Enhance Systemic Resistance Significantly Reduces the Silverleaf Whitefly Population and Increases the Yield of Sweet Pepper, Capsicum annuum L. var. annuum

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Point-by-Point

Sustainability – Manuscript #1733108

Editor and Author(s),

Overall, the manuscript exhibits promising results, which can attract an audience to the journal. The study investigated whether systemic resistance in plants will reduce the population of silverleaf whitefly and, as a result, increase sweet pepper yield. As plant inducers, potassium phosphite, effective microorganisms, salicylic acid, and imidacloprid were utilized. The research results were interesting by providing a promising strategy for pest management programs. However, I have identified some points that require minor reviews by authors before publication.

Other specifics comments:

Suggestion for title: Induced systemic resistance reduces silverleaf whitefly populations while increasing sweet pepper yield, Capsicum annuum L. var. annuum.

In citation (first page, left). The title is contradictory to the title at the top.

The introduction highlights the main protagonists in the text and exhibits the potential importance of research. The major argument is focused on pests, whereas the "breaking news" from the paper is about plant systemic resistance caused by some microbial and chemical agents. As a result, I suppose it would be more interesting if the authors presented it first in the introduction and abstract, then went on to explore the other co-protagonist in the following paragraphs. Of course, this is only a suggestion for overall text organization.

Suggestion for Line 106-109. We hypothesize that certain microbial and chemical agents increase plant enzyme production, which can enhance the plant's internal defense system, reducing pest populations and increasing sweet pepper yield. To test such a hypothesis, we measured the activity of enzymes known to be involved in the plant's internal defense system. In addition, we investigated if the treatments have the potential to reduce silver whitefly populations while increasing sweet pepper productivity.

The Material and methods are easy to understand. However, there is no information in the material and methods section on how the enzymatic measurement was carried out. Furthermore, although statistical analyses are included in the results, any mention is included in the material and methods. So, I strongly recommend a detailed revision about it.

The Results and Discussion are remarkably interesting and easy to understand. However, there are some issues not explored and that require more attention by authors.

Line 319, 322, 343. Change “hypothesis” to “results”

The following are some questions that have arisen in my thoughts that may help the authors fill up some gaps.

1. “Some control agents” or “microbial and chemical agents”?
2. Why is there no mention of how the measure of enzyme activities was carried out?
3. Why is there no statistics section presented in material and methods?
4. Why are enzyme activities for negative control not presented in table 1?
5. Why are ANOVA outcomes presented apart from results?
6. Why is there a "second inspection day" twice in Table 3?
7. How is economic efficiency measured? Why aren't they present in material and methods?
8. Why is the yield increased? Is there a trade-off between defense and yield?

I hope that the comments improve your manuscript,

All the best

Reviewer.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, the authors changed the manuscript according to your recommendations 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I have read your manuscript very carefully, and it shows good originality.

In general, it has a good structure and the experimental design applied seems correct.

In order to improve your manuscript, you will find some of my suggestions in the attached file.

Good work.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your precious time and for comments, the authors changed the manuscript according to your recommendations.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx