Next Article in Journal
Different Concentrations of Chemical Topping Agents Affect Cotton Yield and Quality by Regulating Plant Architecture
Previous Article in Journal
Construction and Functional Evaluation of CRISPR/Cas9 Multiple Knockout Vectors of the FAD2 Gene Family
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Predation and Control Effect of Eupeodes corollae Fabricius (Diptera: Syrphidae) on Leguminous Plant Aphids

Agronomy 2023, 13(7), 1739; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13071739
by Shanshan Jiang, Hui Li and Kongming Wu *
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Agronomy 2023, 13(7), 1739; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13071739
Submission received: 25 May 2023 / Revised: 21 June 2023 / Accepted: 26 June 2023 / Published: 28 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Pest and Disease Management)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

see in attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

请参阅附件,谢谢。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper appears to be a study like that previously reported by Li et al.. The methods are well described and clear, and the experiment well done – though error bars would be useful.  

The Holling type I, II and III functional responses were used in the study of the attack rates of the 2nd and 3rd instar E. corollae larvae which clearly shows response differences. No reference to Holling was made in that section. The authors attempt to interpret model parameters for each species. For example, the highest Ci was found for A. craccivora, largely due to its higher nutritional returns among these three kinds of aphids, and yet I found no evidence of higher nutritional value. Further, the second- and third-instar larvae of E. corollae all showed a Holling type II functional response when feeding on A. craccivora, M. persicae, or M. japonica. This precludes type III because search was conducted in a confined environment.  I kept wondering why the data weren’t analyzed using multivariate statistics – one didn’t need ANOVA to know the response to species were different. Further the initial and maximum experimental densities differed – why were they not the same (table 1) which made the results in Fig. 5 more difficult to interpret.

Table 3 3rd, 6th , 9th and 12th need a label of days –I suppose.

Terms like Preventative Efficiency, benefit-harm ratio, predatory selectivity are attack efficiency, initial predator prey ratios, and prey preference. These new terms cloud the issue and should be replaced by standard terms. The authors would benefit from reading books by C.B. Huffaker and others on biological control

I wonder what the contribution to biological control is. Natural control is that which occurs naturally in the environment and biological control is the introduction of exotic natural enemies to control usually exotic pests.  Further, the problem they seek insights on is a field problem as the authors recognize that abiotic factors and interactions with other natural enemies are important.

I applaud the authors -- the English was well done -- I can't imagine writing such a paper in Mandarin. I had a few issues with new terms and the fact that interpretation of the results and the application of the results  to control of aphids was too optimistic. These should be toned back. 

Author Response

  Please see the attachment, thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop