International Cooperation to Support the Diagnosis of Forestry Pests: The Role of EPPO and Euphresco
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear editor,
The manuscript is very interesting and relevant, although not a research paper it concerns a very important organization in plant protection that must be highlighted.
The manuscript is clear and only minor comments or questions that will be easily replied by the authors.
The manuscript is well organized and very clear and only have minor comments or questions:
Line 61 - “Pinewood” instead of “Pine Wood” (althought PWN)
Line 78 – “… described in [1 & 2]”. Are these references (1, 2)?
Line 81 - … (PREPSYS)”
Line 159-160 – “There are more than 150 diagnostic standards approved by May 2023.”
Lines 180 and 182 – “report” instead of “communiqué”
Merge title of lines 188 and 189 - “EPPO diagnostic databases and expertise
Line 248 – “Development of a diagnostic laboratories network”
Line 259 – capital “International”
Line 276 – missing “ after …beetles.
Lines 301-302 – I think this is supposed be the a title with bullet
Line 324 – Bullet of title missing
Line 325 – Capital initials in “Next Generation Sequencing”
Line 354 – Remote sensing is very important step in forest surveillance, however reference 21 is not the best example because authors failed to differentiate PWN infected from not infected declining pines (killed by other agents, i.e. bark beetles). That is why all research developed resulted in “few operational applications”. Either chose another publication based on other pest than Pine Wilt Disease, because none of the published on this disease achieved the identification of specific PWN infected trees.
Line 378 – reference 6 should have the complete list of authors.
Author Response
Dear reviewer thanks for the changes proposed
Line 61 - “Pinewood” instead of “Pine Wood” (althought PWN)
DONE
Line 78 – “… described in [1 & 2]”. Are these references (1, 2)?
Indeed apologies should be 5 and 6 CORRECTED
Line 81 - … (PREPSYS)”
DONE
Line 159-160 – “There are more than 150 diagnostic standards approved by May 2023.”
Lines 180 and 182 – “report” instead of “communiqué”
this is the name of the document signed by EPPO and EA this name is on our respective websites. I would prefer not to change it.
Merge title of lines 188 and 189 - “EPPO diagnostic databases and expertise
This is not the same se line 189 is a subtitle. I Have changed the level.
Line 248 – “Development of a diagnostic laboratories network”
done
Line 259 – capital “International”
done (line 160)
Line 276 – missing “ after …beetles.
done
Lines 301-302 – I think this is supposed be the a title with bullet
done
Line 324 – Bullet of title missing
done
Line 325 – Capital initials in “Next Generation Sequencing”
done
Line 354 – Remote sensing is very important step in forest surveillance, however reference 21 is not the best example because authors failed to differentiate PWN infected from not infected declining pines (killed by other agents, i.e. bark beetles). That is why all research developed resulted in “few operational applications”. Either chose another publication based on other pest than Pine Wilt Disease, because none of the published on this disease achieved the identification of specific PWN infected trees.
thank you we had a reference on Xylella fastidiosa that our editor did not like, given your comment we have decided to reinsert it. .
Line 378 – reference 6 should have the complete list of authors.
Done the recommended citation was
Reviewer 2 Report
The author provided a manuscript intitled “International Cooperation to Support the Diagnosis of Forestry 2 Pests: The Role of Eppo and Euphresco”. However, the author stipulated the economic concequestes of pests in line with the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). The IPPC is an intergovernmental treaty signed by over 180 countries, aiming to protecting the world's plant resources from the spread and introduction of pests, and promoting safe trade. The Convention introduced International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) as its main tool to achieve its goals, making it the sole global standard setting organization for plant health.The IPPC is one of the "Three Sisters" recognized by the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) Agreement, along with the Codex Alimentarius Commission for food safety standards and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) for animal health standards. In this case the author opted to focus on EPPO as the Regional Plant Protection Organisation (RPPO).
Both on the abstract and introduction there is no clear objective of the current study.
The word “pest” has been mentioned on several occasions in this manuscript. However, in terms of ISPM 5 a pest is regarded as “Any species, strain or biotype of plant, animal or pathogenic agent injurious to plants or plant products. Note: In the IPPC, “plant pest” is sometimes used for the term “pest” [FAO, 1990; revised ISPM 2, 1995; IPPC, 1997; CPM, 2012]”. EPPO has pest alert lists (A1 and A2) based on pest risk analysis (the process of evaluating biological or other scientific and economic evidence to determine whether an organism is a pest, whether it should be regulated, and the strength of any phytosanitary measures to be taken against it” . PRA is conducted in line with ISPM 2 and 11. This should also reflect in the document.
ISPM 27, Diagnostic protocols for regulated pests, provides guidance on the structure and content of the IPPC) diagnostic protocols for regulated pests. The protocols describe procedures and methods for the official diagnosis of regulated pests that are relevant for international trade. They provide at least the minimum requirements for reliable diagnosis of regulated pests.
The author should also provide a summarized role of Euphresco . It is a network of organisations that fund research projects and coordinate national research in the phytosanitary area. The overall goal of Euphresco is to support coordination and collaboration in the area of phytosanitary research, and to maintain itself as a strong, long-term network of research stakeholders.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The author provided a manuscript intitled “International Cooperation to Support the Diagnosis of Forestry 2 Pests: The Role of Eppo and Euphresco”. However, the author stipulated the economic concequestes of pests in line with the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). The IPPC is an intergovernmental treaty signed by over 180 countries, aiming to protecting the world's plant resources from the spread and introduction of pests, and promoting safe trade. The Convention introduced International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) as its main tool to achieve its goals, making it the sole global standard setting organization for plant health.The IPPC is one of the "Three Sisters" recognized by the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) Agreement, along with the Codex Alimentarius Commission for food safety standards and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) for animal health standards. In this case the author opted to focus on EPPO as the Regional Plant Protection Organisation (RPPO).
Both on the abstract and introduction there is no clear objective of the current study.
The word “pest” has been mentioned on several occasions in this manuscript. However, in terms of ISPM 5 a pest is regarded as “Any species, strain or biotype of plant, animal or pathogenic agent injurious to plants or plant products. Note: In the IPPC, “plant pest” is sometimes used for the term “pest” [FAO, 1990; revised ISPM 2, 1995; IPPC, 1997; CPM, 2012]”. EPPO has pest alert lists (A1 and A2) based on pest risk analysis (the process of evaluating biological or other scientific and economic evidence to determine whether an organism is a pest, whether it should be regulated, and the strength of any phytosanitary measures to be taken against it” . PRA is conducted in line with ISPM 2 and 11. This should also reflect in the document.
ISPM 27, Diagnostic protocols for regulated pests, provides guidance on the structure and content of the IPPC) diagnostic protocols for regulated pests. The protocols describe procedures and methods for the official diagnosis of regulated pests that are relevant for international trade. They provide at least the minimum requirements for reliable diagnosis of regulated pests.
The author should also provide a summarized role of Euphresco . It is a network of organisations that fund research projects and coordinate national research in the phytosanitary area. The overall goal of Euphresco is to support coordination and collaboration in the area of phytosanitary research, and to maintain itself as a strong, long-term network of research stakeholders.
Author Response
The author provided a manuscript intitled “International Cooperation to Support the Diagnosis of Forestry 2 Pests: The Role of Eppo and Euphresco”. However, the author stipulated the economic concequestes of pests in line with the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). The IPPC is an intergovernmental treaty signed by over 180 countries, aiming to protecting the world's plant resources from the spread and introduction of pests, and promoting safe trade. The Convention introduced International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) as its main tool to achieve its goals, making it the sole global standard setting organization for plant health.The IPPC is one of the "Three Sisters" recognized by the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) Agreement, along with the Codex Alimentarius Commission for food safety standards and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) for animal health standards. In this case the author opted to focus on EPPO as the Regional Plant Protection Organisation (RPPO).
Both on the abstract and introduction there is no clear objective of the current study.
We have tried to clarify. We were asked to prepare an article on the diagnostic programme conducted on diagnostic in EPPO. This is the focus of our article although some information is given on the IPPC programme and other intitiatives
The word “pest” has been mentioned on several occasions in this manuscript. However, in terms of ISPM 5 a pest is regarded as “Any species, strain or biotype of plant, animal or pathogenic agent injurious to plants or plant products. Note: In the IPPC, “plant pest” is sometimes used for the term “pest” [FAO, 1990; revised ISPM 2, 1995; IPPC, 1997; CPM, 2012]”. EPPO has pest alert lists (A1 and A2) based on pest risk analysis (the process of evaluating biological or other scientific and economic evidence to determine whether an organism is a pest, whether it should be regulated, and the strength of any phytosanitary measures to be taken against it” . PRA is conducted in line with ISPM 2 and 11. This should also reflect in the document.
the A1 and A2 lists are not pest alert lists but lists of pests recommended for regulation. One sentence has been added on the fact that EPPO PRA Standards are in line with ISPM 2 and 11. We are not sure to understand if the reveiwer wants the IPPC definition of PRA to be included in the article. THe article being on diagnostics we opted for a short version.
ISPM 27, Diagnostic protocols for regulated pests, provides guidance on the structure and content of the IPPC) diagnostic protocols for regulated pests. The protocols describe procedures and methods for the official diagnosis of regulated pests that are relevant for international trade. They provide at least the minimum requirements for reliable diagnosis of regulated pests.
It is not clear to us what should be done.
The author should also provide a summarized role of Euphresco . It is a network of organisations that fund research projects and coordinate national research in the phytosanitary area. The overall goal of Euphresco is to support coordination and collaboration in the area of phytosanitary research, and to maintain itself as a strong, long-term network of research stakeholders.
Done
peer-review-30083052.v1.pdf
Most recommendation in this file have been considered. Regarding the comment on Figure 2.
ISPM 27 stipulates 'A flow diagram may be presented if several methods are needed to identify the pest or many alternative methods are included. so having a flow diagram is consistent with ISPM 27.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
we did not see the comment on that part. Please note that the article was reviewed by the EPPO English editor
