Endophytic Effect of the South African Beauveria bassiana Strain PPRI 7598 on the Population Growth and Development of the Russian Wheat Aphid, Diuraphis noxia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This was an informative and generally well-written manuscript. The content is of interest and needs only minor modifications throughout. I recommend it be published after minor revision. Below are some suggestions. Most deal with formatting.

 

Beauveria bassiana and Diuraphis noxia in title needs to be in italics. In fact, it needs to be in numerous places elsewhere throughout the text along with all the other scientific names in abstract and in several instances throughout the text with other scientific names.

Line 38 – SA can be used for south African here because the abbreviation for that was introduced the sentence before.

Line 41 – After aphids indicate their [order:family] as it’s the first time they are mentioned.

Lines 69-71 – There seems to be strange font type issues here.

Line 131 – Bassiana should be bassiana – line 203, 305, 306 and maybe other places also

Line 165 – There is an extra ( before (endophyte-free)

Line 177 - Change thrice to three times

Line 225 and 226 are redundant with the 5% significance.

Line 243 – Change between to among

Tables – If the differences are within column, why is there c,d in column 1 but a,b c in the others? Should it all be in the a,b,c format for consistency?

Figure 2 – I am not sure the usefulness of having this in here. Although informative overall, the descriptions of damage could be summarized in a few sentences in the text given the simplicity of the findings.

In results, the mass values could perhaps be rounded to fewer decimal places.

Line 317 – should be B. bassiana

Line 324 – strange font type with Hemiptera

Paragraph 428 – This is an important point and was pleased to see this included here.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1: Beauveria bassiana and Diuraphis noxia in title needs to be in italics. In fact, it needs to be in numerous places elsewhere throughout the text along with all the other scientific names in abstract and in several instances throughout the text with other scientific names.

Point 1: Scientific names (Beauveria bassiana and Diuraphis noxia) were italicised throughout the text.

Point 2: Line 38 – SA can be used for south African here because the abbreviation for that was introduced the sentence before.

Point 2: Abbreviation for South African  (SA) was used.

Point 3: Line 41 – After aphids indicate their [order:family] as it’s the first time they are mentioned.

Point 3: Order: family (Hemiptera: Aphididae) was added as recommended.

Point 4: Lines 69-71 – There seems to be strange font type issues here.

Point 4: Font type were standardised.

Point 5: Line 131 – Bassiana should be bassiana – line 203, 305, 306 and maybe other places also

Point 5: bassiana was standardised.

Point 6: Line 165 – There is an extra (before (endophyte-free)

Point 6: An extra bracket removed.

Point 7: Line 177 - Change thrice to three times

Point 7: “three times”replaced “thrice”.

Point 8: Line 225 and 226 are redundant with the 5% significance.

Point 8: The second sentence was eliminated.

Point 9: Line 243 – Change between to among

Point 9: “between” changed to “among”.

Point 10: Tables – If the differences are within column, why is there c,d in column 1 but a,b c in the others? Should it all be in the a,b,c format for consistency?

Point 10: a, b was placed for consistency.

Point 11: Figure 2 – I am not sure the usefulness of having this in here. Although informative overall, the descriptions of damage could be summarized in a few sentences in the text given the simplicity of the findings.

Point 11: The figure was not removed. The figure entails and explains damage rating by scores presented in the results.

Point 12: In results, the mass values could perhaps be rounded to fewer decimal places.

Point 12: The mass was rounded to four decimal places.

Point 13: Line 317 – should be B. bassiana

Point 13: Beauveria bassiana reduced to B. bassiana.

Point 14: Line 324 – strange font type with Hemiptera

Point 14: Font type changed accordingly.

Point 15: Paragraph 428 – This is an important point and was pleased to see this included here.

Point 15: Noted.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

This manuscript entitled "Endophytic Effect of the South African Beauveria bassiana Strain PPRI 7598 on the Population Growth and Development of the Russian Wheat Aphid, Diuraphis noxia" provides interesting results about the potential of Beaveria bassiana as an endophyte of Russian wheat aphid (RWA), for mitigate the damage caused by Diuraphis noxia. The content of the manuscript is suitable for publication in Agriculture, the methodology is clear, and the results are well discussed.

I think the manuscript can be published after making minor corrections. Particularly, improve the part of the statistical analysis, of the graphs Fig. 1a and 1b, error bars and the markers with the different letters, if there are significant statistical differences. Formatting suggestions, it can be consulted in manuscript.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

I think the manuscript can be published after making minor corrections.

Point 1: Particularly, improve the part of the statistical analysis, of the graphs Fig. 1a and 1b, error bars and the markers with the different letters, if there are significant statistical differences. Formatting suggestions, it can be consulted in manuscript.

Point 1: Statistical analysis was improved. Error bars and letter markers were added on graphs on Fig. 1a and 1b.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript presents the colonization of three wheat cultivars by Beauveria bassiana and its action on the biological parameters of the aphid Diuraphis noxia. Dear authors, congratulations on the manuscript. I highlight its relevance for presenting viable alternatives that can be used as tools in the development of Integrated Pest Management strategies in wheat. In this context, with the aim of contributing, here are some suggestions.

The introduction is clear and exposes the hypotheses that led the authors to carry out this work. However, I would recommend authors to revise the introduction in order to make it less extensive. For example, the second paragraph is long and presents information that, in my opinion, is unnecessary or could be synthesized. Also, proofreading is needed because of some typos.

The topic material and methods are well-organized, and the methodologies are robust and widely reported in the literature. The results are adequate to the proposed methodology, however, the results presented in item 3.1 can be more synthesized.

Table 1.a and 1.b present different results, so I recommend that they be renamed by table 1 and table 2.

 

In section 3.2, the values expressing the mass of aphids must be standardized. There are numbers with eight places after the decimal point and other places with nine places after the decimal point. I also question the authors if there is a need for numbers with so many decimal places. The discussion is adequate to the results, however, it can be synthesized, making the reading more pleasant.

Dear authors, once again I congratulate you on your work, but I would like to ask if B. bassiana did not promote better development in wheat varieties? Recent work has shown a growth-promoting effect on grasses caused by entomopathogenic fungi such as Metarhizium anisopliae. If this occurs in wheat, it is more of an incentive for the use of these microorganisms in the wheat crop.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

The introduction is clear and exposes the hypotheses that led the authors to carry out this work.

Point 1: However, I would recommend authors to revise the introduction in order to make it less extensive. For example, the second paragraph is long and presents information that, in my opinion, is unnecessary or could be synthesized.

Point 1: The introduction was revised as recommended.

Point 2: Also, proofreading is needed because of some typos.

Point 2: The paper was proofread, and typos were fixed.

The topic material and methods are well-organized, and the methodologies are robust and widely reported in the literature.

Point 3: The results are adequate to the proposed methodology, however, the results presented in item 3.1 can be more synthesized.

Point 3: The results were synthesised as recommended.

Point 4: Table 1.a and 1.b present different results, so I recommend that they be renamed by table 1 and table 2.

Point 4: Tables were renamed accordingly.

In section 3.2, the values expressing the mass of aphids must be standardized.

Point 5: There are numbers with eight places after the decimal point and other places with nine places after the decimal point. I also question the authors if there is a need for numbers with so many decimal places.

Point 5: Aphid mass values were standardised and reduced to four decimal places.

Point 6: The discussion is adequate to the results, however, it can be synthesized, making the reading more pleasant.

Point 6: The discussion section was revised and synthesised as requested.

Point 7: Dear authors, once again I congratulate you on your work, but I would like to ask if B. bassiana did not promote better development in wheat varieties?

Point 7: In our previous study (Motholo et al., 2019) (also cited in this paper), B. bassiana also promoted plant growth and improved wheat growth by 71% over the control in different cultivars.

Point 8: Recent work has shown a growth-promoting effect on grasses caused by entomopathogenic fungi such as Metarhizium anisopliae. If this occurs in wheat, it is more of an incentive for the use of these microorganisms in the wheat crop.

Point 8: The effect of plant growth promotion by Beauveria bassiana was added in the paper as recommended. However, our study did not evaluate the potential of Metarhizium anisoplae for plant growth promotion in wheat nor any other crop, whatsoever.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx