Xanthomonas Wilt of Banana Drives Changes in Land-Use and Ecosystem Services Across Infected Landscapes
, Jeroen J. C. Groot 2, Pablo Tittonell 2,3,4, Godfrey Taulya 5, Jules Ntamwira 6,7, Serge Amato 8 and Guy Blomme 9Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I applaud the authors for the well researched and written manuscript. The introduction helps the reader anticipate the data and the results are clear and logically presented. I only have a few editorial suggestions noted below.
Line 47 – 30-60% seems very high! Does this vary seasonally? How is this broken between banana and plantain?
Line 74 – is this “crop” species composition?
Figure 1 – a broader map of the continent would be helpful for a global readership. The blue in the current inset makes it look like the region is an island!
Line 122 – participated in “each” FGD?
Line 132 – could this questionnaire be shared as an appendix?
Line 155 – more information on the land use trajectory would be helpful before moving onto the soil sampling. I also think it would be helpful to describe this as crop change or diversification (as in results) rather than land use?
Line 254 – were there specific questions here?
Line 318 – Could the figure use an abbreviation of the cell names (4 letter code?) vs just the cell number? I think this would make the pattern easier to interpret.
Fig 6 Did the authors consider a ranked bar plot? This might make the result more clear
Fig 8 might be more clear as a horizontal and ranked bar plot
Table 3 – I would encourage more consistency in the number of significant digits in the table.
Author Response
Line 47 – 30-60% seems very high! Does this vary seasonally? How is this broken between banana and plantain?
Response: This has been revised in the text to above 25%. Here we use banana to refer to both plantains and banana. The highland banana (captured as plantain by FAO) dominates in this region and consumption varies from region to region and potentially from season to season as with higher consumption levels at the two peak harvest periods in a year. Unfortunately, we could not find studies that partition this between bananas and plantains.
Line 75 – is this “crop” species composition?
Response: Yes. “Crop” has been inserted
Figure 1 – a broader map of the continent would be helpful for a global readership. The blue in the current inset makes it look like the region is an island!
Response: Corrected
Line 122 – participated in “each” FGD?
Response: éach’ has been inserted.
Line 132 – could this questionnaire be shared as an appendix?
Response: The questionnaire is large and has been added instead as a supplementary information.
Line 155 – more information on the land use trajectory would be helpful before moving onto the soil sampling. I also think it would be helpful to describe this as crop change or diversification (as in results) rather than land use?
Response: Lines 134 to 136, and 158-159 have been revised to clarify on this. In this study land-use change is synonymous to the crop change as land-use for cropping was only considered in the study described by de Bie (2000) L108-110.
Line 254 – were there specific questions here?
Response: Yes. A few of the questions have been highlighted – L152-156
Line 318 – Could the figure use an abbreviation of the cell names (4 letter code?) vs just the cell number? I think this would make the pattern easier to interpret.
Response: It is feasible to use 4 letter codes (e.g. LAMH, LAFH, SAMH, SAFH). However, we like to be consistent with the codes in the reference documents. Detailed explanation of the cells 1 to 4 are also provided in the legends.
Fig 6 Did the authors consider a ranked bar plot? This might make the result more clear
Response: Fig. 6 has been replaced with a ranked plot.
Fig 8 might be more clear as a horizontal and ranked bar plot
Response: Fig. 8 replaced with a ranked plot
Table 3 – I would encourage more consistency in the number of significant digits in the table.
Response: The number of decimal places in the table are consistent for each variable though not the same across the variables due to the differences in their sizes or values. For example, K values are small, as such presented up to the 5th decimal place whereas those for slope length, L are large, thus presented to only a single decimal place.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, after reviewing your manuscript, I consider that, in addition to dealing with an interesting subject, the methodology developed is well applied. I consider that the present manuscript only needs a few minor modifications in order to be accepted for publication:
1.- Please, according to the guide for authors of Sustainability Journal, reduce the length of the abstract to a maximum of 200 words.
2.- Introduction, Line 49: please specify and discuss in detail the AAA and AAB genomes of East African Highland bananas.
3.- Since one of the key words in the manuscript refers to multifunctional agriculture (MFA) I recommend writing an introductory framework related to this approach in the agricultural field. In case it is of interest to publishers, I recommend 2 manuscripts for this section:
Parra-López C, Calatrava-Requena J, de-Haro-Giménez T. (2008). A systemic comparative assessment of the multifunctional performance of alternative olive systems in Spain within an AHP-extended framework. Ecol. Econ. 64(4), 820-834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.05.004 Rodríguez Sousa, AA; Barandica, J.M.; Rescia, A.J. Estimation of Soil Loss Tolerance in Olive Groves as an Indicator of Sustainability: The Case of the Estepa Region (Andalusia, Spain). Agronomy 2019, 9, 785. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy91207854.- Please, specify, in the description of the area of study, its mean temperature.
5.- I think Figure 2B can be removed from the manuscript. With the methodological description made and Figure 2A it is sufficient to understand the methodology.
6.- Subsection 2.3.1 Soil carbon and nutrients: incorporate the abbreviation ANOVA for Analysis of Variance . Thus, from this point onwards in the manuscript, these analyses can already be referred to by their abbreviation. In addition, I recommend specifying the LSD analysis carried out in greater detail.
7.- When talking about the statistical tests used, authors should specify the ranges of significance used. Usually these are: 1) p > 0.05 not significant; 2) p < 0.05* significant; 3) p < 0.01** very significant; 4) p < 0.001*** highly significant.
8.- Subsection 2.4 of the manuscript should be removed as it does not add anything new to the text. I advise the authors to maintain subsection 2.1 by incorporating the data from the sampling carried out and Figure 1, then directly to put subsection 2.3 and finally to finish with subsection 2.4 in which the methodology used to evaluate farmers' perceptions is discussed in detail.
9.- Line 399: specify p-value.
10.- Table 3.- please incorporate the rainfall erosion value (R factor) used in the estimate of soil loss. You can incorporate this value in the table itself or make a clarification in the header of the table.
Author Response
Dear authors, after reviewing your manuscript, I consider that, in addition to dealing with an interesting subject, the methodology developed is well applied. I consider that the present manuscript only needs a few minor modifications in order to be accepted for publication:
Response: We appreciate the compliments
1.- Please, according to the guide for authors of Sustainability Journal, reduce the length of the abstract to a maximum of 200 words.
Response: The abstract has been revised to 250 words. Further reductions could profoundly affect the message in the abstract
2.- Introduction, Line 49: please specify and discuss in detail the AAA and AAB genomes of East African Highland bananas.
Response: Kindly we find the aspects to do with the genomic grouping of the banana/ plantain cultivars to be outside the scope of the study. References provided can however help the readers to further their knowledge of cultivars.
3.- Since one of the key words in the manuscript refers to multifunctional agriculture (MFA) I recommend writing an introductory framework related to this approach in the agricultural field. In case it is of interest to publishers, I recommend 2 manuscripts for this section: Parra-López C, Calatrava-Requena J, de-Haro-Giménez T. (2008). A systemic comparative assessment of the multifunctional performance of alternative olive systems in Spain within an AHP-extended framework. Ecol. Econ. 64(4), 820-834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.05.004
Rodríguez Sousa, AA; Barandica, J.M.; Rescia, A.J. Estimation of Soil Loss Tolerance in Olive Groves as an Indicator of Sustainability: The Case of the Estepa Region (Andalusia, Spain). Agronomy 2019, 9, 785. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9120785
Response: The suggestion to expound the aspect of multifunctionality of the system is appreciated. However, find the current depth adequate for the paper.
4.- Please, specify, in the description of the area of study, its mean temperature.
Response: This has been specified (See L 95-98).
5.- I think Figure 2B can be removed from the manuscript. With the methodological description made and Figure 2A it is sufficient to understand the methodology.
Response: Indeed Fig. 2A alone could do. However, we find the illustration in figure 2B helpful for some of the readers and would like to keep it in.
6.- Subsection 2.3.1 Soil carbon and nutrients: incorporate the abbreviation ANOVA for Analysis of Variance. Thus, from this point onwards in the manuscript, these analyses can already be referred to by their abbreviation. In addition, I recommend specifying the LSD analysis carried out in greater detail.
Response: The changes have been effected in the section 2.3.1 and L269 that has been affected by the change in 2.3.1
7.- When talking about the statistical tests used, authors should specify the ranges of significance used. Usually these are: 1) p > 0.05 not significant; 2) p < 0.05* significant; 3) p < 0.01** very significant; 4) p < 0.001*** highly significant.
Response: Added in L 519-521
8.- Subsection 2.4 of the manuscript should be removed as it does not add anything new to the text. I advise the authors to maintain subsection 2.1 by incorporating the data from the sampling carried out and Figure 1, then directly to put subsection 2.3 and finally to finish with subsection 2.4 in which the methodology used to evaluate farmers' perceptions is discussed in detail.
Response: Section 2.4 has been integrated into section 2.2 (L159-163). Section 2.3 still comes last to maintain the flow of the activities.
9.- Line 399: specify p-value.
Response: L399, currently 424 gives the R2 value which is an independent statistic to p- value.
10.- Table 3.- please incorporate the rainfall erosion value (R factor) used in the estimate of soil loss. You can incorporate this value in the table itself or make a clarification in the header of the table.
Response: R factor is a single value and has been added to the foot note of Table 3
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is overall well-written and have significance on how wilt disease in Banana changing the production systems in Africa. However, I have some comments related to writing, methods, sentence structure, and more. Please see my comments below:
The abstract is very general. Please re-write the abstract. Put some numbers and quantitative analyses of this research.
Page 1, Line # 18: What do you mean by banana-based systems? Please clarify or change it something easier to understand
Line # 19-21: Please re-write. Same thing for line # 26-32 and 32-35
Introduction needs to be re-organized and some sentences does not follow each other.
Line # 42: banana is an important crop in the World or in Africa or what? Please use production statistics to clarify this sentence.
Line # 46: a comma after Burundi. I see the same problem throughout the manuscript. Please put a Line a comma when it is more than two words connecting with and. Same problem at line # 60, a comma needed after economic
Line # 58: ‘word’ should be changed to ‘World’
Line # 65-66: Re-write. Unclear
Line # 78: remove ‘retrospectively’
Line # 110: Spell out XW
Line # 134-136: unclear. Re-write
Line # 137: Change the reference parenthesis to third bracket
Line #151: You don’t need the sentence: ‘MS excel…..figures’. Remove this sentence
Section#2.3: Please re-write this section. Most of the sentences are unclear. Such as Line #158-161; 161-164. Are these sentences different? Yu just measured physio-chemical parameters of soil to evaluate soil health and other ecosystems services. See # 164-166: ‘These soil variables…..services’ and ‘To infer….landscape’ are not different.
The term ‘trajectories’ has been used extensively in this manuscript. Please consider using other word in some cases if possible.
Line #182-183: Are you sure about this method? Walkley-Black method with colorimetrically? Or just titration method you used. Is it a modified version? Please double check. Also soil pH generally measured in 1:1 or 1:2 (soil:water) extract. Why 1:2.5; is it also a modified version? Please explain.
Line # 188: Use abbreviation ANOVA in parenthesis and remove ANOVA from parenthesis at line # 246
Line # 260: reported in several coping…. Or re-write
Figure 3: Please put the numbers for each coping options in this graph, such as 73%, 55% etc. Also put the N (sample #) for each coping options.
Line #287: put scientific names of each crop listed.
Line # 289: Mention the year
Line # 525: change distress with reduce
Author Response
The abstract is very general. Please re-write the abstract. Put some numbers and quantitative analyses of this research.
Response: Most of the study uses a qualitative approach. We therefore find quantitative results e.g. in L27-29 and L35 to be adequate
Page 1, Line # 18: What do you mean by banana-based systems? Please clarify or change it something easier to understand
Response: Banana-based is used to mean that banana is the main or a major staple crop within the production system. This is synonymous to “banana dominated”.
Line # 19-21: Please re-write. Same thing for line # 26-32 and 32-35
Introduction needs to be re-organized and some sentences does not follow each other.
Response: Several sections of the abstract have been rewritten
Line # 42: banana is an important crop in the World or in Africa or what? Please use production statistics to clarify this sentence.
Response: The sentences that follow this give statistics to back the argument in this sentence.
Line # 46: a comma after Burundi. I see the same problem throughout the manuscript. Please put a Line a comma when it is more than two words connecting with and. Same problem at line # 60, a comma needed after economic
Response: These have been added.
Line # 58: ‘word’ should be changed to ‘World’
Response: Change effected
Line # 65-66: Re-write. Unclear
Response: The sentence has been rephrased
Line # 78: remove ‘retrospectively’
Response: done
Line # 110: Spell out XW
Response: Has been written in full
Line # 134-136: unclear. Re-write
Response: This section has been rephrased and now reads much better
Line # 137: Change the reference parenthesis to third bracket
Response: Changed
Line #151: You don’t need the sentence: ‘MS excel…..figures’. Remove this sentence
Response: Sentence deleted
Section#2.3: Please re-write this section. Most of the sentences are unclear. Such as Line #158-161; 161-164. Are these sentences different? Yu just measured physio-chemical parameters of soil to evaluate soil health and other ecosystems services. See # 164-166: ‘These soil variables…..services’ and ‘To infer….landscape’ are not different.
Response: The section has been rewritten (L173-191).
The term ‘trajectories’ has been used extensively in this manuscript. Please consider using other word in some cases if possible.
Response: Noted and effected where possible
Line #182-183: Are you sure about this method? Walkley-Black method with colorimetrically? Or just titration method you used. Is it a modified version? Please double check. Also soil pH generally measured in 1:1 or 1:2 (soil:water) extract. Why 1:2.5; is it also a modified version? Please explain.
Response: The sentence on the Walkley -Black method has been revised (L203-205)
With respect to soil pH measurement, in literature different soil:water ratios have been reported for pH in measurement vary from 1:1 to 1:5 and even more, often influence by convention or convenience. Determination of soil pH in saturation paste gives soil pH values nearer to field moist condition. Reports show wider soil: water ratios (1:2.5 to 1:5) in organic soils as they absorb more water because of the presence of more organic matter. reason?
Line # 188: Use abbreviation ANOVA in parenthesis and remove ANOVA from parenthesis at line # 246
Response: Effected
Line # 260: reported in several coping…. Or re-write
Response: Sentence rephrased
Figure 3: Please put the numbers for each coping options in this graph, such as 73%, 55% etc. Also put the N (sample #) for each coping options.
Line #287: put scientific names of each crop listed.
Response: Scientific names added
Line # 289: Mention the year
Response: Years added
Line # 525: change distress with reduce
Response: Rephrased
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
