Reproductive Structures of Female Phytoseiulus persimilis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) and the Development of Egg and Embryo in the Body

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Important topic for a well known species in biological control, addressing morphology of female reproductive structures along different gravid times of Ph. persimilis.

Clear, well demonstrated article.

Some minor questions and suggestions:

- Usually the species is written in papers as "Ph. persimilis" and not "P. persimilis". Please comment.

- for the readers (highly professional or less ones) are not cleare the "duplications" such as Line 113-114 and later. Please explain.

Suggestion:

The Discussion incl. conclusion part might be extened with some implications of the results, fingins, such as:

- how the results may contribute to product quality assurance (mass rearing)?

- how the results may contribute to the assessment of unintended effect of plant protection products in a system where Ph. persimilis is implemented with chemical or whatever pruducts?

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

well written, clear.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript “Reproductive structures of female Phytoseiulus persimilis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) and the development of egg and embryo in the body” is an important research regarding the morphology of reproductive structures and development of eggs and embryos in Phytoseiulus persimilis, whose information contributes to knowledge about the reproductive system of these mites, which are important predators.

The justification for the article is clear, reporting the importance of this type of research due to the scarcity of work on this species and citing authors with important work on Phytoseiulus persimilis.

ABSTRACT

Lines 12-13: The abstract has some points that need to be improved, with the possible insertion of an initial sentence informing about the importance of this species of predator for the biological control of Tetranychus urticae.

 

INTRODUCTION

Line 47: has one more number 8 than necessary.

 

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The work has a methodology consistent with what it proposes, and provides detailed information on the procedures necessary to carry out transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and light microscopy; However, there are some questions in the methodology that need to be answered:

Line 82: How were collection times and hourly variations chosen?

Line 82-83: Any references to confirm the methodology used?

 

RESULTS

Line 195: The resolution of some images that show the morphology of solenostomes is low, as in Figure 1B.Line 199: In the case of Figures 2C, D, E and F, all of them require increased brightness, the images are very dark, making it difficult to see some details.

Line 247: Figure 4 needs an increase in brightness to make it clearer; Furthermore, the acronyms are not clear, making it difficult to visualize.

Line 319: The font sizes of the acronyms in Figure 10 A are different from those in 10B and 10C, requiring standardization.

The quality of these images must be improved. The letters that identify the figures are in different sizes, and many images need improvement in sharpness.

Line 355: The authors mention in the results “without any significant differences compared to those found in unmated mites” but there are no statistics presented in the methodology; How was this comparison between mated and unmated couples made? If there are tables of values, it is extremely important to include them in the work, as well as the type of statistical analysis in the material and methods.

Line: 357: Were the disparities noticed only through visual observation?

Lines 384-389: The scale bars in Figure 13 could be thinner, without the need for information contained in them, since it is not possible to visualize them and because this information already exists in the legend.

 

DISCUSSION

The discussion is a good size and well presented; the authors used works consistent with the theme of the article to discuss their findings; however, we address some points that can be modified to improve the manuscript.

Line 537: Explain in the body of work how it was possible to verify that the development of oocytes differed significantly. If you don't have statistics, I suggest rewriting the sentence.

 

CONCLUSION

I suggest that the authors expand the conclusions with some of the data obtained during the study.

 Overall, the article is relevant and has depth. The efforts of the authors in carrying out the research and preparing the text can be seen, mainly due to the detailed writing of the results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The authors met our considerations satisfactorily and therefore we recommend the publication of this manuscript.