Impact of CS-IPM on Key Social Welfare Aspects of Smallholder Farmers’ Livelihoods

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

I appreciate the effort of the authors to improve the material, taking into account the previous recommendations. I find that the changes have added value to the original material.

Congratulations.

Author Response

The reviewer acknowledged that we had addressed all their earlier comments

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Re: Impact of Climate-Smart IPM Practices on Key Social Welfare Aspects of Smallholder Farmers’ Livelihoods

Abstract: the abstract is good. However, it is unclear if the review was streamlined to literature in Sub-Saharan African countries, or developing countries around the world? Kindly address this.

Answer

We contribute to this body of literature in this paper by reviewing various empirical evidence that analyzes the impact of respective CS–IPM practices on key social welfare aspects of smallholder farm households in developing countries around the world.

Background: The first sentence should be written in futuristic tense, since you’re referring to the anticipated population by 2050.

Answer

The survival of the world’s which will nearly reach 10 billion people by 2050 depends on agriculture [1,2].

Lines 49 – 51: why should food production be a source of enhanced social welfare for smallholder farmers?

Answer

Therefore, in order to improve livelihoods scientists believe that agriculture practiced in a sustainable manner can ensure global food systems sustainably [1,3,4]. Other scholars [5–7] argued that, sustainable food production implies involves producing food in a way that minimizes environmental harm while maximizing social and economic benefits and improved welfare of Smallholder farmers’ livelihoods. Smallholder farmers are often at the forefront of improvement of food production stake. However, they face a range of issues, including limited access to resources, lack of appropriate practices to be used to handle climate change concerns and pest management challenges, which are detrimental to the ecosystem [8]. These challenges leading to more frequent and severe weather events, such as droughts, floods and storms. These events may have a significant impact on crop yields and the livelihoods of smallholder farmers. In addition to the direct impacts of climate change on food production systems, invasive pests, diseases, and weeds are wreaking havoc on many agricultural regions throughout the world [9]. This has highly cause damage to their welfare by affecting farm’s (crop and livestock) yields and limiting the quality and quantity of diet produced and lifting down food system, mainly in developing countries [8,10–12].

Lines 53 – 54: You cannot have CS twice in one sentence, especially when it can be avoided, which is clearly the case here.

Answer

Hence, these practices, appear to be an unavoidable alternative and useful to curb the adverse impact of the global climate change, which has severely depleted the food resources of nearly 500 million smallholder farmers, mostly from sub-Sahara Africa (SSA), and in other developing countries [15,19,20]. Evidence show that, implementing these CS–IPM practices can help preserve soil health, reduce water use, conserve resources and promote diversity in the agricultural landscape, minimize synthetic input such as fertilizers and pesticides, and reduce tillage

Line 55: Kindly spell in full before using the acronym IPM.

Answer

Climate-smart Integrating Pest management

Lines 55 – 57: similar to my earlier comment regarding lines 49 – 51, here you have made a statement that clarity was not provided in the next sentence. You stated ‘a number of CS-IPM agricultural practices can be adopted to achieve sustainable food systems’, the next sentence needs to provide a brief explanation of the types of CS-IPM practices. When writing, always put the readers at the back of your mind as they may not be familiar with the topic like you are.

Answer

Literally, to achieving sustainable food systems [10,13–16], some practices have been considered by Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO-UN) as Climate-smart Integrating Pest management (CS-IPM) practices in agriculture [17]. They Include crop rotation, live barriers with hedgerows, conservation tillage with mulch; contour ditches, crop rotation, heat and water stress, pest- and disease-tolerant variety, water reservoirs/ponds with drip irrigation, insect avoidance, and establishing natural barriers, boost both the soil's ability to store organic carbon, agroforestry and organic farming [18]. Hence, these practices, appear to be an unavoidable alternative and useful to curb the adverse impact of the global climate change, which has severely depleted the food resources of nearly 500 million smallholder farmers, mostly from sub-Sahara Africa (SSA), and in other developing countries [15,19,20].

Lines 62 – 63: The statement that smallholder farmers in SSA make massive use of pesticides may be contentious (maybe a few in some countries, but this does not cut across the board). They hardly make enough money to get by and fend for their families; so to say they make massive use of pesticides is highly debatable. They may rely on local and indigenous knowledge to address the problem.

Answer

In addition to the direct impacts of climate change on food production systems, invasive pests, diseases, and weeds are wreaking havoc on many agricultural regions throughout the world [9]. This has highly cause damage to their welfare by affecting farm’s (crop and livestock) yields and limiting the quality and quantity of diet produced and lifting down food system, mainly in developing countries [8,10–12].

.

Line 63: You cannot refer to the use of pesticide as wide and wasteful. Kindly rephrase.

Answer

These challenges leading to more frequent and severe weather events, such as droughts, floods and storms. These events may have a significant impact on crop yields and the livelihoods of smallholder farmers. In addition to the direct impacts of climate change on food production systems, invasive pests, diseases, and weeds are wreaking havoc on many agricultural regions throughout the world [9]. This has highly cause damage to their welfare by affecting farm’s (crop and livestock) yields and limiting the quality and quantity of diet produced and lifting down food system, mainly in developing countries [8,10–12].

Lines 69 – 70: The statement does not read well. Kindly rephrase.

Answer

These practices can enhance smallholder’s production capacity, which may allow them to consume and sell at the local market [82]. This can improve food security, enhance social welfare by reducing poverty by improving the standard of living, creating jobs and contributing to a range of positive environmental outcomes [12,26] and lead to enhanced social welfare by promoting a healthier and more sustainable food system. The results revealed also that, CS-IPM procedures also have the potential to improve resilience and coping mechanisms of food production through monitoring and effective management of greenhouse gas emissions which can help to address the impact of Climate Change on agriculture and the environment [10,18].

Lines 71 – 74: Which CS-IPM practices are you referring to?

Answer

They Include crop rotation, live barriers with hedgerows, conservation tillage with mulch; contour ditches, crop rotation, heat and water stress, pest- and disease-tolerant variety, water reservoirs/ponds with drip irrigation, insect avoidance, and establishing natural barriers, boost both the soil's ability to store organic carbon, agroforestry and organic farming [18].

The statement on lines 80 – 82 is repetition. Kindly delete.

Answer

Done; the statement was deleted.See file in attached

Lines 85 – 88: The authors started the statement by saying, one of the basic visions of the SDGs, yet the statement listed three visions. Please correct.

Answer

Currently, the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations is a universal call to action (UN-SDGs) by uplifting livelihoods through food security and poverty eradication and ensuring sustainable economic growth and livelihoods as well as preservation of the environment [21].

The paper needs to be reviewed and edited by someone knowledgeable in the field. Just the introduction and I have spotted numerous errors, some of which I have highlighted. This makes the manuscript not to be a pleasurable read. At this time, I need to reject the paper.

Answer

Reviews and editions done, see file in attached

Lines 88 – 91: Highly contentious statement. The goal of the SDG mandate is to provide its target, aimed at making the world a better place. The SDGs did not provide guidance on how to achieve the various goals. It is not its objective. Please delete the statement.

Answer

Statement deleted, see file in attached

I do not see why the authors have provided a lengthy definition of welfare. One or two sentences in the introduction will suffice.

Answer

The paper gives a broad definition of welfare, first to understand the concept of welfare itself and then to show the impact of CS-IPM on key social aspects of smallholder farmers' livelihoods.

Kindly correct the numbering for 1.1.2. Also, that sub-heading is quite lengthy. Kindly revise.

Answer

The numbering was corrected and editions done, see file in attached

The first sentence in section 1.1.2. is crying out for grammatical correction. Not just this aspect, but going through the paper, it needs to be language edited.

Answer

CS-IPM practices can have several other positive direct and indirect effects on other basic welfare needs like nutrition, household incomes, gender roles, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) [22,23] . Such evidence are however scantly documented. In addition, one of the most pressing issues persisting in climate change and integrating pest management in body of literature is the gap between climate-smart integrated pest management, and key social welfare aspects of farmer’s livelihoods [3,8,24].

Figure 1: It is unclear how the top aspect of the infographic is connected to the bottom aspect.

Answer

Climate change is already having significant direct and indirect impacts on agriculture, including the proliferation of crop pests, pathogenic and animal species, and biotype that are harmful to plant products. Up to 40% of all food, pests in the world currently put supply at risk, and reducing pest impact is more important than ever for guaranteeing global food security and lowering greenhouse gas emissions and decreased input application as well [3,6] . To alleviate climate change impacts on agriculture, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations introduced the idea of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) in 2009 to highlight the connections between achieving food security and combating disease effect of climate change in agricultural [26,33] by emphasis the necessity of Climate Smart Integrating Pest Management (IPM) approach. CS-IPM is a multi-sectoral strategy aimed at reducing crop losses caused by pests, improving ecosystem services, reducing the level of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of food produced and enhancing the resilience and household’s welfare. For CS-IPM to be effective [3,6,22,25,34–36] proposed that it should not be considered as a stand-alone strategy but rather as an essential component of a broader climate-smart agriculture (CSA) initiative.

Lines 192 – 195: The organisation of the paper should be the last sentence in the introduction. Kindly correct.

Answer

Correct, thanks for the observation. See file in attached.

2.1. Change review methodology to methodology.

Answer

Correct, thanks for the observation. See file in attached.

Issues with the review process: For any scientific literature to be taken seriously, you cannot rely on Google Scholar alone and neglect WoS. Some reviewers may pardon neglecting Scopus, but not WoS.

Answer

The search was based on employing electronic databases, notably Web of Science (WoS), Google Scholar (GS), and Scopus tribute counts, to gather and locate published material pertinent to the topic. Therefore, in this study, Google scholar was the major database used for such an expansive search, because it contains a lot of updated work that is reflective of the research done in the recent past not going beyond the year 1999.Then Wos and Scopus. GS enabled the search team to access and study several empirical studies on the impact of CS – IPM on the key social welfare aspects. According to the study of [49], there is no recent or systematic data on the variations among Google Scholar (GS), Web of Science (WoS), and Scopus tribute counts, despite the fact that researchers frequently check them and occasionally use them in study evaluations. In response, the project of [22] checks highly English citations in GS, comparing GS, WoS Core Collection, and Scopus. GS consistently found the highest percentage of citations in all subject areas (96%), far ahead of Scopus (77%) and WoS (73%). In addition, Wos and Scopus provide various research metrics such as h-index, impact factor and citation counts [50,50,51]. The latter two databases offer the largest and most complete citation currently available, containing a huge array of academic literature from different sources that include pest management approaches.

Also, saying you imputed the various keywords and Google Scholar produced less than 200 literature when you did not use the advance search is questionable. By default, Google Scholar will produce over 10, 000 literature upon entering the keywords, regardless of the topic, albeit most of these may be irrelevant. Then you need to state the strategy you used i.e. maybe by saying I skimmed through the first 50 articles because after the first 30, the rest were irrelevant. You have to be detailed in your description.

Answer

The identification process of relevant articles was based on searching relevant key words, titles, and phrases like; “social welfare”, “impact of CS – IPM”, “small holder farmer households”, “food security”, “nutrition”, “household income”, and other closely related terms. Therefore, by skimming through the first 50 articles since after the first 30, the rest were irrelevant. The results of the search provide 158 (95 from google search in google scholar and 63 from other internet search; WoS and Scopus) relevant articles. Out of which, 61 articles were selected using the criteria of thoroughly reviewing all possible original studies that empirically had sound and comprehensive focus on CS – IPM impact on the social welfare of smallholder farmer households. In order to understand the influence that various CS-IPMs have on the many basic social welfare characteristics of smallholder farmer households, this study gathered variables. This methodology has also been widely used in recent empirical meta-analysis review studies [22,47,48,52,53]. In figure 2 below, we diagrammatically elaborate the reviewed relevant studies and the final selection of the 61 articles considered for this review. Result from these relevant articles are presenting and discussing in section 4.

Lines 211 – 212: This is written as though Web of Science and Google Scholar is the same database, which is not. The first sentence mentioned Web of Science, then the second sentence starts by saying hence, Google Scholar…

Answer

The search was based on employing electronic databases, notably Web of Science (WoS), Google Scholar (GS), and Scopus tribute counts, to gather and locate published material pertinent to the topic. Therefore, in this study, Google scholar was the major database used for such an expansive search, because it contains a lot of updated work that is reflective of the research done in the recent past not going beyond the year 1999.Then Wos and Scopus. GS enabled the search team to access and study several empirical studies on the impact of CS – IPM on the key social welfare aspects. According to the study of [49], there is no recent or systematic data on the variations among Google Scholar (GS), Web of Science (WoS), and Scopus tribute counts, despite the fact that researchers frequently check them and occasionally use them in study evaluations. In response, the project of [22] checks highly English citations in GS, comparing GS, WoS Core Collection, and Scopus. GS consistently found the highest percentage of citations in all subject areas (96%), far ahead of Scopus (77%) and WoS (73%). In addition, Wos and Scopus provide various research metrics such as h-index, impact factor and citation counts [50,50,51]. The latter two databases offer the largest and most complete citation currently available, containing a huge array of academic literature from different sources that include pest management approaches.

In figure 2, you said you used Google search, while the preceding text says Google Scholar. Kindly correct. Also, section 2.2 did not mention anything about the other internet search, but figure 2 did.

Answer

Therefore, by skimming through the first 50 articles since after the first 30, the rest were irrelevant. The results of the search provide 158 (95 from google search in google scholar and 63 from other internet search; WoS and Scopus) relevant articles. Out of which, 61 articles were selected using the criteria of thoroughly reviewing all possible original studies that empirically had sound and comprehensive focus on CS – IPM impact on the social welfare of smallholder farmer households.

Issues with the results

When you conducted the literature review, it is expected that themes were generated. However, you wrote the results as one theme. You need to present this section based on the themes i.e. using sub-headings that aligns with the objective of the paper.

4. Results on the impact of CS–IPM practices on key small holder households’ social welfare aspects

One of the crucial paths to enhancing the wellbeing of smallholder farming communities, especially in developing nations, is through the adoption of CS-IPM [54]. This is because CS-IPM do help farmers to meet their increasingly growing demand for food via improved agricultural productivity, thus attaining food security, economic development and poverty reduction [14,53,55]. CS–IPM practices help conserve the natural capital especially land more so the soil organic matter [14,56]. This also translates into higher soil fertility and structure, which will enhance plant nutrition, boost water retention, and improve soil structure. In theory, this will increase yields and strengthen the food system, improving food security and the welfare of small farmers [1,52]. The results of this study are presented by sub-themes to provide a better understanding on the research outcomes.

• CS–IPM Knowledge pest preventions and water management practices impact on key smallholder households’ social welfare aspects

The sharp fall in the oil prices the world over, rendered oil producing countries like Trinidad and Tobago vulnerable to economic shocks. Therefore, the alternative turned out to be agriculture tailored with the use of CS–IPM practices to ensure productivity as well as aligning with changes in the climate. Indeed Bissessar et al. [57] has described the Caribbean region as one whose food security and nutrition is devastatingly affected by climate change, citing the region’s use of outdated methods of food production among others for a long period of time. Many farmers and field officers received extensive training in sustainable CS-IPM to support and ensure that wholesome and nutrient-dense food is produced and made available to customers. These trainings promoted non-chemical pest control, reduced the use of conventional farming methods and chemical fertilizers, and adopted other sustainable practices on the farm [32,58] . These CS-IPM initiatives together with farmers’ indigenous knowledge help bring benefits to the agricultural sector, and improve agronomic practices, that lead to reduced crop losses, and increased yields.

Additionally, it was found that, the majority of farmers in west Africa and Irak [32] employ the contour stone bunds technique on their fields to prevent runoffs and erosion [14]. The scaling up and extending of this CS-IPM practice among farmers, coupled with biological measures, and use of organic fertilizers and mulching, optimized water and nutrients use in plants thus boosting crop production and inducing economic benefits for the poor resource smallholder farmers [59,60]. Bunds also aid in the growth of vegetation because they trap grass and shrub seeds, preserving plant diversification and increasing the food and wood fuel available to smallholder farmers. The bunds have indeed in countries like Niger and the Central plateau of Burkina Faso not only helped to increase yields for cereals like sorghum, but have also [61] fostered the increase of ground water levels that have helped farmers start growing vegetables, on small plots nearer to water sources like wells – leading to improvement in both their incomes and diversified diets [54], while as well reducing GHG emissions [4,32].

According to Liboster’s assessment of the gendered perspective of changes in pest prevalence and management in Zimbabwe, farmers' perceptions of these changes vary by gender [61]. Gender perception on change in prevalence of pests can be a valuable resource for the sustainable development of smallholder irrigation farming system and scientific research [9]. Therefore, CS–IPM practices in Zimbabwe have been found to register both direct gains in improved crop and livestock productivity and reduced total variable costs [62], as well as indirect gains in improved food security through the increased availability of staple crops at household level and in markets [63], and increased household income [64] and increased demand for farm labor, which brings about better wages for smallholder farmers [83].

• CS–IPM Modifying habitat management crop diversification and rotation practices affect key smallholder households’ social welfare aspects

To constraint FAW pests and stem borers, smallholder farmers in Rwanda and other sub-Saharan African nations like Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia and Zimbabwe have utilized numerous techniques [61,61,65,66]. These include handpicking, using plant extracts, combining soil, ash, and sawdust with pepper, intercropping, and spraying pesticides. The continued use of pesticides has led to pest resistances and has negative effects on humans, animals and the environment. Striga, stem borer, and fall armyworm are just a few examples of the parasite pests and weeds that have severely restricted Kenya's ability to produce maize. The government of Kenya and its partners have developed, disseminated, and promoted the continual uptake of integrated pest management technologies such as Push-Pull technology (PPT) as a way of addressing these constraints. Results revealed that continual uptake of PPT both in Kenya and Rwanda had a positive and significant effect on household consumption expenditure and household dietary diversity, with a negative impact on poverty [62,65,67]. The International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology in Kenya, has largely promoted PPT as an integrated pest and weed management technology with the aim of reducing maize and sorghum yield losses due to stem borers, fall armyworm, and parasitic Striga weed infestations [7,24,68]. Additionally, the technique minimizes the use of agrochemicals, boosts soil fertility and moisture, enhances livestock feed, and lowers production costs, all of which enhance the livelihoods of small-scale farmers both locally and nationally. The push that desmodium uses to ward off stem borers, fall armyworms, and stop Striga attacks is the mechanism at work [22]. The pull is where autumn armyworms and stem borers are drawn to and killed by napier grass. Hence, Desmodium and napier grass became additional sources of income and feed [46,53].

• CS–IPM put in place developing climate responsive national extensive system, no chemical technic and resistant plant varieties impact on key small holder households’ social welfare aspects

Agriculture and investment policies have ensured adoption of appropriate CS-IPM practices in some African societies, such as the Yatenga of Burkina Faso, Northern Cameroon, and the Nile Delta of Egypt. In the short term, this has reduced food insecurity and poverty for smallholder households, and over the long term, it has considerably lessened the impact of climate change to food security [45,69–71]. Amongst the Coastal rice farmers in Southern Bangladesh, adoption of CS–IPM practices like saline-tolerant and flood-tolerant crop varieties, pond-side vegetable cultivation and rainwater harvesting for irrigation were found to so much improve household food security [1,14,56]. By raising farm productivity, lowering the danger of pests and diseases, and employing stress-tolerant varieties in particular, CS-IPM methods are leading the charge in Uganda to combat poverty, which is being hastened by climate change [46,69]. More specifically, in Northern Uganda stress-tolerant varieties of cereals have been observed to reduce the cost of production and lower the economic risk of investing in agriculture [32,71]. The adoption of stress-tolerant varieties and crops as CS-IPM technologies in SSA nations is thus seen as a means of enhancing farm households' welfare, with a focus on raising farm output at the household level [4,23,72]. From such increased farm yield and productivity, CS-IPM practices’ adopting households gain sustainable improvements in nutrition [73,74]. Indeed, increased productivity boosts household food supply for both domestic consumption and commercial purposes, thus ensuring sustainable increases in food production which consequently increases stability in food supplies and family incomes, hence reducing food and financial poverty among farming communities [30].

In Zimbabwe, evidence from Mujeyi et al. [30] and Radeny et al. [75] show that cooperation between ministries and extension organizations has led to intensified use of CS-IPM practices, including the use of drought-tolerant (stress) maize varieties. These varieties contributed to increased maize harvests among adopters, and reduced exposure to negative risks [76]. Also, the results from [54] study indicate that the perceived benefits of PPT adoption, and its effectiveness in pest management, was strong in Rwanda farmers according to their farmers association group participation and their gender. These findings provide a strong rational for advising that development initiatives should prioritize improving knowledge about the presumed benefits of TPP adoption through gender-disaggregated group processes [8].The adoption of IPM is severely hampered by farmers' views against pesticides, according to a study [20] on gender and pest management uptake among smallholder coffee farmers in Uganda. The study looked at the relationship between gender and pest management uptake. Farmers believed that using pesticides made pest management easier, increased yields among farmers according to their gender were produced, and high-quality coffee was more enticing to consumers.

Also, I always advise that it is safer to have a separate discussion section, so that your readers can easily see what the highlight of the paper is. Please do this.

Answer

Discussions

According to [68] while adoption of drought-tolerant crops, for instance, was found to have a positive and significant impact on household income in the Nyando basin of western Kenya, Ogada et al. [68] claim that a change in household income led to an increase in asset units, so adoption of drought-tolerant crops was seen to increase household income by 83%. In fact, it has been shown that CS-IPM technologies and practices, particularly the use of organic manure, mulching, and crop rotation, which are comparatively inexpensive to adopt, are widely accepted and effective strategies to escape poverty, especially when correctly targeted [9,52,65,71]. Some cases rely heavily on crop production as a source of income, necessitating the use of crops that are resilient to climatic hazards. This illustrate that, there are some situations where households are more likely to be food secure and be able to supplement their dietary needs if there are such things as better educational level, farming as a major occupation, a larger pond size, more cattle, higher household income, smaller family size, and less difficulty with access to markets, among others [77].

It was found that, mproved food security for households, decreased GHG emissions, wealth accumulation, and income sources [78,79] play a significant role on stallholders livelihood. In the same way, the data from Nyando basin of Western Kenya showed that using resilient livestock breeds proved effective in reducing food insufficiency among households [68]. The fact that while implementing CS-IPM practices, farmers do diversify crop production, such improves and increases the number of food varieties available to households, thereby enhancing household dietary diversity [77]. Similar to this, tolerant cattle breeds increase animal production and produce food like milk, eggs, and meat that directly affects human nutrition [53,72,80]. It is also crucial to remember that households may sell extra farm products from these tolerant crop types and livestock breeds in order to pay for food that isn't grown on-site. [54] asserted that CS–IPM practices’ adoption also helped not only to reduce poverty among smallholder households in countries like Pakistan, but also aided to check on poverty severity and improved household food and nutrition security sustainably. Therefore, CS-IPM practices helped to boost farm productivity and household incomes [4,81]. Additionally, CS-IPM practices through improved food and nutrition security, do reduce malnutrition and associated diseases thus promoting human health especially among the vulnerable groups of the population for instance, children, youth and women [16,30]. Also, because while women produce more than half of the food grown worldwide, they produce 20%–30% less yield than males, due to, among other factors, reduced access to agricultural information and inputs. Therefore, gender-responsive planning is a critical pillar for the success of CSPM [1]. Hence, the IPM practices can be a source of income in food production for smallholder farmers; enabling them to support themselves and their families [25]. These practices can enhance smallholder’s production capacity, which may allow them to consume and sell at the local market [82]. This can improve food security, enhance social welfare by reducing poverty by improving the standard of living, creating jobs and contributing to a range of positive environmental outcomes [12,26] and lead to enhanced social welfare by promoting a healthier and more sustainable food system. The results revealed also that, CS-IPM procedures also have the potential to improve resilience and coping mechanisms of food production through monitoring and effective management of greenhouse gas emissions which can help to address the impact of Climate Change on agriculture and the environment [10,18].

Table 1 bellow presents some key reviews on the impact CS-IPM practices. 61 articles were taken into consideration, as stated in the methods section, for the extraction of the data shown in section 3 of the results and discussions. Under this latter section, we single out key articles for the readers that outstandingly documented the impact of CS-IPM practices on strategic welfare aspects of households for instance food security, nutrition, household incomes and poverty reduction among others. We present these key reviews in Table 1.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I received for review a manuscript with the title Impact of CS-IPM on Key Social Welfare Aspects of Smallholder Farmers' Livelihoods which, unfortunately, presents a series of serious deviations that make it impossible to accept, in this form, for publication in this journal. These aspects are

1. The material appears to be a Review (as the authors mention in the Conclusions chapter), but it is classified as an Article.

2. The material appears to be a draft. Appearance highlighted by

- the bibliographic references in the text disagree with the bibliography, see as an example the differences in numbering starting with L108.

- the erroneous numbering of subchapters L137

- unfinished sentences, L174

- many drafting errors, for example the lack of spaces before the references in the text, the lack of punctuation marks or their duplication (L400, 408......).

- it is not clear which is section 3.1 and 3.2, as mentioned in L442

3. Figure no. 1 is identical to the figure published in https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10340-019-01083-y

4. The content of the work does not agree with the title of the work. In chapter 3. Results and discussions the impact of CS–IPM practices on key households' social welfare aspects, the authors present information exclusively from African countries.

5. Limitations of the study are not presented

6. The degree of novelty of the conducted research and the comparison with other published scientific works are not presented.

The bibliography is not prepared in accordance with the requirements of the journal.

Reviewer 2 Report

In my first review of the paper, one of the major issues I identified was that even though the authors consistently write that they want to examine and discuss climate-smart integrated pest management (CS-IPM) practices, the papers they cite and the practices they discuss are in fact only climate-smart practices. This issue has not been addressed in the revision at all. The results section starts with the discussion of small-scale irrigation, then the adoption of saline and flood tolerant varieties is mentioned, followed by pond-side vegetable cultivation and rainwater harvesting, etc. Not a single practice explicitly geared towards pest management is discussed. The title and the phrasing of the research questions is thus misleading. And if the authors change towards a review of climate-smart practices, they should be aware that quite a number of good ones have been published already; here are just three recent ones:

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/18/11370

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/4/2317

https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/7/11/132

As long as this major issue is not addressed, I cannot recommend a publication of the paper.

I was also disappointed overall with the responses to my comments. It almost seems as if the authors mostly just copied random citations beneath the comments and did not answer my concerns at all.

Reviewer 3 Report

The text has been carefully revised and is now ready for publication.