Periodical crossing of the laboratory population with the natural population would improve fitness in <i>S. sunia</i> (<i>Lepidoptera: Noctuidae</i>)

C. I. Real-Baca; C. A. Zuniga-Gonzalez

doi:10.12688/f1000research.129183.3

Home Browse Periodical crossing of the laboratory population with the natural...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Revised

Periodical crossing of the laboratory population with the natural population would improve fitness in S. sunia (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

[version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 2 not approved]

Previously titled: Cross-species characterization in the reproduction of Spodoptera sunia (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

C. I. Real-Baca¹, C. A. Zuniga-Gonzalez ²

PUBLISHED 14 Nov 2023

Author details Author details

¹ Center for the production and reproduction of biological controllers, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, Leon, 21000, Nicaragua
² Bioeconomy and Climate Change Research Center, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, Leon, 21000, Nicaragua

C. I. Real-Baca
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Methodology, Resources, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

C. A. Zuniga-Gonzalez
Roles: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Agriculture, Food and Nutrition gateway.

Abstract

Background

The research focused on evaluating the biological and reproductive parameters of the species Spodoptera sunia with the introduction of field genetic material, in the Noctuid Insect Breeding Laboratory.

Methods

The experiment consisted of three treatments and three repetitions involving 30 individuals each. Field-collected S. sunia population was reared in the laboratory under semi-controlled conditions of temperature and humidity for three generations. The progeny of the third generation was crossed with the laboratory population and the resulting progeny was observed for growth and reproductive fitness.

Results

The results revealed that the hybrid progeny (T3) has a sex ratio (F: M) of 0.82, as against 1.22 and 0.76 observed in the field (T1) and lab populations (T2) respectively. The T1 females oviposited 196 egg masses as against 160 and 59 egg masses by T3 and T2 females respectively. The larval growth was more in hybrid progeny with shorter larval duration. However, no variation was observed in the incubation and pupal periods.

Conclusions

Since the most optimal results were obtained in T2 and T3, it is recommended to introduce genetic material every six months to maintain a good laboratory population of the insect host under study and better breeding of its natural enemies.

Keywords

Noctuids, Insects, Diet, Treatments, Trials

Corresponding author: C. A. Zuniga-Gonzalez

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2023 Real-Baca CI and Zuniga-Gonzalez CA. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Real-Baca CI and Zuniga-Gonzalez CA. Periodical crossing of the laboratory population with the natural population would improve fitness in S. sunia (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 2 not approved]. F1000Research 2023, 12:30 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.129183.3) First published: 09 Jan 2023, 12:30 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.129183.1) Latest published: 14 Nov 2023, 12:30 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.129183.3)

Revised Amendments from Version 2

In this revised version of our article, we have implemented several significant improvements based on the valuable feedback from the reviewers. The major differences between this version and the previously published one are as follows:
Title and Species Naming: The title now includes the full species name "Spodoptera sunia" without abbreviations, adhering to taxonomic formatting guidelines. Additionally, the Order and Family names are correctly formatted without italics.
Abstract: We have made necessary revisions to the abstract, removing superfluous information and improving the clarity of our study's focus.
Methods Section: We have enhanced the clarity of the methodology, providing a more comprehensive description of the protocols followed, addressing grammatical issues, and eliminating redundancies.
Statistical Validation: The statistical tests used have been clarified, ensuring that they are accurately applied and described. Unnecessary details and formulae have been removed.
Tables and Figures: Legends, labels, and data in the tables and figures have been revised for accuracy and consistency, and problematic figures have been corrected.
Conclusions Section: The conclusions have been refined for clarity and accuracy.
Grammar and Language: Extensive work has gone into refining the manuscript's grammar and language to enhance readability and eliminate errors.
These revisions reflect our commitment to addressing the reviewers' comments and ensuring the overall quality of our research. We believe that these changes significantly improve the manuscript and make it more suitable for publication.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Hend Omar Mohamed
See the authors' detailed response to the review by María L Russo and Florencia Vianna
See the authors' detailed response to the review by SB Suby

Introduction

In agricultural production, producers have been grappling with pest control, with particular emphasis on pests exhibiting high adaptability. Notably, phytophagous insects have proven to be challenging adversaries in this regard (Brunetti et al., 2022; Saldamando and Marquez, 2012; Extremera et al., 2004; Pérez et al., 2003; Armstrong, 1994). It is worth mentioning that the genus Spodoptera sp. (Guenée) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) is a prominent member of the Noctuidae family, with geographical presence spanning across North America, Latin America, France, Italy, the Black Sea region, the Balkans, England, North and Southern Africa, the Middle East, the Iberian Peninsula, and Germany (Kergoat et al., 2021; Zelaya et al., 2022).

Due to its omnivorous nature, S. sunia is widespread and affects various crops. Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food (SAGARPA, 2002) mentions in the case of Mexico that S. sunia is considered a pest of economic importance that periodically affects essential crops. To control pest, many laboratories produce and reproduce these organisms in order to reduce and control the population of pests in crops, some genera are Trichogramma, Spalangia Telenomus, Cochliomyia, Ceratitis, Baculovirus and Nomuraea rileyi (predators and parasitoids, viruses and entomopathogenic fungi) (Jiménez, 2022; Badii & Abreu, 2006).

In the National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, Leon (UNAN-Leon), the Insect Breeding Laboratory began the reproduction of insects in the 80s, establishing quality controls in breeding, in such a way that the life tables allow determining the biological parameters and reproduction of the insect’s species.

In addition, due of their significance as hosts for the nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV), which is considered a biological control agent for pest insects in economically important crops, they play a crucial role in preventing environmental contamination, safeguarding, human health, and protecting other vertebrates (Haase et al., 2015; Romero Gutierrez and Cruz Reyes, 2011; Carrillo et al., 2003; Muentes, 2000).

The study focused on characterizing the biological parameters of the species S. sunia with the introduction of field genetic material (cross-species) at the Noctuid Insect Breeding Laboratory, Biological Control Agent Production and Reproduction Research Center (CIRCB), UNAN-León.

Ultimately, the subject of study becomes important given the need to study these parameters and the performance of the species S. sunia with the introduction of new natural genetic material (cross-species) to improve breeding and maintain optimal parameters (Raj et al., 2022; Rizo, 1994; Rizo et al., 1994; Passoa, 1991).

Methods

The research was carried out at the Noctuid Insect Breeding Laboratory (CIRCB), UNAN-León Agricultural Campus, (12°07′02.8″N 86°14′09.6″W). The environmental conditions were maintained under temperatures between 25°C and 27°C and a relative humidity of 60%.

The effect of crossing specimens of the species S. sunia was characterized in order to strengthen the genetic material of the breeding of S. sunia insects used as a host in the production of the NPV (Vásquez et al., 2002; Salinas-Sánchez et al., 2020).

Laboratory protocol

The protocol used began with the collection of Spodoptera sunia in the field. The Sébaco area located in the coordinates (12°52′42.4″N 86°05′29.3″W) was selected. The full protocol can be found on protocols.io (Real-Baca and Zuniga-Gonzalez, 2022a). The selection criteria was that it is an area that produces vegetables and where the presence of noctuid insects is more representative, just as the producers in the area demand NPV products for the control of pest insects. After the collection, they were stored in the Noctuid Insect Breeding Laboratory (CIRCB), a quarantine period of up to three generations was spent. The soybean-based diet was prepared. This diet underwent a sterilization process and was supplemented with vitamins and antibiotics.

In the assembly of the bioassays, two stages were considered (adults and larval length). The treatments were: T₁: S. sunia species brought from the field, T₂: S. sunia species from the Noctuid Insect Breeding Laboratory (CIRCB), T₃: S. sunia species Crossing (field-laboratory).

250 field larvae were collected, which were subjected to a quarantine process for three generations, this to eliminate any contaminants from the field. Of these 250 larvae, a mortality of 75 larvae (30%) was obtained. This mortality was due to bacterial infection. Of the remaining 175, 10 had a poor pupal formation and 25 failed to exit the capsule, therefore, they did not reach the adult stage, leaving 140 adults at the end. After passing the three generations, approximately 200 pupae were obtained, of which 60 pupae were taken for the Field (T₁) and Laboratory (T₂) treatments, which were sexed and weighed to start the assembly of the test. Treatments were as follows:

• Treatment 1: S. sunia species brought from the field
• Treatment 2: Species of S. sunia from the Breeding Laboratory
• Treatment 3: S. sunia species Crossing (field-laboratory)

In each repetition, 40 larvae were selected for a total of 120 larvae per treatment, resulting in 360 larvae in total. A six-day-old larva was deposited per four-ounce cup with a 2-cm square piece of diet, with the help of a tweezers the larvae were placed on the millimeter sheet to measure the length of each larva, and they were weighed daily on a Denver Instrument Co Serial No 3570 Analytical Balance. Also, the number of males and females per egg laying cage (replication) was considered. The following variables were evaluated:

• Larvae length: Each larva was placed on a millimeter sheet and the length measured in mm was observed.
• Hatching percentage: The number of eggs that hatched was counted visually.
• Weight of larvae: Larvae were weighed on a Denver Instrument Co Denver Analytical Balance, Cool, Serial No 3570.
• Weight of pupae: The pupae were weighed on a Denver Instrument Co Denver Analytical Balance, Cool, Serial No 3570.
• Sex of pupae: The abdominal part of the pupae was observed with the help of a Westover Scientific stereoscope (Rizo et al., 1994).
• Life cycle: The days it took in each of the larval stages were counted.

Statistical validation

The data processing was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics software (RRID:SCR_016479) v.21. Statistical analysis included the Student’s t-test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (K-S), Shapiro–Wilk test (W) (normality tests), Mann–Whitney U test and Lilliefors test (Shapiro and Wilk, 1965; Sánchez Turcios, 2015; Torres et al., 2012).

Student’s t-test used to compare the two treatments and determine if there are significant differences between the means of these groups. And it was also, used to evaluate whether the samples from two groups are statistically different in terms of their population mean (Raju, 2005; Malais and Ravensberg, 1992).

K-S test was used to verify the normality of the distribution between treatments (bioassays), equation 1 (Massey, 1951).

(1)

F_{n} = (x) = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^{n} \{\begin{matrix} 1 \\ 0 \end{matrix} si y_{i} \leq x, alternative

The W test was used to contrast the normality of a data set of the combined treatments, equation 2 (Shapiro, 1965).

(2)

W = \frac{{(\sum_{i = 1}^{n} a_{i} x_{(i)})}^{2}}{{((\sum_{i = 1}^{n} x_{i} - \hat{x}))}^{2}}

Mann–Whitney U test was used to check the heterogeneity of two ordinal treatments, equation 3. The starting point is:

Treatment data is autonomous.

The data are ordinal or continuous variables.

Under H₀, the initial distribution is the same for both treatments: P(T₁ > T₂) = P(T₂ > T₁)

In the first H₁, the value of one type of treatment tends to exceed the other: P(T₁ > T₂) + 0.5 P(T₁ = T₂) > 0.5.

(3)

\begin{matrix} U_{1} = T_{1} T_{2} + \frac{T_{1} (T_{2} + 1)}{2} - R_{1} \\ U_{2} = T_{1} T_{2} + \frac{T_{2} (T_{2} + 1)}{2} - R_{2} \end{matrix}

Where T₁ and T₂ are the sizes of each treatment; R₁ and R₂ are the rank sum of bioassay 1 and 2 observations, respectively (the sum of the relative position of each individual in the treatment). The U statistic is defined as the minimum of U₁ and U₂ (Turcios, 2015).

Lilliefors test is a normality test based on the K-S test. It was used to test H₀ that the data come from a normally distributed population (Lilliefors, 1967, 1969).

Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the data used at the time of establishing the bioassays. Table 1 provides a concise overview of the final weight (in milligrams) for each of the three treatments in the bioassay. The data is based on a sample size of 60 for each treatment. On average, the final weight for T₁ was 0.21 mg with a standard deviation of 0.04 mg and a mean standard error of 0.01. Similarly, T₂ exhibited an average final weight of 0.23 mg, with a standard deviation of 0.05 mg and a mean standard error of 0.01. T₃ had an average final weight of 0.20 mg, a standard deviation of 0.04 mg, and a mean standard error of 0.01. These statistics offer valuable insights into the variability and central tendency of the final weight data across the different treatments in the study.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the final weight (mg) of the treatments.

Treatment bio assay	N	Mean	Standard deviation	Mean standard error
T₁	60	0.21	0.04	0.01
T₂	60	0.23	0.05	0.01
T₃	60	0.20	0.04	0.01

Results and discussion

The research set out to study the biological and reproductive characteristics of S. sunia (Malais and Ravensberg, 1992), known as (Guen) = (Xylomige ssunia) called cutworm, tiger worm, leathery worm. The characterized variables were length and weight of larvae, hatching percentage, weight and sex of pupae (Parra et al., 2022; Peterson et al., 2022; Barcellos, 2022; Machado et al., 2020).

Length and weight of larvae

Figure 1 (Real-Baca and Zuniga-Gonzalez, 2022b) presents the length (mm) of the larvae in the different treatments. It was observed that the treatments begin to have changes in their length after day 10. The three treatments reached their greatest length at 13 days, it was noted that T₃ reached the greatest length (30 mm).

Figure 1. Average length (mm) of S. sunia larvae in the different treatments.

Table 2 presents the results of the normality tests for length (mm) and weight (mg) of the larvae during the larval stage across different treatment combinations. These tests are essential to assess whether the data conforms to a normal distribution, which is a crucial assumption for various statistical analyses. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests were applied, and the obtained p-values for all combinations were extremely low (less than 0.05), leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis and confirming that the data indeed follow a normal distribution. These findings provide a solid foundation for subsequent statistical analyses.

Table 2. Data normality test with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic for length (mm) and weight (mg) during the larval stage of the treatments.

Normality test
Variables	Treatments	Kolmogorov-Smirnov^a			Shapiro-Wilk
Variables	Treatments	Statistical	gl	Sig.	Statistical	Gl	Sig.
Length in mm	Combination T₁-T₂	0.16	1,500	0	0.91	1,500	0
Weight in mg	Combination T₁-T₂	0.43	1,500	0	0.08	1,500	0
Length in mm	Combination T₁-T₃	0.13	1,320	0	0.94	1,320	0
Weight in mg	Combination T₁-T₃	0.42	1,320	0	0.09	1,320	0

a Lilliefors Significance correction.

In the Mann–Whitney U test, it was obtained that the significance of the treatments T₂-T₃, and T₃-T₁ was 0.000 less than 0.05, so the H₀ is rejected, that is, there is a significant difference in terms of the length of the larvae, in the case of treatments T₂-T₃ the significance was 0.057 greater than 0.05, in terms of larval weight the significance was 0.098 greater than 0.05, so we accept the H₀ of equality between the treatments, that is that there is no significant difference in terms of the length and weight of the larvae (Table 3).

Table 3. Mann-Whitney U test for length (mm) and weight (mg) during the larval stage for treatments.

Statistical test^a
Statistical test	Treatments	Length in mm	Weight in mg
Mann-Whitney	Combination T₂-T₃	265438.5	267508
Wilcoxon		547063.5	549133
Z		-1.907	-1.656
Sig. asymptotic (bilateral)		0.057	0.098
Mann-Whitney	Combination T₃-T₁	172098	169339
Wilcoxon		453723	450964
Z		-6.111	-6.51
Sig. asymptotic (bilateral)		0	0

a Grouping variable: Treatments.

After day 13 in all treatments, a decrease in length was observed because in that week from day 16 to day 22 the environmental conditions were not appropriate. Treatments T₂-T₃ reached their greatest length on day 23 with 31 mm and later descended their length to enter the pre-pupal stage.

The best larval development was in the T₃ treatment with 30 mm because this treatment contains genes from Laboratory larvae, being more adapted to the artificial Soya diet. In the Laboratory treatment, larvae with 27 mm are obtained, this is because it is adapted to the conditions and food, continuing the T₃ larvae with 27 mm because it is not adapted to these controlled conditions, but to natural conditions.

Romero Gutierrez and Cruz Reyes (2011) obtained an average length in the first instar of 0.5 cm, reaching its maximum length at approximately 14 days with a length of 2.5 cm (25 mm), this confirms the results obtained with a length of 27 mm for T₁ and T₂ treatment, the T₃ treatment reached a length of 30 mm, this indicates a genetic improvement when introducing field material and mixing it with the laboratory material. For the T₃ treatment, its larval growth ends at 18 days, therefore, its larval development was faster.

Figure 2 presents the weight of the larvae (mg). Treatment T₃ on day 18 reached its highest weight (0.42 mg), this treatment being the one that reached the highest weight, and then began to lose its weight to enter the pre-pupal stage. The T₁ treatment reaches a weight of 0.33 mg at 19 days and 0.30 mg at 20 days in the T2 treatment.

Figure 2. Average weight (mg) of S. sunia larvae of the treatments.

Romero Gutierrez and Cruz Reyes (2011) obtained weights of 0.25 gr (0.250 mg) and in our study it was 0.33 mg in the T₁ and 0.30 mg for T₂, in the case of T₃ it was 0.43 mg. Thus, confirming that there is a difference in the crossover and field treatment since they obtained a greater weight; as soon as the laboratory treatment was similar to the weight of its study, this is due to the genetic deterioration found in the offspring.

Hatching percentage

Table 4 and Table 5 show the results of the number of eggs in the different treatments. In the T₁ treatment they oviposited nine days, obtaining a total of 23,354 eggs that corresponds approximately between 10 to 450 eggs for each mass with a total of 196 egg masses. The T₂ treatment oviposited seven days for a total of 4,456 eggs ranging from four to 400 eggs each mass with a total of 59 egg masses, and the T₃ treatment obtained the highest number of eggs, 18,025 eggs with nine days of oviposition with a number ranging from 15 to 450 eggs per egg mass for a total of 160 egg masses.

Table 4. Egg laying of S. sunia in different treatments.

Day	T₁	T₂	T₃
1
2
3	1744		1186
4	2972		2903
5	5670		3416
6	4439	373	3124
7	2689	633	2442
8	2670	1035	2585
9	2703	1392	1482
10	665	749	886
11	2	257	1
12	0	17	0
13		0

Table 5. Oviposition range by mass size for each treatment (%).

	Size of the mass
	Big mass (%)	Medium mass (%)	Small mass (%)
T₁/Oviposition range
2-42 eggs	0	0	0.11
43-82 eggs	0	0	0.89
83-122 eggs	0	0.2	0.00
123-162 eggs	0	0.7	0.00
163-202 eggs	0	0.1	0.00
203-242 eggs	0.03	0.0	0.00
243-282 eggs	0.18	0.0	0.00
283-322 eggs	0.62	0.0	0.00
323-362 eggs	0.18	0.0	0.00
T₂/Oviposition range
2-42 eggs	0	0	0.75
43-82 eggs	0	0	0.25
83-122 eggs	0	0.71	0
123-162 eggs	0	0.29	0
203-242 eggs	0.29	0.00	0
283-322 eggs	0.29	0.00	0
323-362 eggs	0.29	0.00	0
363-400 eggs	0.14	0.00	0
T₃/Oviposition range
2-42 eggs	0	0	0.31
43-82 eggs	0	0	0.27
83-122 eggs	0	0.19	0
123-162 eggs	0	0.78	0
163-202 eggs	0	0.03	0
243-282 eggs	0.48	0	0
283-322 eggs	0.10	0	0
323-362 eggs	0.19	0	0
363-400 eggs	0.23	0	0

In the T₃ and T₁ treatment, oviposition began after three days, but not in the T₂ treatment, this was due to the fact that the fertility of the adult drops due to the fact that they are crosses between the same family, as inbreeding increases, insects decrease their performance (Martinez, 1994; Bárcenas, 1997). The most used variables are fecundity, egg viability, development time, body size, survival and efficiency (Huettel, 1976; Moore et al., 1985; Smith et al., 1996). This confirms that it is important to introduce field material to the laboratory to obtain a better fertility and thus obtain a better reproduction in the breeding of insects.

The normality of the data for the final weight in mg was done with the K-S test, the significance was 0.200 greater than 0.05, so H₀ was accepted, likewise the data follow a normal distribution (Table 6), for the different combinations of treatments, the parametric Student’s T-test was calculated for independent samples of the treatments (T₂-T₃, T₃-T₁, T₂-T₁). It was observed that the homogeneity of variance is fulfilled because the significance is greater than 0.05. In the Student’s T-test, a significance of 0.03 less than 0.05 was obtained, it was concluded that there is a significant difference between the final weight in mg of S. sunia of T₂ and T₁ (Table 7).

Table 6. Normality test for weight (mg).

Treatment combinations	Kolmogorov-Smirnov^a			Shapiro-Wilk
Treatment combinations	Statistical	Gl	Sig.	Statistical	gl	Sig.
T₂-T₁	0.044	120	.200*	0.97	120	0.02
T₃-T₁	0.059	120	.200*	0.98	120	0.14
T₂-T₁	0.048	120	.200*	0.97	120	0.02

* This is a lower limit of the true significance.

a Lilliefors significance correction.

Table 7. Independent samples test for weight (mg).

Treatment combinations	Variance	Levene's test of equality of variances		Student's T-test for equality of means					95% confidence interval of the difference
		F	Sig.	t	gl	Sig. (bilateral)	Difference of means	Difference of means
		F	Sig.	t	gl	Sig. (bilateral)	Difference of means	Difference of means	Lower	Higher
T₂-T₃	*σ	1.63	0.21	3.36	118	0.001	0.03	0.01	0.01	0.04
T₂-T₃	**σ			3.36	112.35	0.001	0.03	0.01	0.01	0.04
T₃-T₁	*σ	0.15	0.7	-1.32	118	0.19	-0.01	0.01	-0.02	0.00
T₃-T₁	**σ			-1.32	117.85	0.19	-0.01	0.01	-0.02	0.01
T₂-T₁	*σ	0.15	0.7	-1.32	118	0.19	-0.01	0.01	-0.02	0.01
T₂-T₁	**σ			-1.32	117.85	0.19	-0.01	0.01	-0.02	0.01

* Equal variances are assumed.

** Equal variances are not assumed.

In the Student’s T-test, a significance of 0.001 less than 0.05 was obtained, it was concluded that there is a significant difference between the final weight in mg of S. sunia in the Laboratory treatment and the Crossing. In the Student’s T-test, a significance of 0.190 greater than 0.05 was obtained, it was concluded that there is no significant difference between the final weight in mg of S. sunia of T₃ and T₁.

Weight and sex of pupae

Table 8 shows the number of pupae of the populations of S. sunia from treatment T₂, which obtained a total of 60 pupae, of which 34 males and 26 females pupae, for a sex ratio of 0.7:1. Treatment T₁ obtained a total of 60 pupae, 28 females and 32 males for a sex ratio of 0.8:1 and in treatment T₃ a total of 60 pupae, 33 females and 27 males, and a sex ratio of 1.2 were obtained: 1. This indicates that the proportion for T₂ and T₃ was not optimal and that of T₃ was the most optimal, this is favorable considering that more female pupae than male pupae are needed in the laboratory for greater reproduction and better conditions.

Table 8. Average weight in (mg) and sex of final pupae in the Spodoptera sunia treatments.

Average weight and sex of initial pupae
Treatments	Number of pupae		Weight (mg)
Treatments	Females	Males	Females	Males
T₁	28	32	0.211	0.20
T₂	26	34	0.24	0.22
T₃	33	27	0.22	0.21

With respect to weight, we observed that the female S. sunia pupae in the three treatments were larger than the males. The T₂ treatment had a higher weight (0.2401), but not the T₃ and T₁ treatments (0.2197 and 0.2112), respectively.

Lifecycle

Figure 3 presents the average number of days in each stage of development of the species S. sunia in the three treatments. In the egg and pupal stages, the three treatments had no difference in days. In the larval stage for treatment T₂ and T₁ there was no difference (24 days), but not for treatment T₃, which presented a small difference (18 days). In the adult stage, the T₂ treatment obtained 10 days and in the T₁ and T₃ treatments they obtained a difference of two days (12 days).

Figure 3. Number of days in each stage of development of S. sunia in the treatments.

Romero Gutierrez and Cruz Reyes (2011) and Delgado and Hernández (2008) reported that the adult stage lasted 15.56 days. In this research for the T₂, the adult stage lasted 10 days, while in the T₁ and T₃ treatment it lasted 12 days, less than what they report in their work.

Romero Gutierrez and Cruz Reyes (2011) reported that the duration of the biological cycle, from egg to pupae, was 36.16 days, which was similar to the data obtained in the UNAN-León laboratory under controlled conditions and fed with an artificial soy-based diet. As can be seen, there is an average difference approximately for the T₃ treatment of five more days, for the T₁ treatment of 11 days and for the T₂ treatment it was nine more days. According to Romero Gutierrez and Cruz Reyes (2011), this is due to the type of feeding and conditions in which these insects are raised, which is why the days of their biological cycle increase.

Conclusions

The treatment combinations were statistically validated. Based on the characterization of the periodical crossing of populations S. sunia, it is concluded that the best results are presented in treatments T₁ and T₃. The considerations of the study were that the biological cycle of the species S. sunia brought from the Field (T₃) lasted 47 days, that of the Laboratory (T₂) 45 days and that of the Crossing 41 days. The highest average larval weight of S. sunia obtained from T3 was 0.4288 mg. The best sex ratio of the species S. sunia was T₃ (1.22:1). The longest treatment was T₃ (30 mm). T₁ obtained the highest number of eggs (1,744–5,670).

Based on these results, it is recommended to introduce genetic material every six months to maintain a good production of larvae of the species. It is also recommended to maintain stable climatic conditions (temperature and humidity) in the Insect Breeding Laboratory of the populations S. sunia (Montezano et al., 2014; Salinas-Sánchez et al., 2020). When preparing the diet, all the nutritional requirements must be met so that the reproduction of the S. sunia develops well. Finally, after moving to individual vessels, the diet is changed at least twice during the larval stage to prevent drying out and for better larval development.

Data availability

Underlying data

Figshare: Data for: Cross-species characterization in the reproduction of S. sunia (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21671669 (Real-Baca and Zuniga-Gonzalez, 2022b).

This project contains the following underlying data:

• Data.csv
• Fig 1.tif
• Fig 2.tif
• Fig 3.tif
• Table 1.csv
• Table 2.csv
• Table 3.csv
• Table 4.csv
• Table 5.csv
• Table 6.csv
• Table 7.csv
• Table 8.csv

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

References

Armstrong AM: Spodoptera sunia (guenee) (lepidoptera, noctuidae)-a new record of attack on cabbage in Puerto-Rico. Journal of Agriculture of the University of Puerto Rico. 1994; 78(1-2): 67–68. Publisher Full Text
Brunetti M, Magoga G, Gionechetti F, et al.: Does diet breadth affect the complexity of the phytophagous insect microbiota? The case study of Chrysomelidae. Environmental Microbiology. 2022; 24(8): 3565–3579. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Barcellos GA: Caracterização dos efeitos letais e subletais da soja que expressa as proteínas inseticidas Cry1A. 105, Cry2Ab2 e Cry1Ac para espécies de Spodoptera. Lepidoptera: Noctuidae; 2022.
Bárcenas ONM: La genética en el control biológico Vedalia 4.1997; 1.
Badii MH, Abreu JL: Control biológico una forma sustentable de control de plagas (Biological control a sustainable way of pest control). Daena: International Journal of Good Conscience. 2006; 1(1): 82–89.
Carrillo Pérez AM, Jirón Pérez CM, Lacayo Torres AC: Evaluación de la persistencia del virus de la poliedrosis nuclear (VPN), expuesto a la luz solar en diferentes períodos de tiempo. (Doctoral dissertation). 2003.
Delgado J, Hernández H: Evaluación del comportamiento de la especie Spodoptera sunia (Lepidóptera: Noctuidae), utilizando fécula de maíz como gelificante en la dieta artificial, para la producción masiva del virus de la poliedrosis nuclear (VPN). Laboratorio de cría de insectos noctuidos. Campus Agropecuario, UNAN-León. Tesis. Ingeniería en Agroecología Tropical. León-Nicaragua. 2008; 40p.
Extremera FM, Cobo A, Pérez Rodríguez MC, et al.: El complejo de lepidópteros defoliadores de Quercus en la provincia de Córdoba. Boletín de Sanidad Vegetal, Plagas. 2004; 30(1): 203–210.
Haase S, Sciocco-Cap A, Romanowski V: Baculovirus insecticides in Latin America: historical overview, current status and future perspectives. Viruses. 2015; 7(5): 2230–2267. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Huettel MD: Monitoring the quality of laboratory-reared insects: a biological and behavioral perspective. Environmental Entomology. 1976; 5(5): 807–814. Publisher Full Text
Jiménez LAM: Producción de microorganismos entomopatógenos para el control de insectos plaga en cultivos agrícolas: Ejércitos microscópicos contra insectos plaga. Revista de Divulgación Científica iBIO. 2022; 4(2): 18–22.
Kergoat GJ, Goldstein PZ, Le Ru B, et al.: A novel reference dated phylogeny for the genus Spodoptera Guenée (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae: Noctuinae): new insights into the evolution of a pest-rich genus. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 2021; 161: 107161. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Lilliefors H: On the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality with mean and variance unknown. Journal of the American Statistical Association. June 1967; 62: pp. 399–402. Publisher Full Text
Lilliefors H: On the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for the exponential distribution with mean unknown. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1969; 64: 387–389. Publisher Full Text
Machado EP, dos S Rodrigues Junior GL, Somavilla JC, et al.: Survival and development of Spodoptera eridania, Spodoptera cosmioides and Spodoptera albula (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on genetically-modified soybean expressing Cry1Ac and Cry1F proteins. Pest Management Science. 2020; 76(12): 4029–4035. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Malais M, Ravensberg W: Conocer y reconocer a las plagas de cultivos protegidos y sus enemigos naturales.1992; 173p.
Martínez M: El control de calidad en la cría de insectos.Bautista N, Vejar G, Carrillo JL, et al., editors. Técnicas para la cría de insectos. Instituto de Fitosanidad. Colegiode Postgraduados en Ciencias Agrícolas; México; 1994; pp. 107–135. pp. 25–37.
Massey FJ Jr: The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for goodness of fit. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1951; 46(253): 68–78. Publisher Full Text
Montezano DG, Specht A, Sosa-Gomez DR, et al.: Biotic potential, fertility and life table of Spodoptera albula (Walker)(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), under controlled conditions. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências. 2014; 86: 723–732. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Moore R, Udell C, Calkins L: Quality assessment in laboratory-reared msects.Singh IP, Moore RF, editors. Handbook of insect rearing. The Netherlands: Elsevier; 1985; Vol l. : pp.107–135.
Muentes LAA: Alteraciones causadas por sucesivas aplicaciones de baculovirus en spodoptera littoralis (boisduval)(lepidoptera: noctuidae). (Doctoral dissertation, Universidad de Córdoba (ESP)). 2000.
Parra JRP, Coelho A, Cuervo-Rugno JB, et al.: Important pest species of the Spodoptera complex: Biology, thermal requirements and ecological zoning. Journal of Pest Science. 2022; 95(1): 169–186. Publisher Full Text
Passoa S: Color identification of economically important Spodoptera larvae in Honduras (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Insecta Mundi. 1991; 414.
Pérez AC, Elósegui O, Padrón NB: Aislamiento, caracterización morfológica y fisiológica del hongo entomopatógeno Paecilomyces fumosoroseus (WIZE) BROUM & SMITH. Fitosanidad. 2003; 7(3): 27–32.
Peterson K, Cheremond E, Brandvain Y, et al.: Weight Gain of Spodoptera frugiperda Larvae (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on Leaf and Floral Tissues of Silphium integrifolium (Asterales: Asteraceae) Differs by Plant Genotype. Environmental Entomology. 2022; 51(2): 397–404. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Raj MN, Samal I, Paschapur A, et al.: Entomopathogenic viruses and their potential role in sustainable pest management. New and Future Developments in Microbial Biotechnology and Bioengineering. Elsevier; 2022; (pp. 47–72). Publisher Full Text
Raju TN: William Sealy Gosset and William A. Silverman: two “students” of science. Pediatrics. 2005; 116(3): 732–735. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Real-Baca CI, Zuniga Gonzalez CA: Protocol for Cross-species characterization in the reproduction of Spodoptera Sunia (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). protocols.io. 2022a. Reference Source
Real-Baca CI, Zuniga-Gonzalez CA: Data for: Cross-species characterization in the reproduction of Spodoptera Sunia (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). figshare. [Dataset]. 2022b. Publisher Full Text
Rizo C: Procedimiento para la crianza masiva de insectos noctuidos. Unan-León; 1994.
Rizo C, et al.: Procedimiento para la crianza masiva de insectos noctuidos. UNAN-OEA; 1994; vol. 9. : 24p.
Romero Gutiérrez MI, Cruz Reyes CM: Calidad de la cría de Spodoptera: algunos parámetros biológicos para su reproducción. Campus Agropecuario de la UNAN-León. Centro de Investigación y Reproducción de Controladores Biológicos (CIRCB) 2011. (Doctoral dissertation). 2011.
Saldamando CI, Marquez EJ: Aproximación a la filogenia de Spodoptera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) con el uso de un fragmento del gen de la citocromo oxidasa I (COI). Revista de Biología Tropical. 2012; 60(3): 1237–1248. Publisher Full Text
Sánchez Turcios RA: t-student: Usos y abusos. Revista Mexicana de Cardiologia. 2015; 26(1): 59–61. Recuperado en 09 de diciembre de 2022. Reference Source
Shapiro SS, Wilk MB: An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika. 1965; 52(3-4): 591–611. Publisher Full Text
Smith R, Ponce J, Vantman D: Significado fisiopatológico de las especies reactivas del oxígeno en la infertilidad masculina. Rev. chil. obstet. ginecol. 1996; 323–331.
SAGARPA (Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación): Información estadística de la delegación estatal de Michoacán. México, D. F.: SAGARPA; 2002.
Salinas-Sánchez DO, Avilés-Montes D, Aldana-Llanos L, et al.: Efecto Insecticida de Serjania schiedeana Para el Control de Spodoptera frugiperda Bajo Condiciones de Laboratorio e Invernadero. Southwestern Entomologist. 2020; 45(2): 521–530. Publisher Full Text
Torres V, Barbosa I, Meyer R, et al.: Criterios de bondad de ajuste en la selección de modelos no lineales en la descripción de comportamientos biológicos. Revista Cubana de Ciencia Agrícola. 2012; 46(4): 345–350.
Turcios RS: Prueba de Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney: mitos y realidades. Rev Mex Endocrinol Metab Nutr. 2015; 2: 18–21.
Vásquez J, Zeddam JL, Tresierra-Ayala Á: Control biológico del “cogollero del maíz” Spodoptera frugiperda, (Lepidoptera; Noctuidae) CON EL BaculoviruS Sf VPN, en Iquitos-Peru. Folia Amazónica. 2002; 13(1-2): 25–39. Publisher Full Text
Zelaya-Molina LX, Chávez-Díaz IF, de los Santos-Villalobos S , et al.: Control biológico de plagas en la agricultura mexicana. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas. 2022; 13(SPE27): 69–79. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 09 Jan 2023

Author details Author details

C. I. Real-Baca
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Methodology, Resources, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

C. A. Zuniga-Gonzalez
Roles: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (3)

version 3

Revised

Published: 14 Nov 2023, 12:30

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.129183.3

version 2

Revised

Published: 31 Aug 2023, 12:30

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.129183.2

version 1

Published: 09 Jan 2023, 12:30

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.129183.1

© 2023 Real-Baca CI and Zuniga-Gonzalez CA. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Real-Baca CI and Zuniga-Gonzalez CA. Periodical crossing of the laboratory population with the natural population would improve fitness in S. sunia (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 2 not approved]. F1000Research 2023, 12:30 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.129183.3)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 3

VERSION 3

PUBLISHED 14 Nov 2023

Revised

Views

Reviewer Report 24 Jun 2024

Rajanikanth P, Department of Entomology, College of Agriculture, Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agriculture University, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.158483.r282159

Concept is good
But the very purpose of study is to help NPV production or to maintain general vigor of laboratory populations is the question?

What ever the objective may be
1) Insects come up well only under natural diet
the artificial diet is only for our ease of mass producing the insects for a brief period of time.
2) Though artificial diet is a balanced food it only gives required energy to insect for promoting to next stages but it does not activate the real potential of the insect which the insect derives when feeding on live food. As the plants produce certain defense molecules which the insect tries to fight back.
3) The very problem with inbreeding is lack of immunity in the cultures and most of them die due to exposure of the cultures to their own excreta which they release in the same vicinity.
4) The excreta released by the insects after eating the artificial diet is totally different from that released from natural diet.
5)These excreta attract large quantum of microbes other than entomopathogens for which the larvae are very susceptible.
6) Hence periodical cross will always help in restoring the general vigour and enhances immunity in the insects.

The data on these points will really help in drawing drawing perfect conclusions for the current research.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Host plant resistance, Insect nutrition, Insect Immunity and Insecticide resistance

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

Reviewer Report 27 Nov 2023

Hend Omar Mohamed, Biological Control Research Department, Plant Protection Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center, Giza, Egypt

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.158483.r223073

No further comments ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 31 Aug 2023

Revised

Views

Reviewer Report 31 Oct 2023

María L Russo, Instituto Spegazzini, National University of La Plata, La Plata, Buenos Aires Province, Argentina

Florencia Vianna, Instituto Spegazzini, Universidad Nacional de la Plata, La Plata, Buenos Aires Province, Argentina

Not Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.154183.r207549

Periodical crossing of the laboratory population with the natural population would improve fitness in S. sunia (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

The authors have studied the biological and reproductive parameters of the species Spodoptera sunia (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in different populations (field, laboratory and crossing populations) and investigates the results of the periodic introduction of field genetic material in laboratory colonies. Based on the results, the authors recommend introducing genetic material from the field every six month, also to maintain stable climatic conditions and to provide the adequate diet that should be changed every two days during the larval stage.

Broad comments

The introduction section could be expanded providing further information about the plague and explaining the importance of the investigation.
Material and methods section should be better explained, describing properly the protocols followed.
Results and discussion section should be rewritten. There are many mistakes in the tables and figures. Also the text and tables present redundant information.

Specific comments

Title

The title should provide the complete name of the lepidopteran species: Spodoptera Also the Order and Family should not go in italics: Lepidoptera: Noctuidae

Abstract

Please delete “in the Noctuid Insect Breeding Laboratory”.

Introduction

When you first mention the species S. susinia, please provide the complete name of the species: Spodoptera sunia (Guenée) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).
“To control this pest, many laboratories produce and reproduce these organisms in order to reduce and control the population of pests in crops, some Genera are Trichogramma, Spalangia Telenomus, Cochliomyia, Ceratitis, Baculovirus and Nomuraea rileyi (predators and parasitoids, viruses and entomopathogenic fungi) (Jiménez, 2022; Badii & Abreu, 2006)”. Please delete the word 'this', you're referring to biocontrol agents not the plague.

Methods

“The research was carried out at the Noctuid Insect Breeding Laboratory (CIRCB), UNAN-León Agricultural Campus, coordinates (12.11743, -86.23600)” Please delete the word coordinates.
Laboratory protocol, first paragraph last sentence: whose they? Please provide the correct sentence.
Page 4 first paragraph : Please do not start the sentence with a number, for example you could say “A total of 250...”
Page 4: You've already mention which were the treatments.

Statistical validation

“The data processing was done with the software IBM SPSS Statistics (RRID:SCR_016479) v.21 and the Student's t-test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (K-S), Shapiro–Wilk test (W) (normality tests), Mann–Whitney U test and Lilliefors test (Shapiro and Wilk, 1965; Sánchez Turcios, 2015; Torres et al., 2012).” Please correct the sentence. You say and mention the test and do not finish the sentence correctly.
Student t-test is not used to verify normality of data sets.
There is no need to provide the formula of neither the statistical tests nor the hypothesis that were tested in material and methods.
Table 1 should be presented in results section, and also you should check the information that provides.

Results and discussion

Length and weight of larvae

Figure 1: please express correctly the legend in the y axis.
Figure 2 does not provide the information on the weight of the different stages. Please place the correct figure.
There is no need to describe the hypotheses that were tested; you should summarize the information correctly. The information provided in table 2 is also redundant since it provides repeated information.
Which values does table 3 provide? You should clarify and place the correct values.
Figure 2 does not present the average weight of larvae Hatching percentage.
Please check the values provided in table 4 and those express in the text. There are several mistakes or at least inconsistencies. If the number of eggs is an average you should also provide standard deviation values. Furthermore, strange values are observed, within the same treatment for example in T1: 1,744 and 665.

Weight and sex of pupae

Figure 3, colors in the figure does not match those in the legend. Also, in the figure (x axis) you only refer to the larval stage but in the text you mention egg, larval, pupal and adult stage. Furthermore, which are the statistical values for you to say that there are or not significative differences?

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

No
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Biological control, entomology, micology

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to state that we do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 29 Nov 2023

C. A. Zuniga-Gonzalez, Bioeconomy and Climate Change Research Center, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, Leon, 21000, Nicaragua

29 Nov 2023

Author Response

Reviewer 3
Periodical crossing of the laboratory population with the natural population would improve fitness in S. sunia (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

The authors have studied the biological and reproductive parameters ... Continue reading Reviewer 3
Periodical crossing of the laboratory population with the natural population would improve fitness in S. sunia (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

The authors have studied the biological and reproductive parameters of the species Spodoptera sunia (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in different populations (field, laboratory and crossing populations) and investigates the results of the periodic introduction of field genetic material in laboratory colonies. Based on the results, the authors recommend introducing genetic material from the field every six month, also to maintain stable climatic conditions and to provide the adequate diet that should be changed every two days during the larval stage.

Response to reviewer
We thank reviewer 3 for his contribution and contributions to improving the quality of the manuscript. We appreciate his accurate observations in the methodology section.

Broad comments
The introduction section could be expanded providing further information about the plague and explaining the importance of the investigation.

Response to reviewer
We appreciate your observations, in general and according to reviewers 1 and 2, a review and rewriting of this section was made, highlighting the importance and relevance of this study in countries like ours.

Material and methods section should be better explained, describing properly the protocols followed.

We greatly appreciate your observation. We have added in the article the main aspects of the methodology and the protocol applied. However, we have added and made available to the public the protocols.io repository (Real-Baca and Zuniga-Gonzalez, 2022a), where we indicate the protocol, and the materials used throughout the collection process, identification both in the field phase and from laboratory.

Results and discussion section should be rewritten. There are many mistakes in the tables and figures. Also the text and tables present redundant information.

Response to reviewer
We greatly appreciate your observation. Improvements were made to the tables and Figures 2 and 3 were ordered as there was a location problem (they were inverted). In the same way, we have generally reviewed the article to correct the grammar that other reviewers also indicate.

Specific comments
Title
The title should provide the complete name of the lepidopteran species: Spodoptera Also the Order and Family should not go in italics: Lepidoptera: Noctuidae
Abstract
Please delete “in the Noctuid Insect Breeding Laboratory”.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer has been corrected it as you indicate.

Introduction
When you first mention the species S. susinia, please provide the complete name of the species: Spodoptera sunia (Guenée) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).
“To control this pest, many laboratories produce and reproduce these organisms in order to reduce and control the population of pests in crops, some Genera are Trichogramma, Spalangia Telenomus, Cochliomyia, Ceratitis, Baculovirus and Nomuraea rileyi (predators and parasitoids, viruses and entomopathogenic fungi) (Jiménez, 2022; Badii & Abreu, 2006)”. Please delete the word 'this', you're referring to biocontrol agents not the plague.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer has been corrected it as you indicate.

Methods
“The research was carried out at the Noctuid Insect Breeding Laboratory (CIRCB), UNAN-León Agricultural Campus, coordinates (12.11743, -86.23600)” Please delete the word coordinates.
Laboratory protocol, first paragraph last sentence: whose they? Please provide the correct sentence.
Page 4 first paragraph : Please do not start the sentence with a number, for example you could say “A total of 250...”
Page 4: You've already mention which were the treatments.
Statistical validation
“The data processing was done with the software IBM SPSS Statistics (RRID:SCR_016479) v.21 and the Student's t-test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (K-S), Shapiro–Wilk test (W) (normality tests), Mann–Whitney U test and Lilliefors test (Shapiro and Wilk, 1965; Sánchez Turcios, 2015; Torres et al., 2012).” Please correct the sentence. You say and mention the test and do not finish the sentence correctly.
Student t-test is not used to verify normality of data sets.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer has been corrected it as you indicate. The t-test was clarified and corrected.

There is no need to provide the formula of neither the statistical tests nor the hypothesis that were tested in material and methods.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer has been corrected it as you indicate. We would like to keeping the formula for academic purposes.

Table 1 should be presented in results section, and also you should check the information that provides.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer we thanks for this observation. We has been added it the analysis of the table, but we consider keep in this section because is part of the data.

Results and discussion
Length and weight of larvae
Figure 1: please express correctly the legend in the y axis.

Figure 2 does not provide the information on the weight of the different stages. Please place the correct figure.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer your observation is correct. It was a problem of confusion. The Figure 3 is in the place of Figure 2 and vice versa.

There is no need to describe the hypotheses that were tested; you should summarize the information correctly. The information provided in table 2 is also redundant since it provides repeated information.
Which values does table 3 provide? You should clarify and place the correct values.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer the comment of the table 2 was eliminated and change for other that no describe the hypothesis, regarding to table 3, we have left the comments on the comparisons of the treatments aside since you are asking about the applied values.
Figure 2 does not present the average weight of larvae Hatching percentage.

Please check the values provided in table 4 and those express in the text. There are several mistakes or at least inconsistencies. If the number of eggs is an average you should also provide standard deviation values. Furthermore, strange values are observed, within the same treatment for example in T1: 1,744 and 665.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer thanks for your observations. The data was corrected is 1744 and not 1,744. Is was a problem of consider a decimal by comma. Regarding to the Figure 2 has been corrected it

Weight and sex of pupae

Figure 3, colors in the figure does not match those in the legend. Also, in the figure (x axis) you only refer to the larval stage but in the text you mention egg, larval, pupal and adult stage. Furthermore, which are the statistical values for you to say that there are or not significative differences?

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer has been corrected it.

Bst Rgs
Authors
Reviewer 3
Periodical crossing of the laboratory population with the natural population would improve fitness in S. sunia (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

The authors have studied the biological and reproductive parameters of the species Spodoptera sunia (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in different populations (field, laboratory and crossing populations) and investigates the results of the periodic introduction of field genetic material in laboratory colonies. Based on the results, the authors recommend introducing genetic material from the field every six month, also to maintain stable climatic conditions and to provide the adequate diet that should be changed every two days during the larval stage.

Response to reviewer
We thank reviewer 3 for his contribution and contributions to improving the quality of the manuscript. We appreciate his accurate observations in the methodology section.

Broad comments
The introduction section could be expanded providing further information about the plague and explaining the importance of the investigation.

Response to reviewer
We appreciate your observations, in general and according to reviewers 1 and 2, a review and rewriting of this section was made, highlighting the importance and relevance of this study in countries like ours.

Material and methods section should be better explained, describing properly the protocols followed.

We greatly appreciate your observation. We have added in the article the main aspects of the methodology and the protocol applied. However, we have added and made available to the public the protocols.io repository (Real-Baca and Zuniga-Gonzalez, 2022a), where we indicate the protocol, and the materials used throughout the collection process, identification both in the field phase and from laboratory.

Results and discussion section should be rewritten. There are many mistakes in the tables and figures. Also the text and tables present redundant information.

Response to reviewer
We greatly appreciate your observation. Improvements were made to the tables and Figures 2 and 3 were ordered as there was a location problem (they were inverted). In the same way, we have generally reviewed the article to correct the grammar that other reviewers also indicate.

Specific comments
Title
The title should provide the complete name of the lepidopteran species: Spodoptera Also the Order and Family should not go in italics: Lepidoptera: Noctuidae
Abstract
Please delete “in the Noctuid Insect Breeding Laboratory”.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer has been corrected it as you indicate.

Introduction
When you first mention the species S. susinia, please provide the complete name of the species: Spodoptera sunia (Guenée) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).
“To control this pest, many laboratories produce and reproduce these organisms in order to reduce and control the population of pests in crops, some Genera are Trichogramma, Spalangia Telenomus, Cochliomyia, Ceratitis, Baculovirus and Nomuraea rileyi (predators and parasitoids, viruses and entomopathogenic fungi) (Jiménez, 2022; Badii & Abreu, 2006)”. Please delete the word 'this', you're referring to biocontrol agents not the plague.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer has been corrected it as you indicate.

Methods
“The research was carried out at the Noctuid Insect Breeding Laboratory (CIRCB), UNAN-León Agricultural Campus, coordinates (12.11743, -86.23600)” Please delete the word coordinates.
Laboratory protocol, first paragraph last sentence: whose they? Please provide the correct sentence.
Page 4 first paragraph : Please do not start the sentence with a number, for example you could say “A total of 250...”
Page 4: You've already mention which were the treatments.
Statistical validation
“The data processing was done with the software IBM SPSS Statistics (RRID:SCR_016479) v.21 and the Student's t-test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (K-S), Shapiro–Wilk test (W) (normality tests), Mann–Whitney U test and Lilliefors test (Shapiro and Wilk, 1965; Sánchez Turcios, 2015; Torres et al., 2012).” Please correct the sentence. You say and mention the test and do not finish the sentence correctly.
Student t-test is not used to verify normality of data sets.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer has been corrected it as you indicate. The t-test was clarified and corrected.

There is no need to provide the formula of neither the statistical tests nor the hypothesis that were tested in material and methods.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer has been corrected it as you indicate. We would like to keeping the formula for academic purposes.

Table 1 should be presented in results section, and also you should check the information that provides.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer we thanks for this observation. We has been added it the analysis of the table, but we consider keep in this section because is part of the data.

Results and discussion
Length and weight of larvae
Figure 1: please express correctly the legend in the y axis.

Figure 2 does not provide the information on the weight of the different stages. Please place the correct figure.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer your observation is correct. It was a problem of confusion. The Figure 3 is in the place of Figure 2 and vice versa.

There is no need to describe the hypotheses that were tested; you should summarize the information correctly. The information provided in table 2 is also redundant since it provides repeated information.
Which values does table 3 provide? You should clarify and place the correct values.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer the comment of the table 2 was eliminated and change for other that no describe the hypothesis, regarding to table 3, we have left the comments on the comparisons of the treatments aside since you are asking about the applied values.
Figure 2 does not present the average weight of larvae Hatching percentage.

Please check the values provided in table 4 and those express in the text. There are several mistakes or at least inconsistencies. If the number of eggs is an average you should also provide standard deviation values. Furthermore, strange values are observed, within the same treatment for example in T1: 1,744 and 665.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer thanks for your observations. The data was corrected is 1744 and not 1,744. Is was a problem of consider a decimal by comma. Regarding to the Figure 2 has been corrected it

Weight and sex of pupae

Figure 3, colors in the figure does not match those in the legend. Also, in the figure (x axis) you only refer to the larval stage but in the text you mention egg, larval, pupal and adult stage. Furthermore, which are the statistical values for you to say that there are or not significative differences?

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer has been corrected it.

Bst Rgs
Authors
Competing Interests: The authors disclose no have any competing interests. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 29 Nov 2023

C. A. Zuniga-Gonzalez, Bioeconomy and Climate Change Research Center, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, Leon, 21000, Nicaragua

29 Nov 2023

Author Response

Reviewer 3
Periodical crossing of the laboratory population with the natural population would improve fitness in S. sunia (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

The authors have studied the biological and reproductive parameters ... Continue reading Reviewer 3
Periodical crossing of the laboratory population with the natural population would improve fitness in S. sunia (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

The authors have studied the biological and reproductive parameters of the species Spodoptera sunia (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in different populations (field, laboratory and crossing populations) and investigates the results of the periodic introduction of field genetic material in laboratory colonies. Based on the results, the authors recommend introducing genetic material from the field every six month, also to maintain stable climatic conditions and to provide the adequate diet that should be changed every two days during the larval stage.

Response to reviewer
We thank reviewer 3 for his contribution and contributions to improving the quality of the manuscript. We appreciate his accurate observations in the methodology section.

Broad comments
The introduction section could be expanded providing further information about the plague and explaining the importance of the investigation.

Response to reviewer
We appreciate your observations, in general and according to reviewers 1 and 2, a review and rewriting of this section was made, highlighting the importance and relevance of this study in countries like ours.

Material and methods section should be better explained, describing properly the protocols followed.

We greatly appreciate your observation. We have added in the article the main aspects of the methodology and the protocol applied. However, we have added and made available to the public the protocols.io repository (Real-Baca and Zuniga-Gonzalez, 2022a), where we indicate the protocol, and the materials used throughout the collection process, identification both in the field phase and from laboratory.

Results and discussion section should be rewritten. There are many mistakes in the tables and figures. Also the text and tables present redundant information.

Response to reviewer
We greatly appreciate your observation. Improvements were made to the tables and Figures 2 and 3 were ordered as there was a location problem (they were inverted). In the same way, we have generally reviewed the article to correct the grammar that other reviewers also indicate.

Specific comments
Title
The title should provide the complete name of the lepidopteran species: Spodoptera Also the Order and Family should not go in italics: Lepidoptera: Noctuidae
Abstract
Please delete “in the Noctuid Insect Breeding Laboratory”.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer has been corrected it as you indicate.

Introduction
When you first mention the species S. susinia, please provide the complete name of the species: Spodoptera sunia (Guenée) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).
“To control this pest, many laboratories produce and reproduce these organisms in order to reduce and control the population of pests in crops, some Genera are Trichogramma, Spalangia Telenomus, Cochliomyia, Ceratitis, Baculovirus and Nomuraea rileyi (predators and parasitoids, viruses and entomopathogenic fungi) (Jiménez, 2022; Badii & Abreu, 2006)”. Please delete the word 'this', you're referring to biocontrol agents not the plague.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer has been corrected it as you indicate.

Methods
“The research was carried out at the Noctuid Insect Breeding Laboratory (CIRCB), UNAN-León Agricultural Campus, coordinates (12.11743, -86.23600)” Please delete the word coordinates.
Laboratory protocol, first paragraph last sentence: whose they? Please provide the correct sentence.
Page 4 first paragraph : Please do not start the sentence with a number, for example you could say “A total of 250...”
Page 4: You've already mention which were the treatments.
Statistical validation
“The data processing was done with the software IBM SPSS Statistics (RRID:SCR_016479) v.21 and the Student's t-test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (K-S), Shapiro–Wilk test (W) (normality tests), Mann–Whitney U test and Lilliefors test (Shapiro and Wilk, 1965; Sánchez Turcios, 2015; Torres et al., 2012).” Please correct the sentence. You say and mention the test and do not finish the sentence correctly.
Student t-test is not used to verify normality of data sets.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer has been corrected it as you indicate. The t-test was clarified and corrected.

There is no need to provide the formula of neither the statistical tests nor the hypothesis that were tested in material and methods.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer has been corrected it as you indicate. We would like to keeping the formula for academic purposes.

Table 1 should be presented in results section, and also you should check the information that provides.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer we thanks for this observation. We has been added it the analysis of the table, but we consider keep in this section because is part of the data.

Results and discussion
Length and weight of larvae
Figure 1: please express correctly the legend in the y axis.

Figure 2 does not provide the information on the weight of the different stages. Please place the correct figure.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer your observation is correct. It was a problem of confusion. The Figure 3 is in the place of Figure 2 and vice versa.

There is no need to describe the hypotheses that were tested; you should summarize the information correctly. The information provided in table 2 is also redundant since it provides repeated information.
Which values does table 3 provide? You should clarify and place the correct values.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer the comment of the table 2 was eliminated and change for other that no describe the hypothesis, regarding to table 3, we have left the comments on the comparisons of the treatments aside since you are asking about the applied values.
Figure 2 does not present the average weight of larvae Hatching percentage.

Please check the values provided in table 4 and those express in the text. There are several mistakes or at least inconsistencies. If the number of eggs is an average you should also provide standard deviation values. Furthermore, strange values are observed, within the same treatment for example in T1: 1,744 and 665.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer thanks for your observations. The data was corrected is 1744 and not 1,744. Is was a problem of consider a decimal by comma. Regarding to the Figure 2 has been corrected it

Weight and sex of pupae

Figure 3, colors in the figure does not match those in the legend. Also, in the figure (x axis) you only refer to the larval stage but in the text you mention egg, larval, pupal and adult stage. Furthermore, which are the statistical values for you to say that there are or not significative differences?

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer has been corrected it.

Bst Rgs
Authors
Reviewer 3
Periodical crossing of the laboratory population with the natural population would improve fitness in S. sunia (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

The authors have studied the biological and reproductive parameters of the species Spodoptera sunia (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in different populations (field, laboratory and crossing populations) and investigates the results of the periodic introduction of field genetic material in laboratory colonies. Based on the results, the authors recommend introducing genetic material from the field every six month, also to maintain stable climatic conditions and to provide the adequate diet that should be changed every two days during the larval stage.

Response to reviewer
We thank reviewer 3 for his contribution and contributions to improving the quality of the manuscript. We appreciate his accurate observations in the methodology section.

Broad comments
The introduction section could be expanded providing further information about the plague and explaining the importance of the investigation.

Response to reviewer
We appreciate your observations, in general and according to reviewers 1 and 2, a review and rewriting of this section was made, highlighting the importance and relevance of this study in countries like ours.

Material and methods section should be better explained, describing properly the protocols followed.

We greatly appreciate your observation. We have added in the article the main aspects of the methodology and the protocol applied. However, we have added and made available to the public the protocols.io repository (Real-Baca and Zuniga-Gonzalez, 2022a), where we indicate the protocol, and the materials used throughout the collection process, identification both in the field phase and from laboratory.

Results and discussion section should be rewritten. There are many mistakes in the tables and figures. Also the text and tables present redundant information.

Response to reviewer
We greatly appreciate your observation. Improvements were made to the tables and Figures 2 and 3 were ordered as there was a location problem (they were inverted). In the same way, we have generally reviewed the article to correct the grammar that other reviewers also indicate.

Specific comments
Title
The title should provide the complete name of the lepidopteran species: Spodoptera Also the Order and Family should not go in italics: Lepidoptera: Noctuidae
Abstract
Please delete “in the Noctuid Insect Breeding Laboratory”.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer has been corrected it as you indicate.

Introduction
When you first mention the species S. susinia, please provide the complete name of the species: Spodoptera sunia (Guenée) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).
“To control this pest, many laboratories produce and reproduce these organisms in order to reduce and control the population of pests in crops, some Genera are Trichogramma, Spalangia Telenomus, Cochliomyia, Ceratitis, Baculovirus and Nomuraea rileyi (predators and parasitoids, viruses and entomopathogenic fungi) (Jiménez, 2022; Badii & Abreu, 2006)”. Please delete the word 'this', you're referring to biocontrol agents not the plague.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer has been corrected it as you indicate.

Methods
“The research was carried out at the Noctuid Insect Breeding Laboratory (CIRCB), UNAN-León Agricultural Campus, coordinates (12.11743, -86.23600)” Please delete the word coordinates.
Laboratory protocol, first paragraph last sentence: whose they? Please provide the correct sentence.
Page 4 first paragraph : Please do not start the sentence with a number, for example you could say “A total of 250...”
Page 4: You've already mention which were the treatments.
Statistical validation
“The data processing was done with the software IBM SPSS Statistics (RRID:SCR_016479) v.21 and the Student's t-test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (K-S), Shapiro–Wilk test (W) (normality tests), Mann–Whitney U test and Lilliefors test (Shapiro and Wilk, 1965; Sánchez Turcios, 2015; Torres et al., 2012).” Please correct the sentence. You say and mention the test and do not finish the sentence correctly.
Student t-test is not used to verify normality of data sets.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer has been corrected it as you indicate. The t-test was clarified and corrected.

There is no need to provide the formula of neither the statistical tests nor the hypothesis that were tested in material and methods.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer has been corrected it as you indicate. We would like to keeping the formula for academic purposes.

Table 1 should be presented in results section, and also you should check the information that provides.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer we thanks for this observation. We has been added it the analysis of the table, but we consider keep in this section because is part of the data.

Results and discussion
Length and weight of larvae
Figure 1: please express correctly the legend in the y axis.

Figure 2 does not provide the information on the weight of the different stages. Please place the correct figure.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer your observation is correct. It was a problem of confusion. The Figure 3 is in the place of Figure 2 and vice versa.

There is no need to describe the hypotheses that were tested; you should summarize the information correctly. The information provided in table 2 is also redundant since it provides repeated information.
Which values does table 3 provide? You should clarify and place the correct values.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer the comment of the table 2 was eliminated and change for other that no describe the hypothesis, regarding to table 3, we have left the comments on the comparisons of the treatments aside since you are asking about the applied values.
Figure 2 does not present the average weight of larvae Hatching percentage.

Please check the values provided in table 4 and those express in the text. There are several mistakes or at least inconsistencies. If the number of eggs is an average you should also provide standard deviation values. Furthermore, strange values are observed, within the same treatment for example in T1: 1,744 and 665.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer thanks for your observations. The data was corrected is 1744 and not 1,744. Is was a problem of consider a decimal by comma. Regarding to the Figure 2 has been corrected it

Weight and sex of pupae

Figure 3, colors in the figure does not match those in the legend. Also, in the figure (x axis) you only refer to the larval stage but in the text you mention egg, larval, pupal and adult stage. Furthermore, which are the statistical values for you to say that there are or not significative differences?

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer has been corrected it.

Bst Rgs
Authors
Competing Interests: The authors disclose no have any competing interests. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 31 Oct 2023

SB Suby, ICAR-Indian Institute of Maize Research, Ludhiana, India

Not Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.154183.r202750

When referring to a species for the first time in the title as well as in the main text we use the full genus name.

Title: Write Spodoptera sunia in place of S. sunia

... Continue reading

When referring to a species for the first time in the title as well as in the main text we use the full genus name.

Title: Write Spodoptera sunia in place of S. sunia

Background: Write Spodoptera sunia in place of S. sunia

The manuscript needs editing for proper use of English grammar. For instance, I am rewriting the abstract as given below:

"Methods: The experiment consisted of three treatments and three repetitions involving 30 individuals each. Field-collected S. sunia population was reared in the laboratory under semi-controlled conditions of temperature and humidity for three generations. The progeny of the third generation was crossed with the laboratory population and the resulting progeny was observed for growth and reproductive fitness.
Results: The results revealed that the hybrid progeny (T3) has a sex ratio (F: M) of 0.82, as against 1.22 and 0.76 observed in the field (T1) and lab populations (T2) respectively. The T1 females oviposited 196 egg masses as against 160 and 59 egg masses by T3 and T2 females respectively. The larval growth was more in hybrid progeny with shorter larval duration. However, no variation was observed in the incubation and pupal periods.
Conclusion: Since the most optimal results were obtained in T2 and T3, it is recommended to introduce genetic material every six months to maintain a good laboratory population of the insect host under study and better breeding of its natural enemies."

Pardon me, I can't reframe the MS beyond this point, it is a tedious job. Kindly get the rest edited for English language and grammar, preferably by a researcher.

Also, the authors did not incorporate all the previous suggestions eg. S. siuna is used again in place of S. sunia and limiting two digits after the whole number. eg. 0.4288 mg. It should be 0.43 mg. Also am seeing the same wrongly placed graphs.

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Insect pest management

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 29 Nov 2023

C. A. Zuniga-Gonzalez, Bioeconomy and Climate Change Research Center, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, Leon, 21000, Nicaragua

29 Nov 2023

Author Response

Reviewver 1 31 Oct 2023 | for Version 2 NOT APPROVED

We appreciate the comments provided by the reviewer 1. These are the improvements indicated by the reviewer and ... Continue reading Reviewver 1 31 Oct 2023 | for Version 2 NOT APPROVED

We appreciate the comments provided by the reviewer 1. These are the improvements indicated by the reviewer and presenting a new version. We very respectfully apologize for the non-correct placement of Figures 2 and 3, and for the words siuna, which was corrected to sunia. The improvements we are working on are:

info_outline
When referring to a species for the first time in the title as well as in the main text we use the full genus name.

Title: Write Spodoptera sunia in place of S. sunia
Background: Write Spodoptera sunia in place of S. sunia

Response to reviewer
Was enhanced it.

The manuscript needs editing for proper use of English grammar. For instance, I am rewriting the abstract as given below:
"Methods: The experiment consisted of three treatments and three repetitions involving 30 individuals each. Field-collected S. sunia population was reared in the laboratory under semi-controlled conditions of temperature and humidity for three generations. The progeny of the third generation was crossed with the laboratory population and the resulting progeny was observed for growth and reproductive fitness.
Results: The results revealed that the hybrid progeny (T3) has a sex ratio (F: M) of 0.82, as against 1.22 and 0.76 observed in the field (T1) and lab populations (T2) respectively. The T1 females oviposited 196 egg masses as against 160 and 59 egg masses by T3 and T2 females respectively. The larval growth was more in hybrid progeny with shorter larval duration. However, no variation was observed in the incubation and pupal periods.
Conclusion: Since the most optimal results were obtained in T2 and T3, it is recommended to introduce genetic material every six months to maintain a good laboratory population of the insect host under study and better breeding of its natural enemies."
Pardon me, I can't reframe the MS beyond this point, it is a tedious job. Kindly get the rest edited for English language and grammar, preferably by a researcher.

Response to reviewer
I would like to express our gratitude for your valuable effort. We have revisited the document and made improvements as per your grammar-related suggestions. We appreciate your contributions in enhancing the summary's composition.

Also, the authors did not incorporate all the previous suggestions eg. S. siuna is used again in place of S. sunia and limiting two digits after the whole number. eg. 0.4288 mg. It should be 0.43 mg. Also am seeing the same wrongly placed graphs.

Response to reviewer
We have incorporated S sunia as you suggested and have enhanced the graphics by revisiting your previous observation. We also reviewed the numbers, correcting them to two digits as you suggested. We appreciate your observation in this regard. The first was in the back review: “Response: Thanks for the observation, we will correct the new version. The problem is that the figures are changed in the place of Figure 2 is Figure 3, and in the place of Figure 3 is Figure 2.”. Now I am going to make sure to do this in the next version.

Bst Rgs
Authors.
Reviewver 1 31 Oct 2023 | for Version 2 NOT APPROVED

We appreciate the comments provided by the reviewer 1. These are the improvements indicated by the reviewer and presenting a new version. We very respectfully apologize for the non-correct placement of Figures 2 and 3, and for the words siuna, which was corrected to sunia. The improvements we are working on are:

info_outline
When referring to a species for the first time in the title as well as in the main text we use the full genus name.

Title: Write Spodoptera sunia in place of S. sunia
Background: Write Spodoptera sunia in place of S. sunia

Response to reviewer
Was enhanced it.

The manuscript needs editing for proper use of English grammar. For instance, I am rewriting the abstract as given below:
"Methods: The experiment consisted of three treatments and three repetitions involving 30 individuals each. Field-collected S. sunia population was reared in the laboratory under semi-controlled conditions of temperature and humidity for three generations. The progeny of the third generation was crossed with the laboratory population and the resulting progeny was observed for growth and reproductive fitness.
Results: The results revealed that the hybrid progeny (T3) has a sex ratio (F: M) of 0.82, as against 1.22 and 0.76 observed in the field (T1) and lab populations (T2) respectively. The T1 females oviposited 196 egg masses as against 160 and 59 egg masses by T3 and T2 females respectively. The larval growth was more in hybrid progeny with shorter larval duration. However, no variation was observed in the incubation and pupal periods.
Conclusion: Since the most optimal results were obtained in T2 and T3, it is recommended to introduce genetic material every six months to maintain a good laboratory population of the insect host under study and better breeding of its natural enemies."
Pardon me, I can't reframe the MS beyond this point, it is a tedious job. Kindly get the rest edited for English language and grammar, preferably by a researcher.

Response to reviewer
I would like to express our gratitude for your valuable effort. We have revisited the document and made improvements as per your grammar-related suggestions. We appreciate your contributions in enhancing the summary's composition.

Also, the authors did not incorporate all the previous suggestions eg. S. siuna is used again in place of S. sunia and limiting two digits after the whole number. eg. 0.4288 mg. It should be 0.43 mg. Also am seeing the same wrongly placed graphs.

Response to reviewer
We have incorporated S sunia as you suggested and have enhanced the graphics by revisiting your previous observation. We also reviewed the numbers, correcting them to two digits as you suggested. We appreciate your observation in this regard. The first was in the back review: “Response: Thanks for the observation, we will correct the new version. The problem is that the figures are changed in the place of Figure 2 is Figure 3, and in the place of Figure 3 is Figure 2.”. Now I am going to make sure to do this in the next version.

Bst Rgs
Authors.
Competing Interests: The authors disclose no have competing interests. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 29 Nov 2023

C. A. Zuniga-Gonzalez, Bioeconomy and Climate Change Research Center, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, Leon, 21000, Nicaragua

29 Nov 2023

Author Response

Reviewver 1 31 Oct 2023 | for Version 2 NOT APPROVED

We appreciate the comments provided by the reviewer 1. These are the improvements indicated by the reviewer and ... Continue reading Reviewver 1 31 Oct 2023 | for Version 2 NOT APPROVED

We appreciate the comments provided by the reviewer 1. These are the improvements indicated by the reviewer and presenting a new version. We very respectfully apologize for the non-correct placement of Figures 2 and 3, and for the words siuna, which was corrected to sunia. The improvements we are working on are:

info_outline
When referring to a species for the first time in the title as well as in the main text we use the full genus name.

Title: Write Spodoptera sunia in place of S. sunia
Background: Write Spodoptera sunia in place of S. sunia

Response to reviewer
Was enhanced it.

The manuscript needs editing for proper use of English grammar. For instance, I am rewriting the abstract as given below:
"Methods: The experiment consisted of three treatments and three repetitions involving 30 individuals each. Field-collected S. sunia population was reared in the laboratory under semi-controlled conditions of temperature and humidity for three generations. The progeny of the third generation was crossed with the laboratory population and the resulting progeny was observed for growth and reproductive fitness.
Results: The results revealed that the hybrid progeny (T3) has a sex ratio (F: M) of 0.82, as against 1.22 and 0.76 observed in the field (T1) and lab populations (T2) respectively. The T1 females oviposited 196 egg masses as against 160 and 59 egg masses by T3 and T2 females respectively. The larval growth was more in hybrid progeny with shorter larval duration. However, no variation was observed in the incubation and pupal periods.
Conclusion: Since the most optimal results were obtained in T2 and T3, it is recommended to introduce genetic material every six months to maintain a good laboratory population of the insect host under study and better breeding of its natural enemies."
Pardon me, I can't reframe the MS beyond this point, it is a tedious job. Kindly get the rest edited for English language and grammar, preferably by a researcher.

Response to reviewer
I would like to express our gratitude for your valuable effort. We have revisited the document and made improvements as per your grammar-related suggestions. We appreciate your contributions in enhancing the summary's composition.

Also, the authors did not incorporate all the previous suggestions eg. S. siuna is used again in place of S. sunia and limiting two digits after the whole number. eg. 0.4288 mg. It should be 0.43 mg. Also am seeing the same wrongly placed graphs.

Response to reviewer
We have incorporated S sunia as you suggested and have enhanced the graphics by revisiting your previous observation. We also reviewed the numbers, correcting them to two digits as you suggested. We appreciate your observation in this regard. The first was in the back review: “Response: Thanks for the observation, we will correct the new version. The problem is that the figures are changed in the place of Figure 2 is Figure 3, and in the place of Figure 3 is Figure 2.”. Now I am going to make sure to do this in the next version.

Bst Rgs
Authors.
Reviewver 1 31 Oct 2023 | for Version 2 NOT APPROVED

We appreciate the comments provided by the reviewer 1. These are the improvements indicated by the reviewer and presenting a new version. We very respectfully apologize for the non-correct placement of Figures 2 and 3, and for the words siuna, which was corrected to sunia. The improvements we are working on are:

info_outline
When referring to a species for the first time in the title as well as in the main text we use the full genus name.

Title: Write Spodoptera sunia in place of S. sunia
Background: Write Spodoptera sunia in place of S. sunia

Response to reviewer
Was enhanced it.

The manuscript needs editing for proper use of English grammar. For instance, I am rewriting the abstract as given below:
"Methods: The experiment consisted of three treatments and three repetitions involving 30 individuals each. Field-collected S. sunia population was reared in the laboratory under semi-controlled conditions of temperature and humidity for three generations. The progeny of the third generation was crossed with the laboratory population and the resulting progeny was observed for growth and reproductive fitness.
Results: The results revealed that the hybrid progeny (T3) has a sex ratio (F: M) of 0.82, as against 1.22 and 0.76 observed in the field (T1) and lab populations (T2) respectively. The T1 females oviposited 196 egg masses as against 160 and 59 egg masses by T3 and T2 females respectively. The larval growth was more in hybrid progeny with shorter larval duration. However, no variation was observed in the incubation and pupal periods.
Conclusion: Since the most optimal results were obtained in T2 and T3, it is recommended to introduce genetic material every six months to maintain a good laboratory population of the insect host under study and better breeding of its natural enemies."
Pardon me, I can't reframe the MS beyond this point, it is a tedious job. Kindly get the rest edited for English language and grammar, preferably by a researcher.

Response to reviewer
I would like to express our gratitude for your valuable effort. We have revisited the document and made improvements as per your grammar-related suggestions. We appreciate your contributions in enhancing the summary's composition.

Also, the authors did not incorporate all the previous suggestions eg. S. siuna is used again in place of S. sunia and limiting two digits after the whole number. eg. 0.4288 mg. It should be 0.43 mg. Also am seeing the same wrongly placed graphs.

Response to reviewer
We have incorporated S sunia as you suggested and have enhanced the graphics by revisiting your previous observation. We also reviewed the numbers, correcting them to two digits as you suggested. We appreciate your observation in this regard. The first was in the back review: “Response: Thanks for the observation, we will correct the new version. The problem is that the figures are changed in the place of Figure 2 is Figure 3, and in the place of Figure 3 is Figure 2.”. Now I am going to make sure to do this in the next version.

Bst Rgs
Authors.
Competing Interests: The authors disclose no have competing interests. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 31 Oct 2023

Hend Omar Mohamed, Biological Control Research Department, Plant Protection Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center, Giza, Egypt

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.154183.r213968

General comment:
This study is very important and vital for readers interesting with biological control for improving the host population fitness and hence the biocontrol agent.

All comments and corrections are highlighted in the article as:

Title: full name of Spodoptera sinus must write completed without abbreviation in the title and abstract for the first time used because no one can understand what does S. mean? Also, Order and Family are not written in italic anyway (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).

Abstract

Results:

In the adult stages T1 and T2 it was 12 days and for T3 10 days please replaced to: In the adult stage, it was 12 days for T1 and T2, but 10 days for T3 was recorded.
In the egg stage in the three treatments, it was three days replaced with: The egg stage for the three treatments was lasted 3 days......

Conclusions: add S. sunia larvae instead larvae of the species under study.

Introduction: this section is written well but needs minor corrections as:

Rearrange the references in all text with the same format either alphabetical or year.
Transfer this sentence to the end of introduction section (it is an appropriate place): "Ultimately, the subject of study becomes important given the need to study these parameters and the performance of the species S. sunia with the introduction of new natural genetic material (cross-species) to improve breeding and maintain optimal parameters (Raj et al., 2022; Rizo, 1994; Rizo et al., 1994; Passoa, 1991)".
Replace a biological controller to: a biological control agent. The study to this study.

Methods: this section is clear and written well.

Delete this sentence: The type of research was experimental and the word species repeated more times.

Results and discussions:

'pre-pupa instar' replaced to 'pre-pupal stage'.
The legend of Figures 2 and 3 is not correct and un-appropriate. Fig.2 not average weight of larvae? It is developmental duration of each stage of S. sunia.
Fig. 3 is average weight not number of days? Please correct it carefully and the legend color in the graph is not the same of actual line color.
'Lose weight to enter the pre-pupa stage' replaced to, 'lose its weight to enter the pre-pupal stage'.
'0.3018 mg at 20 days in the T2 treatment' instead of, 'the T₂ treatment a weight of 0.3018 mg at 20 days'. also, 'gr' to 'g.'
Table 4 legend: 'in different treatments' not 'by treatment'.
The weight in mg repeated more times in all text of the article and it is mentioned previously in the methodology sections so write only the weight without in mg.

weight and sex of pupae section:

'34 are male pupae and 26 female pupae' replaced to '34 males and 26 females'.
"Treatment T₃ obtained a total of 60 pupae, 28 females and 32 males for a sex ratio of 0.8:1" - This result is related to treatment T1 not T3, correct it.

Life cycle: Not Figure 3 but was Figure 2 about average days of each development.

Conclusions:

Replace 'The highest average larval weight obtained from the species S. sunia obtained was T₃ with 0.4288 mg', to 'The highest average larval weight of S. sunia obtained from T3 was 0.4288 mg.'
"of the species S. sunia" (delete it).
'the reproduction of the insects of the populations S. siuna' replaced to, 'the reproduction of S. siuna'.

Finally, I read and revise this manuscript carefully based on our knowledge and experience and hence i confirm that it is of an acceptable partially, however it need some revision and correction before indexing.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Biological Control, Integrated pest management and Economic Entomology.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 29 Nov 2023

C. A. Zuniga-Gonzalez, Bioeconomy and Climate Change Research Center, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, Leon, 21000, Nicaragua

29 Nov 2023

Author Response

Reviewer 2
General comment:
This study is very important and vital for readers interesting with biological control for improving the host population fitness and hence the biocontrol agent.
All comments ... Continue reading Reviewer 2
General comment:
This study is very important and vital for readers interesting with biological control for improving the host population fitness and hence the biocontrol agent.
All comments and corrections are highlighted in the article as:
Title: full name of Spodoptera sinus must write completed without abbreviation in the title and abstract for the first time used because no one can understand what does S. mean? Also, Order and Family are not written in italic anyway (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).

Response to reviewer:
Thank you for your insightful comment. We truly believe that this study holds significant importance in the context of biological control, as it contributes to the enhancement of host population fitness and, consequently, the efficacy of biocontrol agents. Your recognition of the study's significance is greatly appreciated.   The observation to the Title was corrected.

Abstract
Results:
In the adult stages T1 and T2 it was 12 days and for T3 10 days please replaced to: In the adult stage, it was 12 days for T1 and T2, but 10 days for T3 was recorded.
In the egg stage in the three treatments, it was three days replaced with: The egg stage for the three treatments was lasted 3 days.
Conclusions: add S. sunia larvae instead larvae of the species under study.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer, we appreciate your valuable contribution with this observation, however we have adjusted the summary with the contributions of reviewer 1, which coincide with his comments.

Introduction: this section is written well but needs minor corrections as:
Rearrange the references in all text with the same format either alphabetical or year.
Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer, it was made. In general, all the sections were revised and enhanced.
Transfer this sentence to the end of introduction section (it is an appropriate place): "Ultimately, the subject of study becomes important given the need to study these parameters and the performance of the species S. sunia with the introduction of new natural genetic material (cross-species) to improve breeding and maintain optimal parameters (Raj et al., 2022; Rizo, 1994; Rizo et al., 1994; Passoa, 1991)".
Replace a biological controller to: a biological control agent. The study to this study.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer, thanks for this observation. It has been made.

Methods: this section is clear and written well.
Delete this sentence: The type of research was experimental and the word species repeated more times.
Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer thanks for this observation. It has been eliminated.
Results and discussions:
'pre-pupa instar' replaced to 'pre-pupal stage'.

Response to reviewer
Has been corrected.

The legend of Figures 2 and 3 is not correct and un-appropriate. Fig.2 not average weight of larvae? It is developmental duration of each stage of S. sunia.
Fig. 3 is average weight not number of days? Please correct it carefully and the legend color in the graph is not the same of actual line color.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer thank for this observation. It is correct; the problem was that the figure 2 and 3 inverted are. Has been corrected it.

'Lose weight to enter the pre-pupa stage' replaced to, 'lose its weight to enter the pre-pupal stage'.
'0.3018 mg at 20 days in the T2 treatment' instead of, 'the T2 treatment a weight of 0.3018 mg at 20 days'. also, 'gr' to 'g.'

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer has been corrected it.   Regarding “also, 'gr' to 'g.'” it is ‘mg’.

Table 4 legend: 'in different treatments' not 'by treatment'.
The weight in mg repeated more times in all text of the article and it is mentioned previously in the methodology sections so write only the weight without in mg.

Response to reviewer
Ok. However, I would like to keep it because it is an observation from other reviewers.

weight and sex of pupae section:
'34 are male pupae and 26 female pupae' replaced to '34 males and 26 females'.
"Treatment T3 obtained a total of 60 pupae, 28 females and 32 males for a sex ratio of 0.8:1" - This result is related to treatment T1 not T3, correct it.
Life cycle: Not Figure 3 but was Figure 2 about average days of each development.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer thanks for this observation. Has been corrected it. The Figure 3 was change for the Figure 2.

Conclusions:
Replace 'The highest average larval weight obtained from the species S. sunia obtained was T3 with 0.43 mg', to 'The highest average larval weight of S. sunia obtained from T3 was 0.4288 mg.'
"of the species S. sunia" (delete it).
'the reproduction of the insects of the populations S. siuna' replaced to, 'the reproduction of S. suna'.
Finally, I read and revise this manuscript carefully based on our knowledge and experience and hence i confirm that it is of an acceptable partially, however it need some revision and correction before indexing.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer, I thank you for your great contribution and improvement to the quality of the article. We have made the indicated corrections.

Bst Rgs
Authors
Reviewer 2
General comment:
This study is very important and vital for readers interesting with biological control for improving the host population fitness and hence the biocontrol agent.
All comments and corrections are highlighted in the article as:
Title: full name of Spodoptera sinus must write completed without abbreviation in the title and abstract for the first time used because no one can understand what does S. mean? Also, Order and Family are not written in italic anyway (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).

Response to reviewer:
Thank you for your insightful comment. We truly believe that this study holds significant importance in the context of biological control, as it contributes to the enhancement of host population fitness and, consequently, the efficacy of biocontrol agents. Your recognition of the study's significance is greatly appreciated.   The observation to the Title was corrected.

Abstract
Results:
In the adult stages T1 and T2 it was 12 days and for T3 10 days please replaced to: In the adult stage, it was 12 days for T1 and T2, but 10 days for T3 was recorded.
In the egg stage in the three treatments, it was three days replaced with: The egg stage for the three treatments was lasted 3 days.
Conclusions: add S. sunia larvae instead larvae of the species under study.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer, we appreciate your valuable contribution with this observation, however we have adjusted the summary with the contributions of reviewer 1, which coincide with his comments.

Introduction: this section is written well but needs minor corrections as:
Rearrange the references in all text with the same format either alphabetical or year.
Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer, it was made. In general, all the sections were revised and enhanced.
Transfer this sentence to the end of introduction section (it is an appropriate place): "Ultimately, the subject of study becomes important given the need to study these parameters and the performance of the species S. sunia with the introduction of new natural genetic material (cross-species) to improve breeding and maintain optimal parameters (Raj et al., 2022; Rizo, 1994; Rizo et al., 1994; Passoa, 1991)".
Replace a biological controller to: a biological control agent. The study to this study.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer, thanks for this observation. It has been made.

Methods: this section is clear and written well.
Delete this sentence: The type of research was experimental and the word species repeated more times.
Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer thanks for this observation. It has been eliminated.
Results and discussions:
'pre-pupa instar' replaced to 'pre-pupal stage'.

Response to reviewer
Has been corrected.

The legend of Figures 2 and 3 is not correct and un-appropriate. Fig.2 not average weight of larvae? It is developmental duration of each stage of S. sunia.
Fig. 3 is average weight not number of days? Please correct it carefully and the legend color in the graph is not the same of actual line color.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer thank for this observation. It is correct; the problem was that the figure 2 and 3 inverted are. Has been corrected it.

'Lose weight to enter the pre-pupa stage' replaced to, 'lose its weight to enter the pre-pupal stage'.
'0.3018 mg at 20 days in the T2 treatment' instead of, 'the T2 treatment a weight of 0.3018 mg at 20 days'. also, 'gr' to 'g.'

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer has been corrected it.   Regarding “also, 'gr' to 'g.'” it is ‘mg’.

Table 4 legend: 'in different treatments' not 'by treatment'.
The weight in mg repeated more times in all text of the article and it is mentioned previously in the methodology sections so write only the weight without in mg.

Response to reviewer
Ok. However, I would like to keep it because it is an observation from other reviewers.

weight and sex of pupae section:
'34 are male pupae and 26 female pupae' replaced to '34 males and 26 females'.
"Treatment T3 obtained a total of 60 pupae, 28 females and 32 males for a sex ratio of 0.8:1" - This result is related to treatment T1 not T3, correct it.
Life cycle: Not Figure 3 but was Figure 2 about average days of each development.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer thanks for this observation. Has been corrected it. The Figure 3 was change for the Figure 2.

Conclusions:
Replace 'The highest average larval weight obtained from the species S. sunia obtained was T3 with 0.43 mg', to 'The highest average larval weight of S. sunia obtained from T3 was 0.4288 mg.'
"of the species S. sunia" (delete it).
'the reproduction of the insects of the populations S. siuna' replaced to, 'the reproduction of S. suna'.
Finally, I read and revise this manuscript carefully based on our knowledge and experience and hence i confirm that it is of an acceptable partially, however it need some revision and correction before indexing.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer, I thank you for your great contribution and improvement to the quality of the article. We have made the indicated corrections.

Bst Rgs
Authors
Competing Interests: The authors disclose that no have any competing interests. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 29 Nov 2023

C. A. Zuniga-Gonzalez, Bioeconomy and Climate Change Research Center, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, Leon, 21000, Nicaragua

29 Nov 2023

Author Response

Reviewer 2
General comment:
This study is very important and vital for readers interesting with biological control for improving the host population fitness and hence the biocontrol agent.
All comments ... Continue reading Reviewer 2
General comment:
This study is very important and vital for readers interesting with biological control for improving the host population fitness and hence the biocontrol agent.
All comments and corrections are highlighted in the article as:
Title: full name of Spodoptera sinus must write completed without abbreviation in the title and abstract for the first time used because no one can understand what does S. mean? Also, Order and Family are not written in italic anyway (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).

Response to reviewer:
Thank you for your insightful comment. We truly believe that this study holds significant importance in the context of biological control, as it contributes to the enhancement of host population fitness and, consequently, the efficacy of biocontrol agents. Your recognition of the study's significance is greatly appreciated.   The observation to the Title was corrected.

Abstract
Results:
In the adult stages T1 and T2 it was 12 days and for T3 10 days please replaced to: In the adult stage, it was 12 days for T1 and T2, but 10 days for T3 was recorded.
In the egg stage in the three treatments, it was three days replaced with: The egg stage for the three treatments was lasted 3 days.
Conclusions: add S. sunia larvae instead larvae of the species under study.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer, we appreciate your valuable contribution with this observation, however we have adjusted the summary with the contributions of reviewer 1, which coincide with his comments.

Introduction: this section is written well but needs minor corrections as:
Rearrange the references in all text with the same format either alphabetical or year.
Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer, it was made. In general, all the sections were revised and enhanced.
Transfer this sentence to the end of introduction section (it is an appropriate place): "Ultimately, the subject of study becomes important given the need to study these parameters and the performance of the species S. sunia with the introduction of new natural genetic material (cross-species) to improve breeding and maintain optimal parameters (Raj et al., 2022; Rizo, 1994; Rizo et al., 1994; Passoa, 1991)".
Replace a biological controller to: a biological control agent. The study to this study.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer, thanks for this observation. It has been made.

Methods: this section is clear and written well.
Delete this sentence: The type of research was experimental and the word species repeated more times.
Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer thanks for this observation. It has been eliminated.
Results and discussions:
'pre-pupa instar' replaced to 'pre-pupal stage'.

Response to reviewer
Has been corrected.

The legend of Figures 2 and 3 is not correct and un-appropriate. Fig.2 not average weight of larvae? It is developmental duration of each stage of S. sunia.
Fig. 3 is average weight not number of days? Please correct it carefully and the legend color in the graph is not the same of actual line color.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer thank for this observation. It is correct; the problem was that the figure 2 and 3 inverted are. Has been corrected it.

'Lose weight to enter the pre-pupa stage' replaced to, 'lose its weight to enter the pre-pupal stage'.
'0.3018 mg at 20 days in the T2 treatment' instead of, 'the T2 treatment a weight of 0.3018 mg at 20 days'. also, 'gr' to 'g.'

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer has been corrected it.   Regarding “also, 'gr' to 'g.'” it is ‘mg’.

Table 4 legend: 'in different treatments' not 'by treatment'.
The weight in mg repeated more times in all text of the article and it is mentioned previously in the methodology sections so write only the weight without in mg.

Response to reviewer
Ok. However, I would like to keep it because it is an observation from other reviewers.

weight and sex of pupae section:
'34 are male pupae and 26 female pupae' replaced to '34 males and 26 females'.
"Treatment T3 obtained a total of 60 pupae, 28 females and 32 males for a sex ratio of 0.8:1" - This result is related to treatment T1 not T3, correct it.
Life cycle: Not Figure 3 but was Figure 2 about average days of each development.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer thanks for this observation. Has been corrected it. The Figure 3 was change for the Figure 2.

Conclusions:
Replace 'The highest average larval weight obtained from the species S. sunia obtained was T3 with 0.43 mg', to 'The highest average larval weight of S. sunia obtained from T3 was 0.4288 mg.'
"of the species S. sunia" (delete it).
'the reproduction of the insects of the populations S. siuna' replaced to, 'the reproduction of S. suna'.
Finally, I read and revise this manuscript carefully based on our knowledge and experience and hence i confirm that it is of an acceptable partially, however it need some revision and correction before indexing.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer, I thank you for your great contribution and improvement to the quality of the article. We have made the indicated corrections.

Bst Rgs
Authors
Reviewer 2
General comment:
This study is very important and vital for readers interesting with biological control for improving the host population fitness and hence the biocontrol agent.
All comments and corrections are highlighted in the article as:
Title: full name of Spodoptera sinus must write completed without abbreviation in the title and abstract for the first time used because no one can understand what does S. mean? Also, Order and Family are not written in italic anyway (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).

Response to reviewer:
Thank you for your insightful comment. We truly believe that this study holds significant importance in the context of biological control, as it contributes to the enhancement of host population fitness and, consequently, the efficacy of biocontrol agents. Your recognition of the study's significance is greatly appreciated.   The observation to the Title was corrected.

Abstract
Results:
In the adult stages T1 and T2 it was 12 days and for T3 10 days please replaced to: In the adult stage, it was 12 days for T1 and T2, but 10 days for T3 was recorded.
In the egg stage in the three treatments, it was three days replaced with: The egg stage for the three treatments was lasted 3 days.
Conclusions: add S. sunia larvae instead larvae of the species under study.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer, we appreciate your valuable contribution with this observation, however we have adjusted the summary with the contributions of reviewer 1, which coincide with his comments.

Introduction: this section is written well but needs minor corrections as:
Rearrange the references in all text with the same format either alphabetical or year.
Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer, it was made. In general, all the sections were revised and enhanced.
Transfer this sentence to the end of introduction section (it is an appropriate place): "Ultimately, the subject of study becomes important given the need to study these parameters and the performance of the species S. sunia with the introduction of new natural genetic material (cross-species) to improve breeding and maintain optimal parameters (Raj et al., 2022; Rizo, 1994; Rizo et al., 1994; Passoa, 1991)".
Replace a biological controller to: a biological control agent. The study to this study.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer, thanks for this observation. It has been made.

Methods: this section is clear and written well.
Delete this sentence: The type of research was experimental and the word species repeated more times.
Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer thanks for this observation. It has been eliminated.
Results and discussions:
'pre-pupa instar' replaced to 'pre-pupal stage'.

Response to reviewer
Has been corrected.

The legend of Figures 2 and 3 is not correct and un-appropriate. Fig.2 not average weight of larvae? It is developmental duration of each stage of S. sunia.
Fig. 3 is average weight not number of days? Please correct it carefully and the legend color in the graph is not the same of actual line color.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer thank for this observation. It is correct; the problem was that the figure 2 and 3 inverted are. Has been corrected it.

'Lose weight to enter the pre-pupa stage' replaced to, 'lose its weight to enter the pre-pupal stage'.
'0.3018 mg at 20 days in the T2 treatment' instead of, 'the T2 treatment a weight of 0.3018 mg at 20 days'. also, 'gr' to 'g.'

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer has been corrected it.   Regarding “also, 'gr' to 'g.'” it is ‘mg’.

Table 4 legend: 'in different treatments' not 'by treatment'.
The weight in mg repeated more times in all text of the article and it is mentioned previously in the methodology sections so write only the weight without in mg.

Response to reviewer
Ok. However, I would like to keep it because it is an observation from other reviewers.

weight and sex of pupae section:
'34 are male pupae and 26 female pupae' replaced to '34 males and 26 females'.
"Treatment T3 obtained a total of 60 pupae, 28 females and 32 males for a sex ratio of 0.8:1" - This result is related to treatment T1 not T3, correct it.
Life cycle: Not Figure 3 but was Figure 2 about average days of each development.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer thanks for this observation. Has been corrected it. The Figure 3 was change for the Figure 2.

Conclusions:
Replace 'The highest average larval weight obtained from the species S. sunia obtained was T3 with 0.43 mg', to 'The highest average larval weight of S. sunia obtained from T3 was 0.4288 mg.'
"of the species S. sunia" (delete it).
'the reproduction of the insects of the populations S. siuna' replaced to, 'the reproduction of S. suna'.
Finally, I read and revise this manuscript carefully based on our knowledge and experience and hence i confirm that it is of an acceptable partially, however it need some revision and correction before indexing.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer, I thank you for your great contribution and improvement to the quality of the article. We have made the indicated corrections.

Bst Rgs
Authors
Competing Interests: The authors disclose that no have any competing interests. Close
Report a concern

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 09 Jan 2023

Views

Reviewer Report 19 Jul 2023

SB Suby, ICAR-Indian Institute of Maize Research, Ludhiana, India

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.141849.r178907

The study proved/concluded periodical crossing laboratory population with field population would increase fitness in Spodoptera sunia.

General comment: After first use of Spodoptera sunia, use abbreviated form S. sunia.

Abstract: Three treatments with 30 individuals and three repetitions. Does it mean 'three treatments with and three repetitions involving 30 individuals each'?

Title: The word cross-species literally mean inter-species, thus a misnomer in this study. It shall be replaced with a suitable title like 'periodical crossing of laboratory population with natural population would improve fitness in Spodoptera sunia'. Crossing populations is appropriate in place of 'crossing specimens'.

Delete the phrase 'It is important to clarify that'

Methods: The term 'pre-experimental' will confuse the reader. It is proper experiment only.

The number of males and females per egg laying cage (replication) should be mentioned in methods.

Results and discussion: Spodoptera siuna (spell check the entire document).leathery worm donut (donut?)

Figure 2 represents duration of stages (Y axis- days in stadium), but it is captioned as weight. Figure 3 is average weight, but titled as number of days. The legend colour given in the graph is different from actual line colour in graph.

Three digits are enough for fractions eg.0.429 mg in place of 0.4288 mg.

The egg mass and no. of eggs per female should also be mentioned. This should be discussed in comparison with fecundity of S.sunia reported earlier.

Conclusion: Closing of populations, not species. The conclusion must focus on periodical crossing and the other statements given on nutrition and environment must be supported by quoting previous studies.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Insect pest management

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 29 Nov 2023

C. A. Zuniga-Gonzalez, Bioeconomy and Climate Change Research Center, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, Leon, 21000, Nicaragua

29 Nov 2023

Author Response

Response to the reviewer: We appreciate the comments provided by the reviewer. We are working on making the improvements indicated by the reviewer and presenting a new version.
The improvements ... Continue reading Response to the reviewer: We appreciate the comments provided by the reviewer. We are working on making the improvements indicated by the reviewer and presenting a new version.
The improvements we are working on are:

[1] General comment: After first use of Spodoptera sunia, use abbreviated form S. sunia.

Response: We appreciate this observation, if we are correcting it.

Abstract: Three treatments with 30 individuals and three repetitions. Does it mean 'three treatments with and three repetitions involving 30 individuals each'?

Response: Dear reviewer, we confirm that it is so.

[2] Title: The word cross-species literally mean inter-species, thus a misnomer in this study. It shall be replaced with a suitable title like 'periodical crossing of laboratory population with natural population would improve fitness in Spodoptera sunia'. Crossing populations is appropriate in place of 'crossing specimens'.

Response: Dear reviewer, we appreciate your observation, the team agrees and the title change will proceed.

[3] Delete the phrase 'It is important to clarify that'

Response: Ok dear it was eliminated

Methods: The term 'pre-experimental' will confuse the reader. It is proper experiment only.

Response: Ok thanks for this observation

[4] The number of males and females per egg laying cage (replication) should be mentioned in methods.

Response: Thanks. Agreed, the improvement will be made.

[5] Results and discussion: Spodoptera siuna (spell check the entire document).leathery worm donut (donut?)

Response We thank you for this review, it will be going through the review of a native to improve the spelling it indicates. What is indicated throughout the document will be improved in the next version.

[6] Figure 2 represents duration of stages (Y axis- days in stadium), but it is captioned as weight.

Figure 3 is average weight, but titled as number of days. The legend colour given in the graph is different from actual line colour in graph.

Response: Thanks for the observation, we will make the correction in the new version.

Three digits are enough for fractions eg.0.429 mg in place of 0.4288 mg.

Response. Ok thanks for this observation. It will be made.

[7] The egg mass and no. of eggs per female should also be mentioned. This should be discussed in comparison with fecundity of S.sunia reported earlier.

Response: Thank you for the observation, we confirm that we fully agree and we will work on that improvement.

[8] Conclusion: Closing of populations, not species. The conclusion must focus on periodical crossing and the other statements given on nutrition and environment must be supported by quoting previous studies.

Response: Thank you for the observation, we confirm that we fully agree and we will work on that improvement.
Response to the reviewer: We appreciate the comments provided by the reviewer. We are working on making the improvements indicated by the reviewer and presenting a new version.
The improvements we are working on are:

[1] General comment: After first use of Spodoptera sunia, use abbreviated form S. sunia.

Response: We appreciate this observation, if we are correcting it.

Abstract: Three treatments with 30 individuals and three repetitions. Does it mean 'three treatments with and three repetitions involving 30 individuals each'?

Response: Dear reviewer, we confirm that it is so.

[2] Title: The word cross-species literally mean inter-species, thus a misnomer in this study. It shall be replaced with a suitable title like 'periodical crossing of laboratory population with natural population would improve fitness in Spodoptera sunia'. Crossing populations is appropriate in place of 'crossing specimens'.

Response: Dear reviewer, we appreciate your observation, the team agrees and the title change will proceed.

[3] Delete the phrase 'It is important to clarify that'

Response: Ok dear it was eliminated

Methods: The term 'pre-experimental' will confuse the reader. It is proper experiment only.

Response: Ok thanks for this observation

[4] The number of males and females per egg laying cage (replication) should be mentioned in methods.

Response: Thanks. Agreed, the improvement will be made.

[5] Results and discussion: Spodoptera siuna (spell check the entire document).leathery worm donut (donut?)

Response We thank you for this review, it will be going through the review of a native to improve the spelling it indicates. What is indicated throughout the document will be improved in the next version.

[6] Figure 2 represents duration of stages (Y axis- days in stadium), but it is captioned as weight.

Figure 3 is average weight, but titled as number of days. The legend colour given in the graph is different from actual line colour in graph.

Response: Thanks for the observation, we will make the correction in the new version.

Three digits are enough for fractions eg.0.429 mg in place of 0.4288 mg.

Response. Ok thanks for this observation. It will be made.

[7] The egg mass and no. of eggs per female should also be mentioned. This should be discussed in comparison with fecundity of S.sunia reported earlier.

Response: Thank you for the observation, we confirm that we fully agree and we will work on that improvement.

[8] Conclusion: Closing of populations, not species. The conclusion must focus on periodical crossing and the other statements given on nutrition and environment must be supported by quoting previous studies.

Response: Thank you for the observation, we confirm that we fully agree and we will work on that improvement.
Competing Interests: The authors disclose don't have any competing interests. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 29 Nov 2023

C. A. Zuniga-Gonzalez, Bioeconomy and Climate Change Research Center, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, Leon, 21000, Nicaragua

29 Nov 2023

Author Response

Response to the reviewer: We appreciate the comments provided by the reviewer. We are working on making the improvements indicated by the reviewer and presenting a new version.
The improvements ... Continue reading Response to the reviewer: We appreciate the comments provided by the reviewer. We are working on making the improvements indicated by the reviewer and presenting a new version.
The improvements we are working on are:

[1] General comment: After first use of Spodoptera sunia, use abbreviated form S. sunia.

Response: We appreciate this observation, if we are correcting it.

Abstract: Three treatments with 30 individuals and three repetitions. Does it mean 'three treatments with and three repetitions involving 30 individuals each'?

Response: Dear reviewer, we confirm that it is so.

[2] Title: The word cross-species literally mean inter-species, thus a misnomer in this study. It shall be replaced with a suitable title like 'periodical crossing of laboratory population with natural population would improve fitness in Spodoptera sunia'. Crossing populations is appropriate in place of 'crossing specimens'.

Response: Dear reviewer, we appreciate your observation, the team agrees and the title change will proceed.

[3] Delete the phrase 'It is important to clarify that'

Response: Ok dear it was eliminated

Methods: The term 'pre-experimental' will confuse the reader. It is proper experiment only.

Response: Ok thanks for this observation

[4] The number of males and females per egg laying cage (replication) should be mentioned in methods.

Response: Thanks. Agreed, the improvement will be made.

[5] Results and discussion: Spodoptera siuna (spell check the entire document).leathery worm donut (donut?)

Response We thank you for this review, it will be going through the review of a native to improve the spelling it indicates. What is indicated throughout the document will be improved in the next version.

[6] Figure 2 represents duration of stages (Y axis- days in stadium), but it is captioned as weight.

Figure 3 is average weight, but titled as number of days. The legend colour given in the graph is different from actual line colour in graph.

Response: Thanks for the observation, we will make the correction in the new version.

Three digits are enough for fractions eg.0.429 mg in place of 0.4288 mg.

Response. Ok thanks for this observation. It will be made.

[7] The egg mass and no. of eggs per female should also be mentioned. This should be discussed in comparison with fecundity of S.sunia reported earlier.

Response: Thank you for the observation, we confirm that we fully agree and we will work on that improvement.

[8] Conclusion: Closing of populations, not species. The conclusion must focus on periodical crossing and the other statements given on nutrition and environment must be supported by quoting previous studies.

Response: Thank you for the observation, we confirm that we fully agree and we will work on that improvement.
Response to the reviewer: We appreciate the comments provided by the reviewer. We are working on making the improvements indicated by the reviewer and presenting a new version.
The improvements we are working on are:

[1] General comment: After first use of Spodoptera sunia, use abbreviated form S. sunia.

Response: We appreciate this observation, if we are correcting it.

Abstract: Three treatments with 30 individuals and three repetitions. Does it mean 'three treatments with and three repetitions involving 30 individuals each'?

Response: Dear reviewer, we confirm that it is so.

[2] Title: The word cross-species literally mean inter-species, thus a misnomer in this study. It shall be replaced with a suitable title like 'periodical crossing of laboratory population with natural population would improve fitness in Spodoptera sunia'. Crossing populations is appropriate in place of 'crossing specimens'.

Response: Dear reviewer, we appreciate your observation, the team agrees and the title change will proceed.

[3] Delete the phrase 'It is important to clarify that'

Response: Ok dear it was eliminated

Methods: The term 'pre-experimental' will confuse the reader. It is proper experiment only.

Response: Ok thanks for this observation

[4] The number of males and females per egg laying cage (replication) should be mentioned in methods.

Response: Thanks. Agreed, the improvement will be made.

[5] Results and discussion: Spodoptera siuna (spell check the entire document).leathery worm donut (donut?)

Response We thank you for this review, it will be going through the review of a native to improve the spelling it indicates. What is indicated throughout the document will be improved in the next version.

[6] Figure 2 represents duration of stages (Y axis- days in stadium), but it is captioned as weight.

Figure 3 is average weight, but titled as number of days. The legend colour given in the graph is different from actual line colour in graph.

Response: Thanks for the observation, we will make the correction in the new version.

Three digits are enough for fractions eg.0.429 mg in place of 0.4288 mg.

Response. Ok thanks for this observation. It will be made.

[7] The egg mass and no. of eggs per female should also be mentioned. This should be discussed in comparison with fecundity of S.sunia reported earlier.

Response: Thank you for the observation, we confirm that we fully agree and we will work on that improvement.

[8] Conclusion: Closing of populations, not species. The conclusion must focus on periodical crossing and the other statements given on nutrition and environment must be supported by quoting previous studies.

Response: Thank you for the observation, we confirm that we fully agree and we will work on that improvement.
Competing Interests: The authors disclose don't have any competing interests. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 09 Jan 2023

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3	4
Version 3 (revision) 14 Nov 23		read		read
Version 2 (revision) 31 Aug 23	read	read	read
Version 1 09 Jan 23	read

SB Suby, ICAR-Indian Institute of Maize Research, Ludhiana, India
Hend Omar Mohamed, Agricultural Research Center, Giza, Egypt
María L Russo, National University of La Plata, La Plata, Argentina

Florencia Vianna, Universidad Nacional de la Plata, La Plata, Argentina
Rajanikanth P, Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agriculture University, Hyderabad, India

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

4 Views

24 Jun 2024 | for Version 3

Rajanikanth P, Department of Entomology, College of Agriculture, Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agriculture University, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

4 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Host plant resistance, Insect nutrition, Insect Immunity and Insecticide resistance

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

8 Views

27 Nov 2023 | for Version 3

Hend Omar Mohamed, Biological Control Research Department, Plant Protection Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center, Giza, Egypt

8 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

No further comments to make .

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Biological Control, Integrated pest management and Economic Entomology.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

10 Views

31 Oct 2023 | for Version 2

María L Russo, Instituto Spegazzini, National University of La Plata, La Plata, Buenos Aires Province, Argentina

Florencia Vianna, Instituto Spegazzini, Universidad Nacional de la Plata, La Plata, Buenos Aires Province, Argentina

10 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Not Approved

The introduction section could be expanded providing further information about the plague and explaining the importance of the investigation.
Material and methods section should be better explained, describing properly the protocols followed.
Results and discussion section should be rewritten. There are many mistakes in the tables and figures. Also the text and tables present redundant information.

Specific comments

Title

The title should provide the complete name of the lepidopteran species: Spodoptera Also the Order and Family should not go in italics: Lepidoptera: Noctuidae

Abstract

Please delete “in the Noctuid Insect Breeding Laboratory”.

Introduction

When you first mention the species S. susinia, please provide the complete name of the species: Spodoptera sunia (Guenée) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).
“To control this pest, many laboratories produce and reproduce these organisms in order to reduce and control the population of pests in crops, some Genera are Trichogramma, Spalangia Telenomus, Cochliomyia, Ceratitis, Baculovirus and Nomuraea rileyi (predators and parasitoids, viruses and entomopathogenic fungi) (Jiménez, 2022; Badii & Abreu, 2006)”. Please delete the word 'this', you're referring to biocontrol agents not the plague.

Methods

“The research was carried out at the Noctuid Insect Breeding Laboratory (CIRCB), UNAN-León Agricultural Campus, coordinates (12.11743, -86.23600)” Please delete the word coordinates.
Laboratory protocol, first paragraph last sentence: whose they? Please provide the correct sentence.
Page 4 first paragraph : Please do not start the sentence with a number, for example you could say “A total of 250...”
Page 4: You've already mention which were the treatments.

Statistical validation

“The data processing was done with the software IBM SPSS Statistics (RRID:SCR_016479) v.21 and the Student's t-test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (K-S), Shapiro–Wilk test (W) (normality tests), Mann–Whitney U test and Lilliefors test (Shapiro and Wilk, 1965; Sánchez Turcios, 2015; Torres et al., 2012).” Please correct the sentence. You say and mention the test and do not finish the sentence correctly.
Student t-test is not used to verify normality of data sets.
There is no need to provide the formula of neither the statistical tests nor the hypothesis that were tested in material and methods.
Table 1 should be presented in results section, and also you should check the information that provides.

Results and discussion

Length and weight of larvae

Figure 1: please express correctly the legend in the y axis.
Figure 2 does not provide the information on the weight of the different stages. Please place the correct figure.
There is no need to describe the hypotheses that were tested; you should summarize the information correctly. The information provided in table 2 is also redundant since it provides repeated information.
Which values does table 3 provide? You should clarify and place the correct values.
Figure 2 does not present the average weight of larvae Hatching percentage.
Please check the values provided in table 4 and those express in the text. There are several mistakes or at least inconsistencies. If the number of eggs is an average you should also provide standard deviation values. Furthermore, strange values are observed, within the same treatment for example in T1: 1,744 and 665.

Weight and sex of pupae

Figure 3, colors in the figure does not match those in the legend. Also, in the figure (x axis) you only refer to the larval stage but in the text you mention egg, larval, pupal and adult stage. Furthermore, which are the statistical values for you to say that there are or not significative differences?

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

No
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Biological control, entomology, micology

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

29 Nov 2023

C. A. Zuniga-Gonzalez, Bioeconomy and Climate Change Research Center, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, Leon, 21000, Nicaragua

Reviewer 3
Periodical crossing of the laboratory population with the natural population would improve fitness in S. sunia (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

The authors have studied the biological and reproductive parameters of the species Spodoptera sunia (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in different populations (field, laboratory and crossing populations) and investigates the results of the periodic introduction of field genetic material in laboratory colonies. Based on the results, the authors recommend introducing genetic material from the field every six month, also to maintain stable climatic conditions and to provide the adequate diet that should be changed every two days during the larval stage.

Response to reviewer
We thank reviewer 3 for his contribution and contributions to improving the quality of the manuscript. We appreciate his accurate observations in the methodology section.

Broad comments
The introduction section could be expanded providing further information about the plague and explaining the importance of the investigation.

Response to reviewer
We appreciate your observations, in general and according to reviewers 1 and 2, a review and rewriting of this section was made, highlighting the importance and relevance of this study in countries like ours.

Material and methods section should be better explained, describing properly the protocols followed.

We greatly appreciate your observation. We have added in the article the main aspects of the methodology and the protocol applied. However, we have added and made available to the public the protocols.io repository (Real-Baca and Zuniga-Gonzalez, 2022a), where we indicate the protocol, and the materials used throughout the collection process, identification both in the field phase and from laboratory.

Results and discussion section should be rewritten. There are many mistakes in the tables and figures. Also the text and tables present redundant information.

Response to reviewer
We greatly appreciate your observation. Improvements were made to the tables and Figures 2 and 3 were ordered as there was a location problem (they were inverted). In the same way, we have generally reviewed the article to correct the grammar that other reviewers also indicate.

Specific comments
Title
The title should provide the complete name of the lepidopteran species: Spodoptera Also the Order and Family should not go in italics: Lepidoptera: Noctuidae
Abstract
Please delete “in the Noctuid Insect Breeding Laboratory”.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer has been corrected it as you indicate.

Introduction
When you first mention the species S. susinia, please provide the complete name of the species: Spodoptera sunia (Guenée) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).
“To control this pest, many laboratories produce and reproduce these organisms in order to reduce and control the population of pests in crops, some Genera are Trichogramma, Spalangia Telenomus, Cochliomyia, Ceratitis, Baculovirus and Nomuraea rileyi (predators and parasitoids, viruses and entomopathogenic fungi) (Jiménez, 2022; Badii & Abreu, 2006)”. Please delete the word 'this', you're referring to biocontrol agents not the plague.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer has been corrected it as you indicate.

Methods
“The research was carried out at the Noctuid Insect Breeding Laboratory (CIRCB), UNAN-León Agricultural Campus, coordinates (12.11743, -86.23600)” Please delete the word coordinates.
Laboratory protocol, first paragraph last sentence: whose they? Please provide the correct sentence.
Page 4 first paragraph : Please do not start the sentence with a number, for example you could say “A total of 250...”
Page 4: You've already mention which were the treatments.
Statistical validation
“The data processing was done with the software IBM SPSS Statistics (RRID:SCR_016479) v.21 and the Student's t-test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (K-S), Shapiro–Wilk test (W) (normality tests), Mann–Whitney U test and Lilliefors test (Shapiro and Wilk, 1965; Sánchez Turcios, 2015; Torres et al., 2012).” Please correct the sentence. You say and mention the test and do not finish the sentence correctly.
Student t-test is not used to verify normality of data sets.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer has been corrected it as you indicate. The t-test was clarified and corrected.

There is no need to provide the formula of neither the statistical tests nor the hypothesis that were tested in material and methods.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer has been corrected it as you indicate. We would like to keeping the formula for academic purposes.

Table 1 should be presented in results section, and also you should check the information that provides.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer we thanks for this observation. We has been added it the analysis of the table, but we consider keep in this section because is part of the data.

Results and discussion
Length and weight of larvae
Figure 1: please express correctly the legend in the y axis.

Figure 2 does not provide the information on the weight of the different stages. Please place the correct figure.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer your observation is correct. It was a problem of confusion. The Figure 3 is in the place of Figure 2 and vice versa.

There is no need to describe the hypotheses that were tested; you should summarize the information correctly. The information provided in table 2 is also redundant since it provides repeated information.
Which values does table 3 provide? You should clarify and place the correct values.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer the comment of the table 2 was eliminated and change for other that no describe the hypothesis, regarding to table 3, we have left the comments on the comparisons of the treatments aside since you are asking about the applied values.
Figure 2 does not present the average weight of larvae Hatching percentage.

Please check the values provided in table 4 and those express in the text. There are several mistakes or at least inconsistencies. If the number of eggs is an average you should also provide standard deviation values. Furthermore, strange values are observed, within the same treatment for example in T1: 1,744 and 665.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer thanks for your observations. The data was corrected is 1744 and not 1,744. Is was a problem of consider a decimal by comma. Regarding to the Figure 2 has been corrected it

Weight and sex of pupae

Figure 3, colors in the figure does not match those in the legend. Also, in the figure (x axis) you only refer to the larval stage but in the text you mention egg, larval, pupal and adult stage. Furthermore, which are the statistical values for you to say that there are or not significative differences?

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer has been corrected it.

Bst Rgs
Authors

View more View less

Competing Interests

The authors disclose no have any competing interests.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

12 Views

31 Oct 2023 | for Version 2

SB Suby, ICAR-Indian Institute of Maize Research, Ludhiana, India

12 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Not Approved

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Insect pest management

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

29 Nov 2023

C. A. Zuniga-Gonzalez, Bioeconomy and Climate Change Research Center, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, Leon, 21000, Nicaragua

Reviewver 1 31 Oct 2023 | for Version 2 NOT APPROVED

We appreciate the comments provided by the reviewer 1. These are the improvements indicated by the reviewer and presenting a new version. We very respectfully apologize for the non-correct placement of Figures 2 and 3, and for the words siuna, which was corrected to sunia. The improvements we are working on are:

info_outline
When referring to a species for the first time in the title as well as in the main text we use the full genus name.

Title: Write Spodoptera sunia in place of S. sunia
Background: Write Spodoptera sunia in place of S. sunia

Response to reviewer
Was enhanced it.

The manuscript needs editing for proper use of English grammar. For instance, I am rewriting the abstract as given below:
"Methods: The experiment consisted of three treatments and three repetitions involving 30 individuals each. Field-collected S. sunia population was reared in the laboratory under semi-controlled conditions of temperature and humidity for three generations. The progeny of the third generation was crossed with the laboratory population and the resulting progeny was observed for growth and reproductive fitness.
Results: The results revealed that the hybrid progeny (T3) has a sex ratio (F: M) of 0.82, as against 1.22 and 0.76 observed in the field (T1) and lab populations (T2) respectively. The T1 females oviposited 196 egg masses as against 160 and 59 egg masses by T3 and T2 females respectively. The larval growth was more in hybrid progeny with shorter larval duration. However, no variation was observed in the incubation and pupal periods.
Conclusion: Since the most optimal results were obtained in T2 and T3, it is recommended to introduce genetic material every six months to maintain a good laboratory population of the insect host under study and better breeding of its natural enemies."
Pardon me, I can't reframe the MS beyond this point, it is a tedious job. Kindly get the rest edited for English language and grammar, preferably by a researcher.

Response to reviewer
I would like to express our gratitude for your valuable effort. We have revisited the document and made improvements as per your grammar-related suggestions. We appreciate your contributions in enhancing the summary's composition.

Also, the authors did not incorporate all the previous suggestions eg. S. siuna is used again in place of S. sunia and limiting two digits after the whole number. eg. 0.4288 mg. It should be 0.43 mg. Also am seeing the same wrongly placed graphs.

Response to reviewer
We have incorporated S sunia as you suggested and have enhanced the graphics by revisiting your previous observation. We also reviewed the numbers, correcting them to two digits as you suggested. We appreciate your observation in this regard. The first was in the back review: “Response: Thanks for the observation, we will correct the new version. The problem is that the figures are changed in the place of Figure 2 is Figure 3, and in the place of Figure 3 is Figure 2.”. Now I am going to make sure to do this in the next version.

Bst Rgs
Authors.

View more View less

Competing Interests

The authors disclose no have competing interests.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

14 Views

31 Oct 2023 | for Version 2

Hend Omar Mohamed, Biological Control Research Department, Plant Protection Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center, Giza, Egypt

14 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

In the adult stages T1 and T2 it was 12 days and for T3 10 days please replaced to: In the adult stage, it was 12 days for T1 and T2, but 10 days for T3 was recorded.
In the egg stage in the three treatments, it was three days replaced with: The egg stage for the three treatments was lasted 3 days......

Conclusions: add S. sunia larvae instead larvae of the species under study.

Introduction: this section is written well but needs minor corrections as:

Rearrange the references in all text with the same format either alphabetical or year.
Transfer this sentence to the end of introduction section (it is an appropriate place): "Ultimately, the subject of study becomes important given the need to study these parameters and the performance of the species S. sunia with the introduction of new natural genetic material (cross-species) to improve breeding and maintain optimal parameters (Raj et al., 2022; Rizo, 1994; Rizo et al., 1994; Passoa, 1991)".
Replace a biological controller to: a biological control agent. The study to this study.

Methods: this section is clear and written well.

Delete this sentence: The type of research was experimental and the word species repeated more times.

Results and discussions:

'pre-pupa instar' replaced to 'pre-pupal stage'.
The legend of Figures 2 and 3 is not correct and un-appropriate. Fig.2 not average weight of larvae? It is developmental duration of each stage of S. sunia.
Fig. 3 is average weight not number of days? Please correct it carefully and the legend color in the graph is not the same of actual line color.
'Lose weight to enter the pre-pupa stage' replaced to, 'lose its weight to enter the pre-pupal stage'.
'0.3018 mg at 20 days in the T2 treatment' instead of, 'the T₂ treatment a weight of 0.3018 mg at 20 days'. also, 'gr' to 'g.'
Table 4 legend: 'in different treatments' not 'by treatment'.
The weight in mg repeated more times in all text of the article and it is mentioned previously in the methodology sections so write only the weight without in mg.

weight and sex of pupae section:

'34 are male pupae and 26 female pupae' replaced to '34 males and 26 females'.
"Treatment T₃ obtained a total of 60 pupae, 28 females and 32 males for a sex ratio of 0.8:1" - This result is related to treatment T1 not T3, correct it.

Life cycle: Not Figure 3 but was Figure 2 about average days of each development.

Conclusions:

Replace 'The highest average larval weight obtained from the species S. sunia obtained was T₃ with 0.4288 mg', to 'The highest average larval weight of S. sunia obtained from T3 was 0.4288 mg.'
"of the species S. sunia" (delete it).
'the reproduction of the insects of the populations S. siuna' replaced to, 'the reproduction of S. siuna'.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Biological Control, Integrated pest management and Economic Entomology.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

29 Nov 2023

C. A. Zuniga-Gonzalez, Bioeconomy and Climate Change Research Center, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, Leon, 21000, Nicaragua

Reviewer 2
General comment:
This study is very important and vital for readers interesting with biological control for improving the host population fitness and hence the biocontrol agent.
All comments and corrections are highlighted in the article as:
Title: full name of Spodoptera sinus must write completed without abbreviation in the title and abstract for the first time used because no one can understand what does S. mean? Also, Order and Family are not written in italic anyway (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).

Response to reviewer:
Thank you for your insightful comment. We truly believe that this study holds significant importance in the context of biological control, as it contributes to the enhancement of host population fitness and, consequently, the efficacy of biocontrol agents. Your recognition of the study's significance is greatly appreciated. The observation to the Title was corrected.

Abstract
Results:
In the adult stages T1 and T2 it was 12 days and for T3 10 days please replaced to: In the adult stage, it was 12 days for T1 and T2, but 10 days for T3 was recorded.
In the egg stage in the three treatments, it was three days replaced with: The egg stage for the three treatments was lasted 3 days.
Conclusions: add S. sunia larvae instead larvae of the species under study.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer, we appreciate your valuable contribution with this observation, however we have adjusted the summary with the contributions of reviewer 1, which coincide with his comments.

Introduction: this section is written well but needs minor corrections as:
Rearrange the references in all text with the same format either alphabetical or year.
Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer, it was made. In general, all the sections were revised and enhanced.
Transfer this sentence to the end of introduction section (it is an appropriate place): "Ultimately, the subject of study becomes important given the need to study these parameters and the performance of the species S. sunia with the introduction of new natural genetic material (cross-species) to improve breeding and maintain optimal parameters (Raj et al., 2022; Rizo, 1994; Rizo et al., 1994; Passoa, 1991)".
Replace a biological controller to: a biological control agent. The study to this study.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer, thanks for this observation. It has been made.

Methods: this section is clear and written well.
Delete this sentence: The type of research was experimental and the word species repeated more times.
Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer thanks for this observation. It has been eliminated.
Results and discussions:
'pre-pupa instar' replaced to 'pre-pupal stage'.

Response to reviewer
Has been corrected.

The legend of Figures 2 and 3 is not correct and un-appropriate. Fig.2 not average weight of larvae? It is developmental duration of each stage of S. sunia.
Fig. 3 is average weight not number of days? Please correct it carefully and the legend color in the graph is not the same of actual line color.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer thank for this observation. It is correct; the problem was that the figure 2 and 3 inverted are. Has been corrected it.

'Lose weight to enter the pre-pupa stage' replaced to, 'lose its weight to enter the pre-pupal stage'.
'0.3018 mg at 20 days in the T2 treatment' instead of, 'the T2 treatment a weight of 0.3018 mg at 20 days'. also, 'gr' to 'g.'

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer has been corrected it. Regarding “also, 'gr' to 'g.'” it is ‘mg’.

Table 4 legend: 'in different treatments' not 'by treatment'.
The weight in mg repeated more times in all text of the article and it is mentioned previously in the methodology sections so write only the weight without in mg.

Response to reviewer
Ok. However, I would like to keep it because it is an observation from other reviewers.

weight and sex of pupae section:
'34 are male pupae and 26 female pupae' replaced to '34 males and 26 females'.
"Treatment T3 obtained a total of 60 pupae, 28 females and 32 males for a sex ratio of 0.8:1" - This result is related to treatment T1 not T3, correct it.
Life cycle: Not Figure 3 but was Figure 2 about average days of each development.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer thanks for this observation. Has been corrected it. The Figure 3 was change for the Figure 2.

Conclusions:
Replace 'The highest average larval weight obtained from the species S. sunia obtained was T3 with 0.43 mg', to 'The highest average larval weight of S. sunia obtained from T3 was 0.4288 mg.'
"of the species S. sunia" (delete it).
'the reproduction of the insects of the populations S. siuna' replaced to, 'the reproduction of S. suna'.
Finally, I read and revise this manuscript carefully based on our knowledge and experience and hence i confirm that it is of an acceptable partially, however it need some revision and correction before indexing.

Response to reviewer
Dear reviewer, I thank you for your great contribution and improvement to the quality of the article. We have made the indicated corrections.

Bst Rgs
Authors

View more View less

Competing Interests

The authors disclose that no have any competing interests.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

17 Views

19 Jul 2023 | for Version 1

SB Suby, ICAR-Indian Institute of Maize Research, Ludhiana, India

17 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Insect pest management

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

29 Nov 2023

C. A. Zuniga-Gonzalez, Bioeconomy and Climate Change Research Center, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, Leon, 21000, Nicaragua

Response to the reviewer: We appreciate the comments provided by the reviewer. We are working on making the improvements indicated by the reviewer and presenting a new version.
The improvements we are working on are:

[1] General comment: After first use of Spodoptera sunia, use abbreviated form S. sunia.

Response: We appreciate this observation, if we are correcting it.

Abstract: Three treatments with 30 individuals and three repetitions. Does it mean 'three treatments with and three repetitions involving 30 individuals each'?

Response: Dear reviewer, we confirm that it is so.

[2] Title: The word cross-species literally mean inter-species, thus a misnomer in this study. It shall be replaced with a suitable title like 'periodical crossing of laboratory population with natural population would improve fitness in Spodoptera sunia'. Crossing populations is appropriate in place of 'crossing specimens'.

Response: Dear reviewer, we appreciate your observation, the team agrees and the title change will proceed.

[3] Delete the phrase 'It is important to clarify that'

Response: Ok dear it was eliminated

Methods: The term 'pre-experimental' will confuse the reader. It is proper experiment only.

Response: Ok thanks for this observation

[4] The number of males and females per egg laying cage (replication) should be mentioned in methods.

Response: Thanks. Agreed, the improvement will be made.

[5] Results and discussion: Spodoptera siuna (spell check the entire document).leathery worm donut (donut?)

Response We thank you for this review, it will be going through the review of a native to improve the spelling it indicates. What is indicated throughout the document will be improved in the next version.

[6] Figure 2 represents duration of stages (Y axis- days in stadium), but it is captioned as weight.

Figure 3 is average weight, but titled as number of days. The legend colour given in the graph is different from actual line colour in graph.

Response: Thanks for the observation, we will make the correction in the new version.

Three digits are enough for fractions eg.0.429 mg in place of 0.4288 mg.

Response. Ok thanks for this observation. It will be made.

[7] The egg mass and no. of eggs per female should also be mentioned. This should be discussed in comparison with fecundity of S.sunia reported earlier.

Response: Thank you for the observation, we confirm that we fully agree and we will work on that improvement.

[8] Conclusion: Closing of populations, not species. The conclusion must focus on periodical crossing and the other statements given on nutrition and environment must be supported by quoting previous studies.

Response: Thank you for the observation, we confirm that we fully agree and we will work on that improvement.

View more View less

Competing Interests

The authors disclose don't have any competing interests.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] Armstrong AM: Spodoptera sunia (guenee) (lepidoptera, noctuidae)-a new record of attack on cabbage in Puerto-Rico. Journal of Agriculture of the University of Puerto Rico. 1994; 78(1-2): 67–68. Publisher Full Text

[2] Brunetti M, Magoga G, Gionechetti F, et al.: Does diet breadth affect the complexity of the phytophagous insect microbiota? The case study of Chrysomelidae. Environmental Microbiology. 2022; 24(8): 3565–3579. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[3] Barcellos GA: Caracterização dos efeitos letais e subletais da soja que expressa as proteínas inseticidas Cry1A. 105, Cry2Ab2 e Cry1Ac para espécies de Spodoptera. Lepidoptera: Noctuidae; 2022.

[4] Bárcenas ONM: La genética en el control biológico Vedalia 4.1997; 1.

[5] Badii MH, Abreu JL: Control biológico una forma sustentable de control de plagas (Biological control a sustainable way of pest control). Daena: International Journal of Good Conscience. 2006; 1(1): 82–89.

[6] Carrillo Pérez AM, Jirón Pérez CM, Lacayo Torres AC: Evaluación de la persistencia del virus de la poliedrosis nuclear (VPN), expuesto a la luz solar en diferentes períodos de tiempo. (Doctoral dissertation). 2003.

[7] Delgado J, Hernández H: Evaluación del comportamiento de la especie Spodoptera sunia (Lepidóptera: Noctuidae), utilizando fécula de maíz como gelificante en la dieta artificial, para la producción masiva del virus de la poliedrosis nuclear (VPN). Laboratorio de cría de insectos noctuidos. Campus Agropecuario, UNAN-León. Tesis. Ingeniería en Agroecología Tropical. León-Nicaragua. 2008; 40p.

[8] Extremera FM, Cobo A, Pérez Rodríguez MC, et al.: El complejo de lepidópteros defoliadores de Quercus en la provincia de Córdoba. Boletín de Sanidad Vegetal, Plagas. 2004; 30(1): 203–210.

[9] Haase S, Sciocco-Cap A, Romanowski V: Baculovirus insecticides in Latin America: historical overview, current status and future perspectives. Viruses. 2015; 7(5): 2230–2267. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[10] Huettel MD: Monitoring the quality of laboratory-reared insects: a biological and behavioral perspective. Environmental Entomology. 1976; 5(5): 807–814. Publisher Full Text

[11] Jiménez LAM: Producción de microorganismos entomopatógenos para el control de insectos plaga en cultivos agrícolas: Ejércitos microscópicos contra insectos plaga. Revista de Divulgación Científica iBIO. 2022; 4(2): 18–22.

[12] Kergoat GJ, Goldstein PZ, Le Ru B, et al.: A novel reference dated phylogeny for the genus Spodoptera Guenée (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae: Noctuinae): new insights into the evolution of a pest-rich genus. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 2021; 161: 107161. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[13] Lilliefors H: On the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality with mean and variance unknown. Journal of the American Statistical Association. June 1967; 62: pp. 399–402. Publisher Full Text

[14] Lilliefors H: On the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for the exponential distribution with mean unknown. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1969; 64: 387–389. Publisher Full Text

[15] Machado EP, dos S Rodrigues Junior GL, Somavilla JC, et al.: Survival and development of Spodoptera eridania, Spodoptera cosmioides and Spodoptera albula (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on genetically-modified soybean expressing Cry1Ac and Cry1F proteins. Pest Management Science. 2020; 76(12): 4029–4035. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[16] Malais M, Ravensberg W: Conocer y reconocer a las plagas de cultivos protegidos y sus enemigos naturales.1992; 173p.

[17] Martínez M: El control de calidad en la cría de insectos.Bautista N, Vejar G, Carrillo JL, et al., editors. Técnicas para la cría de insectos. Instituto de Fitosanidad. Colegiode Postgraduados en Ciencias Agrícolas; México; 1994; pp. 107–135. pp. 25–37.

[18] Massey FJ Jr: The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for goodness of fit. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1951; 46(253): 68–78. Publisher Full Text

[19] Montezano DG, Specht A, Sosa-Gomez DR, et al.: Biotic potential, fertility and life table of Spodoptera albula (Walker)(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), under controlled conditions. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências. 2014; 86: 723–732. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[20] Moore R, Udell C, Calkins L: Quality assessment in laboratory-reared msects.Singh IP, Moore RF, editors. Handbook of insect rearing. The Netherlands: Elsevier; 1985; Vol l. : pp.107–135.

[21] Muentes LAA: Alteraciones causadas por sucesivas aplicaciones de baculovirus en spodoptera littoralis (boisduval)(lepidoptera: noctuidae). (Doctoral dissertation, Universidad de Córdoba (ESP)). 2000.

[22] Parra JRP, Coelho A, Cuervo-Rugno JB, et al.: Important pest species of the Spodoptera complex: Biology, thermal requirements and ecological zoning. Journal of Pest Science. 2022; 95(1): 169–186. Publisher Full Text

[23] Passoa S: Color identification of economically important Spodoptera larvae in Honduras (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Insecta Mundi. 1991; 414.

[24] Pérez AC, Elósegui O, Padrón NB: Aislamiento, caracterización morfológica y fisiológica del hongo entomopatógeno Paecilomyces fumosoroseus (WIZE) BROUM & SMITH. Fitosanidad. 2003; 7(3): 27–32.

[25] Peterson K, Cheremond E, Brandvain Y, et al.: Weight Gain of Spodoptera frugiperda Larvae (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on Leaf and Floral Tissues of Silphium integrifolium (Asterales: Asteraceae) Differs by Plant Genotype. Environmental Entomology. 2022; 51(2): 397–404. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[26] Raj MN, Samal I, Paschapur A, et al.: Entomopathogenic viruses and their potential role in sustainable pest management. New and Future Developments in Microbial Biotechnology and Bioengineering. Elsevier; 2022; (pp. 47–72). Publisher Full Text

[27] Raju TN: William Sealy Gosset and William A. Silverman: two “students” of science. Pediatrics. 2005; 116(3): 732–735. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[28] Real-Baca CI, Zuniga Gonzalez CA: Protocol for Cross-species characterization in the reproduction of Spodoptera Sunia (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). protocols.io. 2022a. Reference Source

[29] Real-Baca CI, Zuniga-Gonzalez CA: Data for: Cross-species characterization in the reproduction of Spodoptera Sunia (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). figshare. [Dataset]. 2022b. Publisher Full Text

[30] Rizo C: Procedimiento para la crianza masiva de insectos noctuidos. Unan-León; 1994.

[31] Rizo C, et al.: Procedimiento para la crianza masiva de insectos noctuidos. UNAN-OEA; 1994; vol. 9. : 24p.

[32] Romero Gutiérrez MI, Cruz Reyes CM: Calidad de la cría de Spodoptera: algunos parámetros biológicos para su reproducción. Campus Agropecuario de la UNAN-León. Centro de Investigación y Reproducción de Controladores Biológicos (CIRCB) 2011. (Doctoral dissertation). 2011.

[33] Saldamando CI, Marquez EJ: Aproximación a la filogenia de Spodoptera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) con el uso de un fragmento del gen de la citocromo oxidasa I (COI). Revista de Biología Tropical. 2012; 60(3): 1237–1248. Publisher Full Text

[34] Sánchez Turcios RA: t-student: Usos y abusos. Revista Mexicana de Cardiologia. 2015; 26(1): 59–61. Recuperado en 09 de diciembre de 2022. Reference Source

[35] Shapiro SS, Wilk MB: An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika. 1965; 52(3-4): 591–611. Publisher Full Text

[36] Smith R, Ponce J, Vantman D: Significado fisiopatológico de las especies reactivas del oxígeno en la infertilidad masculina. Rev. chil. obstet. ginecol. 1996; 323–331.

[37] SAGARPA (Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación): Información estadística de la delegación estatal de Michoacán. México, D. F.: SAGARPA; 2002.

[38] Salinas-Sánchez DO, Avilés-Montes D, Aldana-Llanos L, et al.: Efecto Insecticida de Serjania schiedeana Para el Control de Spodoptera frugiperda Bajo Condiciones de Laboratorio e Invernadero. Southwestern Entomologist. 2020; 45(2): 521–530. Publisher Full Text

[39] Torres V, Barbosa I, Meyer R, et al.: Criterios de bondad de ajuste en la selección de modelos no lineales en la descripción de comportamientos biológicos. Revista Cubana de Ciencia Agrícola. 2012; 46(4): 345–350.

[40] Turcios RS: Prueba de Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney: mitos y realidades. Rev Mex Endocrinol Metab Nutr. 2015; 2: 18–21.

[41] Vásquez J, Zeddam JL, Tresierra-Ayala Á: Control biológico del “cogollero del maíz” Spodoptera frugiperda, (Lepidoptera; Noctuidae) CON EL BaculoviruS Sf VPN, en Iquitos-Peru. Folia Amazónica. 2002; 13(1-2): 25–39. Publisher Full Text

[42] Zelaya-Molina LX, Chávez-Díaz IF, de los Santos-Villalobos S , et al.: Control biológico de plagas en la agricultura mexicana. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas. 2022; 13(SPE27): 69–79. Publisher Full Text

Periodical crossing of the laboratory population with the natural population would improve fitness in S. sunia (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 2

Introduction

Methods

Laboratory protocol

Statistical validation

(1)

(2)

(3)

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the final weight (mg) of the treatments.

Results and discussion

Length and weight of larvae

Figure 1. Average length (mm) of S. sunia larvae in the different treatments.

Table 2. Data normality test with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic for length (mm) and weight (mg) during the larval stage of the treatments.

Table 3. Mann-Whitney U test for length (mm) and weight (mg) during the larval stage for treatments.

Figure 2. Average weight (mg) of S. sunia larvae of the treatments.

Hatching percentage

Table 4. Egg laying of S. sunia in different treatments.

Table 5. Oviposition range by mass size for each treatment (%).

Table 6. Normality test for weight (mg).

Table 7. Independent samples test for weight (mg).

Weight and sex of pupae

Table 8. Average weight in (mg) and sex of final pupae in the Spodoptera sunia treatments.

Lifecycle

Figure 3. Number of days in each stage of development of S. sunia in the treatments.

Conclusions

Data availability

Underlying data

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated