Assessment of the Effect of Climate Change on Wheat Storage in Northwestern Tunisia: Control of Rhyzopertha dominica by Aeration
, Jameel Mohammed Al-Khayri 2,*, Mohammed Ibrahim Aldaej 2, Mustafa Ibrahim Almaghasla 3,4, Khaled El Moueddeb 1 and Slaheddine Khlifi 5
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled “Assessment of the effect of climate change on wheat storage in Northwestern Tunisia: Control of Rhyzopertha dominica by aeration” has no clear scientific characteristic, prevailing as a work or technical data report, as the STUDY HYPOTHESIS IS NOT CLEAR , in need of further revisions:
Introduction
Fundamentally, it is necessary to demonstrate in the introduction what the real contribution that the study brought to the aeration operation. What is the scientific hypothesis of the study?
Avoid describing already established information, such as the purpose of aeration, what is aeration, etc... Why is it important to know the history of the climate?
Will this information serve as a basis for managing aeration?
What is the study problem to be solved? Justify.
Another important point, why was an evaluation carried out only on Rhyzopertha dominica?
And the other types of insect pests, why were they not evaluated? fungi?? Explain and justify in the introduction.
Material and methods
It is necessary to make clear the obtaining of information/history on the climate during the proposed period. What is the guarantee of accuracy of the information? Justify the choice of evaluated regions?
Has the method employed in this study been used in other works? Is there nothing in the introduction that describes about him?
Justify the 120 hours/15°C choices below? There is no literature that supports the definitions indicated for evaluation in the study! Treatments are confusing.
Results
It prevails as a technical report of data, it is not perceived that it has been scientifically tested.
Discussion
It's OK.
Conclusions
The conclusions must be rewritten. Respond to the scientific hypothesis (must be constructed) and the objectives, in a timely manner. Avoid lengthy discussion of results.
Final considerations
There are several errors in the writing of the text, it needs proofreading.
There are several errors in the writing of the text, it needs proofreading.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
In accordance with the recommendations mentioned in the three evaluation reports, please find attached the requested corrections.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors, I have carefully reviewed the manuscript titled " Assessment of the effect of climate change on wheat storage in Northwestern Tunisia: Control of Rhyzopertha dominica by aeration " and can confirm that the paper is of a good standard. However, I have some minor suggestions for revision before publication. Firstly, it would be beneficial to add some details regarding the environmental conditions that affect the ordination of Rhyzopertha dominica. This could include information on soil conditions and how they may affect the wheat plant. Additionally, it would be useful to discuss the potential of using remote sensing in the identification of optimal agricultural sites for wheat production without pathogens. This would add further depth to the paper and expand on the findings presented. Overall, I believe that these minor revisions would significantly improve the manuscript. I look forward to seeing the revised version.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
I have carefully read the paper and found that it has been written in a scientific language that is appropriate for the field of Agronomy Journal. I have noticed some minor English errors in the paper, particularly in terms of grammatical accuracy, word usage, and sentence structure. These errors can be easily corrected by a native English speaker or a professional copyeditor, and they do not affect the clarity or validity of the research presented.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
In accordance with the recommendations mentioned in the three evaluation reports, please find attached the requested corrections.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript was very well written. I might recommend that the abstract contain more background to help set up the problem, but the introduction did this very well. The concept of the study was very interesting and well laid out.
The main comment was a potential typo (in terms of proportions versus percentages) in the results section. Other minor comments are documented in the pdf document attached. These mostly include some spelling and punctuation issues in highlighted locations.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
In accordance with the recommendations mentioned in the three evaluation reports, please find attached the requested corrections.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
