Two-Sex Life Table Analysis of Frankliniella intonsa Reared on Nine Different Vegetable Crops in Guangxi, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Key words. Avoid repeating words used in the title, for example: Frankliniella intonsa and age-stage two-sex life table. Keywords should be written in alphabetical order; avoid repeating words used in the title and avoid compound words.

 

Introduction

L38-39. Clearly explain the damage caused by F. intonsa. I believe there is more damage beyond its simple feeding.

It is advisable to include the taxonomic classification after mentioning the scientific name of a species. This should be applied throughout the document.

 

Material and methods.

In 2.1.1. Insects. Were entomological cages used to rear F. intonsa? Describe the tools used. Was the host plant fertilized? What were the host conditions?

 

In 2.1.2. Plants. It is important to describe the growing or maintenance conditions of the crops used in this experiment. Were the plants fertilized equally? What was the amount and frequency of fertilization and irrigation? The amount of water and plant nutrition influence the insects' reproductive rate and food preference.

 

L119-120. deposit the data on the experimental environmental conditions and describe how they were maintained during the bioassay?.

 

L148. Is Restuls, not Result & Analisis.

The results are written properly.

 

 

L253-260. The term "chayote" was used. To what species does it refer? Please clarify.

 

Discussion

L307-314. The information presented is best understood in the introduction.

L326-329. Expand the discussion on the antibiotic effect that Chieh Qua exerts on F. intosa. It's surprising that this plant species doesn't allow the thrips population to establish itself. The plant's waxes may play an important role. Expand the discussion in this regard.

 

Conclusion

The conclusion needs to be reconsidered; in its current state, it appears to be a discussion. The limitations of the study are clearly mentioned; these should be included in the discussion. Another area of ​​opportunity is to study the mechanisms of antibiosis and antixenosis of the plant species studied on F. intonsa. The study, in its current state, looks very good and is important, but it leaves many unanswered questions. I recommend that you base your conclusion on the objective of the article; the rest can be very useful in the discussion.

 

References.

Review the references, especially:

1) Review the titles of articles and use uppercase and lowercase letters where appropriate. Do not use capital letters at the beginning of each word.

2) Abbreviate the names of scientific journals. This section is not uniform; there are abbreviated and unabbreviated journal names. Review the official abbreviations for the journals.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your suggestion. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study 'Two-sex life table analysis of Frankliniella intonsa fed on nine different crops' is a very meticulous and comprised of huge data presented in a very good way. However, I have few suggestions for its improvement and clarity.

• The title needs revision, word 'fed' may be suitably revise, add 'vegetable' in title, if location/ country given then it will be of more clear and precise
• In abstract give a common name for Vigna cylindrica like others
• add few numerical depictions in abstract to show how much difference of preference is observed between hosts
• Line 34-35 add references for more scientific clarity
• Please check the word 'thrip', as per my knowledge 'thrips ' is the word which is both singular and plural
• Line 44 add location of Ministry
• One general question to be justify in introduction is why only these nine crops? are there any studies/ data available on % damage to make them chosen for the study or any other hypothesis for selection of these 9 vegetable crops 
• Line 70-80, to be reduced to a line or two as it is not required here
• In M&M instead of specimens use the suitable word like 'population'
• please clearly state that the thrips were maintained separately or directly they were released on plants
• Please mention are there any difference in period of attaining 4-6 leaves in each crop, if so then how the releasing synchrony has been maintained
• Line 102 onwards....what happened to adults after the egg laying, whether they removed or left as such, if so for how many days and how the average of of fecundity considered. If only larvae/ nymphs were taken then please revise this paragraph for clarity.
• Is the Results & Analysis, a suitable heading instead you can mention 'Results'
• The headings mentioned in R&A section needs revision, delete the repetitive words at mentioned often 
• the quality of the figures are poor, please try to improve
• Please check the table 3, where the SD/SE is 0.00 at almost all places, if it has any values at >4th place you can mention differently
• Foot note is required for the Tables and figures to give clarity on what actually is given in table/ figures instead of simply mentioning the titles
• I don't understand why it is mentioned as 'parasitic' in discussion for thrips
• Although the discussion is written exhaustively, but is missing with numerical comparisons between the study results, why differential preference happened, response of the hosts, any mechanisms acted on life cycle of thrips, likewise. Needs revision of this section.
• Line 412-415, why there is a reference while explaining conclusions of your study
• The study is conducted in very minute way, obviously one can understand with the size of insects, but try to mention how it can be utilized for field studies instead of mentioning confirmation of these findings in field.

Overall, the data showed that the manuscript of importance and valuable to readers working in entomology.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your suggestion. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer’s comment on

Two-sex life table analysis of Frankliniella intonsa fed on nine different crops

Journal Name: agriculture

The manuscript by Gong et al., is about the survival, reproductive traits and population dynamics of thrips on nine cultivated crop species. This study certainly directs the thrips management needs for some green beans and cow pea crops compared to bitter gourd and chieh-qua. The manuscript is well written and has directed key researchable issues for the future.

I have made some comments and suggestions appended below for the revision and improvement of the manuscript.

L20-22: Revise something like

Among the tested host crops, green beans, cow pea, and courgette significantly accelerated the growth rate and favored the reproductive success of F. intonsa.

L27: improved monitoring and control measures against F. intonsa ?

Please arrange Keywords alphabetically.

L34: Thrip -->> Thrips?

L34-3: Rewrite something like “Thrips Frankliniella intonsa (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) is a polyphagous pest notably with a broad ……

L36, L38: “It primarily” and “F. intonsa primarily” … revision needed.

L43-44: agricultural impacts of F. intonsa --> F. intonsa impacts on agricultural crops?

L45-46: Class I agricultural pest?

L84: Please revise something like “Natural colony of F. intonsa were collected ……

L96-99: Please, revise this with topic to make much readable.

L106-108: The egg receiving procedure is not fitting well in this part. I suggest to move it to previous section under rearing procedure of the test insect.

L109-110: Request to revise like “The leaf discs were replaced with fresher one twice a day (at 8:00 and 20:00 h)”.

L148: Check typo-error

Table 1: Egg column better to delete as the authors used newly hatched first instars and afterwards for the study. Authors can cite a foot note to describe the egg column not provided describing the reason.

Isn’t the last column for Hatching to Adult emergence?

Since the authors did ANOVA and post-hoc, statistical values (F and P) in a separate bottom row would add readership of the table 1. Similar comments for Table 2.

Though the authors well discussed on the results achieved (like NRR and all) some parts are missing. Especially, the differences in developmental periods among the crops and within the instars (Table 1), big difference in male: female longevity = 29:13 days in bitter gourd, 29:21 in cowpea 25:14 in green bean (Table 2), etc are not well discussed.

Figure 1 and Fig.2 could be arranged properly to add readership. I just suggest to arrange 3-figs in a row and 3 rows in total adjusted in landscape. Making axes common for the possible ones and using only one legend in a figure.

There are many cases that the referencing is not consistent. In ref 1, initials of every words in research title capitalized. In ref 2, all small cases. In ref 6-7, again initials are capitalized. Similarly, Journal abbreviation style is also not matching. Period after some abbreviations and no periods in some cases. In some references, journal names are abbreviated and in others, written in full.

I hope the review comments are addressed well before proceeding for the further publication processes.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some typo-errors and revisions needed. I have suggested English check for the better readership of the manuscript.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your suggestion. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for resubmitting your manuscript, which has been improved in form and substance according to the referees' suggestions.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your suggestion.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed all suggestions with suitable answers. With my expertise, the manuscript is now having acceptable information.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your suggestion. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have revised and improved the manuscript. Some of my comments at this stage are:

L86-91: Please, revise and order the sentences.

Statistical values [F _{d, f} and P ] in the table 1 & 2 should be written in correct style. Authors may follow some published journal articles for this.

 

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your suggestion. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx