Effect of Abiotic Factors on Population Dynamics of Whitefly and Jassid on Bt-Cotton


Muhammad Zuhaib Safdar

Department of Entomology, faculty of Agriculture, Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan, Pakistan

Muhammad Naeem

Department of Entomology, faculty of Agriculture, Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan, Pakistan

Muhammad Mamoon ur Rashid

Department of Entomology, faculty of Agriculture, Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan, Pakistan

Habel Parwaiz

Department of Entomology, faculty of Agriculture, Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan, Pakistan

Ghulam Murtaza

Department of Entomology, faculty of Agriculture, Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan, Pakistan

Peer Review Report

Received Date

14.01.2019

Accepted Date

18.01.2019

Published Date

30.01.2019

Plagiarism

Accepted Level

Reviewer’s Comments to Authors

It is a scientific research study on the effect of Abiotic factors on population dynamics of whitefly and jassid on BT-cotton has been done with a view to investigate population dynamics and the effect of abiotic factors on population dynamics of sucking insect pests of BT cotton whitefly (Bemisiatabaci) and jassid (Amrascabiguttula), under unprotected condition. It is a field study which revealed that the sucking pest (whiteflies and jassids) population were maximum at highest temperature. (11.68) of whiteflies per leaf was recorded at highest temperature (45 oC) and lowest humidity (30%). Similarly the maximum population (3.53) of jassids per leaf was recorded at maximum temperature (45 oC) and lowest humidity (30%) on July 10th, 2017. A field study was carried out during the months of July and August (2017). The cotton Bt-variety MNH-886 was grown in the observation plot with recommended agronomic package of practices. Observations on the number of nymphs and adults of whiteflies and jassid were recorded 9 times on weekly basis from three leaves per plant selected from top, middle and bottom on 30 randomly selected plants. Weather data (temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and rainfall) of concerned dates was obtained and compared with the fluctuating population of jassids and whiteflies.

Major Comments

  1. There is no information on the source of analysis given in the table. The author should mention where the information has been taken (whether it is primary/secondary source of data collections).
  2. When the conclusion is exactly criticizing the findings of the study the author can add some of recommendations to avoid affected the population of whiteflies and jassids whereas relative humidity and rainfall negatively affected the population of the tested insects.
  3. There was no mention of the limitations of the study, one of which is the apparently high dropout rate. Also, mention how your results compare to (reference given to author) another study which was published very recently.
  4. Researcher can be highlight the research gap and pave the way for future research (scope for future research).

Minor Comments

  1. Keywords of the entire study can be added after the abstract as it reveal the important technical words used in the study.
  2. The content in the introduction part is with lots of references where there was no footnote information. The author should add the food not for each reference given in the paper.

Associate Editor’s Critique

The study has much strength where there was major weakness also. The needed information of the study like keywords, footnote and sources of analysis are missing. The author should include all the needed information for the study to strengthen the value of the paper.

Constructiveness of Comments

The review committee has given the constructive comments to the author /researcher.

Level of Detail of the Review

The review is fairly detailed, but the reviewer missed data inconsistence in the required field. There are minor corrections to be taken place before the final review.

Substantiation of Comments

The reviewer made comments on the paper with references.

Was the Review Biased?

The study was reviewed under ‘nil’ biased basis.

Recommendation from the Reviewer

I recommend that, this paper be accepted after the above mentioned minor revisions.