Fall Armyworm Tolerance of Maize Parental Lines, Experimental Hybrids, and Commercial Cultivars in Southern Africa
, Casper N. Kamutando 4, Dumisani Kutywayo 1, Cosmos Magorokosho 2 and Maryke Labuschagne 3,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work is very well presented and based on recent theoretical framework.
Author Response
No revisions required
Reviewer 2 Report
The introduction is too short: This can still be improved by showing related studies from other countries outside of SSA (Like Brazil, India, etc) doing FAW screening of maize cultivars.
Author Response
We have added a paragraph with some information on non-African countries. We also added these four references to the reference list. I hope you find this in order.
Reviewer 3 Report
Matova et al. reported evaluating maize germplasm for FAW resistance under managed and natural FAW infestation. They observed significant genotypic effects on foliar FAW damage, ear FAW damage, and grain yield. Local and exotic lines with sufficient FAW resistance for production and breeding were identified. Husk cover, ear rot, anthesis date, and plant height were correlated with FAW resistance.
Title: Response or resistance?
The authors should describe the methods for evaluation of the damage. Otherwise, readers must download reference 11, and it isn't easy to find it in a book of 120 pages.
For insect resistance evaluation, resistant and susceptible controls are usually included. They also didn't observe insect distribution. I suggest discussing the matter.
Author Response
Title: Response or resistance?
The authors should describe the methods for evaluation of the damage. Otherwise, readers must download reference 11, and it isn't easy to find it in a book of 120 pages.
I have added the detailed description of the methods used.
For insect resistance evaluation, resistant and susceptible controls are usually included. They also didn't observe insect distribution. I suggest discussing the matter.
As there are at this stage not yet identified resistant and susceptible controls for this region, we did not include any, as the aim was to see how the material responded to FAW infestation as a first screening. We hope in future some of the genotypes from this study could be used as controls in other studies. I have added a sentence to this effect to the materials and methods section. The areas used for the study as FAW hotspots which caused a significant infestation, so there was a quite consistent insect distribution.
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript entitled ‘Involvement of Laccase2 in cuticle sclerotization of the whitefly, Bemisia tabaci Middle East-Asia Minor 1’ describes the importance of BtLac2 in whitefly MEAM1 using RNAi. The work is interesting, however I do have minor comments which could improve the manuscript.
What is the percentage of effective silencing? The authors should mention the number of nymphs which showed silencing out of the total numbers used for RNAi experiment.
Line 25. …has remained unclear.
Line 26. …all stages including eggs, nymphs and adults.
Line 48. ….where new epidermis is formed.
Line 49. …dsRNA for lac2 led to deformed insects with soft cuticle which subsequently died.
Line 57. However, there is a lack of study on the specific……
Line 61. Remove ‘in this study.’
Line 120 for RNAi.
Fig. 4 Line 233. At 72h
Line 235. dsBtLac2-treated
Author Response
This review is not for our paper. Can you please check this, I think there was a mix-up.
Reviewer 5 Report
- I will suggest authors use tolerance instead of resistance in the manuscript.
- I will suggest authors to add major results in the abstract instead of the background. Add conclusion also in a few lines in the abstract.
- I will suggest authors to add few more reason in the introduction part, why they have conducted present study.
- I will suggest authors to use the degree sign instead of superscribing zero (0).
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
- I will suggest authors use tolerance instead of resistance in the manuscript. We have replaced resistance with tolerance throughout the paper
- I will suggest authors to add major results in the abstract instead of the background. Add conclusion also in a few lines in the abstract. I have restructured the whole abstract to address this. I hope it reads better now.
- I will suggest authors to add few more reason in the introduction part, why they have conducted present study. I have added a sentence to this effect.
- I will suggest authors to use the degree sign instead of superscribing zero (0). This was corrected.
Reviewer 6 Report
Brief summary
Fall armyworm (FAW) is a major global problem which negatively impacted Africa as well as many other countries. The research that was conducted which was produced in this manuscript attempted to address this global problem by evaluating various maize germplasm lines for FAW resistance. The manuscript is very well written and objectives of the study were clearly defined. Materials and methods including the statistical analysis were explained clearly and in details. The results along with the tables were well presented and easy to follow. The outcome from this study is beneficial for other scientists who conduct similar research efforts in combatting damage caused by FAW throughout the world. In the discussion and conclusion sections the authors suggested maize lines which showed great potential to be utilized for breeding maize for FAW resistance. The authors also provided most current list of references that are applicable to the current research in conjunction to FAW management.
Specific comments
Results: Table 5 Line 201
It denotes “ … genotypes with acceptable yield among …” Please define ‘acceptable yield’. Is there a minimum value?
Author Response
Results: Table 5 Line 201
It denotes “ … genotypes with acceptable yield among …” Please define ‘acceptable yield’. Is there a minimum value?
This would usually be in comparison to local checks for the region. So there is not really a maximum or minimum.
