Temperature Effects on the Efficacy of Phytoseiulus persimilis and Amblyseius swirskii (Acari: Phytoseiidae) Against Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae) in Strawberry Crops
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Review of the manuscript “Temperature effects on the efficacy of Phytoseiulus persimilis and Amblyseius swirskii (Acari: Phytoseiidae) against Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae) in strawberry crops”
Recommendation
Major revision
Remarks:
This manuscript aimed to describe the effect of temperature of single or combined releases of predatory mites on strawberry for the control of Tetranychus urticae. In theory a highly relevant topic, however, I do believe this manuscript has some major shortcomings which need to be dealt with before publication is possible.
Major comments:
- The focus is on correlation between temperature and spider mite growth. I think it is relevant and widely known and accepted that higher temperatures result in faster growth in poikilotherms. Next, the increase in spider mite density is attributed to the rise in temperatures. But how do the authors know this is linked to the rise in temperature and not a simple time-effect? Same holds for the efficacy of the predatory mites. As long as temperature and time are not unlinked, you cannot attribute the effects to temperature alone. Therefore, experiments at different temperatures are warranted.
- The combined release is not better than the single release of A. swirskii.
- The combined release also included 2 predators vs 1 in the single-predator treatments. That seems like an unfair comparison?
- If humidity was also monitored it would be interesting to check the RH as well. It is widely known that Phytoseiulus persimilis has difficulties in lower RH conditions, whereas A. swirskii can deal with low RH better.
Minor comments:
- L16: faster than what? TSSM at other temperatures or other predatory mites?
- L24, 30, 38, 48: T. urticae in italics
- L26: delete first “and”
- L31: add author of P. persimilis too. Even if it is the same as A. swirskii
- L35, 36, 37: no need for standard errors in the abstract
- L63: delete “its”
- L72, 85, 97: Stethorus is not a mite!!
- L81: delete space
- L72: N. californicus is one of most important mites against spider mites worldwide
- L102: can you explain what you mean with “artificial”?
- L131: I am confused: four or five treatments?
- L138: it is not clear to me how the Tetranychus was inoculated
- L156: why twice as much predators in the combined treatment. Seems like unfair comparison?
- L181: “the” should not be bold
- L188: figure 1: this could be a time effect and not a temperature effect
Author Response
FIND ATTACHED REVISION
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript is dealing with the effectiveness of two predatory mite species Phytoseiulus persimilis and Amblyseius swirskii to control the spider mite Tetranychus urticae in strawberries at different high temperatures, when released singly or together. In principle, it is an important topic, because more heat wave events, induced by climate warming, are expected in the next decades. However, the manuscript has several shortcoming and is not suitable for publication in the present state. First, essential literature dealing with the use of two predator species against spider mites, is missing (e.g.: Schausberger, 1998; Duso and Vettorazzo 1999; Schausberger et al., 2001, Walzer et al., 2001, 2009). The authors should integrate these studies in the introduction and analyse the outcome of the use of single versus two predator species in relation to the control effects on the spider mites. Second, there are also several studies indicating the low heat-sensitivity of P. persimilis in contrast to its prey, T. urticae (e.g.: Walzer et al., 2022; Tscholl et al., 2023). They should be also included in the introduction. Third, the authors should explain, why they expect a better control effect, when using both predator species. Fourth, clear and verifyable hypotheses are missing in the last paragraph of the introduction. Fifth, most results were described without depicting the p-values. Additionally, the units and variances of the parameters are not indicated in the figures. Finally, the English should be improved. Thus, I recommend a major revision.
Other comments
Line 107: reference 39 is wrong in relation to the heat-sensitivity of P. persimilis. These experiments were conducted at constant temperatures, which do not reflect natural conditions (but see Tscholl et als, 2022, Vangansbeke et al., 2015).
Line 131: Only four, but not five treatments were conducted.
Lines 137-138: The description of the artifical infestation of the plants with spider mites is very unclear. Which T. urticae stages were used? What are the "red mite stages"?
Line 179: "Evolution" is not the right term.
Line 199: "The most significant reduction..." Where is the p-value?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The english should be checked by a native speaker.
Author Response
find attached revision.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
An interesting paper. The main issue is the lack of statistical analysis to compare the treatments. Other minor issues are included in the attached document.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Just needs some minor editing for the most part. I've highlighted and commented on the few major things.
Author Response
Find attached revision
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors did a good job. I do not have further objections.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The english should be checked by a native speaker.
Author Response
Manuscript has been revised according to the linguistic corrections and suggestions provided in the uploaded file. The English has been revised and improved.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The issues have been addressed and the article is now ready for publication. Nicely done.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Good
Author Response
The manuscript has been revised according to the linguistic corrections and suggestions provided in the uploaded file. The conclusions has been improved
