Aroplectrus dimerus (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae), Ectoparasitoid of the Nettle Caterpillar, Oxyplax pallivitta (Lepidoptera: Limacodidae): Evaluation in the Hawaiian Islands

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript uses numerous insect common names. Are they all accepted common names by entomological societies, like the Entomological Society of America?

Morphological descriptions of insects are not necessary if they have been described elsewhere.

Some necessary details about the lure traps are lacking, e.g., the vegetation where the traps were placed and how they were placed.

Table 3 should include apparent and absolute parasitism, if available.

The font of tables 4 and 5 can be reduced to improve their organization and presentation.

The are instances of values including several decimals, e.g. in line 539, t = 6.6630114. The authors should consider using only 3 significant figures throughout the manuscript. There is no need for excessive precision in some cases.

Change GPS to Geographic coordinates in Table 4 heading.

The conclusion is too long and redundant with the discussion.

The English in some areas of the manuscript borders on colloquial.

Author Response

We appreciate the three reviewers for taking the time to review our manuscript. We have carefully considered each of your comments and responded to them point by point below in blue here and in the final revised version. We have uploaded a revised manuscript with text marked in blue to illustrate all the changes made. We sincerely appreciate the reviewers’ suggestions, which have undoubtedly contributed to improving the quality of our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

An interesting and comprehensive story about an invasive limacodid in the Hawaii islands where it is a plant pest but also a threat for human health.

First concern about the species name as the current accepted name in GBIF is  Oxyplax pallivitta (Moore, 1877) https://www.gbif.org/species/11014495

The short abstract is not complete because it does not contain the info on the hyperparasitoid and the likely reduction of the biocontrol. 

In the abstract there is no mention of the other mortality factors (e.g., CPV  virus) that seem to play an important role and could be of interest to the reader.

The reference section is poorly organized as name and surnames of authors are used inconsistently.

Other difficult points are indicated in yellow in the pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

needs revision (see yellow parts)

Author Response

We appreciate the three reviewers for taking the time to review our manuscript. We have carefully considered each of your comments and responded to them point by point below in blue here and in the final revised version. We have uploaded a revised manuscript with text marked in blue to illustrate all the changes made. We sincerely appreciate the reviewers’ suggestions, which have undoubtedly contributed to improving the quality of our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Dr. Ramadan,

I have carefully read your manuscript entitled "Aroplectrus dimerus (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae), ectoparasitoid of the nettle caterpillar, Darna pallivitta (Lepidoptera: Limacodidae): Evaluation in the Hawaiian Islands". In my opinion, this paper contains new information about A. dimerus, an important parasitoid of an invasive caterpillar in the Hawaii, and therefore it could be published in Life. However, I have some suggested corrections to the manuscript (please see the attached file).

Yours sincerely,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

I believe the quality of the English language is acceptable. However, I suggest certain corrections to the manuscript (please see the attached file).

Author Response

We appreciate the three reviewers for taking the time to review our manuscript. We have carefully considered each of your comments and responded to them point by point below in blue here and in the final revised version. We have uploaded a revised manuscript with text marked in blue to illustrate all the changes made. We sincerely appreciate the reviewers’ suggestions, which have undoubtedly contributed to improving the quality of our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx