A Review of Prospective Biocontrol Agents and Sustainable Soil Practices for Bulb Mite (Acari: Acaridae) Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review of Agronomy Manuscript ID: Agronomy-1729044

Effects of soil management on bulb mites (Acari: Acaridae) control

      The reviewer has provided an annotated version of the proposed manuscript with all comments and questions highlighted in red up to page 5. In addition, the reviewer attempted to assist the authors’ in condensing these sections to avoid the extraneous verbiage. In fact, the sections reviewed can be substantially condensed. However, it is not the responsibility of the reviewer to edit (in this case, substantially) a manuscript. Consequently, the proposed manuscript requires a thorough edit (and rewrite) before even being considered for publication in any journal   

      The proposed manuscript is extremely convoluted, poorly developed, and many lines/sections can be deleted as the information is not relevant or pertinent to the management of bulb mites. It is disappointing to see manuscripts that are of such poor quality or lack any merit submitted to journals. However, I am somewhat disturbed that the manuscript is already formatted for the journal without having been peer-reviewed. I wonder if my review will be taken into consideration or even make a difference…or is the manuscript simply going to be published regardless of the review process. This is a major concern associated with the scientific peer-review process for all journals, especially those on-line.   

      The manuscript contains many problems related to missing information and other concerns addressed below. Examples of the fundamental major and minor issues affiliated with pages 1 through 5 are presented below:

1. Overall, many of the lines/sections are not associated with management of bulb mites; therefore, they should be removed/deleted.
2. What about host plant resistance and cultural controls? Why are these two plant protection or pest management strategies are not mentioned or discussed (page 2, lines 47-49)?
3. Entomopathogenic fungi and bacteria are not biological control agents. They are considered biopesticides or microbial control agents by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (page 2, lines 66-77 and Table 1).
4. What does “toxicity” refer too? Should “toxicity” be “mortality” (page 2, line 53)?
5. The two paragraphs associated with the heading—3. Biological control of bulb mites should be deleted. In addition, Table 1 can be reduced to just listing the entomopathogenic nematodes and predatory mites, which are biological control agents (page 2, lines 66-77).
6. What constitutes “effective?” What level of mortality (based on percent) would be considered “effective” management of bulb mites (page 3, lines 79-80)?
7. What does “highly efficient” mean (page 3, line 84)?
8. What does “have any potential” mean (page 3, line 87)?
9. What level of mortality is considered “low” (page 3, line 89)?
10. What does “low mortality” mean quantitatively (page 3, line 91)?
11. How much is a “long time” (page 3, line 98)?
12. What is the relevance of this information in regards to bulb mites (page 3, lines 94-105)?
13. What does “have potential to control some mite species” mean (page 4, line 111)?
14. What does “…a failure…” mean? What constitutes a “failure?”
15. What is the scientific name of the cereal rust mite (page 4, line 122)?
16. What does “high variability” refer too (page 4, line 126)?
17. What does “little effect” mean (page 4, line 134)?
18. What constitutes “high efficacy?” What does “high efficacy” mean quantitatively (e.g. percent mortality) (page 4, line 137)?
19. What were the n-values for the percentages (43% and 100%)? A percent without an n-value is meaningless. Are the percentages associated with 2 or 50 individuals (page 4, lines 139-140)?
20. What does “significantly reduced” mean quantitatively (page 4, line 142)?
21. What constitutes a “promising biocontrol agent?” What parameters make a biological control agent promising (page 4, line 143)?
22. What does “effective” refer too? What percent mortality indicates that an entomopathogenic fungus is “effective” (page 4, line 144)?
23. What were the n-values for the percentages (90% and 100%)? A percent without an n-value is meaningless. Are the percentages associated with 2 or 50 individuals (page 4, lines 150-151)?
24. Delete or condense the first four lines under the heading—3.3 Entomopathogenic nematodes as the information is not really relevant (page 4, lines 154-157).
25. What does “especially small” mean quantitatively? What size is “especially small” (page 5, line 167)?
26. Delete lines 170-178 (page 5) as the information is not relevant to the management of bulb mites.
27. The first sentence under the heading—3.4 Predatory mites should read as “Biological control programs for bulb mites have focused on using predatory mites in the family Laelapidae (Table 1), which feed on soil-dwelling pests [66]” (page 5, lines 180-182).
28. Delete lines 194-196 (page 5). What is the value/relevance of the information?
29. What does “successful suppression” (should be management) refer too? What level of mortality constitutes “successful suppression” (page 5, line 197)?
30. What does “in storage” mean? What were the environmental conditions associated with storage (page 5, line 197)?
31. Change “suppression” to “management” (page 5, line 198).
32. What does “simpler and the smaller habitats” refer too? What does “simpler” and “smaller” mean quantitatively?

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Review is well defined, easy to understand. The language is appropriate and understandable. The topic is compatible with the journal’s scope. The overview of the given results is significant and relevant, presented in a well-structured way. Data and analyses presented appropriately. Table 1 containing the list of biocontrol agents explored against bulb mites is clear and concise. Food web shown on Figure 1 is appropriate, clearly presented. The data presented in the chapters: Bulb mite management, Biological control of bulb mites, The importance of a holistic approach for better pest management, Role of soil management are very significant and relevant, presented in a well-structured way. Conclusions justified consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.

It would be great to continue studying this interesting topic.

Accept manuscript with minor changes:

Line 52: Include a reference/references.

Line 344: Abbreviated journal name, bold the year.

Line 351: Abbreviated journal name.

Line 351: Please write the name of the mite genus in uppercase and the name of the mite species in lowercase - Tetranychus urticae.

Line 359: Abbreviated journal name.

Line 360: Abbreviated journal name.

Line 363: Abbreviated journal name, please write the name of the genus in uppercase and the name of the species in lowercase.

Line 379: Abbreviated journal name.

Line 384: Write the name of the genus in uppercase and the name of the species in lowercase.

Line 385: Write the name of the genus in uppercase and the name of the species in lowercase.

From line 343 to line 608 please write the name of the genus in uppercase and the name of the species, abbreviated journal names etc where it is omitted according to the Citations Guide for MDPI journals.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article deals mainly with the possibility of controlling the population size of bulb mites, important pests of bulbous plants. Overall, the work is well written, well-organized, considerations are logical and coherent.

My only comments are:

L77: I suggest reformatting table 1 (in some parts it is not readable)

L103: use „ml” not mL

L165: infective not infected

L166: remove single, just dose.

L167: what are small EPN? Explain.

L253: biological parameters? Explain.

L299: remove „harbor, protect” - for me it means deliberate activity. I suppose that it is rather coincidental.

L303: sense? Explain.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Thanks for excellently steering the pest control ship back to sound practises. The very few corrections are indicated in the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Bulb mites (Rhizoglyphus spp.) can damage horticultural and agricultural crops by feeding on bulb tissue and promoting infection of bulbs with microbial pathogens. The authors present a thorough and valuable overview of the (mostly biological) control agents that have been used commercially or tested for their ability to control bulb mites.  A secondary theme of the manuscript is the importance of FAO 'conservation agriculture' soil management principles. This latter part is very general and the authors do not cite evidence of success of such management for controlling bulb mites; rather, it seems there is the assumption that it will. I suggest reduction in length of these sections of the manuscript (4 and 5) and that the FAO principles be presented as methods to be tested for Rhizoglyphus control rather than as assumed panaceas. 

The writing style is clear but there are some issues with repetitiveness and lack of literature citations to support statements. I have uploaded an annotated pdf of the manuscript with comments, queries and text edits. Below I list the more major of my comments in order of their occurrence in the ms. The authors should go through the annotated pdf to see the remaining, more minor changes and suggestions.

Title: The title is a little misleading, as the main substance of the manuscript is not "Effects of soil management...". A title such as "Review of chemical and biological controls for bulb mites and potential role of soil management strategies" would better match the strong points of the manuscript.

Lines 52-55: This statement requires a supporting reference, which perhaps is [22].

Table 1: Perhaps indicate in the table that the Morganellaceae are nematode-associated bacteria.

Line 83 and elsewhere: With a numerical rather than date-based citation system it isn't immediately clear what the time frame for 'recent' is. When using 'recent or 'recently', please also add the date.

Lines 133-134 (also two similar instances later on this page - see annotated pdf): This sentence is redundant, as all information is provided in the subsequent two sentences.

Line 155: This statement needs a supporting reference.

Lines 203-223: The mesostigmatan species listed in this paragraph need to be added to Table 1. Unfortunately, this means that the numbering for citations will have to be redone (another reason why a numerical citation system can be problematic!).

Section 4: Much of this section is made up of general statements about 'holistic soil health' without much relevance to control of bulb mites, other than speculation.

Lines 235-241: This paragraph seems unnecessary given that readers will undoubtedly know that terrestrial ecosystems cannot function without soil.

Figure 1: Addition of a key to the identities of the organisms in this very nice figure would be helpful, even if it might detract a little from the artistic quality of the image. Also, indicate who the artist is.

Section 5: This section is also wordy and is more about 'Potential role of soil management...' than demonstrated effects of soil management on bulb mite control.

Lines 268-269: Requires a supporting reference. Also,  the sudden focus on California is jarring. It would be better to have a more general, less U.S.-specific,  introductory statement.

Lines 306-309: These practices have not been tested with regard to bulb mite control. It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that they should be tested, but as written the implication is that there is no need for testing and that they are a panacea for all agricultural-pest problems.

Lines 319-322: Repetitive, and also this is not a conclusion you can draw from the studies you surveyed. They are predictions based on principles that haven't yet been tested with regard to Rhizoglyphus control.

Line 329: Not clear what 'visualization' means - 'illustration'?

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx