The Potential of Two Phytoseiid Mites as Predators of the Grape Erineum Mite, Colomerus vitis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe MS provides some new information to evaluate the potential of the two predatory mites. I think it should be accepted after a major revision. The points I concern:
1. Abstract: the data of the two mites with three diets were not clearly expressed, which mite had which developmental time, oviposition period, survival, ...?
2. Table 1-3: the abc letters to indicate the significanse should be compared in a same column, but not in whole table. Also, I prefer to combine the table 1 and 2 together.
3. Table 3: what the difference in Total fecundity± SD and Average of eggs± SD, Daily fecundity and Daily egg-laying rate ?
4. Table 5/6: the "Total" in column "Predatory stage" , this line is not necesary. I think some tables can be changed as to graphies, maybe improve the merit of the MS.
5. References: too many, I think at least 20 documents are able to delet, such as 9/23/25/45-48/50-52/60-62/68-70/73, etc., these are so old or little relevance.
Others I concern were labelled in pdf file attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The article is rather wordy. Accurate and concise expression expression with native English is necesary.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Comment 1- Abstract: the data of the two mites with three diets were not clearly expressed, which mite had which developmental time, oviposition period, survival, ...?
Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. The reviewer is correct, and the abstract has been rewritten.
Comment 2- Table 1-3: the abc letters to indicate the significance should be compared in a same column, but not in whole table. Also, I prefer to combine the table 1 and 2 together.
Author response: The different letter denotes significant difference within species in a same column on all three diets tested. Also, Tables 1 and 2 contain a lot of data, making it challenging to combine them.
Comment 3- Table 4: what the difference in Total fecundity± SD and Average of eggs± SD, Daily fecundity and Daily egg-laying rate ?
Author response: This was a table error, and it has been corrected
Comment 4- Table 5/6: the "Total" in column "Predatory stage", this line is not necesary. I think some tables can be changed as to graphies, maybe improve the merit of the MS.
Author response: Total" in column "Predatory stage" has been removed
Comment 5- References: too many, I think at least 20 documents are able to delet, such as 9/23/25/45-48/50-52/60-62/68-70/73, etc., these are so old or little relevance.
Author response: References have been deleted.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCOMMENTS TO MANUSCRIPT Plants-3077516 “Potential of two phytoseiid mites as predators of the grape eri-neum mite, Colomerus vitis”
The manuscript deals with an interesting subject, as it is the better knowledge of potential arthropods to implement biological control of agricultural pests. Biological control of eriophyd mites is rather scarce, and research that could fill this gap is always welcome.
The authors present interesting results of the capability of two species of phytoseiids to feed and complete its developtment on a known pest of grapes, Colomerus vitis. The manuscript follow the scheme of the classical lab study where different biological parameters are studied, ending with the biotic potential of both phytoseiid species. But the presentation of the work presents important flaws. The Results are not well structured, it lacks proper information of statistics results, and this produced confussion, at least in the reviewer. Discussion is also very extensive, and it can be reduced and presented in a more readable way.
Although the reviewer is not a native English speaker, I found the language can (and should) be improved.
Particular comments to the manuscript follow:
ABSTRACT
Lines 14-16. Include that also C. vitis alone as food source was investigated.
Lines 18-20. Rewrite this sentence, because it is not clear what species are you talking about.
Lines 24,25, 26. Include “respectively” after ech couple of figures to indicate that each number correspond with the phytoseiid species in the same order.
Line 28. Include the following: “…erineum mite and date palm pollen, although the values obtained with only erineum mite were very similar.”
INTRODUCTION
Line 74. It seems as “thrips” should be located before whiteflies: “…Tetranychoidea), thrips and whiteflies in orchards…”
Line 100. Although the objective of the research is clear, it lacks the study of the biotic potential of the pest/prey. Knowing this value (directly with lab studies of the authors, or with references from other studies), it would be more interesting (and with sense) the comparation with the phytoseiids biotic parameters found in the present work.
Authors do not present any reference (if there is any) about this subject, but they should make some statement about this subject in the Introduction.
RESULTS
Line 104 “ 2.1. Developmental Time and Survival of Immature Stages”. In the present state this is an unique paragraph quite unreadable. You must separate in different paragraphs with homogeneous content, which will make easier to read and understand it.
Another comment to this paragraph: Tables must be mentioned in a consecutive order. You start mention Table 1, and after you mention Table 3, where is Table 2?.
Line 114. You mention values of P (like “P<0.05, and others) for a comparation in Table 1, but there is nothing included in the Table. P values, accompanied with the F value and the degree of freedom of the statistical analysis, must appear in the tables, particularly in Tables 1 and 2.
For example, in Table 1 and Table 2 appear a value of F and P that it is not clear to what column is related and the meaning of them (it is not explained in any part of the text). In Tables 1 and 2 it must be clear what statisitical comparation are you doing. Are you comparing both phytoseiid species in the same analysis?. If you are comparing separately each species you must include the statistics values for each species analysis in the tables.
Line 116. Split here the paragraph.
Lines 120-123. You talk here of Table 7. Better move this comment to where Table 7 is again mentioned to explain the results of biotic parameters.
IN this lines there is not match of what you said in the first sentence (“…insignificant differences…”), with the p value presented (p=0.0210). Correct it.
Add at the end of sentence in line 123 “"for both phytoseiids species".
Lines 127 and following. Split paragraph. You start describing results of TAble 2. Mention Table 2 at the beginning to make clear what are you talking. Move this part to put it after the Table 1 content.
Lines 142-148. Start mentioning that you are talking about results of Table 4. The figures mentioned do not match with values in Table 4. Check them and correct.
Lines 150-152. This sentence correspond to TAble 2. Reorder.
Line 153 “2.2. Predation of P. Plumifer and E. Scutalis”. In the present state this is an unique paragraph quite unreadable. You must separate in different paragraphs with homogeneous content, which will make easier to read and understand it.
Line 159. Authors include here only a value of p (“P<0.001”). If not included in the Table, here you put clearly what comparation are making, with P, F, and d.f. values. The paragraph needs a thorough rewritting to make it understandable.
Line 163. Mention the Tables you are talking at the beginning of the paragraph.
Lines 164-165 and following. Rewrite properly. It is not well expressed, with figures without units and the standard error. This also happen in other parts of the paragraph that also must be corrected.
Lines 173-177. Rewrite to fit standards of publication in a scientific journal. In the present way is not easy to read and understand.
Lines 177-187. Too descriptive and very long. I think this can be reduced to give the idea, and refer to the Tables 5 and 6.
TAble 2. Put the units of the measures. They are days, aren’t they?
Line 1 (page unnumbered) 2.3. Population Growth Parameters
The values for pollen plus eriophyd are very similar to the obtained with the eriophyd alone. As there is no variability in the parameters it is not easy to say if they are really different, but the values are very close each other and the autohors should mention this.
The values with the pollen alone are clearly lower, at least compared with the pollen plus mites.
Simplify all the paragraph because it is not neccessary to mention all the values, give the general idea and refer to table 7.
Line 5. “.. palm pollen for both predators. The…”
Table 3. Eliminate letters if there is not significative differencies between treatments. Mention that point (no significative differences) at the foot of the table and when you explain the results.
Table 4. Headings are not equal for the two phytoseiids. Correct it.
Footnote: Letters in the row does not seem to fit the statement. And besides they are not put correctly. C. vitis a b - C.vitis+pollen a b
TAble 5. Correct the position of figures in colum “Dayly rate” of P. plumifer.
Footnote: Explain that the comparation is made only with females.
Table 6. Correct the position of figures in colum “Dayly rate” of P. plumifer.
Footnote: Explain that the comparation is made only with females.
DISCUSSION
The discusiion is very extensive and prolix. The second paragraph must be split in several to gain readability. Any effort of the authors to simplify the content will make the text more readable.
As has been mentioned at the beginning, it would be interesting for previewing the possible success in biological control of the two phytoseiids to know the biotic values of the prey. If authors have information of the biotic capabilities of the prey they should mention here in extend.
CONCLUSSIONS
Lines 235-236. I think it is more appropiate to rewrite the sentence as:
“In conclusion, our results demonstrate that the grape erineum mite C. vitis is a suitable prey for both phytoseiids P. plumifer and E. scutalis, making them…”.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Comment 1-
Lines 14-16. Include that also C. vitis alone as food source was investigated.
Lines 18-20. Rewrite this sentence, because it is not clear what species are you talking about.
Lines 24,25, 26. Include “respectively” after ech couple of figures to indicate that each number correspond with the phytoseiid species in the same order.
Line 28. Include the following: “…erineum mite and date palm pollen, although the values obtained with only erineum mite were very similar.”
Author response: The abstract has been rewritten
Comment 2- Line 74. It seems as “thrips” should be located before whiteflies: “…Tetranychoidea), thrips and whiteflies in orchards
Author response: It has been modified
Comment 3- Line 100. Although the objective of the research is clear, it lacks the study of the biotic potential of the pest/prey. Knowing this value (directly with lab studies of the authors, or with references from other studies), it would be more interesting (and with sense) the comparation with the phytoseiids biotic parameters found in the present work. Authors do not present any reference (if there is any) about this subject, but they should make some statement about this subject in the Introduction.
Author response: This study was the first to assess the biology and predatory efficiency of the phytoseiid predators, P. plumifer and E. scutalis against C. vitis as prey.
Comment 4- Line 104 “ 2.1. Developmental Time and Survival of Immature Stages”. In the present state this is an unique paragraph quite unreadable. You must separate in different paragraphs with homogeneous content, which will make easier to read and understand it.
Author response: The paragraph has been divided and the sentence rewritten.
Comment 5- Another comment to this paragraph: Tables must be mentioned in a consecutive order. You start mention Table 1, and after you mention Table 3, where is Table 2?.
Author response: The tables have been mentioned in a consecutive order. Except for Table 7, the sex ratio is usually written with the life table parameters tables
Comment 6- Line 114. You mention values of P (like “P<0.05, and others) for a comparation in Table 1, but there is nothing included in the Table. P values, accompanied with the F value and the degree of freedom of the statistical analysis, must appear in the tables, particularly in Tables 1 and 2. For example, in Table 1 and Table 2 appear a value of F and P that it is not clear to what column is related and the meaning of them (it is not explained in any part of the text). In Tables 1 and 2 it must be clear what statisitical comparation are you doing. Are you comparing both phytoseiid species in the same analysis?. If you are comparing separately each species you must include the statistics values for each species analysis in the tables.
Author response: Typically, the P value is indicated in the text to denote significance. Its removal from the tables was requested by one of the reviewers.
Comment 7- Line 116. Split here the paragraph.
Author response: The paragraph has been divided
Comment 8- Lines 120-123. You talk here of Table 7. Better move this comment to where Table 7 is again mentioned to explain the results of biotic parameters.
Author response: The comment has been moved to where Table 7 is mentioned
Comment 9- IN this lines there is not match of what you said in the first sentence (“…insignificant differences…”), with the p value presented (p=0.0210). Correct it.
Author response: We have made the correction
Comment 10- Add at the end of sentence in line 123 “"for both phytoseiids species".
It is added at the end of the sentence
Comment 11- Lines 127 and following. Split paragraph. You start describing results of TAble 2. Mention Table 2 at the beginning to make clear what are you talking. Move this part to put it after the Table 1 content.
Author response: All paragraphs have been moved before the tables
Comment 12- Lines 142-148. Start mentioning that you are talking about results of Table 4. The figures mentioned do not match with values in Table 4. Check them and correct.
Author response: Numbers have been corrected
Comment 13- Lines 150-152. This sentence correspond to TAble 2. Reorder.
Author response: The table number has been changed
Comment 14- Line 153 “2.2. Predation of P. Plumifer and E. Scutalis”. In the present state this is an unique paragraph quite unreadable. You must separate in different paragraphs with homogeneous content, which will make easier to read and understand it.
Author response: The sentence has been modified and the paragraphs have been separated
Comment 15- Line 159. Authors include here only a value of p (“P<0.001”). If not included in the Table, here you put clearly what comparation are making, with P, F, and d.f. values. The paragraph needs a thorough rewritting to make it understandable.
Author response: P value has been removed
Comment 16- Line 163. Mention the Tables you are talking at the beginning of the paragraph.
Author response: The tables are mentioned in the same paragraph
Comment 17- Lines 164-165 and following. Rewrite properly. It is not well expressed, with figures without units and the standard error. This also happen in other parts of the paragraph that also must be corrected.
Author response: Rewritten and standard error added
Comment 18- Lines 173-177. Rewrite to fit standards of publication in a scientific journal. In the present way is not easy to read and understand.
Author response: The paragraph has been rewritten
Comment 19- Lines 177-187. Too descriptive and very long. I think this can be reduced to give the idea, and refer to the Tables 5 and 6.
Author response: The purpose was to clarify predator performance with and without pollen
Comment 20- TAble 2. Put the units of the measures. They are days, aren’t they?
Author response: Yes, they are days. Units of measurement have been set in days.
Comment 21- The values for pollen plus eriophyd are very similar to the obtained with the eriophyd alone. As there is no variability in the parameters it is not easy to say if they are really different, but the values are very close each other and the autohors should mention this.
The values with the pollen alone are clearly lower, at least compared with the pollen plus mites.
Simplify all the paragraph because it is not neccessary to mention all the values, give the general idea and refer to table 7.
Author response: The values ​​of life parameters differ from ordinary decimal numbers. For example, the number Intrinsic rate of increase (rm) 0.242 is significantly different from the number 0.211. And so on for other parameters.
The table has been comprehensively revised according to Birch (1948).
Comment 22- Line 5. “.. palm pollen for both predators. The…”
Author response: It has been modified
Comment 23- Table 3. Eliminate letters if there is not significative differencies between treatments. Mention that point (no significative differences) at the foot of the table and when you explain the results.
Author response: Letters have been deleted. The sentence (no significative differences) has been added at the foot of the table.
This sentence exists in the text (Tukey’s HSD test indicated that juvenile survival was not significantly affected by diet).
Comment 24- Table 4. Headings are not equal for the two phytoseiids. Correct it.
Author response: Headings have been corrected.
Comment 25- Footnote: Letters in the row does not seem to fit the statement. And besides they are not put correctly. C. vitis a b - C.vitis+pollen a b
Author response: C. vitis (Bb), C. vitis + Pollen (Bc) (The capital letter denotes the significance within the same column and small letter denotes the significance within the same row).
TAble 26. Correct the position of figures in colum “Dayly rate” of P. plumifer.
Author response: Correction has been made.
Comment 27- Footnote: Explain that the comparation is made only with females.
Author response: The sentence “The comparison is made only with females” has been added.
Comment 28- Table 6. Correct the position of figures in colum “Dayly rate” of P. plumifer.
Author response: Correction has been made and the sentence “The comparison is made only with females” has been added.
Comment 29- The discusiion is very extensive and prolix. The second paragraph must be split in several to gain readability. Any effort of the authors to simplify the content will make the text more readable. As has been mentioned at the beginning, it would be interesting for previewing the possible success in biological control of the two phytoseiids to know the biotic values of the prey. If authors have information of the biotic capabilities of the prey they should mention here in extend.
Author response: Some paragraphs have been deleted from the discussions section.
- The second paragraph has been divided into several paragraphs to gain readability.
Comment 30- Lines 235-236. I think it is more appropiate to rewrite the sentence as: “In conclusion, our results demonstrate that the grape erineum mite C. vitis is a suitable prey for both phytoseiids P. plumifer and E. scutalis, making them…”.
Author response: The sentence has been modified
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Comment 1- The abstract is too long. According to the journal requirements the abstract should be of about 200 words maximum. Please shorten the text concerning to the results and please write more densely and give less detail.
Author response: The abstract has been rewritten
Comment 2- Line 13: Please indicate the author name of Colomerus vitis here and not in the line 43.
Author response: The author name of Colomerus vitis has been added
Comment 3- Line 36: Please check whether „Mio.t.” is a correct abbreviation
Author response: Mio.t.” is a correct abbreviation
Comment 4- Line 38: Please delete „(O.I.V. 2021)”
Author response: The reference has been deleted.
Comment 5- Line 38: The reference [2] is from 2020, more recent data are not avalaible?
Author response:
Comment 6- Line 41: Please replace „mites” by „mite species”
Author response: the word has been added.
Comment 7- Line 47: „[5,6,7,8]” would be better to change to „[5–8]”
Author response: It has been modified.
Comment 8- Lines 59-60: Please replace „grape orchards” by „vineyards” or „grapevine plantations” and do it in all other cases where the term „grape orchards” occurs.
Author response: It has been modified
Comment 9- Line 65: „[14,15,16]” would be better to replace by „[14–16]”
Author response: It has been modified
Comment 10- Line 70: It is reasonable to use the scientific and the English name of a species together only at the first occurrence in the text, after that it is enough to mention one of them. I suggest to use the scientific and the English name of Colomerus vitis in the manuscript alternately.
Author response: It has been modified
Comment 11- Lines 74-75: This part is confusing and not clear enough, please rephrase it.
Author response: It has been modified
Comment 12- Line 76: Please delete „(insects and / or mites)”
Author response: The sentence has been deleted.
Comment 13- Line 77: Please replace „of foods” by „of other foods”
Author response: The word has been added
Comment 14- Line 83: „[29, 30,31, 18]” would be better to change to „[29–31, 18]”
Author response: It has been modified
Comment 15- Line 83: Please replace „etc” by „etc.”
Author response: It has been replaced
Comment 16- Line 94: „both predators” – I suggest to write the species name of these predators
Author response: The name of predators has been written instead of both predators
Comment 17- Line 99: Please replace „P. plumifer and E. scutalis” by „these predatory mite species”
Author response: Replaced
Comment 18- The text of this chapter should be split into more separate paragraphs. In current form is very hard to follow the text. Each table should be referred to in a separate paragraph as possible. Tables should be referred in their numerical order (i.e. please refer first to Table 2 and after that to Table 3 and so on).
Author response: - The chapter has been divided into separate paragraphs.
- Each table has been referred to in a separate paragraph as possible.
- Tables have been referenced in their numerical order.
Comment 19- Reference to the Table 4 is missing.
Author response: Table 4 has been referred to in the text (2.3. Reproduction).
Comment 20- Is the use of „P” correct concerning the statistical differences?
Author response: The p-values were reviewed and verified.
Comment 21- Line 105: Please use the complete scientific name of both mite species.
Author response: The full scientific name of both predators has been written
Comment 22- Lines 106-107: Please delete the sentence concerning the Table 1.
Author response: The sentence has been deleted
Comment 23- Lines 107: Please delete „Data analysis showed that”
Author response: The sentence has been deleted
Comment 24- Lines 107: Lines 110-111: Please make sure the numbers mentioned are correct.
Author response: The numbers are correct, the shortest and longest life cycle are mentioned
Comment 25- Lines 115: Please write „stages of this species”
Author response: It has been modified
Comment 25- Please refer to the Table 1 at the end of this sentence
Author response: Table 1 is referenced at the end of the sentence
Comment 26- Lines 117-118: These data do not appear in the Table 3.
Author response: The correct numbers have been edited and written. The numbers are 94.12 for P. plumifer and 91.80 for E. scutalis, the table number has also been modified to become 2 instead of 3.
Comment 27- Lines 118-119: To which species refers this sentence?
Author response: The species that were studied in this study are: Phytoseius plumifer and Euseius scutalis.
Comment 28- Lines 120: It is confusing that you refer here to the Table 7.
Author response: The paragraph has been moved before Table 7
Comment 29- There were insignificant differences between the pollen and C. vitis and C. vitis diet treatments (P = 0.0210), while there was a significant difference between pollen diet alone treatments and C. vitis and pollen and C. vitis (P = 0.0318); however, the maximum female-biased sex ratio was 76%, which was recorded for P. plumifer when fed on C. vitis only.
Author response: The paragraph has been rewritten.
Comment 30- Lines 135: Please replace „Date” by „date”
Author response: It has been modified
Comment 31- Lines 153: Please write „P. plumifer and E. scutalis”
Author response: It has been modified
Comment 32- Please put the tables 1-2 and 3-4 before the subchapter 2.2 that the reader can easier to follow the text.
Author response: The tables have been rearranged
Comment 33- The text of this chapter should be split into more separate paragraphs
Author response: Chapter has been divided into separate paragraphs
Comment 34- Line 46: Please delete „C. vitis”
Author response: It has been deleted
Comment 35- Line 47: Replace „the current study” by „it”
Author response: Replaced
Comment 36- Line 47: Please delete „C. vitis”
Author response: It has been deleted
Comment 37- Line 51: Replace „developing” by „the development of”
Author response: Replaced
Comment 38- Line 52: Please delete „C. vitis”
Author response: It has been deleted
Comment 39- Lines 54-55: Please write „...intraspecific competition as suggested for Hypoaspis aculeifer (Canestrini) by Usher and Davis (1983)…”
Author response: It has been modified
Comment 40- Line 55: Please write: „many Phytoseiidae species”
Author response: It has been rewritten
Comment 41- Line 66: Please replace „current study” by „present study”
Author response: Replaced he scientific names of the plant species have been put in brackets
Comment 42- Lines 71-72: Please put the scientific names of the plant species in brackets
Author response: The scientific names of the plant species have been put in brackets
Comment 43- Lines 78-79: Please replace „…diet. The survival rate of the immature stages…” by „ diet, and it…”
Author response: Author response: Replaced
Comment 44- Lines 86-87: Please put the date of the publication in brackets after the author names
Author response: Publication date added
Comment 45- Line 161: Please replace „in predation” by „in the predation”
Author response: Replaced
Comment 46- Line 165: Please write „P. plumifer”
Author response: Done
Comment 47- Line 169: Please write „common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) leaves”
Author response: It has been rewritten
Comment 48- Line 172: Please delete the brackets and add „(1999)” after the author names
Author response: The parentheses have been removed and the date added
Comment 49- Line 173: Please delete „ (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Author response: The sentence has been rewritten
Comment 50- Lines 179-180: Please replace „&” by „and”
Author response: Replaced
Comment 51- Line 183: Please delete „C. vitis”
Author response: It has been deleted
Comment 52- Line 183: Please replace „from a grapevine” by „from a vineyard”
Author response: It has been replaced
Comment 53- Line 187: You write „All the usual agricultural practices were followed.” It is not clear, please specify.
Author response: The sentence has been rewritten
Comment 54- Line 200: Please write „P. plumifer and E. scutalis”
Author response: Corrected
Comment 55- Line 205: Please do not use italic in the case of „plus”
Author response: It has been modified
Comment 56- Line 261: Please replace „2014b” by „2014”. There is no other publication in your reference list from this year by these authors.
Author response: It has been deleted
Comment 57- Comments on the Quality of English Language
Moderate editing of English language is recommended.
Author response: The language has been edited as much as possible
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors answered my concerns and revised the MS. I think it should be accepted now.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCOMMENTS TO MANUSCRIPT Plants-3077516 v2 “Potential of two phytoseiid mites as predators of the grape eri-neum mite, Colomerus vitis”
The manuscript has improved greatly compared with the previous version. Nevertheless, some comments are made about the new version which need a proper answer and correction from the authors.
Particular comments to the manuscript follow:
Lines 64-66. This statement needs a reference that support it.
Lines 137-139. Mention the Table where results are showed.
Line 142. “P” in italics, and correct in other parts of the text.
Table 1. Explain clearly (in the footnote) how the statistics were made: whithin each species or the two species together. If the analysis was made within each species (as it seems), then in E. scutalis Protonymph, Deutonymph and Overall time letters that separate the female and male are not well put: it cannot be "b" and "c". Correct.
If the statistical analysis was made with the two species together, then I do not think the analysis was correct.
Table 3. Preoviposition time of E. scutalis cannot be “c”, check the letters.
Table 4. Letters in some rows do not seem to be correct. They are not put correctly if the footnote is correct: analysis was made within the same row: C. vitis “a” “b” - C.vitis+pollen “a” “b” for each phytoseiid species. Correct.
Table 5. Where is the values for males in the daily rate of P. plumifer longevity?
Lines 78-82. Do not include the figures. Just comment them and refer to the table.
Line 88. How insignificant?. P=0.0210 is not insignificant. Correct and make sense the sentence. And besides, of what phytoseiid species are talking about.
Please rewrite better the paragraph.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper.
If there are any other modifications we could make, we would like very much to modify them, and we really appreciate your help. We look forward to working with you to move this manuscript closer to publication.
Thank you again for your positive comments on our manuscript.
Reviewer 2
Comment 1- Lines 64-66. This statement needs a reference that support it.
Author response: The sentence has been removed
Comment 2- Lines 137-139. Mention the Table where results are showed.
Author response: The table has been mentioned
Comment 3- Line 142. “P” in italics and correct in other parts of the text.
Author response: “P” has been italicized and corrected in all parts of the text.
Comment 4- Table 1. Explain clearly (in the footnote) how the statistics were made: whithin each species or the two species together. If the analysis was made within each species (as it seems), then in E. scutalis Protonymph, Deutonymph and Overall time letters that separate the female and male are not well put it cannot be "b" and "c". Correct.
Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. The reviewer is correct, and the letters were spelled correctly. Additionally (Within each species) has been written in the footnote
Comment 5- If the statistical analysis was made with the two species together, then I do not think the analysis was correct.
Author response: The statistics were made within each species
Comment 6- Table 3. Preoviposition time of E. scutalis cannot be “c”, check the letters.
Author response: The letters have been checked and changed to b instead of c.
Comment 7- Table 4. Letters in some rows do not seem to be correct. They are not put correctly if the footnote is correct: analysis was made within the same row: C. vitis “a” “b” - C.vitis+pollen “a” “b” for each phytoseiid species. Correct.
Author response: The capital letter denotes the significance within the same column and small letter denotes the significance within the same row.
|
Diet |
Phytoseius plumifer |
Euseius scutalis |
||
|
Total fecundity± SD |
Daily fecundity
|
Total fecundity± SD |
Daily fecundity
|
|
|
Date palm pollen |
35.48±1.12 Aa |
1.67± 0.08 |
24.55± 1.07 Ab |
1.48± 0.04 |
|
C. vitis |
53.94± 1.28Bb |
2.07± 0.06 |
40.09±1.22Bc |
1.89± 0.09 |
|
C. vitis + Pollen |
56.81± 1.30Bd |
2.11± 0.09 |
44.16±1.35Be |
1.96± 0.05 |
There is no significant difference between C. vitis and C. vitis + Pollen for both predators, so they are coded with the letter B, this is for each column independently.
As for the row, there was a comparison between the predators and there was a significant difference in the number of eggs laid, so they were coded with the letters (b and c) when the predators fed on C. vitis. and (d and e) when predators fed on C. vitis + Pollen. In the last row, the letter c was changed to be (d) for the predator Phytoseius plumifer. The letter (d) was also changed to become (e) for the predator Euseius scutalis as shown in the table
Comment 8- Table 5. Where is the values for males in the daily rate of P. plumifer longevity?
Author response: The values for males in the daily rate of P. plumifer longevity have been added
Comment 9- Lines 78-82. Do not include the figures. Just comment them and refer to the table.
Author response: The figures have been removed
Comment 10- Line 88. How insignificant?. P=0.0210 is not insignificant. Correct and make sense the sentence. And besides, of what phytoseiid species are talking about.
Author response: The paragraph has been modified
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer
We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper.
If there are any other modifications we could make, we would like very much to modify them, and we really appreciate your help. We look forward to working with you to move this manuscript closer to publication.
Thank you again for your positive comments on our manuscript.
Reviewer 3
Comment 1- Line 20: Please delete „grape erineum mite”
Author response: It has been deleted
Comment 2- Line 76: Please delete either „grape erineum mite” or „C. vitis”
Author response: It has been deleted
Comment 3- Please add some further sentences concerning to Table 2.
Author response: Some further sentences concerning to Table 2 have been added
Comment 4- Please refer to the Table 5 at the end of the concerning paragraph.
Author response: Table 5 has been referred at the end of the concerning paragraph
Comment 5- Please refer to the Table 6 at the end of the concerning paragraph.
Author response: Table 6 has been referred at the end of the concerning paragraph
Comment 6- Please refer to the Table 7 at the end of the concerning paragraph(s).
Author response: Table 7 has been referred at the end of the concerning paragraph
Comment 7- Lines 127: Please put „Medicago sativa” in brackets
Author response: Medicago sativa is placed in parentheses
Comment 8- Line 335: Please replace „2014b” by „2014”. There is no other publication in your reference list from this year by these authors.
Author response: 2014b has been replaced by 2014
