Postharvest Biological Control of Guatemalan Potato Moth, Tecia solanivora, by Trichogramma euproctidis and Blattisocius tarsalis
, Mihaela Paris 1, Estrella Hernández-Suárez 1, Tomás Cabello 3, Juan Ramón Gallego 3 and Ana Piedra-Buena 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a good piece of research, well documented. I have the following editorial comments:
Line17. Give the family
54. Thisnis not clear. Did you mean the most studied genera are in the families...
62.write ''studies" for"works"
62. write such as species in the genus B....
255-260 and Fig.5. The treatment levels should be specified
264,281, 301 write tuber damage
266 and Fig. 6 as above for Fig.5
Fig 6. The legend does not explain the figures. The figures do not show numbers of surviving T.s
29-296. Reference to previous work should be followed up and compared with your own findings. It cannot stand alone.
305 and 371. potatoes
319. name in italics
323. egg kairomones
324. write 'regard' for '' sense"
327. italics for name
331. write under microcosm conditions. In this case...
341. write ''this regard" for "'this sense"
378. new paragraph?
387. write under real conditions/ under natural conditions
463. Tricho...
443, 466, 469 and others. do not use capitals, be consistent
492. italics
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageGood, but can be improved here and theres indicated above.
Author Response
Please, see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI am very pleased that research teams are conducting research on biological plant protection. The manuscript submitted for review entitled "Postharvest biological control of Guatemalan potato moth, Tecia solanivora, by Trichogramma euproctidis and Blattisocius tarsalis deals with the control potential of T. solanivora during the storage and semi-storage period, is very well prepared and its content does not raise any objections from me.
I have few questions/suggestions about the chapter material and methods:
1. Why did the study use two different potato varieties?
2. Regarding statistical analysis (p.4), I have doubts about whether the authors are really referring to the low density or to the lack of normal distribution of the data
3. What type of chamber was used for the experiment?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral comments:
The article evaluates Postharvest biological control of Guatemalan potato moth, Tecia solanivora, by Trichogramma euproctidis and Blattisocius tarsalis. It is interesting as it explores the real possibility of biological control on stored potatoes. The aim is clear. The methodology is well described (also with figures) and the experimental designs are appropriate. The results and discussion are well written. However, some improvements to the manuscript are recommended.
Specific comments:
Line 50: please, remove the year of the article from the citations (e.g. Solà 2017 [13]); apply this criteria throughout the manuscript.
Line 60: the purpose of the manuscript would be more important with the more detailed description of the difficulties of applying control with entomopathogenic microorganisms.
Line 93-98: please, it's better to move this part to line 107.
Line 108: delete “and” after “T. euproctidis”.
Figure 1: please, correct "L:O" to "L:D".
Line 134 and 135: add 10 eggs/potato and 50 eggs/potato.
Line 145: 50 days is in contradiction with the 37 days shown in figure 1: review text or figure1, please.
Line 155: replace “results” with “efficacy”, please.
Line 163: replace “HR” with “RH”; apply this criteria throughout the manuscript.
Line 172 and 173: replace “Based” with “based”.
Figure 2: legends difficult to read; a larger character is suggested.
Line 193: one decimal is sufficient; the symbol “g” not italic style.
Line 197-199: please, rewrite the sentence.
Line 201: rewrite “P” in italic style.
Line 208: one decimal is sufficient; replace “HR” with “RH”.
Figure 3: check "2.2", it should be “3.3”.
Line 219: one decimal is sufficient; the symbol “g” not italic style.
Line 226: replace “HR” with “RH”.
Line 239: review the text of the results and discussion by applying only one decimal to the values and ±SE.
Figure 4: the title of the “Y” axes is generic; replace with “surviving eggs (n°)”.
Line 319 and 327: rewrite the name of species in italic style.
Line 322-323: This sentence and the subsequent hypothesis must be supported by references (even if of similar species).
Line 375: another aspect is the impact on workers of using the mite in high density in closed structures. A consideration supported by references would be appropriate.
Line 415-416: it is inappropriate for the authors to thank themselves. If necessary, integrate the section reserved for the authors' contributions.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language is appropriate in some sentences.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript describes the control of Trichogramma euproctidis and Blattisocius tarsalis in Tecia solanivora. The achievements may be important to find a solution for the control of Tecia solanivora in potato warehouses. The experimental design is well established and the manuscript is well presented. However, I do have some concerns to address, detailed below.
Line 1: Povolný 1973 à (Povolný 1973)
Line 5: Berlese 1918 à (Berlese 1918)
Line 9: population to populations
Line 17: Povolný 1973 à (Povolný 1973)
Line 22: Reference 4 is about Tuta ABSOLUTA, not T. solanivora
Line 55: à for Bethilidae, Ichenumonidae and Trichogramatidae. à by Bethylidae, Ichneumonidae and Trichogrammatidae.
Line 63: (B. dendriticus Berlese 1918, B. keegani Fox 1947 and B. tarsalis Berlese 1918) à (B. dendriticus (Berlese 1918), B. keegani (Fox 1947) and B. tarsalis (Berlese 1918)
Line 74: Fabricius1974 à (Fabricius 1974)
Line 74: Buchananiella contiguous White 1880 to Buchananiella continua (White 1880)
Line 75: Rubio et al. 2004 is reference 18.
Line 96: Ephestia kuehniella à Add species descriptor
Line 108: Tecia solanivora and T. euproctidis and were bred by the company à Tecia solanivora and T. euproctidis were bred by the company
Line 308: Add the species descriptors
Line 314: Torres 1998 is reference 29.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
