Use of Food Attractant to Monitor and Forecast Population Dynamics of Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), a Long-Distance Migratory Pest

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor and Authors,

 

Rice leaf folder Cnaphalocrocis medinalis is a significant migratory pest in Asia and Africa, requiring monitoring and early warning for management. The authors performed a study in China that monitored C. medinalis population dynamics using food attractants from 2020 to 2021. Results showed similar trapping dynamics for males with food attractants and sex pheromones. The study also developed a dynamic prediction method for fecundity in field populations based on female egg quantity. The evaluation of the two types of attractants in the tested traps showed the viability of the food attractants. The sampling effort is considerable, mainly due to the dissection of the reproductive apparatus of a large number of individuals. By the way, photos of dissected organisms would have a didactic importance for the article. The study is essential to developing sampling methods for Asia's vital rice crop pest. Below are just a few corrections to be made before publication.

 

Minor concerns

L45 and everywhere – "The C. medinalis" - Using the definite article before the scientific name is optional and not always recommended.

L45 - Please delete the dot after [12].

L63 – Sex pheromone ...

L65 – pheromone-based.

L66 – larva.

L68-70 - Are there also any economic advantages over synthetic pheromones?

L83 - Please explain the purpose of this dissection.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The study provides a useful contribution to the literature. The reviewer has suggestions for improvement at the following lines.

Line 43 should “hm” be “ha”?

Line 45 “habit. Fu et al [12]”

Line 55 “law” should be “pattern”

Line 68 delete “are adult behavior product” and delete “or volatiles which”

Line 71 “medinalis”

Line 73 “Shenzhen Bioglobal . . . “ this sentence seems like an advertisement and is not usually permitted in the introduction of a research article, although it is satisfactory in the methods section.

Line 75 “screened out” possibly should be “identified” unless it is meant that these compounds are not useful. The reviewer recommends deleting the sentence.

Line 291 Figure 5. It needs to be specified how the number of copulations was measured. Based on line 137, the reviewer suspects the axis needs to be labeled as “Number of spermatophores in bursa copulatrix”

Line 311 “the monitoring of insect age and reproductive development state using food attractant traps”

Line 376 Delete ”nature.”

Line 386 “pests. The use”

Line 403 “decreased”

see above

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Journal: Agronomy

Manuscript Number: Agronomy-2545518

Title: The food attractant trap can efficiently monitor population dynamics of Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), a long-distance migratory pest

Decision: Minor revision

Comments:

Rice leaf folder Cnaphalocrocis medinalis is an important pmigratory pests of rice production and is responsible for significant yied reductions therefore needs proper monitoring for devising appropriate management protocols. The current manuscript deals with the use of food attractant trap for monitoring the population dynamics and provides a new method for early warning of C. medinalis populations which is notable and is worth publishing in the journal “agronomy”. The proper methodology and statistical analysis has been followed in the current study. The language used in the MS needs little improvement as many senteces are vague and requires more clarity. However there are some minor errors that need to be corrected before final acceptance. The corrections are marked in the attached manuscript file.

 

Comments:

1.      Title: can be improved that showcase the importance of early warning system also.

2.      Abstract: Written well.

 

3.      Introduction: Need little improvement for as marked in the attached MS.

                             i.      Line no 63,65,71 etc., the scientific name of the pest has to be corrected

 

4.      Materials and Methodology: Written well, minor corrections marked in the MS can be incorporated.

 

5.      Results: Need little improvement as marked in the attached MS.

 

6.      Discussion: Appropriate, need little improvement as per the corrrections marked in the MS.

 

7.      References: Written well few corrections are marked in the MS. Please correct the references as per the journal format and guidelines.

 

8.      Figures:

                    i.            In Figure 1,2 and 3 the error bars should be indicated in each graph for clear understanding of  the statistics

 

9.      Tables:

                    i.            In Table 2 indicate the unit of measurement for the range of the semi-major axis length of testes

                  ii.            In Table 3 the column is named wrongly that can be corrected

10.  Other comments are marked in the attached manuscript file.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The language can be improved as some sentences are not clear

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript gives an insight into a new method for monitoring and early warning of C. medinalis populations. However, minor comments/questions must be addressed to make this study impactful.

 

Abstract

 

Line 20. Add a sentence about the dissection method.

 

Materials and Methods

 

I suggest the author combine sessions 2.1 and 2.2. It is better if the sub-session in the method is equated with the sub-session in the results to make it easier to understand.

 

Line 115-117. Move to line 97.

 

Line 142. Change judgment to the determination

 

Line 143. Change judged to determined.

 

Line 161. Change analyses to analysis

 

 

Results

 

I suggest the author change the sub-session used in the result and refer to the sub-session in the methods.

 

It is also difficult for me to see the difference in data between 2020 and 2021 because most locations were surveyed at different times. Why did the authors not focus on the Shaodong data only because, to me, it provides good data to compare?

 

Line 214. Table 3 should not be separated.

 

Line 217. The figure caption should not be separated.

 

Line 217, 218. The scientific name should be written in italic style.

 

Do check the grammar for certain sentences for the manuscript . 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx