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.
Dear Dr. Khan, I am pleased to inform you that your article has been accepted for publication. I hope that you will continue your research on this economically important insect species.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jennifer Vonk, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors of the article took my comments into account. I believe that the manuscript can be recommended for publication.
The authors of the article took my comments into account. I believe that the manuscript can be recommended for publication.
The authors of the article took my comments into account. I believe that the manuscript can be recommended for publication.
No comments.
Dear Dr. Khan, I kindly ask you to carefully make the necessary clarifications and additions to this manuscript. I hope that this will allow the reviewers to approve the publication of this article.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
The problem of protecting grain and its processed products from stored pests is relevant all over the world. Therefore, the topic of the peer-reviewed article is very interesting. The results obtained by the authors are confirmed by statistical analysis. The results and discussion are substantiated, which demonstrates the scientific value of the manuscript. The article is formatted in accordance with the requirements. However, there are some minor shortcomings and technical comments.
I recommend slightly changing and shortening the title of the manuscript: "Toxicity of pirimiphos-methyl, alpha-cypermethrin and spinetoram to strains of Trogoderma granarium (Coleoptera, Dermestidae)". The title of the article should be short and understandable.
Line 9. Indicate the year of description of the insect species (Trogoderma granarium Everts, 1898). The full name of the species (Latin name, author and year of description) should be at the first mention of the species both in the abstract and in the text of the manuscript.
Sentences (lines 9-10 and 30-31; 10-12 and 51-53) in the Abstract and Introduction are duplicated (repeated). One of the sentences needs to be rephrased.
The authors reveal the essence and problems of the topic. Some parts of the introduction are written well and concisely. Some sentences are too long, difficult for the reader to understand. I recommend breaking them into parts (lines 75-78).
Sentences (lines 61-64 and 278-281) in the Introduction and Discussion are duplicated. One of the sentences needs to be rephrased.
Why did the authors choose these insecticides for research and not others? What were your guidelines when choosing insecticides, please justify?
Table 1 duplicates data from Tables 3, 4, 5. This is not allowed. I recommend removing Table 1.
Rephrase the sentences (lines 214-217). Too frequent repetition of the same phrases.
The conclusions are justified.
No comments.
laboratory and field strains of Trogoderma granarium Everts” provides the description of a well designed and executed study examining the questions of insecticide susceptibility and resistance in field versus lab populations of Trogoderma granarium. The effects of colony origin on single treatments and two component synergistic treatments were considered. Very striking and obviously significant differences were observable between lab and field strains in these respects where lab strains were much more susceptible to insecticides than field strains.
Nothing to add
The results are very clear and the narrative presented in the introduction and discussion is very well written. My only concern with this paper concerns the statistical analyses performed and the presentation of the results. Despite the results being clear, the correct statistical approach was not undertaken to examine the hypotheses considered.
Both experiments relied heavily on computation of Ct 50 and Ct99 values. It was good and helpful that these values were presented because it will ease practical use of the findings of the paper. However, the paper relied on post hoc analyses of the Ct values themselves to perform statistical analyses. This resulted in performing scores of statistical comparisons with no corrections for multiple comparisons.
A better approach would be to perform a statistical analysis using a model that included colony, and insecticide type alongside insecticide dose and mortality. This would allow a general assessment of the effects of each of these factors (colony, insecticide, and dose) on mortality. It seems obvious that for both experiments there will be strong effects.
Ln 168-192. Also in the Result reporting, the description of the effects should not be reported as such, which is pretty much a duplication of the table. A more descriptive summary of the data trends in narrative form is needed.
Refer to additional comments.
Refer to additional comments.
Refer to additional comments.
Comments to authors,
The study, Differential toxicity of pirimiphos-methyl, alpha-cypermethrin and spinetoram to laboratory and field strains of Trogoderma granarium Everts, focused on the resistance profiles and susceptibility of Trogoderma granarium Everts to different insecticides. The paper still needs more extra work.
Title.
1. As the study mainly focused on the insecticide resistance, presumably, the title should be re-considered. For example, ‘Susceptibility and resistance profiles of field and laboratory strains of Trogoderma granarium Everts (Coleoptera: Dermestidae) to pirimiphos-methyl, alpha-cypermethrin and spinetoram’.
Furthermore, authors need understand the words toxicity vs susceptibility. The ‘toxicity’ should be change to ‘susceptibility’ thoroughly in MS if the title changed.
Abstract.
2. Lines 10 – 12, ‘Insecticides are heavily relied on to manage T. granarium; however, lack of toxicity of insecticides as a consequence of the development of resistance to insecticides is among the major side-effects of the long-term usage of insecticides’.
This sentence needs to be divided into two sentences and rewrote. For example, ‘Insecticides are heavily relied upon to manage T. granarium. However, the long-term usage of insecticides has led to the development of resistance to insecticides, reducing their effectiveness on T. granarium.
3. Line 14, the synergism study should be mentioned after the dose-mortality bioassays. For example, the metabolic resistance mechanism was investigated via the synergism study (utilizing piperonyl butoxide [PBO], S,S,S-tributyl phosphorotrithioate [DEF]).
4. Compared to the values of LD99, the values of LD50 are more important. Thus, the abstract should mainly focus on the LD50 and Resistance Ratio (RR50). Recommend removing the values of LD99 and RR99.
5. As authors chose PBO and DEF in the synergism study, the specific metabolic resistance mechanisms in specific field strains such as P450s and esterases should be mentioned here.
Introduction.
6. Lines 33 – 37. The cited country names may need in order.
7. Line 65. the full name of PBO and DEF should be mentioned at first time.
Materials and methods.
8. Chemicals: the acetone (purity and where it is from) used in this study should be mentioned here.
9. Data analysis: authors did not carry out the data correction via the Abbot’s (1925) formula. Please explain the reason.
10. Line 133. The specific calculation model (e.g., a natural log probit model) should be mentioned here.
11. Resistance Ratio (RR50) should be introduced here. Furthermore, based on RR50, the specific resistance levels (e.g., low, moderate, high and extremely high) compared to lab strain, should be defined here.
Results.
12. Tables 1 and 2. These two tables can be combined within one table. Inserting one column at right hand side of table 1. Put all values of RR50s in the column, but setting up the RR50 value of lab strain as 1. It is not necessary to include the value of RR99s.
13. The title of Table 1 should be changed to “the susceptibility of laboratory and field stains of Trogoderma granarium to pirimiphos-methyl, alpha-cypermethrin and spinetoram.
14. The titles of tables 3–5 need to be reconsidered. For example, ‘Effectiveness of pretreatment with either PBO or DEF 2 h before application of pirimiphos-methyl to laboratory and field strains of Trogoderma granarium’.
15. The significant difference can straightly show in the tables by using different letters (e.g., a, b, c). Please refer to related references.
16. The control results should be included in text of results.
17. The results look like just repeating the data from table 1 and 2. Authors should extract important information from the results of tables, such as resistance levels compared to lab strain, synergism ratio (SR50), etc.
18. There are some mistakes on the results for DEF to pirimiphos-methyl in text, according to the table 3.
Discussion.
19. As the study focused on the resistance and resistance mechanisms, the discussion should focus on the topics, rather than on the toxicity of insecticides.
20. Lines 198 – 202: the information should be moved to the discussion of resistance mechanisms.
21. Lines 203 – 210: Authors just described the results. However, according to the results, authors should conclude that the beetles developed low to moderate levels of resistance to spinetoram, and moderate to high levels of resistance to pirimiphos-methyl and alpha-cypermethrin. Then, authors discuss why the phenomenon happened. For example, due to the long-term use of pirimiphos-methyl and alpha-cypermethrin, the beetles developed moderated to high levels of resistance. As the spinetoram is not recommended, cross-resistance may contribute the resistance of Trogoderma granarium to spinetoram.
22. Lines 227 – 252. The paragraph is less related to the topic. Recommending rewriting this part.
23. Lines 278 –297. Authors should discuss specific resistance mechanisms (e.g., P450s, esterases, and kdr mutations). For example, the synergists PBO and DEF did not suppress the resistance of Trogoderma granarium to alpha-cypermethrin. Thus, the kdr mutation mechanism need to be discussed here, as the kdr may be the main factor contributing the resistance to the pyrethroid insecticides.
References.
24. There are a few mistakes in references. Please carefully check every reference. Some journals were abbreviated, but without ‘dot’ (e.g., line 337). Some species’ names need to be italic (e.g., line 359), etc.
Overall, authors need to improve the grammars and readable of the text. I would like to recommend authors running it through either professional editing companies or some AI soft tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, etc.)
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.