Status of Beekeeping Industry in Tanzania: Resources, Practices, and Conservation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript makes a good summary of the development of Tanzania beekeeping industry. Very valuable beekeeping information is provided for this central African country.

Line 79, suggest to modify the subtitle of 3.1. because only one species is discussed in this study. For example, Honeybee Subspecies Diversity.

Line 84, suggest to use the term “These subspecies”.

Line 93, suggest to use the term “plateau-adapted”.

Line 106, authors are suggested to provide a list of key forage plants, i.e., their names, to inform these interesting facts to readers.  

Line 139, suggest to use Langstroth hive instead of frame hive.

Line 191, suggest to delete “wild”.

Line 216, suggest to replace “of” with “to”, i.e., “pesticide contamination to honeybees and hive products”.

Line 218, how agrochemical exposure can degrade the quantity and quality of floral resources (nectar and pollen)? Does herbicide use affect wild forage plants? Or authors means other affecting factors?

Line 289, suggest to delete “increased” as this word is redundant here.

Author Response

We sincerely thank reviewer for the insightful and constructive comments, which have significantly helped us to improve the manuscript. We have carefully considered each point and revised the text accordingly. Our point-by-point responses are detailed below. All changes have been incorporated into the revised manuscript, with line numbers referring to the clean, revised version.

Comment 1 (Line 79): Suggest modifying the subtitle of Section 3.1 because only one species is discussed (e.g., “Honeybee Subspecies Diversity”).
Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. The subtitle of Section 3.1 has been revised to “Honeybee Subspecies Diversity” (Line 89, Page 3).

Comment 2 (Line 84): Suggest using the term “These subspecies.”
Response: We agree and have revised the wording accordingly by inserting “subspecies” in Line 95 of Section 3.1 (Page 3).

Comment 3 (Line 93): Suggest using the term “plateau-adapted.”
Response: We have adopted this terminology. The sentence now reads: “Apis mellifera scutellata is a plateau-adapted subspecies found in savanna regions such as Tabora, Kigoma, and Morogoro, characterized by its medium body size and yellowish coloration” (Line 103, Section 3.1, Page 3).

Comment 4 (Line 106): Provide examples of key forage plant species.
Response: We agree. The text has been revised to specify major vegetation types supporting forage, now stating: “Diverse wild plant species in miombo woodlands, mangrove ecosystems, and acacia-dominated vegetation provide abundant and seasonally varied forage resources for honeybees” (Line 126-128, Section 3.2, Page 4).

Comment 5 (Line 139): Replace “frame hive” with “Langstroth hive.”
Response: The terminology has been corrected to “Langstroth hive” (Line 259, Section 4.1, Page 5).

Comment 6 (Line 191): Delete “wild.”
Response: The word has been removed (Line 241, Section 4.4, Page 8).

Comment 7 (Line 216): Replace “of” with “to” in “pesticide contamination to honeybees and hive products.”
Response: The sentence has been corrected accordingly (Line 265, Section 4.5, Page 9).

Comment 8 (Line 218): Clarify how agrochemicals affect nectar and pollen.
Response: We revised the sentence to clarify the mechanism: “Moreover, agrochemical application in the southern highlands zone has been reported to impair forage quality by altering nectar and pollen composition, leading to declines in honeybee species richness, diversity, and population density” (Line 267-269, Section 4.5, Page 9).

Comment 9 (Line 289): Delete redundant word “increased.”
Response: The word has been removed (Line 336, Section 5.3, Page 10).

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Tanzania is an emerging beekeeping country in Africa, where the beekeeping industry holds special significance in the national economy. Internationally, there is limited information available on Tanzania's beekeeping sector. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the beekeeping industry in Tanzania, its resources, and the challenges it faces, offering readers key insights into the subject.
Lines 114-116 mention Tanzania's significant potential for honey and beeswax production. The discussion could be enhanced by specifically exploring what kinds of policies and technologies could fully unlock this resource potential, providing actionable recommendations for the local apiculture industry.
Lines 205-207 indicate that Varroa mites have not caused significant colony losses in Tanzania, potentially due to local bee adaptation. This point warrants a more detailed discussion exploring the feasibility of utilizing these local bee populations for breeding mite-resistant strains.
The discussion in Section 8 is somewhat general. It could be made more concrete. For instance, regarding the modernization of traditional hives mentioned in lines 377-379, the authors could provide examples of successful cases, discuss the specific advantages of such modernization, and analyze how these models could be adapted for beekeeping in Tanzania and other parts of the world, thereby increasing the article's practicality.

Author Response

We sincerely thank reviewer for the insightful and constructive comments, which have significantly helped us to improve the manuscript. We have carefully considered each point and revised the text accordingly. Our point-by-point responses are detailed below. All changes have been incorporated into the revised manuscript, with line numbers referring to the clean, revised version.

Comment 1: Strengthen discussion on policies and technologies needed to unlock production potential.
Response: We have expanded Section 3.2 (Lines 133–137) to explicitly mention modern equipment, capacity building, value addition, and market access as key policy and technological priorities.

Comment 2: Expand discussion on using locally adapted bees for breeding Varroa-resistant strains.
Response: Additional discussion has been incorporated (Lines 254–258, Section 4.4, Page 8), highlighting the genetic value of Tanzanian honeybee populations for selective breeding programs.

Comment 3: Make Section 8 more concrete with examples of hive modernization and practical implications.
Response: Section 8 (Lines 442–450, Page 13) has been substantially revised to include specific examples, advantages of modernization, and applicability to Tanzania and comparable regions.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Beekeeping Industry in Tanzania: Resources, Practices, and Conservation” presents a comprehensive review of the beekeeping sector in Tanzania, integrating ecological, economic, social, and conservation-related aspects. The topic is relevant and timely, particularly in the context of sustainable agriculture, biodiversity conservation, and rural livelihoods in sub-Saharan Africa. The manuscript compiles an extensive body of literature, including scientific publications and national policy documents, and thus has the potential to become a useful reference for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers.

The review is generally well structured and covers a broad range of themes, from honeybee diversity and habitat resources to governance frameworks, beekeeping practices, bee products, and conservation initiatives. However, the manuscript is largely descriptive and would benefit from stronger synthesis and critical evaluation of the available literature. Several sections contain repetitive information or overly detailed descriptions that could be condensed. In addition, some statements are presented too categorically despite limited empirical evidence or strong regional variability. Language editing is also required to improve clarity and readability.

Overall, the manuscript is suitable for publication after moderate revision.

Specific comments

Title and abstract

Lines 2–3
The title is clear and informative, but it may be helpful to explicitly indicate that this manuscript is a review article (e.g., by adding “A Review” to the title).

Lines 10–19 (Summary) and 20–35 (Abstract)
The summary and abstract contain overlapping information, particularly regarding production statistics and the importance of beekeeping for livelihoods and the national economy. Consider reducing redundancy between these sections. The abstract would benefit from a clearer emphasis on the main knowledge gaps identified and the key conclusions or recommendations emerging from the review.

Introduction

Lines 38–60
The introduction provides appropriate background and highlights the importance of beekeeping in Tanzania. However, the objectives of the review are not explicitly stated. Consider adding a short paragraph at the end of the introduction clearly defining the aims and scope of the review and explaining how it advances existing knowledge beyond previous reviews.

Governance and economic contribution

Lines 61–77
This section is well referenced and informative. However, economic figures such as GDP contribution, export values, and employment numbers are presented as fixed values. It would be useful to clarify the sources and years of these estimates and to acknowledge potential uncertainty or temporal variation in these figures.

Honeybee species diversity

Lines 79–100
The description of Apis mellifera subspecies in Tanzania is clear and well supported by references. However, the manuscript would benefit from a clearer distinction between historical classifications based on morphometrics and more recent molecular evidence. Statements regarding the expanded distribution of subspecies should be accompanied by clearer explanations of the underlying data and their limitations.

Honeybee habitat and forage resources

Lines 106–119
The section provides useful information on habitat availability and forage resources. The estimated production potential of honey and beeswax (lines 114–116) should be contextualized, as these values may represent theoretical maxima rather than realistic production targets under current management and socio-economic conditions.

Beekeeping practices

Lines 120–152
The description of traditional practices is detailed and informative. However, some parts are overly descriptive and could be shortened. The discussion would benefit from a clearer comparison of advantages and limitations of traditional versus semi-modern practices, supported by quantitative data where available.

Lines 153–166
The section on commercialization and modern practices highlights important constraints but remains largely descriptive. Consider strengthening this section by critically evaluating why adoption of modern technologies remains limited and how ecological constraints related to local honeybee behavior influence technology transfer.

Apiaries and bee reserves

Lines 174–188
This section is clear and well structured. However, it would benefit from a brief assessment of the effectiveness of bee reserves and apiaries in achieving conservation or livelihood outcomes, rather than focusing primarily on institutional arrangements and numbers.

Pests, parasites, and predators

Lines 189–209
The discussion of pests and predators is informative. However, statements suggesting that no significant economic losses or colony collapses have been reported (lines 199–201) should be phrased more cautiously. Absence of evidence should not be equated with evidence of absence, particularly given limited monitoring in many regions.

Pesticide exposure

Lines 210–227
This is an important section, but it would benefit from clearer synthesis. The reported pesticide residue levels should be discussed in relation to international standards and potential sublethal effects on honeybees. The recommendation to locate apiaries at least 7 km from farmland (lines 222–223) should be supported by references or framed as a policy guideline rather than a universally applicable threshold.

Bee product industry

Lines 229–251
Production statistics are clearly presented, but the manuscript should clarify inconsistencies in reported honey yields across regions and management systems. Consider summarizing key differences in productivity between traditional and modern systems in a more synthetic manner.

Bee product quality and properties

Lines 252–273
This section is well supported by references. However, some claims regarding product quality and compliance with standards would benefit from clearer attribution to specific studies or datasets. The repetition of “Figure 5c–d” (lines 269–270) should be corrected.

Consumption of bee products

Lines 274–290
The discussion of medicinal and antimicrobial properties is interesting but largely descriptive. Consider adding a short critical note on the limitations of existing studies, particularly regarding sample sizes, experimental design, and relevance for human health claims.

Beekeeping-based conservation initiatives

Lines 291–326
This section effectively illustrates the role of beekeeping in conservation initiatives. However, it would benefit from a clearer distinction between documented outcomes and assumed benefits. Where possible, quantitative evidence of conservation or livelihood impacts should be highlighted.

Challenges facing the beekeeping industry

Lines 327–362
The categorization of challenges is clear and comprehensive. Some overlap exists between categories (e.g., habitat loss and governance issues), and the authors may consider streamlining this section. Claims regarding the presence of diseases not yet documented in Tanzania (lines 337–340) should be framed more cautiously.

Future directions

Lines 364–395
The future directions are relevant and well aligned with the challenges identified. However, this section would benefit from prioritization. Consider identifying a small number of key research and policy priorities rather than listing a broad range of recommendations.

Language and style

Throughout the manuscript
The English language is generally understandable but requires editing. There are frequent long sentences, minor grammatical errors, and stylistic inconsistencies. Professional language editing is strongly recommended to improve clarity and readability before publication.

 

Major strengths of the manuscript include its comprehensive scope, extensive referencing, and relevance to applied entomology and conservation. With moderate revisions focusing on synthesis, critical evaluation, cautious interpretation of evidence, and language editing, the manuscript would make a valuable contribution to the literature on beekeeping in Africa.

Author Response

We sincerely thank reviewer for the insightful and constructive comments, which have significantly helped us to improve the manuscript. We have carefully considered each point and revised the text accordingly. Our point-by-point responses are detailed below. All changes have been incorporated into the revised manuscript, with line numbers referring to the clean, revised version.

Comment 1 (Title): Indicate that the manuscript is a review.
Response: The title has been revised to reflect its review nature:
“Status of the Beekeeping Industry in Tanzania: Resources, Practices, and Conservation”

Comment 2 (Abstract and Summary): Reduce redundancy and emphasize knowledge gaps and conclusions.
Response: The Summary (Lines 11–20) and Abstract (Lines 26–37) have been revised to minimize overlap and clearly state the main gaps, objectives, and key conclusions.

Comment 3 (Introduction): Clearly state the objectives and scope.
Response: A new paragraph has been added (Lines 55–64) explicitly outlining the aims, scope, and novelty of the review.

Comment 4 (Economic data): Clarify sources, years, and uncertainty.
Response: Economic figures have been contextualized with sources and temporal ranges (Lines 73–81).

Comment 5 (Subspecies classification): Distinguish morphometric and molecular evidence.
Response: We added discussion on integrating molecular tools with traditional morphometrics (Lines 111–117).

Comment 6 (Production potential): Clarify that estimates represent theoretical maxima.
Response: Statements were revised to reflect realistic production under current socio-ecological conditions (Lines 133–135).

Comment 7–9 (Practices, modernization, and reserves): Improve synthesis, add quantitative comparisons and outcome assessment.
Response: Sections 4.1 and 4.2 were revised (Lines 167–175, 189-207, and 231- 236) to compare traditional and semi-modern systems, ecological constraints, and conservation/livelihood impacts.

Comment 10 (Pests and losses): Avoid equating absence of evidence with evidence of absence.
Response: Statements implying no economic loss were removed and rephrased cautiously.

Comment 11 (Pesticides): Relate residue levels to international standards and sublethal effects; frame 7 km as guideline.
Response: The section was revised (Lines 269-284) to reference EU MRL benchmarks, discuss sublethal impacts, and clarify that the 7 km distance is a precautionary policy guideline.

Comment 12–15: Improve synthesis, clarify data sources, note limitations of biomedical claims, and distinguish documented from assumed conservation benefits.
Response: Relevant sections (Lines 343–348) were revised to include critical evaluation, quantitative emphasis, and clearer attribution.

Comment 16 (Challenges): Streamline overlapping categories and use cautious language.
Response: The challenges section was reorganized and refined (Lines 393–426).

Comment 17 (Future directions): Prioritize key research and policy needs.
Response: The future directions section has been restructured into prioritized thematic areas (Lines 432–469).

Language and Style:
The manuscript has undergone comprehensive language editing to improve clarity, grammar, and academic style in line with Insects journal standards.