list of economic methods is not very helpful as it is just a shopping list of terms. To make it useful, a short explanation of the key traits of the methods would be needed, ending in an explanation why the current paper chooses a particular method.

A: Economic loss assessment methods mainly include market value method, opportunity cost method, contingent value method and benefit transfer method. In addition, there are multiple method, biomass estimation method and curve method. The market value method is simple and can quickly calculate and obtain the evaluation results. The opportunity cost method, the contingent value method and the benefit transfer method can better reflect people’s willingness to pay and have dynamic characteristics. The multiple method is mainly based on the results of China’s forest resource value accounting. In the actual assessment, there will be big differences among different regions. The biomass estimation method can be applied to the assessment of different regions, forest stands and forest ages, but the amount of calculation is large. In practical applications, the curve method requires information on the growth pattern of the stand and accumulation of different tree species with the age of the forest, as well as data on the annual growth loss rate of the accumulation of forest caused by diseases and insect pests, which is difficult to collect. Therefore, we chose to use the market value method to assess direct economic losses, which is highly practical. We have corrected the manuscript, please see Lines 117-129 in the new manuscript with tracked.

 

Table 1 Not clear what is meant by "Invalid forestry costs" and its tertiary indicators

A: "Invalid forestry costs" means invalid costs for forestry management.

Invalid afforestation cost means: The cost of the year of afforestation, including expenditures for forest land consolidation labor, plantation labor, seedlings, and fertilizers. When the trees are infected by the pine wood nematode disaster, they are called invalid expenses. We have corrected the manuscript, please see Lines150-151 in the new manuscript with tracked.

Invalid tending cost: The tending expenses in the year of afforestation and the following two years. When the trees are infected by the pine wood nematode disaster, they are called invalid expenses.

Invalid management and maintenance costs: The annual forest management and maintenance costs after the forest is closed. When the trees are infected by the pine wood nematode disaster, they are called invalid costs.

 

70 The manuscript is based on provincial data, and much of it is listed in appendix tables, which is very useful. It would be needed to describe how the authors obtained this information. Any discussion on possible inaccuracies or biases in the data used would be very useful.

A: The incidence data of pine wood nematode disease comes from traditional forestry survey data, which are true and reliable, and can actually reflect the disaster situation. The forestry output value index, Engel coefficient, the national rice, wheat, and corn planting area, yield and price data are from the "China Statistical Yearbook", which is national data. When implementing the provincial revision, we revised it by using rainfall data and GPP data. According to the suggestion, we have added some discussions and explanations, please see Lines84-86,91-92 in the new manuscript with tracked.

 

111 The average price of turpentine origin? I do not get your meaning.

A: Means “The average price of pine resin in its origin”. We have corrected the manuscript, please see Line 140 in the new manuscript with tracked.

 

Table 2 What is meant by accumulated forest price? The value is very low 341 CNY/ha. Is it the yearly production value of wood?

A: Thanks for the reviewer's question, we made an error in writing. “Accumulated forest price” means “Forest price per unit stock”, the unit should be CNY/m³. We have corrected the manuscript, please see Line 135,Table2 in the new manuscript with tracked.

 

Average price of turpentine origin. What is it?

A: Means “The average price of pine resin in its origin”. We have corrected the manuscript, please see Line 140 in the new manuscript with tracked.

 

 

Table 3 Adjustment service is called “Regulating service” in the English literature.

A: Thank you for pointing the problem. We have corrected the manuscript, please see Table3 in the new manuscript with tracked.

 

 

187 What was the reason for the long and steady decrease in affected area from 2002 till 2013, and what was the reason there was such a sharp recovery of the PWN after 2013?

A: Thanks to the reviewer’s comments. Our current research focuses on assessing the economic losses caused by pine wood nematode disease disasters, so we first explained the 20-year transmission status of pine wood nematode disease, and then assessed its economic losses. Our research focuses on the huge economic losses caused by pine wood nematode disease. As for why the occurrence of pine wood nematode disease in the past 20 years has shown such a pattern, whether it is related to vector insects, climate warming or government intervention measures, perhaps it is a question worthy of our next serious study.

 

195 The word disaster is not used appropriately. You can probably use the word “outbreak”.

A: We have corrected the manuscript, please see Lines247-249 in the new manuscript with tracked.

 

206The numbers for areas are funny. Clearly they have been achieved from original numbers in Chinese mu (15 mu = 1 ha). I wonder whether it would be acceptable for the journal to mention the areas in mu and indicate at first mention the conversion. The number would have less significant digits if expressed in mu, e.g. 22667 ha = 340.000 mu. Such a representation gives a fairer impression of the accuracy of the data value.

A: Thank you for the reviewer’s suggestion. The original survey data unit we obtained is Chinese mu, which has been converted into hectares according to the requirements of the journal. Please see TableA1, TableA2, Figure 2 in the new manuscript with tracked.

116 “The situation is very serious”. You need to say why it is serious. Serious is a value statement, not a statement on results.

A: Pine wood nematode disease has not only occurred in Zhejiang, Guangdong, Jiangsu, and Anhui Province for 20 consecutive years, but the disaster area is on the rise. Liaoning Province also newly developed pine wood nematode disease in 2016. By 2017, the disaster has spread severely. As the gateway to the northeast forest farm, Liaoning Province is an important line of defense for the spread of pine wood nematode to the north. Therefore, the current form of epidemic prevention is very severe. Please see Lines270-272 in the new manuscript with tracked.

 

223 What is meant by “the fluctuation range”?

A: The disaster economic loss caused by pine wood nematode disease is a fluctuating value. In order to distinguish the severity of the disaster loss, we divide it into unequal intervals and describe it as the fluctuation range. We revised the expression to make it more concise: The loss was relatively small before 2008, except for 2001 and 2004, the loss rate was less than 10%. After 2008, the disaster loss growth rate was higher than 10%, especially in 2016 and 2017, the disaster loss growth rate reached 44.5% and 36.2% respectively. The downward trend only occurred in 1999-2000, 2008 and 2011 year during the 20-year period. Please see Lines279-284 in the new manuscript with tracked.

 

230 What are “ineffective forestry costs”?

A: "Ineffective forestry costs" means invalid costs for forestry management. Forest management investment, after being infected with pine wood nematode disease, pine trees were burned, which became ineffective expenditure. Please see Line 289 in the new manuscript with tracked.

 

255 Omit “fluctuated”. The trend is upward.

A: We have corrected the manuscript, please see Line 314 in the new manuscript with tracked.

 

346 long-term series of what?

A: Quantitative assessment of economic loss from pine wood nematode in long-term series, please see Lines 413-415 in the new manuscript with tracked.

 

383 Patents

A: Deleted. Please see line 455 in the new manuscript with tracked.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents an interesting research topic- to assess the distribution of economic loss of pinewood nematode disasters, a specific yet widely spread pinewood disease across time and space. The findings have the potential to provide valuable information to the sub-national policymakers.

My major concern of the paper centers around the justification of the evaluation method, presentation/visualization of the results, and the depth of discussion and conclusion.

1. Method

The tertiary indicators applied in the study is a direct adoption of the specifications for the assessment of forest Ecosystem Services in China. Instead of just referring to the official specifications and criteria, the authors need to provide justifications or have discussions on how or whether the secondary indicators and tertiary indicators for the general forest ecosystem would fit into the context of pinewood nematode disasters. Why or why not further modification of a broad forest ecosystem index system is necessary. Without such justifications, it is hard to tell that the index system adopted is appropriate and sufficient for the assessment of a very specific forest pest disease.

Evaluation of the non-provision ecosystem services is challenging. The cost/value is often over- or under-estimated. The authors estimate the “indirect cost” or the non-provision services based on Xie et. al’s researches on equivalent service value of the coniferous forest ecosystem, and the evaluation method for ecosystem service value based on per unit area. Again, it is not justified why Xie et. al’s methods and equivalent factors are chosen, among others, to be applied to assess the economic loss of pinewood nematode disasters. More details and justifications of the chosen equivalent factors and adjustment factors need to be provided. It’s hard to assess the validity and accuracy of the estimation without such information.

2. Presentation of Results

An interesting perspective of the paper is that it assesses the temporal and spatial economic loss of pinewood nematode disasters throughout mainland China across a 20-year-timeframe. It would be interesting if the authors visualize the results in spatial format and present the changes over time- having multiple spatial maps for multiple years. The visualization will provide a clearer picture of each province’s progress or deterioration, throughout the years, on preventing pinewood nematode disasters and the corresponding economic loss.

3. Depth of discussion and conclusion

The discussion and conclusion sessions basically just summarize/list down the results. Base on visualization suggested in 2, it would be interesting to link the results to policy interventions on forestry pest control/prevention across the provinces over the years. Discussions and reflections on how the policy interventions may have affected the outcomes will provide useful information for local forest management.

Author Response

Reviewer #3: First assessment of the manuscript entitled "Economic Loss of Pine Wood Nematode Disasters in Mainland China from1998 to 2017" for Forest(forests-882580)

 

The paper presents an interesting research topic- to assess the distribution of economic loss of pinewood nematode disasters, a specific yet widely spread pinewood disease across time and space. The findings have the potential to provide valuable information to the sub-national policymakers.

My major concern of the paper centers around the justification of the evaluation method, presentation/visualization of the results, and the depth of discussion and conclusion.

 

1. Method

The tertiary indicators applied in the study is a direct adoption of the specifications for the assessment of forest Ecosystem Services in China. Instead of just referring to the official specifications and criteria, the authors need to provide justifications or have discussions on how or whether the secondary indicators and tertiary indicators for the general forest ecosystem would fit into the context of pinewood nematode disasters. Why or why not further modification of a broad forest ecosystem index system is necessary. Without such justifications, it is hard to tell that the index system adopted is appropriate and sufficient for the assessment of a very specific forest pest disease.

A: At present, there are relatively few studies on the economic loss evaluation index system of a single pest of pine wood nematode disease. When constructing this indicator system, we firstly referred to the Specifications for assessment of forest Ecosystem Services in China and the Disaster Criteria for Major Forestry Pests. Secondly, we read some researches on the economic loss assessment indicator system of pests and diseases, then we summarize the commonly used evaluation indicators based on this. From this perspective, we have carried out an innovative combination of direct economic loss indicators. Afterwards, we have screened the indicators based on the incidence characteristics of pine wood nematode disease. For example, the quality of forests will decline after being damaged by pests. However, the pine wood nematode disease disaster usually adopts the treatment measures of small-scale clear-cutting and incineration of infected wood, so we do not need to evaluate the economic loss caused by the decline in the quality of living timber. Please see Lines101-105 in the new manuscript with tracked. At the same time, we found that the common evaluation indicators such as standing tree value and forest land use value are mainly based on the afforestation cost, control cost and economic value of forest products in actual evaluation. In order to avoid repetitions of evaluation content, we use the indicator of costs for forestry management, please see Lines106-108 in the new manuscript with tracked. In addition, in order to meet the applicability of the assessment indicators, we have made some choices, such as the value of forest by-products, we only considered the value of pine resin. On the one hand, pine resin is the main forest by-products of pine. On the other hand, because of the feasibility of data collection. So the assessment results may be low. Please see Lines109-111 in the new manuscript with tracked.

 

Evaluation of the non-provision ecosystem services is challenging. The cost/value is often over- or under-estimated. The authors estimate the “indirect cost” or the non-provision services based on Xie et. al’s researches on equivalent service value of the coniferous forest ecosystem, and the evaluation method for ecosystem service value based on per unit area. Again, it is not justified why Xie et. al’s methods and equivalent factors are chosen, among others, to be applied to assess the economic loss of pinewood nematode disasters. More details and justifications of the chosen equivalent factors and adjustment factors need to be provided. It’s hard to assess the validity and accuracy of the estimation without such information.

A: The indirect economic losses caused by forest pests and diseases mainly come from the loss of non-market economic value, including the loss of society and the ecological environment. Although the indirect economic loss of forest diseases and insect pests and the loss of forest ecosystem service value are two different concepts, they are the same in terms of evaluation content. The method of forest ecosystem service value evaluation was first published by Constanza et al. in Nature. On the basis of the economic theory that the total economic value of resources is the sum of producer and consumer surplus. Since then, domestic scholars such as Ouyang have used the direct market method and the indirect market method to assess the service value of China's terrestrial ecosystem at more than 30 trillion RMB per year. This is only a rough and conservative estimate due to issues such as the accuracy of the cited parameters. Chen et al. and Zhao et al. referred to the classification method of Constanza et al. and directly used its economic parameters to evaluate the function value of China's ecosystems. They respectively concluded that the total value of China's ecosystem services was significantly lower than the research results of Ouyang et al. On the basis of Constanza et al., through questionnaire surveys, Xie et al. obtained a scale of ecological service value equivalent per unit area of ​​the ecosystem, which is more in line with China's national conditions, and then constructed a method for valuing ecosystem services. Later, using model calculations and geographic information spatial analysis methods, a dynamic evaluation method for the service value of China's terrestrial ecosystem was proposed.

Based on Constanza’s research, domestic scholars have explored methods for evaluating China’s terrestrial ecosystems. Among them, the ecological service value equivalent per unit area of ​​the ecosystem proposed by Xie’s method is more in line with China’s national conditions and has the characteristics of dynamic evaluation. Xie’s dynamic equivalent factor method is used for economic losses caused by wood nematode disease. According to the reviewers’ comments, we have improved the description of the research method. Please see Lines 175-196 in the new manuscript with tracked.

 

2. Presentation of Results

An interesting perspective of the paper is that it assesses the temporal and spatial economic loss of pinewood nematode disasters throughout mainland China across a 20-year-timeframe. It would be interesting if the authors visualize the results in spatial format and present the changes over time- having multiple spatial maps for multiple years. The visualization will provide a clearer picture of each province’s progress or deterioration, throughout the years, on preventing pinewood nematode disasters and the corresponding economic loss.

A: Thank you very much for the comments of the reviewers. We tried to recreate such a picture to reflect the changes in economic losses from pine wood nematode disease disasters in the past 20 years. Please see Figure 2 in the new manuscript with tracked.

 

3. Depth of discussion and conclusion

The discussion and conclusion sessions basically just summarize/list down the results. Base on visualization suggested in 2, it would be interesting to link the results to policy interventions on forestry pest control/prevention across the provinces over the years. Discussions and reflections on how the policy interventions may have affected the outcomes will provide useful information for local forest management.

A: In the discussion, we analyzed that the spread of pine wood nematode disease was leaping, showing that it was related to human activities. Secondly, we summarized the transmission law of pine wood nematode disease, spreading to the north and high latitudes, and analyzed its possible reason is due to the development of new naturally susceptible tree species and vector insects. In addition, it is also speculated that the recurrence of pine wood nematode disease in Henan and Guangxi may be due to the species of pine trees locally planted.

 

Finally, the influence of the intervention measures of the Yunnan Provincial Government on the occurrence of pine wood nematode disease is analyzed: Yunnan’s original technology of using Poriacocos to treat pine wood nematode disease innocuous wood has made outstanding contributions to the effective control of pine wood nematode disease. After the first discovery of pine wood nematode disease in Ruili City in 2004, the area of disease was continuously reduced within 5 years, and the affected area was finally successfully removed. After that, the disaster was discovered again only in 2013, but due to the small area of disease, the treatment was quickly successful. Please see Lines 366-374 in the new manuscript with tracked.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I've checked the responses and revisions quickly. There are some remaining problems of language. Outbreaks of pine wood nematode are called "disasters", but this it not a common usage of the English word "disaster". I know the word "disaster" is often used in China, but in English, this word has a different meaning. It needs to be revised.   See, e.g., for terminology.   Also, the use of the word "invalid" is not consistent with the meaning of the word in English. The authors write in their response:   A: "Invalid forestry costs" means invalid costs for forestry management. Invalid afforestation cost means: The cost of the year of afforestation, including expenditures for forest land consolidation labor, plantation labor, seedlings, and fertilizers. When the trees are infected by the pine wood nematode disaster, they are called invalid expenses. We have corrected the manuscript, please see Lines150-151 in the new manuscript with tracked. Invalid tending cost: The tending expenses in the year of afforestation and the following two years. When the trees are infected by the pine wood nematode disaster, they are called invalid expenses. Invalid management and maintenance costs: The annual forest management and maintenance costs after the forest is closed. When the trees are infected by the pine wood nematode disaster, they are called invalid costs.   The use of the word "invalid" in this paragraph does not make sense to an international reader. Perhaps it makes sense to a Chinese reader who can think of the chinese word equivalent, but it is definitely not clear for international readers.   Finally, the word "ineffective" is also used in a way that raises questions. See the next paragraph in the response letter:   A: "Ineffective forestry costs" means invalid costs for forestry management. Forest management investment, after being infected with pine wood nematode disease, pine trees were burned, which became ineffective expenditure. Please see Line 289 in the new manuscript with tracked.   Indeed, the expenditure is ineffective because money is spent, but the result is zero. However you cannot say the cost is ineffective. The cost is simply what it is. The money is not effectively spent, but you can’t say the cost is ineffective. It is a nuance of English, but very confusing to readers who will start to wonder whether the authors are confused.   I recommend the authors use an English-English online dictonary or thesaurus to check the meaning of the words disaster, invalid and ineffective. I also recommend that the revised paper is checked by an internationally accredited language service. I think it is important to get the choice of words right. Currently, it is not right.

 

Author Response

Reviewer #2: Second assessment of the manuscript entitled "Economic Loss of Pine Wood Nematode Disasters in Mainland China from1998 to 2017" for Forest(forests-882580)

 

I've checked the responses and revisions quickly. There are some remaining problems of language. Outbreaks of pine wood nematode are called "disasters", but this it not a common usage of the English word "disaster". I know the word "disaster" is often used in China, but in English, this word has a different meaning. It needs to be revised.   See, e.g., for terminology.   Also, the use of the word "invalid" is not consistent with the meaning of the word in English. The authors write in their response:   A: "Invalid forestry costs" means invalid costs for forestry management. Invalid afforestation cost means: The cost of the year of afforestation, including expenditures for forest land consolidation labor, plantation labor, seedlings, and fertilizers. When the trees are infected by the pine wood nematode disaster, they are called invalid expenses. We have corrected the manuscript, please see Lines150-151 in the new manuscript with tracked. Invalid tending cost: The tending expenses in the year of afforestation and the following two years. When the trees are infected by the pine wood nematode disaster, they are called invalid expenses. Invalid management and maintenance costs: The annual forest management and maintenance costs after the forest is closed. When the trees are infected by the pine wood nematode disaster, they are called invalid costs.   The use of the word "invalid" in this paragraph does not make sense to an international reader. Perhaps it makes sense to a Chinese reader who can think of the chinese word equivalent, but it is definitely not clear for international readers.   Finally, the word "ineffective" is also used in a way that raises questions. See the next paragraph in the response letter:   A: "Ineffective forestry costs" means invalid costs for forestry management. Forest management investment, after being infected with pine wood nematode disease, pine trees were burned, which became ineffective expenditure. Please see Line 289 in the new manuscript with tracked.   Indeed, the expenditure is ineffective because money is spent, but the result is zero. However you cannot say the cost is ineffective. The cost is simply what it is. The money is not effectively spent, but you can’t say the cost is ineffective. It is a nuance of English, but very confusing to readers who will start to wonder whether the authors are confused.   I recommend the authors use an English-English online dictonary or thesaurus to check the meaning of the words disaster, invalid and ineffective. I also recommend that the revised paper is checked by an internationally accredited language service. I think it is important to get the choice of words right. Currently, it is not right.

A: Thank you very much for the comments of the reviewers. Due to the language habit, we are not rigorous enough in some words. Based on the suggestions, we revised the expression in the paper. We no longer use “disaster” to describe the phenomenon caused by pine wood nematode disease, but only describe it as “pine wood nematode disease”. Please see Lines 3, 17, 18, 21, 42, 61, 67, 71, 73, 89, 102, 118, 137, 143, 148, 152, 158, 161, 164, 167, 171, 243-248, 262, 265, 267, 268, 272, 280, 290-292, 299,324, 326, 328, 331 338, 346, 360, 389-393, 399, 410, 427, 430, 432, 436-437, 456, 463, 468, 486, 487, 489, 490, 493, 495, 497 in the new manuscript with tracked. Also, we re-examined the expression of “invalid costs” and use the “ineffective expenditure” to replace it. Please see Lines 26-28, 39, 58, 112, 114, 124, 127, 148, 151-176, 152-154, 155, 158-163, 165-170 ,298-299, 302, 305,309 Table1., Table2., Table A4., Table A5., Table A9. in the new manuscript with tracked.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have clarified better the methods in this version. A few more suggestions on the flow of the discussion, the presentation of the results, and English grammar:

 

1. Line 130-140: the author’s contribution to methodology is to adapt the specifications for assessment of forest ecosystem services in China and the disaster criteria for major forestry pests into a specific pinewood nematode disease and disaster. The adaptation is done by screening and selecting specific indicators relevant to pinewood nematode disease. Therefore, instead of saying “we made an innovative combination of these indicators”, the authors may want to organize the flow of discussion as follows: we adapt the specifications and criteria by A and B, to select a set of indicators specifically relevant to the pinewood nematode disease and disaster. We did A because of the following reasons. we did B because of the following reasons.
2. Line 141-143: I don’t agree that “choosing turpentine as the main forest by-product” can be considered as a contribution to methodology. The authors take this approach as a result of data constraints. The author may want to move this to a sperate research limitation session and discuss in the session that how this may lead to an underestimated evaluation.
3. Line 229 – 247: the discussion flow is a bit redundant here. Instead of listing down each of the paper, the author may want to summarize the existing literature into a few groups, discuss the pros and cons of each under the context of China and forest pest diseases/disaster, and finally conclude why Xie et al.’s method is the most appropriate.
4. Updated figure 2 looks great! It’s more clearly visible now to see how the nematode disease spread through the years. It’s also very interesting to see that the disaster is preventable-Yunnan’s case. I wonder whether it’s possible to do something similar to Figure 4- each year has 3 figures (direct, indirect, and total) ,and select only four years to present (1998, two of the years in between, and 2017). I definitely understand that it might be a lot of figures to plot with the direct, indirect, and total cost for years but this figure will be very powerful to the decision-makers at province levels- to see how each province performed through the years and how the tremendous amount of cost could be prevented.
5. In addition, the authors definitely would want to have a professional editor to look at the English of the paper again. For instance, an obvious mistake is that the journal name Nature should be in italic, rather than 《Nature》.
6. My last suggestion, which may not be the scope of the study, is that the author may want to look into the uncertainty of the evaluation results. Could be an interesting direction for future work. Reference here:

Hamel, P., & Bryant, B. P. (2017). Uncertainty assessment in ecosystem services analyses: seven challenges and practical responses. Ecosystem services, 24, 1-15.

 

Kubiszewski, I., Costanza, R., Anderson, S., & Sutton, P. (2020). The future value of ecosystem services: Global scenarios and national implications. In Environmental Assessments. Edward Elgar Publishing.

 

Author Response

Reviewer #3: Second assessment of the manuscript entitled "Economic Loss of Pine Wood Nematode Disasters in Mainland China from1998 to 2017" for Forest(forests-882580)

1. Line 130-140: the author’s contribution to methodology is to adapt the specifications for assessment of forest ecosystem services in China and the disaster criteria for major forestry pests into a specific pinewood nematode disease and disaster. The adaptation is done by screening and selecting specific indicators relevant to pinewood nematode disease. Therefore, instead of saying “we made an innovative combination of these indicators”, the authors may want to organize the flow of discussion as follows: we adapt the specifications and criteria by A and B, to select a set of indicators specifically relevant to the pinewood nematode disease and disaster. We did A because of the following reasons. we did B because of the following reasons.

A: Thanks to the comments of the reviewers. Referring the “Specifications for assessment of forest Ecosystem Services in China” and the “Disaster Criteria for Major Forestry Pests”, we have selected the evaluation indicators that can fully reflect the disaster of pine wood nematode disease, and made some necessary revisions to the indicators to meet the principles of science and practicality at the same time. Please see Lines 102-114 in the new manuscript with tracked.

 

2. Line 141-143: I don’t agree that “choosing turpentine as the main forest by-product” can be considered as a contribution to methodology. The authors take this approach as a result of data constraints. The author may want to move this to a sperate research limitation session and discuss in the session that how this may lead to an underestimated evaluation.

A: Thanks to the reviewers for their comments. Our research did make some compromises due to data limitations. We re-adjusted the content of the article and added this part in the discussion. Please see Lines 115-117, 411-414 in the new manuscript with tracked. Whether or to what extent the choice of evaluation indicators underestimates or overestimates the actual economic losses is also a question worth discussing, and we will explore this issue in future research.

 

3. Line 229 – 247: the discussion flow is a bit redundant here. Instead of listing down each of the paper, the author may want to summarize the existing literature into a few groups, discuss the pros and cons of each under the context of China and forest pest diseases/disaster, and finally conclude why Xie et al.’s method is the most appropriate.

A: Thank you reviewers for comments. We listed these articles because the quantitative results of domestic scholars on the evaluation of ecosystem services are basically represented by them, and other scholars carried out some local studies on this basis. In order to avoid redundant expression, we reorganized the language, compared the pros and cons of each literature method, and finally decided to use the method of Xie for evaluation. Please see Lines 185-194 in the new manuscript with tracked.

 

4. Updated figure 2 looks great! It’s more clearly visible now to see how the nematode disease spread through the years. It’s also very interesting to see that the disaster is preventable-Yunnan’s case. I wonder whether it’s possible to do something similar to Figure 4- each year has 3 figures (direct, indirect, and total) ,and select only four years to present (1998, two of the years in between, and 2017). I definitely understand that it might be a lot of figures to plot with the direct, indirect, and total cost for years but this figure will be very powerful to the decision-makers at province levels- to see how each province performed through the years and how the tremendous amount of cost could be prevented.

A: This is achievable in terms of technical means. However, according to the evaluation indicators and methods, the economic loss mainly depends on the area of the disease. From a visual point of view, the effect presented is not particularly different from that shown in Figure 2. Our idea is that if we can obtain complete data on forestry biological disaster input in various provinces, and visually compare with economic loss data, we may get interesting conclusions, which may be our next research direction. On the other hand, the more detailed data in China is still partially confidential. If the decision-makers at province levels formulate the pine wood nematode control plan, we can also provide more detailed data and evaluation results.

 

5. In addition, the authors definitely would want to have a professional editor to look at the English of the paper again. For instance, an obvious mistake is that the journal name Nature should be in italic, rather than 《Nature》.

A: Thank you very much for the comments of the reviewers. This is indeed a mistake that should not have appeared. We have re-edited the article in English and modified some expressions. We use “ineffective expenditure” instead the “invalid costs”, please see Lines 26-28, 39, 58, 112, 114, 124, 127, 148, 151-176, 152-154, 155, 158-163, 165-170 ,298-299, 302, 305,309 Table1., Table2., Table A4., Table A5., Table A9. in the new manuscript with tracked. Also, we no longer use “disaster” to describe the phenomenon caused by pine wood nematode disease, but only describe it as “pine wood nematode disease”. Please see Lines 3, 17, 18, 21, 42, 61, 67, 71, 73, 89, 102, 118, 137, 143, 148, 152, 158, 161, 164, 167, 171, 243-248, 262, 265, 267, 268, 272, 280, 290-292, 299,324, 326, 328, 331 338, 346, 360, 389-393, 399, 410, 427, 430, 432, 436-437, 456, 463, 468, 486, 487, 489, 490, 493, 495, 497 in the new manuscript with tracked.

 

6. My last suggestion, which may not be the scope of the study, is that the author may want to look into the uncertainty of the evaluation results. Could be an interesting direction for future work. Reference here:

Hamel, P., & Bryant, B. P. (2017). Uncertainty assessment in ecosystem services analyses: seven challenges and practical responses. Ecosystem services, 24, 1-15.

Kubiszewski, I., Costanza, R., Anderson, S., & Sutton, P. (2020). The future value of ecosystem services: Global scenarios and national implications. In Environmental Assessments. Edward Elgar Publishing.

A: Thank you very much for the comments of the reviewers. In fact, there are still some problems in our research, such as underestimating cultural values. In the future, we may further investigate and analyze the uncertainty of the evaluation results. These references are very valuable, thank you again.