Contrasting Phenotypic Variability of Life-History Traits of Two Feral Populations of Macrolophus pygmaeus (Hemiptera: Miridae) under Two Alternative Diets

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.       In the abstract add about the two diets used and data of selected results.

2.       In this kind of a study the use of a mass reared population would have been of high value to show the differences, also from a practical point of view (see also l. 80, 91)

3.       The future research needs must be given at the end in more detail (see l. 82, 94)

4.       Comparison, l. 98.

5.       Only development? (l. 102)

6.       Give the implications at the conclusions (l. 104)

7.       Give the cv, company, country for the tomato used (l. 118)

8.       Add the location of the greenhouse (l. 128)

9.       Give the diets (l. 153)

10.   Only two diets had been tested (l. 166)

11.   Nine (9) is a very low number of replications for this kind of studies and can be marginally accepted (l. 167)

12.   Quantify, particularly for the T. absoluta eggs (l. 170), were there any larvae available to the predators?

13.   Add letters in each line to indicate the significant differences in the tables. Without letters one cannot assess the significance of the differences and proceed to discussion. In Table 2,  N is needed?

14.   The presentation of the results should be connected with the data given in the tables and presents the significant differences in the values shown. It is confusing to ignore tables and show other values in the text.

15.   The first value of rm of Table 4 is correct?

16.   The discussion is too general and unfocused. Discuss first on the values obtained for each life-trait and parameter in comparison to previous studies for M. pygmaeus used the same diets (l. 364)

17.   It occurred always or for a single population? clarify (l. 388)

18.   Reduce this part, it is too extended without adding important information but mostly speculations (l. 394-413).

19.   Add comments on the practical use of the results, too.

20.   The conclusions have to be rewritten based on the results and the data obtained and then give the future outlook and future research needs directly connected to the data.

Author Response

Please find my notes in the attached pdf file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The study titled "Contrasting phenotypic variability of life-history traits of two feral populations of Macrolophus pygmaeus (Hemiptera: Miridae) under two alternative diets " investigated the life-history traits and population growth parameters in two populations of a mirid predator Macrolophus pygmaeus fed on two lepidopterans prey diet. The subject of the report is important because it would contribute to developing biological control strategies for the tomato leaf miner (Tuta absoluta) pest and the relation between geographic isolation of the population, and biological performance. Possibly this report will interest many scientists and other agricultural stakeholders. However, the draft contains some flaws that would need to be revised before publication.

Abstract

Authors need to rewrite the abstract in one paragraph with a focus on the main findings of the study and their importance from an applied perspective.

Introduction

Line 70. Delete e.g.,

Line 71. Check the verb, it may be ....was reported.....

I also think the sentence is incomplete. For example, when the insect was reported in Azores...?

Line 73. Delete the point after the reference

Line 98. Check the word comparison may be miswritten

Line 102. M. pygmaeus should be in italic

The authors need to rewrite clearly lines 95-105. Reorganize the objectives and hypothesis of the study.

Hypothesis and objectives should be clear and not confusing. For example in lines 101-102, the study hypothesizes a difference in the phenotypic characteristics of two populations of the predator collected from two distinct locations with an expected different genetic diversity. Hence,

-          Authors need to indicate how diference is the genetic diversity is between the two locations (Azores and Portugal mainland). Which is an important indicator to assess the hypothesis and thus understand the discussion section.  

-          it is not clear how this hypothesis relates to the objective: To test the ability of two  predator populations to complete development feeding on T. absoluta eggs.

Lines 99-102. Authors need to provide references that support this information.

Material and methods

Line 110. Correct: stablished = established

Line 117. (40 x 4 x 40 cm). Is this correct?

Line 118. How old was the tomato plant?

Line 120. The authors need to provide the dilution ratio of the honey.

Line 165. Longevity sex-ratio and reproductive performance = Longevity, sex-ratio and reproductive performance

Lines 210-216. Authors need to reorganize the statical analysis, for example, each type of analysis should refer to the data analyzed. I also think this section is not much important and maybe merge with the previous section.

Line 218. Authors need to provide references after the formula

Results

Line 244. df=1          df = 1. Check for this throughout the manuscript

Line 250. Authors should provide footnotes to each table and figure that define the abbreviations as well as the type of analysis for the data.

Line 263. Table 3. Check the value of Adult female longevity for E. Kuehniella in Azores. it looks strange.

Line 269. Is this  P = 0.001 or P < 0.001?

Comment: authors need to check consistency in data reporting. For example, the number of decimals should be the same for Chi-square throughout the paper. Also, the authors should use either the abbreviation X² or the Chi-square everywhere. 

Discussion

Line 370. Such us…= such as…..

Comment: The discussion part needs to be improved. For example, provide an explanation of how the main findings are related to the hypothesis.

Reference

Line 452. Check ref 3, (V capital letter) on the first name of author

Line 461. Check the Species name, it should be in italic

 

Line 552. Species (Lygus lineolaris) should be in italic 

Author Response

Please find my notes in the attached pdf file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Macrolophus pygmaeus is an important predator of lepidopteran pests, which provides an alternative way to control the pest instead of the use of pesticides. In the manuscript, the authors compared the life history traits and population growth parameters between Azorean population and Portugal mainland population of Macrolophus pygmaeus feeding on either Ephestia kuehniella or Tuta absoluta eggs. The result is instrumental to the biological control of insect pests using M. pygmaeus. However, the data are not analyzed with the proper statistical methods since only chi-square test is used to analyzed all the data in the manuscript. To evaluate the effects of geographical populations and diets on predator, the two-way ANOVA should be performed; to evaluate the effects of two populations or two diets on predator, the t test should be performed if the data fit to the parametric analysis. Therefore, the manuscript is not ready for publication before the data are properly analyzed. In addition, the manuscript needs to revise in terms of presentation and descriptions of results. Some comments and suggestions are listed below.

 

Major comments.

1. In methodology, it is better to give map pictures with coordinates where the specimens were collected.

2. In Line 204 and 215, the authors mentioned about Pairwise multi comparisons. However, I couldn’t find any lettering for multiple comparison in all tables. Authors must provide lettering in table which can highlight the significant differences.

3. The descriptions of results are hard to follow, the mentioned a lot of about statistical descriptions rather than to focus on results. Better to rewrite and make it easy to understand for readers.

4. Presentation of data in table 1 and 3 is not up to mark. It would be better if authors can present these two tables in bar chart or line graphs which may be helpful for reader to understand.

5. In line 264-269, the description of results in text is different with the data presented in table; for example female longevity. How did the authors calculate the longevity?

6. In line 263-304, the descriptions of results are very confusing, and I couldn’t understand which results authors described here because the data in text is different with those in table and no citation of table in text.

7. There is no description of why the Azorean populations have better performance than mainland populations in discussion.

 

Minor comments

 

Line 26: landed must be emerged.

Line 29-31: hard to understand. Better to rewrite and divide into two sentences.

Line 36: modified the sentence such as; our results revealed the inexistence of phenotypic differences in life history traits such as developmental time, female longevity, males’ body weight and sex ratios.

Line 51: replace “once” with “as” and “safety” with “safe”.

Line 57: replace costs with loses.

Line 66, 71, 77: Be consistent while using species name in text.

Line 102: italicize the name of species.

Line 110: check the spelling of stablished.

Line 353: be consistent to use of Chi-square or χ2 in text.

Author Response

Please find my notes in the attached pdf file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The comments have been adequately addressed.

Author Response

Many thanks for the additional comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors said that the two-way ANOVA was used to analyze the data, but there are no F values in the text. Please make sure the right statistical methods have been used and the results are properly presented in the text.

Author Response

Many thanks for the additional comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf