Recent Advances in the Use of Botanical Extracts from Jatropha Species for the Sustainable Control of Insect Pests: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present study aims to expand our knowledge of the bioactive effects of Jatropha botanical extracts, incorporating statistical meta-analysis tools and published evidence from other Jatropha species that have demonstrated insecticidal activity against various insect pests.

This study is original and novel as it is the first to incorporate a systematic review and statistical meta-analysis tools, on the bioactive effect of Jatropha botanical extracts.

However, the study should be reframed in terms of comparisons. Mortality alone is not a suitable variable for meta-analysis, as it depends on factors such as concentration and the specific day on which mortalities occur. Therefore, I suggest that the authors use LC50 data, specifying a single day, to allow comparison of the effects of the same extract (plant species, plant component, solvent, etc.) across different pest species. Similarly, the antifeedant effect should be compared considering the applied concentrations and the specific day on which they occurred, broken down by plant species, pest, and solvent. Regarding the comparison of the development time of a stage of an insect species due to the effects of an extract, it should be compared for the same insect species and not in general.

The results must be reformulated to reflect the new data.

The conclusions must be reformulated to reflect the new results.

References are appropriate.

The tables and figures should be constructed based on the new data.

Authors should correct all scientific name (in italics) throughout the text.

 

 

Author Response

Please see attached file for a point-by-point response.

Thank you!

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments

The manuscript entitled “Bioactive effect of extracts of Jatropha species in the control of insect pests of crops: A systematic review and meta-analysis” comprehensively describes the current advance of Jatropha spp derived extracts on pest management of various crops, based on meta-analysis. To a certain extent, this study enriched the information on the use of extracts for pest control. However, there are many fundamental problems with the paper. The major concern is that the writing problems and logical problems.

Specific remarks

Title: title should change. Consider rewritten as: "Recent advances in the extracts of Jatropha species in the pest management of crops: A systematic review and meta-analysis"

In the final part of the abstract, it is suggested to provide the application prospects, or the last sentence should be rewritten as follows: "Consequently, botanical extracts obtained from the leaves and seeds of J. curcas and J. gossypifolia should be considered a sustainable and agroecological alternative for pest management."  "Should be considered" suggests to make some revision.

Introduction: Line 46-60: this paragraph is too long and over-lengthy. The adverse effect of unreasonable use of chemical insecticides, although this section is related, it is unnecessary for your topic, I suggest simplifying.

Line 45: Consider:" Insect pests can pose a... global agricultural system.

Line 89-91: this sentence suggests delete or move to another part. This paragraph aims to emphasis the significance of your research rather than "An approach".

Line 96: I would like to ask what the author's database is? Is it Web of Science? It should be clarified.

Line 106: Jatropha should be in italics. Please also check the whole manuscript for consistency.

Table 1: "Studies": Why did the author choose these two other languages (Spanish or Portuguese)? What I mean is that papers published in English should be the most numerous. Does choosing these other languages have any impact on the research results?

Line 340-341: Latin names: Genus and species names must be written in italics. Please check the whole manuscript.

Table 2: This table has errors. Please ask the author to reformat it.

Line 367: What does the "p < 0.000" mean? See also line 426, line 489

Line 496: Please make sure all "p" is in italic for the whole manuscript.

Line 617: please make italics for "S. frugiperda". See also Line 629.

Line 656: As a review article: I strongly suggest the authors add the "future directions or prospects" in the ending of Review.

Reference: The authors should carefully check the reference list, make sure that all the genus names and species names are presented in italics. The authors were required to prepare their manuscript carefully and should not rely on the Reviewers to correct formatting and style problems. such as Line 986, Line 988, 989, 1023, 1024, 1029, 1034...

Author Response

Please see the attached file for a point-by-point response.

Best regards,

Daniel Diaz

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review is well organized, and the topics are well arranged and include all the latest information about the subject. It is also written in a clear language. Figures and tables are obvious and clear with the contents.

It needs to be revised with these comments

• Line 26: were instead of was
• Lines 33: add the full genus names of curcas and J. gossypifolia with also family name and again in the first mention in the introduction, such as line 69
• Line 78: Jatropha in italic and in the whole review, such as line 85
• Lines 335-341: Add Families and Orders for all insects and also in the whole review when it mentioned for the first time
• Lines 340-341: Write Scientific names in italics.
• Many Scientific names are in abbreviated genus when they are mentioned for the first time, as in line 389 (decolora). check all the review to mention the full name, Family, and Order when each one mentioned in the first time
• Again, check all Scientific names in the text and in references list to be italic (All references are not italic for the scientific names)

Author Response

Please see the attached file for a point-by-point response.

Best regards,

Daniel Diaz

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors significantly improved the manuscript. Therefore, it can be published in this journal.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequately addressed all the concerns raised during the review process.  I have no further comments and therefore recommend accepting the manuscript.

Congratulations to the authors!