An Interesting Relationship between the Insecticidal Potential of Simarouba sp. in the Biology of Diamondback Moth

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Generally, the authors present an interesting study. However, there are some problems in this study. This paper may be considered for publication with major correction. Please find my specific comments below:

1.     Line 132-134, the extraction of water soluble compounds was carried at 10℃, which was much lower than room temperature; I am afraid the extraction efficiency was not good. Why use this low temperature?

2.     Line 135-137, because the leaf contained a lot of water insoluble materials; after filtration, the concentration of water soluble compounds should be much lower than 10%. I would suggest the authors recalculate the concentration based on the lyophilized AE-S after extraction and filtration.

3.     Line 146-147, how much solvent was used?

4.     Line 152, was the lyophilized AE-S a liquid?

5.     Line 154, what was the incubation temperature?

6.     Line 181, the information of solution B was not clear.

7.     Line 185, ‘1.200’ or ‘1,200’?

8.     Line 217, to keep consistency, please use 24 h, not 24 hours.

9.     Line 253, I would suggest the authors present the equation in a separate line and make it clear.

10.  Line 258, ‘N2’, 2 should be subscript.

11.  Line 300 in Table 1, why compounds 1 and 5 do not have MS fragments?

12.   The title of this paper was ‘An interesting relationship between Simarouba sp. and Dia-2 mondback moth’; however, the mode of action of Simarouba sp. on Dia-2 mondback moth was not presented and discussed.

13.  Line 444-447, did the authors try to use single compound such as 1 or 2 to test bioactivity? It may help to reveal the relationship of chemical composition and bioactivities.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer 1 Sustainability

Round 1

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2321847

 

Title: An interesting relationship between Simarouba sp. and Diamondback moth

 

Reviewer: Line 132-134, the extraction of water soluble compounds was carried at 10℃, which was much lower than room temperature; I am afraid the extraction efficiency was not good. Why use this low temperature?

Authors response: For a better understanding, the sentence has been reformulated.

“To obtain the aqueous extract (AE-S) by maceration, 3 g of vegetable matter was added to 30 mL of distilled water. After homogenization, for 24 hours the mixture was filtered with filter paper and mainted in a refrigerated (10 °C)”.

 

Reviewer: Line 135-137, because the leaf contained a lot of water insoluble materials; after filtration, the concentration of water soluble compounds should be much lower than 10%. I would suggest the authors recalculate the concentration based on the lyophilized AE-S after extraction and filtration.

Authors response: The sentence has been modified for better understanding.

“The assays against P. xylostella was conducted with aqueous extract (AE-S) at a concentration of 10% in different concentrations (5, 1, 0.1, 0.05, and 0.01%)”.

“To chemical analysis of the aqueous extract (AE-S) was conducted by process of lyophilization, also known as freeze-drying, which is typically used for water removal, and sample preservation, resulting in lyophilized AE-S”.

 

Reviewer: Line 146-147, how much solvent was used?

Authors response: A calibration curve of gallic acid was prepared (2.5 – 125 µg/ml, in water).

 

Reviewer: Line 152, was the lyophilized AE-S a liquid?

Authors response: (1 mg/mL, dissolved in water).

 

Reviewer: Line 154, what was the incubation temperature?

Authors response: At room temperature, without the presence of light, it remained for 40 min,

 

Reviewer: In line 181, the information of solution B was not clear.

Authors response: (Column, LC, Shim-pack XR-ODS III 1.6µm particle size, 2.0mm i.d. x 75 mm length).

 

Reviewer: Line 185, ‘1.200’ or ‘1,200’?

Authors response: “The lyophilized AE-S was solubilized in methanol–acetonitrile (1:1, v: v) at a concentration of 0.5 mg/mL centrifuged (1200 x g, 5 min)”.

 

Reviewer: Line 217, to keep consistency, please use 24 h, not 24 hours.

Authors response:  Standardized throughout the text.

 

Reviewer: Line 253, I would suggest the authors present the equation in a separate line and make it clear.

Authors response:  As mean development did not show normal distribution, we estimated the rate of development using the following equation:

r(T) = 1.0/e{|ln (di)|n}

“where r(T) is development rate, di is individual observations of development time (days), and n is number of observations [64]”.

 

Reviewer: Line 258, ‘N2’, 2 should be subscript.

Authors response: Formatted

 

Reviewer: Line 300 in Table 1, why compounds 1 and 5 do not have MS fragments?

Authors response: Fragments data has been added in Table 1, in revised version.

 

Reviewer: The title of this paper was ‘An interesting relationship between Simarouba sp. and Diamondback moth’; however, the mode of action of Simarouba sp. on Diamondback moth was not presented and discussed.

Authors response: We changed the title to “An interesting relationship between the insecticidal potential of Simarouba sp. in the biology of Diamondback moth”.

 

Reviewer: Line 444-447, did the authors try to use single compound such as 1 or 2 to test bioactivity? It may help to reveal the relationship of chemical composition and bioactivities.

Authors response: The reported compounds, so far, have not been tested in isolation, which is one of the next stages of the group.

“In this context, future studies addressing the chemical fractionation and isolation of active molecules are of great importance, and these are the next step of our research group”.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The question on natural resources for pest control is very important from economic as well as ecological point of view. Presented MS seems to conform with this issue, as indicates new natural source of pest control agents.

The MS is in my opinion well prepared and M&M section is presented in details. However, I feel that small addition about the control samples would be valuable (were they also fed with 4cm2 cut cabbage? and so on).

Line 132-133: I assume that "vegatable" matter is a powder from dried leaves?

but

line 471: there is "vegetal matter" - is it the same or something different?

I also suggest, that the figures 1 & 2 might be in higher resolution or slightly bigger, because some text on them is not clear enough.

I also recommend to correct the spelling and typographic errors in the MS, e.g. line 39 "." is missing after "sp".

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer 2

Round 1

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2321847

 

Title: An interesting relationship between Simarouba sp. and Diamondback moth

 

Reviewer: The MS is in my opinion well prepared and M&M section is presented in details. However, I feel that small addition about the control samples would be valuable (were they also fed with 4cm2 cut cabbage? and so on).

 Authors response:  We appreciate the recommendation and information related to control samples that have been added throughout the material and methods.

 

Reviewer: Line 132-133: I assume that "vegatable" matter is a powder from dried leaves? But line 471: there is "vegetal matter" - is it the same or something different?

 

Authors response: “vegetal matter” nas linhas 132-133 e 487 possuem o mesmo sentido, powder from dried leaves.

 

Reviewer: I also suggest, that the figures 1 & 2 might be in higher resolution or slightly bigger, because some text on them is not clear enough.

 

Authors response:  Thanks for the suggestion. We have improved the resolution and size of images 1 and 2.

 

Reviewer: I also recommend to correct the spelling and typographic errors in the MS, e.g. line 39 "." is missing after "sp".?

 Authors response:  We appreciate the recommendation and have corrected the typographical errors in the manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript titled “An interesting relationship between Simarouba sp. and diamondback moth” has been reviewed for consideration in Sustainability. The introduction section needs to be brief and according to the study's objectives. In the methodology section, quality control parameters are missing, need to be incorporated. In the discussion section, the results should be elaborated according to previous studies. Overall the methodology applied is appropriate.  

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer 3

Round 1

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2321847

 

Title: An interesting relationship between Simarouba sp. and Diamondback moth

 

 Reviewer: The manuscript titled “An interesting relationship between Simarouba sp. and diamondback moth” has been reviewed for consideration in Sustainability. The introduction section needs to be brief and according to the study's objectives. In the methodology section, quality control parameters are missing, need to be incorporated. In the discussion section, the results should be elaborated according to previous studies. Overall the methodology applied is appropriate.

Authors response:  We have tried to keep the introduction understandable for scientists working the subject of the article.

Discussion: We make adjustments as suggested.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have tried hard to adjust the text to be clearer. Most questions raised by the reviewers are well answered. I believe the manuscript has been significantly improved and now warrants publication in Sustainability.