Effects of Certain Pesticides on the Predatory Mite Typhlodromus ndibu Pritchard and Baker (Acari: Phytoseiidae)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript describes results or laboratory toxicology experiments testing the effect of several insecticidal compounds on non-target species (phytoseiid mite). The study is important for IPM of citrus orchards as results indicate which pesticides should be avoided when we want to conserve phytoseiid predators in orchards. Although the manuscript is clear and well written, some parts need major revision before it can be accepted for publication.

Manuscript can be improved as suggested below. Numbers indicate line numbers of the manuscript.

Specific comments:

Abstract – please add aim of the study (e.g. start with importance of T. ndibu in citrus orchards as biocontrol agent and need to know about non-target effects of pesticides commonly used in this crop) and a sentence on methodology. Few more information on results (some numbers) would be fine, too.

Keywords – avoid using the same words which are already in title, some alternative keywords: non-target effects, natural enemies, toxicology, IPM, biological control

29 add author name who described P. ulmi

34-49 these three paragraphs might be merged/rewritten so that it end with IPM solution only once (now it is repeatedly addressed)

70  better to write “To successfully utilize T. ndibu in the IPM model, we conducted studies to assess the impact of insecticides that are commonly used in citrus orchards in the southern region of Vietnam on this predatory mite.

75 Genera name can be shortened to T. in the rest of ms unless it is written at the beginning of sentence.

86-87 Not nice to have a single-sentence paragraph. I suggest to move it before predatory mite under subsection 2.1 Mites then continue with 2.2 Pesticides

98-100 This is too short section, rather merge it with two other sections (section 2.2.1 and 2.2.2) into section 2.3 Toxicity Assessment of Pesticides on Immature Stages and Adult Females of T. ndibu

120-121 Thus only 30 mites were tested in total in each treatment? For mortality calculation 1 mite=3.3% which means results are not very precise making statistical comparison problematic. Moreover, some mites escaped/drowned so total number was even lower. The percentage of these escaped/drowned mites would be also interesting result as indicator of repelency.

128 and further - pesticides were applied as residual dip-test (treated were only leaves, it might be helpful to mention that it is contact/surface exposure), not by spraying. Perhaps Abbott correction for mortality in control resulting in so called “corrected mortality” would be better

142 what stage? It is different if it is egg, larva, proto- or deutonymph.

146 what was female age?

157 better: pre-oviposition, oviposition and post-oviposition periods, respectively. Were mites observed till their death? If so, longevity can be also presented. If not, specify the duration of the experiment. Hatching rate and sex ratio (shown in Results) is missing here.

160 Tukey test is not appropriate for percentage data (mortality) unless data are transformed to normalize them. Better is to us GLM with binomial distribution.

180-183 – see my comment about statistics above

201, 203 write genera name abbreviated

214-216 see comment on statistics

227 = preoviposition period

249-261 This text on morphology is completely out of paper’s scope and should be removed as well as mite photos.

271-272 the term “non-toxic” should be associated with IOBC rating because otherwise readers would expect no effect, i.e. no difference compared to control but this is not true in this case. I think mortality of 30% indicates some toxicity, though low, when mortality in control is 0 as shown in Results. Similarly text “can be considered entirely safe for T. nidibu” is too strong because there was no direct spray application as is common in real situation (mites were only in contact with surface-treated leaves) and mortality was evaluated only for 3 days and in case of reproduction experiments only 24 h while we do not know about long-term residual effect as it is well discussed in next paragraph so I suggest you to reformulate it a bit, e.g. “Although the results of the present paper indicates low toxicity …”

308 delete extra “in this study”
309 and slightly toxicity in adult female stages of T. ndibu

English language requires minor revision as indicated in comments above.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

We wish to extend our heartfelt gratitude for the invaluable feedback you have provided regarding our manuscript. We deeply appreciate the insights shared by the reviewer and have taken measures to enhance the paper based on these suggestions. Here is a comprehensive breakdown of the revisions we've undertaken in response to the reviewer's remarks:

We have rewritten the abstract as per your recommendation.

We have updated the keywords following your suggestions.

Line 29: We have added the additional author's name for P. citri.

Lines 34-49: We have consolidated and rephrased these sections into a single paragraph as per your guidance.

Line 70: We have made the necessary corrections in line with your advice.

Line 75: We have shortened "genera name" to "T."

Lines 86-87: Following your suggestion, we have edited and moved this sentence to Section 2.1 "Mite."

Lines 98-100: We have combined Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 into Section 2.3 "Toxicity Assessment of Pesticides on Immature Stages and Adult Females of T. ndibu," as you recommended.

Line 120-121: We greatly appreciate your insightful comment. While we initially aimed for consistency by setting "n" universally across experiments (including the assessment of female reproductive capacity post-exposure), we now recognize the significance of your observation. We would like to propose that, if within acceptable limits, we acknowledge this perspective for future experiments. However, if a larger "n" is deemed necessary for these particular trials, we are prepared to repeat the experiments. If your suggestion involves a re-run, we kindly suggest you advise the journal on granting additional time for us to implement it. Your guidance on this matter is greatly anticipated.

Furthermore, in our experiments, we did not observe instances of escape or death due to other natural causes for T. ndibu.

Line 128: As previously mentioned, we adjusted the percentage data using the Acrsin√x transformation before conducting the Tukey test. Your input on this matter is highly appreciated.

Lines 201, 203: We have rectified the genera names to "T."

Line 227: According to our understanding, this term refers to the oviposition period. The variability in the reported oviposition period of T. ndibu across different experimental setups leads to variations in the total egg count. This is because the egg-laying ratio is approximately similar across different experiments. We are somewhat unclear about your intent here. Could you please elaborate?

Lines 249-261: Currently, there are published documents on the classification of T. ndibu. Consequently, we do not intend to present a separate publication solely dedicated to the morphological characteristics of T. ndibu. However, in our research, we have found no published documents about morphology or images pertaining to this species. Hence, we propose a brief section in our study introducing the external morphology of T. ndibu, accompanied by images. This addition aims to assist readers in forming a clearer mental image of the specie discussed in the paper. While I concur with your viewpoint that this content may not be closely related to the primary focus of the article, we hope the reasons stated above substantiate retaining this content. Additionally, we refer to the publication "Barroso, G.; Godoy, L.L.; Iost Filho, F.H.; Yamada, M.; Santana, E.D.R.; Pazini, J.d.B.; de Queiroz Oliveira, L.V.; Yamamoto, P.T. Predator-Unfriendly Pesticides Harm the Beneficial Mite Neoseiulus idaeus Denmark & Muma (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Agronomy 2023, 13, 1061. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13041061" for its discussion of morphology, similar to our study.

Lines 271-272: Your observation is indeed accurate. We have rectified this as per your recommendation.

Line 308: We have removed the extra "in this study."

Line 309: We have inserted "in" to correct the phrase to "and slightly toxicity in adult female stages of T. ndibu."

We humbly request that you reassess our manuscript in light of the aforementioned modifications. We genuinely appreciate your dedicated time and thoughtful evaluation.

Best regards,

The Author's Team

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled "Effects of Certain Pesticides on the Predatory Mite Typhlodromus ndibu Pritchard and Baker (Acari: Phytoseiidae)" is an interesting study in which authors have explored the role of pesticides/biopesticides on a pest (Panonychus citri) and a predatory mite (Typhlodromus ndibu) exposed to five pesticides. The impact of pesticides were found better on target pest whereas mild to low on the predatory mite. The findings are interesting and can be considered for integrated pest management. The presentation of the work is sound. Background of the study is relatively well presented, except a few update on the biopesticides which is not given appropriate attention in the introduction section. Methodology is clear. Results are elaborated and can be reduced by focusing on the key findings of the study only. Discussion section can be better presented by providing the mechanism of the observed effects. Majorly, the manuscript needs to be updated with recent literature of last 3-5 years for getting wider attention and citations.

A detailed/specific comments/suggestions to the authors are given in the attached pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,
We extend our heartfelt appreciation for the valuable feedback you provided on our manuscript. We recognize and value the suggestions put forth by the reviewer and have implemented the necessary improvements to enhance the paper. Here is a comprehensive summary of the revisions we have carried out in response to the reviewer's comments:
Firstly, the queries have been addressed in the annotated PDF that was shared earlier for your convenience. We hope this approach simplifies your review of our changes in alignment with your suggestions.
Secondly, as recommended by one of the peer reviewers, we recalibrated the percentage  mortality rates for both adult and immature stages T. ndibu using the Acrsin√x transformation. Consequently, you will notice variations in the numerical data in the table. We eagerly await your feedback on the appropriateness of these adjustments and their contribution to enhancing the quality of our paper.
We kindly request that you kindly re-evaluate our manuscript based on the aforementioned adjustments.
We sincerely thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.
Best regards,
The Author's Team

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

You did a good job in revising your manuscript. There are only few points which I suggest to modify before the manuscript can be accepted for publication:

line 61 latin name Azadirachta indica should be in italics

line 120 P. citri should be in italics

lines 305-318 describing the species morphology along with photos (Figures 1 and 2) should be moved to Supplementary material (preferably) or Appendix if you want to keep it in article.

There might be few corrections needed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The author's team extends our heartfelt appreciation for your prompt response and meticulous insights provided for our manuscript. We have carefully reviewed and implemented your suggestions, as follows:

Line 61: The scientific name "Azadirachta indica" has been in italics.

Line 120: The abbreviation "P. citri" has been in italics.

Lines 305 – 318: In response to your feedback during the second round, after thorough deliberation within our author's team, we have decided to omit the "morphology of T. ndibu" section from this paper. It seems more appropriate to reserve this data for a different publication that aligns better with its content. We genuinely appreciate your profound guidance in this matter.

Once again, the author's team would like to express sincere gratitude for your valuable time and effort in aiding us in refining our manuscript.

Best regards,

The Author's Team