Population Growth Changes in Major Stored Product Insects on Rice Fortified with Spearmint and Basil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript describes the effects of food fortification. So, the title of the manuscript would be changed. The current title, which “Population growth of major stored product insects on rice fortified with spearmint and basil”, doesn’t seem to be appropriate. If this was due to the results, it is recommended to change it such as “Population growth change of major stored product insects-”.

 

It is true that spearmint and its oil is used in a variety of foods, however, are they suitable for cooking rice? How has the flavor and taste of rice changed by fortification?

 

In Materials and methods, it feels like a lack of explanation overall.

Line 112 -114. Does it mean 50 g of dried spearmint and basil as described by reference paper? And what is the variety name and origin of spearmint and basil?

 

Line 115 – 122. Need more detail rearing condition.

Line 120 – 121. “The above rearings are kept in LEAZ for more than 20 years” -> delete

Line 132. “Within each vial, ten individuals of each species were placed, with separate series of vials for each species." -> How was the sex ratio of the insects? Since the number of insects used in the experiment is small, the sex ratio could have an effect on the results.

 

Line 134. Was the age of insects which used in this experiment same? And why choose 65 days for measurement? Is it related to storage period or life cycle of the insects? There should be a reason for this.

 

Line 139. Which statistical program used?

 

In Figures, it's a bit confusing because it uses uppercase letters at the same time. It would be better to change one to lowercase. And add the unit of frass.

Number of insect damaged kernels -> Number of damaged kernels

Weight of insect damaged kernels -> Weight of damaged kernels. And it would be relative weight.

 

In Figure 1, the number of progeny production at 100% treatment was about 20, however, the number of damaged kernel and weight loss was 0. It seems a bit weird. How these values ​​were measured should be described with more detailed.

 

As the effect of fortification on stored product insects seem to conflict, it is difficult to interpret results. If a positive control group was included in the experiment, it would have been very helpful in interpreting the results. Moreover, if there were measurement results before 65 days later, it seems to be meaningful to see gradual change.

 

Author Response

Ref: Manuscript ID: agronomy-1858385

Title: Population growth of major stored product insects on rice fortified with spearmint and basil

 

Dear Dr. Sha,

Thank you for your letter regarding our paper entitled: “Population growth of major stored product insects on rice fortified with spearmint and basil”. The comments of the reviewers are valuable and contribute greatly to the improvement of our work. In the following we shall refer to these comments, which, as you can see have been addressed/incorporated.

I remain at your disposal should you need additional information.

Many thanks for your interest on our work.

Sincerely,

Paraskevi Agrafioti

 

Comments from editors and reviewers

Reviewer 1:

This manuscript describes the effects of food fortification. So, the title of the manuscript would be changed. The current title, which “Population growth of major stored product insects on rice fortified with spearmint and basil”, doesn’t seem to be appropriate. If this was due to the results, it is recommended to change it such as “Population growth change of major stored product insects-”.

REPLY: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the comments and recommendations on improving the quality of the manuscript before resubmission. A revised version is submitted with the proposed corrections/additions addressed. A point by point reply on each comment/correction can be found below. We have revised the title as recommended, see the title.

 

It is true that spearmint and its oil is used in a variety of foods, however, are they suitable for cooking rice? How has the flavor and taste of rice changed by fortification?

REPLY: Correct, the spearmint and basil are used in a variety of food. As recommended by Igoumenidis et al. (2016) and Igoumenidis and Karathanos (2016) rice fortification has the ability to absorb and maintain the antioxidants, such as color and aromas, after the boiling procedure, see the section 1. Introduction, 3^rd paragraph lines 9^th-11^th. Regarding the taste, Igoumenidis et al. (2016) have found interesting results, see the section 1. Introduction, lines 11^th-14^th

 

In Materials and methods, it feels like a lack of explanation overall. Line 112 -114. Does it mean 50 g of dried spearmint and basil as described by reference paper? And what is the variety name and origin of spearmint and basil?

REPLY: Fifty grams of dried spearmint and basil were used, see the sub-section2.1 Preparation of commodity-5^th line. The variety name and the origin of spearmint and basil were mentioned in sub-section 2.1 Preparation of commodity, 2^nd – 5^th line.

 

Line 115 – 122. Need more detail rearing condition.

REPLY: We have added the sentence: “The rearings … as described above”, see the sub-section 2.2 Insects – 5^th-6^th line.

Line 120 – 121. “The above rearings are kept in LEAZ for more than 20 years” -> delete

REPLY: Done, we have deleted this sentence.

Line 132. “Within each vial, ten individuals of each species were placed, with separate series of vials for each species." -> How was the sex ratio of the insects? Since the number of insects used in the experiment is small, the sex ratio could have an effect on the results.

REPLY: We have added “ten adult beetles of mixed sex of each species were placed”, see the sub-section 2.3 Bioassay protocol 9^th line. Ten individuals were used in many published papers, such as Gourgouta et al. (2021), Agrafioti et al., (2020) and Agrafioti and Athanassiou (2018).

References

• Gourgouta, M., Agrafioti, P., Athanassiou, C.G. (2021). Immediate and delayed effects of short exposures to phosphine on adults and larvae of the khapra beetle, Trogoderma granarium. Journal of Stored Product Research 90, 101737.
• Agrafioti, P., Kaloudis, E., Bantas, S., Sotiroudas, V., Athanassiou, C.G. (2021). Phosphine distribution and insect mortality in commercial metal shipping contains using wireless sensors and CFD modeling. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 184, 106087.
• Agrafioti, P., Athanassiou, C.G. (2018). Insecticidal effect of contact insecticides against stored product beetle populations with different susceptible to phosphine. Journal of Stored Products Research 79, 9-15.

Line 134. Was the age of insects which used in this experiment same? And why choose 65 days for measurement? Is it related to storage period or life cycle of the insects? There should be a reason for this.

REPLY: We have added a sentence: “For all tested …. in the tests”, see the sub-section 2.3 Bioassay protocol, 9^th-10^th line. Many research groups have worked with 65 d for progeny production, such as Ksoura et al., (2022), Gourgouta et al. (2019).

References:

Ksoura, T., Agrafioti, P., Tsiropoulos, N.G., Athanassiou, C.G. (2022). Residual efficacy of spinetoram on wheat and maize against Rhyzopertha dominica and Sitophilus oryzae. Journal of Stored Products Research, 95, 101900.

Gourgouta, M., Rumbos, C.I., Athanassiou, C.G. (2019). Residual toxicity of a commercial cymermethrin formulation on grains against major storage beetles. Journal of Stored Products Research 83, 103-109.

 

Line 139. Which statistical program used?

REPLY: The statistical program that was used was SPSS version 25, please see the sub-section 2.4 Statistical analysis, 10^th-11^th line.

 

In Figures, it's a bit confusing because it uses uppercase letters at the same time. It would be better to change one to lowercase. And add the unit of frass.

REPLY: Revised as suggested, see Figures 1, 2 and 3.

 

Number of insect damaged kernels -> Number of damaged kernels

Weight of insect damaged kernels -> Weight of damaged kernels. And it would be relative weight.

REPLY: Revised, as suggested. Please see Figures 1 and 2.

 

In Figure 1, the number of progeny production at 100% treatment was about 20, however, the number of damaged kernel and weight loss was 0. It seems a bit weird. How these values ​​were measured should be described with more detailed.

REPLY: In Figure 1, at 100% the progeny production of S. oryzae was about 20. We have discussed it in the sub-section 4. Discussion, 1^st paragraph 16^th-25^th lines and 3^rd paragraph 16^th -19^th, regarding the detrimental effect.

 

As the effect of fortification on stored product insects seem to conflict, it is difficult to interpret results. If a positive control group was included in the experiment, it would have been very helpful in interpreting the results. Moreover, if there were measurement results before 65 days later, it seems to be meaningful to see gradual change.

REPLY: Thank you for this comment. We will keep this notification in our future studies.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper represents the first study on the impact of fortification of white rice with spearmint and basil on progeny production of major stored product pests and their feeding indices. The aim is clearly written, methods are replicable, results well interpreted and discussion is relevant. 

However, I suggest minor changes:

Please correct the following:

Rephrase line 67: One additional example is given by Igoumenidis et al. (12) that examined fortified white rice with spearmint using a conventional rice cooking process, indicating promising results 

line 112: White rice (400g) was fortified by boiling for 18 min in excess quantity (4 L).....

Also, please describe what does "excess quantity" mean in this case?

Sentence at line 127 - did combinations with non-fortified rice mean entire amount was unboiled rice. Also, is the fortified rice practically boiled rice? Please clarify this issue

Line 132: Do you know the sex ration for each species?

line 137: suggest to leave only grains or kernels..  

line 157: Please use the information from the legend of the figure in textual interpretation, where you are describing the results presented on figures

line 158: Suggest to change the name of the Table, without mentioning statistical terms:

Table 1. Sitophilus oryzae population growth and rice quality parameters [frass, number of damaged kernels (NDK) and weight of damaged kernels (WDK)] in different treatments with spearmint and basil fortified and unfortified rice. 

 

line 161: please explain or mention O’Brien test for fortification in Material and methods section

 

line 165 please correct :... Leveve test for treatment into correct name

 On figures insert the unites measured on axes

 

 line 202: the same comment for the Table title as for the previous one

 

 line 205: Please use the information from the legend in textual interpretation where you are  describing the results presented on figures (for example in line 190, line 193...). 

 

 

line 224: the same comment for the Table title as for the previous one

the same comment for data presented beneath the figures 1 and 2 - allocate them in the plain text where you are describing the results presented on figures.

 

 

Author Response

Ref: Manuscript ID: agronomy-1858385

Title: Population growth of major stored product insects on rice fortified with spearmint and basil

 

Dear Dr. Sha,

Thank you for your letter regarding our paper entitled: “Population growth of major stored product insects on rice fortified with spearmint and basil”. The comments of the reviewers are valuable and contribute greatly to the improvement of our work. In the following we shall refer to these comments, which, as you can see have been addressed/incorporated.

I remain at your disposal should you need additional information.

Many thanks for your interest on our work.

Sincerely,

Paraskevi Agrafioti

 

Reviewer 2:

The paper represents the first study on the impact of fortification of white rice with spearmint and basil on progeny production of major stored product pests and their feeding indices. The aim is clearly written, methods are replicable, results well interpreted and discussion is relevant. 
REPLY: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the comments and recommendations on improving the quality of the manuscript before resubmission. A revised version is submitted with the proposed corrections/additions addressed. A point by point reply on each comment/correction can be found below.

 

However, I suggest minor changes: Please correct the following:

Rephrase line 67: One additional example is given by Igoumenidis et al. (12) that examined fortified white rice with spearmint using a conventional rice cooking process, indicating promising results 

REPLY: This paragraph has been deleted, as suggested by Reviewer 3.

 

line 112: White rice (400g) was fortified by boiling for 18 min in excess quantity (4 L).

REPLY: Revised as suggested, see the 3^rd line in the sub-section 2.1 Preparation of commodity.

Also, please describe what does "excess quantity" mean in this case?

REPLY: Revised, the term “excess quantity” has been removed.

Sentence at line 127 - did combinations with non-fortified rice mean entire amount was unboiled rice. Also, is the fortified rice practically boiled rice? Please clarify this issue

REPLY: The non-fortified rice was not boiled, whereas the fortified rice with spearmint or basil was boiled as described in the sub-section 2.1 Preparation of commodity.

 

Line 132: Do you know the sex ration for each species?

REPLY: Ten adult beetles of mixed sex of each species were used, please see the sub-section 2.3 Bioassay protocol, 9^th line.

 

line 137: suggest to leave only grains or kernels..  

REPLY: Revised.

line 157: Please use the information from the legend of the figure in textual interpretation, where you are describing the results presented on figures

REPLY: We would like to propose to maintain the figures and the legend of figures as they are, since they are more comprehensive for the reader to follow the manuscript.

line 158: Suggest to change the name of the Table, without mentioning statistical terms: Table 1. Sitophilus oryzae population growth and rice quality parameters [frass, number of damaged kernels (NDK) and weight of damaged kernels (WDK)] in different treatments with spearmint and basil fortified and unfortified rice. 

REPLY: ANOVA Table for population growth was mentioned in Tables. 

 

line 161: please explain or mention O’Brien test for fortification in Material and methods section

REPLY: We have added O’Brein test in the sub-section 2.4 Statistical analysis, please see the 3^rd line.

 

line 165 please correct :... Leveve test for treatment into correct name

REPLY: Revised as suggested.

 

On figures insert the unites measured on axes

REPLY: We have revised the Figures, as suggested.

 

line 202: the same comment for the Table title as for the previous one

REPLY: Please see the above comment.

 

line 205: Please use the information from the legend in textual interpretation where you are describing the results presented on figures (for example in line 190, line 193...). 

REPLY: We would like to propose to maintain the figures and the legend of figures as they are, since they are more comprehensive for the reader to follow the manuscript.

line 224: the same comment for the Table title as for the previous one

REPLY: Please see the above comment.

the same comment for data presented beneath the figures 1 and 2 - allocate them in the plain text where you are describing the results presented on figures.

REPLY: Please see the above comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript describes the sensitivities of a rice product fortified with orchids 13 or basil to three species of stored product insects. The results can be used to encourage further use of the characteristics of fortified rice for storage pest control. However, there are a few changes that need to be made:
1. The names of three types of insect products are summarized in italics
2. The fourth paragraph of the introduction, line 62 to 69, is not relevant to your content and should be deleted
3. Most importantly, the results are poorly expressed. First of all, you can't use "Sitophilus oryzae" or "Rhyzopertha dominica" for the results. Second, the results should compare different responses of different pests to fortified rice, not the differences between individuals you described. I suggest that the result should be a comparison of different responses, such as offspring yield (A), FRASS (B), number of grains infested (C) and weight of grains infested with the insects.

4. The discussion should focus on the results of your own research. For example, what are the reasons for the different effects on different pests? Are there any studies on this?

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Ref: Manuscript ID: agronomy-1858385

Title: Population growth of major stored product insects on rice fortified with spearmint and basil

 

Dear Dr. Sha,

Thank you for your letter regarding our paper entitled: “Population growth of major stored product insects on rice fortified with spearmint and basil”. The comments of the reviewers are valuable and contribute greatly to the improvement of our work. In the following we shall refer to these comments, which, as you can see have been addressed/incorporated.

I remain at your disposal should you need additional information.

Many thanks for your interest on our work.

Sincerely,

Paraskevi Agrafioti

 

 

Reviewer 3:

This manuscript describes the sensitivities of a rice product fortified with orchids 13 or basil to three species of stored product insects. The results can be used to encourage further use of the characteristics of fortified rice for storage pest control. However, there are a few changes that need to be made:

REPLY: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the comments and recommendations on improving the quality of the manuscript before resubmission. A revised version is submitted with the proposed corrections/additions addressed. A point by point reply on each comment/correction can be found below.

 

1. The names of three types of insect products are summarized in italics

REPLY: Revised, please see 4^th-5^th line.

2. The fourth paragraph of the introduction, line 62 to 69, is not relevant to your content and should be deleted

REPLY: Done, as suggested.

 

3. Most importantly, the results are poorly expressed. First of all, you can't use "Sitophilus oryzae" or "Rhyzopertha dominica" for the results. Second, the results should compare different responses of different pests to fortified rice, not the differences between individuals you described. I suggest that the result should be a comparison of different responses, such as offspring yield (A), FRASS (B), number of grains infested (C) and weight of grains infested with the insects.
   REPLY: The results were presented separately for each species (3.1 Sitophilus oryzae, 3.2 Rhyzopertha dominica and 3.3 Oryzaephilus surinamensis), so it is more perspicuous for the reader to follow the manuscript. We would like to propose to maintain the results as they are. In the discussion section, we have compared our results with some other published papers, see 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd paragraph.

 

4. The discussion should focus on the results of your own research. For example, what are the reasons for the different effects on different pests? Are there any studies on this?

REPLY: The discussion was revised, please see the 1^st and 3^rd paragraph.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Congratulations to the authors of the work

Author Response

Ref: Manuscript ID: agronomy-1858385

Title: Population growth of major stored product insects on rice fortified with spearmint and basil

 

Dear Dr. Sha,

Thank you for your letter regarding our paper entitled: “Population growth of major stored product insects on rice fortified with spearmint and basil”. The comments of the reviewers are valuable and contribute greatly to the improvement of our work. In the following we shall refer to these comments, which, as you can see have been addressed/incorporated.

I remain at your disposal should you need additional information.

Many thanks for your interest on our work.

Sincerely,

Paraskevi Agrafioti

 

Reviewer 4:

Congratulations to the authors of the work

REPLY: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx