Influence of Grapevine Cultivar on Population Levels of Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) and Effectiveness of Insecticides in Controlling This Pest

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

The authors appreciate reviewers for their useful comments. Please find the detailed responses below to the reviewer’s comments. The modifications made based on the comments of first reviewer is highlighted with yellow, second reviewer with green, third reviewer with pink, and fourth reviewer with gray color.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

We appreciate for the reviewer comment

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

We appreciate for the reviewer comment

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

We corrected the text to improve this section

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

We corrected the text to improve this section

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

We corrected the text to improve this section

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

We corrected the text to improve this section

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Lobesia botrana in italics

Response 1: done

Comments 2: Lines 27, 36, 37, 42, and so on. Don’t use italics just for scientific names.

Response 2: done

Comments 3: What grape variety or type are they cultivating in Iran?

Response 3:  Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Three categories of grapes are cultivated in Iran that was added to the text. Also it has been mentioned in the introduction that between 800-1000 different cultivars are cultivating in Iran.

Comments 4: Line 48. In what ways are the grape cultivars resistant?

Response 4: in this sentence the word “resistance” was changed to “less susceptible”. The egg-laying preference, and activity level and survival of the L. botrana larvae is lower in the less susceptible cultivars. While in the susceptible ones L. botrana prefer to lay eggs, build up population as well as increasing infestation level.

Comments 5: Lines 71-76. In this section, it is better to make a distinction between chemical and biological insecticides.

Response 5: Chemical insecticides were separated from the use of biological insecticides in two different terms to provide the reviewer comment.

Comments 6: Methodology must follow the logical structure of the objectives and biology of the insect.

Response 6: In the objectives, we first mentioned the study of the population dynamics of male adults, eggs and larvae. Then, the investigation of the susceptibility of the cultivars is stated, which was determined based on the morphological properties of the grape cultivars. Finally, the effectiveness of different insecticides in L. botrana control is mentioned. The same order is mentioned in the Methodology.

Comments 7: The authors should include a map with specifications of the vineyards in the rows for monitoring and trapping.

Response 7: The map was prepared and added to the text to provide the reviewer comment. Also the traps place was determined in the map.

Comments 8: Lines 106-108. How do you estimate the sample size (3 rows × 3 grapevines × 3 clusters = 27 clusters) for egg numbers? What is the reference used for this?

Response 8: The sample units are spaced systematically throughout the plot (e.g. every 5th plant in every 3rd row). It was designed using Syngenta AG (Basel). 2004. Manual for field trials in crop protection. Fourth Ed., Syngenta International AG, Basel. 444 p. The reference was added to the text.

Comments 9: 110-112. what changed the way you counted egg numbers between generations?  

Response 9: The sentence was corrected, for all three generations the sample size was 3 rows × 3 grapevines × 3 clusters = 27 clusters. However, for the first generation according to the small size of the eggs, the clusters were obtained to the laboratory and counted under stereomicroscope.

Comments 10: Lines 114-115. How do you estimate the sample size for larvae? What is the reference used for this?

Response 10: The sample units are spaced systematically throughout the plot (e.g. every 5th plant in every 3rd row). It was designed using Syngenta AG (Basel). 2004. Reference as mentioned above. The reference was added to the text.

Comments 11: Lines 119–12: Where is the cluster control?

Response 11: The aim of this study was to compare four cultivars in terms of morphological properties of clusters, and there was no treatment that we included the control.

Comments 12: Line 131: Which modifications?

Response 12: All the experimental conditions to investigate the effect of insecticides were similar to the method of Civolani et al (2014). Only in this article, four replicates of three vines each were considered. While in our work, three replications (rows) for each treatment and three vines in each row were considered for sampling.

Comments 13: Table 2. I suggest making a difference between chemical and biological insecticides.

Response 13: We only have one biological insecticides, Bt, so all the experimental design was the same for all tested insecticides and it is different to make differences because for example we Bt for controlling the second generation in some plots, and for the third generation at the same plots we spray another chemical insecticide to see which order is better for controlling populations of L. botrana.

Comments 14: Line 146. Is that sufficient? The way you wash equipment is very important to avoid contamination. It is desirable to make multiple washing series along with sunlight exposure.  

Response 14: This protocol for washing the tank was performed according to Vassiliou et al (2011) who declared that the tank was washed twice after each use of any insecticide to remove residues left from the previous use. The reference was added to the sentence.

Comments 15: Line 154: Cluster control should be included.

Response 1: As mentioned before, the aim of this study was to compare four cultivars in terms of morphological properties of clusters, and there was no treatment that we included the control.

Comments 16: Figures. For better visual representation, each generation should be indicated in all figures (graphs). You can summarize in the text all dates (e.g., 26/06/2022) in months mentioned only in June 2022.

Response 16: For better visual representation the months name was added to the X axis of the graphs.

Comments 17: Line 249-251. It would be great to associate with months the corresponding season (dry, rain, etc.) and include in the discussion this aspect of the seasoning.  

Response 17: The relative humidity conditions was discussed in the discussion to provide the reviewer comment.

Comments 18: Line 275. The results of the analysis of variance of the effect of different insecticides... Delete “of the analysis of variance”.  

Response 18: Done

Comments 19: Table 6. Please indicate with an asterisk the significance of P.

Response 19: Asterisk was added to P values to indicate significant difference.

Comments 20: Lines 300-301. What is the maximum distance that males of L. botrana can detect the pheromones? You can discuss the implications of range flight.

Response 20: One relevant reference and explanations was added to the discussion section.

Comments 21: Line 322-323. Which are the mechanisms or how does L. botrana distinguish different cultivars? You should discuss this behavior.

Response 21: according to the volatile compounds of each cultivar. In this article there is not any discussion about this subject. Also, we do not investigate the efficacy of host-derived volatiles.  

Comments 22: Line 333. Please discuss the influence of intra- and interspecies competition and the impact of predators.

Response 22: We did not work on the intra- and interspecies competition in this study and it is not relevant to our aims.

Comments 23: Line 358: Discuss issues related to insecticide resistance and insecticide rotation with a focus on L. botrana.

Response 23: A reference and discussion was added to the text according to the reviewer comment.

Comments 24: Discussion: Overall, it should be better structured to achieve the main results and the importance of this study in the light of IPM.

Response 24: Different items such as climate change, variety susceptibility or preference and application of insecticides was added to the discussion.

Comments 25: I did not see any discussion related to humidity and temperature.

Response 25: Discussion related to humidity and temperature was added to the text to provide the reviewer comment.

Comments 26: Conclusions. The authors should restructure this section based on observations and point out the contribution of this study to the biology, monitoring, and control of this pest species as part of the IPM. And recommendations to improve the use of biological and chemical insecticides with cultural methods.

Response 26: a sentence was added to the text to provide the reviewer comment.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: (x) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper

Response 1:  Thank you for pointing this out. We checked and corrected the Draft of the manuscript prior to submission by Grammarly, and now only minor English editing is suggested, which is on APC.

5. Additional clarifications

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

The authors appreciate reviewers for their useful comments. Please find the detailed responses below to the reviewer’s comments. The modifications made based on the comments of first reviewer is highlighted with yellow, second reviewer with green, third reviewer with pink, and fourth reviewer with gray color.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

We appreciate for the reviewer comment

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

We appreciate for the reviewer comment

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

We appreciate for the reviewer comment

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

We appreciate for the reviewer comment

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes

We appreciate for the reviewer comment

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

We appreciate for the reviewer comment

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: I suggest reviewing the figures. 1 - On the X axis, where the collection dates appear, represent it in another, clearer and more objective way.  

Response 1: The X axis of figures 1-4 was displayed as month and day such as April 04 to present it better according to the reviewer comment.  

Comments 2: Regarding cluster analysis data - present with a graph and the cluster itself.

Response 2: Table 5 was presented as graph and changed to figure 7. 

Comments 3: The study of cultivars resistant to key insect pests of the crop - as well as the appropriate use of insecticides.

Response 3: Considering that in this study we examined the morphological characteristics of grapes, the preference and susceptibility of cultivars can be determined from the results. Therefore, resistance was not discussed in this manuscript and the word susceptibility was used. The use of insecticides was added to the discussion.  

Comments 4: Discusses how grapevine cultivars can help control Lobésia population levels L. botrana.

Response 4: One paragraph was added to the discussion section to show how the susceptibility of different grape cultivars to L. botrana is different and how we can use this to controlling this pest.

Comments 5: Tables and figures can be redone to better present the data in terms of visualization.

Response 5: Table 5 changed to figure to present better. Also the X axis of figures 1-4 was changed to display better according to the reviewer comment.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: (x) Minor editing of English language required

Response 1:    Thank you for pointing this out. We checked and corrected the Draft of the manuscript prior to submission by Grammarly, and now only minor English editing is suggested, which is on APC.

5. Additional clarifications

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

The authors appreciate reviewers for their useful comments. Please find the detailed responses below to the reviewer’s comments. The modifications made based on the comments of first reviewer is highlighted with yellow, second reviewer with green, third reviewer with pink, and fourth reviewer with gray color.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

We appreciate for the reviewer comment

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

We appreciate for the reviewer comment

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

We appreciate for the reviewer comment

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

We appreciate for the reviewer comment

Are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

We corrected the text to improve this section

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

We appreciate for the reviewer comment

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: line 144-145, the hour /period of applied? Write please the conditions environmental of applications.

Response 1: The date, hour and environmental conditions of application insecticides for controlling second and third generations were inserted in the text.  

Comments 2: Table 4. What is the difference of the fig 2 and table 4? Please not repeated the information.  

Response 2: Figure 1 shows the mean number of males caught on different dates, which also shows the flight peak, the appearance date of each generation, and the number of generations. Whereas in Table 4, the mean number of males for different generations in two years has been compared. By comparing the mean values, it was found that there was no significant differences in number of male adults between different cultivars in each generation. In the discussion, we mentioned that the population density of males was not affected by the cultivar, and we reached this conclusion from Table 4. If the reviewer opinion is to delete table 4, we will delete the table. Thank you for your consideration. 

Comments 3: Figure 3. Difference with one color eggs and other larvae, please.

Response 3: The larvae graphs in figure 3 and 4 has been changed to dashes to better distinguish it from the egg graphs.   

Comments 4: Figure 6. The inclusion of this values in the figures of date collected of presence of insect /eggs/larvae, could be best. See the pertinence, please.

Response 4: Dates of temperature and humidity in Figure 6 were changed based on Figure 3 and 4 related to the results of eggs and larvae and included in the chart.

Comments 5: Table 6. Result the difference (black color or *)  

Response 5: done

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: (x) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper.

Response 1:  Thank you for pointing this out. We checked and corrected the Draft of the manuscript prior to submission by Grammarly, and now only minor English editing is suggested, which is on APC.

5. Additional clarifications

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

1. Summary

The authors appreciate reviewers for their useful comments. Enclosed is the responses to the reviewer’s comments. The modifications made based on the comments of first reviewer is highlighted with yellow, second reviewer with green, third reviewer with pink, and fourth reviewer with gray color.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

We corrected the text to improve this section

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Must be improved

We corrected the text to improve this section

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

We corrected the text to improve this section

Are the methods adequately described?

Must be improved

We corrected the text to improve this section

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

We corrected the text to improve this section

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

We corrected the text to improve this section

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The material, methods, and study objectives are confusing, making replication challenging. No chemical analysis of emitted volatiles from different varieties was conducted to establish a link between variety tolerance and odorants. The primary finding is that the Fakhri variety exhibits morphological characteristics that enhance tolerance to Lobesia. A potential improvement would be to rewrite and submit the paper elsewhere, focusing more extensively on this aspect, as it is not adequately discussed.

Response 1: The aim of this study was to investigate the population dynamics of male adults, eggs and larvae of L. botrana. However, evaluating the biochemical compounds of the host plant was not among the objectives of the study. This issue will be considered in future studies. According to the reviewer’s comments, more paragraphs were added to improve the discussion section.

Comments 2: Lines 13-15, this need to be revised, point out the background and the objectives of the study.

Response 2: The sentence was changed according to the objectives of the study.

Comments 3: Line 17-20, which one was the tolerant cultivar? This is more interesting to the reader.

Response 3: The sentence was added to the abstract according to the reviewer comment.   

Comments 4: Line 18, how was this estimated?

Response 4: number of eggs and larva were counted every 5 days, it has been mentioned in the materials and methods section. More information was added to the methods section. Briefly, the live larvae, presence of hole in the berries, and the larval nest was considered as the presence of one larva. 

Comments 5: Line 19-23, are these novel data?

Response 5: Very few studies has been conducting regarding the susceptibility or preference of L. botrana in field conditions. Literature review showed that only Fermaud (1998); Sharon et al (2009) and Pavan et al (2018) worked on this topic. The effect of various insecticides has been investigated for L. botrana control, but no study has been conducted on the effect of some insecticides studied in this paper, which are new insecticides, such as Imunit (Alpha cypermethrin+ Teflubenzuron) and Lufox (Lufenuron+ Fenoxycarb).

Comments 6: Line 27, why italicization? Avoid useless italicizations across the text.

Response 6: Thank you for your consideration, the text was corrected.

Comments 7: Line 30, apart that grapefruit is another fruit (Citrus paradisi), but is better to divide in table grapes and wine grapes.

Response 7: Thank you for your consideration, one sentence was added to the text according to the reviewer comment.

Comments 8: Line 36, what about the second one?

Response 8: The information about second generation was added to the text.

Comments 9: Line 49-50, what the authors mean?

Response 9: the sentence was changed to sounds better.

Comments 10: Line 50-52, bad English style, revise.

Response 10: the sentence was changed to sounds better.

Comments 11: Line 53-56, the authors should focus on the fact that adequate monitoring methods can permit to reduce the chemical treatments.

Response 11: monitoring methods provide useful information on the activity of L. botrana in vineyards, but by themselves, do not provide a reliable basis for timing control methods. The prediction of the moth’s development cycle would greatly help in determining an optimal treatment schedule. So, monitoring can be used with chemical treatments in integrated pest management programs.

Comments 12: Line 58, how are egg and larvae monitored? Not with pheromone trap of course.

Response 12: The details was added to the materials and methods section.

Comments 13: Line 66-67, so why carry out chemical treatments?

Response 13: According to Ioriatti et al. (2011) at the first generation, the plants can overcompensate the damage caused by L. botrana between flowering and harvest, by increasing the weight and size of healthy berries. So, they recommended no to apply insecticides for the first generation and we do not spray insecticides at this stage.

Comments 14: Lines 77-82, The study's novelty is limited; previous research has already explored the number of generations of L. botrana. Furthermore, the English style here is very basic.

Response 14: As we mentioned before, very few studies has been conducting regarding the susceptibility or preference of L. botrana in field conditions. Literature review showed that only Fermaud (1998); Sharon et al (2009) and Pavan et al (2018) worked on this topic. The effect of various insecticides has been investigated for L. botrana control, but no study has been conducted on the effect of some insecticides studied in this paper, which are new insecticides, such as Imunit (Alpha cypermethrin+ Teflubenzuron) and Lufox (Lufenuron+ Fenoxycarb). The manuscript was checked by grammarly software and asked for English editing by the journal.

Comments 15: Line 172, no standard error or standard deviation?

Response 15: The standard error of the means was added to the mean values in the whole text according to the reviewer comment. 

Comments 16: Line 237-240, these results stand out as the primary findings of the study, and the entire work should emphasize this aspect. Additionally, provide further results, such as those from post-hoc analysis, to delve deeper into and underscore the outcomes.

Response 16: Thank you for your consideration. In figures 3-4 we showed the mean number of eggs and larvae collected from different cultivars at different dates. Whereas in Figure 5, the mean number of eggs and larvae in two years has been compared. By comparing the mean values, it was found that the highest number of eggs and larvae was found in Yaghooti indicating the egg-laying preference and high activity level of larvae in this cultivar.

Comments 17: In figure 6 something is missing… and don’t use “average” use “mean”

Response 17: Mean was replaced according to the reviewer comment.

Comments 18: Line 299-300, This has already been demonstrated in earlier studies, and I don't consider it a primary discovery of this research. Initiate the discussion by highlighting the key findings of the study.

Response 18: the sentence was changed to sounds better.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: (x) Extensive editing of English language required

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We checked and corrected the Draft of the manuscript prior to submission by Grammarly, and now only minor English editing is suggested, which is on APC.

5. Additional clarifications

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below.   

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

We appreciate for the reviewer comment

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

We appreciate for the reviewer comment

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

We appreciate for the reviewer comment

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

We appreciate for the reviewer comment

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes

We appreciate for the reviewer comment

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

We appreciate for the reviewer comment

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The authors presented an improved version with all the corrections.

Response 1: We appreciate for the reviewer time and consideration.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: English language fine. No issues detected

Response 1: Thank you for your comment.

5. Additional clarifications

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below. The modifications made based on the comments of reviewer 4 is highlighted with yellow color.    

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

We corrected and improved the text to improve this section

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

We appreciate for the reviewer comment

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

We corrected and improved the text to improve this section

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

We corrected and improved the text to improve this section

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

We corrected and improved the text to improve this section

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

We corrected and improved the text to improve this section

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Lines 30-56, this part is rather long, could be summarized, with a help of a English native speaker.

Response 1: some sentences were changed in order to improve the quality of the paragraphs.    

Comments 2: Line 33, not all table grapes are seedless!

Response 2: thank you for your consideration, it was changed to “most table grapes are seedless…”   

Comments 3: Line 42-45, as an example of English style improvement, revise in “Immature berries can become infested with second generation larvae, which become active after fruit setting and continue their feeding until the fruit ripens. These larvae not only consume the fruit contents but also target the seeds. Additionally, under hot weather conditions, the berries are prone to drying rapidly, creating unfavorable conditions for the growth of saprophytic fungi.”

Response 3:   Thank you for revising and modifying the sentence.

Comments 4: Line 90, change “In the next step” with “successively”

Response 4: done according to the reviewer comment.   

Comments 5: In table 4, what stand for “Error”?

Response 5: In Table 4, the mean and standard errors of male adults in each trap are written for each generation. The mean and SE was calculated based on three traps placed in each vineyard. We have four cultivars, so the df is equal to n (the number of cultivars)-1 = 3.

Comments 6: If the lowest eggs and larval population density was reported in Fakhri cultivar indicating the tolerance of this cultivar compared to the other tested cultivars, this aspect should be more stressed in discussion section. I understand this was not the main objective, but still is one of the main finding of the work in my opinion.

Response 6: the sentences were changed to emphasize on this finding.   

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: Extensive editing of English language required

Response 1: We checked and corrected the draft of the manuscript prior to submission by Grammarly. Unfortunately, our university did not fund for English editing the manuscript. Also, three other reviewers stated that the English of the text is good, and with respect to the reviewer's comment, in our opinion only minor English editing is suggested, which is on APC.

5. Additional clarifications