From Old-Generation to Next-Generation Nematicides
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The review “From Old-Generation to Next-Generation Nematicides” summarizes knowledge about three relatively new nematicides and also briefly discusses old-generation nematicides. The subject is relevant and timely, and I found the paper interesting and generally well-written.
However, my main concern with the manuscript is the introduction and the delineation of the study. From what I can tell, this review only deals with non-fumigant nematicides, so I suggest that should be evident from the title. Otherwise, it is confusing why the phased out and banned soil fumigants are not included in the group of old-generation nematicides. In the introduction, it should be precisely stated what is included in this review and for example why the old soil fumigants are not. It would also be good to mention how this review adds to other published reviews on the subject like reference 5 and 8.
I also think that a table summarizing data for the new-generation nematicides would be of great value. That would allow for easier comparison among them.
Detailed comments:
L9: methyl bromide is also a soil fumigant so write “…withdrawal of other toxic soil fumigants…”
L27: I suggest a sentence or two to describe how soil fumigants are applied and work.
L46: Add comma - was, and still is, their
L99: What nematicides are referred to here? Soil fumigants are mentioned in the previous sentence but the whole section is about old-generation nematicides.
L116: Does this decreased nematicidal activity apply for non-fumigants or nematicides in general?
L147: physiochemical
L150: Reference needed regarding the leaching.
L189: Reformulate the sentence so that it is clear that the metabolites are taken up by the plants and not naturally occurring in plants.
L199: Specify what types of nematicides abamectin and fluopyram are (soil fumigants, old-generation, new-generation). It is many chemical names in the manuscript so it would be good to aid the reader as much as possible. The same also applies to L265 (fosthiazate and oxamyl), L279 (fenamiphos and cadusafos), L294 (fenamiphos) and L471 (oxamyl, fluensulfone and fluopyram).
L301: Move this whole paragraph forward so that it becomes section 3.2.2, to be consistent with the ordering of sections regarding the other two next-generation nematicides.
L346: Remind the reader what SDHI is.
L363: Reformulate so that it is clear that irreversible immobilization occurs first after exposure for a certain time.
L365 + L367: Do not use the term recover when discussing irreversible immobilization, the meaning of irreversible is that you do not recover. Instead, write that they were not irreversibly immobilized.
L386: Exudates
L388: Use another word so that the reader understands without needing to look it up.
L406: Express as kg / ha-1 as for the other referred application values.
L439-440: And what did they find?
L444: Why use however here, and would be better.
L511: Remove references.
Author Response
Response to the reviewers
I appreciate valuable comments of the reviewers. I revised the manuscript mainly according to the comments. (Line numbers are those of the revised version)
Response to reviewer 1
From what I can tell, this review only deals with non-fumigant nematicides, so I suggest that should be evident from the title. Otherwise, it is confusing why the phased out and banned soil fumigants are not included in the group of old-generation nematicides.
Res: The title was not changed but now mentioned Line 59-61. Also, brief history of soil fumigants was mentioned in the introduction.
In the introduction, it should be precisely stated what is included in this review and for example why the old soil fumigants are not. It would also be good to mention how this review adds to other published reviews
Res. Now mentioned in Line 54-59
I also think that a table summarizing data for the new-generation nematicides would be of great value
Res. Figure 1 and Table 1 were added.
Detailed comments:
L9: methyl bromide is also a soil fumigant so write “…withdrawal of other toxic soil fumigants…” Done!
L27: I suggest a sentence or two to describe how soil fumigants are applied and work. Done Line 45-47!
L46: Add comma - was, and still is, their. Done! (Line 48)
L99: What nematicides are referred to here? Soil fumigants are mentioned in the previous sentence but the whole section is about old-generation nematicides. Old generation non-fumigant nematicides! Changed! (L118)
L116: Does this decreased nematicidal activity apply for non-fumigants or nematicides in general? Soil fumigants also have this problem but this section only deals with non-fumigant nematicides. Therefore, references for fumigants were not added.
L147: physiochemical Done! (L166)
L150: Reference needed regarding the leaching. Done! (Ref. 50)
L189: Reformulate the sentence so that it is clear that the metabolites are taken up by the plants and not naturally occurring in plants. Done! (L209)
L199: Specify what types of nematicides abamectin and fluopyram are (soil fumigants, old-generation, new-generation) It is many chemical names in the manuscript so it would be good to aid the reader as much as possible. The same also applies to L265 (fosthiazate and oxamyl), L279 (fenamiphos and cadusafos), L294 (fenamiphos) and L471 (oxamyl, fluensulfone and fluopyram). All the nematicides are mentioned in the text. It is not practical to do that for all the compounds.
L301: Move this whole paragraph forward so that it becomes section 3.2.2, to be consistent with the ordering of sections regarding the other two next-generation nematicides. Done!
L346: Remind the reader what SDHI is. Done! (L367)
L363: Reformulate so that it is clear that irreversible immobilization occurs first after exposure for a certain time. Done! (L384-389)
L365 + L367: Do not use the term recover when discussing irreversible immobilization, the meaning of irreversible is that you do not recover. Instead, write that they were not irreversibly immobilized. Done! (L384-389)
L386: Exudates Done! (L408)
L388: Use another word so that the reader understands without needing to look it up. Done! (L410)
L406: Express as kg / ha-1 as for the other referred application values. Done! (L428)
L439-440: And what did they find? Done! (L463)
L444: Why use however here, and would be better. Because very high concentrations are required to cause acute death to nematodes, but much lower and non-lethal concentrations can prevent nematode infection.
L511: Remove references. Done!
Reviewer 2 Report
General comments
In many parts of the manuscript the font size should be changed.
It would be very useful (in my opinion) if author adds a table (in Introduction section) with all “old-generation” and the three “new generation” nematicides including information such as: year of discovery, manufacturer, release in the market, withdrawn from the market, mode of action etc. Probably the Editor should make a decision on that.
I am providing some more references that might be included in the manuscript:
- Compatibility of fluazaindolizine and oxamyl with Pasteuria penetrans on spore attachment to juveniles of Meloidogyne javanica and incognita. Journal of Nematology e2020-70 | Vol. 52.
- In vitro sensitivity of different populations of Meloidogyne javanica and incognita to the nematicides Salibro™and Vydate®. Nematology 21 (2019) 889-893
- Factors affecting the efficacy of non-fumigant nematicides for controlling root-knot nematodes. Pest Manag Sci 61:961–972 (2005).
- Reduction in biological efficacy of ethoprophos in a soil from Greece due to enhanced biodegradation: comparing bioassay with laboratory incubation data. Pestic Sci 55:1089±1094 (1999).
Specific comments
Line 70: A reference should be added.
Line 108: Author probably means that: Its rapid degradation is due to its continued use.
Line 141-144: A reference should be added.
Line 146: I am sure by saying in vitro you mean all trials in the Lab such as motility tests, hatching test, egg differentiation tests or even efficacy tests in pots or in microplots. I don’t think that someone reading in vitro can understand all the above. You should remove in vitro and be more descriptive.
Line 147: change “in practice” with “in the field”.
Line205-208: Please rephrase.
Line 259: I think it would be useful to add the formulation of the chemical or even the commercial product anytime you are referred to field applications.
Line 361-362: This statement is not supported since you say “the irreversible J2 immobilization by the compound depends on concentration and exposure period. Please make it more clear or rephrase.
Line 499: Probably author should write “Published data and personal observations ….”
Line 501-503: I don’t think that B. xylophilus should be included here since it is extremely difficult to use nematicides against it. Also B. xylophilus is spreading with an insect that is the target of the management
Author Response
Response to reviewer 2
I appreciate valuable comments of the reviewers. I revised the manuscript mainly according to the comments. (Line numbers are those of the revised version)
In many parts of the manuscript the font size should be changed.
Res. I up-loaded the manuscript with an uniform font size, but the publisher processed it and caused the uninform font sizes! I fixed them.
It would be very useful if author adds a table.
Res. I added Fig. 1 and Table 1, only for next-generation nematicides
In vitro sensitivity of different populations of Meloidogyne javanica and incognita to the nematicides Salibro™and Vydate®. Nematology 21 (2019) 889-893.
I added this as a reference.
Specific comments
Line 70: A reference should be added. Done! (L89)
Line 108: Author probably means that: Its rapid degradation is due to its continued use. No, half-life time of oxamyl in the soil is very short, especially in alkaline soil.
Line 141-144: A reference should be added. Done! (L163)
Line 146: I am sure by saying in vitro you mean all trials in the Lab such as motility tests, hatching test, egg differentiation tests or even efficacy tests in pots or in microplots. I don’t think that someone reading in vitro can understand all the above. You should remove in vitro and be more descriptive. I mean in-vitro as in-vitro, nematode or egg exposure to test solutions in petri-dish/micro wells, etc. in Lab.
Line 147: change “in practice” with “in the field”. OK, done! (L163)
Line205-208: Please rephrase. Done! (L238-240)
Line 259: I think it would be useful to add the formulation of the chemical or even the commercial product anytime you are referred to field applications. Additional information is always useful, however, due to the limited number of words for a manuscript it is not always possible. If a reader wants to know details, he/she can find them in the reference.
Line 361-362: This statement is not supported since you say “the irreversible J2 immobilization by the compound depends on concentration and exposure period. Please make it more clear or rephrase. Rephrased (L384-389)
Line 499: Probably author should write “Published data and personal observations ….” Done! (L522)
Line 501-503: I don’t think that B. xylophilus should be included here since it is extremely difficult to use nematicides against it. Also B. xylophilus is spreading with an insect that is the target of the management. Control of the insect vector is the best way for the nematode control, however, such method with high control efficacy has not been developed. To prevent the nematode infection to pine trees in specific areas, such as national parks and tourists spots, trunk injection with nematicides is the promising methods. Unfortunately, currently used nematicides are not so effective, and new compounds are required.
