Suitability of Chinese oak silkworm eggs for the multigenerational rearing of the parasitoid Trichogramma leucaniae.

Trichogramma leucaniae is believed to be an efficient biological control agent for controlling the soybean pod borer [SPB; Leguminivora glycinivorella]. The large eggs of Chinese oak silkworm, Antheraea pernyi, are one of the best alternative host for mass production of Trichogramma. However, they are considered poor host for the growth and development of T. leucaniae. Here, we determine the feasibility of successive rearings of T. leucaniae on the large eggs for eight generations and evaluated their capacity of parasitizing SPB eggs of different ages. In the first four generations, the suitability of T. leucaniae reared on large eggs exhibited a significant increasing tendency and then decreased with the successive generations thereafter. The percentage of parasitized eggs and number of emerged adults per egg were increased from 40.0% and 10.8 adults/egg in F1 generation to 86.7% and 36.4 adults/egg in F4 generation respectively. In addition, T. leucaniae reared on A. pernyi for four generations significantly parasitized more SPB eggs regardless of egg age compared with those reared on Corcyra cephalonica eggs. These results provided useful information on the feasibility of mass production of T. leucaniae by reared for successive generations on A. pernyi large eggs.

Introduction

The soybean pod borer [SPB; Leguminivora glycinivorella (Matsumura) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)] is one of the most serious pests associated with soybean in Northeastern Asia including North of China, Japan, Korea and Russia [1,2]. The SPB lifecycle and soybean pod and seed developmental stages usually occur at the same time. Generally, the adult SPB oviposit on young bean pods from mid-July till the end of August. Upon hatching the young larvae enter the pods and start feeding therein using the immature seeds as a food source until they develop into mature larvae [1]. Soybean pod borer could damage 10%-20% of soybean seeds annually [3]. However, the damage could be over 30–40% if a pest outbreak occurs and timely preventive measures are not implemented properly [1]. In addition, SPB infestations also deformed the seeds and thus affect quality and sale prices of the soybean harvest.

In the last three decades, various chemical insecticides have been extensively used to control SPB in soybeans plantations [4]. The exposed period of larvae before they enter the pods (roughly about a single day) is not enough for contact insecticides to work out properly [1], thus it is difficult for the insecticides to contact and kill the pest under a closed canopy [4,5]. In addition, insecticides adversely affect the beneficial natural enemies [6-9], induce the development of insecticide-resistant populations of pest insects and cause environmental pollution [10-12]. Therefore, it is pivotal to look for measures that control the pest and prevent the crop economic loss and also have no or less adverse effect on natural enemies, environment and human health. In this respect, modifying genes using plant-mediated RNA-interference is a promising strategy for controlling SPB infestations [1]. However, the somewhat conservative polices and legal obstacles to transgenic crops in many countries limited the applications of this procedure in soybean [13]. Similarly, certain sex pheromones have also been chemically identified and used to monitor population dynamics and control SPB by mating disruption [14]. The use of resistant cultivars is also an effective way for reducing insect pest damage in combination with other non-chemical control measures [15]. Unfortunately these pest control methods cannot fully suppress soybean pod borer and there is still need of some more effective and sustainable measures to keep the pest under check for long time to get substantial yield of soybean.

The genus Trichogramma is endoparasitoid of insect eggs and there are approximately 650 species of egg parasitoids worldwide, of which more than 200 species can parasitize the eggs of crop and forest pests [16]. Successful control in the field has been reported in several countries using Trichogramma against the European corn borer, Ostrinia nubilalis (Hübner) [17], the polyphagous grapevine moth, Lobesia botrana [18], cabbage pests [19,20], Tuta absoluta on tomato [21-23], and the oriental fruit moth Grapholita molesta [24].

In China, a mass production system is being developed for Trichogramma spp. to maintain good quality parasitoids to augment the successful biological control applications for various crops [25]. Several wasp’s species are mass-produced and released in large quantities e.g. Trichogramma dendrolimi to control the Asian corn borer Ostrinia furnacalis [26,27]. In the 1980s and 1990s, T. dendrolimi is inundatively released annually across 0.2 to 0.35 million ha of corn to suppress O. furnacalis and was increased to 2.3 million ha annually since 2012 in Jilin, China [27]. To attempt to use Trichogramma against SPB, indigenous SPB egg parasitoids were initiated in late 2010. Three Trichogramma species (Trichogramma chilonis Ishii, Trichogramma ostriniae Pang & Chen, and Trichogramma leucaniae Pang & Chen) were collected from northeastern China soybean fields [28,29]. Through testing their suitability on eggs of different-age SPB, eventually T. leucaniae was found to be the most valuable biological control agent against the Soybean pod borers [28,30].

Trichogramma parasitoids are mostly produced on factitious hosts, usually on the small eggs of Corcyra cephalonica, Ephestia kuehniella and Sitotroga cerealella which are not economical [31,32]. Small egg hosts, especially C. cephalonica, can only produce a wasp per egg, which leads to higher production costs. Moreover, storage of these eggs for more than 2–3 weeks at low temperatures can decrease their suitability for mass rearing [33]. The large eggs of Antheraea pernyi are considered to be better factitious hosts with some practical advantages, such as a higher Trichogramma reproduction rates with 60–70 wasps per egg [33]. Larger A. pernyi eggs also offer increased convenience for storage and transportation and thus can lower the production costs, compared to the small eggs used for the mass rearing of Trichogramma parasitoids [33]. However, some limiting factors e.g. thick and hard chorion of A. pernyi eggs make it difficult for some parasitoids, such as T. ostriniae, T. evanesens, and T. embryophagum, adults to make a hole and crawl out of the eggs upon completion of their life cycle [25,34]. For other parasitoids such as T. leucaniae, only a low percentage of A. pernyi eggs were parasitized that resulted in low parasitoid emergence [35]. Generally, most of the Trichogramma parasitoids cannot be massively produced using the eggs of A. pernyi except for T. dendrolimi and T. chilonis [36].

However, the laboratory studies showed that Trichogrammatoidea hypsipylae was the most suitable candidate to control Conopomorpha sinensis, but it could not emerge from the parasitized eggs of C. sinensis. After T. hypsipylae were successively reared for 35 generations on the eggs of C. cephalonica, however, the wasps could successfully emerge from C. sinensis eggs [37]. Therefore, in the present study, we attempted to domesticate the breeding of T. leucaniae on large eggs of A. pernyi by successive generations and compare their parasitism and suitability on different-aged SPB eggs with those reared on the small eggs of C. cephalonica. The objective was to provide valuable techniques and information for mass production of T. leucaniae to control SPB.

Materials and methods

Parasitoids

The parasitoids, Trichogramma leucaniae were originally collected from soybean fields from sentinel SPB eggs in Heihe, Heilongjiang Province, China. The collection of T. leucaniae did not involve endangered or protected species, and no specific permissions were required. The parasitoid species was identified using SEM micrographs by examining male genital capsules [38], and then confirmed the analysis by rDNA-ITS2 sequences (GenBank Accession no. HG518480) [39]. The collected specimens were then deposited in the collection of the Institute of Biological Control, Jilin Agricultural University, Changchun, China. The parasitoid colony has been maintained since 2011 using rice moth Corcyra cephalonica eggs under laboratory conditions at 26 ± 1 °C and 70±5% RH, with a 16:8 L:D photoperiod. Meanwhile, the T. leucaniae population was revitalized every year in August by allowing them to parasitize native SPB host eggs.

Factitious hosts

Chinese oak silkworm: Antheraea pernyi cocoons were collected in Jilin, China and stored at -4 °C for 2 to 3 months. In spring 2018, the cocoons were hanged in an emergence room for incubation (about 25 d) at 25 °C. After adult emergence from the cocoons, the female silkworm moths were collected. Then, eggs of the experiment were collected by dissecting the abdomen of a mature female moth and were washed with distilled water. Immature green eggs were removed, and healthy eggs were then air dried under laboratory conditions. The fresh eggs were used within 8 h of collection for the mass production of T. leucaniae and subsequent experimentation.

Rice moth: To obtain host eggs of Corcyra cephalonica for breeding of T. leucaniae, larvae were placed in a plastic container where they were fed with a mixture of corn flour and wheat bran [40]. Adult moths were collected after emergence and were transferred to an aluminum gauze cage for oviposition. The aluminum gauze cage was kept in an egg collection tray. The moths laid their eggs on the cage walls, which were brushed into the tray at regular intervals with a collecting brush. Collected rice moth eggs were filtered through a screening net of approximately 0.5 mm to remove scales and other debris of the rice moth to obtain clean eggs. The rice moth eggs were collected daily and exposed to 30w UV light for 40 minutes to kill the embryos for further use in breeding of T. leucaniae.

Experimental host

Soybean pod borer: The SPB adults were collected using an insect-collecting net from a soybean field in Jilin Agricultural University, Changchun, China during August 2018. Twenty SPB moths were randomly selected and placed in separate clear plastic cups (10 cm in diameter, 15 cm in height). Furthermore, they were provided with a water-cultured top soybean pod, which included five pods. After 12 h, the adults were removed, and 0-, 2- and 4-day-old eggs of SPB on the soybean pods were selected as test hosts according to the procedure described by Song et al. [28] for obtaining various ages of host eggs.

Rearing of T. leucaniae on A. pernyi eggs by successive generations

The experiment was conducted under laboratory conditions at 26±1 °C, 70±5% RH and photoperiod of 16:8 L:D. One newly emerged female of T. leucaniae from a small rice moth egg, with no prior exposure to the larger A. pernyi eggs and mated within 8 h, was introduced into a glass tube (3.5 cm in diameter and 10 cm long) with one large egg of A. pernyi. After 24 h, the parasitoid adults were removed and the parasitized eggs of A. pernyi were collected. The parasitized eggs were then put in an incubator under the same environmental conditions to allow the next generation of parasitoids to develop. Parasitized eggs were monitored daily until all adult parasitoid emergence had ceased. The numbers of emerged female and male parasitoids per large egg were recorded. The pre-emergence time of each emerged parasitoid was also calculated and recorded as the number of days from parasitism to adult parasitoid emergence from the host. When no parasitoids emerged, all test host eggs were dissected, and recorded the number of unemerged adults for each egg. The T. leucaniae progeny that initially emerged from the large eggs of A. pernyi were recorded as the first generation (F1) after the mother T. leucaniae reared on the rice moth eggs parasitized A. pernyi eggs. The newly emerged F1 (until F7) females within 8 h of their emergence were individually introduced into a glass tube with one large A. pernyi egg. All biological parameters, such as % of parasitism and emergence, pre-emergence time, number of emerged and unemerged adults, and % of female progeny from F2 to F8 were investigated as per the procedure followed for F1 generation. The tests were replicated 30 times for each generation.

Parasitism of T. leucaniae reared on eggs of A. pernyi and C. cephalonica on different-aged SPB eggs

The experiment was conducted in an insectary under the same environmental conditions mentioned above. Based on the results of “T. leucaniae reared on A. pernyi eggs” for 8 successive generations above, T. leucaniae of the F4 generation exhibited the best suitability on the large eggs of A. pernyi. In order to determine their efficacy on SPB, we compared the parasitism capacity of F4 female parasitoids reared on A. pernyi eggs on different aged eggs of SPB with T. leucaniae reared on C. cephalonica. Individual adult females reared on eggs of A. pernyi or C. cephalonica were introduced into separate clear plastic cups with 60–100 SPB eggs on soybean pods. Each cup contained 0-, 2-, or 4-d-old SPB host eggs. After 24 h of exposure, the female parasitoid was removed. The experiment was replicated 20 times for T. leucaniae reared on large egg and small eggs at different egg ages, respectively. The number of parasitized SPB eggs from each cup was counted under a stereoscopic microscope 6 days after the parasitoid was removed.

Data analyses

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine the significance of the differences in the pre-emergence time, number of emerged and unemerged adults, and percentage of female progeny of T. leucaniae reared on large eggs for eight generations. The impacts of the rearing host species and the host age on the number of host eggs parasitized were analyzed by a two-way ANOVA. All data were subjected to normality testing (Shapiro–Wilk test) before performing their ANOVA. Percentage data were arcsine square roots transformed, and count data were logarithm-transformed prior to the normality tests. The means of each parameter were separated using Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test at P < 0.05. All data were statistically analyzed using Data Processing System (DPS, v13.5) software.

Results

Parasitism and suitability of T. leucaniae reared on A. pernyi eggs for successive generations

Trichogramma leucaniae from small eggs of C. cephalonica were successively reared on large eggs of A. pernyi for 8 generations. There were significant differences in parasitism (F7, 232 = 8.47, P < 0.0001) and emergence (F7, 129 = 7.04, P < 0.0001) between the different generations. The percentage of parasitism and percent emergence of T. leucaniae from F1 to F4 exhibited a significant increasing tendency (Fig 1). The percentages of parasitized eggs and emergence increased from 40.0% and 38.1% for F1 to 86.7% and 86.3% for F4, respectively. From F5 onwards, the percentages of parasitism and emergence decreased dramatically till F8, where the % of parasitism decreased to 13.3%, and no T. leucaniae wasps were observed emerging from the large eggs.

Fig 1

The percentage of parasitized eggs and the percent emergence of T. leucaniae successively reared on large eggs of A. pernyi for 8 generations.

Mean±SE are presented. Different upper-case letters on the solid line indicate significant differences in mean percentage of parasitism among different generations. While different lower-case letters on the dotted line indicate significant differences in mean percentage of emergence among different generations. Means were separated with Tukey HSD test at P < 0.05.

The pre-emergence times of T. leucaniae reared on the large eggs of A. pernyi were significantly different between different generations (Table 1). The pre-emergence time gradually shortened in the first five generations and began to prolong from F6 generation onward. Generally, F1 had the longest pre-emergence time (14.11 d), followed by F2 and F7, and F3-F6 had the shortest pre-emergence time (12.95–13.08 d) respectively, while no parasitoid could fully emerge during the F8 generation.

Table 1

Comparisons of pre-emergence time, number of emerged adults, female progeny and number of adults unemerged of T. leucaniae reared on large eggs of A. pernyi by successive generations.

Generation	Parameters
	Pre-emergence time (days)	No. of emerged adult/egg	Female progeny (%)	No. of adults unemerged
F1	14.11±0.13 a	10.83±3.40 c	63.73±2.37 e	19.33±4.15 a
F2	13.55±0.28 b	22.00±2.87 bc	69.39±1.92 de	12.70±1.80 ab
F3	13.08±0.10 c	29.00±3.33 ab	75.57±1.49 bc	9.82±2.17 b
F4	13.08±0.11 c	36.38±2.72 a	79.11±1.44 ab	4.46±1.18 c
F5	12.95±0.07 c	28.91±3.46 ab	80.76±1.23 a	8.82±1.95 bc
F6	12.96±0.05 c	20.33±3.29 bc	71.64±3.06 cd	13.33±1.69 ab
F7	13.09±0.13 bc	12.00±3.99 c	66.07±4.01 de	19.33±3.30 a
	F6, 101 = 4.70 P = 0.0003	F6, 131 = 7.39 P < 0.0001	F6, 101 = 8.27 P < 0.0001	F6, 131 = 6.00 P < 0.0001

For each parameter, Means ± SE are shown. Means in a column followed by different letters indicate significant differences (Tukey’s test, P < 0.05).

The number of emerged adults per egg increased with the generation number among the first four generations and then decreased gradually from F5 to F7, and became equal to zero at F8. There was a significant difference in the number of emerged adults per egg among the different generations (Table 1). The number of emerged adults per egg increased from 10.8 during F1 to 36.4 during F4, with the latter value being significantly more important than values recorded during the other generations (F1, F2, F3, F5, F6, F7 and F8).

There was also a significant difference in female progeny among the different generations (Table 1). A clear tendency was shown about the percentage of female progeny that gradually increased in the first five generations and then decreased. F5 had significantly the largest percentage of female progeny (80.76%) but was followed by F4 with (79.11%) of female progeny, in comparison to all the other generations.

The number of unemerged adults per egg decreased with increasing generation numbers among the first four generations and then increased from F5 to F7. Likewise, there were significant differences in the number of unemerged adults among different generations (Table 1). The largest numbers of unemerged adults per egg (19.33) were observed in F1 and F7, which were significantly greater than those of F2, F3 and F4. However, the number of unemerged adults per egg for F4 was the lowest (4.46), significantly which was less than those of any other generation.

Parasitism of T. leucaniae reared on eggs of A. pernyi and C. cephalonica on different-age eggs of SPB

There were significant impacts of both the rearing host species (F1, 114 = 24.02, P < 0.0001) and age (F2, 114 = 17.49, P < 0.0001) on the number of host eggs parasitized by T. leucaniae. However, their interactions did not show any significant influence on the number of host eggs parasitized by T. leucaniae (F2, 114 = 1.48, P = 0.2310). T. leucaniae reared on A. pernyi parasitized significantly more SPB eggs at all egg ages compared to those reared on C. cephalonica (Fig 2). There were respectively 39.6, 30.5 and 21.5 of fresh, 2 and 4 day old SPB eggs parasitized by T. leucaniae reared on A. pernyi compared to 24.4, 23.8 and 12.7 of fresh, 2 and 4 day old SPB eggs parasitized by T. leucaniae reared on C. cephalonica eggs, respectively. In addition, T. leucaniae reared on A. pernyi mostly parasitized 0-day-old SPB eggs followed by 2-day-old with the lowest parasitism being recorded on 4-day-old eggs. However, T. leucaniae reared on C. cephalonica parasitized similar numbers on 0- and 2-day-old eggs, being both significantly more than the number obtained on 4-day-old eggs.

Fig 2

Comparisons of different aged eggs of L. glycinivorella parasitized by T. leucaniae reared on eggs of A. pernyi and C. cephalonica.

Different uppercase letters on the black bars indicate significant differences in eggs mean (± SE) of different ages parasitized by Trichogramma reared on A. pernyi eggs. Different lowercase letters on the gray bars indicate significant differences in eggs mean (± SE) of different ages parasitized by Trichogramma reared on C. cephalonica eggs. The paired bars with an asterisk and two asterisks indicate significant differences between the means (± SE) at P < 0.05 and P < 0.001, respectively.

Discussion

Trichogramma leucaniae could be reared on the large eggs of A. pernyi with divergent adaptation for 8 successive generations, showing that the biological traits of parasitoids can be changed through artificial domestication. A previous study confirmed that parasitoid host acceptance behavior is flexible and shows a change from the inadaptation to the adaptation on the new host and new environment [41]. Moreover, the host adaptation is different among various species of parasitoids. For example, the rearing of Trichogramma semifumatum on Sitotroga cerealella eggs for 3 generations weakened their host preference to Trichoplusia ni and S. cerealella eggs [42], whereas some other Trichogramma species need rearing for many generations to change their preferences and other traits to adapt to the new hosts and exhibit high parasitic capacities [43].

In our study, however, the unsuitability of T. leucaniae was found to increase with increasing generations after being successively reared on A. pernyi for 4 generations. This was noticed by the parasitism rate that decreased, and the pre-emergence time that was prolonged. The same phenomenon also existed in the continuous rearing of Trichogramma on other alternative hosts. For instance, after rearing on Anagasta kuehniella (Zeller) for 32 generations, the parasitism rate of T. pretiosum decreased and the developmental time was prolonged [43]. Host unsuitability is also exhibited in the agility of parasitoids. In fact, Dutton and Begler [44] reported that rearing Trichogramma brassicae Bezdenko on Ephestia kuehniella Zeller eggs for more than 39 generations resulted in deformed wings and poor flying capacity of the parasitoid wasps. Similarly, a decline in quality has been observed in Trichogramma reared continuously in the laboratory on the same factitious host [45]. This shows that the adaptability of parasitoids decreases, and their populations degenerate on alternative hosts after reproduction for many generations, due to various factors such as host’s nutritional quality. Therefore, it is necessary to periodically introduce field individuals to reduce the possible losses of parasitoid quality during mass production and augmentative biological control of pests using Trichogramma [43].

On the other hand, the large eggs of A. pernyi can produce more wasps, with the most of them being able to mate before emerging. Therefore, inbreeding is very common in Trichogramma reared on large eggs, which may cause Trichogramma depression and thus increases their unsuitability. Of course, several studies have documented that Trichogramma are not subjected to inbreeding depression [46,47]. However, Antolin [48] in his study showed that the total fecundity of inbred T. pretiosum females represented only 78% of outcrossed females fecundity, thus indicating inbreeding depression. According to Sorati et al. [49], an inbred strain still adapts much more slowly to an artificial environment than an outbred strain because of the initial low levels of genetic variance for traits under selection. Hence, more work is needed to confirm the effects of inbreeding on T. leucaniae.

According to Harvey [50], inconstant states and variable conditions of host quality, such as species, size, age and nutritional status, can affect the parasitoid growth, development and survival. So, as the Trichogramma wasps generally rely on a limited amount of resources to complete their development, selecting an optimum host plays a pivotal role in their reproduction. Our results showed that the numbers of SPB eggs of different ages parasitized by the fourth generation of T. leucaniae reared on A. pernyi were significantly higher than those parasitized by the wasps reared on small eggs of C. cephalonica, which is consistent with previous studies. For instance, Liu et al. [51] reported that the parasitization capacity of T. dendrolimi females reared on A. pernyi was significantly higher than those reared on C. cephalonica eggs, as shown by the differences in the percentage of females with successful parasitization, the number of host eggs parasitized per female, and the percentage of host eggs parasitized in 24 h. Moreover, Trichogramma emerging from large hosts were larger in size and developed faster than those emerging from small hosts [51,52]. This is due to the fact that large hosts provide more nutrition and thus produce larger and stronger offspring, which might be able to fly farther per unit time and might be more efficient in searching and attacking hosts in the field than smaller individuals. Hence resultantly, larger wasps are more fecund, long-lived, parasitize more hosts, and produce more progeny than their smaller conspecifics [53,54].

Host age is an important factor that influences the availability and parasitoid acceptance of hosts. Generally, younger eggs have more yolk and are more nutritious, and are preferred by most Trichogramma spp. [28,55]. Hou et al. [56] reported five Trichogramma species that parasitized Mythimna separata at all egg ages, but also reported that three Trichogramma species, namely T. ostriniae, T. japonicum, and T. leucaniae showed higher parasitism efficiency only on 0-day-old eggs. In the present study, T. leucaniae reared on A. pernyi also parasitized the most SPB eggs at the age of 0-day-old. The number of host eggs parasitized decreased with the increasing age of the host eggs. Although there were similar numbers of fresh and 2 day old host eggs parasitized by wasps reared on C. cephalonica, we notice that the rearing host distinctly influenced the wasp parasitic capacity and accurate identification for the age of host eggs. Trichogramma leucaniae reared on A. pernyi eggs not only parasitized more SPB eggs than the wasps reared on C. cephalonica but also had a stronger ability to recognize SPB eggs of different ages, which is beneficial for their offspring quality. This finding indicates that A. pernyi egg is a potential alternative host for T. leucaniae mass production.

These results further confirmed previous studies that T. leucaniae has an increased parasitic capacity and suitability [28,30], and appears to be an effective augmentative biological control agent against SPB. Trichogramma leucaniae rearing based on large eggs of A. pernyi make it possible to mass-produce and inundatively release them against SPB. In addition, T. leucaniae can parasitize other lepidopteran pests that occur and cause damage simultaneously with SPB. Furthermore, T. leucaniae also exhibited better parasitic capacity and suitability on Ascotis selenaria eggs, one of the most important defoliators of soybean than the other two Trichogramma species present in soybean fields [57]. Therefore, releasing T. leucaniae is not only effective for SPB control but also A selenaria and other pests, which exhibits that T. leucaniae is an economic and effective biological control agent. However, to improve the efficacy of control, field application and release techniques based on T. leucaniae and SPB biological characteristics should be further studied in detail, as multiple factors could impact effectiveness of Trichogramma parasitoids [58-65].

The data necessary to replicate the results alongside the manuscript.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

5 Mar 2020

PONE-D-20-03548

Suitability of Trichogramma leucaniae reared on large eggs of Chinese oak silkworm, Antheraea pernyi for successive generations

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Your manuscript has been reviewed by two independent and qualified reviewers. Both of them found the paper publishable in PlosOne after minor revisions. I concur with them, thus I invite you to follow the comments below and to submit the revised version of the manuscript (track changes and clean versions) along with a point by point rebuttal letter.

Authors declared that data are available witouth restriction, but I was not able to understand how. Can authors read and follow the data availability PlonOnse roles https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability ?

Title: I found the title unclear and in any case missing of a comma after the specific name. The word ‘suitability’ as it is used is confusing: is it referred to the parasitoid or to the host? Also, ‘large eggs’ should not be used in the title, because it is misleading: did authors select the bigger eggs from the same host? I do not think so. Did authors test eggs of different size? It seems they do not.

Authors should find a more suitable and clear title. An example could be

“Suitability of Chinese oak silkworm eggs for the multigenerational rearing of the parasitoid Trichogramma leucaniae”

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Apr 19 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Antonio Biondi, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Your manuscript has been reviewed by two independent and qualified reviewers. Both of them found the paper publishable in PlosOne after minor revisions. I concur with them, thus I invite you to follow the comments below and to submit the revised version of the manuscript (track changes and clean versions) along with a point by point rebuttal letter.

Authors declared that data are available witouth restriction, but I was not able to understand how. Can authors read and follow the data availability PlonOnse roles https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability ?

Title: I found the title unclear and in any case missing of a comma after the specific name. The word ‘suitability’ as it is used is confusing: is it referred to the parasitoid or to the host? Also, ‘large eggs’ should not be used in the title, because it is misleading: did authors select the bigger eggs from the same host? I do not think so. Did authors test eggs of different size? It seems they do not.

Authors should find a more suitable and clear title. An example could be

“Suitability of Chinese oak silkworm eggs for the multigenerational rearing of the parasitoid Trichogramma leucaniae”

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional location information of the collection sites, including geographic coordinates for the data set if available.

3. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the collection sites access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript “Suitability of Trichogramma leucaniae …” reported the outcome of rearing Trichogramma leucaniae successively on eggs of Antheraea pernyi for several generations, and compared the control efficacy of the parasitoids with those reared on eggs of Corcyra cephalonica in parasitizing eggs of Leguminivora glycinivorella. The data support the conclusions and the authors made all data underlying the findings. The manuscript provides interesting information of the mass production of T. leucaniae on large eggs. I think the manuscript can be accepted for publication after having a minor revision.

The title needs to be reconsidered. It does not reflect the content of the manuscript. For example, suitable to what or for which?

Line 33 ‘pest’ should be ‘pests’;

Line 46 delete the second ‘thus’;

Lines 178 I don’t understand why you provided different amount of eggs to individual parasitoid?

Lines 270-271 Why did you say the reproductive index is high?

Reviewer #2: Line 99: “However, the laboratory studies…” if “However” added in, this sentence may be a more reasonable and logical connection in the context.

Line 159-160: “When no parasitoids… unemerged adults.” Only the host eggs with no emergence of parasitoids were dissected? How about the rate of the other eggs with partly emergent wasps? Do you mean either all parasitoids emerge or all died within an egg?

Line 194: “Data … software” the year or the edition of this soft should be provided.

Line 249-251: “Trichogramma … could be … domestication” Only four generations without other evidences, this statement is a little bit of subjective. Please reconsider the sentence.

Line 259-260: “In our study… for generations” It seems contradictory statement compared to the statement mentioned above in Line 249-251. Please reconsider what did you mean by this.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

11 Mar 2020

Responses on the comments of reviewers

Comments of the editor

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Your manuscript has been reviewed by two independent and qualified reviewers. Both of them found the paper publishable in PlosOne after minor revisions. I concur with them, thus I invite you to follow the comments below and to submit the revised version of the manuscript (track changes and clean versions) along with a point by point rebuttal letter.

Answer: Thanks Dr. Antonio Biondi for the active comments on our study. We carefully revise the paper according to the reviewers and editors, see the following responses.

Authors declared that data are available without restriction, but I was not able to understand how. Can authors read and follow the data availability PlonOnse roles https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability ?

Answer: I conducted a wrong operation during the submission.

Title: I found the title unclear and in any case missing of a comma after the specific name. The word ‘suitability’ as it is used is confusing: is it referred to the parasitoid or to the host? Also, ‘large eggs’ should not be used in the title, because it is misleading: did authors select the bigger eggs from the same host? I do not think so. Did authors test eggs of different size? It seems they do not.

Authors should find a more suitable and clear title. An example could be

“Suitability of Chinese oak silkworm eggs for the multigenerational rearing of the parasitoid Trichogramma leucaniae”

Answer: Thank you for the valuable comments and revision suggestion. We accept the title that you provided. In this paper, we compared parasitism of T. leucaniae reared with Chinese oak silkworm and rice moth eggs on SPB. In China, it is popular to say large egg for Chinese oak silkworm (diameter >4 mm), small egg for rice moth (diameter <0.6mm). In order to avoid confuse, large egg is not used in the title, but expressed in the text.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Your manuscript has been reviewed by two independent and qualified reviewers. Both of them found the paper publishable in PlosOne after minor revisions. I concur with them, thus I invite you to follow the comments below and to submit the revised version of the manuscript (track changes and clean versions) along with a point by point rebuttal letter.

Answer: Thanks for the active comments on our study. We carefully revise the paper according to the reviewers and editors, see the following responses.

Authors declared that data are available witouth restriction, but I was not able to understand how. Can authors read and follow the data availability PlonOnse roles https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability ?

Answer: Sorry for the missing information. For this revision version, we provide S1 Dataset in the Supporting information.

Title: I found the title unclear and in any case missing of a comma after the specific name. The word ‘suitability’ as it is used is confusing: is it referred to the parasitoid or to the host? Also, ‘large eggs’ should not be used in the title, because it is misleading: did authors select the bigger eggs from the same host? I do not think so. Did authors test eggs of different size? It seems they do not.

Authors should find a more suitable and clear title. An example could be

“Suitability of Chinese oak silkworm eggs for the multigenerational rearing of the parasitoid Trichogramma leucaniae”

Answer: Thank you for the valuable comments and revision suggestion. We accept the title that you provided. In this paper, we compared parasitism of T. leucaniae reared with Chinese oak silkworm and rice moth eggs on SPB. In China, it is popular to say large egg for Chinese oak silkworm (diameter >4 mm), small egg for rice moth (diameter <0.6mm). In order to avoid confuse, large egg is not used in the title, but expressed in the text.

Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript “Suitability of Trichogramma leucaniae …” reported the outcome of rearing Trichogramma leucaniae successively on eggs of Antheraea pernyi for several generations, and compared the control efficacy of the parasitoids with those reared on eggs of Corcyra cephalonica in parasitizing eggs of Leguminivora glycinivorella. The data support the conclusions and the authors made all data underlying the findings. The manuscript provides interesting information of the mass production of T. leucaniae on large eggs. I think the manuscript can be accepted for publication after having a minor revision.

The title needs to be reconsidered. It does not reflect the content of the manuscript. For example, suitable to what or for which?

Answer: The title is changed to ‘Suitability of Chinese oak silkworm eggs for the multigenerational rearing of the parasitoid Trichogramma leucaniae’

Line 33 ‘pest’ should be ‘pests’;

Answer: Done.

Line 46 delete the second ‘thus’;

Answer: Done.

Lines 178 I don’t understand why you provided different amount of eggs to individual parasitoid?

Answer: During the preparation of natural host eggs of SPB, 20 SPB moths were randomly selected and introduced in clear plastic cup with a water-cultured top soybean pod. After 12 h, a range of 60-100 host eggs deposited on the soybean pod will be obtained. For this experiment, we hardly prepare similar numbers of host eggs to a test parasitoid. More than 40 eggs is superfluous number to Trichogramma in 24, so 60-100 host eggs is enough to be parasitized by a female wasp in 24 h.

Lines 270-271 Why did you say the reproductive index is high?

Answer: Thanks for the valuable comment, it is not suitable to state a high reproductive index on the natural host. The sentence is changed to ‘This shows that the adaptability of parasitoids decreases, and their populations degenerate on alternative hosts after reproduction for many generations, due to various factors such as host’s nutritional quality.’

Reviewer #2: Line 99: “However, the laboratory studies…” if “However” added in, this sentence may be a more reasonable and logical connection in the context.

Answer: We have revised the sentence according to the suggestion.

Line 159-160: “When no parasitoids… unemerged adults.” Only the host eggs with no emergence of parasitoids were dissected? How about the rate of the other eggs with partly emergent wasps? Do you mean either all parasitoids emerge or all died within an egg?

Answer: In order to avoid confuse, we change the sentence to ‘When no parasitoids emerged, all test host eggs were dissected, and recorded the number of unemerged adults for each egg.’

Line 194: “Data … software” the year or the edition of this soft should be provided.

Answer: The sentence is changed to ‘All data were statistically analyzed using Data Processing System (DPS, v13.5) software.’

Line 249-251: “Trichogramma … could be … domestication” Only four generations without other evidences, this statement is a little bit of subjective. Please reconsider the sentence.

Answer: Based on the suggestion, we change the sentence to ‘Trichogramma leucaniae could be reared on the large eggs of A. pernyi with divergent adaptation for 8 successive generations, showing that the biological traits of parasitoids can be changed through artificial domestication.’

Line 259-260: “In our study… for generations” It seems contradictory statement compared to the statement mentioned above in Line 249-251. Please reconsider what did you mean by this.

Answer: after the revision on Line 249-251, the statement of Line 259-260 will be rational.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

Click here for additional data file.

17 Mar 2020

Suitability of Chinese oak silkworm  eggs for the multigenerational rearing of the parasitoid Trichogramma leucaniae

PONE-D-20-03548R1

Dear Dr. Zang,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Antonio Biondi, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

7 Apr 2020

PONE-D-20-03548R1

Suitability of Chinese oak silkworm  eggs for the multigenerational rearing of the parasitoid Trichogramma leucaniae

Dear Dr. Zang:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Antonio Biondi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE