Attractiveness of Food Baits and Tea Volatile Components to Mirid Bug Apolygus lucorum in Tea Plantation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The MS “The attractiveness of food baits and tea volatile components to 2 the mirid bug Apolygus lucorum in tea plantation” investigated the preference of adult A. lucorum for tea branches under different conditions and various host plants using a Y-tube olfactometer. A. lucorum preferred tea branches compared to clean air. A. lucorum avoided branches infested with high densities of conspecifics. Tea volatiles, (E,E)-α-farnesene, nonanal, (Z)-3-hexenol and their mixtures were attractive to A. lucorum up to 20 days. This is valuable research, but the MS can be improved significantly for methods and materials and results.  Methods and material need additional details. Results section can also be improved to make it simple and clear. Specific comments are provided on the MS.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript by Jia et al. titled “The attractiveness of food baits and tea volatile components to the mirid bug Apolygus lucorum in tea plantation” provides valuable information for the management of the mirid bug.

Generally, the paper is well written. The authors however did not italicise several scientific names such as those in lines 99, 100, 103,104 and 108. Also, the authors should avoid presenting spp in italics.

My concern is with the analysis of the data. Was the insect data transformed before analysis? There is no statement that this was done. If this was done, then it should be stated and the type of transformation should also be indicated. Transformation of the data could affect the outcome of the analysis and hence the results and its interpretation thereof.

In line 144 and other subsequent lines/pages where it was stated that specific green pest control measures were practised, the specific practices should be stated explicitly.

The results were clearly presented and appropriately discussed. Other comments and minor grammatical errors have been indicated in the reviewed manuscript.

The similarity index (percent match) of the manuscript is slightly high and the authors are encouraged to revise the manuscript to reduce the index to below 20%.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded to all reviewer's comments. Edits on page 3, 2.1 should be in past tense. 

Author Response

Thank you for your reminder. We have thoroughly reviewed section 2.1 on page 3 to ensure all content was in the past tense.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript by Jia et al. titled “Attractiveness of food baits and tea volatile components to the mirid bug Apolygus lucorum in tea plantation” incorporated most of the suggestions and provided further clarity. However, some of the comments and edits in the manuscript were not attended to.

My comment in the earlier version regarding the green pest control practices was not fully addressed. The authors have not elaborated on the green pest control practices. Since they are referring to practices, it connotes more than one (1) approach and the use of chemical pesticides as a last resort is just 1 approach. What other approaches constituted the green pest control practices adopted at your study sites?

The authors should also specify the specific period(s) that the chemicals were applied only as a last resort. Also, indicate the type of pesticide/active ingredient (and rate) that was used and the frequency.

I edited the titles of the figures (Figures 10-14) in the previous document but this did not reflect in the current manuscript. Kindly revise as indicated in the manuscript.

Also, change G. spp to Gossypium spp.

Other comments and minor grammatical errors have been indicated in the reviewed manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

We sincerely regret that due to an oversight on our part, some comments were not adequately addressed in our initial revision. All points raised in your review have now been comprehensively addressed in the latest manuscript (Lines 108, 111–113, 156–163, 203–209, 286, 288, 291, 324, 372, 378, 384, 390, 395). We greatly appreciate your meticulous attention to detail, which has significantly enhanced the scientific rigor of this work.

 

Responses to comments

[Comment_01]：My comment in the earlier version regarding the green pest control practices was not fully addressed. The authors have not elaborated on the green pest control practices. Since they are referring to practices, it connotes more than one (1) approach and the use of chemical pesticides as a last resort is just 1 approach. What other approaches constituted the green pest control practices adopted at your study sites? The authors should also specify the specific period(s) that the chemicals were applied only as a last resort. Also, indicate the type of pesticide/active ingredient (and rate) that was used and the frequency.

[Response_01]: Thank you for your attention to the details in the manuscript. We have supplemented the missing details in the revised manuscript. (Line 156-163, 203-209)

 

[Comment_02]: I edited the titles of the figures (Figures 10-14) in the previous document but this did not reflect in the current manuscript. Kindly revise as indicated in the manuscript.

[Response_02]: Thank you for your suggestions. Due to an oversight on our part, these issues were not addressed in the first resubmitted version. Sincere apologies for this lapse. The errors have now been fully corrected in the latest revised manuscript. We appreciate your guidance in refining this work. (Line 372, 378, 384, 390, 395)

 

[Comment_03]: Change G. spp to Gossypium spp.

[Response_03]: Thank you for your attention to the details in the manuscript. We have supplemented the missing details in the revised manuscript.