Ecological Impact of American Chestnut Hybrid Restoration on Invertebrate Communities Above- and Belowground

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback.  Please see attached for a complete response.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: forests-3050754

Type of manuscript: Article

Title: Ecological Impact of American Chestnut Hybrid Restoration on Invertebrate Communities Above and Belowground

Authors: Jaq Reed, Evan Hausler, Abigail Levinson, Jonathan Horton, Denis Willett, Camila C Filgueiras *

 

Abstract: the authors conducted a study across chestnut plots with varying degrees of hybridization (75%, 94% or 100% American chestnut). Their findings indicated that American chestnut hybridization impacted invertebrate communities above and belowground. Aboveground insect community composition, insect herbivory, gall infestation, and belowground invertebrate diversity were all altered. While some of these differences could be explained by different growth habits or environmental differences, stark differences in, Asian chestnut gall wasp infestation (Dryocosmus kuriphilus Yasumatsu.) suggest a genetic component. The authors mentioned that the results suggest that chestnut hybridization, and particularly expanded restoration efforts using chestnut hybrids, could impact invertebrate communities above and belowground in addition to pest dynamics. Understanding these effects is crucial for successful chestnut restoration and ecosystem management.

 

Positive aspects:

·         Propose subject of study is interesting and has practical implications in forestry restoration field.

·         The manuscript is sustained by a suitable and diverse literature, strongly connected with the proposed research area.

·         The manuscript is well structured.

 

 Comments:

·         Keywords- line 14: There are too many keywords! Five of them are enough and arrange them in alphabetically order. Never insert short names as a key word (EPN…you have repoeatted it at the end ..with the long name).

·         Introduction: Line 42. Please, insert scientific name of the wasp and in brackets this common name. Similar for the lesser chestnut weevil.

·         I strongly recommend highlighting the hypothesis of this study! The authors mentioned something at lines 90-94, but seem to me more as methodology and not as study hypothesis.

·         Experimental Design: At which altitudes are located the investigated plots? Which type of soil?

·         Line 105-106. What are the proportion between chestnuts hybrids and natural vegetation, for each plot? Which is the coverage of herbaceous layer and shrub layer for each plot?

·         Above ground Insect Diversity: Please, insert the used identification key for the insects! I consider that taxonomical identification is too general. Arthropoda and Insecta means a lot of other groups (orders) with characteristically community structures for different types of ecosystems. That is the reason that I strongly recommend that the authors to make a taxonomical identification more adequate or to collaborate with other specialists.

·         Line 173: This wasp is host-specific on the Asian Chestnut? With other words:  is a specific identification key to identify the gall of this wasp species?

·         2.5 Soil Arthropods. Which was the used identification key for the soil arthropods?

Line 184: This is not quite adequately method. In order to compare statistically many litter samples, they must be on same dimensions. Taking samples by the hand, the authors don't keep a constant dimension of the samples.

Line 200-201: Which statistical soft was used? Please, mention it!

·         Line 218: Which is the dimension of a core? How many samples are collected for EPN? How many times you collected the EPN samples in the period of this study? Only once?

·         2.7. Analaysis Environment. I recommend changing this subtitle, with Statistical analysis.  The environment means abiotic and biotic parameters (as temperature, humidity, pH, vegetation coverage, etc...).

·         Line 273: Five or six with Mollusca?

·          Figure 4: Please, be consequent. In the figures 2 and 3, you used A, B, C..and here you used asterisk.  It must be the same format.

·         Disscusions. You don't need to repeat the figures from results. The discussion chapter must to contain some informations regarding comparisons with other data /studies from the world.  On the other hand, the authors must explain why there are differences between soil fauna groups between plots, directly correlated with the investigated factors. In this case the discussions are mainly based on suppositions or literature! In a quick search on internet I found other studies, as:

https://biozoojournals.ro/swjhbe/v10n2/swjhbe_e19107_Pastor.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3391922/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362889995_European_and_American_chestnuts_An_overview_of_the_main_threats_and_control_efforts

In the Disscussion chapter, the authors talk about the vegetation and canopy coverage, temperature, but the study does not take into consideration these parameters.  The study will increase in value if the authors make a correlation between these parameters and invertebrate communities’ structures, characteristically for each plot.

·         Conclusions must be improved.

·         References: Please, check if the all references were found in the manuscript and vice versa. Please, follow the instruction for the authors for references.

 

ALL these comments were inserting in the manuscript!

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.  Please see attached for a complete response.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of MS – Forests-3050754 Ecological Impact of American Chestnut Hybrid Restoration on

Invertebrate Communities Above and Belowground”

The authors submit to the review a MS that primarily focused on evaltuation on invertebrate communities above and belowground in some American Chestnut Hybrid patches. The type of study presents some interesting peculiarities as it addresses the problem of the correct evaluation of the ecological impact linked to the introduction of a large-scale hybrid on several fronts. Also considering the complexity of the type of study, I express an overall positive opinion but I regret the authors who did not sufficiently explain their results better.

Some aspects are therefore fundamental and must be considered by the authors:

- Per se, in the introductory part the problem of the increase in pests is excessively emphasized while the ecological aspects should have more emphasis. I recommend implementing this aspect;

- Due to the differences of suscettibility among the hybrids regarding Dryocosmus kuriphilus, I am not clear about the inclusion of this comparison as D. kuriphilus is also a non-native species but capable of hosting numerous natural enemies;

- From reading the text it seems that for the experimental area there are no data prior to monitoring that have assessed biodiversity and/or the abundance of harmful species.

- Another aspect to clarify in more detail is the size of the plots, distance between plants etc. Furthermore, if I have understood correctly, the size of the plots presents a very small number of plants and this can significantly influence the data also considering the monitoring of winged insects.

- In paragraph 2.2 the type of trap is specified. In the paragraph it is appropriate to clarify whether this trap captures more, for example Curculio sp, compared to other weevil species or other groups. The authors could be more specific;

- To assess damage from herbivorous insects/arthopods or mammals requires a certain preparation and evaluating each individual leaf. I wonder is there any damage from molluscs on the leaves?

- In paragraph 2.3 specify how the leaves in which the cynipid  was found were treated?;

- In paragraph 2.4 you counted the galls from May 15 to August 29, 2023. I don't understand how the number can vary since the spring appearance is unique and is linked to ovipositions of the wasp from the previous year. Moreover I don’t find possible dynamic of galls in results;

- In paragraph 3.1 of the results you only assessed the orders of insects and the abundance of arachnids. How do you explain that if the analysis is not carried out at the species level it is difficult to draw conclusions with the biodiversity indices you use. Furthermore, it is necessary to specify the overall number of individuals collected with traps for each single station and where it is possible to associate a dynamics of presence of the most representative groups;

- Review the captions of the different figures in some cases the errors are minimal, for example in figure 3 "signicican".

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.  Please see attached for a detailed response.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors improves the quality of the manuscript, according to the reviewer last comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It appears that the revisions have been accepted. Nothing to comment