Farmers’ Knowledge, Perceptions, and Management Practices of False Codling Moth (Thaumatotibia leucotreta) in Smallholder Capsicum sp. Cropping Systems in Kenya

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled: “Farmers’ knowledge, perceptions, and management practices of false codling moth (Thaumatotibia leucotreta) in smallholder Capsicum cropping systems in Kenya” was very well conducted and presented; however, this is an extension work, where the authors, through sample interviews and various analyses, concluded that the False Codling Moth (FCM) Thaumatotibia leucotreta Meyrick (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) is a limiting factor in pepper production in Kenya. They observed that most farmers could identify the FCM pest in their crops as a caterpillar based on its damage. However, a large number of farmers are unable to identify adult moths. They found that small farmers need to develop management strategies that are sustainable and accessible through resources, such as intercropping. They noted the urgent need to educate farmers and train pest control experts on the options available to monitor pests using light traps and pheromones, and also on the safe use of chemical pesticides, including the use of protective equipment and the biological control method. They concluded that the adoption of more sustainable measures is still little adopted by farmers.

The text and conclusion reinforce that this is an excellent extension work whose information is very important to show and sensitize political-administrative managers in Kenya to direct financial resources towards training professionals to be able to detect and monitor this pest and adopt management measures that can contribute to achieving a more sustainable production system that is less dependent on the use of synthetic pesticides. Therefore, it is recommended that authors submit this important work to national journals.

Author Response

The text and conclusion reinforce that this is an excellent extension work whose information is very important to show and sensitize political administrative managers in Kenya to direct financial resources towrds training professionals to be able to detect and monitor this pest and adopt management measures that can contribute to achieving a more sustainable production system that is less dependent on the use of synthetic pesticides. Therefore, it is recommended that authors dsubmit this important work to national journals.

Response 1: Thank for the comments which highlight the importance of this work. While we agree this work has important information to sensitize political-administrative managers in Kenya to direct financial resources towards training professionals to be able to detect and monitor this pest and adopt sustainable managemnt measures, we are of the opinion that this pest being a major threat to international trade, such information will be useful to other countires and regions including those within the East African block and share same production practices, climatic conditions like Kenya and are already affected by this pest. Publishing the information in an international journal with wider access like Horticulturae will enhance information dissemination to a wide readership.

Reviewer 2 Report

See attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for the great comments geared towards improving the manuscript. We have addressed all the comments to the best of our ability. We are ready for any further adjustments should there be a need. We attach a manuscript with track changes and a clean copy.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript reports a survey among Capsicum farmers in Kenya about their knowledge on an important insect pest, the false codling moth Traumatotibia leucotreta, which has caused severe depreciation of the capsicum fruits in the EU market. The study was well designed, the methodology is suitable for the study and the subject is relevant. In my opinion, understanding the different levels of knowledge among farmers is crucial to develop and establish public policies. I suggest that the manuscript be accepted with minor alterations, especially the conclusions that were drawn by the authors in the end of the text.

First, I suggest shortening the introduction, which is too long and with unnecessary information. For example, the information about the inclusion of FCM to the EPPO alert list (lines 74-91) can be shortened to a single sentence. This level of details is not necessary. Similarly there is too much and unnecessary information when mentioning the crop value (lines 109-123), the management strategies (lines 124-159), the mode of action of insecticides (lines 128-134), etc.

In the M&M section, the subsections are also too long. For example, the subsection Data collection is overly detailed.

Please delete the sentence “to check possibilities of any significant differences” (line 284). 

Please delete lines 313-315, it looks like this came from the “instructions for authors”.

What do you mean by “agroecologies”? Are those farms conducted following the agroecology principles, that is, without using chemical pesticides and fertilizers?

Figure 1: is this the map of Kenya? Please make sure to identify it in the title.

What do you mean with this sentence? “Only farmers who accepted to participate in the study voluntarily were interviewed”? Would there be an option to participate against their will? Please delete this sentence.

The entire text needs to be reviewed for English grammar and spelling. For example:

“in the lowlands and low midlands zone” (line 323)

“A larger proportion of land lessees…” (line 340)

“US$ 2,782 per acre inclusive of irrigation” (line 341)

“early excessive fruit drop” (lines 408-409)

“they reported that this was not effective in managing the pest and it was costly which reduced their profit margins” (lines 588-589)

Please decide whether to use brinjals or eggplants for Solanum melongena.

Please use short sentences.

It is not necessary to list all the pesticides that Kenyan producers illegally purchase from Tanzania (lines 592-606). Among the cited insecticides, which ones have been banned or restricted in Tanzania?

Replace “pest numbers” by “insect populations” (lines 419-420)

“was not influenced by geographical location of farmer, gender” (lines 430-431): Do you mean location of the farm and farmer gender?

Tables 3, 4 and 5 are out of format, so it´s hard to understand their information. Also, I suggest that some of these results be presented as graphs, for better visualization.

Start your Discussion section with the most relevant information, which is the farmer’s levels of knowledge about the insect pest this study is focused on.

The results showed that women are more likely to adopt IPM technology. However, the conclusion may not be that the number of women involved in horticulture should be increased, so that IPM techniques would be applied (lines 662-664). On the contrary, from the data obtained, the authors should suggest actions to improve the overall knowledge of both men and women on the good practices of pest management.

In the Conclusion section, please do not repeat the results. Those sentences in lines 667-678 should be presented in the Results or Discussion sections. What are the conclusions the authors take from these results? What are the policies or actions that should be recommended from  the results?

Still, in lines 667-668, the authors say that “the results of the current study indicate that FCM is a key limiting factor in Capsicum production in Kenya”. However, this was not the object of the present study and although this conclusion is true (from other sources of information), the present results do not support this conclusion.

Author Response

Thank you for the great comments. We have addressed them which have greatly improved the manuscript. We attach a copy of the revised manuscript with track changes and a clean copy. We are open for further suggestions which will improve the readability of our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors made the requested corrections.

However, they must replace Capsicun throughout the text with Capsicun sp. They must check and correct the scientific names in the text and references as well.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for the opportunity to further improve our manuscript as per reviewers' comments and suggestions. We have addressed the comments raised by the reviewer as outlined below.

Reviewer 1

Ln 3 Capsicum sp. Remember that Capsicum is genus. Therefore, Capsicum sp. Must be mentioned throughout the text. Check and correct the entire text.

Response 1: Thank you for this observation. We have checked and made corrections to Capsicum sp. throughout the manuscript especially in the following lines which were highlighted in the reviewer’s comments: 23,24,49,116,118,119,123,130,131,132, 141, 207, 220, 235, 237, 241, 254, 260, 279, 302, 304, 316, 322, 325, 357, 373, 376, 378, 412, 542, 577, 637, 670, 674, 679, 698, 699, 701, 703, 705, 754, 789, 790, 792, 795, 829, 834, 857, 871, and 874.

Ln 606 Citrus limon

Response 2: Thank you for this observation. We italiced Citrus limon in the revised manuscript.

Ln 905 check all scientific names. They must be in italics. Rembmer that the genus must be captilaized and the species in lowercase. Check and correct.

Response 3: Thank you for this comment. We have gone through the references and made all corrections in the revised manuscript as suggested.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf