Enhancing Farmers’ Capacity for Sustainable Management of Cassava Mosaic Disease in Côte d’Ivoire

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think this paper is correct and interesting for a widespread audience. It is well written and clearly explain the conclusions reached.

I have some minor observations that need to be corrected. They are identified in yellow, with a comment, in lines 51, 470 and 665.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: I have some minor observations that need to be corrected. They are identified in yellow, with a comment, in lines 51, 470 and 665. Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have considered the suggested corrections. These changes made can be found - Pages 1 and 2, Paragraph 2, Line 50 to 51…Nigeria (60.8 million tonnes) and Ghana (25.6 million tonnes)   Page 11, Paragraph 3, Line 469…practice considered, Page 17, Paragraph 2, Line 661 to 662… and control strategies,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well structured and makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the impact of educational interventions on the management of Cassava Mosaic Disease (CMD) in Côte d’Ivoire, but there are certain areas that could be improved to make the paper more relevant and relevant.

First, although it is clearly shown that education increases knowledge and adoption of recommended practices, the paper does not provide a sufficiently in-depth analysis of why increased knowledge and behavioral change have not led to a reduction in disease incidence. It would be useful to elaborate in more detail on the barriers identified, such as the lack of healthy planting material and the presence of vectors, and to propose concrete strategies to overcome them. In this regard, it is recommended to broaden the discussion on the possibilities of improving the availability of healthy seedlings, including cooperation with local planting material multiplication centers, as well as the integration of new biotechnological or agrotechnical solutions, such as the application of salicylic acid for resistance induction, which has shown promise in recent research.

Second, although the methodology uses advanced statistical techniques (PSM, Tobit regression), the paper could be stronger if it included an assessment of statistical power (power analysis) to ensure that the sample is sufficient to detect the expected effects. It is also recommended to more clearly present all potential sources of bias and study limitations, as well as the ways in which they were addressed.

Third, in the presentation of results and discussion, it would be useful to further compare the findings with similar studies from the region and beyond, in order to highlight the specificity of the local context, but also the generalizability of the conclusions. It is also recommended to more clearly separate the results and discussion, and avoid repeating the same information in both segments.

Fourth, it is recommended that the conclusions focus not only on the importance of education, but also on the need for an integrated approach that includes institutional support, availability of resources and continuous monitoring of the effects of interventions. Recommendations for practical policies and future research should be particularly emphasized, such as the development of local centers for the multiplication of healthy seedlings and testing of new methods of disease control.

Finally, it is recommended that the text be further refined in terms of language and style for clarity and conciseness, while avoiding unnecessary repetition and focusing on key findings and recommendations, in accordance with modern recommendations for writing scientific papers in the field of agronomy and rural development.

Author Response

Comments 1: First, although it is clearly shown that education increases knowledge and adoption of recommended practices, the paper does not provide a sufficiently in-depth analysis of why increased knowledge and behavioural change have not led to a reduction in disease incidence. It would be useful to elaborate in more detail on the barriers identified, such as the lack of healthy planting material and the presence of vectors, and to propose concrete strategies to overcome them. In this regard, it is recommended to broaden the discussion on the possibilities of improving the availability of healthy seedlings, including cooperation with local planting material multiplication centers, as well as the integration of new biotechnological or agrotechnical solutions, such as the application of salicylic acid for resistance induction, which has shown promise in recent research. Response 1: Thanks for the comment. We have, revised this part of the discussion to emphasize this point.   These changes can be found - pages 18 and 19, paragraphs 1 and 2, from line 733 to line 758. « This finding suggests that increased knowledge and behavioural change alone are not sufficient to achieve short-term reductions in CMD prevalence [….] and ensuring ongoing technical support and field monitoring to translate knowledge into effective disease control…» Comments 2: Second, although the methodology uses advanced statistical techniques (PSM, Tobit regression), the paper could be stronger if it included an assessment of statistical power (power analysis) to ensure that the sample is sufficient to detect the expected effects. It is also recommended to more clearly present all potential sources of bias and study limitations, as well as the ways in which they were addressed. Response 2: Thanks for the comment. We have, accordingly, added a power analysis, presented the potential source of bias, study limitations, and how they were addressed (both in the methodology and conclusion). In addition to testing multicollinearity among variables, we conducted a power analysis to address the relatively small sample size and ensure that it was sufficient to detect the expected effects. To further strengthen the robustness of the estimation obtained through Nearest Neighbour matching, we performed two additional robustness checks: radius matching with a caliper of 0.05 and a weighted regression. Moreover, we have explicitly acknowledged the limitations of the propensity score matching (PSM) approach in the conclusion, particularly the constraints it poses for causal inference. We also emphasized the need for future research to consider randomised approaches to reinforce causal claims. These changes can be found in Section 3.5.2 – page 8, paragraph 3, from line 329 to 339 « Prior to estimating the propensity scores, the multicollinearity using the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) was assessed […] To assess the robustness of our estimation, two alternative techniques were used: radius matching with a caliper of 0.05, and weighted regression using fweight ». Section 6; Page 20, paragraph 1, from line 785 to 794 « In this study, the data collected relied on farmers’ self-reports, which may be subject to recall or social desirability bias […] To strengthen causal inference in future evaluations, the use of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) should be considered, to reduce potential selection bias. Future research should also aim to assess the long-term effects of CMD management practice adoption on disease incidence, cassava yields, household income, and farmers’ overall well-being » Comments 3: Third, in the presentation of results and discussion, it would be useful to further compare the findings with similar studies from the region and beyond, in order to highlight the specificity of the local context, but also the generalizability of the conclusions. It is also recommended to more clearly separate the results and discussion and avoid repeating the same information in both segments. Response 3: Thank you for these valuable suggestions. In response, we have revised the entire discussion section. We removed certain result details to avoid redundancy and focused more clearly on the study’s main conclusions. We highlighted the specificity of the Ivorian context in comparison with other countries and discussed the extent to which the findings could be generalised. These changes can be found in sections 5 – From page 17 to 19, line 635 to 758 « The results indicate that training has a strong and positive impact on farmers' understanding of Cassava Mosaic Disease […] and ensuring ongoing technical support and field monitoring to translate knowledge into effective disease control » Comments 4: Fourth, it is recommended that the conclusions focus not only on the importance of education, but also on the need for an integrated approach that includes institutional support, availability of resources and continuous monitoring of the effects of interventions. Recommendations for practical policies and future research should be particularly emphasized, such as the development of local centers for the multiplication of healthy seedlings and testing of new methods of disease control. Response 4: Thanks for the comment. We have, accordingly revised the conclusion, and included your suggestions. Response 4: Thanks for the comment. We have, accordingly revised the conclusion, and included your suggestions. These changes can be found – pages 19 and 20, paragraph 1, lines 764 to 771 « Farmers who participated in the intervention showed significantly higher levels of knowledge about CMD, as well as a greater likelihood to adopt DMPs […] and above all, the accessibility and affordability of the promoted practices » Pages 19 and 20, paragraph 1, lines 778 to 785 « From a policy perspective, investing in farmer field schools, local innovation platforms, and community-based seed systems will be crucial to reduce virus transmission and enhance the long-term sustainability of disease management efforts »   Comments 5: Finally, it is recommended that the text be further refined in terms of language and style for clarity and conciseness, while avoiding unnecessary repetition and focusing on key findings and recommendations, in accordance with modern recommendations for writing scientific papers in the field of agronomy and rural development. Response 5: Thanks for the comments. The entire document was reviewed by two native English speakers, and the language has been improved accordingly. These changes can be found in the entire document, from the title to conclusion.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors!

Thank you for your submitted manuscript. The paper discusses the enhancing farmers' capacity for sustainable management of cassava mosaic disease in Côte d'Ivoire. The study performed evaluates the impact of the WAVE's training and awareness campaigns on farmers' knowledge of the disease and the management methods they have adopted. It was indicated that so-called mixed socio-agronomic data was collected from 290 farmers, and CMD epidemiological parameters were assessed in 82 fields.

First of all, it should be pointed out that the topic is important, in the journal's line.

The methods appear to have been chosen correctly. Data were analysed using Propensity Score Matching (PSM), followed by a Tobit regression model. Potential selection bias was eliminated, and then the use of CMD management practices was verified.

Please consider recommending the following actions to improve the quality of your study:

1. The literature review gives the impression of an aggregation of citations. However, it should have a purpose: to justify the scope of the study and to formulate hypotheses. But what is the reality? Is it really state of the art? I recommend an addendum (in section 1 or also in section 2).
2. The research problem is comprehensive. Has each of the identified ‘questions’ then been - in the form of a clear research scenario - verified? That is: is there an adequate answer to each research question posed by the authors? Please clarify. The scenario should be replicable also for the external researcher (reader). Is this clearly demonstrated in section 4?
3. Please remember that the formulated objectives (and research questions) - await a clear answer in the conclusion of the study. Here there should be full compatibility. Please complete it and also correct it. I also strongly suggest that recommendations for specific, practical, not only general applications of this research shall be provided (see section 5).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Finally, I recommend reviewing the correctness of the English language. It is worth formulating observations in simple, precise sentences. Where sentence structures are very complex, understanding becomes ambiguous, unclear. It is advisable to cooperate with a native speaker.

Author Response

Comments 1: The literature review gives the impression of an aggregation of citations. However, it should have a purpose: to justify the scope of the study and to formulate hypotheses. But what is the reality? Is it really state of the art? I recommend an addendum (in section 1 or also in section 2).

Response 1: Thank you for the comment. We have, accordingly revised this part of the introduction. We have revised the wording to better emphasize the scope of the study, its objectives, and the underlying hypothesis that guides this research.

These changes can be found – pages 2 and 3, paragraph 5 and 6, from lines 78 to 111

« In this regard, the existing literature highlights a consistent positive relationship between training, improved knowledge, and the adoption of CMD management practices. […] We hypothesised that farmers who participated in WAVE’s training and aware-ness-raising activities on cassava diseases would have better knowledge of CMD and adopt improved management practices, which would reduce the incidence of the dis-ease in their fields »

Comments 2: The research problem is comprehensive. Has each of the identified ‘questions’ then been - in the form of a clear research scenario - verified? That is: is there an adequate answer to each research question posed by the authors? Please clarify. The scenario should be replicable also for the external researcher (reader). Is this clearly demonstrated in section 4?

Response 2: We appreciate this comment. For more clarity, a new section has been created (3.5.3: Adoption intensity model). For each research question or objective, we adopted a methodological approach tailored to the specific analytical need:

• To analyse farmers’ level of knowledge of CMD and their adoption of DMP, we used descriptive and inferential statistics to describe farmers’ understanding of the disease and its management practices. Additionally, propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to estimate the impact of the intervention on both knowledge and adoption outcomes.
• To identify the factors influencing both adoption and intensity of adoption of DMP, a Tobit model to account for the censored nature of the adoption intensity variable.
• To assess the epidemiological parameters of CMD in the study areas, we collected field epidemiological data and performed correlation analyses (Wilcoxon, Fisher) to compare disease prevalence, severity, mode of spread, between training beneficiary zones and non-beneficiary zones.

To ensure clarity and coherence, the methodology section has been structured into subsections, each aligned with a specific objective. The results are presented in a manner that directly responds to each research question, with introductory and linking statements provided to guide the reader through the analysis.

These changes can be found in sections, 3.4; 3.5 – page 6 to 9, line 219 to 354

Section 4.2; page 11, paragraph 1, lines 442 and 443

« To address the first objective, this section examines farmers’ level of knowledge of CMD, as well as their adoption of DMPs »

Section 4.4; page 13, paragraph 1, line 510 to 512

« In line with the second objective, this section investigates the determinants of both the adoption and the intensity of adoption of DMPs. Farmers were first classified into different adoption categories based on the number of practices adopted »

Section 4.5; page 15, paragraph 1, line 603 to 606

« Consistent with the third objective, this section presents the key epidemiological features of CMD observed in the study areas. It focuses on disease incidence, severity, and mode of infection, helping to better understand how the disease spreads and manifests in farmers’ fields »

Comments 3: Please remember that the formulated objectives (and research questions) await a clear answer in the conclusion of the study. Here there should be full compatibility. Please complete it and also correct it. I also strongly suggest that recommendations for specific, practical, not only general applications of this research shall be provided (see section 5).

Response 3: Thank for you for these observations. Your suggestions have been considered. The conclusion has been revised, and each research objective is now clearly addressed in this section. In addition, we have provided specific and practical recommendations to support a more effective approach to CMD management in the study areas and in Côte d'Ivoire more broadly.

These changes can be found in section 6, – page 19 and 20, paragraph1, from line 761 to 774

« This study aimed to assess the impact of WAVE’s trainings and awareness campaigns on farmers' CMD knowledge and adoption of its management practices. In line with the research objectives, the results obtained demonstrate an overall positive effect […] Moreover, the epidemiological assessment of CMD in the surveyed areas showed no significant difference in disease incidence between the fields of trained and untrained farmers, despite the farmer’s higher levels of knowledge and reported adoption of practices »

Section 6, – page 19 and 20, paragraph1, from line 778 to 785

« From a policy perspective, investing in farmer field schools, local innovation platforms, and community-based seed systems will be crucial to bridge the gap between knowledge and practice […] to reduce virus transmission and enhance the long-term sustainability of disease management efforts »

Comments 4: Finally, I recommend reviewing the correctness of the English language. It is worth formulating observations in simple, precise sentences. Where sentence structures are very complex, understanding becomes ambiguous, unclear. It is advisable to cooperate with a native speaker.

Response 4: Thanks for the suggestion. The entire document was reviewed by two native English speakers, and the language has been improved accordingly.

These changes can be found in the entire document, from the title to conclusion.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a study on enhancing farmers' capacity for a sustainable management of cassava mosaic disease in Côte d'Ivoire.

Introduction: The authors presented in detail the background of the study supported by a significant number of references.

Description of the intervention and DMP advocated: The authors started this section of the paper with a description of the WAVE training method which is an important element of supporting farmers in their struggles with the CMD. IN my opinion there is no need to divide this section into subsection as the second one has only one paragraph.

Methodology:  The authors presented the case study area, sampling methodology. In the presentation of the sampling methodology there is a need to refer to the representativeness of the sample to the whole population of farmers growing cassava in the case study area and its representativeness of the whole population of cassava growers in Cote d’Ivoire.

In this section the data collection and the variables included in the study are also presented.

Results: The results are compelling and presented in detail. The authors divided this section of the paper into 5 subsections presenting the main themes of the study findings. The whole section is rich in tables and figures giving additional insights into the study results.

Discussion: This section is divided into 3 subsections summing up the issues presented in the paper. This section is based on the study findings.

Conclusions: This section clearly sums up the study. I suggest adding a paragraph on the study limitations and future study needs.

Author Response

Comments 1: Description of the intervention and DMP advocated: The authors started this section of the paper with a description of the WAVE training method which is an important element of supporting farmers in their struggles with the CMD. IN my opinion there is no need to divide this section into subsection as the second one has only one paragraph.

Response 1: Thank you for this suggestion. The two sections have been reduced in only one paragraph

These changes can be found in section 2.1 – pages 3 and 4, paragraph1, from line 114 to 141

Comments 2: Methodology:  The authors presented the case study area, sampling methodology. In the presentation of the sampling methodology there is a need to refer to the representativeness of the sample to the whole population of farmers growing cassava in the case study area and its representativeness of the whole population of cassava growers in Cote d’Ivoire.

Response 2: Thank you for this important observation. In Côte d’Ivoire in general, and particularly in the study areas, there is no official database available regarding the total number of cassava farmers. This presents a challenge in terms of formally assessing both internal and external representativeness based on population size.

To address this limitation, we relied on farmer lists compiled by the WAVE Center during training activities and worked closely with local agricultural officers and farmer associations to construct our sampling frame. Given that the intervention was implemented in three major cassava-producing regions of Côte d’Ivoire, we adopted three criteria to ensure the representativeness of the sample:

1. Geographical coverage: inclusion of the three intervention regions.
2. Proportional allocation: distribution of farmer respondents across departments based on the number of farmers listed during the WAVE training sessions.
3. Sociodemographic diversity: consideration of key characteristics of cassava farmers (e.g., gender, age, farm size).

We have revised the methodology section to clarify this approach and to better explain how representativeness, within the study area and more broadly, was considered, despite the absence of official national data.

These changes can be found in section 3.2 – page 5, paragraph 1, lines to 196 to 198

« Efforts were made to ensure diversity in the geographic and socioeconomic characteristics of farmers, enhancing the internal validity of comparisons and supporting the generalisability of findings to similar rural contexts »

Comments 3: Conclusions: This section clearly sums up the study. I suggest adding a paragraph on the study limitations and future study needs.

Response 3: Thank you for this recommendation. We have accordingly revised the conclusion and added the study limitations and future study needs.

These changes can be found in section 6 (conclusion) – pages 19 and 20, paragraph 1, from line 785 to 794

« In this study, the data collected relied on farmers’ self-reports, which may be subject to recall or social desirability bias. Moreover, […] To strengthen causal inference in future evaluations, the use of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) should be considered, to reduce potential selection bias. Future research should also aim to assess the long-term effects of CMD management practice adoption on disease incidence, cassava yields, household income, and farmers’ overall well-being »

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Greetings,
The authors have revised the paper in accordance with the reviewers' requests. The paper should now be accepted.

Author Response

Well received,