Combining Cultural Tactics and Insecticides for the Management of the Sweetpotato Whitefly, Bemisia tabaci MEAM1, and Viruses in Yellow Squash

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this MS, the authors carried out a series of experiments (including greenhouse and field trials) to combine cultural tactics and insecticides for the management of sweetpotato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci and viruses in yellow squash. It is an interesting and novel topic on the integrated pest management (IPM) comprised of existing cultural and chemical tactics. While there were many shortcomings and errors, which were following as:

Q1: Abstract: L19023: “Experiments in 2018 and 2019 evaluated the effects of insect exclusion netting (IEN) …. Field experiments from 2018 to 2021 evaluated the effects of mulch type….”  Recorrect this sentences with right language writing!

  Q2: 2.2.2 Evaluation of Mulch Types: Table 1 was not cited in this section.

  Q3: Table 2: The title of Table 2 is nor suitable, it should be changed as “Two-way ANOVAs about the effects of insect exclusion netting (IEN), insecticide and their interaction on the number of whiteflies on squash seedlings grown in the greenhouse at the University of Georgia Coastal Plain Experiment Station in Tifton, GA in 2018 and 2019. And in this table, it is confused that P<F! And It is not suitable that Tukey, P < 0.05 was here, it should be shown in the Table 3.

  Q4: Table 3: What about the population abundances of whitefly eggs, nymphs and adults? Whitefly abundance was measured weekly for three to seven weeks beginning in September of each year. So it is population dynamics of whitefly eggs, nymphs and adults. And the abundances of whitefly eggs and nymphs were not measured in 2018! So no data of whitefly eggs and nymphs was given in 2018.

  Q5: Table 4: No data analysis about the effects of JEN, insecticide and their interaction on percent incidence of cucurbit leaf crumple virus (CuLCrV) in squash seedlings grown in the greenhouse at the University of Georgia Coastal Plain Experiment Station in Tifton, GA in 2018. Which should be given.

  Q6: Table 7 and Table 8: Ten treatments were setup in this experiment (including Non-treated control, Imidacloprid, Cyantraniliprole, Flupyradifurone, Terpene constituents of Chenopodium ambrosioides near ambrosioides extract, Chromobacterium subtsugae, Paraffinic oil, Row cover + cyantraniliprole, Afidopyropen, Spirotetramat + pyriproxyfen). So it is not right that df=7, 24 (7?) in the Table 7. And “Row cover” is not a main factor in the Table 8, it was mixed with cyantraniliprole (1.50 L/ha). So it is not suitable to say the effect of insecticides and row cover on the number of whiteflies.

  Q7: Fig.1: Just field layout map, not giving the row cover or insecticide trials in this figure.

  Q8: Table 10: No the treatment of “Row cover”, just Row cover + cyantraniliprole (1.50 L/ha) was shown in the front figures (Fig.8, Fig.9) and in the following Fig.11.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

My co-authors and I greatly appreciate your comments. We have carefully considered each one and have tried to address them to the best of our abilities. Our explanation for each comment is included below.

Q1, Line 19-21: reviewer suggestion accepted—verbiage changed

Q2, Line 148: Table 1 only lists treatments used in greenhouse experiment and row cover/insecticide field experiment. The treatments included in Table 1 do not apply to this section (mulch field experiment). Table 1 header (1^st column) has been changed to clarify that only the treatments from the row cover/insecticide field experiment are included.

Q3, Table 2: Reviewer suggestions accepted—verbiage was changed in footnote to indicate the use of ANOVA; We do not see the incorrect use of P<F in the text, as claimed by the reviewer; Statement about means separation removed per reviewer’s suggestion.

Q4, Table 3: Reviewer suggestions accepted—whitefly “abundances” changed to “population dynamics” where appropriate, i.e. where text did not directly refer to the measurement of abundance or number of whiteflies (line 25, 28, 108, and 218); Whitefly egg/nymph abundances were measured in 2018 in greenhouse study (data shown in Table 3), Reviewer is mistakenly referring to mulch study, in which whitefly egg/nymph abundances were not measured (data shown in Table 6).

Q5, Table 4: Statistical analysis results listed in the text (line 261-264), rather than in table form, reviewer believed stats were not listed.

Q6, Table 7: Only 8 treatments were used in 2018 and 2019 (see treatments listed in Table 1), so df=7 is correct for these years. Ten treatments were used in 2020 and 2021, so df=9 in these columns; Row covers and cyantraniliprole were not used at the same time in this treatment. Row covers were applied for the first three weeks after planting, and cyantraniliprole was applied for the remaining weeks of the trial after row covers were removed. For this reason, we consider row cover to be a main factor. We acknowledge that the use of “Row cover + cyantraniliprole” in tables may be misleading. We have changed the verbiage to “Row cover, followed by cyantraniliprole” to clarify.

Q7, Figure 1: Reviewer suggestion accepted—figure 1 removed.

Q8: Reviewer suggestions partially accepted—please see response to Q6 above.

Yours sincerely,

Rajagopalbabu Srinivasan

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Opinion Journal Horticulturae

The article entitled “Combining cultural tactics and insecticides for the management of sweetpotato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci MEAM1, and viruses in yellow squash” was considered with merit/relevance to be published in the scientific journal Horticulturae.

The work presents important problems, alternatives for the integrated management of B. tabaci in yellow squash, an important crop in the USA.

In general, graphic figures elaborated and designed by reference, robust and updated bibliography, presenting important results, such as:

“Protection of squash seedlings in greenhouses and in the field is essential for reducing whitefly and virus pressure and ensuring profitable yields. IEN/row covers were extremely effective for reducing whitefly feeding and virus symptom severity in both green house and field settings. UV-reflective mulch also helped reduce whitefly pressure and SSL symptoms and led to increases in yield. Most of the insecticides tested were not as effective for managing whiteflies and viruses as the use of IEN/row covers. Until whitefly or virus-resistant squash varieties become available, a combination of cultural and chemical tactics is required to mitigate virus-induced risks and yield losses in squash production in the southeastern U.S” - important information for the producer.

            Therefore, consider the work apt and ready for publication.

Sincerely,

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Reviewer 3 Report

An interesting paper looking at developing IPM strategies for whitefly and disease management in squash. Minor corrections are noted in the attached document. All of the data is presented in table form, which makes interpretation difficult. A balance of tables and figures would be helpful. The stats summary tables are excellent and should be left as is. In contrast, may of the data tables should be presented as figures. While this would be difficult for the greenhouse data, it should be doable with the field data.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

My co-authors and I greatly appreciate your comments. We have carefully considered each one and have tried to address them to the best of our abilities. Our explanation for each comment is included below. Changes in the manuscript are identified in red.

Line 17: reviewer suggestion accepted—comma use corrected

Line 54: reviewer suggestion accepted—parentheses changed to brackets

Line 58: reviewer suggestion accepted—grammar corrected

Line 98: reviewer suggestion accepted—verbiage changed

Line 112: reviewer suggestion accepted—replicates listed

Line 291: reviewer suggestion accepted—verbiage changed

Line 292: reviewer suggestion accepted—verbiage changed

Line 297: reviewer suggestion accepted—verbiage changed

Line 300: reviewer suggestion accepted—verbiage changed

Line 303: reviewer suggestion accepted—verbiage changed

Line 408-409: reviewer suggestions accepted—verbiage changed

Table 3: The statistics on table three have been revised and edited. The differences within the interaction section shown now are only based on differences within netting (insect-exclusion) and no netting settings. The differences under each setting did not vary with treatment. This information has been incorporated in the revised version.

Tables 6, 8, 9-11 converted to figures per reviewer’s suggestion

Yours sincerely,

Rajagopalbabu Srinivasan

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This version has been revised based on the reviewers' comments.