PONE-D-20-03548

Suitability of Trichogramma leucaniae reared on large eggs of Chinese oak silkworm, Antheraea pernyi for successive generations

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Your manuscript has been reviewed by two independent and qualified reviewers. Both of them found the paper publishable in PlosOne after minor revisions. I concur with them, thus I invite you to follow the comments below and to submit the revised version of the manuscript (track changes and clean versions) along with a point by point rebuttal letter.

Authors declared that data are available witouth restriction, but I was not able to understand how. Can authors read and follow the data availability PlonOnse roles https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability ?

Title: I found the title unclear and in any case missing of a comma after the specific name. The word ‘suitability’ as it is used is confusing: is it referred to the parasitoid or to the host? Also, ‘large eggs’ should not be used in the title, because it is misleading: did authors select the bigger eggs from the same host? I do not think so. Did authors test eggs of different size? It seems they do not.

Authors should find a more suitable and clear title. An example could be

“Suitability of Chinese oak silkworm eggs for the multigenerational rearing of the parasitoid Trichogramma leucaniae”

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Apr 19 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Antonio Biondi, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Your manuscript has been reviewed by two independent and qualified reviewers. Both of them found the paper publishable in PlosOne after minor revisions. I concur with them, thus I invite you to follow the comments below and to submit the revised version of the manuscript (track changes and clean versions) along with a point by point rebuttal letter.

Authors declared that data are available witouth restriction, but I was not able to understand how. Can authors read and follow the data availability PlonOnse roles https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability ?

Title: I found the title unclear and in any case missing of a comma after the specific name. The word ‘suitability’ as it is used is confusing: is it referred to the parasitoid or to the host? Also, ‘large eggs’ should not be used in the title, because it is misleading: did authors select the bigger eggs from the same host? I do not think so. Did authors test eggs of different size? It seems they do not.

Authors should find a more suitable and clear title. An example could be

“Suitability of Chinese oak silkworm eggs for the multigenerational rearing of the parasitoid Trichogramma leucaniae”

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional location information of the collection sites, including geographic coordinates for the data set if available.

3. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the collection sites access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript “Suitability of Trichogramma leucaniae …” reported the outcome of rearing Trichogramma leucaniae successively on eggs of Antheraea pernyi for several generations, and compared the control efficacy of the parasitoids with those reared on eggs of Corcyra cephalonica in parasitizing eggs of Leguminivora glycinivorella. The data support the conclusions and the authors made all data underlying the findings. The manuscript provides interesting information of the mass production of T. leucaniae on large eggs. I think the manuscript can be accepted for publication after having a minor revision.

The title needs to be reconsidered. It does not reflect the content of the manuscript. For example, suitable to what or for which?

Line 33 ‘pest’ should be ‘pests’;

Line 46 delete the second ‘thus’;

Lines 178 I don’t understand why you provided different amount of eggs to individual parasitoid?

Lines 270-271 Why did you say the reproductive index is high?

Reviewer #2: Line 99: “However, the laboratory studies…” if “However” added in, this sentence may be a more reasonable and logical connection in the context.

Line 159-160: “When no parasitoids… unemerged adults.” Only the host eggs with no emergence of parasitoids were dissected? How about the rate of the other eggs with partly emergent wasps? Do you mean either all parasitoids emerge or all died within an egg?

Line 194: “Data … software” the year or the edition of this soft should be provided.

Line 249-251: “Trichogramma … could be … domestication” Only four generations without other evidences, this statement is a little bit of subjective. Please reconsider the sentence.

Line 259-260: “In our study… for generations” It seems contradictory statement compared to the statement mentioned above in Line 249-251. Please reconsider what did you mean by this.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Suitability of Chinese oak silkworm  eggs for the multigenerational rearing of the parasitoid Trichogramma leucaniae

PONE-D-20-03548R1

Dear Dr. Zang,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Antonio Biondi, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: