Complementary Strategies for Biological Control of Aphids and Related Virus Transmission in Sugar Beet to Replace Neonicotinoids

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

These are my main comments on the manuscript (agriculture-1928243) entitled “Complementary strategies for biological control of aphids and 2 related virus transmission in sugar beet to replace neonicotinoids”. The manuscript describes alternative methods to replace neocotinoid insecticides. Following moderate revisions should be incorporated in the manuscript prior to acceptance.

1. I have concerns about the manuscript sections that I believe need to be addressed in order to improve its clarity.

2. Information about neocotinoid insecticides (mode of action, active ingredients, and use in sugar beet crops) is needed.

3. Other revisions could be checked in PDF attached.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for the suggestions and comments. We have added in the introduction information about neonicotinoid insecticides.

Concerning the comments_ PDF, Thank you for the comment. The requested changes related to the keywords and the remaining comments in the PDF have been considered as suggested.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

New alternatives to neonicotinoids are compiled in the paper "Complementary strategies for biological control of aphids and related virus transmission in sugar beet to replace neonicotinoids," authored by Frédéric Francis et al. The necessary references provide strong support for the facts. Overall, the manuscript was well-written and presented properly, making it eligible for publishing. Sugar beet growers and scholars should find it interesting. The data is instructive. Authors are asked to edit a few sentences in the entire text before it may be accepted. Also required more description in many sections, so that number of words may increase and could be justified for a review article. For example, the abstract may be formatted as follows:

Neonicotinoid-based real control of aphids in sugar beet permitted effective management of associated phytoviruses. However, the prohibition on their usage has prompted an urgent search for viable replacements. The development of sugar beet varieties with aphid and/or virus resistance and/or tolerance has a huge potential to reduce aphids and the harm caused by transmitted viruses. Semi-chemicals also play a significant part in determining intra-and inter-specific interactions, which directly affect aphid fitness, feeding activity, and ultimately their capacity to spread viruses. Another method of aphid management involves the use of plant volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in conjunction with an attract and kill strategy. Entomopathogenic fungi could also be utilised to manage aphids without endangering helpful entomofauna. Finally, soil bacteria are particularly effective biocontrol agents because they induce systemic resistance as Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) (ISR). The sugar beet-aphid virus model would be a perfect place to test these microbial players. The adoption of complementing ecocompatible techniques in the sugar beet crop will be ensured by the application of a variety of biocontrol opportunities connected to creative aphid control strategies. This should make it possible to create technical itineraries for a comprehensive approach to controlling aphids and related viruses depending on the situation.

Author Response

We are very thankful for the different comments and for the new version of the abstract. We have been adopting this new version of the abstract and minor changes have been made.

Reviewer 3 Report

I have reviewed the manuscript, "Complementary strategies for biological control of aphids and related virus transmission in sugar beet to replace neonicotinoids", which submitted to Agriculture. The manuscript attempted to elucidate the complementary alternative aphid control ways combining resistant varieties, semiochemical releasers, EPF and PGPR to replace neonicotinoïd in sugar beet virus control. The manuscript could be accepted for publication. But I suggested the manuscript add more successful examples, especally for EPF and PGRP using in the aphids and associated viruses controls to improve the reliability of the multidisciplinary strategies.

Author Response

Thank you for the suggestions and we are sure with such examples the manuscript will be improved; However, e have been addressing examples of treatments using EPF against aphids leading to a mortality range between 60 and 100% and also the limited published studies about their role as endophytes and their impact on aphids in sugar beet system.

 

The same issue was faced in relation to the use of PGPR in sugar beet system against aphids. For that reason, we have been sharing unpublished results where we describe the potential of used PGPR in limiting aphid’s fitness.