PONE-D-22-23616A push-pull strategy to control the western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis, using alarm and aggregation pheromonesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kim,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 13 2022 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ramzi Mansour

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 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. 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 field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: 

"The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. 

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"This work was conducted with the support of the Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science & Technology Development (Project No. PJ01578901) funded by the Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

"The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

6. We note that Figure 6A in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 6A to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

[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

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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: I read the manuscript by Yonggyun Kim et al. with interest. The paper aims to develop a non-chemical technique to control F. occidentalis infesting hot peppers cultivated in greenhouses in Korea. The method was based on behavioral control using an alarm pheromone to prevent the entry of the thrips into greenhouses and an aggregation pheromone for mass trapping inside the greenhouses. This technique effectively suppressed thrips populations in field conditions and also prevented the occurrence of plant disease caused by TSWV in hot peppers. In my opinion, I think is a nice piece of work and original, however there are some improvements to be made especially in materials and Methods section.

Introduction

I believe that you need a much strong justification for studying the western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis as pest I did not find any strong justification for using F. occidentalis compared to other insects such as aphids for example!

Materials and methods

The overall level of details for the Materials and Methods is appropriate, however there are some informations should be add in the text:

Line 98 page 5: Please precise if it was the same laboratory conditions described below.

Line 103-105 page 5: please give the purity of the molecules: Lavandulyl acetate (LA), lavandulyl methylbutanoate (LMB), and neryl methylbutanoate (NMB).

Line 108-110 page 6: Purity of molecules are missing here.

Line 114 page 6: add the purity of the alarm pheromone components

Line 115: please correct Signal-Aldrich >> Sigma-Aldrich

Line 125: I did not find any justification for using hexane as solvent please explain.

Line 132: Give the purity of α-tocopherol.

Line 138: explain the use of a dark room

Line 143: here, normally the Y-tube should be cleaned with methanol after each replication not only before and after the bio assay.

Line 143: give the sex of individuals: only females? Please justify

Line 182: information about pesticides used in fields are missing here. Please add the active molecules of these insecticides.

Line 206-211: add references about used primers.

Line 218: reference is missing.

Line 220: Do you check the normality of values before using the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ? please add the information.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript does not provide a proper paragraph of Conclusions which must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented in the text. The data obtained in the study support the conclusions. All the experiments, trials have been conducted rigorously , with appropriate control and replication.So that also the descriptions of Material and Methods must be precse and complete. Although the manuscript has been presented in a correct and standard English, it might be useful to ask for a revision of the text by a mother language lecturer.

Reviewer #3: The article in review is titled “A push-pull strategy to control the western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis, using alarm and aggregation pheromones”. This article presents a novel push-pull system for the management of Frankliniella occidentalis thrips using an interesting and new combination of pheromones and traps. The experimental design was simple and straightforward, and acceptable. The article is mostly well-written and has a strong introduction supporting the importance of the experiment. There are many components to this research involving different scientific techniques and methods, which are interesting but may have contributed to a few issues which need to be addressed before the publication process can progress.

There are some areas in the methods section which need clarification, and it seems as though the results section contains much of the information which fits better into the methods section. There are major problems with the reporting of the statistical results and the description of the statistical analyses used. The statistical values reported do not match the tests that were reported to be used in the methods section. Additionally, the discussion section could use some expanding to include discussion of the study’s limitations, future directions, and more summarizing of the results highlighting the importance for the field of study. More details on suggested areas for improvement can be found below.

Overall, I believe that this is an interesting and important study for the field of integrated pest management, but it requires significant revisions before it can be considered for publication. Specifically, there are some major issues involving the choice and reporting of statistical analyses that require extra attention, and the discussion section is weak.

Areas for improvement

Major

1.Results section appears to be missing the F-values, and degrees of freedom in the reporting of the results of the ANOVA. There appear to be sections of the results section that might actually belong in the methods section, for example the details about the trap types and configuration.

2.The results reported for the trap comparison test use a Chi-squared value rather than an F-value which would be expected from the ANOVA that was purported to be used to analyze the results. The statistics reported in the results section do not match the statistical tests that were delineated in the methods section. Lines 304-306 only a P-value is reported, what statistical test was used here and what was the associated value? Additionally, were the data tested to confirm that they meet the assumptions of the statistical tests chosen for analysis? Did the data transformation correct for normality?

3. In the discussion section there is a lack of discussion about any potential shortcomings/weaknesses of the study and the discussion section should have more time spent discussing future directions.

Minor

1.The abstract could use more information regarding the results of the study.

2.In the methods section under thrips rearing, it is stated that the thrips were fed a kidney bean diet for five days after germination. This could use some clarification as I believe the authors meant after hatching.

3.Y-tube methods (line 137-146) could use more explanation. It says that thrips were used three days after emergence, is that referring to emergence from the egg (hatching), or emergence as adults from the pupal stage? Additionally, the methods state that each test used 10-30 individuals, were these individuals tested separately (one at a time in the olfactometer) or were they all places into the olfactometer at the same time, please clarify.

4.Line 189-190 discussing the sampling of flowers states: “in flowers in 10 randomly selected flowers was counted in three fields three times a week for 190 one month (June 13 � July 13) once in a week”. This statement is confusing, was the sampling conducted three times a week or one time per week?

5.Line 222- should be arcsine perhaps?

6.In discussing the results of the field study of the push and pull components, it is stated that the Frankliniella occidentalis numbers are lower in the experimental greenhouse, but what were the results for each life stage and sex? Was it only the total number of all life stages and males and females that were reduced, or was there a difference in the response of the different life stages (larvae versus adults) or sexes?

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-23616.docx

PONE-D-22-23616R1A push-pull strategy to control the western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis, using alarm and aggregation pheromonesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kim,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 22 2023 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ramzi Mansour

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[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 #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #1: all corrections were done. I feel that this manuscript A push-pull strategy to control the western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis,using alarm and aggregation pheromones is now acceptable for publication

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

I read carefully the revised text of your mns PONE -D-22-23616, titled " A push-pull strategy to control the Western Flower Thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis,using alarm and aggregation pheromones". Even I read the replies you provided to each reviewers. I appreciated the effort done in order to justify and preserve your previous "draft", or to accept and change some parts as suggested by reviewers. In particular, I am satisfied for the adding of several new data to minor/major issues recorded in M& M and Results Sections. Such as detailed records regarding some texts , i.e. in subprgrs. 2.4, 2.5, 2.9 that more improved the data presentation , technical clarification , i.e. 2.3, and statistical analysis , i.e. 2.11. Details were added also to Results Section , i.e. F and P values in 3.1, 3.2 and 3.4 subparagraphs.

The new version of Discussion Section has more clearly recorded the main steps obtained in the technical part of this study , such as the control efficacy of push-pull tactics against Frankliniella occidentalis . Also the actractiveness of the aggregation pheromone compounds has been critically outlined for the other thrips species considered. Finally, the future perspectives of the novel push-pull tactics in the control of pest thrips might be proposed for open field applications.The well presented comments let me satisfied of the new version of the text, even without a separated Conclusions Section. Here, I attached the pdf of the revised version of the text that I consider suitable for publication.

Reviewer #3: Section 3-3 in the results section still reports statistical values (t-test and chi-squared) that are not mentioned in the methods section for statistical analyses performed. Are these the post-hoc analyses, or were they just forgotten in the methods section?

At the end of section 3-3 there is an F-value reported of 1600.00. This is an exceptionally high F-value, is that the accurate F-value or is the decimal point in the wrong place, for example should it actually be 160 or 16? If it is indeed 1600, that is very impressive!

All other comments have been addressed, the manuscript looks great.

**********

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 #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Kara Tyler-Julian

**********

[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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-23616_R1 (3).pdf

A push-pull strategy to control the western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis, using alarm and aggregation pheromones

PONE-D-22-23616R2

Dear Dr. Kim,

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,

Ramzi Mansour

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE