Qualitative vs. Quantitative Damage: Identifying Critical Susceptibility Interval of Common Bean to Euschistus heros (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

REVISED MANUSCRIPT                                                                           03/17/2026

 

The manuscript evaluated how qualitative and quantitative damage caused by the brown stink bug, Euschistus heros (Fabricius, 1798) (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae), to the reproductive structures of common bean at different plant developmental stages affects grain quality. Although the study addresses a relevant topic for integrated pest management in common bean, the manuscript presents methodological limitations and weaknesses in the discussion of the results, which needs to be further developed and better substantiated. The following are suggestions and corrections aimed at improving the manuscript:

 

Title

The title is too long and does not seem to reflect the objective of this study. I suggest modifying it to: Critical Damage Period of Euschistus heros (Fabricius, 1798) (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) in Common Bean.

 

Introduction

The Introduction lacks a clearly defined scientific hypothesis to be tested. The authors are encouraged to explicitly state the study hypothesis in order to better guide the objectives and interpretation of the results.

 

Materials and Methods

In the paragraph between lines 99–110, it is concerning that the authors did not use stink bug females subjected to a 24-hour starvation period or, at minimum, gravid females. This methodological choice may have affected insect feeding activity and, consequently, the observed damage levels.

 

In line 102, the authors should clarify the criteria used to select the bean cultivars IPR Curió, IPR Sabiá, and IPR Urutau. What are the genotypic differences among these cultivars that justify their inclusion in the study?

 

Linha 151: The statistical analysis needs improvement. The authors used the Student’s t test to compare the number of aborted structures between each treatment and the control group; however, this approach may not be the most appropriate given the complexity of the experiment. When treatments involve different plant growth periods, the use of a randomized complete block design with split plots is recommended, as it allows a more robust evaluation of the main treatment effects and their interactions with the crop developmental stages. Therefore, it is suggested that the authors redo the statistical analysis using analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by Tukey’s test for mean comparison. Additionally, the aborted reproductive structures were analyzed together, which may mask important differences. It is recommended that flowers and pods be evaluated separately, as they have distinct morphological and physiological characteristics, which may influence their responses to the treatments differently.

According to the authors, all other quantitative datasets were subjected to Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), with mean comparisons performed using the Scott-Knott test at a 5% significance level. However, this test is not the most appropriate in this case, particularly due to the small number of treatments. Therefore, the use of more suitable mean comparison tests, such as Tukey’s test, is recommended, as it is generally more appropriate for this type of situation.

 

Results

In the caption of Figure 1, the authors should replace the term “Witness” with “control”. Similarly, in Table 3, the term “Witness” should also be replaced with “control” to ensure consistency and appropriate scientific terminology.

 

Discussion

Lines 203–204: the authors report that the cultivar IPR Curió showed the highest abscission rates, likely due to its determinate growth habit compared to indeterminate bean cultivars. However, this justification is inconsistent, as it does not explain why IPR Curió exhibited higher abscission rates than the cultivars IPR Sabiá and IPR Urutau, which also have a determinate growth habit.

 

Paragraph between lines 222–225: the authors report that the eight-day infestation period in this study may have been insufficient to exceed the plant’s tolerance threshold, suggesting that additional studies evaluating longer infestation periods are needed. However, this interpretation is not appropriate, as the main issue may be related to the experimental protocol adopted, particularly the use of non-mated females and possibly without prior starvation, which may have compromised the level of damage observed. Therefore, a revision of this discussion is recommended in light of these methodological limitations.

 

Paragraph between lines 234–235: the authors should include the cultivar IPR Sabiá along with the other two cultivars.

 

Paragraph between lines 236–237: the authors suggest that the plant’s physiological maturity significantly contributed to the reduction in the incidence of perforated grains. However, this interpretation is incorrect, as 16 and 24 days after flowering in common bean still correspond to the grain-filling stage, not physiological maturity. The latter generally occurs between 25 and 30 days after flowering. Therefore, the observed reduction cannot be attributed to physiological maturity, and this interpretation should be revised.

 

Paragraphs between lines 255 and 260: the authors conclude that infestation by E. heros at a density of 0.5 insects per plant did not significantly increase the abortion of reproductive structures in the evaluated common bean cultivars, except for the cultivar IPR Curió during anthesis. In addition, they report that the timing of infestation at different phenological stages did not significantly affect the percentage of aborted or shriveled grains, nor did it impact final commercial yield, suggesting the absence of quantitative losses at this pest density. However, throughout the discussion, the authors do not provide a consistent explanation for these findings. To support such conclusions, it is essential that the possible biological, physiological, or methodological mechanisms underlying the lack of significant effects be clearly discussed.

 

In light of the above, for the manuscript to be considered for acceptance, it is essential that the authors address the suggestions previously outlined, with particular emphasis on reanalyzing the statistical data and substantially improving the discussion. If these revisions are not satisfactorily implemented, rejection of the manuscript is recommended.

 

Author Response

Comment 1: The manuscript evaluated how qualitative and quantitative damage caused by the brown stink bug, Euschistus heros (Fabricius, 1798) (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae), to the reproductive structures of common bean at different plant developmental stages affects grain quality. Although the study addresses a relevant topic for integrated pest management in common bean, the manuscript presents methodological limitations and weaknesses in the discussion of the results, which needs to be further developed and better substantiated. The following are suggestions and corrections aimed at improving the manuscript:

Response 1: Dear reviewer, we would like to thank you for taking your time to review and give suggestions towards improving our manuscript.

 

Comment 2: The title is too long and does not seem to reflect the objective of this study. I suggest modifying it to: Critical Damage Period of Euschistus heros (Fabricius, 1798) (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) in Common Bean.

Response 2: We have abbreviated the title. We believe the title reflects precisely the objective: to find the critical damage interval for different common bean cultivars, infested with E. heros. Thus, we do not agree with changing it.

 

Comment 3: The Introduction lacks a clearly defined scientific hypothesis to be tested. The authors are encouraged to explicitly state the study hypothesis in order to better guide the objectives and interpretation of the results.

Response 3: This suggestion was accepted and the hypothesis was better explained.

 

 

Materials and Methods

Comment 4: In the paragraph between lines 99–110, it is concerning that the authors did not use stink bug females subjected to a 24-hour starvation period or, at minimum, gravid females. This methodological choice may have affected insect feeding activity and, consequently, the observed damage levels.

Response 4: We do not understand your concern. The 7-day old females are fully matured and have a greater probability of being fecund. Thus, they would have greater feeding demands than that of starving females. We do not agree with your comment, but made the female selection reason clearer.

 

Comment 5: In line 102, the authors should clarify the criteria used to select the bean cultivars IPR Curió, IPR Sabiá, and IPR Urutau. What are the genotypic differences among these cultivars that justify their inclusion in the study?

Response 5: We agree, and the different cultivar’s phenotypical characteristics were explained.

 

Comment 6: Linha 151: The statistical analysis needs improvement. The authors used the Student’s t test to compare the number of aborted structures between each treatment and the control group; however, this approach may not be the most appropriate given the complexity of the experiment. When treatments involve different plant growth periods, the use of a randomized complete block design with split plots is recommended, as it allows a more robust evaluation of the main treatment effects and their interactions with the crop developmental stages. Therefore, it is suggested that the authors redo the statistical analysis using analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by Tukey’s test for mean comparison. Additionally, the aborted reproductive structures were analyzed together, which may mask important differences. It is recommended that flowers and pods be evaluated separately, as they have distinct morphological and physiological characteristics, which may influence their responses to the treatments differently.

Response 6: Student’s t test was employed because each period: 0 days after flowering (DAF), 8 DAF, 16 DAF, 24 DAF, 32 DAF and 40 DAF; were compared with their respective control data. To employ and compare all the data as one (RBD w/ split plot) would only complicate the experiment and its analyses. The objective was to determine the common bean’s critical damage interval during E. heros herbivory. This was accomplished by comparing infested plants and non-infested plants at the same phenological phase. We successfully demonstrated that E. heros does not affect flower or pod abortion, except for one instance (IPR Curió at anthesis), this is in accordance to previous studies. Furthermore, we enrich this knowledge with the fact that even in differing phenological periods, with action threshold E. heros densities, the potential damage does not differ, and E. heros still does not affect production potential, only the quality of the produced grains. We believe Student’s t test is adequate given we are comparing two independent samples (infested and control) at determined time periods. Thus, we do not agree with switching the experimental design and the statistical analysis. We do not agree that distinguishing pods and flower would influence treatment outcome or response, since both are reproductive structures, just in different development stages.

 

Comment 7: According to the authors, all other quantitative datasets were subjected to Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), with mean comparisons performed using the Scott-Knott test at a 5% significance level. However, this test is not the most appropriate in this case, particularly due to the small number of treatments. Therefore, the use of more suitable mean comparison tests, such as Tukey’s test, is recommended, as it is generally more appropriate for this type of situation.

Response 7: We agree that Tukey’s test is more appropriate and the statistical analyses were corrected.

 

 

Comment 8: In the caption of Figure 1, the authors should replace the term “Witness” with “control”. Similarly, in Table 3, the term “Witness” should also be replaced with “control” to ensure consistency and appropriate scientific terminology.

Response 8: This error was addressed.

 

 

Discussion

 

Comment 9: Lines 203–204: the authors report that the cultivar IPR Curió showed the highest abscission rates, likely due to its determinate growth habit compared to indeterminate bean cultivars. However, this justification is inconsistent, as it does not explain why IPR Curió exhibited higher abscission rates than the cultivars IPR Sabiá and IPR Urutau, which also have a determinate growth habit.

Response 9: This misconception was addressed as suggested in comment 5, they are indeed differing in growth habit.

 

Comment 10: Paragraph between lines 222–225: the authors report that the eight-day infestation period in this study may have been insufficient to exceed the plant’s tolerance threshold, suggesting that additional studies evaluating longer infestation periods are needed. However, this interpretation is not appropriate, as the main issue may be related to the experimental protocol adopted, particularly the use of non-mated females and possibly without prior starvation, which may have compromised the level of damage observed. Therefore, a revision of this discussion is recommended in light of these methodological limitations.

Response 10: This misconception was previously addressed in comment 4.

 

Comment 11: Paragraph between lines 234–235: the authors should include the cultivar IPR Sabiá along with the other two cultivars.

Response 11: We agree and have changed the text as suggested.

Comment 12: Paragraph between lines 236–237: the authors suggest that the plant’s physiological maturity significantly contributed to the reduction in the incidence of perforated grains. However, this interpretation is incorrect, as 16 and 24 days after flowering in common bean still correspond to the grain-filling stage, not physiological maturity. The latter generally occurs between 25 and 30 days after flowering. Therefore, the observed reduction cannot be attributed to physiological maturity, and this interpretation should be revised.

Response 12: This error was addressed.

 

Comment 13: Paragraphs between lines 255 and 260: the authors conclude that infestation by E. heros at a density of 0.5 insects per plant did not significantly increase the abortion of reproductive structures in the evaluated common bean cultivars, except for the cultivar IPR Curió during anthesis. In addition, they report that the timing of infestation at different phenological stages did not significantly affect the percentage of aborted or shriveled grains, nor did it impact final commercial yield, suggesting the absence of quantitative losses at this pest density. However, throughout the discussion, the authors do not provide a consistent explanation for these findings. To support such conclusions, it is essential that the possible biological, physiological, or methodological mechanisms underlying the lack of significant effects be clearly discussed.

Response 13:  We better discussed and compared our findings to other relevant studies lines [241-246].

 

In light of the above, for the manuscript to be considered for acceptance, it is essential that the authors address the suggestions previously outlined, with particular emphasis on reanalyzing the statistical data and substantially improving the discussion. If these revisions are not satisfactorily implemented, rejection of the manuscript is recommended.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is solidly written and presents expected results in relation to its content. Three varieties of beans were tested for the presence of a specific stink bug, partly because comprehensive data on the damage this bug causes to beans were lacking.

It was anticipated that introducing only 0.5 bugs per plant would show insignificant results; different outcomes would most likely occur if a higher number of bugs were present in the cages or per pod. Nonetheless, the paper is suitable for publication as there are no significant objections. A few minor suggestions have been noted in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: This paper is solidly written and presents expected results in relation to its content. Three varieties of beans were tested for the presence of a specific stink bug, partly because comprehensive data on the damage this bug causes to beans were lacking. It was anticipated that introducing only 0.5 bugs per plant would show insignificant results; different outcomes would most likely occur if a higher number of bugs were present in the cages or per pod. Nonetheless, the paper is suitable for publication as there are no significant objections. A few minor suggestions have been noted in the attached document.

Response 1: Dear reviewer, thank you for taking your time to read and offer suggestions towards improving our manuscript.

 

Comment 2: Line 32-33: you wrote: “While E. heros did not significantly impact grain yield or reproductive abscission.”, please rephrase this to have complete sentence. It’s unusual to start sentences with While..

Response 2: This mistake was addressed as requested.

 

Comment 3: In line 38-39 I suggest using term ‘tested density’ instead of this density. In line 56 I suggest deleting term ‘attacking’, or consult lector; it seems like redundant word.

Response 3: We agree with this suggestion and have included it.

 

Comment 4: In line 112 I suggest replacing term ‘at a density’ with ‘with density of 0.5 insects..’ (plants were infested with 0.5 insects per plant..)

Response 4: We agree and have used this suggestion.

 

Comment 5: In line 113 you mention six phenological stages, among which is the Anthesis (R6). In line 161 you use the same expression with different abbreviation “the anthesis (IF) stage”. Please correct that to have uniform abbreviations and explanations.

Response 5: This error was corrected throughout the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer’s Comments

Comment 1: The manuscript evaluates how qualitative and quantitative damage caused by the brown stink bug, Euschistus heros (Fabricius, 1798) (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae), to the reproductive structures of common bean at different plant developmental stages affects grain quality. Although the study addresses a relevant topic for integrated pest management in this crop and the authors have partially addressed the suggested revisions, the manuscript still presents significant weaknesses in the discussion of the results, which requires further development and stronger support, as detailed below:

Comment 2: The title has been shortened and now appears more aligned with the objective of the study. Nevertheless, I still consider that the previously proposed suggestion provides greater clarity and impact.

Comment 3: The Introduction still lacks a clearly defined scientific hypothesis to be tested, as the authors have only reformulated the study objective. It is important to emphasize that objective and hypothesis are distinct concepts and should not be confused.

 

Comment 4: The paragraph between lines 99 and 110 remains problematic, as the authors do not report whether the females were previously fertilized. This aspect is relevant, since fertilized females of the brown stink bug tend to exhibit higher feeding activity due to the increased energy demand associated with egg production.

Comment 6 (Line 151): The statistical analysis remains imprecise, as the use of the t-test is overly simplistic to explain the phenomenon under study, compromising the quality and interpretation of the results. For example, in the paragraphs between lines 206 and 209, the authors state that “in this study, the cultivar IPR Curió exhibited the highest abscission rates, likely due to its determinate growth habit.” However, although the three graphs are presented on the same page, the analysis is limited to evaluating abscission rates within each cultivar, without performing direct comparisons among them. This approach does not allow for determining which cultivar truly exhibits higher abscission rates in a comparative sense, thereby substantially weakening the manuscript. Such a methodological limitation is not acceptable.

 

Discussion

Comment 9: The paragraph between lines 206–209 remains problematic, as previously highlighted in Comment 6. Although the authors have revised the text, there is still no consistent explanation for why the cultivar IPR Curió exhibits higher abscission rates compared to the cultivars IPR Sabiá and IPR Urutau, both of which have an indeterminate growth habit. Furthermore, the type of statistical analysis employed (t-test) does not support such an inference, as previously mentioned.

 

Comment 10: The discussion in the paragraph between lines 225–227 also remains problematic. The authors insist on the claim that the eight-day infestation period may have been insufficient to exceed the plant’s tolerance threshold, suggesting that further studies with longer infestation periods are needed. This explanation is not convincing. An eight-day period is, in principle, sufficient for stink bug females to cause damage to reproductive structures, especially under confined conditions. Moreover, the preceding paragraph already provides a plausible explanation for why the damage did not exceed the plant’s tolerance threshold, making this repetition unnecessary. Therefore, the removal of this information is recommended to avoid redundancy and argumentative weakness.

Comment 12: The discussion in the paragraph between lines 244–247 remains superficial and lacks consistency. The authors do not adequately explain why damage occurring during the grain-filling period affects the maturation phase among the common bean cultivars evaluated. Moreover, it is plausible that the phenological cycle varied among the different cultivars tested, which could directly influence these results. However, these aspects are not addressed, compromising the robustness and depth of the analysis.

In light of the above, I consider that the revisions made by the authors did not result in significant improvements to the manuscript. Therefore, unfortunately, I believe the work is not suitable for publication.

Author Response

Comment 1: The manuscript evaluates how qualitative and quantitative damage caused by the brown stink bug, Euschistus heros (Fabricius, 1798) (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae), to the reproductive structures of common bean at different plant developmental stages affects grain quality. Although the study addresses a relevant topic for integrated pest management in this crop and the authors have partially addressed the suggested revisions, the manuscript still presents significant weaknesses in the discussion of the results, which requires further development and stronger support, as detailed below:

Response 1: Dear reviewer, thank you for taking your time read our manuscript once more and giving significant feedback.

 

Comment 2: The title has been shortened and now appears more aligned with the objective of the study. Nevertheless, I still consider that the previously proposed suggestion provides greater clarity and impact.

Response 2: We are glad you are satisfied with the new title.

 

Comment 3: The Introduction still lacks a clearly defined scientific hypothesis to be tested, as the authors have only reformulated the study objective. It is important to emphasize that objective and hypothesis are distinct concepts and should not be confused.

Response 3: We have further modified and now clearly state our hypothesis.

 

Comment 4: The paragraph between lines 99 and 110 remains problematic, as the authors do not report whether the females were previously fertilized. This aspect is relevant, since fertilized females of the brown stink bug tend to exhibit higher feeding activity due to the increased energy demand associated with egg production.

Response 4: We have made it clear that the females were previously fecundated.

 

Comment 5 (Line 151): The statistical analysis remains imprecise, as the use of the t-test is overly simplistic to explain the phenomenon under study, compromising the quality and interpretation of the results. For example, in the paragraphs between lines 206 and 209, the authors state that “in this study, the cultivar IPR Curió exhibited the highest abscission rates, likely due to its determinate growth habit.” However, although the three graphs are presented on the same page, the analysis is limited to evaluating abscission rates within each cultivar, without performing direct comparisons among them. This approach does not allow for determining which cultivar truly exhibits higher abscission rates in a comparative sense, thereby substantially weakening the manuscript. Such a methodological limitation is not acceptable.

Response 5: Dear reviewer, since each cultivar has differing phenological traits, this limitation does not permit direct comparison between them, as that would induce great error. We have re-written the problematic paragraph and removed the cultivar comparisons, we agree it was misinterpreted and incorrect.

 

Discussion

 

Comment 6: The paragraph between lines 206–209 remains problematic, as previously highlighted in Comment 6. Although the authors have revised the text, there is still no consistent explanation for why the cultivar IPR Curió exhibits higher abscission rates compared to the cultivars IPR Sabiá and IPR Urutau, both of which have an indeterminate growth habit. Furthermore, the type of statistical analysis employed (t-test) does not support such an inference, as previously mentioned.

Response 6: We have corrected this misconception, as we also believe the direct comparison between cultivars is unfounded.

 

Comment 7: The discussion in the paragraph between lines 225–227 also remains problematic. The authors insist on the claim that the eight-day infestation period may have been insufficient to exceed the plant’s tolerance threshold, suggesting that further studies with longer infestation periods are needed. This explanation is not convincing. An eight-day period is, in principle, sufficient for stink bug females to cause damage to reproductive structures, especially under confined conditions. Moreover, the preceding paragraph already provides a plausible explanation for why the damage did not exceed the plant’s tolerance threshold, making this repetition unnecessary. Therefore, the removal of this information is recommended to avoid redundancy and argumentative weakness.

Response 7: The problematic lines were removed from the paragraph.

 

Comment 8: The discussion in the paragraph between lines 244–247 remains superficial and lacks consistency. The authors do not adequately explain why damage occurring during the grain-filling period affects the maturation phase among the common bean cultivars evaluated. Moreover, it is plausible that the phenological cycle varied among the different cultivars tested, which could directly influence these results. However, these aspects are not addressed, compromising the robustness and depth of the analysis.

Response 8: Dear reviewer, although the cultivars represent different growth habits, we were committed to performing the infestation periods constantly and equally, thus the phenological cylcle did not vary among the different cultivars. We have better emphasized this commitment in our manuscript.

 

In light of the above, I consider that the revisions made by the authors did not result in significant improvements to the manuscript. Therefore, unfortunately, I believe the work is not suitable for publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer’s Comments

The manuscript evaluates how qualitative and quantitative damage caused by the brown stink bug, Euschistus heros (Fabricius, 1798) (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae), to the reproductive structures of common bean at different plant developmental stages affects grain quality. I acknowledge that the recent revisions to the manuscript have substantially improved its theoretical foundation, results, and discussion after addressing most of my suggestions. However, some minor issues regarding the use of the word “significant” still persist throughout the text, as outlined below:

Results

Line 162: the word “significantly” should be removed, as its use is redundant since the statistical evidence is already presented in Figure 1. Results that have already been subjected to rigorous statistical analysis and are displayed in figures and tables do not need to be reiterated in the text, as this creates redundancy.

Lines 171, 172, and 174: remove the word “significantly” for the same reason as previously stated.

Line 178: remove the word “significantly”.

Line 180: remove the word “significantly”.

Discussion

Line 218: remove the word “significantly”.

Line 224: remove the word “significantly”.

Line 245: remove the word “significantly”.

Line 265: remove the word “significantly”.

Line 268: remove the word “significantly”.

Line 271: replace the word “significantly” with “considerable”.

Important note: as I am not a native English speaker, I am not in a position to assess the quality of the manuscript’s English.

Based on the above, I consider that the manuscript is now suitable for publication and does not need to be sent back to me for further review, provided that the authors address the requested corrections.