Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The review article submitted for peer review is of high scientific value. Based on 161 publications, it highlights gaps in our knowledge of the biology, ecology, and pest status of F. panamensis. A thorough analysis of the available knowledge on this species suggests directions for future research that could prevent its spread in the global ornamental and vegetable trade. Supplementary data contain valuable information on the plants on which F. panamensis has been found. Still, the lack of detailed studies makes it impossible to determine which plants are host plants. Increased attention by cross-border phytosanitary services could prevent the spread of this pest to other areas, as has been the case with species such as F. occidentalis, T. tabaci, T. palmi, T. parvispinus, and others.

I have one technical comment: The species names in lines 383 and 384 should be italicized.

Author Response

Comment #1.  I have one technical comment: The species names in lines 383 and 384 should be italicized

Corrected

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is written in a non-concise style (too many unnecessary words and theoretical general information not needed in a paper).

Additionaly it would be better that priority was given to information, instead of who gave the information (the author x said, reported, observed…. instead of placing the name of the author at the end as a citation).

However much work has been done collecting information on this species, sometimes in literature difficult to access. This information may be very useful for those who decide to study the species in the future. The authors should consider the sugestions/ comments listed below:

Line 21- “Despite its clear status as a quarantine pest”- which is the organization/ entity that declares it as a quarantine pest? Where is that written?

Line 22, 23- There is no consensus as to the pest status of F. panamensis.

Line 31- In several line breaks, the syllable division is incorrect (e.g also in lines 117, 125, 129, 256, 354, 372, 393, 411,457, 460, 513, and in many other lines)

Line 39,40 and line 87- South America? South American countries?

Line 71- originated?

Line 159- the authors should consider to call this section “Results and discussion”. Results are not only the statistics on the papers found during the literature search, but also the information (biological, ecological etc) found.

Lines 207- 208- from the Frankliniella genus

Lines 222-224- Sentence not clear

Lines 274-291- It should be clear that this is a footnote (written in smaller print, next to the table)

Line 301- ….(Gunawardana et al. 2017): for both sexes….

Line 351-  avoid so many parentheses:  from that country, i.e. not including GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility) records (Table…

Line 361- 362- and those from Peru are based on a list of the EPPO

Line 368- panamensis

Line 374- an error

Table 2- unformatted columns

Line 383- All listed as F. panamensis

Line 394- altitudinal

Lines 432-439- It should be clear that this is a footnote (written in smaller print)

Line 454- Replace “insect” by “species”

Lines 498- 503-  Consider write in another way, deleting information that may be found in the paper cited:

…study (Zapata-C et al.,1994). These authors studied F. panamensis in a greenhouse at 24.8°C and 77.9% RH: eggs, first instar larva, second instar larva,…

Line 553- Consider changing the subtitle to: Abundance over time

Line 567- plastic greenhouses

Lines 566-576- Information not clearly related to F. panamensis should be deleted

Line 577- Consider changing the subtitle to: Spatial distribution

Line 627- not a good subtitle “Other crops”, in relation to which crops?

633- in fruit trees (plum, pear, apple, peach)

747- The adjective “anecdotal” must be deleted

Lines 771, 775, 777, 782, 786, 789, 792, 795, 797- There is a change in the writing style. Are these integral citations? If so the sentences should be between quotation marks, but it would be desirable to continue with the writting style of the rest of the manuscript.

Line 804- the section that begins here must be rewritten: too much theoretical information, and speculation, and information not related specifically to F. panamensis. If this species reveals to be a pest in the future, than it will be important to explore what we know about IPM of F. occidentalis, to make extrapolations. Right know is premature. However, what it is known about F. panamensis, that may help to control, it should be presented here.

Lines 804-848- use the sentences 811-814, 824-833, 840-842, 844-848. These sentences should be included in the text that comes after line 850.

Line 850- Begin this line: It is useful to review the specific…..

Lines 853-857- This sentence should be deleted

Line 878- Antioquia, Colombia

Line 925- … inform on the biology

Line 940- pest status of F. panamensis.

Line 942- 943- including its ability to transmit

976-980- Sentence not clear

Author Response

Additionaly it would be better that priority was given to information, instead of who gave the information (the author x said, reported, observed…. instead of placing the name of the author at the end as a citation).

Reply - this has largely been changed as a result of incoporating numbered citations

However much work has been done collecting information on this species, sometimes in literature difficult to access. This information may be very useful for those who decide to study the species in the future. The authors should consider the sugestions/ comments listed below:

Reply - thank you we have done so

Line 21- “Despite its clear status as a quarantine pest”- which is the organization/ entity that declares it as a quarantine pest? Where is that written?

Reply - this is found in Table 1 - "listed as a quarantine pest"

Line 22, 23- There is no consensus as to the pest status of F. panamensis.

Reply - change made

Line 31- In several line breaks, the syllable division is incorrect (e.g also in lines 117, 125, 129, 256, 354, 372, 393, 411,457, 460, 513, and in many other lines)

Reply - this is for the type editor to change

Line 39,40 and line 87- South America? South American countries?

Reply - change made

Line 71- originated?

Reply - no change made - 'originating' is correct 

Line 159- the authors should consider to call this section “Results and discussion”. Results are not only the statistics on the papers found during the literature search, but also the information (biological, ecological etc) found.

Reply - change made

Lines 207- 208- from the Frankliniella genus

Reply - change made

Lines 222-224- Sentence not clear

Reply - change made to make clearer

Lines 274-291- It should be clear that this is a footnote (written in smaller print, next to the table)

Reply - I have inserted a comment for this comment

Line 301- ….(Gunawardana et al. 2017): for both sexes….

Reply - change made

Line 351-  avoid so many parentheses:  from that country, i.e. not including GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility) records (Table…

Reply - change made

Line 361- 362- and those from Peru are based on a list of the EPPO

Reply - change made

Line 368- panamensis

Reply - change made

Line 374- an error

Reply - change made

Table 2- unformatted columns

Reply - for type set editor to change

Line 383- All listed as F. panamensis

Reply - change made

Line 394- altitudinal

Reply - change made

Lines 432-439- It should be clear that this is a footnote (written in smaller print)

Reply - I have put in a comment to indicate this - for type set editor to change

Line 454- Replace “insect” by “species”

Reply - change made

Lines 498- 503-  Consider write in another way, deleting information that may be found in the paper cited:

…study (Zapata-C et al.,1994). These authors studied F. panamensis in a greenhouse at 24.8°C and 77.9% RH: eggs, first instar larva, second instar larva,…

Reply - change made

Line 553- Consider changing the subtitle to: Abundance over time

Reply - have reworded headings to try and make them clearer but initial heading needs to be general otherwise this would confuse with seasonal changes (a subheading)

Line 567- plastic greenhouses

Reply - change made

Lines 566-576- Information not clearly related to F. panamensis should be deleted

Reply - change made

Line 577- Consider changing the subtitle to: Spatial distribution

reply - changed to Abundance in ornamental crops as better describing the paragraph

Line 627- not a good subtitle “Other crops”, in relation to which crops?

Reply - change made

633- in fruit trees (plum, pear, apple, peach)

Reply - change made

747- The adjective “anecdotal” must be deleted

Reply - change made

Lines 771, 775, 777, 782, 786, 789, 792, 795, 797- There is a change in the writing style. Are these integral citations? If so the sentences should be between quotation marks, but it would be desirable to continue with the writting style of the rest of the manuscript.

Reply - change made

Line 804- the section that begins here must be rewritten: too much theoretical information, and speculation, and information not related specifically to F. panamensis. If this species reveals to be a pest in the future, than it will be important to explore what we know about IPM of F. occidentalis, to make extrapolations. Right know is premature. However, what it is known about F. panamensis, that may help to control, it should be presented here.

Reply - change made - have reduced text in this section

Lines 804-848- use the sentences 811-814, 824-833, 840-842, 844-848. These sentences should be included in the text that comes after line 850.

Reply - done

Line 850- Begin this line: It is useful to review the specific…..

Reply - change made

Lines 853-857- This sentence should be deleted

Reply - change made

Line 878- Antioquia, Colombia

Reply - change made

Line 925- … inform on the biology

Reply - change made

Line 940- pest status of F. panamensis.

Reply - change made

Line 942- 943- including its ability to transmit

Reply - change made

976-980- Sentence not clear

Reply - not sure how to change this!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript reviews the English and Spanish literature on Frankliniella panamensis, focusing on its taxonomy, diagnostics, distribution, biology, ecology, pest status, and pest management. The study is relevant and well-constructed, and indeed a huge work. Congratulations.

There are only a few areas where the manuscript should be improved or expanded for clarity.

Simple summary

Line 22-23: ’status F. panamensis’ should be changed to ’status of F. panamensis’

Abstract

Line 40: ’American and especially’ should be changed to ’American countries and especially’

Introduction

In the case of references in brackets, references should be numbered in order of appearance and indicated by a numeral or numerals in square brackets—e.g., [1] or [2,3], or [4–6].

Materials and Methods

This section is correct and well-written.

Discussion

In the case of references in brackets, references should be numbered in order of appearance and indicated by a numeral or numerals in square brackets—e.g., [1] or [2,3], or [4–6].

 

Lines: 274-281: It is unclear whether this part is related to Table 1 or not. Please clarify.

 

Lines 282-291: I think that these rows should be either at the end of the Table caption or in the present place, but with smaller letters or closer to the table.

 

Conclusion

 

This part is well-written and nicely detailed.

 

Comments on the Quality of the English Language

The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Author Response

Simple summary

Line 22-23: ’status F. panamensis’ should be changed to ’status of F. panamensis’

Reply - change made

Abstract

Line 40: ’American and especially’ should be changed to ’American countries and especially’

Reply - change made

Introduction

In the case of references in brackets, references should be numbered in order of appearance and indicated by a numeral or numerals in square brackets—e.g., [1] or [2,3], or [4–6].

Reply - changes made

Materials and Methods

This section is correct and well-written.

Discussion

In the case of references in brackets, references should be numbered in order of appearance and indicated by a numeral or numerals in square brackets—e.g., [1] or [2,3], or [4–6].

Reply - changes made

Lines: 274-281: It is unclear whether this part is related to Table 1 or not. Please clarify.

Reply - have placed a comment there - for type editor to sort out

Lines 282-291: I think that these rows should be either at the end of the Table caption or in the present place, but with smaller letters or closer to the table.

Reply - have placed a comment there - for type editor to sort out