An Assessment of Steinernema rarum as a Biocontrol Agent in Sugarcane with Focus on Sphenophorus levis, Host-Finding Ability, Compatibility with Vinasse and Field Efficacy
, David I. Shapiro-Ilan 2, Selcuk Hazir 3, Cesar Junior Bueno 1 and Luis Garrigós Leite 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is well written and contributes to the field.
Author Response
No comments or request or suggestion were presented by the reviewer.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review “An assessment of Steinernema rarum as a biological agent in sugarcane with focus on Sphenophorus levis, Host-finding ability, compatibility with Vinasse and Field Efficacy”. This paper provides valuable information in terms of managing a damaging sugarcane pest. The experiments conducted to provide a holistic evaluation of the opportunity to improve pest management using an alternative EPN. Overall, the paper is well written and provides relevant information to inform and improve pest management decisions.
Throughout the methods sections it was difficult to distinguish the total number of replicates that were performed in each assay/objective. I think this stems from the disconnect between the statement of treatments early on in each section and then later the description of replicating the studies across time. Can the authors reorganize this description and place these details in alignment in the text, clearly stating the total number of reps at each time point and total for the whole assay?
For figure 2, please illustrate what the experimental units without the rhizomes looked like?
In section 2.4, please clarify what the initial infestation levels were.
I would prefer that all of the information in section 2.6 be moved to the end of the description of the experiments themselves. Please clearly identify what the variables were that were used in each model. Explicitly sate what the simple effects were. This can either be done in the text or presented in a table.
Specific Line Edits:
42: disseminated should be replaced with occurs
50: tent should be tend
57-58: word ordering should be revised to read “nematodes exclusively attack insects”
164: how much of the liquid was absorbed by the straw?
167: what is field capacity?
242: reference to figure 3 should be moved down to line 246 when the authors are referring to the results of the species displayed in that figure
Figure 8: I recommend labeling each panel within this figure A (Sphenophorus levis) and B (Hyponeuma taltula)
340: remove the word due
372: can you provide examples of the organisms that are antagonistic to nematodes that are stimulated by the application of vinasse in the field
377: remove to
393-397: the connection of this discussion to the current experiment are not clear, text needs to be elaborated OR removed from the discussion
430-432: I recommend highlighting the importance of this priority, which I think is number one, given what is presented in the current study
433-445: In this final paragraph include a discussion of how S. rarum compare to other species (i.e. what is their unique utility in the system)
443: “the frequent application of vinasse” this excerpt provides the opportunity to plug the results again and remind the reader of best practices with these applications and the impacts on the EPN
Author Response
Throughout the methods sections it was difficult to distinguish the total number of replicates that were performed in each assay/objective. I think this stems from the disconnect between the statement of treatments early on in each section and then later the description of replicating the studies across time. Can the authors reorganize this description and place these details in alignment in the text, clearly stating the total number of reps at each time point and total for the whole assay?
For all experiments, we mentioned “Each treatment had ….X… replications, each replication consisting of…….”
For figure 2, please illustrate what the experimental units without the rhizomes looked like?
The basin is the experimental unit or plot. We cannot understand the suggestion, why to show the basin without the rhizomes? We prefer to keep just one illustration.
In section 2.4, please clarify what the initial infestation levels were.
Accepted
I would prefer that all of the information in section 2.6 be moved to the end of the description of the experiments themselves. Please clearly identify what the variables were that were used in each model. Explicitly sate what the simple effects were. This can either be done in the text or presented in a table.
We appreciate the suggestion but it is more common and organized to present the statistical analyses in a separated section. We corrected some mistakes and tried to make this section clearer.
Specific Line Edits:
42: disseminated should be replaced with occurs
Accepted
50: tent should be tend
Accepted
57-58: word ordering should be revised to read “nematodes exclusively attack insects”
Accepted
164: how much of the liquid was absorbed by the straw?
Accepted
167: what is field capacity?
Field capacity: a very know technical term used to described the maximum amount of liquid a substrate can retain
242: reference to figure 3 should be moved down to line 246 when the authors are referring to the results of the species displayed in that figure
Accepted
Figure 8: I recommend labeling each panel within this figure A (Sphenophorus levis) and B (Hyponeuma taltula)
Accepted
340: remove the word due
Accepted
372: can you provide examples of the organisms that are antagonistic to nematodes that are stimulated by the application of vinasse in the field
Accepted, we stated the following sentence: “………such as fungi, bacteria and other microorganisms.”
377: remove to
Accepted
393-397: the connection of this discussion to the current experiment are not clear, text needs to be elaborated OR removed from the discussion
Accepted: ”In a similar study, mixtures of S. carpocapsae plus H. bacteriophora……”
430-432: I recommend highlighting the importance of this priority, which I think is number one, given what is presented in the current study
Accepted
“Moreover, the experiments conducted in laboratory and field conditions proved vinasse is compatible to infective juveniles of S. rarum when applied to the soil or to the straw. However, further studies should also be carried out in order to assess the persistence of S. rarum in a sugarcane field with and without fertigation using vinasse. However……..”
433-445: In this final paragraph include a discussion of how S. rarum compare to other species (i.e. what is their unique utility in the system)
It was compared in the two firsts studies to assess S. rarum, S. carpocapse and H. bacteriophaga. So far, this is the first study testing S. rarum in sugarcane field.
However, we added the sentence “This study is the first to assess S. rarum in a sugarcane field and highlight its potential to control S. levis in the crop”
443: “the frequent application of vinasse” this excerpt provides the opportunity to plug the results again and remind the reader of best practices with these applications and the impacts on the EPN
Accepted
………; thus, application of vinasse may be recommended along with the nematode application.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This is an excellent paper in which the authors present the results of laboratory and field investigation of the efficacy of single use of two EPNs species and their mixture against important pests of sugarcane in Brasil. The authors used suitable methods, statistical analysis and many of the most important references for presenting the results in suitable manner. I suggest to publish a paper, however before final acceptation I suggest to improve the paper in the following places:
p. 2, line 54: I suggest to add some references, for example: LAZNIK et al., 2010. Control of the Colorado potato beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata [Say]) on potato under field conditions: a comparison of the efficacy of foliar application of two strains of Steinernema feltiae (Filipjev) and spraying with thiametoxam. Journal of plant diseases and protection, 117, 3: 129-135.
p. 2, lines 85 and 87: I suggest to add the name of the location, its latitude, altitude and height above the sea level
p. 5, lines 182 and 203: I suggest to add the name of the location, its latitude, altitude and height above the sea level
p. 5, lines 189 and 211: What was the area of the experimental plots?
p. 11, lines 365: When the species is first mentioned in the text, it should be written will full Latin name (including the name of the author/s). This requirement applies to the entire article.
he area of ​​the experimental plots
Author Response
line 54: I suggest to add some references, for example: LAZNIK et al., 2010. Control of the Colorado potato beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata [Say]) on potato under field conditions: a comparison of the efficacy of foliar application of two strains of Steinernema feltiae (Filipjev) and spraying with thiametoxam. Journal of plant diseases and protection, 117, 3: 129-135.
We appreciate the suggestion but we preferred not include the reference since we included several other ones that describe the issue.
lines 85 and 87: I suggest to add the name of the location, its latitude, altitude and height above the sea level
Accepted
lines 182 and 203: I suggest to add the name of the location, its latitude, altitude and height above the sea level
Accepted
lines 189 and 211: What was the area of the experimental plots?
Accepted
lines 365: When the species is first mentioned in the text, it should be written will full Latin name (including the name of the author/s). This requirement applies to the entire article.
Accepted
The area of ​​the experimental plots
Accepted
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
