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.
The edits suggested by the reviewer are minor and changes such as putting species names in italics can be made at the proofing stage.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Dezene Huber, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The study is interesting. The topic is relevant because P. dukinfeldia was known only recently as a pest of eucalyptus in Brazil. The features of its development from egg to imago have not been studied either on the native host plant or on Eucalyptus urograndis.
The experiment assessed the parameters that characterize the development of P. dukinfeldia from a newborn larva to an imago under controlled conditions.
The findings are new and interesting for this insect as a pest of Eucalyptus in Brazil.
I suggest the Title for Table 1: Mean length (± SE) of Physocleora dukinfeldia development (days) in each larval instar, larva, prepupa, pupa, and larva-adult periods in two host plants
Latin names of insects should be written in italics
Steinbauer MJ, 2005. How does host abundance affect oviposition and fecundity of Mnesampela privata (Lepidoptera: Geometridae)? Environ Entomol. 34(2), 281-291. 427 https://doi.org/10.1603/0046-225x-34.2.281.
The most important concerns of the first round reviews have been addressed adequately. There are some minor points that must be attended to.
**PeerJ Staff Note**: Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff 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.
The study is interesting. The topic is relevant because P. dukinfeldia was known only recently as a pest of eucalyptus in Brazil. The features of its development from egg to imago have not been studied either on the native host plant or on Eucalyptus urograndis.
The experiment assessed the parameters that characterize the development of P. dukinfeldia from a newborn larva to an imago under controlled conditions.
All data are statistically sound. Conclusions are linked to the research tasks.
The manuscript was improved after the first review. There are several minor comments.
Tables and Figures
Please replace “Specie” with “Species” in Tables 1–3 and Figures 1–2.
Table 1. You need to add the word "days" to the table title or heading, for example
Table 1 Mean length (± SE) (days) of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th instar periods, larval period, prepupal period, pupal period 2, and larva-adult development cycle of Physocleora dukinfeldia in two forest species.
References.
Schröder, M. L., Nahrung, H. F., De Souza, N. M., Lawson, S. A., Slippers, B., Wingfield, M. J., & Hurley, B. P. (2021). Distribution of Gonipterus species and their egg parasitoids in Australia: implications for biological control. Forests, 12(8), 969. (article title is missing)
Latin names of insects should be written in italics
Vargas-Ortiz M, Parra LE, 2025. A new species of Physocleora Warren 1897 (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) from Atacama and Puna Provinces, Northernmost Chile. Neotrop Entomol. 54(72). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13744-025-01281-7.
**PeerJ Staff Note**: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors agree that they are relevant and useful.
Please follow all reviewers recommendations or justify why not.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors agree that they are relevant and useful.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff 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.
The English is professional.
The introduction and background are deficient with respect to information about the basic biology and ecology of the moth. The authors should at least advise readers of the host range of the species so that they themselves can assess the magnitude of the apparent host shift exhibited by the moth. In particular, I could find no mention of the families of plants the moth naturally feeds upon, so I had no idea whether the utilisation of Myrtaceae is a large or a small shift in host range. This is the key ecological context to what is not a particularly unexpected observation (based on Australian experience).
I was shocked that the references cited by the authors include NO publications by Australian authors who have published on the basic biology and ecology of eucalypt-feeding insects, including geometrid defoliations of eucalypts! I cannot explain why this would be the case. Such works provide the foundational context for the observations the authors report. For published studies about geometrid defoliators of eucalypts, I suggest the authors read studies by Martin J. Steinbauer, Luke P. Rapley, Peter B. McQuillan, and Humphrey J. Elliott. For studies of other non-lepidopteran eucalypt-feeding insects, I suggest the authors read works by Helen F. Nahrung, Bradley G. Howlett, Mamoru Matsuki, and Martin L. Henery. The manuscript would be greatly improved, and of more interest to Australian readers, if it were evident that the authors appreciated how the phenomenon they present fits within the existing literature.
This is a purely empirical and descriptive study, so none of the findings are open to conjecture.
Satisfactory. However, the study would have been far more interesting had the authors based the selection of plants to be fed to the larvae on taxonomic and/or chemical relatedness. This would have enabled the possible evolutionary explanation for the host shift to have been discussed, especially if the native host diet range is known and characterised. I suggest the authors read works by Sören Nylin.
Some notes are presented in the Manuscript attached.
-
-
1. Basic Reporting
The study is interesting. The topic is relevant because P. dukinfeldia was known only recently as a
pest of eucalyptus in Brazil. The features of its development from egg to imago have not been
studied either on the native host plant or on Eucalyptus urograndis. However, the native range of
this insect should be indicated.
2. Study design
The experiment assessed the parameters that characterize the development of
P. dukinfeldia from a newborn larva to an imago under controlled conditions. However, in the
abstract and text, it is necessary to separate the parameters that were assessed (dates of molting,
death, pupation, emergence of imago), measured (width of the head capsule of the larva, weight of
the pupa), or calculated (duration of development of individual ages and stages, viability).
The structure of all parts of the manuscript should correspond to the main objectives of the study
(duration of development, size of head capsules, viability, characteristics of different sexes,
nutrition on two host plants.
The methodology for determining these indicators must also be described consistently (what was
recorded, what was measured, what was calculated).
The intensity of leaf consumption of two species of food plants was also compared. It was necessary
to say why the hybrid (of what? E. urograndis ) was chosen for comparison with E. urophylla.
The methodology should indicate that in the experiment on feeding caterpillars with different plants
species, not only was the consumed leaf area evaluated, but also the survival rate of the larvae
and pupae in the corresponding variants.
The methodology must specify the accuracy of measuring the width of the head capsules of larvae and
the weight of pupae. Accordingly, the number of decimals in the results presented in the tables
must be specified. For viability, the percentage error must be specified. In all cases, the number
of decimals in the measured (calculated) indicator and in the standard error must be consistent.
The captions to Figures 1 and 2 must explain what the bars mean.
2.4: "The data were subject to analysis of variance". What data? About leaf consumption? Head
capsule width? Insect viability? Stages longevity?
The text of the Results description repeats the Tables. It is necessary to describe the main trends
and findings referring to the relevant tables or figures (according to the tasks of the research).
Several references from the manuscript are absent from the reference list (see the manuscript in
EDIT MODE) – Maino and Kearney, 2015; Carneiro et al. 2024; Castañeda-Vildózola et al. 2016; Silva
et al. 2023/
Carvalho MJ, Pinheiro GP, Antunes ERM, Hantao LW, Moritz T., Sawaya ACHF, 2024. Schinus terebinthifolia Raddi – Untargeted metabolomics approach to investigate the chemical variation in volatile and non-volatile compounds. Metabolites 14(11), 612. https://doi.org/10.3390/metabo14110612. – is present in the reference list and absent in the text
Elangovan and Poonam, 2023, in the text – Elangovan S., Mudgil P., 2023. in ref list
3. Validity of the findings. The findings are new and interesting for this insect as a pest of
Eucalyptus in Brazil.
4. General Comments. The text can be improved after considering the comments.
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.