Bean Sprouts, Lettuce, and Milk as Water Sources in Tenebrio molitor Larval Growth
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript “Bean sprouts, lettuce, and milk as water sources in Tenebrio molitor larval growth" is interesting because it investigates an aspect that is poorly considered in the feeding of farmed tenebrio: the management of the water source. However, the effects of the different water source are evaluated only on larval weight and nutrient content, while the analysis of larval development times would have given further value to the manuscript. In Materials and Methods, a table of different treatments would help readers. In the results, check for some unclear statements. Conclusions should be improved and references completed according to journal guidelines.
Below are the specific comments:
SUMMARY
Line 18: please, delete “(and other seasonal leafy vegetables)”: the study does not demonstrate this.
INTRODUCTION
Line 42: please, replace “2” with “two”.
Line 55: integrate with use in aquaculture, having been the first authorised sector .
Line 56: reference [9] is not specific to the sentence.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Line 106: please, replace “;” with “:”.
Line 106-119: a table/scheme would help the reader to focus on the treatments.
Line 123: please, delete “In the tables and figures,” .
Line 129: please, delete “fodder based on”.
Figure 1: Figure 1A is out of focus. If possible, replace with a better photo.
RESULTS
Line 156- 165: this is a preliminary test not described in M&M. It should be mentioned in M&M as justification for the choice to use milk and not water. If necessary, use the additional materials to describe the preliminary test and its results.
Line 173: please, replace “8” with “eight”.
Line 174-175: in this sentence it is superfluous to cite Figure 2 because the described results relate only to Table 2.
Line 175-176: please, check the structure of sentence.
Figure 3: this figure repeats the data shown in Table 2: delete
Line 188: the results in figure 2 are poorly valued. It would appear that the larvae in the high water level treatments are pupating, while the low level ones are still in the delayed growth phase. If the hypothesis is correct, is it possible to add data about it?
Tab 2: delete, excess decimals (Day 46/Level High).
Line 224-225: check, sentence is not supported by the data in Table 2
Line 231: check, sentence is not supported by the data in Table 2
Line 252: for homogeneity, it is better to indicate the % increase (as in A and B).
DISCUSSION
Line 322-324: This is an important aspect and not sufficiently developed in the discussions. In Figure 2 it seems that some of the treatments are still growing. So the availability of water greatly influenced development times. The authors could comment and quantify whether the low level was sub-optimal and hypothesize an optimal water intake.
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions should be better focused on the main results and possible developments.
DATA AVALAIBILITY STATEMENT
Please, why not applicable?
REFERENCES
Complete according to the journal guidelines.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English language requires moderate editing
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper presents results on T. molitor rearing under different diets. The study may of a certain practical interest. The research was adequately planned, and results are clearly presented. However, some aspects should be improved.
General comments
1. Provide details about how larvae were weighted. Instrument sensitivity? Di you measure fresh or dry weight? Were individual larvae weighted separately, or groups of larvae were weighted and then individual weight obtained by divided the total weight by the number of individuals?
2. Statistical analyses. Provide full results (SS, df, F, p levels, etc.) for all ANOVAs. These new tables can be included as supplementary materials.
3. Improve resolution for Figure 1, 3, 4 (these figures are blurred)
4. Reference do not follow journal style. Revise.
Specific comments/language corrections
Line 13: revise grammar. “amin” is not appropriate here
14: yellow mealworm, a larva of one of the beetle species (Tenebrio molitor), is the most ->
yellow mealworms (larvae of the beetle Tenebrio molitor) are the most
16: rely on seasonal leafy vegetables -> rely on leafy vegetables
24: farming necessitates careful -> farming needs careful
26: geographically, necessitating the -> geographically, which calls for
31: weeks. Results show that when provided -> weeks. When provided
33: I cannot understand likewise here
42: in the recent 2 decades -> in the last two decades
45: friendly –> sustainable
52 do not use italics for Coleoptera
56: Revise grammar and punctuation: I cannot understand this sentence
57: countries including, within the European union Do you mean alla EU or only some countries within EU? Revise, grammar is unclear
71: such as carrots, and lettuce -> such as carrots and lettuce
73-74: any reference to support this sentence?
106: The treatments included; L-1 ( -> The treatments included: L-1 (
175: “Figure 2 and the. Data shows”. This does not make sense. Please, revise.
180: presented in in Table 2 -> presented in Table 2
228: … replacing 50% of vegetable sources with milk resulted…. This part is unclear, please revise
234: … replacing 50% 234 of vegetable sources with milk… This part is unclear, please revise
263-4: Thus, it was concluded that all three types of water source material could affect the larval growth to a -> Thus, we can conclude that all three types of water source material affect the larval growth to a
270: There is no significant result in this table. Thus the sentence “means without superscript letters are not significantly different …” is not appropriate. I suggest: “row. All means are not significantly different …”
286: dramatic effects -> the importance of
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageLanguage is acceptable. A few sentence need revision (see my specific comments)
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
