Influence of Chemical Composition and Degree of Fragmentation of Millet Grain on Confused Flour Beetle (Tribolium confusum Duv.) Infestation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have conducted a thorough review of the manuscript. Addressing each of the concerns, I've identified some aspects that will undoubtedly enhance the clarity, coherence, and overall quality of the paper. Let's address these concerns one by one:

1. Verb Tense Consistency: this is only one example that I found between others 

 

Original: "The T. confusum beetles developing on the tested millet and wheat products."

 

Revised: "The T. confusum beetles developed on the tested millet and wheat products."

 2. Abstract Balance:

 

The abstract is disproportionately focused on the introduction. I do recommend streamlining the introduction in the abstract to present the background and purpose succinctly. Allocate more space to summarize the methods, key findings, and implications of your study.

3. Introduction Brevity:

 

The introduction is lengthy and could benefit from concise phrasing. I suggest scrutinizing each sentence and eliminating redundant information. Aim to convey each point succinctly without sacrificing clarity or completeness.

4. Figure 1 Legend Clarity:

 

The legend lacks information about the treatments on the X-axis, and using asterisks is inappropriate. Please revise the legend to include a detailed explanation of the treatments represented on the X-axis. Consider replacing asterisks with a different symbol, such as letters or numbers, to denote statistical significance or other relevant information. Additionally, ensure all graphical elements, such as the grey square, are clearly explained in the legend.

5. Phrase Clarity:

 

Original: "Millet flakes proved to the product"

 

Revised: "Millet flakes proved to be the product."

 

Comment: Adding "be" clarifies the intended meaning (if it's the sentence's meaning), which seems to be that millet flakes were confirmed as the product in question.

 Spelling Error:

 

Original: "produktami"

 

Revised: "products" (assuming this is the intended word)

7. Discussion and Conclusion:

The discussion section of your paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the problem of food loss and the role of storage pests, specifically Tribolium confusum (the confused flour beetle), in contributing to this issue. The text starts by setting a broader context of global food wastage and narrowing it down to the losses attributed to post-harvest handling of cereals and papilionaceous plants. Highlighting the scale of the problem provides a strong foundation for the subsequent sections.

 

The section then delves into the specifics of millet, a cereal that has high nutritional value but is susceptible to significant losses during storage. You draw attention to the understudied nature of millet's pest profile, which underscores the importance of your research. By listing the potential millet pests, you establish the need to investigate their impact on millet post-harvest losses, justifying the focus on T. confusum.

 

Your discussion then transitions to the main findings of your study, emphasizing the development patterns of T. confusum on millet and wheat products. The detailed examination of the pest's preferences and development based on the type of cereal and its processing (whole kernels, flour, flakes, etc.) is thorough and well-presented. The impact of factors like seed cover hardness, grain mass loss, and dust production on pest development is well elucidated, providing a clear understanding of the complex dynamics at play.

 

The discussion then shifts to the chemical composition of the cereals and their products, considering their role in influencing pest development and preferences. The correlation between protein content, starch concentration, crude fiber, and fat content with the development and survivability of T. confusum is particularly insightful. By comparing your findings with previous research, you effectively position your study within the broader scientific discourse, highlighting both agreements and novel insights.

 

However, the discussion could be further enhanced by:

 

1. Providing more context around the implications of your findings for food security and storage practices, especially in regions that rely heavily on millet.
2. Discussing potential strategies for mitigating the impact of T. confusum and other pests on cereal storage based on your findings.
3. Exploring the limitations of your study and suggesting avenues for future research, particularly in areas your study identified as lacking sufficient data.

It is optimistic that the discussion highlights critical points effectively and that the conclusion is clear. In summary, focusing on verb tense consistency, abstract balance, introduction brevity, clarity in figure legends, phrase clarity, and spelling accuracy will substantially improve the readability of your manuscript.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I have conducted a thorough review of the manuscript. Addressing each of the concerns, I've identified some aspects that will undoubtedly enhance the clarity, coherence, and overall quality of the paper. Let's address these concerns one by one:

1. Verb Tense Consistency: this is only one example that I found between others 

 

Original: "The T. confusum beetles developing on the tested millet and wheat products."

 

Revised: "The T. confusum beetles developed on the tested millet and wheat products."

 2. Abstract Balance:

 

The abstract is disproportionately focused on the introduction. I do recommend streamlining the introduction in the abstract to present the background and purpose succinctly. Allocate more space to summarize the methods, key findings, and implications of your study.

3. Introduction Brevity:

 

The introduction is lengthy and could benefit from concise phrasing. I suggest scrutinizing each sentence and eliminating redundant information. Aim to convey each point succinctly without sacrificing clarity or completeness.

4. Figure 1 Legend Clarity:

 

The legend lacks information about the treatments on the X-axis, and using asterisks is inappropriate. Please revise the legend to include a detailed explanation of the treatments represented on the X-axis. Consider replacing asterisks with a different symbol, such as letters or numbers, to denote statistical significance or other relevant information. Additionally, ensure all graphical elements, such as the grey square, are clearly explained in the legend.

5. Phrase Clarity:

 

Original: "Millet flakes proved to the product"

 

Revised: "Millet flakes proved to be the product."

 

Comment: Adding "be" clarifies the intended meaning (if it's the sentence's meaning), which seems to be that millet flakes were confirmed as the product in question.

 Spelling Error:

 

Original: "produktami"

 

Revised: "products" (assuming this is the intended word)

7. Discussion and Conclusion:

The discussion section of your paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the problem of food loss and the role of storage pests, specifically Tribolium confusum (the confused flour beetle), in contributing to this issue. The text starts by setting a broader context of global food wastage and narrowing it down to the losses attributed to post-harvest handling of cereals and papilionaceous plants. Highlighting the scale of the problem provides a strong foundation for the subsequent sections.

 

The section then delves into the specifics of millet, a cereal that has high nutritional value but is susceptible to significant losses during storage. You draw attention to the understudied nature of millet's pest profile, which underscores the importance of your research. By listing the potential millet pests, you establish the need to investigate their impact on millet post-harvest losses, justifying the focus on T. confusum.

 

Your discussion then transitions to the main findings of your study, emphasizing the development patterns of T. confusum on millet and wheat products. The detailed examination of the pest's preferences and development based on the type of cereal and its processing (whole kernels, flour, flakes, etc.) is thorough and well-presented. The impact of factors like seed cover hardness, grain mass loss, and dust production on pest development is well elucidated, providing a clear understanding of the complex dynamics at play.

 

The discussion then shifts to the chemical composition of the cereals and their products, considering their role in influencing pest development and preferences. The correlation between protein content, starch concentration, crude fiber, and fat content with the development and survivability of T. confusum is particularly insightful. By comparing your findings with previous research, you effectively position your study within the broader scientific discourse, highlighting both agreements and novel insights.

 

However, the discussion could be further enhanced by:

 

1. Providing more context around the implications of your findings for food security and storage practices, especially in regions that rely heavily on millet.
2. Discussing potential strategies for mitigating the impact of T. confusum and other pests on cereal storage based on your findings.
3. Exploring the limitations of your study and suggesting avenues for future research, particularly in areas your study identified as lacking sufficient data.

It is optimistic that the discussion highlights critical points effectively and that the conclusion is clear. In summary, focusing on verb tense consistency, abstract balance, introduction brevity, clarity in figure legends, phrase clarity, and spelling accuracy will substantially improve the readability of your manuscript.

Author Response

Review 1

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
(x) Moderate editing of English language required
( ) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have conducted a thorough review of the manuscript. Addressing each of the concerns, I've identified some aspects that will undoubtedly enhance the clarity, coherence, and overall quality of the paper. Let's address these concerns one by one:

1. Verb Tense Consistency: this is only one example that I found between others 

Original: "The T. confusum beetles developing on the tested millet and wheat products."

Revised: "The T. confusum beetles developed on the tested millet and wheat products."

This has been corrected. Linguistic corrections have been made.

2. Abstract Balance:

The abstract is disproportionately focused on the introduction. I do recommend streamlining the introduction in the abstract to present the background and purpose succinctly. Allocate more space to summarize the methods, key findings, and implications of your study.

Thank you for your valuable suggestions. Changes have been made.

3. Introduction Brevity:

 

The introduction is lengthy and could benefit from concise phrasing. I suggest scrutinizing each sentence and eliminating redundant information. Aim to convey each point succinctly without sacrificing clarity or completeness.

Introduction redacted.

4. Figure 1 Legend Clarity:

The legend lacks information about the treatments on the X-axis, and using asterisks is inappropriate. Please revise the legend to include a detailed explanation of the treatments represented on the X-axis. Consider replacing asterisks with a different symbol, such as letters or numbers, to denote statistical significance or other relevant information. Additionally, ensure all graphical elements, such as the grey square, are clearly explained in the legend.

Changes have been made.

5. Phrase Clarity:

Original: "Millet flakes proved to the product"

Revised: "Millet flakes proved to be the product."

Comment: Adding "be" clarifies the intended meaning (if it's the sentence's meaning), which seems to be that millet flakes were confirmed as the product in question.

Thank you for your valuable attention. The change has been introduced.

 Spelling Error:

Original: "produktami"

Revised: "products" (assuming this is the intended word)

Mistake. This has been corrected.

7. Discussion and Conclusion:

The discussion section of your paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the problem of food loss and the role of storage pests, specifically Tribolium confusum (the confused flour beetle), in contributing to this issue. The text starts by setting a broader context of global food wastage and narrowing it down to the losses attributed to post-harvest handling of cereals and papilionaceous plants. Highlighting the scale of the problem provides a strong foundation for the subsequent sections.

The section then delves into the specifics of millet, a cereal that has high nutritional value but is susceptible to significant losses during storage. You draw attention to the understudied nature of millet's pest profile, which underscores the importance of your research. By listing the potential millet pests, you establish the need to investigate their impact on millet post-harvest losses, justifying the focus on T. confusum.

Your discussion then transitions to the main findings of your study, emphasizing the development patterns of T. confusum on millet and wheat products. The detailed examination of the pest's preferences and development based on the type of cereal and its processing (whole kernels, flour, flakes, etc.) is thorough and well-presented. The impact of factors like seed cover hardness, grain mass loss, and dust production on pest development is well elucidated, providing a clear understanding of the complex dynamics at play.

The discussion then shifts to the chemical composition of the cereals and their products, considering their role in influencing pest development and preferences. The correlation between protein content, starch concentration, crude fiber, and fat content with the development and survivability of T. confusum is particularly insightful. By comparing your findings with previous research, you effectively position your study within the broader scientific discourse, highlighting both agreements and novel insights.

However, the discussion could be further enhanced by:

1. Providing more context around the implications of your findings for food security and storage practices, especially in regions that rely heavily on millet.

Changes have been made.

1. Discussing potential strategies for mitigating the impact of T. confusum and other pests on cereal storage based on your findings.

Changes have been made.

1. Exploring the limitations of your study and suggesting avenues for future research, particularly in areas your study identified as lacking sufficient data.

Changes have been made.

It is optimistic that the discussion highlights critical points effectively and that the conclusion is clear. In summary, focusing on verb tense consistency, abstract balance, introduction brevity, clarity in figure legends, phrase clarity, and spelling accuracy will substantially improve the readability of your manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

The remaining text regarding the review of the manuscript by Reviewer 1 is duplicated. All comments have been answered above.

I have conducted a thorough review of the manuscript. Addressing each of the concerns, I've identified some aspects that will undoubtedly enhance the clarity, coherence, and overall quality of the paper. Let's address these concerns one by one:

1. Verb Tense Consistency: this is only one example that I found between others 

Original: "The T. confusum beetles developing on the tested millet and wheat products."

Revised: "The T. confusum beetles developed on the tested millet and wheat products."

2. Abstract Balance:

The abstract is disproportionately focused on the introduction. I do recommend streamlining the introduction in the abstract to present the background and purpose succinctly. Allocate more space to summarize the methods, key findings, and implications of your study.

3. Introduction Brevity:

The introduction is lengthy and could benefit from concise phrasing. I suggest scrutinizing each sentence and eliminating redundant information. Aim to convey each point succinctly without sacrificing clarity or completeness.

4. Figure 1 Legend Clarity:

The legend lacks information about the treatments on the X-axis, and using asterisks is inappropriate. Please revise the legend to include a detailed explanation of the treatments represented on the X-axis. Consider replacing asterisks with a different symbol, such as letters or numbers, to denote statistical significance or other relevant information. Additionally, ensure all graphical elements, such as the grey square, are clearly explained in the legend.

5. Phrase Clarity: 

Original: "Millet flakes proved to the product"

Revised: "Millet flakes proved to be the product."

Comment: Adding "be" clarifies the intended meaning (if it's the sentence's meaning), which seems to be that millet flakes were confirmed as the product in question.

 Spelling Error:

Original: "produktami" 

Revised: "products" (assuming this is the intended word)

7. Discussion and Conclusion:

The discussion section of your paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the problem of food loss and the role of storage pests, specifically Tribolium confusum (the confused flour beetle), in contributing to this issue. The text starts by setting a broader context of global food wastage and narrowing it down to the losses attributed to post-harvest handling of cereals and papilionaceous plants. Highlighting the scale of the problem provides a strong foundation for the subsequent sections.

The section then delves into the specifics of millet, a cereal that has high nutritional value but is susceptible to significant losses during storage. You draw attention to the understudied nature of millet's pest profile, which underscores the importance of your research. By listing the potential millet pests, you establish the need to investigate their impact on millet post-harvest losses, justifying the focus on T. confusum.

 

Your discussion then transitions to the main findings of your study, emphasizing the development patterns of T. confusum on millet and wheat products. The detailed examination of the pest's preferences and development based on the type of cereal and its processing (whole kernels, flour, flakes, etc.) is thorough and well-presented. The impact of factors like seed cover hardness, grain mass loss, and dust production on pest development is well elucidated, providing a clear understanding of the complex dynamics at play.

The discussion then shifts to the chemical composition of the cereals and their products, considering their role in influencing pest development and preferences. The correlation between protein content, starch concentration, crude fiber, and fat content with the development and survivability of T. confusum is particularly insightful. By comparing your findings with previous research, you effectively position your study within the broader scientific discourse, highlighting both agreements and novel insights.

However, the discussion could be further enhanced by:

1. Providing more context around the implications of your findings for food security and storage practices, especially in regions that rely heavily on millet.
2. Discussing potential strategies for mitigating the impact of T. confusum and other pests on cereal storage based on your findings.
3. Exploring the limitations of your study and suggesting avenues for future research, particularly in areas your study identified as lacking sufficient data.

It is optimistic that the discussion highlights critical points effectively and that the conclusion is clear. In summary, focusing on verb tense consistency, abstract balance, introduction brevity, clarity in figure legends, phrase clarity, and spelling accuracy will substantially improve the readability of your manuscript.

Submission Date

20 October 2023

Date of this review

04 Nov 2023 03:43:16

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

In the study “Factors related to the chemical composition of millet grain..” the authors evaluated the effect of millet and products based on millet as suitable resource for the confused flour beetle (Tribolium confusum) in comparison to products based on wheat. The authors showed that stored millet is not a suitable habitat for the development of T. confusum due to its status as secondary pest on stored products. And their results proof that the degree of fragmentation of the products is affecting the offspring of T confusum. Linoleic acid was identified as a positive factor for number of prodigy. The role of chemical factors influencing the abundance of this pest in millet is discussed based on the datasets.

I have to confess that I have enjoyed reading this MS. The authors telling a very good story around their research and they put their results in a very interesting context. The MS is very well written and very well structured. Material & methods are well described, and statistics used in the study are robust. The conclusions are clear. The English used in the MS is on a very good standard.

I recommend accepting the MS with minor revisions.

Specific Comments

Line 91: “T. confusum” not in italic

Line 97: Abbreviation WSCs not explained

Line 98: “T. confusum” not in italic

Figure 1 and Figure 2 and Figure 3: The abbreviation used on the axis are explained in lines 125-126. That is a bit confusing. It should be copied to the legends 

 

Author Response

Review 2

 

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( )I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
( ) Minor editing of English language required
(x) English language fine. No issues detected

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

In the study “Factors related to the chemical composition of millet grain..” the authors evaluated the effect of millet and products based on millet as suitable resource for the confused flour beetle (Tribolium confusum) in comparison to products based on wheat. The authors showed that stored millet is not a suitable habitat for the development of T. confusum due to its status as secondary pest on stored products. And their results proof that the degree of fragmentation of the products is affecting the offspring of T confusum. Linoleic acid was identified as a positive factor for number of prodigy. The role of chemical factors influencing the abundance of this pest in millet is discussed based on the datasets.

I have to confess that I have enjoyed reading this MS. The authors telling a very good story around their research and they put their results in a very interesting context. The MS is very well written and very well structured. Material & methods are well described, and statistics used in the study are robust. The conclusions are clear. The English used in the MS is on a very good standard.

I recommend accepting the MS with minor revisions.

We would like to thank the reviewer for such a nice and good assessment of our manuscript.

Specific Comments

Line 91: “T. confusum” not in italic

Corrected it.

Line 97: Abbreviation WSCs not explained

Corrected it.

Line 98: “T. confusum” not in italic

Corrected it.

Figure 1 and Figure 2 and Figure 3: The abbreviation used on the axis are explained in lines 125-126. That is a bit confusing. It should be copied to the legends 

Corrected it.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The proposed paper investigated the development of Tribolium confusum on millet and wheat, as grains or derived products. In addition, factors that could influence the T. confusum development were analysed, such as physicochemicals properties of the tested cereals.

In general, the paper is well written, with methods correctly applied and results comprehensively reported.

Some minor remarks are hereafter indicated:

Page 1, line 17: modify in : …declared year 2023 to be the …..

Page 2 lines 91 and 98: write T. confusum in italics

Page 3, lines 112-113: specify on which breading pabulum (type of cereal, type of fragmentation) the insects were reared

Page 3 lines 127-129: you stated that the duration of 23 days was decided according to previous observations, but you don’t specify the reason for this decision.

Page 3 line 129: after … ,adult beetles… add: “from the emerging progeny”

Page 3, lines 145, 147, 149, 151, 153: you cited the Polish standards. Do you have any reference or website link for these standards?

Page 4, lines 163-165: this sentence better refers to figures or tables notes. You you can says omething like: Group of means…. were analysed by using the HSD Tukey test.

Table 1: are millet and wheat analysed together here? Specify better in the caption.

Figure 1: use different system to indicate graphs a,b and c, because they are confused with significancy letters. Also, enclose in a rectangle the square and bar for Mean and Mean ± SE into the graph used as example, to avoid confusion with the real data.

Table 3: why only these products were reported in this table?

Table 3: include a mean of variation (±SE or IC) for the numbers

Line 239: produktami?

Figure 2: report in the caption the explanation for the abbreviated letters

Conclusions: Put a sentence to introduce the conclusion points.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

To me the English looks fine, apart from a few small text typos

Author Response

Review 3

 

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
(x) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The proposed paper investigated the development of Tribolium confusum on millet and wheat, as grains or derived products. In addition, factors that could influence the T. confusum development were analysed, such as physicochemicals properties of the tested cereals.

In general, the paper is well written, with methods correctly applied and results comprehensively reported.

Some minor remarks are hereafter indicated:

Page 1, line 17: modify in : …declared year 2023 to be the …..

Corrected it.

Page 2 lines 91 and 98: write T. confusum in italics

Corrected it.

Page 3, lines 112-113: specify on which breading pabulum (type of cereal, type of fragmentation) the insects were reared

Detailed information added.

Page 3 lines 127-129: you stated that the duration of 23 days was decided according to previous observations, but you don’t specify the reason for this decision.

The development of T. confusum takes approximately 30 days under optimal conditions. In order to eliminate the overlap of two generations (mother and daughter), the beetles (mother generation) were removed on day 23.

Page 3 line 129: after … ,adult beetles… add: “from the emerging progeny”

Added.

Page 3, lines 145, 147, 149, 151, 153: you cited the Polish standards. Do you have any reference or website link for these standards?

Page 4, lines 163-165: this sentence better refers to figures or tables notes. You you can says omething like: Group of means…. were analysed by using the HSD Tukey test.

Corrected it.

Table 1: are millet and wheat analysed together here? Specify better in the caption.

Corrected it.

Figure 1: use different system to indicate graphs a,b and c, because they are confused with significancy letters. Also, enclose in a rectangle the square and bar for Mean and Mean ± SE into the graph used as example, to avoid confusion with the real data.

Corrected it.

Table 3: why only these products were reported in this table?

Because the work was focused on millet and its products. Wheat products have been previously studied.

Table 3: include a mean of variation (±SE or IC) for the numbers

The data used in Table 3 are single results, without repetitions. Therefore, it is not possible to include a mean of variation (±SE or IC).

Line 239: produktami?

Corrected it.

Figure 2: report in the caption the explanation for the abbreviated letters

Corrected it.

Conclusions: Put a sentence to introduce the conclusion points.

 The conclusions have been redrafted.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

To me the English looks fine, apart from a few small text typos

Language correction done.

Submission Date

20 October 2023

Date of this review

10 Nov 2023 13:51:50

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript describes some preferences T. confusum in millet products with different degree of fragmentation, compared to wheat products. The authors have found interesting and significant results that can help to focus the pest controlling efforts in stored millet. There are some issues that I will explain next that I think that need to be solved before the journal approves the manuscript for publication.

Title

I found the title somewhat confusing: which factors are you referring to? The chemical composition and the type of product or the degree of fragmentation are actually the factors, and regarding development you are only measuring abundance of progeny. So, I suggest something like “Influence of chemical composition and degree of fragmentation of millet grain on the infestation of the confused flour beetle…”, or similar.

Abstract

“lower intensity of the development of the beetle” (lines 28-29). I do not see how the beetle development could be more or less intense.

Introduction

We are currently in 2023, so the sentence in lines 38-40 sounds somewhat odd. Maybe you should just change the tense.

The word “unquestionable” is excessive, please remove it (line 66).

The unique properties you mention in lines 66-69 have been already mentioned in lines 51-57. Actually, you should reorganise part of the introduction because the healthy properties are mentioned in several places, even before you explain them. Also, there is too much explanation about the importance of millet and too little about its pest. T. confusum is pretty common, and there might be several studies where factors influencing its occurrence have been determined. Or why are you testing the chemical composition and the degree of fragmentation of the millet? Maybe because it has been proved in other grains to be decisive for the degree of infestation.

Aims do not need to be too explained, the I and II aims are enough, the bullet points that follow the dash are not needed.

Materials and methods

What do you mean with “combination”? (line 125) Do you mean the “combination” of the cereal species and the degree of fragmentation? I do not think it is an appropriate term because they are not independent factors, I propose to use the term “treatment” instead.

How did you calculate the mass loss and the produced dust? The difference between the initial weight and the final weight will give you the mass loss, but how can you know the proportion from the final weight that corresponds to produced dust? Did you separate dust from the grain by using some specific technique?

Results

Tables 1 and 2 are not needed, since the important information (i.e., the comparison amongst all treatments) is on the figure 1 and the table 3. Also, you do not need to give such a long explanation of the figure, a single paragraph highlighting the main results is enough.

Figure 2 legend should include the meaning of the letters, and the same comment for the legends of figures 3 and 4. Also, I do not understand what do you want to show in this graph, since the differences on the chemical properties were already shown in table 3. Why there are three repetitions of every letter?

Again, I do not think “intensity of the development” is appropriate (line 278), especially when you only have one variable, i.e., the number of progeny. And you do not need to repeat “fragmentation” between brackets, you have already said it (line 279).

Discussion

There is no need of mentioning here other millet pests. The place was the introduction, in discussion you should focus on your own results.

You do not need to repeat the results nor the references to tables and figures.

 

Conclusions should be written in a fluent text, not as bullet points.

Author Response

Review 4

 

 

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
( ) Minor editing of English language required
(x) English language fine. No issues detected

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript describes some preferences T. confusum in millet products with different degree of fragmentation, compared to wheat products. The authors have found interesting and significant results that can help to focus the pest controlling efforts in stored millet. There are some issues that I will explain next that I think that need to be solved before the journal approves the manuscript for publication.

Title

I found the title somewhat confusing: which factors are you referring to? The chemical composition and the type of product or the degree of fragmentation are actually the factors, and regarding development you are only measuring abundance of progeny. So, I suggest something like “Influence of chemical composition and degree of fragmentation of millet grain on the infestation of the confused flour beetle…”, or similar.

The title has been corrected.

Abstract

“lower intensity of the development of the beetle” (lines 28-29). I do not see how the beetle development could be more or less intense.

Corrected it.

Introduction

We are currently in 2023, so the sentence in lines 38-40 sounds somewhat odd. Maybe you should just change the tense.

Corrected it.

The word “unquestionable” is excessive, please remove it (line 66).

Corrected it.

The unique properties you mention in lines 66-69 have been already mentioned in lines 51-57. Actually, you should reorganise part of the introduction because the healthy properties are mentioned in several places, even before you explain them. Also, there is too much explanation about the importance of millet and too little about its pest. T. confusum is pretty common, and there might be several studies where factors influencing its occurrence have been determined. Or why are you testing the chemical composition and the degree of fragmentation of the millet? Maybe because it has been proved in other grains to be decisive for the degree of infestation.

The subject of our research was millet, which is characterized by very large and diverse properties. This is what we wanted to emphasize in the introduction of our manuscript. Added information about millet pests. Detailed information regarding the need to conduct chemical tests and studies regarding the fragmentation of the material on which T. confusum feeds is described in detail in the discussion section.

Aims do not need to be too explained, the I and II aims are enough, the bullet points that follow the dash are not needed.

Corrected it.

Materials and methods

What do you mean with “combination”? (line 125) Do you mean the “combination” of the cereal species and the degree of fragmentation? I do not think it is an appropriate term because they are not independent factors, I propose to use the term “treatment” instead.

Corrected it.

How did you calculate the mass loss and the produced dust? The difference between the initial weight and the final weight will give you the mass loss, but how can you know the proportion from the final weight that corresponds to produced dust? Did you separate dust from the grain by using some specific technique?

Missing information added to the manuscript text.

Results

Tables 1 and 2 are not needed, since the important information (i.e., the comparison amongst all treatments) is on the figure 1 and the table 3. Also, you do not need to give such a long explanation of the figure, a single paragraph highlighting the main results is enough.

Tables 1 and 2 are necessary in our opinion because present the results of one-way ANOVA, which clearly indicate the significance of differences between the examined means describing the development parameters of T. confusum (table 1) and statistical analyzes (ANOVA) for selected chemical properties of the tested products (table 2). Confirmation of these significances is the basis for subsequent analysis of the results and formulation of conclusions.

Figure 2 legend should include the meaning of the letters, and the same comment for the legends of figures 3 and 4. Also, I do not understand what do you want to show in this graph, since the differences on the chemical properties were already shown in table 3. Why there are three repetitions of every letter?

Figure 2 presents graphically (analysis of nonmetric multidimensional scaling - NMDS) statistical differences in the chemical composition of the tested millet products and wheat and millet grains. Due to the use of ANOSIM analysis, the statistical significance of the differences in the mentioned parameters was confirmed, and it is graphically presented in the chart. Large or small distances between triangles (3 replications of the tested values describing the chemical properties of millet products and wheat and millet grains) indicate similarities or differences in the chemical composition of the tested products.

Again, I do not think “intensity of the development” is appropriate (line 278), especially when you only have one variable, i.e., the number of progeny. And you do not need to repeat “fragmentation” between brackets, you have already said it (line 279).

In accordance with the reviewer's comments, the changes were introduced.

Discussion

There is no need of mentioning here other millet pests. The place was the introduction, in discussion you should focus on your own results.

The section on other millet pests has been moved to the Introduction section. Thank you for your valuable attention.

You do not need to repeat the results nor the references to tables and figures.

In accordance with the Reviewer's comments, the research results and references to individual tables and figures have been removed from the Discussion section.

 

Conclusions should be written in a fluent text, not as bullet points.

Changes have been made.

 

Submission Date

20 October 2023

Date of this review

10 Nov 2023 10:37:35