Attraction of the Indian Meal Moth Plodia interpunctella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) to Commercially Available Vegetable Oils: Implications in Integrated Pest Management
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Introduction
The section discussing vegetable-based oils as potential attractants for P. interpunctella could be expanded to provide more context on why these oils are being considered. Briefly mentioning previous research or the theoretical basis for their attractiveness to pests would be beneficial. I recommend reviewing the literature more carefully.
Clearly stating the hypotheses and research questions at the end of the introduction would help frame the study more effectively. For example:
"This study aims to address the following research questions: (1) Can a single or blended, commercially available vegetable-based oil effectively attract both female and male P. interpunctella adults? (2) Would using blended oils or combining vegetable oils with sex pheromone enhance the attractancy? (3) Is there a sex-specific response to these vegetable oil attractants?"
Line 33: "quantitative and qualitative losses on stored grains" should be "quantitative and qualitative losses in stored grains".
Lines 58-59: The ratio of Ac and OH compounds is contradicting with lines 130-131.
Methods and Results
Provide more details on the suppliers and specific characteristics of the oils used (e.g., purity, source).
More detailed methodology on how a mixture of oil and hexane is applied to the trap? A reader should be able to replicate the methodology.
Specify the grade and source of the analytical n-Hexane used.
Blended oils: Provide the ratio of each oil in a blend.
Number of Replications: The number of replications is very low. At least 15 replications are needed to confirm the observed patterns. This should be addressed throughout the manuscript.
I suggest increasing the number of moths in semi-field condition to at least 200. Additionally, generate data on how the response would vary between mated and unmated females, as the authors indicate the oils acting as oviposition stimulants.
Provide data on the rate of captures at 8-hour intervals to observe the trend, and make better decisions on which oil is better in trapping moths.
Catch rates to pheromone: Literature indicates male catches to pheromones are always higher than any other attractants given the abundance of sensilla trichodea in males. Therefore, it is expected that there should be more male catches to pheromone alone. This should be emphasized in the discussion. Please re-examine the data and confirm the observed higher catches to oils alone over pheromone.
Pheromone Autodetection: There is literature supporting no pheromone autodetection in moths at the neuronal level. The studies need to be repeated to attain at least 15 replications, and the discussion should omit the statement about pheromone autodetection. For more information, refer to this study. More on autodetection: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-10954-x
Specific suggestions
Line 89: Change "Transit Grain Deport" to "Transit Grain Depot".
Line 92: "bran middlings, glycerol, and yeast with a 10:1:1 ratio" should be "bran middlings, glycerol, and yeast in a 10:1:1 ratio".
Line 95: "were used for experiments" should be "were used in the experiments".
Line 101: Change "Transit Grain Deport" to "Transit Grain Depot".
Line 103: "The environmental conditions were the same as that for the laboratory colony" should be "The environmental conditions were the same as those for the laboratory reared culture".
Line 139: Change "ventilated based on the weather conditions" to "ventilated according to weather conditions".
L139-140: In field experiments, the authors mentioned that the warehouse stored various grain seeds. However, they did not specify the different stored grains or at least the stored grains were actually preferred hosts of P. interpunctella.
Line 126: Change "Basing on the high attractiveness" to "Based on the high attractiveness".
Line 124: "Basing on the high attractiveness" should be "Based on the high attractiveness".
Line 128: "We prepared the oil baits as above" should be "We prepared the oil baits as described above".
Line 159: "significantly more female moths than did olive and blended oil traps" should be "significantly more female moths than olive and blended oil traps". Mention the rate of recapture.
Line 163: "significant more male moths compared to peanut oil trap" should be "significantly more male moths compared to the peanut oil trap".
Line 167: "no significant difference in number of moths captured between sexes for all trap treatments" should be "no significant difference in the number of moths captured between sexes for all trap treatments".
Discussion
Line 208: Here the catches are not sex-specific to the vegetable oils tested.
Line 219: "technology for stored product pest monitoring and control" should be "technology for stored-product pest monitoring and control".
Lines 226-229: "observed repellent effect on females strongly suggests that P. interpunctella females were capable of detecting their sex pheromone, a phenomenon known as autodetection" should be revised. Given the literature supporting no pheromone autodetection in moths at the neuronal level, discussion on pheromone autodetection should be revised or omitted to avoid ambiguity. Also, if autodetection exists in females, why no catches to their own pheromone in field trial (Figure 4).
Comments on the Quality of English Language
A few suggestions have been provided, but further proofreading by a native English speaker is recommended to improve the overall quality of the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The present manuscript addresses a rather interesting issue in food protection. The chosen target species (Plodia interpunctella) is widespread and dangerous, the methodologies adopted in laboratory and field tests are correct (although not fully satisfactory). The data processing is fair, the commentary on the results, though fragmentary, are correct. However, the work is not satisfactory because the titrations of the assayed products are not reported and analyzed. In fact, what conditions the response behaviors of the insects are some individual molecules that evaporate from the source subjected to olfactometric assay.
The physicochemical variables present in a commercial product such as the various oils under consideration are many even within the same type or brand of product. My suggestion to the authors of the research is to disjoint the experiments conducted from the analysis of VOCs and possible individual substances capable of modifying the behaviors of P. interpunctella adults. Furthermore, in the evaluation of strategic control results, it is absolutely important to identify whether virgin females or already mated females with or without eggs are captured in the trapping systems. The suggestion for the authors is to carefully revise the manuscript by adding the analyses to the GC/MS.
In the final part of this paper, the synergistic or additional attractive role that is sought in combining the oils with the synthetic sex pheromone should be well understood.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
No comment
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Thank you for incorporating some of the suggestions and enhancing the quality of the manuscript. I recommend increasing the number of replications in all behavioral studies to at least 15, increase the number of test insects per replication, and recording observations at 8-hour intervals to determine the most effective oil and the captures trend. Furthermore, to make the manuscript more robust, I suggest that the authors to add unpublished EAG data supporting the female responses to their own pheromones. In EAG studies, it is important to note that higher doses of any compound may elicit a response, which does not necessarily correlate to a physiological response.
Author Response
Comment: Thank you for incorporating some of the suggestions and enhancing the quality of the manuscript. I recommend increasing the number of replications in all behavioral studies to at least 15, increase the number of test insects per replication, and recording observations at 8-hour intervals to determine the most effective oil and the captures trend. Furthermore, to make the manuscript more robust, I suggest that the authors to add unpublished EAG data supporting the female responses to their own pheromones. In EAG studies, it is important to note that higher doses of any compound may elicit a response, which does not necessarily correlate to a physiological response.
Response: We are grateful for the reviewer's thoughtful recommendations and suggestions.
Regarding the Replications: Our chosen number of replicates (3-4) and observations (180-1311) aligns with established practices (DOI: 10.5423/PPJ.RW.03.2022.0043; 10.1177/0023677220907617). To further address the reviewer's concerns, we conducted an additional Semi-field experiment (II) with 15 replicates and over 200 observations, confirming the observed patterns. These additional data support the adequacy of replications in our original experiments. We have now incorporated this information in the revised manuscript (Lines 345-351).
Regarding the data on 8-hour intervals: Due to logistical limitations, moth counts were recorded at experiment completion, as explained in Round 1 responses.
Regarding the EAG Data: The unpublished EAG data will be included in a separate publication focusing specifically on pheromone response. Its inclusion here would fall outside the scope of this manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The new version of the manuscript has included and clarified many suggestions made by the Rewievers, however, some situations have remained unresolved because the authors have promised that they will be addressed in subsequent specific research. Overall, the work can be accepted for publication.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Moderate editing of English language required.
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's careful consideration of our revised manuscript and the positive recommendation for publication.
