The Temperature-Dependent Functional Response and Mutual Interference of Cyanopterus ninghais (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) Parasitizing Monochamus alternatus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Wang et al. in the ms entitled: “Temperature-Dependent Functional Response and Mutual

Interference of Cyanopterus ninghais (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) Parasitizing Monochamus alternatus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae)” considered efficiency of Cyanopterus ninghais (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) as a newly discovered parasitoid on the control of larvae of the Japanese pine sawyer, Monochamus alternatus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Authors find a very good biocontrol potential of C. ninghais, especially in comparison with other known species of the genus Cyanopterus. They showed a strong host specificity and reproductive potential of C. ninghais. Ms is well written, brings new results about biological pest control and I recommend it to be published with a very few minor issues  below.

 

 

Page 2, line 68. “A single host beetle can yield as many as 25 parasitoid progeny”

This is polyembrionic wasp?

Page 2, lines 88-91. Sentences below should be removed and transferred to M&M section.

 

 

  “To comprehensively investigate the potential of C. ninghais to parasitize and therefore control M. alternatus larvae, this study used the 4th instar larvae of M. alternatus as the host and measured the functional response of C. ninghais under three temperatures (20,25, and 30 ℃). Mutual interference was also investigated.”

Author Response

See attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 The authors presented results of three temperatures and various densities of host on the functional and mutual interference of the parasitoid Cyanopterus ninghais, used to control the Japanese pine sawyer, Monochamus alternatus.

They provided interesting results and merit to be published in Forests. However, I have two main issues. The first one is the introduction, which is not well written and need major improvement. For instance, the authors mentioned that Pine Wilt Disease is caused by the pine wood nematode, and the main vecor is Monochamus alternatus. So, which is more important in disease distribution, the nematode or Japanese pine sawyer?

My second major issue is statistical analysis: data needs to be re-analysed. In addition, more information is needed in this section. The authors used Anova, but does data follow normal homogeneity?

What is the objective of using excel and two softwares (SAS and SPSS). Can you give more info why used each one?

 

More comments were added in the pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Could be improved

Author Response

请参阅附件

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The interaction between braconids and longhorned beetles is an interesting topic that deserves in-depth study. The author of the reviewed article has achieved significant progress in this area. The experimental results inspire confidence upon careful reading of the manuscript.

Defects in the manuscript that need correction.

1. The abstract needs serious changes. The abstract must contain a minimum of digital data and formulas. Try to describe the results in 5-7 sentences so that readers see the high scientific level of the research and, at the same time, non-specialists in this topic should have a desire to read the entire article. It's difficult, but necessary. At the end of the abstract you should add a sentence about the prospects for further research.

2. In accordance with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, the first mention in an article of the Latin name of each animal species requires the author's surname and year (for example, lines 27, 39, 53, 66, 73, 77, 78 and others). The thoroughness of the manuscript will indicate the quality and accuracy of the experiments with insects themselves.

3. Lines 96-101 need to be named (subsection 2.1). The names of the remaining subsections need to be renumbered.

4. Line 187, 190: after mentioning a computer program, you must indicate the company, country and year in parentheses.

5. The title of Figure 1 states “the shaded areas represent the limits of the 95% confidence intervals.” However, the shaded area contains less than 70% of the research results. Perhaps it would be better to re-check the simulation results or indicate that the shaded area shows a standard deviation (58%)?

6. In the note in Table 1, you need to write what the number after the “+-” means: is it the standard error (18% of the variability of the results), the standard deviation (58% of the variability of the results) or the error (95% of the variability of the results)? This is important for readers to understand the results. The same applies to tables 3 and 4 and the last paragraph in the section Material and research methods. Also, under each of the tables, you need to mention the method for comparing data.

7. It is better not to write “α = 0.05” throughout the article. Everywhere you need to write “P = 0.05” (for example, lines 189, 221, 256).

8. You need to write a space between the number and the degree Celsius (for example, line 215).

9. In the title of tables 1-4 in parentheses you need to write the repetition of the experiment.

10. All numbers in tables 2 and 3 must be rounded to thousandths. The same applies to similar figures in the text of the article.

11. All numbers of R2 must be rounded to thousandths (for example, lines 249, 251, 264, Figure 2).

12. In all cases, it is correct to always round F values to hundredths (for example, lines 196, 197, 211-213, 244-251 and others).

After eliminating a number of technical shortcomings, the manuscript may be recommended for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I am happy with the changes mades by the authors. But still have few comment:

 

L21: intraspecific mutual interference

The authors mentioned in their rebuttal that the objective was to test the impact of temperature. However, they also used a second factor (density). So, it is important to consider the two factors togethers. 

The E can be imporved

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx