24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖

帕帕熊

新虫 (小有名气)

应助: 1 (幼儿园)
金币: 402.2
散金: 300
红花: 2
帖子: 97
在线: 23.2小时
虫号: 502319
注册: 2008-02-14
专业: 农业昆虫学

[求助] 修改稿件是否只根据编辑要求修改，请各位老师赐教！

本人是菜鸟，刚投第一篇sci，审稿意见刚返回，但是不清楚是不是只按照编辑要求的4条审稿意见修改，还是两位审稿专家的意见也要修改，请各位老师们指点！谢谢

审稿意见如下：
Your manuscript, JOCE-D-13-00059, "Identification and Field Evaluation of Non-host Volatiles Disturbing Host Location of the Tea Geometrid Ectropis obliqua", that you submitted to the JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ECOLOGY has been reviewed.  Both reviews are favorable, indicating only some modest revision before publication.  The points are detailed below in the separate reviews.

As indicated by the Reviewers, this paper is interesting and the subject matter is suitable for the Journal of Chemical Ecology, but some major revisions are required before it can be considered for publication.

I think the major issues are as follows.

1.  The chirality of the compounds must be addressed.  Ideally the stereoisomeric form of each compound in the volatiles from the plants should be determined.  It may be acceptable to use previous literature to make these assignments.  The stereoisomeric composition of the synthetic materials must be stated.

2.  Reviewer 1 asks for reference to the previous literature on essential oils from these plants. This should be done, but pointing out that in the present paper volatiles have been collected from intact plants, and the composition of these volatile blends may be different from those in the corresponding essential oils.

3.  I think it is clear which compounds in Table 1 have been identified in comparison with retention times and mass spectra of authentic standards.  However, many of the classifications are indeed incorrect (cineole is not an alcohol, pinocarvone is not an aldehyde, terpenoids includes a multitude of functionalities, etc.).  Personally I am not sure the classification is helpful, and would prefer to see compounds listed in order of retention times with retention indices.

4.  Some reference to current theories of how non-host plant volatiles act should be given.

Reviewer #1: The paper presents some scientific novelty that merits publication in J. Chem. Ecol. Basically, it covers two aspects: identification of volatile compounds in the essential oil of some aromatic plants and the repellent effects of some of the compounds on the tea plant pest Ectropis obliqua.
The part dealing with structure assignments of volatiles (summarized in Tab. 1) is insufficiently and incompletely treated as almost none of the large amounts of papers dealing with the chemistry of the essential oils of the target plants have been cited. Quite several of the compounds, presented in this paper have been known before. In total 62 compounds were identified of which only 50% were available as authentic references for structure confirmation. The enantiomeric composition of none of the chiral volatiles has been determined. Assignments according to compound classes are incorrect. Since only the crucial 8 compounds presented in Fig. 2 are important in the context of the present paper, Tab. 1 and corresponding data in the body (see lines 111-123 etc.) should be skipped. In other words, the paper should be concentrated on applied aspects.
Under these aspects, the fact that the enantiomeric compositions of neither chiral natural volatiles (linalool, cis-verbenol, camphor, terpinen-4-ol and verbenone) nor tested synthetics have been determined is causing a minor problem because the paper deals with repellent effects. To avoid redundancies, the Introduction and Discussion should be reduced. In general, quite some language polishing will be necessary, which should be carried out by a native speaker. The manuscript should be re-submitted after major modification and revision.

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting piece of work that sets in place the possibility of practical development of a push-pull system for protecting tea crops from the lepidopterous pest, Ectropis obliqua, by exploiting non host plant semiochemicals. However, the impact and quality of the paper would be substantially improved by more consideration being given, particularly in the laboratory studies, to behavioural considerations regarding the mechanisms by which the non-host semiochemicals act.  Of particular interest would be studies on the potential interference in location of the tea plants in the presence of the non-host semiochemicals.  Merely investigating choice between non-host semiochemicals and host semiochemicals is insufficient in the light of the current hypotheses regarding the avoidance of non-hosts mediated by non-host semiochemicals.  Indeed, the authors could advantageously employ more recent research results and review papers on this subject. In addition
to such improvements in the paper for submission, the work is currently unsatisfactory for publication in the Journal of Chemical ecology in that:-

1.  After tentative identification by mass spectrometry, identification must be confirmed by peak enhancement in GC on co-injection with authentic compounds using two GC stationery phases of differing polarity.

2.  The authors were unavailable to obtain authentic compounds for all claimed identifications but need to explain exactly which.  This may be acceptable but cannot be assessed without further information.

3.  A number of the compounds claimed to be semiochemicals show asymmetry but the exact isomers have not been characterised.

回复此楼