Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I have carefully reviewed your manuscript.

In general, the contents are well written and relevant to the type of article written. 

I find the organization of the different chapters a bit poor, so the structure of the paper needs improvement. I also suggest that you extend the information by single key factor, this would definitely make the work more complete and interesting.

Here are some suggestions:

Line 3: Please add Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel, 1912) (Diptera: Tephritidae).

1)     Dispersion of B. dorsalis in China

 I suggest the authors add a map where they highlight the main distribution areas of the species in China; Lines 99-101: I suggest the authors demonstrate through a phylogenetic tree the two different genetic lines of the species that inhabit the Chinese territory; Is also to specify at what genetic level these differences were identified

Key factors in the invasion of B. dorsalis

In my opinion, to justify the validity of a stand-alone chapter, the "chapters" after 3, ad would be treated as subchapters of the same.

To make the reader understand the aspects covered in the literature review of the topic, it would be interesting to provide a summary map of the various key factors explored in depth. this would improve the organization of the manuscript by making it clearer and neater and thus more usable by other researchers.

 

The quality of the English is good, however, I suggest the authors perform a revision of the text to remove some form errors.

Author Response

Thank you so much for respected editor and the reviewers for their immense effort, constructive comments, excellent suggestions, and professional advices. Here, we present our response to your comments as following concerning our manuscript entitled “Understanding the invasion, ecological adaptations, and management strategies of Bactrocera dorsalis in China: A review” Horticulturae Manuscript NO-2537772. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. Meanwhile the manuscript had be reviewed and edited thoroughly. Further we have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red color in the manuscript.

Thanks again for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments on the merits.

The main corrections in the manuscript and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as following:

Reviewer 1

I have carefully reviewed your manuscript. In general, the contents are well written and relevant to the type of article written.  I find the organization of the different chapters a bit poor, so the structure of the paper needs improvement. I also suggest that you extend the information by single key factor, this would definitely make the work more complete and interesting. Here are some suggestions:

1. Line 3: Please add Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel, 1912) (Diptera: Tephritidae).

Response: Thank you for the correction has been added. In Line 3

1)     Dispersion of B. dorsalis in China

2. I suggest the authors add a map where they highlight the main distribution areas of the species in China; 

Response: We have designed a distribution map highlighting highly dispersion rates and low in various provinces. Thanks.   

2. Lines 99-101: I suggest the authors demonstrate through a phylogenetic tree the two different genetic lines of the species that inhabit the Chinese territory; Is also to specify at what genetic level these differences were identified.

Response: Thank you so much for more clarification we added the gene analyses methods in line 97-99. Although we are unable to construct phylogenetic tree.

Key factors in the invasion of B. dorsalis

In my opinion, to justify the validity of a stand-alone chapter, the "chapters" after 3, ad would be treated as subchapters of the same.

Response: Thank you so much we have sequenced in manned. The three headings after the key factors in the invasion of B. dorsalis have been converted to sub headings. Thanks.

To make the reader understand the aspects covered in the literature review of the topic, it would be interesting to provide a summary map of the various key factors explored in depth. this would improve the organization of the manuscript by making it clearer and neater and thus more usable by other researchers.

Response: Thank you so much for the suggesting, we have designed different figures including life cycle, distribution map, and some emerging bio-control (natural enemies, predator, parasitoid and entomopathogenic nematodes table in revised manuscript)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

See minor comments in the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Reviewer Response Jaffar et al. (2023) reviews the biology and management approaches to limit the spread and damage of the oriental fruit fly Bactrocera dorsalis in China. The submitted manuscript deals with a relevant agricultural pest and is therefore suitable to be published in the journal Horticulturae. The review is overall very well written and from this reviewer’s point of view, there are few, mainly formal, comments to be addressed in the following. Due to the very good quality of the submitted manuscript, I recommend the paper for publication after minor revisions. –

Response: We appreciate your clear feedback and hope that the explanation has fully addressed of your concerns. 

1. Avoid to many single-sentence paragraphs, specifically if addressing similar topics, e.g. lines 36-64 and 74-94 could be combined.

Response: The paragraphs have been merged to improve the reading flow. And we have merged with these appropriate lines. Thanks.

2. This should be checked in the following manuscript to improve the reading flow. - The manuscript on the current form lacks descriptive figures. For instance, when informing about the geographical origin and the distribution routes of the oriental fruit fly, it would be helpful for readers to see this on a map. Similarly, suitable images of the insect life stages would make sense. - There is few knowledge about how the insect causes damage to fruits. A short paragraph could be added e.g. in the introduction part to inform which life stage (e.g. larva) causes which kind of damage (e.g. feeding damage on fruits/leaves, secondary infections, …). Most probably this is clear to the authors, but it would help to inform a wider community, as I believe is one purpose of the submitted review.

Response: Thanks for your great suggestion on improving our MS obliviously with figures and map will be more interesting we have revised and generated figures and table related to study. Fig. 1 life cycle of the pest.  Fig. 2. describes the latest status of the fruit fly distribution in China. Fig. 3. has been added which provides summary of one of the important sections of the review.

3. - Repeated use of the term additionally - Line 432: the headline Baiting, does not correspond to the text structure. It might be avoided or be placed as the first word on the paragraph.

Response: At some places, replaced by in addition, moreover, furthermore. We have modified and removed the headline Baiting. Replaced with the words mass trapping.

4. Similarly Line 552 13.1 Sterile insect technique (SIT) is not in line with the structure of the remaining text. - Lines 537 + 544 insert proper line spacing framing the bullet points

Response: We corrected and merged the lines. The following text clearly describes SIT. No change could be made here. The bullet points with line spacing are already in the manuscript. Thanks

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a good review. The authors comprehensively elaborated on the research progress of fruit fly in various aspects. However, there are several things need to be concerned: 1. This review has to be re-structured because it mains a complex logical of writing and hard to understand. Suggest to several main parts, such as biology, ecology of invasion, management…etc. 2. This review should be ‘shrinked’ because it is too long. In addition, there are too many repetitions among several parts and contents. Suggest to be merged with similar contents. 3. There are too many details of references in this review, which are not necessary. Suggest the authors to combine those similar papers and draw a conclusion. A review doesn’t mean to tell all research progress. 4. The writing language of this review needs to be improved because it has too many simple sentences without a reasonable writing logic.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

 

This is a good review. The authors comprehensively elaborated on the research progress of fruit fly in various aspects. However, there are several things need to be concerned:

1.    This review has to be re-structure because it mains a complex logical of writing and hard to understand. Suggest to several main parts, such as biology, ecology of invasion, management…etc.

2.    This review should be ‘shrinked’ because it is too long. In addition, there are too many repetitions among several parts and contents. Suggest to be merged with similar contents.

3.    There are too many details of references in this review, which are not necessary. Suggest the authors to combine those similar papers and draw a conclusion. A review doesn’t mean to tell all research progress.

4.    The writing language of this review needs to be improved because it has too many simple sentences without a reasonable writing logic.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

This is a good review. The authors comprehensively elaborated on the research progress of fruit fly in various aspects. However, there are several things need to be concerned:

1. This review has to be re-structure because it mains a complex logical of writing and hard to understand. Suggest to several main parts, such as biology, ecology of invasion, management…etc.

Response: Agreed. We have, accordingly revised our MS and adjusted the topics and subsequently subheading highlighted these points in the whole manuscript with red marks. Five main headings have been formulated as per the suggestion.

2. This review should be ‘shrinked’ because it is too long. In addition, there are too many repetitions among several parts and contents. Suggest to be merged with similar contents.

Response: The detailed review presents the recent advancements. So, we request you to keep the same length. We followed your suggestion and removed reptations. Thanks.

3. There are too many details of references in this review, which are not necessary. Suggest the authors to combine those similar papers and draw a conclusion. A review doesn’t mean to tell all research progress.

Response: Agreed! We followed your comments and removed references. now ‘197’ The research papers that appear similar are actually distinct for researchers working in that narrow area of interest. Thanks.

4. The writing language of this review needs to be improved because it has too many simple sentences without a reasonable writing logic.

Response: Thank you so much for highlighting this point. We have checked all manuscript thoroughly and corrected all possible grammar mistakes and writing logic.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

1.       The language and grammar of the manuscript has further scope for improvement.

2.       Line 76: Please indicate as to what could have been the possible reasons for increase in the population size of the test pest. Is it owing to the unique phenomenon of remating in female flies (line 118 onwards) and its potential or due to any other reason?

 

3.       Line 134-136: Consider the statement, “Additionally…mating.” in the backdrop of the statement based on the reference No. 41 (contained in the last of the paragraph). Do you have any references to support the statement under quotes or it is just a speculation based on the reference No. 42?

The manuscript may be improved in terms of its language and grammar.

Author Response

Reviewer 4

1. The language and grammar of the manuscript has further scope for improvement.

Response: Thanks for your suggestions we followed and improved our grammar mistakes

2. Line 76: Please indicate as to what could have been the possible reasons for increase in the population size of the test pest. Is it owing to the unique phenomenon of remating in female flies (line 118 onwards) and its potential or due to any other reason?

Response: We agreed! Thanks for fulfil the gap. There are several reasons among them few are due to international trade, resistance to pesticides, abundant host plants, lack or natural enemies (predators and parasitoids), we added this line into 76. Yes, because male consumed methyl eugenol is attractive to male due to this phenomenon rectal gland male produce DMP and ECF the two sequestered female flies attracted more as compare to deprived-ME, in literature female do frequent mating with ME-fed male. Ultimately produce more fertile eggs.   

3. Line 134-136: Consider the statement, “Additionally…mating.” in the backdrop of the statement based on the reference No. 41 (contained in the last of the paragraph). Do you have any references to support the statement under quotes or it is just a speculation based on the reference No. 42?

Thank you so much for highlighting, we discussed theory based on the 42 references from this article DOI: 10.1002/ps.7208

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Congratulations to the authors! I am pleased with the improvements to the manuscript.

The English used in the manuscript is of good quality. The terminology used is adequate and each individual period is well written and easy to understand even for non-specialists in the field.