Seasonal Population Dynamics and Harmfulness of Wheat Thrips in Agrocenoses of Grain Crops

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

The paper entitled " Seasonal population dynamics and harmfulness of wheat thrips in agrocenoses of winter and spring grain crops" was revised. The paper contains exciting information on thrips as a pest of wheat. However, there are some minor things to be addressed by the authors:

1-the tile is seasonally dynamic, which is not in line with the paper. The seasonal dynamics include all seasons with their biodiversity indices included. But the authors included only winter and spring in their study.

2-The GPS coordinates of the location are not provided.

3-The authors should explain why they have selected winter and spring.

4-The information on the microscope should be provided, such as company, country, etc. Additionally, is it a microscope or a stereomicroscope?

5-What correlation method was used for the analysis?

6-The authors indicated the relationship between air temperature and adult thrips in Figure 4. However, the graphs show that the correlation is not that strong in some years. Does the air temperature affect the adult abundance or not? Is it a linear correlation between the air temperature and thrips in wheat cultivation of the areas studied?

Author Response

Dear reviewer! Thank you for your honest assessment of our work. Responses to comments are given in the file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Review of the manuscript (Agriculture-2114120) entitled “Seasonal population dynamics and harmfulness of wheat thrips in agrocenoses of winter and spring grain crops”

 

The submitted manuscript is based on field research data about the wheat thrips, its season based population fluctuation, damage to the crop and natural enemies. The manuscript is written nicely with detailed methodology and results. However, the manuscript requires important reconsiderations (specially the introduction and discussion sections) and is not suitable for publication in its present form. I would call for Major Revisions based on following comments:

 

The trophic level association is not the objective of study

The first few lines of Abstract and most part of the Introduction talk about community structure and trophic level associations. I think, based on the objectives presented, this was not the scope of study. The manuscript (objectives and results) mostly goes with the concepts of population ecology. This is also depicted in the title as “seasonal population dynamics”. Additionally, the studies of trophic associations, ecosystems, food chain and community structures are rather complex and were not covered in the manuscript. I suggest the authors, to modify the manuscript keeping in view the title and objectives and key research players mentioned.

 

The Introduction does not cover the objectives

In addition to its unnecessary length, the Introduction of the manuscript contains irrelevant information and lacks proper citations. One of the reasons is mentioned above. The manuscript is about population of a species, its dynamics and associated damage symptoms. I suggest that Introduction should be precise based on objectives and highlight research gaps to be filled by the data.

 

The Materials and Method section should be re-written

Although detailed, the Materials and Method section has unrelated information and because of that, some relevant information were overlooked. The geography of the research region is not that important to mention, but how the species of pest and predators were identified, is more relevant. I ask the authors to be precise while writing this section. I also suggest authors to make sub-headings so that the methodology becomes easy to understand.

 

The Discussion and Conclusion sections are just repetition of results

The important part of a manuscript, where the authors could justify their findings based on their objectives and literature is Discussion. However, I found that in the present manuscript, the Discussion part is just repetition of results and not literature citations were given (except for one instance). It is not the matter to just add the citations but to make scientific justification of the results. I suggest that discussion part should be re-written by adding related references and discussing obtained results based on it. For example, lines 288-293, the author stated the results as “In spring, pest larvae were 289 found in the soil only in fields where winter and spring wheat was the forerunner. Their 290 number depended both on the year of the research (the maximum in 2008 was 291 187.5–213.0 ind./m2) and on the predecessor (in the field where the winter wheat was 292 1.1–1.7 times more than the predecessor)”. What could be the possible explanation of this finding?

Furthermore, the conclusion section is like an abstract containing results. I suggest rewriting it by adding future research prospects.

 

 

Other important comments and suggestions can be found in the attached PDF file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer! Thank you for the great work you have done in reviewing our article. The changes we made are highlighted in yellow.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

2^nd Review of the manuscript (Agriculture-2114120) entitled “Seasonal population dynamics and harmfulness of wheat thrips in agrocenoses of winter and spring grain crops”

 

I would like to thank the Editor for sending the reviewed manuscript. The authors have considered most of my previous comments and suggestions. I have found that objectives are supported by the comprehensive results. However, the manuscript still needs improvement. I have provided corrections and suggestion in the attached PDF file. Some of the main points are as follows:

·       I suggested a change in the title. Please see the attached PDF file

·       In the abstract, few sentences need modifications and some should be omitted. Please see the attached PDF file.

·       The introduction still needs much improvement. Some sentences related with the scope of study should be added. Similarly, the reason to select Wheat Thrips should be elaborated. Please see the attached PDF file.

·       In the methodology, the method adopted to identify the pest and predators should be mentioned. Did you take help from any museum?

·       Although, the discussion part is comparatively improved, the way citations are provided, is not scientifically sound. Few ambiguities exist in the discussion. The results of predatory thrips are not discussed at all, as it was mentioned as the main purpose of the study. Please see the attached PDF file

·       The conclusion is unnecessarily long and includes irrelevant information. This section is just repeated results. The conclusion should include the purpose of such methodology and what future holds. Please only mention the main and important findings, what were the benefits of such findings and what future research should focus on.

 

The comments and suggestions in the attached PDF file may help the authors to improve the submitted manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer! Thank you for re-reviewing our article. We took into account the comments indicated both in the review and in the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 Dear Editor

 I have read the manuscript tittle “Seasonal population dynamics and harmfulness of wheat thrips in 2 agrocenoses of winter and spring grain crops”. This ms reports a multiyear study in three cereals and their associated thrips and in my opinion, the authors compressed too much the information and suppressed many details that would facilitate the reading of the ms.  In its actual form, it’s difficult to evaluate the value of the information presented.

 

The ms would benefit from the addition of graphs linking the phenology of the plant, the insect stages abundance, and the year. Also, the inclusion of basic statistical information like mean, SEM or Q1, Median Q3 and the software used for the analysis. There is no data on statistical analysis except for a correlation test. The authors must take advantage of the number and variety of data in their hands. In my opinion, formal comparisons of insect abundance, oviposition places, damage/year/cereal and so on, would add value to the ms. I found little relevance of the paper without a formal statistical analysis to support all the asseverations made in the ms.

 

I found the writing confusing and wordy. The revision of the final draft by a senior scientist with a strong command of English, a specialized translator of or a native speaker would be of great benefit to the ms.

The authors argue that “The timing and characteristics of pest colonization of crops and the ratio of pest and entomophages make it possible to adjust the elements and timing of protective measures in the agrocenoses of winter and spring crops to combat the numerous annual wheat thrips” but they fail to suggest any control or management program or how the provided information can be used to develop any control measurement.

Details below:

Line 58-61. This information is not linked to the former or latest paragraph and the idea is incomplete.

Line 91. Please specify diameter and material as these nets may vary from place to place

Line 92. Decade = a period of ten years, Is the Word decade properly used here?

Line 93. How did you choose the place to collect the insects? How many people collected in each field and time?

Line 99. Provide specifications for the microscope,

Line 99. How did you standardize the counting area? Provide shape and area (cm2) of the area used to count larvae.

Line 101. What criteria did you choose to select the plants?

Line 111-112. What was the criteria for selecting the drilling places?

Line 126. Mention the methods and name the statistical software used for the dispersion and correlation

Line 131. This statement makes no sense as I expected to see the info on the predecessor field and the next one.

Line 134. Table 1. Is the data presented the mean/area, if so, I would like to see the dispersion of the data, either, the Standard deviation(SD) or the Standard Error of the Mean (EEM) in addition to the mean.

Line 136-139. I found hard to believe this information if there is any statistical test to support this statement. This same question applies to any other comparison presented in the ms.

Line 140. Why did you compared this particular time?

Line 144. Table 2. Without a formal statistical comparison and dispersion data around the mean, it statement is hard to believe.

Line 153.- Must provide a figure instead of saying “insignificant” number

Line 155. Table 3. I guess these predators are some of the species mentioned in line 59 but there is no list of collected predators so far. Also, you mention at least two types of thrips, but there is information about them in the Table columns tittles to identify them.

Line 158. Please provide means ± SD or SEM for all the data provided in these lines.

Line 164. Please provide mean ± SEM, ranges are hard to interpret. A Table with years and means would provide much valuable information.

Line 167. Correct the typo

Line 168.  “ i.e ….”  Move this information to the Discussion section

Line 178. Table 4. Statistical data is mandatory for this Table

Line 191. Table 5. Define a week, average and strong degree of damage.

Line 210. There is no way a reader can compute this information without providing the original data

Line 214. Table 6. Please use international standard units

Line 249-251. There is no data in the ms to support this statement

Line 253. Define a “single quantity”

 

I acknowledge that this research involves too much work and for that particular reason, I think the authors deserves a second chance to make a stronger case for their paper.

Author Response

Dear reviewer!
Submitting a revised version of the article. We have tried to correct all comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Whilst I can find nothing actually wrong in this mss it suffers (presumably deliberately) from the use of flowery technical language that, to me, is often unnecessary. It is also repetitive and thus unnecessarily long. This may well be an effect of journal style that asks for a Discussion as well as Conclusions – leading to unnecessary repetition. In the Abstract, the first three, also the final, sentences are what is called in English “puffed” – BUT much of the text is similarly flowery in style and imprecise (see paragraphs 2 to 5 of the Introduction). We are told that Limothrips is adapted to cereal crops in a “process of long evolution” – BUT cereal crops are no older than 10,000 years whereas Limothrips has been adapted to Poaceae species for several millions of years (and remains abundant on many grasses across Europe). We are told that “the purpose of the study is to identify forage plants….of wheat thrips”, but the only plants studied are the cereal crops themselves – no other host plants are mentioned. It is possible that the cereal crop fields of Samara are entirely weed free with no grass species in the crop or surrounding area, although this would be unusual in other parts of Europe. The final sentence of the Abstract says no more than any crop entomologist knows full well. I have the impression, possibly false, that this mss is typical of agronomists who, in studying a pest on a crop, ignore the metapopulation of the pest living on surrounding plants – in ecology that is not best practice. The use of sweep nets to estimate population sizes of thrips species is quick and cheap and thus widely practiced, but it provides unreliable data for good ecological studies. Lines 162 to 170 refer to two predatory species, but the authors provide no evidence of predation – bearing in mind that most of the feeding by a predatory thrips is in the larval not the adult stage. However, the authors provide interesting observations and data, although it is curious that no comparisons are made with the 1950’s work by Lewis – who found, for example, oviposition in different tissues from these authors. Despite this, I commend the presentation of precise figures for yield (and potential income) losses to this thrips – such data are too often absent in ecological studies, and can be difficult to find for many thrips species that are referred to as crop pests.

Author Response

Dear reviewer!
Thank you for your positive review of our article. The information that you wrote in your review is very important for us and will be used in further scientific work. Thank you.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have read the point-by-point reply and the new version of the manuscript titled “Seasonal population dynamics and harmfulness of wheat thrips in 2 agrocenoses of winter and spring grain crops”. 

 

The information provided on the point-by-point replay by the authors had already been considered in my previous review of this document. This point-by-point reply does not add anything new to the manuscript as it does not deal with my main concerns: a) the asseverations made by the authors without statistical support. I am sure the sample size used by the authors allows them to formally compare the reported values. B) the lack of references in the Discussion section. As I mentioned previously I am sure there is enough information on these cereals in other European or Asiatic regions. Even they could reference papers from America and C) the authors did not explain why they did not accept my suggestion. I think they could have valid arguments to reject my comments or suggestions. 

 

I found no improvement in the English grammar indicating that my request on this matter was ignored.

 

For each bullet, I present my original comment followed by my comment re the second-round review. My latest comments are in italics.

 

• Former Line 58-61. This information is not linked to the former or latest paragraph and the idea is incomplete. This info is now at lines 63-65 without any change or amendment. The information on these lines is just a list of insects as no verb is part of the sentence.  
• Former Line 99. How did you standardize the counting area? Provide shape and area (cm2) of the area used to count larvae. Actual line 110. The authors failed to provide any data on shape or area. This is relevant for two reasons: 1) without this information, it would be impossible to replicate this experiment, and 2) It is important to provide the number of individuals/area so this information can be compared or contrasted with other information. My comment received no answer
• Former Line 101. What criteria did you choose to select the plants? Actual line 112. The authors mention the number of sampled plants but not the criteria used to select them for sampling. The point-by-point letter did not provide new information. 
• Former Line 131. This statement makes no sense as I expected to see the info on the predecessor field and the next one. Actual Line 144. The sentence remains the same in this new version. My comment stands. 
• Former Line 146. Table 1. Specify if the dispersion data is SEM or SD. A statistical analysis of these data is mandatory to support any statements, however, the statistical analysis is missing. My comment stands
• Line 136-139. I found it hard to believe this information if there is no any statistical test to support this statement. This same question applies to any other comparison presented in the ms. Actual Line 148-151. The ms presents no change at all.
• Former Line 144. Table 2. Without a formal statistical comparison and dispersion data around the mean, it is hard to believe this statement. Actual Line 157. The Table does not present any statistical comparison to support their statement. My comment stands
• Former Line 155. Table 3. I guess these predators are some of the species mentioned in line 59 but there is no list of collected predators so far. Also, you mention at least two types of thrips, but there is no information about them in the Table columns titles to identify them. Actual Line 155. My questions remain as the author failed to provide any information. My comment stands
• Former Line 158. Please provide means ± SD or SEM for all the data provided in these lines. Actual line 171. The authors did not consider my request. My comment stands
• Former Line 164. Please provide mean ± SEM, ranges are hard to interpret. A Table with years and means would provide much valuable information. Actual Line 177 The authors did not consider my request. My comment stands
• Former Line 178. Table 4. Statistical data is mandatory for this Table. Actual line 189 The authors provided dispersion data (SEM or SD, they do not specify) but not statistical comparisons. My comment stands
• Former Line 249-251. There is no data in the ms to support this statement. Actual Line 271-274. The authors provide the data in the Discussion section, but it should be given in the Results section of the ms. Without a proper statistical analysis, the data presented does not provide useful information.  
• Line 248: The authors did not provide any data on temperature or reference to support this statement. 

 

In summary, 

• The authors did not support their statement with statistical data 
• The discussion section did not compare and contrast their findings with those reported in other areas of the world. 
• The paper did not report the species of thrips nor mentioned the area/shape used to count the insects. 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer! Thank you for the review.