Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The text presents a national assessment of Saudi Arabia’s beekeeping sector based on 98 apiaries in five major regions. It finds substantial regional differences in colony composition, honey production, and disease prevalence. Modern colonies generally produce more honey, while the indigenous Apis mellifera jemenitica is better adapted to Saudi Arabia’s harsh conditions. The study identifies key constraints—including diseases (only Varroosis and Nosema were considered), biosecurity risks, predators, limited forage, management problems, weak enforcement of regulations governing migratory beekeeping, and marketing—and suggests improvements in breeding, management, extension services, forage development, and value chains.

The study appears highly relevant and valuable because it provides national-level evidence for addressing the main weaknesses of Saudi beekeeping. A particularly important finding is the trade-off between higher productivity of modern colonies and the strong environmental adaptation of the indigenous bee, which could guide future breeding and conservation strategies. However, the cross-sectional survey of 98 apiaries may limit how broadly the findings can be generalized, and longer-term studies would strengthen the evidence.

I recommend revising all figures, particularly n. 10 (legend on the Y axis, neozema....) and 11, for readability. 

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive assessment and constructive suggestions. We have substantially revised the manuscript to improve its scientific rigor, statistical analysis, and presentation. The study is now explicitly described as an exploratory assessment of 98 purposively selected apiaries rather than a nationally representative survey, and the limitations of its cross-sectional design are clearly acknowledged. We have also clarified that traditional and modern refer to hive production systems rather than bee genetic origin; therefore, conclusions regarding the comparative adaptation or productivity of indigenous and imported honeybee populations cannot be drawn from these data. Disease-related findings have been refined to distinguish field-recorded Varroa indicators from Nosema-compatible clinical signs, which were not laboratory-confirmed. The discussion and recommendations have been revised accordingly. All figures, including the previously numbered Figures 10 and 11, have been improved with clearer labels, legends, units, and captions to enhance readability and interpretation.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a relevant topic and presents potentially useful information on beekeeping in Saudi Arabia. However, in its current form, it contains methodological, statistical, and presentation problems that compromise the validity of several results and conclusions. Below, I present my observations.

1. I believe that the abstract exceeds the number of words established by the journal. Recommendations that were not directly evaluated should not be included. In addition, it mentions logistic regression results that are subsequently not presented in the results section.
2. Scientific names should be written in italics throughout the manuscript. Punctuation, spaces between paragraphs, parentheses, and incorrectly divided words should also be reviewed.
3. The Introduction devotes too much space to global figures on colonies, honey production, and the economic value of pollination. This information could be considerably summarized to address more directly the economic, social, and productive importance of beekeeping in Saudi Arabia. The Introduction should be reorganized to clearly explain the current situation of Saudi beekeeping, the characteristics of its production systems, its main productive, health, environmental, and commercial problems, and the usefulness of characterizing beekeepers and their production units, and should end with the objectives. Topics that are not directly related to the study should not be addressed (for example, sensors and AI).
4. Traditional and modern colonies are defined according to the type of hive, but they are subsequently interpreted as colonies of Apis mellifera jemenitica and colonies of imported bees, respectively. These variables are not equivalent and should be clearly differentiated.
5. The methodology contains serious errors: the study is presented as a national characterization, but a small sample of 98 apiaries, unevenly distributed among five regions, was used. Therefore, the results cannot be attributed to all of Saudi Arabia. It is not reported how the surveyed apiaries and beekeepers were selected, the date, whether or not there was a registry of producers, how the sample size was determined, the inclusion criteria, the proportion of participants in relation to the total number of beekeepers, or whether each apiary belonged to a different beekeeper. The methodology is generally deficient and does not fully meet the criterion of reproducibility; particularly regarding the limitations, it is not clear.
6. It is not specified how the honey production data were obtained.
7. The evaluation of Varroa destructor is not reproducible: how many colonies were sampled per apiary? How many bees per sample? Etc., the entire procedure.
8. The determination of Nosema based on clinical signs is invalid; there are clinical signs that can be confused with other health problems. The appropriate diagnostic method was to identify spores under a microscope. Therefore, this variable should not appear in the manuscript.
9. I believe that the statistical analysis should be reviewed in detail in its entirety. At least, I believe that the use of ANOVA to determine differences in colony structure and disease prevalence is not correct. In addition, the authors should explore the use of mixed models for comparisons of honey production among the three harvests and between traditional and modern hives.
10. There are inconsistencies in the regression values and the number of samples in the tables.
11. The quality of the figures is poor; they should be improved by including titles on the X and Y axes.
12. Figure 3 says “local,” but I believe it refers to “traditional.”
13. The table of reported problems appears to contain only 62 responses rather than the 98 corresponding to the sample. The denominator, missing data, and whether participants could select more than one response should be clarified.
14. Several problem categories are practically equivalent, for example, “honey marketing constraint,” “honey bee marketing constraint,” and “bee product marketing constraint.” These responses should be grouped using previously defined criteria. An association assessed using a chi-square test with high Varroa infestation is also mentioned, but the results of this test are not presented.
15. The PCA incorporates mathematically redundant variables: traditional, modern, and total colonies, as well as the percentages of traditional and modern colonies. This redundancy may artificially determine the components and exaggerate the separation between systems. A set of non-redundant variables should be selected.
16. In Figure 3, “traditional” should be used instead of “local,” unless the genetic origin of the bees has been confirmed. Figure 11 presents apparently incorrect percentages reaching 1600% and should therefore be completely reviewed.
17. Tables and figures should be mentioned in the text before they appear. There is an excessive number of tables and figures for presenting relatively simple results. It is recommended that the information be integrated into a limited number of scientific tables and that only results that contribute directly to the objectives be retained.
18. The discussion extensively repeats the results and provides explanations that were not evaluated. Differences are attributed to climate, forage availability, genetics, queen quality, adaptation, and management, although these variables were not directly measured. These interpretations should be presented as hypotheses and not as findings of the study.
19. It cannot be concluded that traditional colonies responded more strongly to floral availability or that imported bees were more productive because floral availability was not evaluated and the genetic origin of the colonies was not confirmed.
20. The recommendations regarding sensors, artificial intelligence, genetic improvement, national regulation, and the development of a national strategy exceed the evidence generated from a purposive sample and variables that were not evaluated. The implications should be limited to the actual scope of the data.
21. The limitations section is incomplete. It should explicitly acknowledge the lack of representativeness, the small sample size in some regions, the selection bias of the surveyed beekeepers, the absence of diagnostic confirmation of Nosema, the possible incorrect classification of the origin of the bees, and the statistical limitations.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the comprehensive assessment and constructive recommendations. We acknowledge the methodological, statistical, and presentation concerns raised and have substantially revised the manuscript to address them.

The abstract has been shortened and aligned with the revised analyses, while the Introduction has been reorganized to focus on the Saudi Arabian beekeeping sector and the study objectives. The terminology has been standardized to distinguish traditional and modern hive systems from honeybee genetic origin, and scientific names, formatting, tables, and figures have been reviewed.

The Materials and Methods section has been strengthened, and the study is now explicitly presented as an exploratory assessment of 98 purposively selected apiaries rather than a nationally representative survey. The statistical analyses have been revised using appropriate non-parametric comparisons, paired analyses, repeated-harvest models accounting for observations within apiaries, and multivariable regression with HC3 robust standard errors. Regression results, sample sizes, and reported statistics have been reviewed for consistency.

Disease-related interpretations have also been revised. Varroa destructor observations are described as field-recorded indicators, while unconfirmed Nosema-compatible clinical signs have been excluded from inferential analyses. Beekeeper-reported constraints have been consolidated into clearly defined categories, with the denominator of 62 valid responses explicitly stated. PCA has been repeated using four non-redundant variables, and the resulting production-system profiles are interpreted as exploratory classifications.

Furthermore, figures and tables have been improved and streamlined, and the Discussion has been rewritten to distinguish observed associations from untested explanations. Recommendations have been restricted to interventions supported by the study findings. The limitations section now explicitly addresses sampling bias, unequal regional representation, the cross-sectional design, uncertainty regarding bee genetic origin, limitations of disease assessment, and statistical constraints.

We believe these revisions have substantially improved the manuscript's methodological transparency, statistical validity, scientific interpretation, and presentation. We are grateful to the reviewer for the detailed comments, which have helped strengthen the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This should be an interesting article, but the style needs completely revised. It would be easier to absorb the actual content if the paper were much better compiled. It is much longer than it needs to be. There are far too many tables.

The text is readable but the style is very repetitive. The repetition must be removed. Often tables and figures and their footnotes duplicate information already given in the text.  In some cases results are described in table footnotes but not in the text at all. The authors should review the whole document to remove repetition. It is likely that many tables can be removed. I have not marked every instance of this. Please see the annotated paper.

Where figures and tables are kept, they must be cited in the text. At the moment, mostly they are not.

The biological names such as Apis mellifera and plant species should be in italics everywhere.

The abstract is long and the length should be checked to the journal requirements.

The questionnaire used should be provided as supplementary material.

Section 2.1 should also include the time period when the survey took place.

Figure 1: the inset map does not seem to give additional information.

The results mentioned in section 3.4 don’t seem to match the table there. Also, in the multiple regression residual analysis is not mentioned. Was this done to validate the model?

Figure 10: the y-axis label needs corrected.

Figure 11: this needs attention, but would be better deleted- see the annotated document.

Section 3.8 on PCA would be better before section 3.7 as the cluster plot uses the principal components.

The introduction, discussion and conclusions are suitable.

References: the reference list contains repeated references as well. There should only be one instance of each reference. The citation numbers in the text will need updated.  The style of the references also varies and should be made consistent.

These and other issues to attend to are marked on the text. The authors should address all of them.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive comments and detailed annotations, which have been valuable in improving the manuscript's clarity, organization, and scientific presentation.

The manuscript has been substantially revised and shortened to eliminate repetitive descriptions and unnecessary duplication between the text, tables, figures, and captions. Tables and figures have been consolidated, redundant illustrations removed, and all retained tables and figures appropriately cited in the text. The Results section has been reorganized to improve the logical presentation of findings, including the sequence of principal component analysis and production-system classification.

The abstract has been shortened, scientific names have been consistently italicized, and formatting and terminology have been standardized throughout the manuscript. The survey period has been clarified in the Materials and Methods section, and the questionnaire has been identified for inclusion as supplementary material. The location map and figures have been revised, including correction of axis labels and removal of unnecessary graphical elements.

The statistical results have been reviewed for consistency between the text and tables. The multivariable regression analysis has been refined using HC3 robust standard errors, with greater attention to model assumptions and interpretation. The Discussion has also been streamlined to minimize repetition and focus on the implications of the principal findings.

Finally, the reference list has been reviewed, duplicate entries removed, citation numbering harmonized, and bibliographic formatting standardized according to MDPI requirements.

We believe these revisions have considerably improved the manuscript's readability, conciseness, methodological transparency, and overall scientific quality. We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's detailed recommendations and guidance.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have undertaken a thorough and substantial restructuring of the manuscript. The methodological reorientation (from a study claiming national representativeness to an exploratory characterization of 98 apiaries), statistical refinement (non-parametric tests, mixed models, and robust regressions), conceptual separation between hive type and genetic origin, and redesign of the PCA without redundant composite variables rigorously address most of the major concerns.

However, I suggest correcting the following issues before publication:

1. In the methodology, the authors acknowledge the limitations of clinical signs as a diagnostic method for Nosema and state that the variable was excluded from inferential analyses. However, the manuscript retains Section 3.4.2 and Figure 9 to describe "33.2% of Nosema-compatible clinical signs." Retaining a descriptive section and a figure dedicated to a clinically invalid indicator creates confusion for the reader. I reiterate the recommendation to remove Section 3.4.2 and Figure 9 from the final manuscript.

2. Carefully review all values, as I have detected some inconsistencies, at least regarding the overall mean apiary size (275.4 and approximately 225 colonies).

3. Consider reducing the number of figures and the five tables, as I believe there are too many and some results are repeated. For example, Table 1 (counts/proportions by region) contains exactly the same information as Figures 3 and 4. Table 3 presents the same information as Figure 7. I recommend removing redundant figures (e.g., Figures 3, 4, and 7) or presenting this information exclusively in the corresponding tables to make the manuscript easier to read.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your constructive comments and valuable recommendations. In response, we have further revised the manuscript to improve its scientific clarity, numerical consistency, and overall presentation.

The principal revisions include:

1. Removal of Section 3.4.2 and Figure 9 from the revised manuscript.

2. Verification of numerical consistency throughout the manuscript, resulting in the correction of two minor discrepancies.

3. Removal of Figures 3, 4, and 7 to eliminate redundant information and improve the conciseness of the manuscript.

We believe these revisions adequately address your recommendations and have further improved the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback and consideration.

Yours sincerely,
The Authors