Maize Under Pressure: Spread of Helicoverpa armigera into Romanian Agroecosystems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

According to my opinion this article is very interesting especially as the number of pest from the traps was very high. Also, all hybrids from this experience have 100% percent attack incidence, and big surprise was aflatoxin analyse, all samples was over limits, some of then more than 80 %. That is why this is important in the context of food security. I think that introduction is good written but the last paragraph should be as one sentence (The aim of this study.....). In tables or graphs please use the full word to explain CBW. Please check the guidance for authors if tables and graphs are correct. Maybe you need to extend the discussion little bit, it is to short. After, minor corrections, this article may be published.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Comment 1: I think that introduction is good written but the last paragraph should be as one sentence (The aim of this study.....).

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. We considered everything, and according to that, we corrected the text. The last paragraph from the introduction was modified in one sentence (lines 133-134).

 

Comment 2: In tables or graphs please use the full word to explain CBW.

Response 2: We modified the titles in the tables and graphs to use the full word of CBW (lines 250-251, 254, 278-279, 305, 319).

 

Comment 3: Please check the guidance for authors if tables and graphs are correct.

Response 3: We check the author's guidance regarding graphs and tables. At tables 6, 7, 8, and 9, we add * for explanation below the tables (lines 305-306; 319-320; 329-330; and 332-333).

 

Comment 4: Maybe you need to extend the discussion little bit, it is to short.

Response 4: We extend the discussion chapter (lines 383-393).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

• The information is missing in recent years concerning cotton bollworm (CBW) dynamics and attacks on maize cobs in southeast Romania. There isn’t recent information concerning aflatoxin levels in maize grains. Moreover, in south-east Romania, there are many areas cultivated with maize and an increase in the CBW attack combined with high aflatoxin content can threaten farmers from this region, with economic consequences to national agriculture. Aiming at the above problem, this study aimed to evaluate the CBW flight dynamics in south-east Romania, evaluate the CBW attack on a maize cob in south-east Romania, and to analyze maize grains for aflatoxin content in south-east Romania.
• After carefully reading it, the introduction provide sufficient background and conclude sufficient relevant literature. The materials and methods in the research are logical. The results and discussions can support the contents of conclusions. Overall, the manuscript is well written. However, there are still some issues required to be solved to improve the manuscript. Specific comments and suggestions are shown below.
• Table 1 and Figs. 1 and 2: It is a total of 5 years from 2020 to 2024, please check the statement of “50-year” in the titles of both Tab. 1 and Fig. 1. Moreover, Table 1 maybe not necessary as its information can be found in the Figs. 1 and 2.
• Line 146: The basic components of the tested soil should be provided here, e.g., percentage of clay and silt.
• Table 3: All abbreviations and symbols (e.g., P9944, FAO and KWS) in both figures and tables should be explained at the end of them to make them understood clearly without referring to the main text. Please also revise other figures or tables with similar issues.
• 3 and Table 9: Why there is no significance analysis for “Total captures” and “Total aflatoxins”? Please supplement them.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Comment 1: Table 1 and Figs. 1 and 2: It is a total of 5 years from 2020 to 2024, please check the statement of “50-year” in the titles of both Tab. 1 and Fig. 1. Moreover, Table 1 maybe not necessary as its information can be found in the Figs. 1 and 2.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. We considered everything, and according to that, we corrected the text. Table 1 shows the multi-year averages of temperature and rainfall, and Figs. 1 and 2 show the deviations from the 50-year average (line 148). 

 

Comment 2: The basic components of the tested soil should be provided here, e.g., percentage of clay and silt.

Response 2: We add the basic component of the soil from the field site (lines 145-146). 

 

Comment 3: All abbreviations and symbols (e.g., P9944, FAO, and KWS) in both figures and tables should be explained at the end of them to make them understood clearly without referring to the main text. Please also revise other figures or tables with similar issues.

Response 3: We explain the abbreviation in Table 3, which presents a maize hybrid from the field assessment (lines 211-212). Also, on tables 3 and 6-9, we add ”Hybrid name” below „Maize” (lines  210, 305, 319, 329, and 332). 

 

Comment 4: Figure 3 and Table 9: Why there is no significance analysis for “Total captures” and “Total aflatoxins”?

Response 4: In Figure 3, we present the total number of moths captured in all three traps during the maize growing season (sum of the captures from all three traps). Table 9 presents the results of the aflatoxin levels in maize grains from the nine hybrids from this trial. According to the methodology, 250 g of grains were harvested from each plot, resulting in 1000 g per variant (the grains for all four plots were deposited in one bag). The grains were deposited in paper bags and, on October 3, sent to the Sanitary Veterinary and Food Safety Laboratory in Bucharest, part of the National Sanitary Veterinary and Food Safety Authority in Romania (lines 221-224).