First Report of Field Resistance to Afidopyropen, the Novel Pyropene Insecticide, on Bemisia tabaci Mediterranean (Q Biotype) from China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled, “First report of field resistance to afidopyropen, the novel pyropene insecticide, on Bemisia tabaci Mediterranean (Q Biotype) from China,” is the first documentation of resistance development to afidopyropen in hemipteran insects. In this study, the authors screen 18 whitefly populations in China for resistance to afidopyropen and identified a 40-fold increase in resistance within one population. The authors then screened the population for cross-resistance to cyantraniliprole, flonicamid, imidacloprid, pymetrozine, thiamethoxam, and sulfoxaflor, tested for synergism between afidopyropen and piperonyl butoxide (PBO), triphenyl phosphate (TPP), diethyl maleate (DEM) to help identify the mechanism behind the resistance, and conducted resistance heritability tests. I believe this study is well-done and largely well-written, requiring only minor revisions, with suggestions below.

• Line 13: Please replace “one novel biopesticide” and “one fungus” with “a novel biopesticide” and “a fungus”.
• Lines 24–25: Consider replacing “conductive” and making the first half of the sentence more concise; for example, “These results will further our understanding of the molecular underpinnings of insecticide resistance in tabaci…”
• Lines 54–55: I would suggest changing “as a succedaneous insecticidal agent” to “as an insecticidal agent” and “action, could potentially” to “action, it could potentially”.
• Line 59: Please change “, however,” to “; however,”
• Line 60: Please omit the “,”
• Lines 66–69: Please change to, “In the present work, we monitored the susceptibility of 18 field populations of whitefly collected from nine provinces of China to afidopyropen, and found that one field population showed moderate resistance to afidopyropen and low cross-resistance to sulfoxaflor.”
• Lines 79–81: Change to, “All of the populations were reared on Gossypium hirsutum, cotton plants, kept at …”
• Line 82: Please omit the “,”
• Lines 97–111: I understand that the methods are referenced, but it would be helpful to reader if the authors could list each chemical agent tested for synergism with afidopyropen: piperonyl butoxide (PBO), triphenyl phosphate (TPP), diethyl maleate (DEM).
• Lines 98–102: Because this is a very long sentence, I would recommend changing the “;” in line 101 to a “.” and beginning a new sentence with “Six working…”
• Line 116: Please change “individually in the microplate with 96-well” to “individually in 96-well microplates”.
• Line 126: Please change “Susceptibility of afidopyropen was detected in eighteen populations” to “Susceptibility to afidopyropen was assessed in 18 populations”.
• Lines 186–188: Please change to something like, “We detected a significant synergistic effect between PBO and afidopyropen in the HD population with a synergistic ratio (SR) of 4.72, while TPP and DEM exhibited little synergism (SR=1.20 and 1.14, respectively).”
• Line 199/200: Please italicize B. tabaci.
• Line 213: Rather than “recorded”, would “registered” be correct?
• Lines 214–215: Please consider changing to “…and has exhibited excellent efficacy in killing adult tabaci field populations throughout China [18].”
• Lines 219–221: Please insert a citation for the afidopyropen-Aphis gossypii
• Lines 219–224: The aphid citations seem a bit out of place in this paragraph — maybe reframing to state afidopyropen is reported effective at controlling multiple species of piercing-sucking insect pests including Aphis gossypii [insert citation], glycines [21], Myzus persicae [insert citation]. then, "To our knowledge..."
• Lines 227–230: This sentence is a bit long and unclear. Please consider changing to, “Afidopyropen, flonicamid, and pymetrozine belong to IRAC Group 9, in which the insecticides target arthropod TRPV channels indispensable to the arthropod mechanosensory system [28,29].”
• Lines 245–249: This sentence is a bit long and unclear. Please consider changing to, “It is well established that the degree of dominance (D) has an important role in the evolution of pesticide resistance, and reciprocal crosses between susceptible and resistant strains assessing the D value and demonstrating inheritance are pivotal for studying the mechanism of resistance.”
• Lines 249–250: Please consider changing to, “If insecticide resistance results from dominant genes, both homozygotes (RR) and heterozygotes (RS) will exhibit resistance making management more difficult [36].”
• Line 252: Please change “confer” to “conferring”.
• Line 260/261: Please change “there are few researches” to “there has been little research”.

Author Response

Thanks a lot, and please check the revised manuscript and the response to the reviewer 1 comments attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is written as a scientific paper since it has all parts important for this type of paper. The novelty of the described work is well underlined and information supporting the subject is well cited.

The experiment was organized in the appropriate way; the measurements carried out are appropriate. Due to the subject, it is an important manuscript  and after minor revision according to the instructions in the marked places within the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks a lot, and please check the revised manuscript and the response to the reviewer 2 comments attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf