Developing an Effective Push–Pull System for Managing Outbreaks of the Invasive Pest Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Nephelium lappaceum Orchards

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

The push-pull strategy has shown promise for controlling economic pests, but the push-pull components were generally nontoxic. However, the use of pesticides as a component of this pest management strategy in the present study is considered a positive point because, unlike most push-pull strategies, according to the authors' data, it is also effective during pest outbreaks. However, it would have been better if low concentrations of abamectin had been tested to fully preserve these push-pull strategies' eco-friendliness.

What worries me is conducting the study within a year. However, to confirm the results of such studies, it is better to collect data for at least 2-3 years, such as the two studies by Khan et al. (2008) and Verghese et al. (2021), which the authors themselves have cited.

I am writing the specific comments below.

Overall, in my opinion, after the authors revised the manuscript based on the comments below, this manuscript deserves to be published in the Journal of Agronomy.

Good luck with your subsequent research

Specific  comments:

Line 3 or 12: Mention the order and family of the pest in the title or the introduction after the scientific name.

Line 17: Based on oral, contact and inhalation LD50, abamectin is classified as a highly toxic pesticide for mice and rats.

Lines 19 and 20: Remove the comma.

Lines 75-79: Contrary to this reference, however, findings of Qiu et al. (2022)^* indicate health risks to human and soil ecosystems with widespread use of abamectin. It is better to be a little less sure about the low environmental toxicity of abamectin.

* Qiu, Danyan, et al. "Negative effects of abamectin on soil microbial communities in the short term." Frontiers in Microbiology 13 (2022): 1053153.

Lines 71-72 and 79-85: Write the goal in one place. At present, the authors have mentioned the goal in general in lines 71-72 and its details in lines 79-85. Integrating these lines, in addition to improving the introduction, also prevents redundancy.

Line 120: For the reader not to be misled in understanding the study method, in my opinion, it is better to remove paragraph 2-2 and move the explanations given in this paragraph (before the test) to the beginning of the first experiment paragraph (2.3. Experiment 1: Traditional Push-Pull System vs. Traditional Push-Pull System with a Low Toxicity Pesticide). Of course, with the explanation that these actions were performed before experiments 2 to 4. Or else, change the title of paragraph 2-2 to " works taken before all experiments".

Line 124: In the mentioned article (Fig. 1), Biasazin et al. (2021) used the McPhail trap for trapping, which does not match the white bottles mentioned in your article. Please explain the trap details.

Line 135: For these values, write the unit.

Lines 158-161 and 168: This type of concentration description can be improved in the case of allicin and abamectin. Instead, express the concentration in ppm units based on the active ingredient and tell how much of this concentration you applied per hectare.

*What concentration of each pesticide is recommended by the manufacturer to control fruit flies, and what is the relationship between the concentration used in this study and the recommended concentration?

Line 159: mention the name of the manufacturer or company of all the chemicals used in your study, such as allicin, abamectin, β-cypermethrin, methyl eugenol, etc.

Line 188: What height of trees were 20 fruits collected from?

Line 193: Before experimenting 2, it would have been better to make statistical comparisons for experiment 1. Just for the most effective treatment of experiment 1, experiment 2 was done manually and by drone only.

Line 288: In Figures 2 to 5, write labels for the x and y axes. Draw the graph so that 3 days and 7 days are displayed on the x-axis, and the rate of population decline is written on the y-axis.

*In addition, in this chart, it is better to name the treatments according to experiment 1, i.e. allicin, allicin + abamectin, bromophos + β-cypermethrin and...

*Add the name of the statistical test to the caption of Figures 5-2.

Line 397: Put a period at the end of the sentence.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

English is reasonably good, but needs minor editing.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

(1 )The push-pull strategy has shown promise for controlling economic pests, but the push-pull components were generally nontoxic. However, the use of pesticides as a component of this pest management strategy in the present study is considered a positive point because, unlike most push-pull strategies, according to the authors' data, it is also effective during pest outbreaks. However, it would have been better if low concentrations of abamectin had been tested to fully preserve these push-pull strategies' eco-friendliness. 

What worries me is conducting the study within a year. However, to confirm the results of such studies, it is better to collect data for at least 2-3 years, such as the two studies by Khan et al. (2008) and Verghese et al. (2021), which the authors themselves have cited. 

Response: Thank you for your kind comments and suggestions. They are invaluable in enhancing our manuscript. We agree with your observation that push-pull components are generally non-toxic. However, we believe that the non-toxic push-pull strategy is a suitable choice before a pest outbreak. In the event of a pest outbreak, we should make slight modifications to the components to enhance their effectiveness in pest control, which aligns with one of the objectives of our study. With regards to the concentrations of abamectin, we used a low dose of only 0.2ppm in the present study, which is below the recommended range of 2-5ppm. This decision was made to maintain the eco-friendliness of our push-pull strategies.

As for the short duration of this study, we acknowledge that conducting it for a longer period, such as 2-3 years, would be beneficial. This is indeed a limitation of our current study. However, we plan to continue implementing the push-pull strategy in other orchards, where we will design our studies to span at least 2-3 years. Thank you for pointing out this important aspect, and we will take this into consideration for future research endeavors.

Thank you again for your valuable comments.

Specific  comments:

(2) Line 3 or 12: Mention the order and family of the pest in the title or the introduction after the scientific name.

Response: thank you. Corrected.

(3) Line 17: Based on oral, contact and inhalation LD50, abamectin is classified as a highly toxic pesticide for mice and rats.

Response: Thank you for providing this information. We have incorporated it into our manuscript, please see line 78-82. Based on this information and the low concentration of abamectin we used, we have decided to change “low-toxic abamectin” to “low concentration” throughout this manuscript.

(4) Lines 19 and 20: Remove the comma.

Response: corrected

(5) Lines 75-79: Contrary to this reference, however, findings of Qiu et al. (2022)^* indicate health risks to human and soil ecosystems with widespread use of abamectin. It is better to be a little less sure about the low environmental toxicity of abamectin.

* Qiu, Danyan, et al. "Negative effects of abamectin on soil microbial communities in the short term." Frontiers in Microbiology 13 (2022): 1053153.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have addressed this issue by removing the phrase “environmentally friendly” from that sentence and citing the appropriate reference.

(6) Lines 71-72 and 79-85: Write the goal in one place. At present, the authors have mentioned the goal in general in lines 71-72 and its details in lines 79-85. Integrating these lines, in addition to improving the introduction, also prevents redundancy.

Response: Response: We have revised the sentence to clearly state our goals and provide a summary of the four push-pull systems we intended to establish.

(7) Line 120: For the reader not to be misled in understanding the study method, in my opinion, it is better to remove paragraph 2-2 and move the explanations given in this paragraph (before the test) to the beginning of the first experiment paragraph (2.3. Experiment 1: Traditional Push-Pull System vs. Traditional Push-Pull System with a Low Toxicity Pesticide). Of course, with the explanation that these actions were performed before experiments 2 to 4. Or else, change the title of paragraph 2-2 to " works taken before all experiments".

Response: We have updated the title of paragraph 2-2 to “works taken before all experiments” to better reflect the content of that section.

(8) Line 124: In the mentioned article (Fig. 1), Biasazin et al. (2021) used the McPhail trap for trapping, which does not match the white bottles mentioned in your article. Please explain the trap details.

Response:  Thank you for your attention to detail. We have included a detailed description of the ME trap and have provided the corresponding figure in Figure S1a of the Supplementary

Material.

(9) Line 135: For these values, write the unit.

Response: corrected. This is flies.

(10) Lines 158-161 and 168: This type of concentration description can be improved in the case of allicin and abamectin. Instead, express the concentration in ppm units based on the active ingredient and tell how much of this concentration you applied per hectare. 

*What concentration of each pesticide is recommended by the manufacturer to control fruit flies, and what is the relationship between the concentration used in this study and the recommended concentration?

Response: thank you for your comments.  In the revised version, we have expressed the concentration in ppm units based on the active ingredient and specified the amount applied per hectare. We have also corrected the mistake from the previous version regarding the units used for allicin or abamectin, which is g per mu and not per hectare. We have made the necessary change to hectares throughout the current manuscript. Thank you for your attention to detail and for bringing this to our attention.

(11) Line 159: mention the name of the manufacturer or company of all the chemicals used in your study, such as allicin, abamectin, β-cypermethrin, methyl eugenol, etc.

Response: corrected.

(12) Line 188: What height of trees were 20 fruits collected from?

Response: corrected. It was 1-2 m.

(13) Line 193: Before experimenting 2, it would have been better to make statistical comparisons for experiment 1. Just for the most effective treatment of experiment 1, experiment 2 was done manually and by drone only.

Response: Thank you. We have included the information you mentioned in the manuscript, explaining the rationale for using abamectin in the subsequent experiments. We have also indicated the statistical comparisons and highlighted the effectiveness of including abamectin in the spraying system. The sentence has been added as you suggested: “Because, in Experiment 1, we found that including abamectin in the spraying system can reduce the fruit fly population and fruit damage rate (see Results and Figure 2) more efficiently than without. Thus, in experiments 2, 3, and 4, all the spraying systems included abamectin.”

(14) Line 288: In Figures 2 to 5, write labels for the x and y axes. Draw the graph so that 3 days and 7 days are displayed on the x-axis, and the rate of population decline is written on the y-axis.

*In addition, in this chart, it is better to name the treatments according to experiment 1, i.e. allicin, allicin + abamectin, bromophos + β-cypermethrin and...

*Add the name of the statistical test to the caption of Figures 5-2.

Response: Thank you for your suggestions. We have adjusted the design of figures 2-5 to enhance their clarity and understanding (please see figure 2-5). Additionally, we have named the treatments in figure 2 according to Experiment 1, specifying allicin, allicin + abamectin, and bromophos + β-cypermethrin.

(15) Line 397: Put a period at the end of the sentence.

Response: corrected.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments are in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

General Comment. The paper is interesting and took an innovative approach to test how variations of a push-pull strategy alter management of B. dorsalis populations and in production of quality fruit. With some clarification the paper should be published.

(1) Introduction. A succinct, effective introduction of the push-pull IPM strategy.

The objective was to develop an effective Push-Pull strategy to manage the oriental fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis) in a commercial rambutan orchard. The approach was to test four variations of a push-pull strategy in comparison to use of a standard insecticide.

Response: Thank you for your comments on our manuscript. Based on your valuable suggestions, we have corrected our manuscript extensively. Regarding the introduction, we have provided a succinct and effective overview of the push-pull IPM strategy that we aim to establish, as you recommended. Please refer to line 66-68 for the updated content. We have also rewritten the concluding part of the introduction to provide more detail on our purpose and the methods employed. Please see line 66-99 for the revised section.

Methods.

(2) A limitation to the study was that because the trials were done in a commercial orchard, an untreated control could not be used. The approach was to compare the effectiveness of four push-pull strategies to an insecticide treatment (positive control) regime in reducing fruit fly population levels and in preventing injury to fruits.

Response: Thank you for your comments. To address this limitation, we will design and conduct more experiments in a non-commercial orchard, such as an experimental orchard that may overcome this limitation.

(3) I suggest some changes to the methods that are complicated because four different experiments were done. The methodology presented in lines 181 to 192 seems to have been done for all four experiments and do not need to be repeated in the methods for each experiment. Instead, they could be presented as a common technique applied to all experiments.  

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have made revisions to certain sections of the methods. In line 205, where it was mentioned that the same technique was utilized in all four experiments, there was no need to repeat it in the methods section for each individual experiment.

(4) Another suggestion to improve reader understanding of the four experiments is to include a methods summary table. Something like the following is suggested.

Response: Thank you for your appreciation. We have incorporated your feedback and included a methods summary table for the four experiments. Please refer to Table 1 for a concise overview of the methodology used in each experiment.

(5) Line 240. Confusing, please clarify.

Reponse: thank you. Please refer to line 251-252 for the updated information.

 Results.
(6) The reported Rates (%) in the text and the associated figures do not always seem to agree. For example. Figure 3, traditional at 3 days, the rate % is almost at 60 but is reported as 56.6 in the text; and Figure 4 the text value and the column height for Drone at three days do not agree. Double check that all the text rate (%) reported and the figures agree.

Response: Sorry for our mistake. We have changed the figures 2-5 and checked that all the text rates (%) reported match the figures.

(7) Line 301. Change “remained at 301 57.4%” to was 57.4%.

Response: corrected.

 Discussion.
(8) The discussion and especially the final conclusion paragraph should explicitly address the paper objectives and concerns and the research approaches. The paper states (lines 44-47) that while the current chemical control management is effective there are concerns about risks of environmental contamination and of B. dorsalis in developing insecticide resistance. How can a push-pull strategy reduce environmental contamination? How can a push-pull strategy avoid B. dorsalis developing insecticide resistance if abamectin is consistently used?

Response: We have rewritten the last two paragraphs to explicitly address the paper objectives and concerns, as well as the research approaches. We discussed how a push-pull strategy may reduce the concentration, quality, and types of pesticide use, thus potentially reducing environmental contamination. Additionally, the use of multiple methods in our push-pull strategy can reduce prolonged pest exposure to specific control methods, leading to a decrease in the frequency of contact and adaptation time to a single control method. This ultimately slows down the development of resistance. Please refer to line 405-427 for details.

(9) Explicitly tell us what the best Push treatment is and if there are potential negatives? Also for the Pull (bait treatment), what type of bait or bait combination is best.

“Best” need to be considered both for reducing B. dorsalis populations and for producing quality fruit.

Response: We have indicated the optimal push-pull strategy to manage this fly outbreak: integrating low concentrations of abamectin into the push-pull system, using methyl eugenol (ME) as an attractant instead of food bait, and incorporating manual application. This strategy proved effective in reducing B. dorsalis populations and preserving fruit quality during pest outbreaks. We also provide some options, for example, in a push-pull system utilizing abamectin and manual spraying, if cost efficiency is a concern, employing a single type of attractant or repellent can still yield satisfactory results. However, for a more long-lasting pest control effect, increasing the variety of attractants and repellents may be beneficial.

We also discuss the potential drawbacks of the optimal push-pull system. While this system may be advantageous in mountainous terrain, the use of drones may be a more suitable option in large, flat areas. This highlights the importance of context-dependent push-pull strategies.

(10) Line 353. What is meant by endurance?

If abamectin is combined with the push treatment, is this likely to lead to B. dorsalis resistance to abamectin? Can a modified push pull strategy not using abamectin adequately protect fruit production?

Response: sorry, this is an incorrect term. We have removed the incorrect term to reduce any potential misunderstandings. The addition of abamectin to the push treatment is unlikely to lead to B. dorsalis resistance to abamectin. As discussed in lines 413-416, B. dorsalis individuals not killed by low concentrations of abamectin, like those with higher resistance, are still controlled by the push-pull system. They are lured into traps and subsequently eliminated, reducing the chances for resistant individuals to reproduce.

(11) Line 391. What does “sustain control effectiveness over an extended duration” mean? Is this a finding of the paper, or is a reference needed.

Response: Sorry for our incorrect statement, we have removed this sentence.

(12) Line 399. But will there be a similar concern regarding potential resistance to abamectin?

Response: We have discussed a potential case that suggests abamectin may not help in the development of resistance to abamectin. Please see line 413-416: B. dorsalis not killed by low concentrations of abamectin, such as those with higher resistance, are still regulated by the push-pull system. They are lured into traps and subsequently killed, thereby reducing the opportunity for resistant individuals to reproduce.

(13) Line 405. “effective strategy during pest outbreaks” Effective in reducing B. dorsalis populations or in protecting fruit quality; or both?

Reponsed: We have clarified this sentence. Please see line429-433. It is effective in reducing B. dorsalis populations and in protecting fruit quality.

(14) Abstract. The Abstract claims that an aim was to develop a sustainable push-pull system. Was that aim achieved? Sustainable how? If sustainability is in reference to B. dorsalis resistance to the currently used insecticides. Wouldn’t a push-pull system using a different insecticide, abamectin, have the same concerns?

Response: Sorry for our incorrect use of the word ‘sustainable’. We have rewritten the abstract and removed this word and related expressions to reduce any confusion for the readers.

Reviewer 3 Report

This appears to be a well-conducted, sound study that will be helpful to fruit-fly workers, but suffers from very unclear descriptions of experimental design and methods.  It should not be difficult to correct these deficiencies, and I will point to the confusion in my comments below. 

Starting with the Introduction, the question in the reader's mind is: what exactly is the push-pull control system?  Specifically, what is the "push" component(s) and which are the "pull" components?  This needs to be spelled out at the outset, in the Introduction. This remains confusing in the Methods and description of Experiments 1-4.  At first, the impression is that a factorial design is going to be described at some point, but this is not the case and it takes a lot of progress into the manuscript to realize that there were 4 totally independent experiments conducted sequentially over time in the same plots. This should be made clear much earlier, in the Introduction.

Figure 1 caption describes "control" as "standard insecticide control" but doesn't specify what this means, again perpetuating the confusion and lack of clarity.

There is vague language  utilized regarding "experiment" and "treatment" before actual factors and factor levels are specified. 

line 128 and subsequent lines.  How do these descriptions relate to the previous descriptions in Fig. 1? why this different description?

l. 143 -152, Experiment 1. mentions "traditional push-pull system" once again, but it has not been defined!

l. 155 this is the very first specific mention of what is being considered a repellent - allicin.  This occurs much too late in the manuscript.

l. 157. "attractants were applied around its perimeter" - which attractants??

l. 178-179 says "there was no control group" but Figure 2 includes one - this is contradictory.

l 355 and rest of paragraph.  Scientific names are not italicized.

l. 369 mentions the potential for further research but doesn't specify what seems like the obvious follow-up to this study, which would be a factorial design with the main factors of interest: abamectin (with and without), attractant (ME and food), and repellent (allicin and d-limonene).  A factorial design in a single experiment would allow testing for main effects as well as interactions, which were not tested in the sequential set of experiments.

English is fine.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

(1) This appears to be a well-conducted, sound study that will be helpful to fruit-fly workers, but suffers from very unclear descriptions of experimental design and methods.  It should not be difficult to correct these deficiencies, and I will point to the confusion in my comments below. 

Starting with the Introduction, the question in the reader's mind is: what exactly is the push-pull control system?  Specifically, what is the "push" component(s) and which are the "pull" components?  This needs to be spelled out at the outset, in the Introduction. This remains confusing in the Methods and description of Experiments 1-4.  At first, the impression is that a factorial design is going to be described at some point, but this is not the case and it takes a lot of progress into the manuscript to realize that there were 4 totally independent experiments conducted sequentially over time in the same plots. This should be made clear much earlier, in the Introduction.

Response: Thank you for your valuable time and kind suggestions. We have rewritten some parts of the introduction based on your suggestions. For example, we have clarified what the “push” components are and identified the “pull” components in the four experiments. Please see line 76-90 for details. Additionally, we have included information about the four independent experiments conducted sequentially over time in the same plots earlier in the introduction. Please see line 68-70.

(2) Figure 1 caption describes "control" as "standard insecticide control" but doesn't specify what this means, again perpetuating the confusion and lack of clarity.

Response: Thank you. We have clarified the “control” in the legend of figure 1 as a treatment using bromophos + β-cypermethrin without employing the push-pull strategy. Additionally, we have rewritten this legend for clarity.

(3) There is vague language utilized regarding "experiment" and "treatment" before actual factors and factor levels are specified. 

Response: thank you for this comment, we have rewritten the legends to address this issue.

(4) line 128 and subsequent lines.  How do these descriptions relate to the previous descriptions in Fig. 1? why this different description?

Response: Sorry for our mistake. The descriptions in Figure 1 provide a brief overview of the trap placement in the four experiments, which should be consistent with the following text. We have rewritten these legends to ensure consistency with the content in the manuscript.

(5) 143 -152, Experiment 1. mentions "traditional push-pull system" once again, but it has not been defined!

Response: Thank you. We have removed the word “traditional” from the title to avoid confusion for the readers.

(6) 155 this is the very first specific mention of what is being considered a repellent - allicin.  This occurs much too late in the manuscript.

Response: Thank you for your suggestions. We have described the allicin and other repellents, attractants earlier in the introduction. Please see line 71-75.

(7) 157 "attractants were applied around its perimeter" - which attractants??

Response: we have revised this sentence, please see line 164-166

(8) 178-179 says "there was no control group" but Figure 2 includes one - this is contradictory.

Response: Sorry for that, corrected.

(9) 355 and rest of paragraph.  Scientific names are not italicized.

Response: Corrected.

(10) 369 mentions the potential for further research but doesn't specify what seems like the obvious follow-up to this study, which would be a factorial design with the main factors of interest: abamectin (with and without), attractant (ME and food), and repellent (allicin and d-limonene).  A factorial design in a single experiment would allow testing for main effects as well as interactions, which were not tested in the sequential set of experiments.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. It is very useful for improving our discussion and providing guidance for our future experiment design. Indeed, our current experimental design is not reasonable, and using factorial design can better illustrate the issue. We have modified our discussion on this part based on your suggestion, please see line 370-375 for the updates.

Reviewer 4 Report

Please find the comments.

 Abstract: 

·        Please add a brief conclusion at the end of abstract.

Introduction

·        The references should written according to the Journal format as well as in References list.

·        By the end of the second paragraph, add a paragraph about enhance the systemic resistance in insects. Author could utilize with https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su14116583  and others.

·        Line 80: replace over by against.

·        The aim of the study needs to be concentarate and clear.

Materials and Methods

·        Line 93: add the longtiude, latitude, and altitude.

·        Line 135: 483.8 insects, respectively.

·        Line 136: (Kruskal-Wallis test): please add the program used in the analysis, and the Ref.

Results

·        In Figs 2-5, the title of vertical axe should be reduction rate (%).

·        In Figs 2-5, add legend of fig.

·        The numbers on vertical axis should be 0 to 100.

 Discussion

·       Discussion needs more improvements. 

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4

Please find the comments.

 Abstract: 

(1) Please add a brief conclusion at the end of abstract.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have added a brief conclusion at the end of the abstract: “In conclusion, the push-pull strategy has emerged as a viable method for managing B. dorsalis outbreaks, offering potential benefits in reducing environmental risks and pesticide resistance. However, the study emphasizes the importance of context-specific construction of push-pull strategies to optimize their effectiveness in orchard settings.”

Introduction

(2) The references should written according to the Journal format as well as in References list.

Response: The references style in this manuscript has been correctly maintained.

(3) By the end of the second paragraph, add a paragraph about enhance the systemic resistance in insects. Author could utilize with https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su14116583  and others.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The push-push strategy and systemic resistance in insects are closely related. The push-push strategy has the potential to reduce systemic resistance in insects. We have added a mention of reducing systemic resistance in insects as one of the key elements in our current B. dorsalis control methods in this section, and included a reference to support this, please see line 44-46.

(4) Line 80: replace over by against.

Response: Corrected.

(5) The aim of the study needs to be concentarate and clear.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We have revised and clarified our aim statement on line 66-68 to ensure it is more focused and clear.

Materials and Methods

(5) Line 93: add the longtiude, latitude, and altitude.

Response: The longtiude, latitude, and altitude were added. Please see line 99 and 101.

(6) Line 135: 483.8 insects, respectively.

Response: corrected.

(7) Line 136: (Kruskal-Wallis test): please add the program used in the analysis, and the Ref. 

Response: Thank you for your update. We have included the program used for analysis and the corresponding reference in the analysis section of the manuscript.

Results 

(8) In Figs 2-5, the title of vertical axe should be reduction rate (%). 

      In Figs 2-5, add legend of fig.

      The numbers on vertical axis should be 0 to 100.

Response: Thank you. We have re-drawn the figures with the corrected titles for the vertical axis as either population reduction rate or fruit damage rate. Legends have been provided for all figures, and the numbers on the vertical axis have been adjusted to range from 0.0 to 1.0. Please see figures 2-5 for the updated visuals.

 Discussion

(9) Discussion needs more improvements. 

Response: Thank you for your suggestions. We have rewritten some parts of the discussion, especially in the last 3 paragraphs. We summarized whether the current experiment fulfilled our objective, which was to develop an effective push-pull strategy to manage B. dorsalis in a commercial rambutan orchard and reduce the potential environmental risk and pesticide resistance. We also discussed how our push-pull system has the potential to reduce environmental risk and pesticide resistance, especially when including abamectin. In addition, we indicated and discussed the optimal push-pull system and its drawbacks in managing other pests in different settings. We also improved our conclusion to make it more relevant to our study’s aim.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for making the corrections and clarifications.

English ok.

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript has been improved

The manuscript has been improved