Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reject: this review is incomplete - totally ignores the 5-year AWPM program conducted over several states in the 1997-2005 timeframe, by the USDA to control root worms!  Plus. this review is complicated to follow and mainly just word salad without any real understandable explanations!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comment R1.1

Comment. “delete” an”, delete “of”, delete “the”, delete “an””

Response. Thank you for this point. We deleted them.”

Change in manuscript. p. 1, line 14; p. 2, lines 91 and p. 10, line 392

Comment R1.2

Comment. “with,” “insert which”

Response. Thank you for this point. We changed “while” to “with.” We added “which.”

Change in manuscript. p. 4, line 122 and p. 4, line 123

Comment R1.3

Comment. “delete” e.g., “

Response. We deleted “e.g”

Change in manuscript. p. 5, line 191

Comment R1.4

Comment. “These aren’t ‘parties.’ What are the parties?”

Response. Thank you for this point. We now specify the actors involved and replace “parties” with “stakeholders.”

Change in manuscript. p. 5, lines 196–199: “Pooling resources—such as funding, expertise, and equipment—from various stakeholders (including growers, local governments, extension services, research institutions, pest-control companies, and community groups) enhances pest-control plans while reducing costs”.

Comment R1.5

Comment. “to initiate”

Response. We replaced the word “incentivization.”

Change in manuscript. p. 9, line 356: “to initiate biodiversity.”

Comment R1.6

Comment. “???? on ‘carbon sequestration.’”

Response. We clarified that we refer to climate-regulating services and specified the mechanism (carbon storage in soils).

Change in manuscript. p. 9, line 377: “climate regulation (e.g., carbon storage in soils)”

Comment R1.7

Comment. “local”

Response. We use the standard term “individual” to denote the unit under discussion.”

Change in manuscript. p. 10, lines 415–417: “Alternatively, cooperation can be induced by making the individual farmer ’s payment depend on both their own actions and those of neighboring farmers.”

Comment R1.8

Comment. “What does this mean?”

Response. We clarified this point.

Change in manuscript. p. 10, lines 441–444: “Such a spatial interdependence can occur, e.g., if the result-based payment is tied to the presence of a mobile species with limited dispersal range, because here the presence of the species (and the payment) is more likely on conserved land that is close to sites on which the species is already present (Drechsler 2017).”

Comment R1.9

Comment. “Compulsory compliance won’t work!”

Response. […]

Change in manuscript. p. 11, lines 458–461 “The authors’ game-theoretic analysis points to the relevance of governmental supervision, adequate financial incentives, and penalties for non-compliance for the establishment of cooperation among farmers.”

Comment R1.10

Comment. “Is ‘extensification’ a word?”

Response. Yes—extensification is a standard term in agroecology, referring to a shift from intensive, high-input management to more extensive, lower-input management. To avoid ambiguity, we define the term at its first use.

Change in manuscript. p. 12, line 493: “…extensification (i.e., a shift toward more extensive, lower-input management) and diversification of agroecological practices….

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript is well written and very interesting. However, I have some minor suggestions that I am sending you marked in the pdf file in the attachment. Some improvements will include:

1) add some more recent references in parts that had only older than 10-year-old reference. In some sentences references were not used and I consider necessary to add references to support the information;

2) Some practical examples will be nice to be added in some parts in order to make the text not sound like too theoretical;

3) I suggest authors to add ending subsection before reference that would be called overall conclusions, final remarks or something like that. In a more direct and shorter text, authors could finalize the review in a better way. I feel this conclusion/ending is still missing.  

Please look in the attachment for more details and examples of such suggestions.

 

 

All the best,

 

Ad-hoc reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Comment R2.1

Comment. “Edit the name of the authors properly.”

Response. Thank you for flagging this. We corrected all author names throughout the manuscript.

Change in manuscript. p. 1, lines 4: “Somaiyeh Nezhadkheirollah 1,*, Martin Drechsler 1, 2”.

Comment R2.2

Comment. “Add a recent reference to support this information.”

Response. We added recent references to substantiate the highlighted statements.

Change in manuscript. p. 2, lines 27–37: “(Tiwari 2024; Samanta et al. 2024) and p. 2, lines 40–41:( Lu et al. 2024; Liebhold et al. 2021) and p. 2, lines 44: (Monica et al. 2024) and p. 2, lines 46:(Figuera et al. 2022) and p.3, lines 100:”(Adhikari et al., 2024; Karlsson Green et al., 2020)” and p. 9, lines 153: (Mala et al. 2022; Plata et al. 2024) and p. 10, lines 170: (Lourdais et al. 2025) and p. 11, lines 194: (Jeanneret et al. 2021; Snelder et al. 2023)”. p. 4, lines 139–140: “Hedgerows serve as overwintering sites and microhabitats for beneficial species such as spiders and beetles (Lourdais et al. 2025)”. p. 5, lines 163–165: “Next to the ecological complexity, another challenge arises from the fact that the described ecological patterns and processes operate on spatial scales that often go beyond the scale of single land parcels or even farms (Jeanneret et al. 2021; Snelder et al. 2023)”.

Comment R2.3

Comment. “or, when possible, achieve eradication”

Response. We have applied your suggestion.

Change in manuscript. p. 1, lines 32: or, when possible, achieve eradication

Comment R2.4

Comment. “What is the journal rule? Sometimes oldest→newest, sometimes alphabetical. Which is right for the journal?”

Response. The journal uses MDPI’s numeric bracket style: in-text citations appear as [numbers] ordered by first appearance, and grouped citations are in ascending numeric order (e.g., [2–4, 6]). The reference list is numbered in the same order of appearance. We have reformatted all citations to this style for consistency.

Change in manuscript. “All in-text citations converted to numeric [ ] and ordered ascending within groups; reference list renumbered to match.”.

Comment R2.5

Comment. “This is repetitive with the following text and just should be kept if it is a journal requirement. Otherwise, it should be deleted.”

Response. There are no specific author guidelines for this aspect. Some authors provide such an overview, some do not. Since the structure of the present manuscript differs from standard, we believe that a brief overview of the following is helpful for many readers.

Change in manuscript. N/A.

Comment R2.6

Comment. “Avoid overusing' sustainable pest management' in order to not sound repetitive.”

Response. We dropped the sentence altogether.

Change in manuscript.

Comment R2.7

Comment. “I suggest that authors add some extra text. Some more sentences given practical examples of how landscape configuration can support biodiversity. Real case reports. It will make easier for the readers to visually”

Response. We dropped this introductory sentence. The requested details and examples come in the following sections 3.1 and 3.2.

Change in manuscript. N/A.

Comment R2.8

Comment. “it is important to add some examples with some figures in order to not sound like too theoretical subject. Give some practical examples described in the literature.” is missing. ”

Response. We think that the role of spatial processes in pest control has already been covered quite comprehensively in the literature (see the reviews of  Tscharntke et al., 2005; Bianchi et al., 2006, 2010; Holland et al., 2016; Haan et al., 2020, and Gurr et al., 2017 that we added to our manuscript) – as compared, e.g., to issues of spatial collaboration and the instruments to induce that. We do not feel in a position to add very much new insight on spatial issues here, but instead want to focus on collaboration and instruments. Therefore, we decided that section 3 should only provide a brief overview of the role of spatial dynamics to motivate the importance of spatial collaboration and suitable incentives for that. For readers interested in the details of spatial dynamics, we think that we have provided relevant references.

Change in manuscript. N/A.

Comment R2.9

Comment. “Write one or two more paragraphs describing when and how it happened. Giving some practical examples will make the text less theoretical and more practical.”

Response. Also, in response to reviewer 3, we added a whole new section 4.5 with successful and unsuccessful examples of collaboration.

Change in manuscript. p. 6, lines 289–339: “4.5 Examples of successful and unsuccessful governance of collaboration

Collaborative approaches in pest control have demonstrated both successes and failures, with key factors influencing their outcomes. A prominent historical example of a successful community-wide IPM is the US Boll Weevil Eradication Program (“Special Collection” 2021; Smith 1998). This program involved a joint effort among local, state, and federal governments and agencies, university and agency researchers, and cotton producers (Special Coll…, 2021). This collaborative mobilization led to the eradication of the boll weevil from 98% of its invasive range in the United States and significantly reduced insecticide use in cotton production. In an applied modelling study, Vincent et al. (2025) investigated the effectiveness of IPM strategies for controlling Septoria tritici blotch in wheat. The research indicates that in a multi-field setting, where a community of crop growers operates, a high proportion of growers implementing IPM can reduce the level of external infection for all growers in the system, including those who do not use IPM. This suggests a collective benefit arising from widespread IPM adoption within a community of farmers, even if not a formally structured collaborative program(Vincent et al. 2025). Das et al. (2024) reviewed literature on IPM in orchards, noting that the widespread implementation of strategies like mating disruption has led to significant reductions in insecticide use (up to 90% in some regions) and improved fruit quality. The success of IPM in suppressing pests regionally, such as the codling moth in the Pacific Northwest, to the point where minimal intervention is needed, implies a broad, collective impact from numerous growers adopting these practices (Das, 2024). Economic assessments also show long-term cost savings for IPM adopters, further encouraging widespread adoption(Das et al. 2024). While, as demonstrated, collaborative pest management can be successful, various unsuccessful examples have been reported, too. Kruger (2018), e.g., highlights that reliance on voluntary approaches for local cooperation can be problematic, particularly when the beneficiaries of pest control measures are not identical to those who are responsible for the spread of the pest and who would bear the costs of pest control without benefitting from it. This was observed in the context of industry-driven “area-wide management” (AWM) of fruit flies in Australia, where local horticulture industries were expected to lead initiatives to minimize crop damage. The study suggests that “smart regulation,” involving complementary policy instruments, offers a more prudent path forward when governments expect industry self-reliance but industry has limited influence over diffused risk contributors. Similarly, voluntary strategies were implemented to slow the development of insecticide resistance in Helicoverpa armigera which is pest for the Australian cotton industry. However, insecticide resistance continued to develop (Downes et al. 2017). The introduction of genetically modified cotton and subsequent mandatory resistance management plans necessitated a shift from individual field or farm-level pest control to a coordinated, area-wide landscape approach (Downes, 2017). In Sub-Saharan Africa, the effective control of invasive insect pests is negatively impacted by the uncoordinated deployment of management measures and insufficient funding, indicating a failure in collaborative resource allocation and strategic planning(Ndlela et al. 2022). This challenge is further compounded in Southern Africa, where a lack of locally-developed packages constrains the adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM), insufficient understanding and appreciation of IPM concepts among stakeholders, limited alternatives to chemical control, a scarcity of knowledge regarding biocontrol, and inadequate research expertise and funding(Machekano et al. 2017). Altogether, economic constraints, missing economic incentives, a too heavy reliance on voluntary approaches, a lack of technical knowledge, regulatory barriers, and limited collaboration between developed and developing nations in IPM research impede collaborative efforts in pest management (Tripathy et al. 2009; Rund et al. 2019). ”

Comment R2.10

Comment. “This is not always easy to do because data sometimes differ a lot in quality, quantity, making sometimes difficult to put together them in a single dataset. I think it is also important to discuss more often in the text the limitations and challenges in order to do such collaborative work and not only show the good part of it. This is done rarely in the text”

Response. You are right, we missed addressing to obstacles and limitations. We tried to address your comment in two directions. On the one hand, we added some text on new technologies (also to address a comment of reviewer 4) that help mitigate the problem of data and knowledge gaps. On the other hand, in the new section 4.5 (cf. our response above), we acknowledge that the data problem is a critical one and likely to prevail.

Change in manuscript. p. 6, lines 223-235:

“New technologies have been developed in the last two decades to support the collaborative management of pests, including tools for monitoring, data processing, and modelling have made it possible to manage pests in an adaptive manner on large landscape scales (Fahad and Abdallah 2023). High-resolution earth-observation data (e.g., Sentinel/Landsat) and parcel-level maps quantify landscape structure (field size, edge density, semi-natural habitat)(Klein et al. 2021; Mpisane et al. 2025). GIS and movement ecology (GPS/RFID tagging, mark–release–recapture) reveal connectivity and dispersal of both pests and natural enemies (Paul et al. 2024; Novaes et al. 2024; Lavandero et al. 2004). Automated monitoring (smart traps, remote sensors) and citizen-science platforms provide dense spatiotemporal observations (Preti et al. 2021; Christakakis et al. 2024), while spatial statistics, network models, and agent-based simulations link land-use patterns to pest dynamics and biological control(Sapoukhina et al. 2003; Alves et al. 2024; Zitoun et al. 2025). Artificial intelligence helps integrating all these facets, from data collection to decision making.(Aziz et al. 2025; Leybourne et al. 2025) Together, these advances allow managers to design, implement and evaluate spatially coordinated strategies(Lustig et al. 2019).”.

Comment R2.11

Comment. “I would add a final section that can be called Overall conclusions of Final remarks where in few words (shorter text) authors could conclude the review. I think the text needs a clearer ending.”

Response. We agree that a good conclusion is important for the manuscript and thought about how to implement it. We went through section 6 and find that it very much represents a summary, including concluding remarks. However, to address a potential concern that the section might be too long for a conclusion, we added - also in response to a comment of reviewer 4 - Table 1 which provides an overview on the main challenges and possible solutions, and by this summarizes the main points of section 6.

Change in manuscript. p. 13, line 513: “ Table 1 summarizes the associated challenges and (potential) solutions. To conclude, while the necessity for collaboration in pest management is common knowledge, awareness needs to be developed about the necessity of concepts and instruments that are able to induce such collaboration. We hope that the present review can contribute to this development.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a review on “Collaborative Approaches and Instruments for the Spatial Management of Agricultural Pests.” Its main conclusion is that further study is needed on both collaborative approaches and appropriate instruments for spatial pest management. In my opinion, readers would benefit greatly from more concrete examples of successful applications of collaborative approaches in the practice of pest control. Including examples of unsuccessful attempts, with a discussion of the main reasons for failure, would also be highly advisable. This lack of examples is the major problem of the manuscrit, as I see it.
Some minor corrections in the abstract are also needed—the following sentence (lines 12–14) is missing some words; please check and correct it: “This paper discusses the importance of spatial dynamics, collaborative approaches that facilitate spatial coordination, and policy instruments that enhance collaboration for effective pest management in agricultural landscapes.”
The text on lines 57–63 does not seem connected or consistent; please rewrite it to show the connection between invasive species management and landscape-level strategies, such as enhancing the effectiveness of natural predators.
Kind regards

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Comment R3.1

Comment. "Examples of successful applications of collaborative approaches in the practice of pest control. Including examples of unsuccessful attempts, with a discussion of the main reasons for failure, would also be highly advisable.”

Response. This is a great idea. We added a whole new subsection, “4.5 Examples of successful and unsuccessful governance of collaboration.”

Change in manuscript. p. 6, lines 289–339: “4.5 Examples of successful and unsuccessful governance of collaboration

Collaborative approaches in pest control have demonstrated both successes and failures, with key factors influencing their outcomes. A prominent historical example of a successful community-wide IPM is the US Boll Weevil Eradication Program (“Special Collection” 2021; Smith 1998). This program involved a joint effort among local, state, and federal governments and agencies, university and agency researchers, and cotton producers (Special Coll…, 2021). This collaborative mobilization led to the eradication of the boll weevil from 98% of its invasive range in the United States and significantly reduced insecticide use in cotton production. In an applied modelling study, Vincent et al. (2025) investigated the effectiveness of IPM strategies for controlling Septoria tritici blotch in wheat. The research indicates that in a multi-field setting, where a community of crop growers operates, a high proportion of growers implementing IPM can reduce the level of external infection for all growers in the system, including those who do not use IPM. This suggests a collective benefit arising from widespread IPM adoption within a community of farmers, even if not a formally structured collaborative program (Vincent et al. 2025) Das et al. (2024) reviewed literature on IPM in orchards, noting that the widespread implementation of strategies like mating disruption has led to significant reductions in insecticide use (up to 90% in some regions) and improved fruit quality. The success of IPM in suppressing pests regionally, such as the codling moth in the Pacific Northwest, to the point where minimal intervention is needed, implies a broad, collective impact from numerous growers adopting these practices (Das, 2024). Economic assessments also show long-term cost savings for IPM adopters, further encouraging widespread adoption (Das et al. 2024). While, as demonstrated, collaborative pest management can be successful, various unsuccessful examples have been reported, too. Kruger (2018), e.g., highlights that reliance on voluntary approaches for local cooperation can be problematic, particularly when the beneficiaries of pest control measures are not identical to those who are responsible for the spread of the pest and who would bear the costs of pest control without benefitting from it. This was observed in the context of industry-driven “area-wide management” (AWM) of fruit flies in Australia, where local horticulture industries were expected to lead initiatives to minimize crop damage. The study suggests that “smart regulation,” involving complementary policy instruments, offers a more prudent path forward when governments expect industry self-reliance but industry has limited influence over diffused risk contributors. Similarly, voluntary strategies were implemented to slow the development of insecticide resistance in Helicoverpa armigera, which is pest for the Australian cotton industry. However, insecticide resistance continued to develop (Downes et al. 2017). The introduction of genetically modified cotton and subsequent mandatory resistance management plans necessitated a shift from individual field or farm-level pest control to a coordinated, area-wide landscape approach (Downes, 2017). In Sub-Saharan Africa, the effective control of invasive insect pests is negatively impacted by the uncoordinated deployment of management measures and insufficient funding, indicating a failure in collaborative resource allocation and strategic planning (Ndlela et al. 2022). This challenge is further compounded in Southern Africa, where a lack of locally-developed packages constrains the adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM), insufficient understanding and appreciation of IPM concepts among stakeholders, limited alternatives to chemical control, a scarcity of knowledge regarding biocontrol, and inadequate research expertise and funding (Machekano et al. 2017). Altogether, economic constraints, missing economic incentives, a too heavy reliance on voluntary approaches, a lack of technical knowledge, regulatory barriers, and limited collaboration between developed and developing nations in IPM research impede collaborative efforts in pest management (Tripathy et al. 2009; Rund et al. 2019). ”

Comment R3.2

Comment. “Is missing some words; please check and correct it.”

Response. Thank you. We paraphrase this sentence.

Change in manuscript. p. 1, lines 12–14: “This paper examines how the consideration of spatial dynamics, spatially coordinated collaboration, and supportive policy instruments improve pest management in agricultural landscapes.”

Comment R3.3

Comment. “The text on lines 57–63 does not seem connected or consistent; please rewrite it to show the connection between invasive species management and landscape-level strategies, such as enhancing the effectiveness of natural predators.”

Response. We changed the sentence and hope it is clear now.

Change in manuscript. p. 2, lines 56–58: “The aim of such coordination is to develop an efficient management of both the pests and their natural enemies on the landscape scale in order to minimize the spread of the pests and allow for sufficient movement of their natural enemies (Martin et al. 2019; Chaplin-Kramer et al. 2011).”

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of MS (rsee-3897716-peer-review-v1) - Collaborative Approaches and Instruments for the Spatial Management of Agricultural Pests

The authors' work is extensive and sufficiently detailed. In particular, the approach adopted in the various paragraphs effectively addresses the topic of pest control, adopting a comprehensive view that takes into account the complexity of habitats and the relationships between farmers, the environment, and management strategies.

Despite the MS's specificity, however, I must point out that many paragraphs are lengthy and not always easy to read for those less experienced in the field, while this is not the case for plant protection specialists. I recommend general simplification.

For all paragraphs, the authors could include short summary sentences to highlight key messages. This will connect subsequent paragraphs and highlight the key points for the reader.

A paragraph or section that discusses emerging technologies supporting IPM, or, for example, how AI could help, is missing.

Carefully review the cited literature.

I would add the following keywords: habitat conservation, or landscape connectivity.

Specifically,

Pages 1-2. In the Introduction paragraph, it's possible to summarize! Also write a sentence about the importance of a review in the current context of general knowledge.

Pages 2-3. In the Historical Development of Pest Control paragraph, improve the section regarding the transition from traditional to modern methods. For example, what makes it possible today to have a comprehensive view of the importance of landscape structure or habitat connectivity, etc.

Pages 4-5. In the Role of Spatial Dynamics in Pest Control paragraph, streamline some sentences and reduce the use of the term non-crop habitats. Also include some practical impact on management challenges. Furthermore, in the section "Spatial heterogeneity and non-crop habitats," specify that complex environments, even near greenhouses, improve coexistence and predatory efficacy, thus improving pest control (see DOI: 10.3390/horticulturae10060614).

Pages 5-7. The section "Collaborative Frameworks in Pest Management" is quite comprehensive, but a summary is possible. I also think it's interesting to include the role of new digital and technological tools here.

Pages 8-10. The section "Instruments that induce collaboration" is detailed, to the best of my knowledge, on economic instruments for biodiversity conservation. Here, too, I would consider a summary to make the economic aspects more accessible.

Pages 11-12. The section "Challenges and Ways Forward" is well-detailed, but I think it would benefit from a summary table.

Author Response

Reviewer 4

Comment R4.1

Comment. “I would add the following keywords: habitat conservation, or landscape connectivity”.

Response. We appreciate this helpful suggestion. The keywords habitat conservation and landscape connectivity have now been added to the manuscript to improve discoverability.

Change in manuscript. p. 1, lines 21–23: “Keywords: Agri-Environmental Schemes (AES); Area-Wide Pest Management (AWPM); Collaboration; Habitat conservation; Integrated Pest Management (IPM); Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES); Spatial Dynamics; Spatial Management; Landscape connectivity”

Comment R4.2

Comment. “Pages 1-2. In the Introduction paragraph, it’s possible to summarize! Also write a sentence about the 20 importance of a review in the current context of general knowledge.”

Response. We clarified the research gap and the contribution of our review as follows.

Change in manuscript. p. 2, lines 59–66: “Both successful and unsuccessful examples of collaborative pest management have been reported in the literature, and knowledge is still missing on how collaboration and spatial coordination can be induced effectively to control agricultural pests on the landscape scale. To help fill this gap, this review provided an integrated view on three important pillars of landscape-scale pest management: spatial dynamics, and collaborative frameworks, and the necessary conditions for collaboration to emerge.”

Comment R4.3

Comment. “Pages 2-3. In the Historical Development of Pest Control paragraph, improve the section regarding the transition from traditional to modern methods. For example, what makes it possible today to have a comprehensive view of the importance of landscape structure or habitat connectivity, etc.”

Response. We added some new text.

Change in manuscript. p. 2-3, lines 90–95: “This shift laid the groundwork for today’s landscape perspective, in which pest pressure and natural-enemy regulation are understood as inherently spatial processes operating across fields and farms (cf. the following section 3). Tools and methods have been developed in the past to monitor, understand and predict these processes (cf. section 4.3), but the management of pests on the regional scale is still a challenge.”

Comment R4.4

Comment. “Pages 4-5. In the Role of Spatial Dynamics in Pest Control paragraph, streamline some sentences and reduce the use of the term non-crop habitats. Also, include some practical impact on management challenges. Furthermore, in the section” Spatial heterogeneity and non-crop habitats,” specify that 27 complex environments, even near greenhouses, improve coexistence and predatory efficacy, thus improving pest control (see DOI: 10.3390/horticulturae10060614).”

Response. We revised the section to reduce repetition and replaced the term “non-crop habitat” with “semi-natural habitat”. We think the main practical impact is that collaboration and spatial coordination are required to take into account that pest and enemy dynamics (generally) operate on spatial scales beyond that of single farms or fields. We incorporated the suggested reference on greenhouse-adjacent structural complexity and added related recent sources.

Change in manuscript. p. 4, lines 125–130: “Evidence from sweet-pepper greenhouse systems shows that adding structural complexity at the greenhouse edge—such as vegetated margins and diversified plantings—increases predator co-occurrence and improves hunting efficiency, resulting in stronger pest suppression (Bonsignore and van Baaren 2024). This suggests that small-scale habitat diversification adjacent to protected cropping can stabilize local natural-enemy populations and complement field-scale measures.”

Change in manuscript. p. 4, lines 117–142: “3.1. Spatial heterogeneity and semi-natural habitats

Spatial heterogeneity, with its mix of crop and semi-natural habitats, supports biodiversity by providing resources for natural enemies like predators and parasitoids. Diverse landscapes enhance natural enemy populations, suppressing pests, with simplified landscapes, as caused by agricultural intensification, which negatively affect natural enemy populations and increase the rate of pest outbreaks (Chaplin-Kramer et al., 2011; Mala et al., 2022; Plata et al., 2024; Vinatier et al., 2011). Evidence from sweet-pepper greenhouse systems shows that adding structural complexity at the greenhouse edge—such as vegetated margins and diversified plantings—increases predator co-occurrence and improves hunting efficiency of predators, resulting in stronger pest suppression (Bonsignore & van Baaren, 2024).This suggests that small-scale habitat diversification adjacent to protected cropping can stabilize local natural-enemy populations and complement field-scale measures. Semi-natural habitats, such as field margins, hedgerows, and woodlands, are integral to enhancing both spatial heterogeneity and landscape connectivity. While semi-natural habitats primarily contribute to spatial heterogeneity by diversifying the landscape, their secondary role in landscape connectivity is crucial for enabling the movement and persistence of natural enemies (Mala et al., 2022; Yun, 2009). Thus, they are vital components for promoting both mentioned roles in pest management strategies. Non-crop habitats act as refuges for natural enemies, offering critical resources such as shelter, food, and breeding grounds (Gurr et al., 2017; Holland et al., 2016). In a similar vein, Zamberletti et al. (2021) argue that semi-natural habitats support the spatial spread of natural enemies, improving their ability to locate and suppress pests.”

Comment R4.5

Comment. “Pages 5-7. The section” Collaborative Frameworks in Pest Management” is quite comprehensive, but a summary is possible. I also think it’s interesting to include the role of new digital and technological tools.”

Response. We added a concise summary paragraph and two paragraphs on digital and technological tools (thank you for the hint, which perfectly coincides with a comment of reviewer 2).

Change in manuscript. p. 6, lines 223–235:

“New technologies have been developed in the last two decades to support the collaborative management of pests, including tools for monitoring, data processing and modelling, that help manage pests in an adaptive manner on large landscape scales (Abd-Elgawad, 2024). High-resolution earth-observation data (e.g., Sentinel/Landsat) and parcel-level maps allow to quantify landscape structure (field size, edge density, semi-natural habitat)(Klein et al., 2021; Mpisane et al., 2025). GIS and movement ecology (GPS/RFID tagging, mark–release–recapture) help reveal connectivity and dispersal of both pests and natural enemies(Lavandero et al., 2004; Novaes et al., 2024; Paul et al., 2024). Automated monitoring (smart traps, remote sensors) and citizen-science platforms improve the density of spatiotemporal data (Christakakis et al., 2024; Preti et al., 2021), while spatial statistics, network models, and agent-based simulations allow to link land-use patterns to pest dynamics and biological control (Alves et al., 2024; Sapoukhina et al., 2003; Zitoun et al., 2025). Artificial intelligence, finally, can help integrating all these facets, from data collection to decision making.(Aziz et al., 2025; Leybourne et al., 2025) Together, these advances allow managers to design, implement and evaluate spatially coordinated strategies(Lustig et al., 2019).”

 Change in manuscript.  p.8, lines 341-351:

“Concluding this section 4, due their mobility, many pests can only managed on the landscape scale that extends the scale of single farms and fields. Such landscape management requires the collaboration and coordination of multiple stakeholders, in particular multiple farmers. Collaboration between different actors generally hinges on mutual trust and accountability. In addition, pest management on the landscape scale requires data and knowledge on the spatial dynamics of the pests. The provision of the necessary data and knowledge can be supported by new monitoring and modelling technologies but remains challenging, in particular when funds are limited. Another common obstacle to collaboration is that the beneficiaries of pest control are not necessarily the ones how are bearing its costs. Education and financial incentives may bridge that gap and help induce spatial collaboration.”

Comment R4.6

Comment. Pages 8-10. The section “Instruments that induce collaboration” is detailed, to the best of my knowledge, on economic instruments for biodiversity conservation. Here, too, I would consider a summary to make the economic aspects more accessible.

Response. We added a summary paragraph at the end of the section.

Change in manuscript. p. 11, lines 466–478:

“To summarize, the necessity to collaborate and coordinate actions in space does not only arise in agricultural pest management but also in other problems of environmental management in which processes cross the scales of individual farms or fields. In agricultural landscapes, the conservation of biodiversity (as well as environmental protection in general) are often induced by financial incentives, such as AES and PES. These schemes generally suffer from the same problem as do pest management strategies: that they generally focus on individual farms, limiting their ecological effectiveness and ecological-economic efficiency. Landscape-scale biodiversity conservation policies are therefore gaining attention, which include group payments (where a payment is offered to a group of farmers who are willing to achieve an environmental target on the landscape scale) and coordination incentives (where field-level payments are accompanied by additional payments that depend on the actions of neighboring farmers). Adopting these ideas may also improve collaborative pest management.”

Comment R4.7

Comment. “The section” Challenges and Ways Forward” is well-detailed, but I think it would benefit from a summary table.”

Response. Thank you, this is a good idea, and also help address a comment of reviewer 2. We added Table 1summarizing the main challenges (fragmentation, intensification, scale mismatch, knowledge/trust, uneven costs/benefits, policy scale, and implementation) and corresponding ways forward (spatially targeted interventions, extensification/diversification, AWPM and collaboration, participatory governance and fair sharing, collective payments/coordination incentives, landscape-scale policy design, and piloting in pest control).

Change in manuscript. p. 13. “Table 1”

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have considered all of the comments I had provided. The manuscript is sufficiently improved.

Kind regords

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors Dear Authors,
Thank you for your careful revisions and detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments. I have reviewed the changes and your explanations, and I believe you have adequately addressed the concerns raised. As a result, the manuscript has improved significantly.
Congratulations on your work.