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 addressing the issues raised by reviewers. Both the reviewers and I agree this paper is ready for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Dezene Huber, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
See General comments
See General comments
see General comments
Authors reviewed and included all diagnostic plots, and they addressed the statistical issues as recommended. They have done a great job and I fully accept their paper.
Your revisions have been examined by two reviewers and myself. We agree that the paper is worth publishing but it requires additional clarification. Please address these minor concerns and re-submit.
The authors answered the suggestions; the manuscript has improved a lot. congratulations; minor changes are inserted in the document
The authors answered the suggestions; the manuscript has improved a lot. congratulations
The authors answered the suggestions; the manuscript has improved a lot. congratulations
Dear author
Congratulations; the manuscript is of high quality; minor changes are inserted in the document (word)
The paper has a clear aim, and part of comments suggested on the first review were incorporated in the new version. The proposal manuscript has merit to be published, however, some questions still arising through methodology and results that should be clarified. All questions were described in details in the following sections.
i) In the first submission I asked about: i) how the authors did the model selection?, ii) How they check model assumptions?, and iii) It will be important at least include a half-normal plot of the residuals. The answer addressed to my question was:
"Dear sir as we used polynomial logistic regression for proportion of prey killed/ consumed so the errors associated with such as variable are likely to be distributed binomially. "
I disagree with the authors, and I am still concerned about goodness-of-fit of their model. Proportion data may present overdispersion, i.e., greater variability than expected by the binomial models. A possible solution to check the goodness-of-fit and verify the assumptions of this model can be addressed through half-normal plots with a simulated envelope. Please, included the half-normal plot as supplementary material to certify that the model is well fitted to the data. See reference bellow:
Half-Normal Plots and Overdispersed Models in R : The hnp Package. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v081.i10.
ii) The authors reported that who attached, as supplementary material, a plot of residuals versus fitted values, a Q-Q plot of empirical cumulative distribution function of a data set and a specified theoretical cumulative distribution function (probably normal distribution). However, these documents were not attached in the supplementary material. Please, supply them.
i) Table 1 shows there are no reasons to include more than an intercept parameter to explain T. vaporariorum. Hence, how the author could explain the inclusion of linear, quadratic, and cubic effects? It should be proper remove those effects as p-value is much higher than the confidence level adopted. Furthermore, they should update results and discussion after model selection.
ii) Why the Adult attack rate was zero when fed with 14 prey?
iii) Lines 376-377 Authors could discuss in more details results about searching time demonstrating how their findings is related to recent research and why this variable has a practical value.
i) I recommend to the authors include a smaller size of points in the Figures 2, 4, and 5 in order to facilitate the visualization of them.
Thank you for your submission. The reviewers and I believe that the manuscript is publishable in PeerJ but requires substantial revision. Please consider the reviewers' comments carefully and respond in full.
comments inside in the document
comments inside in the document
comments inside in the document
This manuscript dealt with an interesting research topic, which the potential of using biological control
agents in the management of Bemisia tabaci and Trialeurodes vaporariorum with predator Orius similis. This will be of great interest for the readers of PeerJ journal. However, there are some concerns that need to be addressed before it gets the acceptance level.
Included in the attached document.
Included in the attached document.
Included in the attached document.
Included in the attached document.
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.