Changes in the Physiological Adaptation and Regulation Ability in Harmonia axyridis under Chlorpyrifos and Imidacloprid Stress
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study has scientific relevance, however, it needs to be further explored. I recommend major revisions be made.
Introduction – weak, with little relevant information. Sentences without connections. Random words.
Line 37-38: remove “especially aphids”
First paragraph – is confusing and should be reviewed
Line 52 – If it was introduced in 1991, it is not new!!!
Lines 57-59: neo-nicotinic drugs? ?? It is a pesticide, not a drug. And neonicotinoid doesn’t have a hyphen. The last sentence does not make sense.
Lines 65-68: reference?
Line 69: what are paddy field pests and planthoppers? Why are they in that sentence?
Lines 88-93: this paragraph needs to be rewritten; there is no connection between the sentences.
Why do you talk about pest resistance? This is not the purpose of the study.
Lines 104-114: Treatments should be better explained.
Lines 197-199: That information should be at the bottom of the results table.
Line 127: Why did you not analyze the life table parameters?
Line 202: Where is the statistical analysis?
Line 316: replace “effects” with “affect”
Line 321: You didn’t have a statistical analysis; you need that to compare treatments
Discussion: the discussion needs to be improved.
Author Response
List of Responses
Dear Reviewers,
We would like to express our sincere thanks to the reviewers for the constructive comments, which are all valuable and very helpful in improving the quality of our MS. We have read carefully the comments and made modifications that we hope you’re your expectations. Revised portions are indicated detailed in the revised version. Point-by-point responses to your comments are as following.
Response to Reviewer:
- Comment: Introduction – weak, with little relevant information. Sentences without connections. Random words.
Response: We thank you for the valuable suggestions. We reorganized and rewritten some paragraph of the part.
- Comment: Line 37-38: remove “especially aphids”
Response: Revised as the suggestion, remove “especially aphids”, reviewed and rewritten first paragraph.
- Comment: Line 52 – If it was introduced in 1991, it is not new!!!
Response: We changed it to “an important nenicotinic insecticide”.
- Comment: Lines 57-59: neo-nicotinic drugs? ?? It is a pesticide, not a drug. And neonicotinoid doesn’t have a hyphen. The last sentence does not make sense.
Response: “neo-nicotinic drugs” changed to “nenicotinic insecticide”, and the last sentence changed to “in some species pesticide resistance is a barrier to control the pest effectively.”
- Comment: Lines 65-68: reference?
Response: We have added references to support the opinion.
- Comment: Line 69: what are paddy field pests and planthoppers? Why are they in that sentence?
Response: The Line 69 was changed to “So far, most studies have focused on efficiency of pests control using pesticides, and there is still a lack of physiological information on the long-term effects of insecticides to the natural enemy - ladybirds, such as changes of Trehalose content, glucose content, trehalase activity”.
- Comment: Lines 88-93: this paragraph needs to be rewritten; there is no connection between the sentences.
Why do you talk about pest resistance? This is not the purpose of the study.
Response: We have rewritten this paragraph as your suggestion.
- Comment: Lines 104-114: Treatments should be better explained.
Response: There are control group and 4 treated groups in this experiment. The first, control group: 4th instar H. axyridis starvation for 12h, and then feed on aphids; The second group marked as Ti-Ha: the 4th instar H. axyridis individuals were drip-fed with imidacloprid and the common aphids (not treated with insecticides) were fed after 12 h starvation; The third group marked as Ti-Ag: where H. axyridis individuals were treated with 12 h starvation (not treated with insecticides) then fed with pea aphids which were sprayed with imidacloprid; The forth group marked as Tc-Ha: the 4th instar H. axyridis individuals were drip-fed with chlorpyrifos and common pea aphids(not treated with insecticides)were fed after 12 h starvation; The fifth group marked as Tc-Ag: where H. axyridis individuals starvation for 12 h then fed on pea aphids which were treated with chlorpyrifos.
- Comment: Lines 197-199: That information should be at the bottom of the results table.
Response: All results presented by pictures and differences within groups were presented by asterisk. An asterisk indicates a statistically significant difference (P <0.05, t-test), and a double asterisk indicates a highly significant difference (P<0.01, t-test).
- Comment: Line 127: Why did you not analyze the life table parameters?
Response: The purpose of this study is to understand the physiological changes of Harmonia axyridis treated with insecticides. And the phenotypic observation showed that only the pupae of ladybirds in Ti-Ag group could not develop to adult, other groups were successfully developed to adult. So the developmental duration (from pupa to adult) changes of ladybirds between treatments and control was analyzed (Fig3.b).
- Comment: Line 202: Where is the statistical analysis?
Response: The results presented in Pic. 3b, Figure 3b shows that the pupal stage of the Tc-Ag group was 6.8 days (df = 14, q = 12.63, p<0.05), which was significantly longer than the control, while for Ti-Ha, Ti-Ag, and Tc-Ha treatments the respective erosion periods lasted 5.3, 0, and 5.15 days, which were not significantly different from the control group (Figure 3b).
- Comment: Line 316: replace “effects” with “affect”
Response: Do as your suggestion.
- Comment: Line 321: You didn’t have a statistical analysis; you need that to compare treatments; Discussion: the discussion needs to be improved.
Response: Statistical analysis of the data has been carried out during the mapping process. The asterisk presented based on the statistical analysis. The discussion has been revised as your suggestion
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper titled Changes in the physiological adaptation and regulation ability 2 in Harmonia axyridis under chlorpyrifos and imidacloprid stress is well written and provides valuable information to the readers. However, some suggestions and correction need to be carried out
1. Abstracts need to be concise and clear; the current abstract is too long and too explaining. Just need to express the findings and results in the abstract. In a very first glimpse abstract need to attractive and able to provide basic information about the work.
2. Line 17, 18. 19 and 20 there is no need to explain all things, repetition of results
3. Line 51 Imidacloprid is banned in California's Department of Pesticide Regulation has proposed limiting outdoor uses of imidacloprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran and thiomethoxam on crops that are attractive to bees. What is the basic reason using two insecticides? It based on worldwide application.
4. Line 88-93 the aim of study is little confusing need to rewrite, not clear.
5. Line 100 broad bean font is bigger?
6. Line 124 why use dip method? Contact and residual method is more suitable for this study. The beetles face insecticides in form of sprays or trans locants, did you think dipping is appropriate.
7. Future perspectives of study and future recommendation are missing
Author Response
List of Responses
Dear Reviewers,
We would like to express our sincere thanks to the reviewers for the constructive comments, which are all valuable and very helpful in improving the quality of our MS. We have read carefully the comments and made modifications that we hope you’re your expectations. Revised portions are indicated detailed in the revised version. Point-by-point responses to your comments are as following.
Response to Reviewer :
- Comment: Abstracts need to be concise and clear; the current abstract is too long and too explaining. Just need to express the findings and results in the abstract. In a very first glimpse abstract need to attractive and able to provide basic information about the work.
Response: Thank you so much for your valuable comments and suggestions. We rewritten the abstracts section as your suggestions.
- Comment: Line 17, 18. 19 and 20 there is no need to explain all things, repetition of results.
Response: Changed as your suggestion.
- Comment: Line 51 Imidacloprid is banned in California's Department of Pesticide Regulation has proposed limiting outdoor uses of imidacloprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran and thiomethoxam on crops that are attractive to bees. What is the basic reason using two insecticides? It based on worldwide application.
Response: Imidacloprid is a highly effective nicotine insecticide and Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphorus pesticide, both are highly effective, broad-spectrum pesticides that are widely used worldwide, especially in China, mainly used to control rice, wheat, cotton and other crops on the stab-sucking mouth pests.
- Comment: Line 88-93 the aim of study is little confusing need to rewrite, not clear.
Response: Do as your suggestion.
5. Comment: Line 100 broad bean font is bigger?
Response: Do as your suggestion.
- Comment: Line 124 why use dip method? Contact and residual method is more suitable for this study. The beetles face insecticides in form of sprays or trans locants, did you think dipping is appropriate.
Response: Thank you so much for your valuable comments and suggestions. Contact and residual is indeed more effective when the ladybird is alone. However, in this study, Aphids and ladybird were mixed-reared, Contact and residual, the aphids will affect the result, so dip method was used in the experiments.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
After the corrections, the paper is ready for publication.
