Phytosanitary Cold Treatment of the Spotted Wing Drosophila (Diptera: Drosophilidae) in Postharvest ‘Red Globe’ Grapes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript, “Phytosanitary cold treatment of the spotted wing drosophila (Diptera: Drosophilidae) in postharvest ‘Red Globe’ grapes,” identifies the most cold-tolerant stage of the invasive spotted wing drosophila and recommends effective cold treatment schedules to prevent its international spread and protect fruit exports.

Introduction: The importance of statistical analysis methods does not need to be included. Ensure that the reference format is uniform. Remove lines 66-69.

Materials and Methods: There is no information about Test 1 and Test 2. It is important to clarify these tests. Specify how the lethal concentration (LC) values were calculated, and indicate whether they were based on Test 1, Test 2, or both.

Results: Present the results concisely and revise the subheadings to clearly reflect the content.

Discussion and Conclusion: Avoid repeating results in this section. Focus on interpreting the findings and discussing their implications. Summarize the main conclusions and their significance for phytosanitary treatments and international trade.

Detailed comments are provided in the PDF.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

I would like to extend my gratitude to you and the reviewers for your insightful comments, which have greatly contributed to enhancing the quality of this manuscript. All changes have been highlighted in red. The following pages contain our point-by-point responses addressing each of the reviewers’ comments. We have strived to incorporate all suggestions and advice from the reviewers.

We hope that this revised manuscript meets the standards for publication in the Horticulturae journal.

Thank you and best regards,

Sincerely,

Guoping Zhan

Revisions #1：

Introduction: The importance of statistical analysis methods does not need to be included. Ensure that the reference format is uniform. Remove lines 66-69.

Response: We delete all the content related to statistical analysis methods, and make changes in reference format. In the introduction to other phytosanitary treatment measures for the spotted wing drosophila (Lines 66-69), we have simplified the content for better reader comprehension. Understanding the importance of cold treatment and the ongoing research trends in phytosanitary treatment for this fly is critical (Line 64-69).

Revisions #2：

Materials and Methods: There is no information about Test 1 and Test 2. It is important to clarify these tests. Specify how the lethal concentration (LC) values were calculated, and indicate whether they were based on Test 1, Test 2, or both.

Response: Thanks. Test-1 and Test-2 are labeled in Line 134-135. The revised measures to calculate lethal (LT) exposure time by using software PoLoPlus 2.0 have been shown in Line 165-172.

Revisions #3：

Results: Present the results concisely and revise the subheadings to clearly reflect the content.

Response: Accepted, done.

Revisions #4：

Discussion and Conclusion: Avoid repeating results in this section. Focus on interpreting the findings and discussing their implications. Summarize the main conclusions and their significance for phytosanitary treatments and international trade.

Response: Yes. We make changes in Line 350-354, and Line 357-370.

 

Revisions in the PDF documents：

#1: add references in line 39 and 49.

Response: Yes, done. (Line 39 and 49)

#2: Line 79: it is same objective so should be treated single objective

Response: Accepted. We make changes from Line 80 to 84.

#3: Line 93: how long? 1/2/3/4 generations?

Response: done. We make changes in Line 96. (The laboratory progeny was replaced with wild population in a year)

#4: Line 104: how many flies?

Response: Done. We make changes from Line 106. (2000‒3000 adults per cage)

#5: Line 147-148: Why do ANCOVA?

Response: ANCOVA is necessary to compare mean mortality because exposure times vary across different stages. We make changes from Line 149 onwards to correct the error.

#6: Line 162 (full name of DPS) and 166: modified the expression of CI.

Response: Yes, Accepted. We make changes from Line 167.

#7: between Line 183 and 184: graph axis are not readable.

Response: Accepted. We make changes between Line 189 and 190.

#8: Line 196: is it (number) also in table?

Response: Yes.

#9: Line 197: correct grammar

Response: Yes, Done.

#10: Suggestion on section of Discussion and conclusion (Line 274-353)

Response: Yes, Accepted and done (labeled in red color).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is aimed to investigate phytosanitary cold treatment for controlling the spotted wing drosophila in postharvest cultivar ‘Red Globe’ grapes.

The M and M and experimental designs suit the study aims and the statistical procedures used are acceptable.

The results of this study contain some valuable elements. The study provides new results such as on the tolerance sequence of drosophila to various cold treatments and provides the lethal temperature-time for 3-d-old pupae.

Discussion is acceptable, provides suitable comparisons of the results with previous studies. The conclusion is a summary and not an acceptable Conclusion. For the Conclusion, I suggest making bullet points to help the reader grasp the main points of this research. At the end of the conclusion, you should also address the limitations of your study.

References section is acceptable.

Overall, the study contains valuable results that can be considered for possible publication after suitable revisions.

Other suggestions:

• L22: Delete (TPPT) as you do not use it again here in the Abstract
• L24: Delete (ANCOVA) as you do not use it again here in the Abstract
• L62: Delete ‘Wang et al., 2021’.
• L84: Give in full ‘IPPC PT’.
• L184 and L201: Figures 1 and 2: give explanation for bars. Are they SD or SE?
• L214 and L216: In the title of Tables 3 and 4, give ‘LT’ after ‘lethal time’.
• L289: Kim et al. [13].
• L299: Wang et al. [14]
• L372-487: Why do not insert everywhere the doi for research papers and book chapters?
• L454: Should be in italic ‘Ceratitis capitata’.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

I would like to extend my gratitude to you and the reviewers for your insightful comments, which have greatly contributed to enhancing the quality of this manuscript. All changes have been highlighted in red. The following pages contain our point-by-point responses addressing each of the reviewers’ comments. We have strived to incorporate all suggestions and advice from the reviewers.

We hope that this revised manuscript meets the standards for publication in the Horticulturae journal.

Thank you and best regards,

Sincerely,

Guoping Zhan

 

Revisions #1：

Discussion is acceptable, provides suitable comparisons of the results with previous studies. The conclusion is a summary and not an acceptable Conclusion. For the Conclusion, I suggest making bullet points to help the reader grasp the main points of this research. At the end of the conclusion, you should also address the limitations of your study.

Response: Accepted. We make changes in Line 350-354 for the limitations, Line 357-370 for the section of conclusion (including limitation in Line367-370)

Other Revisions:

# 1: L22: Delete (TPPT) as you do not use it again here in the Abstract

Response: TPPT was used in the last sentence in abstract.

# 2: L24: Delete (ANCOVA) as you do not use it again here in the Abstract

Response: Yes, done.

# 3: L62: Delete ‘Wang et al., 2021’.

Response: Yes, done.

# 4: L84: Give in full ‘IPPC PT’.

Response: Yes, done.

# 5: L184 and L201: Figures 1 and 2: give explanation for bars. Are they SD or SE?

Response: Yes, done (they are SD).

# 6: L214 and L216: In the title of Tables 3 and 4, give ‘LT’ after ‘lethal time’.

Response: Yes, done.

# 7: L289: Kim et al. [13].

Response: Yes, done.

# 8: L299: Wang et al. [14]

Response: Yes, done.

# 9: L372-487: Why do not insert everywhere the doi for research papers and book chapters?

Response: Doi is not required and used in this journal.

# 10: L454: Should be in italic ‘Ceratitis capitata’.

Response: Yes, done.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

The manuscript reports a study on the use of cold treatment (with two cold temperatures) for the control of immature stages of the fruit fly Drosophila suzukii in Red Globe grapes. It is a relevant study, bringing light to an important and sustainable postharvest pest control method. Although other studies have shown that cold treatment cause significant insect mortality, the present study goes beyond, discriminating between several immature stages, showing which one is less susceptible to the cold treatment and proposing a protocol to be used as a quarantine and security measure in the international market of this fruit. I suggest that this be stated clearly in the Introduction, to enhance and highlight the study.

The study was well designed, the methodology is suitable to test the hypothesis and the subject is relevant. Therefore, I suggest that the manuscript be accepted with minor revisions of the English grammar and spell.  I pointed out some of these minor language errors below.

 

Line 53: the authors say that “many studies have focused on cold acclimatization and adjustment in adults of D. suzukii”, but in the following sentences they give examples of studies with immature stages. How does the present work differ from these previous reported in the literature?

Line 130-131: “2 to 3 grape fruits containing ≥120 individuals were placed into a 130 plastic cup (Ф 6cm, h 5.5cm) and treated as one treatment” Would it be treated as one replicate?

Line 153: “rearead in the rearing room” at what temperature?

Line 191: leading to 100% mortality

Line 205: estimated valve?

Line 208: “The 2-d-old larva got the smallest value MEANING it is the most sensitive stage”

Lines 222 and 297:  I suggest replacing the term “sensitive” with “susceptible”, as the opposite of tolerant.

Line 243-245: please rewrite the sentence. It doesnt make sense.

 

Additionally, I would like to suggest that the Conclusions section be shortened to just a few sentences directly stating the main findings of the study.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I suggest that the manuscript be accepted with minor revisions of the English grammar and spell.  I pointed out some of these minor language errors in my comments for authors.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

I would like to extend my gratitude to you and the reviewers for your insightful comments, which have greatly contributed to enhancing the quality of this manuscript. All changes have been highlighted in red. The following pages contain our point-by-point responses addressing each of the reviewers’ comments. We have strived to incorporate all suggestions and advice from the reviewers.

We hope that this revised manuscript meets the standards for publication in the Horticulturae journal.

Thank you and best regards,

Sincerely,

Guoping Zhan

 

Revisions #1：Although other studies have shown that cold treatment cause significant insect mortality, the present study goes beyond, discriminating between several immature stages, showing which one is less susceptible to the cold treatment and proposing a protocol to be used as a quarantine and security measure in the international market of this fruit. I suggest that this be stated clearly in the Introduction, to enhance and highlight the study.

Response: Thanks, Accepted.

Revisions #2：Line 53: the authors say that “many studies have focused on cold acclimatization and adjustment in adults of D. suzukii”, but in the following sentences they give examples of studies with immature stages. How does the present work differ from these previous reported in the literature?

Response: Accepted. We delete this sentence as it isn’t relevant to this study.

Revisions #3：Line 130-131: “2 to 3 grape fruits containing ≥120 individuals were placed into a plastic cup (Ф 6cm, h 5.5cm) and treated as one treatment” Would it be treated as one replicate?

Response: Yes, done. (Line 133)

Revisions #4：Additionally, I would like to suggest that the Conclusions section be shortened to just a few sentences directly stating the main findings of the study.

Response: Yes, done. (Line 356-365)

 

Other Revisions:

#1: Line 153: “rearead in the rearing room” at what temperature?

Response: Accepted and done. (Line 155: maintained at 26±1℃)

#2: Line 191: leading to 100% mortality

Response: Accepted.

#3: Line 205: estimated valve?

Response: Accepted. Change to value.

#4: Line 208: “The 2-d-old larva got the smallest value MEANING it is the most sensitive stage”

Response: Accepted. We make changes in Line 214.

#5: Lines 222 and 297:  I suggest replacing the term “sensitive” with “susceptible”, as the opposite of tolerant.

Response: Accepted and done.

#6: Line 243-245: please rewrite the sentence. It doesnt make sense.

Response: Accepted. We make changes from Line 249 to 251.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf