Effects of Electron Beam Irradiation on Acaricide-Resistant and Susceptible Strains of Tetranychusurticae (Acari: Tetranychidae)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I do find this work interesting. However the manuscript needs improvement. There are inconsequences in description of results. Discussion is very poor.

 

Specific comments:

Line 91-93 – “After electron beam irradiation, the hatching rate, emergence rate, number of progeny, F1 hatching rate, and longevity of the emerged adults according to developmental stage were recorded” - How exactly those parameters were calculated?

Lines 128 – 136 – what adults do you mean? – were they adults which origin from this irradiated eggs? If yes, it must be clearly stated in Material and methods. The same for data in Tables 3 and 4.

What exactly this emergency rate is? – again the way of calculating all this parameters must be described in more detailed way.

Table 2 – are you sure that in this column with No. of eggs the values marked with “ac” are correct? I think something is here wrong with  the statistics. Check please the assigned letters.

Page 6, line 2-4 – “..The emergence rate tended to decrease with increasing irradiation dose for all strains of T. urticae, but there was no statistically significant difference…” According to the data in Table 3 it is not completely true. There were significant ddifferences, f.ex.  S vs AR at 300 Gy. Please be more accurate.

 

Line 4-5 “Adult longevity for all strains of T. urticae increased after exposure to a 200 Gy dose” this  is also not true for  all strains because the differences are not significant for most of them comparing to 0 Gy.

 

Page 8, line 5 “The AR and ER strains oviposited partially, but hatching failed” – Whay did you mention only AR nad ER here – other strains oviposited also according to the Table 4

Page 9 – line 24 – I do not agree with the sentence “However, we found no significant difference between the S and resistant strains” According to your results there were differences, for example _ Table 2  no of eggs at 50 Gy, compare S with AR “a” vs”c”, the same Table at 100 Gy Hatchability F1 AR vs ER. There are also differences between strains in Table 3 and Table 4

 

Please check whole description of  all results and also your statements in discussion section if they are really completely true.

 

The discussion is much too short. You used mostly your own research. Discussion must be deeper, as you wrote “it is important to provide the optimal dose to induce abnormal development and reproduction (or infertility) in insect pests without causing any phytotoxicity when using electron beams for disinfection of agricultural products and flowers”.. So you should discuss your dosses and think if lower doses are possible to use, as you show that treated eggs react significantly even at 100 Gy.

Author Response

All suggestions were accepted, and the appropriate revisions were made.

Thank you so much for your kind comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this research paper, authors discussed the effects of electron beam irradiation on acaricide-resistant and -susceptible strains of Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae). In this study, authors used three different acaricide-resistant strains; Acequinocyl-, Bifenazate-, and Etoxazole to compare the electron beam irradiation effect with the susceptible strain. This research paper useful for the researcher to check the electron beam irradiation effect on two-spotted spider mites development. They used precise calculation method to compare the effects. Therefore, this reviewer would like to suggest that the manuscript is acceptable for publication in the journal after minor revisions. Specific comments are attached

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

All suggestions were accepted, and the appropriate revisions were made.

Thank you so much for your kind comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Some of my previous remarks were not addressed:

 The description of callculating parameters such as for example emergency rate and other were not included in the manuscript. The discussion section was not satisfactory improved. You did not add any new references and you still relay mostly on your own research.

Author Response

We've made corrections based on your comments.

Please review again.

Thank you for your kind comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx