Unleashing Nature’s Pesticide: A Systematic Review of Schinus molle Essential Oil’s Biopesticidal Potential

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for allowing me to comment on the review paper titled “Unleashing nature's pesticide: a systematic review of Schinus molle essential oil's biopesticidal potent”. This is a well-structured work, well-framed within the PRISMA methodology, and appealing.

I have a few minor revisions to report.

-          Once defined at line 63, the use of the abbreviation EO (or EOs) for essential oil (or oils) should be consistent throughout the manuscript.

-          Line 72: I would explain that S. molle, although similar to pepper, is a “false” type, as it is not part of the Piper or Capsicum genera.

-          α, β, ρ, etc. in the names of the chemical compounds should be put in italics.

-          If book chapters are not excluded from your article selection, I suggest this: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978012416641700078X.

 

About the tables.

-          The meaning of the abbreviations HD and SD is missing; I would add it in all the captions.

-          In all the columns “Pest”, I would remove the common names (but leave them in the main text) and add order and family. Maybe using Col. for Coleoptera, Lep. for Lepidoptera, etc. would not weigh down the tables.

-          Are data in Table 1 presented in a specific order? I think it’s alphabetical according to the plant’s country of origin, but the USA is in the wrong place.

-          Don’t the results regarding repellence/attractiveness on S. zeamais (ref. 43 from Table 1) belong to Table 5?

-          I would consider moving Blatta orientalis from Table 2 to 3. B. orientalis, as Musca domestica in Table 2, is a passive vector of numerous pathogens, and I think it would fit better in that paragraph. Probably, renaming it “…against active and passive vectors of...” would help.

 

Some additional comments are reported in the attached PDF. I used the old file, as I was already working on it, and the highlighted parts were not changed.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: Once defined at line 63, the use of the abbreviation EO (or EOs) for essential oil (or oils) should be consistent throughout the manuscript.   

Response 1: Correction made

 

Comment 2: Line 72: I would explain that S. molle, although similar to pepper, is a “false” type, as it is not part of the Piper or Capsicum genera

Response 2: Correction made

 

Comment 3: α, β, ρ, etc. in the names of the chemical compounds should be put in italics.

Response 3: Correction made

 

Comment 4: If book chapters are not excluded from your article selection, I suggest this: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978012416641700078X.

Response 4: Although the book chapter is very interesting, our review datamining only involves articles.

 

Comment 5: The meaning of the abbreviations HD and SD is missing; I would add it in all the captions.

Response 5: Correction made

 

Comment 6: In all the columns “Pest”, I would remove the common names (but leave them in the main text) and add order and family. Maybe using Col. for Coleoptera, Lep. for Lepidoptera, etc. would not weigh down the tables.          

Response 6: We accepted your suggestion and included the order and family in the “pest” columns. We thought it more appropriate not to transcribe the common names of the insects in the text, as scientific name, order and family in the tables are enough to identify them.

 

Comment 7: Are data in Table 1 presented in a specific order? I think it’s alphabetical according to the plant’s country of origin, but the USA is in the wrong place.    

Response 7: Correction made

 

Comment 8: Don’t the results regarding repellence/attractiveness on S. zeamais (ref. 43 from Table 1) belong to Table 5?            

Response 8: Correction made. Figure 3, tables and related texts were changed accordingly.

 

Comment 9: I would consider moving Blatta orientalis from Table 2 to 3. B. orientalis, as Musca domestica in Table 2, is a passive vector of numerous pathogens, and I think it would fit better in that paragraph. Probably, renaming it “…against active and passive vectors of...” would help.     

Response 9: Correction made. Tables and related texts were changed accordingly.

 

Comment 10: Some additional comments are reported in the attached PDF. I used the old file, as I was already working on it, and the highlighted parts were not changed.             

Response 10: Correction made. “Potent” in the title was a misstype, “-ial” was missing. The right word is “potential”.

NOTE: the attached version of the manuscripti includes suggestions from all the reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Developing active substances with safety to non-target organisms and environment is currently a research focus in the field of pest control. Plant derived substances represented by plant essential oils are an important research direction. This review systematically summarizes and analyzes the literatures of Schinus mole essential oil tested for pest control. It will be valuable for readers in related research fields. There are some suggestions for authors to revise the manuscript before acceptance.

1.     Line 65, “predators” here might be “herbivorous pests”?

2.     Add a live picture of Schinus mole in the field in fig.1 will be more attractive to readers.

3.     Line 136, “whit” should be “with”.

4.     In Fig.4, the geographical distribution of the selected articles is very interesting, very few studies were cited in Europe, North America and Asia. It may be due to the distribution of S. mole in the world, I think authors can add some analysis in this part.

5.     In Fig.5, the years in y-axis is not coherent.

6.     Line 175, “T. urticae” should be “Tetranychus urticae”

7.     Line 189, change “have” to “has”

8.     Line 194-196, In the case 194 “previous studies have demonstrated greater insecticidal efficacy of the essential oil as a whole, compared to the individual molecule.” Add references for this point.

9.     What do “HD” and “SD” mean in tables?

10.  LC50 or IC50, the “50” need to be subscripted, check all through the manuscript.

11.  Line 236, “LD50 = 2.7 µL”, the unit for LD should be “µL/mg”, revise it also in table 2.

12.  In 3.5, as an important characteristic for nano-formulation, dimension of the formula need to be added in table 4.

13.  Line 436, “1×103 to 1×104 μg mL-1”, correct the format.

14.  Line 535, “S. molle ” should be italic

15.  The conclusion is too long.

Author Response

Comment 1: Line 65, “predators” here might be “herbivorous pests”?

Response 1: Correction made

 

Comment 2: Add a live picture of Schinus mole in the field in fig.1 will be more attractive to readers.           

Response 2: Correction made

 

Comment 3: Line 136, “whit” should be “with”.    

Response 3: Correction made

 

Comment 4: In Fig.4, the geographical distribution of the selected articles is very interesting, very few studies were cited in Europe, North America and Asia. It may be due to the distribution of S. mole in the world, I think authors can add some analysis in this part.

Response 4: Correction made

 

Comment 5: In Fig.5, the years in y-axis is not coherent.                 

Response 5: Correction made

 

Comment 6: Line 175, “T. urticae” should be “Tetranychus urticae”      

Response 6: Correction made

 

Comment 7: Line 189, change “have” to “has”      

Response 7: Correction made

 

Comment 8: Line 194-196, In the case 194 “previous studies have demonstrated greater insecticidal efficacy of the essential oil as a whole, compared to the individual molecule.” Add references for this point.  

Response 8: Correction made

 

Comment 9: What do “HD” and “SD” mean in tables?    

Response 9: Correction made

 

Comment 10:  LC50 or IC50, the “50” need to be subscripted, check all through the manuscript.  

Response 10: Correction made

 

Comment 11:  Line 236, “LD50 = 2.7 µL”, the unit for LD should be “µL/mg”, revise it also in table 2.              

Response 11: Correction made

 

Comment 12:  In 3.5, as an important characteristic for nano-formulation, dimension of the formula need to be added in table 4.        

Response 12: Correction made. A new column was added containing dimensions.

 

Comment 13:  Line 436, “1×103 to 1×104 μg mL-1”, correct the format.              

Response 13: Correction made

 

Comment 14:  Line 535, “S. molle ” should be italic           

Response 14: Correction made

 

Comment 15:  The conclusion is too long 

Response 15: Correction made. Conclusions were summarized.

NOTE: The attached version of the manuscript provides the suggestions of all the reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this article, the authors introduced in detail that the collection and analysis of the literatures on the use of Schinus molle essential oil as a biopesticide. The applications and researches of S. molle essential oil in crop protection, veterinary application and vector insect control were summarized.

Meanwhile, nanobiopesticides of S. molle essential oil and behavioral and antennal responses of pest insects to volatiles compounds from S. molle EO were also described.

The primary action mechanism of S. molle essential oil used as biopesticide and the Technology Readiness Levels of these researches were also discussed.

This article is helpful for readers to have a comprehensive understanding of the current research progress of Schinus molle essential oil.

I think this paper is acceptable.

Author Response

No chages were made because the manuscipt was considered acceptable.

 

NOTE: the attached version of the manuscript provides the suggestions of all the reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf