Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Aug 17;15(8):e0237261. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237261

Ecological indices of phytophagous Hemiptera and their natural enemies on Acacia auriculiformis (Fabales: Fabaceae) plants with or without dehydrated sewage sludge application in a degraded area

Luan Rocha Dourado 1, Germano Leão Demolin-Leite 2,*, Marcus Alvarenga Soares 1, Gustavo Leal Teixeira 2, Farley William Souza Silva 3, Regynaldo Arruda Sampaio 2, Jose Cola Zanuncio 4, Jesusa Crisostomo Legaspi 5
Editor: Tunira Bhadauria6
PMCID: PMC7430702  PMID: 32804957

Abstract

Soil fertilization with dehydrated sewage sludge (DSS) accelerates the recovery process of degraded areas by improving nutrient concentration, and favors the development of trophic webs with pioneer plants such as Acacia auriculiformis A. Cunn. ex Beth (Fabales: Fabaceae), phytophagous Hemiptera, predators, and protocooperanting ants. This study aimed to evaluate the development and production of A. auriculiformis litter with or without dehydrated sewage sludge application and the ecological indices of sucking insects (Hemiptera), their predators and protocooperating ants, as bioindicators, in a degraded area for 24 months. Complete randomization was applied for two treatments (with or without application of dehydrated sewage sludge) in 24 replications (one repetition = one plant). We evaluated the number of leaves/branch and branches/plant, percentage of soil cover (litter), ecological indices of phytophagous Hemiptera, their predators, and protocooperating ants. The plants of A. auriculiformis, that were applied with dehydrated sewage sludge, had superior development when compared to plants where DSS were not applied. The highest abundance and richness of phytophagous Hemiptera species and Sternorrhyncha predators occurred on A. auriculiformis plants that were applied with dehydrated sewage sludge. The increase in richness of species of protocooperanting ants that established mutualistic relationships positively influenced the phytophagous Hemiptera. The use of A. auriculiformis, with application of dehydrated sewage sludge, can increase recovery of degraded areas due to its higher soil cover (e.g., litter) and results in higher ecological indices of phytophagous Hemiptera and their predators.

Introduction

Tropical soils (eg., Brazil), in general, are highly weathered, have poor chemical quality and fragile macrostructure [1]. Moreover, the tropical climate, with high temperatures and humidity, accelerates the degradation of soil organic matter [2]. These factors, combined with poor soil management, forest clearing and burning, intensive mechanization, and grazing, promote changes in ecosystems at a faster rate than the natural regeneration capacity [2]. A destabilized ecosystem, in turn, negatively affects species richness, abundance, and distribution [3]. Therefore, depending on the intensity of soil degradation, the use of restoration techniques is suggested for fauna and flora rehabilitation [4].

In this context, species of the genus Acacia (Fabales: Fabaceae) may be useful due to their rapid growth and the capacity for biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) in association with symbiotic bacteria [5]. The natural introduction of nitrogen can intensify the cycle of other nutrients and stabilize soil organic matter in degraded environments [6]. Among the species of this genus, Acacia auriculiformis A. Cunn. ex Beth stands out for its resilience, lower susceptibility to disease, and adaptability [7]. A. auriculiformis also provides other ecosystem services such as moisture retention, potassium deposition, soil organic carbon (litter) and heavy metal phytoextraction with mycorrhizal associations [8, 9].

Among the varieties of waste produced by anthropological activity, sewage sludge production stands out as a by-product of urban wastewater treatment facilities [10]. In Brazil, dehydrated sewage sludge is used in agriculture (e.g., Saccharum sp. L. (Poaceae) and Phaseolus vulgaris L. (Faboideae)) and in reforestation (e.g., Acacia mangium Willd. (Fabaceae) and Pittosporum tenuifolium Sol. Ex Gaertn. (Pittosporaceae)) as a fertilizer and soil conditioning agent [1114]. As it holds significant amounts of organic matter and nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus), sewage sludge improves plant growth and development and the physicochemical, and biological properties of the soil [15]. However, due to the high concentration of nutrients, heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants, the inappropriate disposal of sewage sludge can cause environmental impacts [14, 16]. Also, sewage sludge, through its nutrients, can impact insect population where N levels are above or below ideal, affecting the physiology, diversity, and distribution of phytophagous insects [14]. The ecological indices of these species can be employed to monitor the recovery of degraded areas due to its great diversity, amount of occupied habitats, importance in biological processes and rapid response to environmental changes [17]. Insects of the orders Hemiptera (e.g., Cicadidae) and Hymenoptera (e.g., Formicidae), for instance, are used as bioindicators of degraded areas recovery [18, 19]. In this context, plants that grow vigorously are more susceptible to attacks of herbivorous insects—Plant Vigor Hypothesis—generating greater diversity and abundance of insects and therefore, natural enemies [20]. Under these conditions, the same ecological processes of the theory of biogeographic islands (BGI) apply to plants, with a higher probability of extinction of rarer species in smaller BGI [21].

Thus, the objective of this study was to evaluate the growth and development and ground cover by A. auriculiformis, with or without application of dehydrated sewage sludge, and ecological indices of phytophagous Hemiptera, Sternorrhyncha predators and protocooperating ants, as bioindicators, in a degraded area by testing two hypotheses: i) plants with application of dehydrated sewage sludge will have larger crowns and form more litter, thus assisting in the recovery of degraded soils and ii) plants with application of dehydrated sewage sludge will be larger (> BGI) and with better nutritional quality (> free amino acids), greater abundance, species richness and diversity of phytophagous Hemiptera and, consequently, Sternorrhyncha predators and protocooperating ants.

Materials and methods

Experimental site

The study was carried out in a degraded area at the “Instituto de Ciências Agrárias (ICA)” of the “Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG),” Montes Claros city, Minas Gerais State, Brazil (latitude 16º51' S × longitude 44º55' W, altitude 943 m) from March 2017 to February 2019 (24 months; arthropod collection period). The area was defined as degraded due to soil losses and changes in soil chemistry or hydrology [22]. The climate of this area is found to be Aw: tropical savannah, with dry winters and rainy summers, according to the Köppen classification [23], with annual precipitation between 1000–1300 mm and a yearly average temperature of ≥ 28ºC. The type of soil is litolic neosoil, loamy texture, total sand = 17 dag.Kg–1, silt = 46.0 dag.Kg–1, clay = 37.0 dag.Kg–1, pH–H2O = 4.3, organic matter = 0.73 dag.Kg–1, organic carbon = 0,42 dag.Kg–1, P = 0.35 mg.dm–3, K = 41.0 mg.dm–3, Ca = 1.6 cmolc.dm–3, Mg = 0.9 cmolc.dm–3, Al = 3.3 cmolc.dm–3, aluminum saturation in the capacity of cationic exchange = 55.1%, sum of bases = 2.69 cmolc dm-3, H + Al = 13.4 cmolc.dm–3, percentage of soil base saturation of the capacity of cationic exchange a pH 7.0 = 16.7, effective cation exchange capacity (CEC) = 5.9 cmolc.dm–3, and potential (pH 7.0) CEC = 16.1 cmolc.dm–3 [14].

Experimental design

In March 2016, A. auriculiformis seeds were obtained from 5-year-old trees grown at ICA/UFMG. A. auriculiformis seedlings were grown in a nursery in plastic bags (8 x 12 cm) with a substrate mixture of 30% organic compost, 30% clay soil, 30% sand, and 10% reactive natural phosphate (160 g)/pit. The organic compost consists of three parts by volume: two parts of chopped prunings (≤ 5 cm) and one part of tanned manure. The soil pH in the pits was rectified with dolomitic limestone (relative total neutralization power of 90%) (187 g/pit), increasing the base saturation to 50% [24]. Natural phosphate (80g/pit), fritted trace elements (FTE) (10g/pit), and marble dust (1kg/pit) were added according to the soil quality. A. auriculiformis seedlings, with six month old, were transplanted 30 cm high in pits (40 × 40 × 40 cm) two meters apart, in six parallel lines on flat ground (same characteristics). In September 2016, 24 plants were treated with a single dose of 20 L dehydrated sewage sludge/pit and 24 plants were left untreated. The seedlings were irrigated twice a week until the beginning of the rainy season when no more water was provided. The plants were pruned with a sterilized razor (each plant) when their branches reached 5 cm in length, cutting the additional stems and branches up to 1/3 of crown height, leaving out only the best stem. All pruned parts of the plants were left between planting lines. The design was completely randomized with two treatments (with dehydrated sewage sludge and without sewage sludge) with 24 replications (one repetition = one plant).

Dehydrated sewage sludge (5% moisture) was collected at the “Estação de Tratamento de Esgoto (ETE)” in the city of Juramento, Minas Gerais, Brazil, about 40 km from the A. auriculiformis planting site. The main biochemical characteristics of the dehydrated sewage sludge of this company were: pH–H2O = 4.40, N = 10.4 mg.Kg–1, P = 2.9 mg.Kg–1, K = 5.8 mg.Kg–1, Cd = 0.1 μg.g–1, Pb = 56.9 μg.g–1, Cr = 46.7 μg.g–1, and fecal coliforms = 4.35 most likely number g–1 [25, 26].

Plant mass production and soil coverage

The numbers of leaves/branch and branches/plant of 48 A. auriculiformis plants, and percentage of soil cover by litter, grass and herbaceous plants below their crowns (plot 1.0 m2) were evaluated visually every month.

Insects

The insects were counted visually, fortnightly, between 7 and 11 am, on the adaxial and abaxial sides of leaves in the apical, middle and basal parts of the canopy and in the north, south, east and west directions, totaling 12 leaves/plant/evaluation, in each of the 48 six-month-old A. auriculiformis trees for 24 months. Insects were not removed from plants during evaluations. The total sampling effort was of 27648 leaves covering the entire plant (vertical and horizontal axes) for observation of as many insect species as possible, especially the rarest ones. At least three specimens per species of insects were captured by a vacuum cleaner, stored in 70% ethanol glass vials or assembled, broken down into morphospecies, and sent for identification (S1 File).

Ecological indices

Ecological indices (species abundance, diversity, and species richness) were calculated for the species identified in the treatments (with or without dehydrated sewage sludge)/tree with BioDiversity Professional, Version 2 (© 1997 The Natural History Museum: http://www.sams.ac.uk/dml/projects/benthic/bdpro/index.htm) [27]. Diversity was calculated with Hill's formula [28] and species richness with the Simpson Index [29].

Statistics

The leaves/branch, branches/plant data and percentage of soil cover per litter, herbaceous and grassy plants, abundance, diversity and species richness of Phytophagous Hemiptera, Sternorrhyncha predators and protocooperating ants were subjected to non-parametric statistical test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test (P <0.05) [30] by the System for Statistical and Genetic Analysis—SAEG, version 9.1 [31]. Data were analyzed using simple regression or principal component regression (PCR) when linear (P <0.05) to test the interactions between these groups of insects and A. auriculiformis total number of leaves and branches. The regression model known as PCR applies principal component analysis, based on a covariance matrix, to perform regression. Thus, it is possible to reduce the dimension of regression by the exclusion of the aspects that contribute to collinearity problems, or, linear relationships between the independent variables. All results were significant at (P <0.05) for variable selection based on the stepwise method. No specific permits are required to plant Acacia auriculiformis in Brazil. The laboratory and field studies did not involve endangered or protected species.

Results

Effect of dehydrated sewage sludge treatment on A. auriculiformis plants

The plants of A. auriculiformis treated with dehydrated sewage sludge had higher numbers of leaves/branch, branches/plant and percentage of soil cover (eg., litter) (P < 0.05) (Table 1).

Table 1. Numbers of leaves/branch, branches/plant, percentage of soil cover, abundance (Ab.), diversity index (D.) and species richness (S.R.) of phytophagous Hemiptera (Hem.), protocooperating ants (Ants), and Sternorrhyncha predators (Ster.Pred.) on Acacia auriculiformis plants (mean±SE) with and without application of dehydrated sewage sludge.

Dehydrated sewage sludge Test of Wilcoxon
With Without VT* P
Leaves/branch 35.00±1.03 28.23±0.89 4.2 0.00
Branches/plant 50.10±1.29 24.74±0.60 5.9 0.00
Percentage of soil cover 29.34±1.25 6.87±0.42 3.5 0.00
Ab.Hem. 8.17±1.96 3.29±1.46 3.3 0.00
D.Hem. 4.99±0.79 3.12±0.43 1.6 0.04
S.R.Hem. 2.38±0.27 1.34±0.20 2.8 0.00
Ab.Ants. 18.29±3.30 11.33±1.36 1.2 0.12
D.Ants 6.84±0.64 6.53±0.61 0.3 0.37
S.R.Ants 3.30±0.32 3.21±0.24 0.6 0.27
Ab.Ster.Pred. 1.54±0.29 0.83±0.18 1.8 0.03
D.Ster.Pred. 3.38±0.59 1.44±1.44 2.9 0.00
S.R.Ster.Pred. 1.08±0.17 0.59±0.10 2.1 0.02

VT* = value of test. n = 24 per treatment.

Insect ecological indexes

The highest abundance, diversity, and species richness (P < 0.05) of phytophagous Hemiptera and Sternorrhyncha predators occurred in dehydrated sewage sludge treated A. auriculiformis plants. However, the ecological indices of protocooperating ants did not differ statistically (P > 0.05) between the treatments. The increase of leaves/branch and branches/plant affected positively the species richness of phytophagous Hemiptera, abundance, species richness and species diversity of Sternorrhyncha predators, and the abundance of protocooperating ants. Enhancement in abundance and richness of protocooperating ants species positively influenced the same parameters of phytophagous Hemiptera, and vice versa (Tables 1 and 2).

Table 2. Relationships between abundance (Ab.) of protocooperating ants (Ants), Sternorrhyncha predators (Ster.Pred.) and phytophagous Hemiptera (Hem.); diversity (D.) of Ster.Pred.; species richness (S.R.) of Hem. and Ster.Pred. with leaves/branch (Nleaves) and/or branches/plant (Nbranches) and S.R. numbers of Hem. with S.R. of ants on Acacia auriculiformis plants.

Equations of principal component regression ANOVA
R2 F P
Ab.Ants = -3.85+0.52xNleaves+0.40xAb.Hem. 0.16 4.12 0.02
S.R.Hem. = -0.70+0.38xS.R.Ants+0.04xNbranches 0.32 10.32 0.00
S.R.Ster.Pred. = 0.18+0.02xNbranches 0.10 5.14 0.02
D.Ster.Pred. = -0.81+0.09xNbranches 0.60 23.59 0.00
Equations of simple regression analysis
Ab.Ster.Pred. = 0.01+0.001xNleaves 0.13 6.63 0.01
D.Ster.Pred. = 28.22–1.85xNleaves+0.03xNleaves2 0.58 18.22 0.00
S.R.Ster.Pred. = 7.42–0.44xNleaves+0.08xNleaves2 0.13 3.57 0.04

n = 48, degrees of freedom: treatment = 1, repetitions = 22, and residue = 23.

Discussion

A. auriculiformis plants treated with dehydrated sewage sludge, had higher crowns, with an increase in leaves (> 6.7) and branches (> 12.2) per plant. This confirms the first hypothesis that dehydrated sewage sludge treated plants will be larger and with higher litter deposition, which enhances the recovery process of degraded areas [32, 33]. Application of dehydrated sewage sludge in degraded soil provides better conditions for the growth and development of A. auriculiformis [14]. Similar observations have been reported in A. mangium Willd. (Fabaceae), Cordyline australis (G. Forst.) Endl (Asparagaceae), Eucalyptus grandis Hill (Myrtaceae), Lafoensia pacari Saint-Hilaire (Lythraceae) and Pittosporum tenuifolium Sol. Eg. Gaertn. (Pittosporaceae) [13, 14, 3436]. Therefore, it can be concluded that application of dehydrated sewage sludge as fertilizer in the degraded areas can accelerate the fertility recovery process which is normally a slow process [37]. Besides, A. auriculiformis is promising in the recovery of degraded areas due to its pioneering nature, which guarantees assistance for the development of other species [79]. A treated sewage sludge from the Estação de Tratamento de Esgoto (ETE)”, Juramento municipality, Minas Gerais State, Brazil, had no helminth eggs and protozoan cysts, and did not increase the heavy metal contents in grains of Zea mays L. (Poales: Poaceae) and Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. (Fabales: Fabaceae) [26].

A. auriculiformis plants planted in degraded plots with dehydrated sewage sludge, had higher ecological indices of phytophagous Hemiptera, Sternorrhyncha predators, leaves and protocooperating ants. Enhancement occurs due to larger canopy sizes confirms the second hypothesis that dehydrated sewage sludge treated plants will be larger and with greater abundance, species richness and diversity of phytophagous Hemiptera and, consequently, their predators. Each plant alone behaves as a small-scale BGI, where those that grow rapidly and reach larger than average size are preferred by herbivores and are also subject to more complex plant-arthropod interactions (i.e., plant vigor hypothesis) [20, 21]. Additional studies can prove the positive correlation between phytophagous Hemiptera and the boost of plant crown (> biomass> resources), for example, the abundance of phytophagous insects in A. mangium Wild. (Fabales: Fabaceae); galling insects in Macairea radula (Bonpl.) DC. (Myrtales: Melastomataceae); and Carpatolechia proximella Hbn. (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) in Picea abies (L.) Karst. (Pinales: Pinaceae) [14, 3840]. On the other hand, the increase in nutrient availability, especially nitrogen, provided by application of dehydrated sewage sludge, reflects upon the quality of sap (> amount of protein and free amino acids) [41, 42]. This increase benefits sucking insects that get enough nutrients to survive through the host plant sap (e.g., Sternorrhyncha), improving their performance and population density [43]. Also, larger plants offer avoidance from enemies due to greater size and architectural complexity, reflecting on the distribution of herbivorous insects [44, 45]. The increase in habitat complexity by larger plants also provides indirect benefits to natural enemies, as it supports greater abundance of phytophages and increases the chances of rare species maintenance [21, 46]. Thus, higher BGI affects a more significant number of predators in response to their prey abundance and lifestyle [47]. Also, predatory insects generally have smaller population sizes than their prey; therefore, they must face a higher probability of local extinction, particularly in smaller plants (<BGI) [48]. Some ant species establish symbiosis with numerous Sternorrhyncha species [49]. In places where ants feed on honeydew—sugary substances secreted by carbohydrate-rich aphids offer protection against natural enemies, also frightening other competing phytophages [50]. Thus, the presence of protocooperating ants reduces predators, competitors and encourages the presence of other species of Sternorrhyncha [51].

Conclusions

A. auriculiformis plants grown in plots treated with dehydrated sewage sludge have higher crowns, resulting in increased litter deposition and helping the recovery of degraded soils. These plants show larger BGI and, consequently, greater abundance, species richness and diversity of phytophagous Hemiptera and Sternorrhyncha predators.

Supporting information

S1 File. Species of phytophagous Hemiptera, Sternorrhyncha predators, and protocooperating ants on Acacia auriculiformis plants.

(DOCX)

S1 Data

(XLS)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank to Dr. Carlos Matrangolo (UNIMONTES) (Formicidae), Dr. Ivan Cardoso Nascimento (EMBRAPA-ILHÉUS) (Formicidae), Dr. Luci Boa Nova Coelho (UFRJ) (Cicadellidae) and Dr. Paulo Sérgio Fiuza Ferreira (UFV) (Hemiptera) for specimen identifications. Voucher numbers are 1595/02 and 1597/02 (CDZOO-UFPR).

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The study was financially supported by the following Brazilian agencies “Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)”, “Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG)”, and “Programa 23 Cooperativo sobre Proteção Florestal (PROTEF)” of the “Instituto de Pesquisas e Estudos Florestais (IPEF).

References

  • 1.Gomes DS, Marciano CR, Faustino LL. Physical quality of a typichapludult soil under forest leguminous trees and pasture. Floresta e Ambient. 2018; 25:1–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Osei-Tutu G, Abunyewa AA, Dawoe EK, Agbenyega O, Barnes RV. Effect of multipurpose trees and shrubs on degraded mined out soil in a semi‐deciduous forest zone of West Africa. Land Degrad Dev. 2018; 29: 3432–3439. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Tibcherani M, Nacagava VAF, Aranda R, Mello RL. Review of Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) as bioindicators in the Brazilian Savanna. Sociobiology. 2018; 65: 112–129. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Macedo MO, Resende AS, Garcia PC, Boddey RM, Jantalia CP, Urquiaga S, et al. Changes in soil C and N stocks and nutrient dynamics 13 years after recovery of degraded land using leguminous nitrogen-fixing trees. Forest Ecol Manag. 2008; 255: 1516–1524. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hung TT, Doyle R, Eyles A, Mohammed C. Comparison of soil properties under tropical Acacia hybrid plantation and shifting cultivation land use in northern Vietnam. South Forests. 2016; 79: 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Balieiro FC, Costa CA, Oliveira RB, Donagemma GK, Andrade AG, Capeche CL. Carbon stocks in mined area reclaimed by leguminous trees and sludge. Rev Árvore. 2017; 41: 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Rahman M, Rahman A, Miah G, Saha SR, Karim MA, Mostofa MG. Mechanistic insight into salt tolerance of Acacia auriculiformis: the importance of ion selectivity, osmoprotection, Tissue Tolerance, and Na+ Exclusion. Front Plant Sci. 2017; 8: 1–15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Zhu X, Chen H, Zhang W, Huang J, Fu S, Liu Z, et al. Effects of nitrogen addition on litter decomposition and nutrient release in two tropical plantations with N2 fixing vs. non-N2-fixing tree species. Plant Soil. 2016; 399: 61–74. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Rana V, Maiti SK. Differential distribution of metals in tree tissues growing on reclaimed coal mine overburden dumps, Jharia coal field (India). Environ Sci Pollut R. 2018; 25: 9745–9758. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Zhou Y, He Y, He Y, Liu X, Xu B, Yu J, et al. Analyses of tetracycline adsorption on alkali-acid modified magnetic biochar: Site energy distribution consideration. Sci Total Environ. 2018; 650: 2260–2266. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.393 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Nascimento CWA, Barros DAS, Melo EEC, Oliveira AB. Alterações químicas em solos e crescimento de milho e feijoeiro após aplicação de lodo de esgoto. Rev Bras Cienc Solo. 2004; 28: 385–392. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Franco A, Abreu Junior CH, Perecin D, Oliveira FC, Granja ACR, Braga VS. Sewage sludge as nitrogen and phosphorus source for cane-plant and first ratoon crops. Rev Bras Cienc Solo. 2010; 34: 553–561. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gutiérrez-Ginés MJ, Robinson BH, Esperschuetz J, Madejón E, Horswell J, Mclenaghen R. Potential use of biosolids to reforest degraded areas with New Zealand native vegetation. J Environ Qual. 2017; 46: 906–914. 10.2134/jeq2017.04.0139 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Silva JL, Leite GLD, Tavares WS, Silva FWS, Sampaio RA, Azevedo AM, et al. Diversity of arthropods on Acacia mangium (Fabaceae) and production of this plant with dehydrated sewage sludge in degraded area. R Soc Open Sci. 2020; 7: 1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Aishah RM, Shamshuddin J, Fauziah CI, Arifin A, Panhwar QA. Phytoremediation of copper and zinc in sewage sludge amended soils using Jatropha curcas and Hibiscus cannabinus. J Chem Soc Pakistan. 2016; 38: 1230–1243. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Martins MNC, Souza VV, Souza TS. Genotoxic and mutagenic effects of sewage sludge on higher plants. Ecotox Environ Safe. 2016; 124: 489–496. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Barah P, Bones AM. Multidimensional approaches for studying plant defence against insects: from ecology to omics and synthetic biology. J Exp Bot. 2015; 66: 479–493. 10.1093/jxb/eru489 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Komonen A, Övermark E, Hytörnen J, Halme P. Tree species influences diversity of ground-dwelling insects in afforested fields. Forest Ecol Manag. 2015; 349: 12–19. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hou Z, Liu Y, Wei C. Influence of construction and demolition waste on fitness and community structure of cicada nymphs: New bioindicators of soil pollution. PloS One. 2018; 13: 1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Price PW. The plant vigor hypothesis and herbivore attack. Oikos. 1991; 62: 244–251. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Leite GLD, Veloso RV dos S, Zanuncio JC, Azevedo AM, Silva JL, Wilcken CF, et al. Architectural diversity and galling insects on Caryocar brasiliense trees. Sci Rep. 2017; 7: 1–7. 10.1038/s41598-016-0028-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Whisenant SG. Repairing damaged wildlands: A process‐oriented, landscape‐scale approach. Restor Ecol. 1999; 9: 249–249. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Alvares CA, Stape JL, Sentelhas PC, Gonçalves JLM, Sparovek G. Köppen’s Climate Classification Map for Brazil. Meteorol Z. 2013; 22: 711–728. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kopittke PM, Menzies NW. A review of the use of the basic cation saturation ratio and the “ideal” soil. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 2007; 71: 259–265. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Conama–Conselho Nacional do Meio Ambiente. Resolução nº 375, de 29 de agosto de 2006. Brasília, 2006. 32p. (http://www.mma.gov.br/port/conama/res/res06/res37506.pdf)
  • 26.Nogueira TAR, Sampaio RA, Fonseca IM, Ferreira CS, Santos SE, Ferreira LC, et al. Metais pesados e patógenos em milho e feijão caupi consorciados, adubados com lodo de esgoto. Rev Bras Eng Agríc Ambient. 2007; 11: 331–338. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Krebs CJ. Bray-Curtis cluster analysis. 1. Biodiversity Pro Versão 2. 1989. Disponível em: http://biodiversity-pro.software.informer.com/; Acessado em: 02 de maio de 2019.
  • 28.Hill MO. Diversity and evenness: aunifying notation and its consequences. Ecology. 1973; 54: 427–432. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Begon M, Townsend CR, Harper JL. Ecologia: de indivíduos a ecossistemas. 4st ed. Porto Alegre: Artmed; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Wilcoxon F. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics. 1945; 1: 80–83. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Saeg—Sistema para Análises Estatísticas, Versão 9.1: Fundação Arthur Bernardes–UFV—Viçosa, 2007. Disponível em:http://arquivo.ufv.br/saeg/. Acessado em: 03 de Dezembro de 2017.
  • 32.Roundy BA, Farmer M, Olson J, Petersen S, Nelson DR, Davis J, et al. Runoff and sediment response to tree control and seeding on a high soil erosion potential site in Utah: evidence for reversal of an abiotic threshold. Ecohydrology. 2017; 10: 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Bonini CSB, Alves MC, Montanari R. Lodo de esgoto e adubação mineral na recuperação de atributos químicos de solo degradado. Rev Bras Eng Agr Amb. 2015; 19: 388–393. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Caldeira Júnior CF, De Souza RA, Santos AM, Sampaio RA, Martins ER. Características químicas do solo e crescimento de Astronium fraxinifolium Schott em área degradada adubada com lodo de esgoto e silicato de cálcio. Ceres. 2009; 56: 213–218. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Silva PHM, Poggiani F, Laclau JP. Applying sewage sludge to Eucalyptus grandis plantations: effects on biomass production and nutrient cycling through litterfall. Appl Environ Soil Sci. 2011; 2011: 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Abreu AHM, Marzola LB, Melo LA, Leles PS dos S, Abel ELS, Alonso JM. Urban solid waste in the production of Lafoensia pacari seedlings. Rev Bras Eng Agr Amb. 2017; 21: 83–87. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Modesto PT, Scabora MH, Colodro G, Maltoni KL, Cassiolato AMR. Alterações em algumas propriedades de um latossolo degradado com uso de lodo de esgoto e resíduos orgânicos. Rev Bras Cienc Solo. 2009; 33: 1489–1498. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lara DP, Oliveira LA, Azevedo IFP, Xavier MF, Silveira FAO, Carneiro MAA, et al. Relationships between host plant architecture and gall abundance and survival. Rev Bras Entomol. 2008; 52: 78–81. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Zvereva E, Zverev V, Kozlov M. High densities of leaf-tiers in open habitats are explained by host plant architecture. Ecol Entomol. 2014; 39: 470–479. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Silva FWS, Leite GLD, Guañabens REM, Sampaio RA, Gusmão CAG, Serrão JE, et al. Seasonal abundance and diversity of arthropods on Acacia mangium (Fabales: Fabaceae) trees as windbreaksin the cerrado. Fla Entomol. 2015; 98: 170–174. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Jansson J, Ekbom B. The effect of different plant nutrient regimes on the aphid Macrosiphum euphorbiae growing on petunia. Entomol Exp Appl. 2002; 104: 109–116. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Taiz L, Zeiger E, Moller IM, Murphy A. Fisiologia e desenvolvimento vegetal. 6st ed. Porto Alegre: Artmed; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Nowak H, Komor E. How aphids decide what is good for them: experiments to test aphid feeding behaviour on Tanacetum vulgare (L.) using different nitrogen regimes. Oecologia. 2010; 163: 973–984. 10.1007/s00442-010-1652-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Unsicker SB, Mody K. Influence of tree species and compass bearing on insect folivory of nine common tree species in the West African savanna. J Trop Ecol. 2005; 21: 227–231. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Zografou K, Adamidis GC, Komnenov M, Kati V, Sotirakopoulos P, Pitta E, et al. Diversity of spiders and orthopterans respond to intra seasonal and spatial environmental changes. J Insect Conserv. 2017; 21: 531–543. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Riihimäki J, Vehviläinen H, Kaitaniemi P, Koricheva J. Host tree architecture mediates the effect of predators on herbivore survival. Ecol Entomol. 2006; 31: 227–235. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Gagnon E, Brodeur J. Impact of plant architecture and extraguild prey density on intraguild predation in an agroecosystem. Entomol Exp Appl. 2014; 152: 165–173. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Zalewski M, Hajdamowicz I, Stanska M, Dudek-Godeau D, Tykarski P, Sienkiewicz P, et al. β-diversity decreases with increasing trophic rank in plant–arthropod food chains on lake islands. Sci Rep. 2018; 8: 1–8. 10.1038/s41598-017-17765-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Nascimento AR, Peronti ALBG, Kondo T. Two myrmecophilous scale insects, Cryptostigma urichi (Cockerell) (Hemiptera, Coccidae) and Farinococcus multispinosus Morrison (Hemiptera, Pseudococcidae), cohabiting inside branches of Anadenanthera falcata (Benth.) Speg. (Fabales, Fabaceae) in the Cerrado area of São Paulo State, Brazil. Rev Bras Entomol. 2012; 56: 511–514. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Stewart‐Jones A, Pope TW, Fitzgerald JD, Poppy GM. The effect of ant attendance on the success of rosy apple aphid populations, natural enemy abundance and apple damage in orchards. Agri Forest Entomol. 2008; 10: 37–43. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Karami-Jamour T, Mirmoayedi A, Zamani A, Khajehzadeh Y. The impact of ant attendance on protecting Aphis gossypii against two aphidophagous predators and it’s roleon the intraguild predation between them. J Insect Behav. 2018; 31: 222–239. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Tunira Bhadauria

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

25 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-08541

Can Acacia auriculiformis (Fabales: Fabaceae) fertilized with dehydrated sewage sludge contribute to the regeneration of degraded areas?

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Demolin Leite

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 15 July 2020. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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.

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). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Tunira Bhadauria, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following above the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

'Funding. The study was financially supported by the following Brazilian agencies “Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)”, “Coordenação de  Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES-Finance Code 001)”, “Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG)”, and “Programa Cooperativo  sobre Proteção Florestal (PROTEF)” of the “Instituto de Pesquisas e Estudos Florestais (IPEF)”.'

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

a. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

'NO - Include this sentence at the end of your statement: The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.'

b. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Additional Editor Comments:

The present paper has interesting research aspects specially for utilizing dehydrated sewage sludge for sustainable use in restoration and rehabilitation of degraded lands. However after going through the reviewers comments I think both have raised very valid comments and suggestions which I endorse fully, each of these comments and suggestions need to be incorporated into the manuscript before it is accepted for the publication

I suggest that the authors answer each of the comments pointwise as bullets, for each of the two reviewers separately. Therefore I recommend a major revesion of the manuscript before the same is accepted for the publication.

[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: Partly

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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 comments related to manuscript"Can Acacia auriculiformis (Fabales: Fabaceae) fertilized with dehydrated sewage sludge contribute to the regeneration of degraded areas? " are as follows:

1. Title itself is confusing as it appears the plant A.auriculiformis is treated with dehydrated sewage sludge which is not the case its the soil which has been treated with dehydrated sewage sludge.

2.Soil aspects like soil nutrient quality before and after application of dehydrated sewage sludge in the degraded plots is lacking.

3. Too many references are included in the manuscript, that must be reduced.

4. Authors have not followed the format of the Journal.

5.Fertilized and Fertilization words are confusing . consider changing it with application of or treatment with dehydrated sewage sludge

6. soil quality assessment is very necessary while studying with regeneration/ restoration of degraded areas.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

I would congratulate you for this interesting research work and the paper written especially for using dehydrated sewage sludge that is of important concern in the times when population and sewage load is increasing globally and how it can be sustainably used in restoration or rehabilitation of degraded lands. Especially in light of UN decade of restoration being declared from 2021-2030 these inputs and ideas will be of concern to enhance sustainable land restoration across the world.

I have few general and some specific comments that you would like to address and incorporate to improve the ms.

General:

1. The flow of ms under different heading was confusing as Material and Methods section was after results and discussion section that ideally should be after introduction and before results and discussion. Please see author guidelines

2. Please share a few images of the experimental design as well as different insect species observed during the study for better clarity of the experiment.

Specific Comments:

Though, the ms is an interesting approach that needs to be published here are my few comments that I think are missing in the present form.

1. Line 66-68 mentions about the inappropriate disposal of sewage sludge and later briefly 191-192 mentions about the sewage sludge chemical and biological characteristics. It is important that soil physico-chemical and biological characteristics along with sewage sludge physico-chemical and biological characteristics are mentioned in a Table in the ms for better clarity and understanding of the readers.

2. Line 194-195 in the material and methods section talks about grass and herbaceous plant being evaluated visually per month but there is no result provided about this how diverse herbs and grass species have grown throughout this experiment and it has not been discussed in the discussion section.

3. Because this was a long term experimental work it would have been interesting to know the soil physico chemical and biological properties of the soil improved with and without sewage sludge treatment. This is specially important for long term consideration to use sewage sludge for restoration of degraded land.

4. Because sewage sludge may be the source of heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants counting diverse insects should not be only approach it should be well considered that during this entire process their was no heavy metal uptake by plants. For this it is better to address suggestion as mentioned in point 1 and if there was certain amount of heavy metal present it is important to also monitor the heavy metal uptake in plant. As Acacia is fast going plant it can bioaccumulate heavy metal in biomass.

5. It may be the case that for this particular study sewage sludge is devoid of any heavy metal concentration but those who would like to replicate this approach it is important that this caution is well discussed in the discussion section.

**********

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: Yes: Dr. Anil Kumar

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.]

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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-08541_reviewer.pdf

PLoS One. 2020 Aug 17;15(8):e0237261. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237261.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


13 Jul 2020

Dear Academic Editor, Plos One

Dr. Tunira Bhadauria

We are sending attached a corrected version of the manuscript entitled “Ecological indices of phytophagous Hemiptera and their natural enemies on Acacia auriculiformis (Fabales: Fabaceae) plants with or without dehydrated sewage sludge application in a degraded area” code PONE-D-20-08541, reviewed by the authors (in red colour), to continue its evaluation for possible publication as a Research Article in Plos One.

We received valuable help from the two specialists: Dr. Jose Cola Zanuncio (Brazil) and Dr. Jesusa Crisostomo Legaspi (USA), and both to conduct the requested corrections in the manuscript suggested by the Reviewer #1 and Reviewer #2. We have added Dr. J.C. Zanuncio and Dr. J.C. Legaspi as the penultimate and ultimate authors, respectively, after approval from all authors.

Please, put in my name, the following in your system: Funding. The study was financially supported by the following Brazilian agencies “Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)”, “Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG)”, and “Programa Cooperativo sobre Proteção Florestal (PROTEF)” of the “Instituto de Pesquisas e Estudos Florestais (IPEF)”.

We are really pleased with the positive comments our manuscript has attracted from the Reviewer #1 and Reviewer #2. It is worth mention that all comments were addressed and helped us to improve the manuscript quality.

Below we describe how we have addressed point-by-point the issues rose by the Reviewer #1 and Reviewer #2 (original Reviewer comments in regular typeface, responses in red). We believe that our manuscript has achieved the Plos One quality standards, and we look forward to receive your decision.

Your sincerely,

Prof. Dr. Germano Leão Demolin Leite

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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Author: We realized the corrections.

________________________________________

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

Author: We will put our data on Plos One site.

________________________________________

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 comments related to manuscript"Can Acacia auriculiformis (Fabales: Fabaceae) fertilized with dehydrated sewage sludge contribute to the regeneration of degraded areas? " are as follows:

1. Title itself is confusing as it appears the plant A. auriculiformis is treated with dehydrated sewage sludge which is not the case its the soil which has been treated with dehydrated sewage sludge.

Author: We realized the corrections.

2.Soil aspects like soil nutrient quality before and after application of dehydrated sewage sludge in the degraded plots is lacking.

Author: We put, in this new version, the information (in text form) of the soil physico-chemical characteristics. But we do not have after application of the fertilizer.

3. Too many references are included in the manuscript, that must be reduced.

Author: We cut several references (87→51)

4. Authors have not followed the format of the Journal.

Author: We followed the formato of the journal in this version.

5.Fertilized and Fertilization words are confusing . consider changing it with application of or treatment with dehydrated sewage sludge

Author: We used now the “with application of dehydrated sewage sludge”

6. soil quality assessment is very necessary while studying with regeneration/ restoration of degraded areas.

Author: We put, in this new version, the information (in text form) of the soil physico-chemical characteristics. But we do not have after application of the fertilizer.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

I would congratulate you for this interesting research work and the paper written especially for using dehydrated sewage sludge that is of important concern in the times when population and sewage load is increasing globally and how it can be sustainably used in restoration or rehabilitation of degraded lands. Especially in light of UN decade of restoration being declared from 2021-2030 these inputs and ideas will be of concern to enhance sustainable land restoration across the world.

Author: Thank you for your words.

I have few general and some specific comments that you would like to address and incorporate to improve the ms.

General:

1. The flow of ms under different heading was confusing as Material and Methods section was after results and discussion section that ideally should be after introduction and before results and discussion. Please see author guidelines

Author: We followed the formato of the journal in this version.

2. Please share a few images of the experimental design as well as different insect species observed during the study for better clarity of the experiment.

Author: We do not have photos, sorry.

Specific Comments:

Though, the ms is an interesting approach that needs to be published here are my few comments that I think are missing in the present form.

1. Line 66-68 mentions about the inappropriate disposal of sewage sludge and later briefly 191-192 mentions about the sewage sludge chemical and biological characteristics. It is important that soil physico-chemical and biological characteristics along with sewage sludge physico-chemical and biological characteristics are mentioned in a Table in the ms for better clarity and understanding of the readers.

Author: We put, in this new version, the informations (in text form) of the soil physico-chemical (we do not have biological characteristic) and of the sewage sludge physico-chemical and biological characteristics.

2. Line 194-195 in the material and methods section talks about grass and herbaceous plant being evaluated visually per month but there is no result provided about this how diverse herbs and grass species have grown throughout this experiment and it has not been discussed in the discussion section.

Author: the percentage of soil cover by litter, grass and herbaceous plants were evaluated visually per month and plot (1.0 m2), but we did not separate litter of plants, total coverage was done, in percentage of ground cover. We discussed about ground cover (e.g. litter).

3. Because this was a long term experimental work it would have been interesting to know the soil physico chemical and biological properties of the soil improved with and without sewage sludge treatment. This is specially important for long term consideration to use sewage sludge for restoration of degraded land.

Author: We put, in this new version, the informations (in text form) of the soil physico-chemical (we do not have biological characteristic) and of the sewage sludge physico-chemical and biological characteristics. But we do not have data after application of this fertilizer.

4. Because sewage sludge may be the source of heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants counting diverse insects should not be only approach it should be well considered that during this entire process their was no heavy metal uptake by plants. For this it is better to address suggestion as mentioned in point 1 and if there was certain amount of heavy metal present it is important to also monitor the heavy metal uptake in plant. As Acacia is fast going plant it can bioaccumulate heavy metal in biomass.

Author: We put this information in our paper: “A treated sewage sludge from the “Estação de Tratamento de Esgoto (ETE)”, Juramento municipality, Minas Gerais State, Brazil, had no helminth eggs and protozoan cysts, and did not increase the heavy metal contents in grains of Zea mays L. (Poales: Poaceae) and Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. (Fabales: Fabaceae) [49].”

5. It may be the case that for this particular study sewage sludge is devoid of any heavy metal concentration but those who would like to replicate this approach it is important that this caution is well discussed in the discussion section.

Author: We put this information in our paper: “A treated sewage sludge from the “Estação de Tratamento de Esgoto (ETE)”, Juramento municipality, Minas Gerais State, Brazil, had no helminth eggs and protozoan cysts, and did not increase the heavy metal contents in grains of Zea mays L. (Poales: Poaceae) and Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. (Fabales: Fabaceae) [49].”

Decision Letter 1

Tunira Bhadauria

23 Jul 2020

Ecological indices of phytophagous Hemiptera and their natural enemies on Acacia auriculiformis (Fabales: Fabaceae) plants with or without dehydrated sewage sludge application in a degraded area

PONE-D-20-08541R1

Dear Dr.Demolin Leite

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

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- 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.

Kind regards,

Tunira Bhadauria, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Tunira Bhadauria

29 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-08541R1

Ecological indices of phytophagous Hemiptera and their natural enemies on Acacia auriculiformis (Fabales: Fabaceae) plants with or without dehydrated sewage sludge application in a degraded area

Dear Dr. Leite:

I'm 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 let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, 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.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Tunira Bhadauria

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Species of phytophagous Hemiptera, Sternorrhyncha predators, and protocooperating ants on Acacia auriculiformis plants.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Data

    (XLS)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-08541_reviewer.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES