PONE-D-20-06870

Oviposition behaviour of mated or unmated Cleruchoides noackae (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) females

PLOS ONE

Dear Miss Becchi,

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.

The reviewers agreed about the value of new information presented in the manuscript that could improve rearing methods for the biological control agent Cleruchoides noackae. However, the reviewers also noted a few issues that must be addressed before the manuscript is suitable for publication. Foremost, Reviewer 1 found that the manuscript had some conceptual overlap with two previously published articles about the oviposition behavior of C. noackae: Mutitu et al. (2013) and Haas et al. (2018). These articles are cited in the manuscript, but it is important that you explain clearly how your study builds upon and adds to these previous publications.

Secondly, both reviewers commented on the quality of the written English. They identified a number of typographical and grammatical errors in the manuscript, as well as some places in where the language was unclear or ambiguous. Furthermore, Reviewer 2 noted at least one technical error (with respect to comparing treatments in Table 2). Each reviewer attached an annotated copy of the manuscript with their specific comments and edits, which you should consider carefully. I believe you will find their observations very helpful during the revision process.

Finally, Reviewer 2 expressed some concern regarding the volume of data, i.e., whether there are enough data to support robust conclusions. I believe the data are sufficient, but it would be good if you could provide readers with a comparison of the scope of your study (in terms of sample size, etc.) versus the scope of other, similar studies of oviposition behavior.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 06 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,

Frank H. Koch, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 details regarding all animal and plant materials used in your study and ensure you have described the source. For more information regarding PLOS' policy on materials sharing and reporting, see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-materials.

[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: Partly

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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 paper is a useful study and contributes to our knowledge of the biology of Cleruchoides noackae as a key biocontrol agent for Thaumastocoris peregrinus. However, there is overlap with previously published papers on the oviposition behaviour of C. noackae, notably Mutitu et al 2013 and Haas et al 2018. It would be useful in the text to make specific reference to these papers and how the present study adds extra knowledge not covered by these studies to make the demarcation clear.

The paper is technically sound and I believe the statistical analyses were appropriate for the studies carried out (although this is not my specialty).

One issue is that the English grammar needed correction which is to be expected from non-native English speaking authors. Edits are suggested in the attached Word document) .

Specific comments on the paper and edits that need to be addressed are included in the track changes document attached.

Once these changes are made I believe that the paper is suitable for publication.

Reviewer #2: Dear Author,

Working on insect mating behavior is so valuable and interesting issue which can improve mass rearing techniques of natural enemies, but I think your manuscript cannot be published in this version due to some technical and linguistic problems.

**********

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Oviposition behaviour of C. noackae_Review.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-06870_reviewer.pdf

PONE-D-20-06870R1

Oviposition behaviour of mated or unmated Cleruchoides noackae (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) females

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Becchi,

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 revised manuscript is much improved. There are still some editorial and grammatical issues to address, many of which I have documented in an annotated (tracked changes) version of the manuscript. Reviewer #3 also attached a more detailed set of comments for you to consider. Reviewer #4 expressed concern about the suitability of the analysis given the limited number of replicates. As I mentioned in my comments about your initial submission, I believe the data are sufficient (marginally so), and I am mostly satisfied with your response to Reviewer #2 and myself regarding this issue ("We consider that our replications were similar to others published..."). However, now that two different reviewers have raised this issue, I believe it's important to integrate your response directly into the Discussion portion of the manuscript. Furthermore, I think you should elaborate on the consequences of your limited volume of data for interpretation. For instance, a small number of replicates meant that your standard errors were relatively large in some instances, which may have obscured actual differences between mated and unmated females that you would have detected with a larger number of replicates. Overall, I think you had some meaningful results regardless of their statistical significance, but it is always important to recognize and acknowledge the limitations and potential sources of error in an analysis. You will need to make this change, as well as all of the minor editorial/grammatical changes, for the manuscript to be suitable for publication.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 28 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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.

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). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Frank H. Koch, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Please see the annotated version of the manuscript that I uploaded. You do not have to respond to these edits or comments point-by-point.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

2. 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. 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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The study is valuable as it will contribute to improving laboratory rearing of the parasitoid Cleruchoides noackae. As a previous reviewer pointed out, there are language problems throughout the manuscript, which is understandable. However, in some places this forms a barrier that prevents the main ideas from being communicated fully. This could be corrected with the help of a copy editor, one with a scientific background may be helpful as they would better understand the technicalities of laboratory experiments.

The references could be looked at to make sure that references more specific to the study are used.

More detailed review comments have been attached.

Reviewer #4: This paper is a good contribute to improve the knowledge of the biology mainly with regard to reproductive biology of Cleruchoides noackae as a key biocontrol agent for Thaumastocoris peregrinus. Although most of the suggestions and corrections suggested by previous reviewers have been resolved by the authors, I believe that one of the most important aspects has not been improved; there is an unresolved technical problem related with design of the experiments (i.e., the number of replicates). The number of replicates presented in that study (N=11) is very low to support robustly any behavior related with reproductive biology, like courtship, mating or oviposition behaviors. In fact, in most of the analyzed parameters the standard error is very high in comparison to the average value, which does not offer security in the obtained values. The acceptable number of repetitions should be 3 to 4 times higher than what was considered.

Furthermore, there are some behaviors associated to parasitoids that are not observed by the authors, neither referred as associated with other species. This is the case, for example, of the probing behavior with the oviscapt (before the ovipositing behavior) that was observed associated to some parasitoids, such as the case of Anagyrus vladimiri Triapitsyn (= Anagyrus sp. nr. pseudococci (Girault)) (Bugila et al, 2014). This example indicates that the state of the art in this issue should have been further developed.

Reference

Bugila AAA, Branco M, Silva EB & Franco JC (2014) Host selection behavior and specificity of the solitary parasitoid of mealybugs Anagyrus sp. nr. pseudococci (Girault) (Hymenoptera, Encyrtidae). Biocontrol Science and Technology 24, 22-38. doi:10.1080/ 09583157.2013.840771

For these reasons, I consider that this manuscript should not be published in this format.

**********

7. 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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: 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.]

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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Oviposition behaviour of mated or unmated Cleruchoides noackae (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae)

PONE-D-20-06870R2

Dear Dr. Becchi,

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

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- 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.

Kind regards,

Frank H. Koch, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I have a handful of minor editorial corrections that you should make when submitting the final proof:

Line 50 - change: "lays eggs in clusters"

Line 79 - insert comma after "Brazil"

Lines 81-83 - rewrite end of sentence: "...to offer host eggs to copulated females in order to avoid arrhenotokous parthenogenesis [23]."

Line 86 - "rituals" instead of "ritual"

Line 95 - rewrite end of sentence: "...after releasing mated females in the field."

Line 172 - "pairs" instead of "pair"

Line 245 - "lay" instead of "lays"

Line 293 - rewrite: "...which affects cuticle penetration time [56]. For example,"

Line 326 - rewrite: "...and the outer opercular region is smooth in texture,"

Lines 328 - rewrite: "Failure to detect a statistical difference..."

Lines 329-333 - rewrite: "...females in oviposition behavior may have been due to a limited number of replicates, as the standard errors were relatively large in some instances. However, our number of replicates (n=10) was similar to other published articles, including others that studied C. noackae, such as Mutitu et al. [24], with n=10, and Haas et al. [51], with n=12."

Reviewers' comments: