Control of Spodoptera frugiperda on Fresh Corn via Pesticide Application before Transplanting
and Fucheng Zhao 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study mainly focuses on the application of different pesticides to the control of fall armyworm, and puts forward feasible methods. Overall, the manuscript has reference value for practical application. Before acceptance, the author can make corrections for the following points:
1. In the introduction, it is recommended to add the mechanism of action of these pesticides.
2.1.1 Please describe the growth conditions, especially the light/dar period may affect the pesticide degradation.
2.2.1 the concentrations of pesticide describe here (1.62 mg/L) should be the “active ingredient (a. i.) concentrations”. If so, this description should be written here. And, how to dilute the sample need to be described here.
2.2.2 We understand the differences on concentrations between the actual application and the assay of LC50, the reason for the relatively higher concentrations here is also suggested to be briefly mentioned.
2.2.2 Line 127 The plant harm caused by insecticide were observed at ?? days after spray.
2.3 L165-166 “… is the mortality of negative control (CK-) group.” Please confirm.
3.1 In Table 2, it is suggested that the pesticide treatment used here should not use the code (in Table 1). The insecticides should be written directly, otherwise it will be confused with the code of 5 times the concentration in Table 1. Please confirm.
3.2 According to the test results, the use of MF and HTY48 at higher concentrations of insecticides has no effect. However, as the degradation of the pesticides has an impact on the mortality of chlorantraniliprole and emanectin benozoate on fall armyworms, it is suggested to write out and slightly raise possible reasons in the discussion would be better.
3.3 L238-239 “The effect of Flight additive MF was better than …” based on?”
3.4 Table 5 The control effect in the later stage of the field trial is not good, and the idea of considering or not considering additional use of pesticides is also suggested to raise in the discussion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article focuses on the use of an alternative control strategy of a specific parasite: S. frugiperda. In particular, the strategy is presented as useful for reducing the use of pesticides by improving their effectiveness, and it is also presented as capable of improving biodiversity. Specifically, the strategy involves spraying very high concentrations of pesticide into the soil where the pints will be transplanted. While it may also be effective it is unclear how the use of a non-selective insecticide at very high concentrations could be beneficial to biodiversity. In addition to this important point, the work does not clearly present the method and the results. With these premises, it is difficult to understand if the conclusions are consistent with the results described.
lines 94 Please clarify the aim of the test
line 96 Insecticides have been tested singularly of combined?
line100 what was the parameter used to select the concentrations?
line 107 were employed 72 larvae for each test of in total during the three repetitions?
line 110 how was selected a dipping time of 20 s?
line 118 please clarify the difference and the connection between the test of toxicity in 2.2.1 and 2.2.2. In this paragraph, there is a mistake in numeration (insecticides description is not at 1.2.1) and also in the numeration of the following (1.2.3).
Line 128 which parameters have been used to evaluate plant harm caused by insecticide after spray?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is interesting and has a rapid application, only minor recommendations are suggested.
1.- Change the use of hm2 to hectare
2.- In all document, check the homogeneity of terms and words, i.e. treatments vs Treatments.
3.- In tables show the HSD value.
4. Use italics in words like Pieris rapae
5.- Check all document and correct mistakes
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This manuscript explored the feasibility of application high concentration pesticides in the fresh corn nursery to control Spodoptera frugiperda. It provides a new way to effectively control of S. frugiperda at fresh corn. The manuscript is written scientifically, and the data is sufficient to support its main conclusion. It meets in the present form the criteria to be published in the journal. However, several points should be addressed.
Abstract
Line 16, please provide the full name of the insecticide, such as, 35% Chlorantraniliprole WDG,
Introduction
Line 39, hm2? What does it mean?
Materials and methods
Line 81, 12h? or 12 h? Whether there are Spaces between 12 and h? please revise to keep the full text in the same format,
Line 115, why were the death of newly hatched larvae recorded at 48h instead of 72?
Line 118, “S. frugiperda” should be italic,
Line 129, in table 1, why not set a conventional spray concentration as a control as well?
Line 143, it doesn't need to indent four characters,
Line 156, m2? Please revisw,
Line 157 and 159, 22th? Or 22nd?
Line 166, in formula 2, it doesn't need a percent sign (%),
Results
Line 184, it should be “LC50s”,
In table 2, in this manuscript, 5 series concentrations are set for each insecticide. Why is the value of degrees of freedom (df) so big? It should be less than 5.
In table 3, it should have a percent (%) following “Corrected mortality”,
In table 3, the average values other than 100% mortality should have standard error, please add,
In table 4, the average should have standard error, please add,
Line 253, Table 4 or table 5? please check and modify,
In figure 1, it needs to provide the units of the horizontal coordinate (8, 11, 14,17, 22)
Line 283, what is the plant damage degree?
In figure 2, the decimal point after the ordinate values should be consistent, please revise,
In table 6, How is the labor cost of medication obtained?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
1: Why authors have used additives in the present study? Is there any report regarding its use? Mention the reference.
2: Authors reported any change in the other life parameter of exposed larvae? What will be the fate of surviving larvae? It should be mentioned in the manuscript.
3: In line 172, the authors mentioned the software used for the analysis of the data. Mention the version of the software used. It is also advised to include the reference in the list of references.
4: Authors have chosen 5 and 25 times the conventional field application. Explain the reason behind this selection procedure.
5: Authors has mentioned the egg-laying capacity of female in the material and methods section. What procedure did authors have fallowed to know the egg-laying capacity of females? It is advised to incorporate this in the material and method section.
6: It is not mentioned anywhere in the manuscript which generation of larvae was used for the treatment purpose. It is advised to include in material and methods.
7. After exposure to different groups of insecticide, apart from mortality and changes in the other life parameter of the exposed larvae, malformation in different stages has also been reported by different workers. Have authors noticed any malformation in larval, pupal, or adult stages? If yes include the parameters in the manuscript and give the percentage of malformation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors satisfied the previous suggestions but the method explored remains, in my opinion, not well described as well as the main goal of the study and they should be improved within the introduction.
In particular, the authors used a method already employed for rice which use ''Application of high concentration (10-40 times of conventional spray) pesticides in crop seedling fields before transplanting ...natural enemies)''line 65-68. The authors applied this method in the nursery but the method is not well described. I suggest to improve the introduction.
F, some urthermoreother modifications are required to make the work suitable for publication.
line 46-47
Two to three ... S. frugiperda [13]. The sentence is not clear. Please rephrase the sentence
line 49
Chemical pesticides must be sprayed 4-6 times. How they are sprayed? on the plants or on the soil?
line 130-133
The test 130 ...streamed down.
No environmental conditions (Temperature and humidity) in the greenhouse are reported and the hand spryer does not guarantee the same amount of pesticide on each plant is spread uniformly.
line 164
when a plant is considered damaged?
Table 2 is not easy to read. Please improve it. Furthermore please clarify how the number of tested insects is calculated.
line 250
correct 10 days ago
are residual levels safe for humans and animals? were residuals evaluated at the end of the growth?
Author Response
"Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
The manuscript has been improved, and I think most of my comments have been addressed with either new analysis or necessary discussions. But, the English language is inferior, and before the publication, it must be improved.
Author Response
English language has been improved, see the revised manuscript for details.
