The Current State and Future Potential of Microbial Control of Scarab Pests
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Quite a few typos and other formatting issues. I suggest a thorough check again. Otherwise, a very comprehensive article.
Several minor issues in the MS. Most of the suggestions are in the attachment.
Authors seem to have used the words scarab and white grub interchangeably. This is making it difficult to follow if they are referring to the adult stage or the immature stage of the beetles. Particularly, when authors say an entomopathogen is effective against scarab, is it effective against larvae/grub or adults or both? Most of the time it is just the larval stage and more clarity is needed about this throughout the MS. It may be more clear if they use scarab beetles (for adults), scarab larvae or white grubs (for immatures) or something similar.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
line 34: Scarab beetles beetles are not called white grubs, larvae of scarab beetles are. Reword this sentence. Sentence following this may also change based on how you word this sentence.
I removed the term “white grub” here.
line 55: delete one comma
Comma was deleted.
line 59: safety concern of what?
We clarified the safety concerns by adding the following text: “…to health and environmental safety concerns surrounding the use of synthetic insecticides”.
line 93: Unclear sentence.
Sentence was rewritten.
line 99: Italicize
Fixed.
line 134: Italicize all Latin names in this selected area.
Fixed.
line 162, 166: Italicize this and other Latin names thoroughout the MS.
Scientific names were italicized throughout the manuscript.
line 188: Not clear what stage of M. castanea and R majalis? Italicized R. in R. majalis.
We clarified that grubs were affected.
line 199: Check this.
Fixed.
line 200: Authors seem to have used the words scarab and white grub interchangibly, which is not true. This is making it difficult to follow if they are referring to the adult stage or the immature stage of the beetles. Particularly, when authors say this bacteria is effective against scarab, is it effective against larvae/grub or adults or both? More clarity is needed about this thoroughout the MS. It may be more clear if they use scarab beetles (for adults), scarab larvae or grubs (for immatures) or something similar.
We altered the language throughout the text to only refer to larval scarabs as “white grubs” (line 36).
line 205: Full Latin name is needed at the first mention of a species. Consistency is needed thoroughout the MS regarding use of common name or Latin name or both. This seems to be missing, examplke Japanese beetle on line 202, Japanese beetle (P. Japonica) on line 205.
We altered the text so that the first mention of an insect’s includes the latin name, but subsequent references are by their common name. We refer to microbes by their scientific name to better distinguish them from insect taxa.
line 210: This is wrong genus name
Removed.
line 225: Consistency in common name/Latin name use for all the species is needed.
We altered the text so that the first mention of an insect’s includes the latin name, but subsequent references are by their common name. We refer to microbes by their scientific name to better distinguish them from insect taxa.
line 557: strongly
Fixed.
line 560: fast-acting
Fixed.
line 872: Earthworms are also shown to help transfer EPNs and EPFs. This information is missing in the MS.
Good point. We mention it here and have added 3 citations.
line 990: infected
Fixed.
Reviewer 2 Report
Very thorough and accurate manuscript!Few effort must be made from authors to correct some errors considering scientific formatting (italics in latin names etc)
Author Response
Very thorough and accurate manuscript! Few effort must be made from authors to correct some errors considering scientific formatting (italics in latin names etc).
We can fixed all italics for scientific names.
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a review of entomopathogenic microbes for control of scarab pests. Because non-chemical tactics including uses of these agents attract growing attentions, I think this review is potentially valuable for many readers in the field of applied entomological and agricultural sciences. I would like to give some editorial revisions as follows;
1. There are many descriptions of scientific names which are not in italic in the original manuscript; e.g. L. 99, 135, 139, etc. Please revise them in italic carefully.
2. L. 135; P. popilliae -> Paenibacillus popilliae
3. L147, 201; Paenibacillus popillia -> P. popilliae
4. L153-L198; I think “Bt” as a common noun and that as an abbreviation of the scientific name of Bacillus thuringiensis should be describe in different forms. The latter is better to be “B. t.” in italic; for example, Bt tolworthi (L169) -> B. t. tolworthi.
5. L370; more most -> more
6. L495; gypsy moth -> the Entomological Society of America recommend to use “spongy moth” rather than gypsy moth for this species (https://entsoc.org/news/press-releases/spongy-moth-proposed-new-common-name-lymantria-dispar).
7. L701; I think the section of “Protozoa” is better to be placed just after the section of “Fungi”, because members of Microsporida were formerly classified as Protozoa.
Author Response
There are many descriptions of scientific names which are not in italic in the original manuscript; e.g. L. 99, 135, 139, etc. Please revise them in italic carefully.
We have fixed this throughout the text.
135; P. popilliae -> Paenibacillus popilliae
Fixed.
L147, 201; Paenibacillus popillia -> P. popilliae
Fixed.
L153-L198; I think “Bt” as a common noun and that as an abbreviation of the scientific name of Bacillus thuringiensis should be describe in different forms. The latter is better to be “B. t.” in italic; for example, Bt tolworthi (L169) -> B. t. tolworthi.
Respectfully, we feel that the existing notation is more commonly used than B.t. but have made sure to italicize it throughout the text.
L370; more most -> more
Fixed.
L495; gypsy moth -> the Entomological Society of America recommend to use “spongy moth” rather than gypsy moth for this species (https://entsoc.org/news/press-releases/spongy-moth-proposed-new-common-name-lymantria-dispar).
Thanks for the update. We have added the new terminology.
L701; I think the section of “Protozoa” is better to be placed just after the section of “Fungi”, because members of Microsporida were formerly classified as Protozoa.
Good suggestion. We moved it there.
