The Pathological Status of Pinus sylvestris L. Understory Affected by Anthropogenic Air Pollution Stress (Case Study of Forests near Krasnoyarsk)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Well structured, clearly explained, with objectives and results clearly defined and correlated.
It would be nice to see Table 4 reformatted slightly. On first look, I thought both decimal and comma separated numerical notations were being used. However, on closer reading, I believe the table data for indicators 2 and 3 (microelement contents and water-soluble fluorine compounds) is delineated with comma separation instead of the slash used in the data for the first indicator.
Also in Table 4, please clarify in the caption or a footnote what each number represents - there appear to be 4 numbers for the first two indicators, and only 2 for the third indicator. If the first number of each pair is the amount of each indicator found in the trees, and the second number the amount in the undergrowth, then why are there four numbers given? This is not clarified in either the methodology or the table caption or footnote.
Author Response
Dear colleague, we are grateful for your time, comments and advice. We`ve corrected a typographical error made in Table 4.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article Pathological status of Pinus sylvestris L. undergrowth under the industrial pollution stress (case study of Krasnoyarsk suburban pine forests), deals with the pathology of young Pinus sylvestris forests due to industrial pollution. The methodology and objectives are correct. The results are interesting with regard to the different types of parasites, as well as the content of contaminating microelements of an industrial type in the pine needles.
The discussion writing corresponds largely to the results, in this case the authors use few references with which to contrast their results.
The diagnosis of the disease of Pinus sylvestris due to industrial pollution is correct, but I do not see that they make proposals for improvement, I suggest restructuring the discussion and including proposals for improvement in conclusions.
Author Response
Dear colleague, we are grateful for your time, comments and advice.
A small number of references in the Discussion section is due to the poor knowledge of this issue. The objectives of the study did not include the proposal of practical recommendations.
Reviewer 3 Report
The study is for sure interesting but there are several issues to be addressed:
- please better define statistical criteria in abstract
- In introduction section in less then 10 lines there are already 25 literature reference, please refine the reference list, there is no need to cite 10 papers for just one statement. please pay attention to this aspect also in the other parts of the text
- in introduction please add the innovative aspects of the study, why it is new and needed considering the current state of the art described by literature? Moreover I suggest also to write something about effects of pollutants on the target species , in this case scots pine. I finally suggest to rephrase the objectives of the study referring to the research hypotheses or questions behind the experimental design.
- I suggest to define the number of study areas and reporting their main topographic and dendrometric features in a table
- how were soil samples collected? how were collected data on metals accumulation? please describe in a deeper way your methods of field survey
- I don't undertsand the part regarding statistical analysis. First, what did you compare with what? T test implies a couple comparison so please explain what were your groups. Generally all the M&M section needs much work for improvement. Please rewrite it with a criterion in mid: another scientist from another part of the world which is familiar with your topic should be able to repeat the experimental design after readign the M&M section
- consequently from the previous comments I can not evaluate the goodness of your results
- discussion section is well written but still needs to let the reader better undertsand why this study is important from the scientific point of view
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear colleague!
Thank you for your time and effort. All your comments will be taken into account, with a few exceptions. We hope that our corrections would be quite satisfactory.
please better define statistical criteria in abstract
We`ve added the necessary information in the Abstract
In introduction section in less then 10 lines there are already 25 literature reference, please refine the reference list, there is no need to cite 10 papers for just one statement. please pay attention to this aspect also in the other parts of the text
We`ve refined the reference list was corrected. In our opinion, we should site the authors who have made a significant contribution to research in this area.
In the introduction please add the innovative aspects of the study, why it is new and needed considering the current state of the art described by literature? Moreover I suggest also to write something about effects of pollutants on the target species , in this case scots pine. I finally suggest to rephrase the objectives of the study referring to the research hypotheses or questions behind the experimental design.
We`ve added the necessary information in the Introduction:
- (Lines 49-51) Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) grows over a wide geographical range so it`s stands are often exposed to industrial pollution.
- (Lines 54-57) Most research are focused on the industrial pollution impact on forests without considering their interaction with pathogens, which poses the need for study this issue.
In our opinion, the objectives were formulated adequately for solving the aim of the study.
I suggest to define the number of study areas and reporting their main topographic and dendrometric features in a table
We`ve added the recommended Table.
how were soil samples collected? how were collected data on metals accumulation? please describe in a deeper way your methods of field survey
This information was given in lines 122-134. Chemical analysis was carried out in a specialized laboratory, where the collected samples were sent.
I don't undertsand the part regarding statistical analysis. First, what did you compare with what? T test implies a couple comparison so please explain what were your groups. Generally all the M&M section needs much work for improvement. Please rewrite it with a criterion in mid: another scientist from another part of the world which is familiar with your topic should be able to repeat the experimental design after readign the M&M section
Dear Reviewer. All the studied samples were tested for normal distribution according to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. It turned out that all samples follow a normal distribution, so Student's t-test was used for comparative analysis. A pairwise comparison of the average values of the manifestation indicators (prevalence and growth infection rate) of the two dominant diseases was carried out based on the survey of the undergrowth growing on the research plots placed in the central parts of pine forests subjected to industrial pollution to different extent.
consequently from the previous comments I can not evaluate the goodness of your results
discussion section is well written but still needs to let the reader better understand why this study is important from the scientific point of view
Dear reviewer, the authors are grateful for the careful reading of the work and the comments made.
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
it would be good to genetically confirm the morphologically identified fungal species (e.g. L206-209) and deposit them in an international genebank, e.g. NCBI, so that the international community can benefit from these data.
Was air pollution observed to affect the fungi that colonise pine needles more than the plants themselves? Were the trees weakened and more susceptible to infection by pathogenic fungi? Conversely, were the fungi exposed to air pollution more damaged than the needles? L255 notes that "parasitic activity is suppressed...), so were some of the fungi more susceptible (bioindicators of pollution) than others? Which fungi?
Why were plants growing in the understory more damaged ("L238...was most susceptible to industrial pollution") than tall trees whose needles were more exposed to pollution (greater airflow)? Does the damage depend on age? Usually younger plants are more resistant than older ones because they are more plastic, but this was not confirmed, was it?
Were young trees, thickets, and understory healthier than older trees, which would bode well for the future of these stands? Why was the load of heavy metal compounds and fluorine in the understory near Krasnoyarsk 1.4 to 7 times higher than in the canopy?
Did pathogens affecting P. sylvestris cause tree mortality, or was contamination or synergy observed? What was and is the current health status of these stands, and how has it changed over time? Are climate changes and their consequences also noticeable? Do they affect populations of insect pests, fungi, and mistletoe, for example (currently a problem in Central Europe)?
Have coniferous fungi such as Lophodermella (L. sulcigena and S. difformis) always existed in pine forests near urban areas and caused damage? Has this phenomenon increased recently? Is the amount of chemical compounds (heavy metals and fluorine) accumulating in plant tissues still increasing? Is it decreasing due to the installation of air treatment systems?
Check the manuscript again carefully, e.g. L195 sp. should not be skewed.
Author Response
Dear authors,
it would be good to genetically confirm the morphologically identified fungal species (e.g. L206-209) and deposit them in an international genebank, e.g. NCBI, so that the international community can benefit from these data.
Authors Responses: Dear colleague, we are grateful for your time, comments and advice. The diseases were identified by obvious signs, primarily by the pathogens fruiting bodies. In this regard, there was no need to conduct genetic studies.
Was air pollution observed to affect the fungi that colonise pine needles more than the plants themselves? Were the trees weakened and more susceptible to infection by pathogenic fungi? Conversely, were the fungi exposed to air pollution more damaged than the needles? L255 notes that "parasitic activity is suppressed...), so were some of the fungi more susceptible (bioindicators of pollution) than others? Which fungi?
Authors Responses: Firstly, the objectives of the study did not include identifying the effect of industrial pollution on plants. Therefore, a comparative assessment of the impact of pollution on plants and fungal pathogens was not carried out.
Secondly, a significant decrease in pathogen activity was found only for two diseases. This was revealed by the values of disease manifestation indicators in pine forests with different levels of pollution stress.
Why were plants growing in the understory more damaged ("L238...was most susceptible to industrial pollution") than tall trees whose needles were more exposed to pollution (greater airflow)? Does the damage depend on age? Usually younger plants are more resistant than older ones because they are more plastic, but this was not confirmed, was it?
Were young trees, thickets, and understory healthier than older trees, which would bode well for the future of these stands? Why was the load of heavy metal compounds and fluorine in the understory near Krasnoyarsk 1.4 to 7 times higher than in the canopy?
Authors Responses: In the studied pine forests, the degree of contamination of needles with highly toxic compounds of lead, zinc, vanadium, molybdenum, chromium and fluorine, was, indeed, 1.4-7 times higher in the undergrowth than in the crowns of the trees of the main canopy. This is due to the gravitational settling of pollutants, their entry into the lower layers with precipitation, and the predominance of under-cover penetration of a number of chemicals from numerous motor vehicles.
Did pathogens affecting P. sylvestris cause tree mortality, or was contamination or synergy observed?
Authors Responses: Identified diseases with significant damage to the undergrowth (high value of the indicator of the disease growth infection rate) led to their weakening and even death. This was also noted in less polluted pine forests. A strong weakening of undergrowth in stands with a high technogenic load was primarily associated with the impact of pollutants and can be aggravated by the synergism of pollution and some diseases.
What was and is the current health status of these stands, and how has it changed over time? Are climate changes and their consequences also noticeable? Do they affect populations of insect pests, fungi, and mistletoe, for example (currently a problem in Central Europe)?
Have coniferous fungi such as Lophodermella (L. sulcigena and S. difformis) always existed in pine forests near urban areas and caused damage? Has this phenomenon increased recently? Is the amount of chemical compounds (heavy metals and fluorine) accumulating in plant tissues still increasing? Is it decreasing due to the installation of air treatment systems?
Authors Responses: We do not have a specific answer to the rest of your questions, since these issues were not included in the objectives of our study.
Check the manuscript again carefully, e.g. L195 sp. should not be skewed.
Authors Responses: We corrected the line 207 (Lophodermium sp.).
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
good job
Author Response
Dear colleague!
Thank You very much for Your time, efforts and advices, and especially for references.
