All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thank you for incorporating reviewers suggestions. Your paper is now accepted.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Fanglin Guan, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No comment
No comment
No comment
The authors have carefully addressed the issues from the previous version. Thus, the current version should be considered for publication, with only minor inconsistencies in the figure legends. Although the legends have been revised, for example, the descriptions in Fig 2. still mention 14 populations, this can be checked in the PDF file. Additionally, in Figure 2, sample SY2206 is missing the red line mark.
Reviewers comments
The authors have studied the “Seasonal genetic variation and genetic structure of Spodoptera exigua in Liaoning Province, Northeast China: Insights from 11 years of microsatellite data” and have come to the conclusion that significant variation exists in the population and they can be divided into two groups.
They had taken care to change the title, add the key words and revise the manuscript as per the suggestions.
However , two to three suggestions are enclosed for nomenclature or use of substitute words in the annotated manuscript.
Line no 27-28- year of study may be checked
Line 66
Line 73
Line 82
Line 146-147
Line309-310- check the sentences
In fig 2 the SY1809 is repeated twice in the clade2012-2018 and 201808 is missing.
In table 5- foot notes may be given for Nm and FIT
In table 6 F and FIs may be deleted
It is apt.
Conclusions are well stated based on the molecular analysis an aptly interpreted.
• Syntax and spellings and language may be checked.
Dear authors,
We are fortunate in having 3 reviewers who each have supplied extensive lists of minor revisions. They all agree the figures need some improvements. Also, please carefully address Reviewer 3's comment beginning with "the sudden change in population structure at the sampling site needs proper explanation, particularly in the turning event in 2018-2019" and subsequent sentences.
No comment
No comment
Dear Authors, After reading and understanding the article, this article seems to be part of multiple research aspects of work that has been conducted on Spodopter exigua. But in previous studies also, it has been concluded that less genetic variation prevailed in this species; still, has this work been conducted? Is it because it is a major pest?
The authors have conducted good experiments. I congratulate all the authors for their sincere efforts to understand the genetic variability among the Spodoptera exigua.
This study investigates the genetic structure and variation of Spodoptera exigua populations in Shenyang over an 11-year period using microsatellite markers and identifies two major genetic clusters. The results provide valuable insights into pest control and migration dynamics.
Methodological rigor: The use of microsatellite genotyping and population structure analysis is well executed and appropriate for the objectives of the study.
Data analysis and interpretation: The statistical analyzes are robust and effectively identify significant genetic clusters.
This manuscript is well conducted and contains important results relevant to pest management. With minor revisions, the study will gain in clarity and impact.
Minor concerns:
Figures and tables: Some figures, such as the STRUCTURE analysis (Figure 3), need improvement in terms of clarity and resolution.
Clarity and writing style: Minor grammatical errors and awkward wording affect readability in some sections.
References and contextualization: The reference list needs to be consistent, and the discussion would benefit from the inclusion of recent studies on climate change and agricultural practices.
Recommendations for revision:
Improve the clarity and quality of the figures, especially Figures 3 and 5.
Provide additional detail on the handling of missing genetic data and the criteria used to select the optimal number of clusters in the STRUCTURE analysis.
Expand the discussion to explore possible factors contributing to the observed genetic divergence, such as environmental or agricultural influences.
Eliminate grammatical issues and consistent formatting of references.
No comment
The authors present an interesting study on the seasonal genetic variation and population structure of the cosmopolitan pest, Spodoptera exigua, in northern China. The 11-year microsatellite dataset is a significant strength, as studies of this nature often rely on much shorter timeframes, typically around five years. However, the analysis is limited to a single sampling site which restricts the ability to generalize the findings to a broader geographical scale. Therefore, the title that generates "the Spodoptera exigua in northern China" should be changed.
The discussion does not provide a clear explanation for the observed stability in population structure from 2012 to 2018, followed by dramatic changes in 2019. A more structured approach to the discussion, outlining specific hypotheses supported by data or additional analysis, is essential to provide a coherent explanation for these patterns.
If this study is a part of the previously published paper by Ma et al. (2024, doi: 10.7717/peerj.17223), it should be clearly stated in the Introduction and detailed in the Materials and Methods section.
Below are several specific comments for improvement:
Line 46: Remove the period (.) after "Asia" in the sentence: “…and Asia (Wei et al., 2010).”
Lines 100-101: Provide more details about the sampling site; for instance, clarify the area size represented by the three sex pheromones in the Welsh onion field and describe their placement and spacing.
Lines 173-181: Please specify which data these statements refer to.
Lines 242-244: Please provide appropriate reference(s) to support the statement.
Lines 246-249: This explanation appears to be redundant with the content on Lines 254-256 and 258-260. Consider revising or removing one of these parts to avoid repetition.
Lines 260-261: The statement, “This result is consistent with those previous studies (Niu et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2016),” lacks clarity. Please specify what aspect of your result is consistent with these studies.
Lines 261-263: The statement, “This high level of diversity is likely due to BAW not experiencing significant founder effects, genetic bottlenecks, or strong selection pressures (e.g., from insecticides) in this region,” is not entirely accurate. High diversity (indicated by Na and Ne) alone is insufficient to rule out selection pressure or bottlenecks. Notably, the heterozygosity results as stated in Lines 179-181 and Table 1 show that Ho is lower than He in some populations. Could this suggest selection pressure, inbreeding, or bottleneck effects?
Lines 290-291: The statement, “This may be attributed to either relatively recent population expansion or the capacity of migratory populations to sustain genetic diversity over time,” requires supporting evidence or analysis.
Additionally, the sudden change in population structure at the sampling site needs proper explanation, particularly in the turning event in 2018-2019. Was there a local factor that changed abruptly? What a possible hypothesis for this? If, for example, seasonal migration is suggested as a factor, why were such dramatic changes observed specifically after 2018?
Lines 293-312: If resistance to insecticides is suggested as a contributing factor, is there any historical record indicating intensive insecticide application at the sampling site? Given that this change is specific to one study site, agricultural practices in the area could provide valuable insights into the dramatic changes in the population structure of BAW.
Lines 488-491: The year is missing
In Figure 2 legend: does the phylogenetic data represent 14 populations or 50 seasonal populations? Please clarify what the 14 populations specifically refer to.
Reviewers comments
The authors have studied the “Seasonal genetic variation and genetic structure of Spodoptera exigua in northern China on the basis of 11 years of microsatellite data” and have come to the conclusion that significant variation exists in the population and they can be divided into two groups. Authors had taken pains to collate the data that has been collected over 11 years to analyse through various molecular techniques, various indices were calculated and have drawn some valid conclusions which can be put to use for better management of BAW, a serious pest in Welsh cotton. In this manuscript what I find missing is a better interpretation of the results in entomological parlance that have been analysed through various molecular and statistical tools so that the results can be better utilized for management of BAW.
key words : may be S.exigua , welsh onion may also be included
However, I have few suggestions and comments which the authors may look into so as to improvise the manuscript for better understanding.
1. Since the authors have collected the samples from sex pheromone traps as mentioned in the lines 107-109, it is better to mention that male adult insects were used in the study.
2. In line 26 it is mentioned as 10 markers. But in further lines120-121 and in other part of the manuscript it is mentioned as 8 loci. Please check. Are any of these markers sex specific.
3. Are the micro satellites, EST or genic in nature? What is the criteria for choosing only the 8 specific microsatellite markers. Can you provide the functionality if known. This would help in better understanding and interpretation of data which would help in devising pest management strategies as envisaged in lines 36-37.
4. Details of 1 A and 1 B for each maker may be furnished in the foot note.
5. In table S2 what does “0” indicate. Please furnish in the foot note.
6. What is the significance of private allele (table S6). Do they have any significance in the current study . if so it may be mentioned.
Figures
• Figure1: if you can give a foot note or provide details in the script that would be more meaningful
• Figure 2: the colour legends are mentioned wrongly. 2012-2018- should be blue and the other red.
• Figure 3: what is the significance of these genotypic clusters in terms of pest management.
• Figure 4 is well depicted. Can the authors identify one or two reasons related to cropping practices/planting time or micro climate or pesticide use pattern etc. for this sudden shift in the population structure. It appears that there is increase in incidence across months within the same season.
• Figure 5 : The differences identified may be interpreted in the right way bringing out the variation in the markers in the populations and the reasons thereof.
Tables: Among the various indices reported in table S1, which one is more important in terms of pest management. Few sentences on this aspect would add more flavour to the paper.
Conclusions are well stated based on the molecular analysis. But it would be more appropriate if they can link it to the practical situations, validity and utility of the markers and why few markers are showing more variability than the others as the numbers do not make an sense as such. How many of these markers can be utilized for monitoring purpose. This would throw more light on the practical utility of the markers in future. I congratulate the authors for the detailed documentation and analysis.
References Missing
• Goudet, 2002
• Guillot et al., 2012
• Bergland et al., 2014
• Wang et al., 2016. Please check if it is same as that in lines 537-539
• Extra references may be deleted.
• Syntax and spellings may be checked.
spell checK Aggarwal et al.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.