Effect of Two Strains of Beauveria bassiana on the Fecundity of Nezara viridula L. (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Reviewer Comments #: -
The manuscript describes the “Effect of Two Strains of Beauveria bassiana on the Fecundity of Nezara viridula L. (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae)”. Using B. bassiana the author tries to understand the reproductive ability of the pest N. viridula. The techniques used in the manuscript are up to date and the experiments are well performed. However, I found certain things which need clarification and attention to strengthen the conclusion.
Abstract:
Few parts of the abstract need corrections. The last sentence of the abstracts requires reframing for clarity.
Line 33: correct “adu;ts” to adults
Line 35: Recorrect the sentence once again. Imperfect sentence formation.
Line 45: correct pests’ to pest’s
Material & Method:
Line 72: correct “diel” to diet.
Line 78: correct-80oC
Line 84: How do you determine the conc. of spores/g?
In case you have followed previously published work please add the reference.
Line 97: what is the main reason to select the 2-3 day old insects? Please explain briefly. Data on bioassay with nymphs or adults will be of reader's interest.
Line 109: correct “paper tower” to “Paper towel”
Line 137 & 142: be content with a number of days either “D” or “d” choose one.
Figure 1: please choose different colors for different treatments. Otherwise its not possible to understand.
Figure 2 & 3: Figure 2 and 3 provides the information on the production of eggs but what happens to the emergence from the eggs. What about that data?
No information on the way how you collected the insects or separated both males and females. Please proved that.
Discussion:
Line 252: Do metabolic pathways influence Beauveria bassiana?
Line 258: Please provide references.
Line 262: Please write the name of the insect.
Line 266: How about the insect with low conc. of fungus? do they die after a long time or they are not infected at all. Where is the data?
Line 280: Death doesn’t influence the growth of fungus no information on that?
General comments:
Discussion can be surely improved with highlights to the key findings points and their supporting appropriate references.
It could have been better if the authors support their theme with some functional studies related to the subject to strengthen the findings.
Graphical abstract is obligatory for quick understanding.
General points:
The introduction needs more effort to enrich the quality of the publication.
Materials and methods should contain all the information provided in the manuscript.
Discussion should be updated with the latest references to reach the standard of the publication.
Overall there are many typos and mistakes though out the article please correct it. In the present form of the article, the message of article is more complicated to understand. Please make it simple and highlight a few points that provide the best and most conclusive outputs. This could improve the quality of the publication.
Conclusive remarks: The manuscript contains interesting and significant findings. It still needs some corrections (typos, italics, and sentence repetitions) which are very important. I still ask the authors to rearrange and extend information on certain parts of the manuscript, especially about Material, method, and discussion with additional references. I do think that the manuscript contains important issues, information, interesting approaches, and techniques, which can lead to a proper understanding of the fungal effect on fecundity. So I consider this manuscript suitable for publication after the suggested clarifications and inputs in Microbiology research.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
The manuscript describes the “Effect of Two Strains of Beauveria bassiana on the Fecundity of Nezara viridula L. (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae)”. Using B. bassiana the author tries to understand the reproductive ability of the pest N. viridula. The techniques used in the manuscript are up to date and the experiments are well performed. However, I found certain things which need clarification and attention to strengthen the conclusion.
Changes are highlighted in red throughout the manuscript.
Abstract:
Few parts of the abstract need corrections. The last sentence of the abstracts requires reframing for clarity.
Line 33: correct “adu;ts” to adults
Response 1: Deleted, now line 34
Line 35: Recorrect the sentence once again. Imperfect sentence formation.
Response 2: Corrected
Line 45: correct pests’ to pest’s
Response 3: Corrected. Abstract re-written
Material & Method:
Line 72: correct “diel” to diet.
Response 4: Corrected, now line 77
Line 78: correct-80oC
Response 5: Corrected, now line 83
Line 84: How do you determine the conc. of spores/g?
In case you have followed previously published work please add the reference.
Response 6: My previous work was cited (17). Line 94.
Line 97: what is the main reason to select the 2-3 day old insects? Please explain briefly. Data on bioassay with nymphs or adults will be of reader's interest.
Response 7: Information added. Now lines 103-104.
Line 109: correct “paper tower” to “Paper towel”
Response 8: Corrected, now line 123
Line 137 & 142: be content with a number of days either “D” or “d” choose one.
Response 9: Corrected. Now line 151
Figure 1: please choose different colors for different treatments. Otherwise its not possible to understand.
Response 10: Changed. Page 5
Figure 2 & 3: Figure 2 and 3 provides the information on the production of eggs but what happens to the emergence from the eggs. What about that data?
Response 11: That is a very good question. Unfortunately, there were almost 3000 eggs to follow, and the main objective was measure fecundity only. We are preparing a following up paper where demographic parameters are evaluating, which fecundity and fertility will be evaluated. We will be able to construct a complete life table on populations treated with different concentration of commercials strains of B. bassiana and M. robertsii.
No information on the way how you collected the insects or separated both males and females. Please proved that.
Response 12: Information was added to the text and Picture was included for a better understanding. Lines 104-105 and page 3
Discussion:
Line 252: Do metabolic pathways influence Beauveria bassiana?
Response 13: Based on Liu et al. 2015 and Luo et. 2015, yes. They mentioned that metabolism may be involved in the adaptation of fungus to different hosts. However, this information was included, because we already explained (lines 293-297) how B. bassiana could be influence by different factors.
Line 258: Please provide references.
Response 14: References were already provided [24 and 38]
Line 262: Please write the name of the insect.
Response 15: Name was provided. Line 235.
Line 266: How about the insect with low conc. of fungus? do they die after a long time or they are not infected at all. Where is the data?
Response 16: All survival behavior can be seen on Figure 1. I paragraph was added to the text for clarification. Lines 189-194.
Line 280: Death doesn’t influence the growth of fungus no information on that?
Response 17: Correct. We evaluated survival only regardless sporulation.
General comments:
Discussion can be surely improved with highlights to the key findings points and their supporting appropriate references.
It could have been better if the authors support their theme with some functional studies related to the subject to strengthen the findings.
Graphical abstract is obligatory for quick understanding.
General points:
The introduction needs more effort to enrich the quality of the publication.
Materials and methods should contain all the information provided in the manuscript.
Discussion should be updated with the latest references to reach the standard of the publication.
Overall there are many typos and mistakes though out the article please correct it. In the present form of the article, the message of article is more complicated to understand. Please make it simple and highlight a few points that provide the best and most conclusive outputs. This could improve the quality of the publication.
Conclusive remarks: The manuscript contains interesting and significant findings. It still needs some corrections (typos, italics, and sentence repetitions) which are very important. I still ask the authors to rearrange and extend information on certain parts of the manuscript, especially about Material, method, and discussion with additional references. I do think that the manuscript contains important issues, information, interesting approaches, and techniques, which can lead to a proper understanding of the fungal effect on fecundity. So I consider this manuscript suitable for publication after the suggested clarifications and inputs in Microbiology research.
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a reasonably well constructed and executed study of the effects of two isolates of Beauveria bassiana against a significant insect pest.
I found a broad range of concerns in this manuscript, a large proportion of which dealt with editorial concerns rather than major scientific concerns. I have uploaded a marked copy of the manuscript with a significant number of suggestions and concerns to be addressed during a revision.
It might have been nice if more than just one noncommercialized isolate were included in these studies since GHA is so widely and deeply entrenched in the fungal biocontrol world now. As such, however, the authors have not truly provided enough information about the other isolate, NI8, that was studied.
Particularly close attention will need to be paid during the revision process to make sure that all of the references correspond exactly with the formatting requirements specified by this journal. There are many scientific names in the references that have not been italicized. There are several references in which unnecessary capitalizations need to be removed regardless of how the title was formatted as originally published.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Changes are highlighted in red throughout the manuscript.
Comment 1: Such long-form numbers are superfluous. Please use the more common exponential form with NO MORE than two decimal places, but a single decimal place should suffice: 1.1 x107 and 5.2 x 106.
Response 1: Changed, line 18
Comment 2: Correct authority is Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo-Crivelli) Vuillemin or, if shortening the authorities, Beauveria bassisna (Bals.-Criv.) Vuill.Correct authority is Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo-Crivelli) Vuillemin or, if shortening the authorities, Beauveria bassisna (Bals.-Criv.) Vuill.
Response 2: Corrected. Line 12 and 49
Comment 3: saprobic, please, rather than saprophytic (fungi are not plants). The biology of Beauveria species is such that they are primarily associated with insects and are, perhaps, only secondarily saprobic in the natural environment. Beuaveria can, of course, also show up as an endophytic associate in plant tissues but, again, this appears to be a less common and derived sort of biotic association for the members of this genus.
Response 3: Corrected. Line 50.
Comment 4: More information about NI8 is required. At the very least, when it was isolated and where this isolate is maintained (especially if it came from some recognized culture collection). It would be good to include the name of the collector and isolater if possible. The point is to provide the information to be able to allow a reader to know where and how to obtain this non-commercialized isolate. Without that, the results presented here are effectively irreproducible.
Response 4: Information was added. Lines 61-65
Comment 5: Palisot de Beauvois was the author of the basionym that was first published in some other genus. As such, Palisot de Beauvois MUST appear in parentheses; not to include the parentheses implies incorrectly that this author described this species and assigned it to the genus Lygus.
Response 5: Corrected. Line 60
Comment 6: ? DIET rather than 'diel'?
Response 6: Corrected. Line 77.
Comment 7: 'based to' --> 'according to' [or 'following']
Response 7: Changed. Line 86.
Comment 8: HOW was spore viability assessed? Detail is needed.
Response 8: It was assessed following the protocol described in Portilla et al. 2015. Citation was added. Line 94.
Comment 9: Both strains' suspensions
Response 9: Corrected. Line 107.
Comment 10: female (NO capitalization)
Response 10: Corrected. Line 115.
Comment 11: as early as
Response 11: Corrected. Line 223.
Comment 12: The last part of this sentence–what follows 'on crops that'–is rather ambiguous and needs to be rewritten.
Response: Rewritten. Lines 236-237
Comment 13: This sentence has mixed tenses in it that make the meaning rather indistinct.
Response 13: Corrected. Line 242.
Comment 14: insect host's cuticle
Response 14: Corrected. Line 246-247
Comment 15: cuticular hydrocarbons
Response 15: Corrected. Line 270
Comment 16: Such behavioral changes
Response 16: Changed. Line 274
Comment 17: Therebefore change to Therefore
Response 17: Corrected line 278.
Comment 18: Author Contributions: Conceived and designed...
Response 18: Changed. Line 281
Comment 19: Arnell Patterson (deceased), USDA-ARS
Response 19: Changed. Line 288.
Comment 20: Italics for Nezara viridula
Response 20: Italicized throughout the citations and all the citation were reviewed and corrected.
