Potential for the Postharvest Biological Control of Phthorimaea operculella (Lepidoptera, Gelechiidae) by Blattisocius tarsalis (Mesostigmata, Blattisociidae)
, Ana Piedra-Buena 1, Estrella Hernandez-Suarez 1, Manuel Gamez 2, Tomas Cabello 2,* and Juan R. Gallego 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting and well written paper with information useful and needed to manage a major pest of potatoes. The major issue I see is that differences among treatments are presented in the results, discussed, and conclusions are drawn without statistical analysis. The statistical analysis used only compares each treatment to the control. Either a statistical analysis that compares all treatments, such as an ANOVA, needs to be used or the fact that the differences are numerical only with no statistical backing needs to be emphasized in the discussion and conclusions. Other minor corrections are included in the attached document.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer #1:
Major comments:
-English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required ( ) Moderate English changes required (x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required ( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style.
Answer: The manuscript has been translated by native English teachers from the University of Almeria. This was documented in the Cover Letter(1).
-This is an interesting and well written paper with information useful and needed to manage a major pest of potatoes. The major issue I see is that differences among treatments are presented in the results, discussed, and conclusions are drawn without statistical analysis. The statistical analysis used only compares each treatment to the control. Either a statistical analysis that compares all treatments, such as an ANOVA, needs to be used or the fact that the differences are numerical only with no statistical backing needs to be emphasized in the discussion and conclusions.
Answer: Thank you for your review work, we consider your contributions very valuable. The changes that have been made, according to your suggestions, are listed below.
Minor comments:
-Line 45: Done. Added: “for potato crops”.
-Line 49: Done. Replaced “They” with “PTM”.
-Line 55: Done. Replaced “it” por “they”.
-Lines 56-66. ‘This sentence is awkward and confusing’. Done. Rewritten paragraph: ‘In contrast, another way of storing potato tubers is to use large, refrigerated facilities. For this purpose, the tubers are subjected to a slow reduction in temperature. This facilitates the curing and cicatrisation of the wounds; as well as reducing of the sugar content (e.g., this is the case of potatoes to be pre-fried). In this case, the usual recommendation is to keep the temperature between 12-16 °C and the RH between 90-95 % for two weeks or more [11]. During this period, damage may be caused by PTM.’
-Line 77: Done. Deleted “And”.
-Line 90: Done. Replaced ‘of’ with ‘on’.
-Line 132: Done. Changed ‘totally random’ to ‘completely randomized’.
-Lines130-131: Done. Rewritten: 'the eggs were incubated for 7 days to determine hatchability'.
-Line 167: Done. Changed ‘totally random’ to ‘completely randomized’.
-Line 174: Done. Replaced ‘and’ with ‘at’.
-Lines 142-145 and 199-202: “If this is relevant to the study, a statistical analysis comparing all treatments should be used in place on simply comparing each treatment to the control.”
Answer: In relation to the statistical analyses of the first part (temperature 10, 20 and 30 ºC), it is usual to carry out the bioassays in comparison with the control to analyse survival and/or mortality. Therefore, three different trials were carried out. Therefore, a joint statistical analysis cannot be applied to it since they were not carried out at the same time. In this way we would have pseudoreplications (e.g., see Hurlbert, S.H., 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecological Monographas, 52(2): 187-211), which does not allow an ANOVA to be carried out. However, there are alternatives to this problem (e.g. see: Millar, R.B.; Anderson, M.J., 2004. Remedies for pseudoreplication. Fisheries Research, 70: 397-407). For this reason, a later statistical analysis has been carried out, using a non-parametric test (Kruskall-Wallis) which does not present the previously mentioned limitation. The results of this statistical analysis support what is indicated in M&M, Results, and Conclusions.
It has been included in the MS:
-Lines 142-145: “Later, the values of the three trials were analysed by using a nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis with a level of significance of 0.05 was performed, using the same statistics software.”
-Lines 199-202: “Also, when analyzing the values of surviving eggs at the three temperatures, the Kruskal–Wallis test results are statistically significant ( P < 0.0001). The outputs also show that the null hypotheses were rejected. Therefore, there are significant differences in the values for 10 °C compared to 20 and 30 ºC (P < 0.0001 and P < 0.001, respectively), but not between 20 and 30 ºC (P = 1.0).”
-Line 267: Done. Thanks, yes it is a typo. It should have been 'heating'; however, it is better to replace ‘heating’ with 'cooling’.
-Lines 290: Sorry. It is a typo. This concerns figure 1 b instead of 1 a. Changed.
-Line 335: “This conclusion cannot be drawn since the treatments were not compared to each other statistically.”
Answer: As indicated above, a new statistical analysis has been carried out. On this evidence, this conclusion is justified.
Reviewer 2 Report
The general idea of the paper is interesting. Unfortunately, I feel the entire manuscript reads rought and needs to be smooth here and there to make the entire manuscript readable. In addition, there is an excess of Gallego et al. citation. I also question the range of temperatures tested and the statistical analysis used. Regression against temperature would have provided a better understanding of developmental thresholds. Most importantly, there is a lack of strong scientific justification of the biological control agent besides the chance to find them in other pests colonies.
Author Response
Reviewer #2:
Major comments:
- The general idea of the paper is interesting. Unfortunately, I feel the entire manuscript reads rought and needs to be smooth here and there to make the entire manuscript readable. In addition, there is an excess of Gallego et al. citation. I also question the range of temperatures tested and the statistical analysis used. Regression against temperature would have provided a better understanding of developmental thresholds. Most importantly, there is a lack of strong scientific justification of the biological control agent besides the chance to find them in other pests colonies.
Answer: Thank you for your review work, we consider your contributions very valuable.
On the other hand, our apologies regarding the use of the quotations of Gallego et al.; our only excuse is, as commented in the Introduction, that studies on this species of mite's biology, general on the Family Blattisociidae, are very limited in the bibliography. For this reason, we have had to use our previously published papers.
Also indicate that we have in mind to carry out a study on the minimum temperature threshold for this species.
It should also be noted that the present work is an intermediate step (microcosm) to further evaluate the full potential and possibilities of use, under commercial conditions, of this species of mite, hence the title of the paper. We are also carrying out studies under stored potato conditions. However, due to the incidence of Covid 19 such work has been very restricted.
Finally, due to the lack of examples of biological control in stored potatoes, we have had to use the examples in other pest species and other stored plant products, a subject about which there are a few more bibliographical references. Our apologies.
Minor comments:
No file attached.
Reviewer 3 Report
Strength
This study evaluated the potential for the postharvest biological control of Phthorimaea operculella by Blattisocius tarsalis. The methodology was appropriate, and the results were clearly explained, indicating its control potential at different potato tuber storage conditions.
Specific Comments
174 Table 1: You may also show test results for mortality between treatment and control
174 Table 1: You may show multiple comparison tests on results among the 3 temperatures
L183-184: ‘likelihood ratio Chi-squared test”: Use only once instead of 3 times.
201 Figure 1: You may show multiple comparison test on results among the 4 mite treatment densities
Author Response
Reviewer #3:
Major comments:
-English language and style: ( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required ( ) Moderate English changes required (x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required ( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
Answer: The manuscript has been translated by native English teachers from the University of Almeria. This was documented in the Cover Letter(1).
-This study evaluated the potential for the postharvest biological control of Phthorimaeaoperculella by Blattisocius tarsalis. The methodology was appropriate, and the results were clearly explained, indicating its control potential at different potato tuber storage conditions.
Answer: Thank you very much for your review work, we consider your contributions very valuable. These are answered in the following section.
Minor comments:
-Line 184: Table 1: You may also show test results for mortality between treatment and control.
Answer: We believe that carrying out statistical analysis on the number of survivors is only appropriate. The percentage of mortality is a value directly related to the percentage of survival and/or the number of survivors. Therefore, we do not consider that it can provide more information to carry out the statistical analysis of mortality as well.
Line 184: Table 1: You may show multiple comparison tests on results among the 3 temperatures.
Answer: In relation to the statistical analyses of the first part (temperature 10, 20 and 30 ºC), it is usual to carry out the bioassays in comparison with the control to analyse survival and/or mortality. Therefore, three different trials were carried out. Therefore, a joint statistical analysis cannot be applied to it since they were not carried out at the same time. In this way we would have pseudoreplications (e.g., see Hurlbert, S.H., 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecological Monographas, 52(2): 187-211), which does not allow an ANOVA to be carried out. However, there are alternatives to this problem (e.g. see: Millar, R.B.; Anderson, M.J., 2004. Remedies for pseudoreplication. Fisheries Research, 70: 397-407). For this reason, a later statistical analysis has been carried out, using a non-parametric test (Kruskall-Wallis) which does not present the previously mentioned limitation. The results of this statistical analysis support what is indicated in M&M, Results, and Conclusions.
It has been included in the MS:
-Lines 142-145: “Later, the values of the three trials were analysed by using a nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis with a level of significance of 0.05 was performed, using the same statistics software.”
-Lines 199-202: “Also, when analyzing the values of surviving eggs at the three temperatures, the Kruskal–Wallis test results are statistically significant ( P < 0.0001). The outputs also show that the null hypotheses were rejected. Therefore, there are significant differences in the values for 10 °C compared to 20 and 30 ºC (P < 0.0001 and P < 0.001, respectively), but not between 20 and 30 ºC (P = 1.0).”
-Lines 193-195: ‘likelihood ratio Chi-squared test”: Use only once instead of 3 times. Done.
-Line 234: Figure 1: You may show multiple comparison test on results among the 4 mite treatment densities.
Not done.
Answer: Do you mean to compare the two trial at 10 and 50 pest eggs/container? These are two trials carried out at different times. For the same reason as mentioned above, it is not possible to apply an ANOVA because that would be to use pseudoreplications instead of real replications.The option mentioned above of applying a nonparametric test does not seem to be appropriate. On the one hand, it implies making a less statistically precise analysis. On the other hand, to carry out this analysis, or another more precise one, such as the Generalized Linear Models, it would have been necessary, from the beginning, to have carried out a factorial experimental design, with two factors: dose of mites (at three levels) and pest infestation (at two levels). For all these reasons. We consider that it is more appropriate to keep the statistical analyses as they are in the MS. Thanks.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Excellent job improving the manuscript. I feel it is ready for publication now.
Author Response
Sorry, but there are no comments and/or no attachments from Reviewer #1 (round 2).
