Insecticidal Activity of Selected Plant-Derived Essential Oils against Papaya Mealybug (Paracoccus marginatus)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThough there are some merits in publishing this paper, first you need to improve the language. Then a proper judgment can be made
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish is poorly written. It needs to be edited by a native English speaker.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Please see the attached document
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors tried to use essential oils against the bug. The research for Papaya seems interesting but paper needs to be improved grammatically.
In addition the authors did not mention which species of citrus they used for oil extraction.
The paper needs to be revised and mistakes should be removed before publication.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
There grammatical mistakes need to be rectified.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
See the attached document
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe overall manuscript is written very poorly. and the research design is not appropriate.
In the manuscript, the Variety used for the study is already resistant to the various insects but not shown to the mealybug.
The author presented imidacloprid has good efficient and highly stable compared to plant essentials then why this study has been carried out.
In addition, adjuvants used in the study are very crop-wise and not justified properly.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate English language editing is required.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
See the attached document
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Author
The present manuscript highlighted the field assessment of three different plant essential oils from neem, citrus and garlic against papaya mealybug in Tanzania. Although the study seems intriguing, several questions need to be addressed (provided as comments to the authors) to ensure scientific validity. Thus, I suggest a major revision for the manuscript. After making the necessary corrections, the authors can resubmit their manuscript.
General comment
1. The authors need to check the flow of the manuscript and also properly check each and every sentence written including figure and table legends.
2. Format, align, and remove unwanted spaces, and brackets, and capitalize the word where it’s required in each and every sentence
Abstract: The abstract has to be improved by incorporating the key findings of the overall work
Line no 18: In the abstract, the authors have mentioned “Similarly, the application of the plant essential oil increased papaya yield”. How much is the papaya yield improved?
Line no 21: The sentence “benefits that may encourage farmers' attitudes”. The usage of the term attitude is wrong.
Introduction: The authors could have mentioned the statistics regarding papaya production and statistics regarding papaya meal bugs in Tanzania.
Line no 77: The authors have mentioned “Considering the health of the ecosystem”. The usage of the term health of the ecosystem is wrong. Kindly check the sentence.
Materials and methods:
What led the author to choose the concentration of 1.5% for their treatment? Were there any preliminary studies conducted to support this?
Result and discussion:
· Table 4: In the table for example, the authors have provided the mean value for "Citrus oil 1.5%+ P" as 64.2; however, the standard error value has not been included. Please add the standard error value for all the data in this table.
· Fig 1-3: Seems to be wrong please check the statistics and then incorporate it in the figure.
· Results and discussion part need a drastic improvement, where authors can present each and every finding and properly discuss with available reports.
Other comments
1. Citation of figures and tables: Ensure that all figures and tables are cited within the text and they are cited in consecutive order. This will provide a clear and logical progression for the reader and help them follow the structure of your manuscript.
2. Abbreviations: Spell out all abbreviations the first time they are mentioned in the text, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses. This will ensure that readers are familiar with the meaning of the abbreviation and will help to maintain clarity throughout the manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageDear Author
The language of manuscripts has to be improved to meet the standard of the journal.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
See the attached document
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is well-written and has interesting research, though minor issues must be resolved before publication.
1. In title: "Three different plant essential oils" can be "medicinally important bio-active essential oils".
2. In Abstract L10-12: It is a general statement, Abstract needs to start with the aim and novel attempt initiated in the research.
3. Keywords: Use novel keywords not used in the study's title. Replace "Insect control" with "insecticides".
4. P2L91-94: The aim of the research needs to be revised by adding a research gap to the present research.
5. One paragraph needs to be included in the introduction addressing the importance of choosing three essential oils for the research.
6. Methodology: 2.2. Preparation of PEOs:- "Plant materials mentioned below were collected from different sites within Arusha city" need to be included with GPS coordinates. Similarly for, Insect rearing, "Papaya mealybugs for rearing were collected from the infested papaya field located in Meru district." need GPS coordinates.
7. Why author have chosen only 2 and 3rd instar? Is there any specific reason?
8. Line123:- What is screenhouse? Is that greenhouse or it is different?
9. Control, Imidacloprid (2%) looks heavy dosage, is that adapted from any standard protocol? if so, need a citation.
Also, in which way authors had chosen the adjuvants and their dosages.
10. In the figure. 1. there is no bar beneath the alphabet "a". Also, labeled alphabets are reversed, the higher bar starts with "a" and the smaller bar with "f". Kindly recheck and confirm.
11. Conclusion looks lucid, and needs to be revised with the future perspective of the research.
12. Kindly check the typo errors throughout the manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor grammar corrections are required.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
See the attached document
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo comments
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate English language
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We have revised the manuscript as per your comments and suggestions
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors
Thanks for considering the comments of Reviewers and attempting for an significant improvement in the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We have revised the manuscript as per your comments and suggestions
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
