Combined Effects of Cold Treatment and Phosphine in Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is a document of interest for the phytosanitary control and management of D. suzukii. The document is well written, the introduction is in accordance with the investigated topic. The method is adequate. The results are well analyzed, well explained and the results are clear.

Only a few light observations have been made.

It is recommended that the mortality lines be compared in pairs, 1 vs 5°C, with the Log-Rank Test (Figure 1).

That the meaning of different letters is indicated in the bar graphs and mean tables.

Comments were made on the pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We would also like to take this opportunity to express our thanks to the reviewer for the positive feedback and helpful comments for correction or modification. We are corrected several words and inserted more detail. It has been revised in consideration of reviewer’s comments as much as possible. Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors presented the results of their research and the resulting conclusions in a very professional manner. Nevertheless, I believe that the presented article would gain in value after introducing the following additions and corrections:

1) The abstract of the article should be supplemented with a description of the impact of the applied research variants on the quality of grapes.

2) Accuracy of the order of +/- 1 degree Celsius has only been included in line 100. Were the other temperature conditions obtained with greater accuracy?

3) Does the description of the measurement methodology presented in the text (lines 153-160) refer to the measurements specified in the standard?

4) Why is the description of the measurements given in the text (lines 161-163) less accurate?

5) It would be useful to standardize the units given in lines 162 and 167.

6) I also propose replacing the "treatment group" with "treatment groups"

The research is clearly implementing in nature, therefore the authors should be commended for putting clear practical guidelines in Concusions. Congratulations on a good job.

Author Response

We would also like to take this opportunity to express our thanks to the reviewer for the positive feedback and helpful comments for correction or modification. We are corrected several words and inserted more detail. It has been revised in consideration of reviewer’s comments as much as possible. Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx