An Age-Stage, Two-Sex Life Table for Megalurothrips usitatus Feeding on Eight Different Crop Plants
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this study entitled “An age-stage, two-sex life table for Megalurothrips usitatus feeding on eight different crop plant”, researchers used an age-stage, two-sex life table analysis to study how M. usitatus develops and reproduces on eight different crop plants. The study on the pest Megalurothrips usitatus (Bagnall) feeds on young plant tissues and can significantly damage crop yield by wilting, deforming leaves, and harming flowers and fruits. An age-stage and sex life table research is essential to reduce the loss of crop yield and could pave the way for mitigating the management of this important agricultural pest. After revising the following comments, I think we can suggest the editor consider publishing this manuscript.
The manuscript needs revisions. The following suggestions are provided only to help the authors improve on the currently submitted version of the manuscript.
Comment 1:
In the result section, the authors have presented significant differences in the lifespan and reproductive capacity of M. usitatus when fed on different host plants. The detailed breakdown of lifespan by gender and species provides valuable insight into the pest's biology and host preference. However, the authors could enhance clarity by summarizing critical trends in a table format, making it easier for readers to compare results across different plants.
Comment 2:
The data supports that female thrips have longer lifespans than males across all host plants. The explanation of females being the dominant sex for population growth could be expanded. Exploring potential biological mechanisms or ecological factors driving this difference would benefit the authors. Are there specific possible physiological reasons or energy allocation strategies that account for longer female lifespans across all plants?
Comment 3:
According to the host suitability and population growth, the result showed that cowpea, vigna cylindrica, and green beans are the most suitable hosts, as indicated by both longer adult lifespan and higher egg production, which aligns with the broader conclusion. However, the findings on crops like courgette, wax gourd, and bitter gourd, which do not sustain the thrips population, could be further contextualized regarding pest management. Could these host plants be used strategically in crop rotation or intercropping systems to suppress thrips populations?
Comment 4:
In statistical analysis, significant differences between host plants are mentioned. To provide more precision, a clearer indication of the statistical tests used and their significance levels (e.g., p-values or confidence intervals) could be included in the results. This would strengthen the interpretation of the data and provide readers with a better understanding of the reliability of these findings.
Comment 5: In Figures 1 and 2, please put the levels like a, b, c…. at the top of each figure and make sure the alignment is in the same line and keep it a single page.
Comment 6: Please add 3-5 relevant references in the reference section.
Comment 7: In Table 3, please elaborate on each of these R0, r, λ, T, d in the down of the table. R0 is supposed to be R0.
Line 25: M. usitatus make italic.
Based on the above-aforementioned points, I suggest that the manuscript be revised. Addressing these points will greatly improve the manuscript and could have a valuable impact on the field of pest management research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this study, the authors use the two-sex life table methodology to determine the population parameters of Megalurothrips usitatus. The work is relevant for integrated pest management and allows us to know which crops are potentially more susceptible to significant attacks by this insect. In general, the experimental methodology and data analysis are appropriate.
However, some aspects are important to review and adjust so that the work is publishable.
Authors should be careful about the correct format for scientific names, in italics and with the first letter capitalized for the genus. There are numerous parts of the text where this needs to be adjusted. Several cases are identified in the attachment.
Line 83: Why is the number of larvae used in cowpea larger, compared to the other host plants?
Line 95: Survival data are binomial or proportions. Anova is not an ideal tool for this kind of data. The appropriate tool could be a GLM with binomial distribution, or beta regression. However, survival analysis with ANOVA is not presented in the results. So, an ANOVA for survival data should not be mentioned in this section.
Results: The names of the host plants used in the text do not match the names used in the tables. This makes the work difficult to understand for a reader who is not familiar with both common names and scientific names. The name of each host plant must be unified throughout the text. The attachment identifies several parts of the text where this occurs.
Discussion: This discussion does not delve into the nutritional differences that exist between the different host plants and that may explain the differences found in the study. The authors are recommended to expand this section, discussing and analyzing the morphological, biochemical, or nutritional characteristics that can explain the differences found in the life tables of M. usitatus on different host plants. This should also be taken into account to complement the introduction.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Minor editing of the English language is recommended, especially in the methods section
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSuggestions:
Lines 74-92: I had difficulty understanding text in 2.2 Methods, so add details to text as noted below.
Lines 68-69: give details about the species names, varietal names and source of seeds. Insect growth often varies across many plant varieties.
Line 79: You mentioned leaf disks (add diameter value) on agar (I assume in centrifuge tube). Note what stage thrips were placed on these disks.
Lines 79-80: were thrips placed inside a cowpea pod or allowed to lay eggs on outside of pod? Were the pods isolated in a screen cage to restrict thrips escape and prevent other thrips getting on the pods?
Line 85 & 89: note frequency of recording growth and survival of larvae, prepupae, pupae and adults. Which is correct data recording time: once or twice a day at leaf replacement times at 8 and 20 hours?
Lines 82-85: I don’t understand how individual first instar thrips were individually reared on leaf trays. Give more details about the leaf trays, keeping thrips separated (individually reared). use of leaf disks inside centrifuge tubes and replacing leaves with fresh leaves (or was it leaf disks?)
Line 89: were fruits removed from plants shortly after bloom and then used for egg laying?
Line 90: This makes no sense, reword -- …Females that could not be paired were supplemented with males …
Line 92: did you record number hatched per female or an accumulative number hatched for all F1 generation females on a plant species? --- …hatching of the F2 generation into 1st instar larvae.
Lines 99-102: define k, x, j, r. I noticed that you did describe x and j in lines 164-165
Lines 110 on: remove redundancy - instar and larva are considered synonyms, so it is preferred to use instar alone in place of instar larvae. This should simplify headings in Table 1.
Results and Tables: I assume all data were recorded as integers, so reduce mean values from hundredths to tenths (actual accuracy). This will simplify text and Tables.
Line 134: cite Table 2 in text -- …lifespan of adult thrips on different plants (Table 2).
Line 147: reword: …differences in the fecundity, number of eggs that hatched into first instar,…
Figure 1: Graph “h” is labeled incorrectly as Momordica charantia and is the same graph as used for graph “e”.
I assume cucumber graph "h" is very different from the graphs a-g because: Table 1 - cucumber does not support development of thrips past prepupal stage. Table 2 - cucumber results in 0 days adult thrips longevity and 0 eggs laid.
Line 194: cite Figure 2 in text -- … similar downward trends (Figure 2).
Line 228: reword from “significantly higher to significantly lower -- …
…The value of r was the highest for cowpea (0.23), followed by green beans and vigna cylindrica (0.21). The r values for courgette, wax gourd, momordica charantia, and soybean were significantly lower than those of the first three plants, being 0.06, 0.05, 0.03, and 0.04, respectively. …
Note: The higher the value of r, the faster the intrinsic growth rate of the population.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments are in the manuscript.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe current version has been revised more than the draft and is considered publishable.
