Profile of Coffee Crops and Management of the Neotropical Coffee Leaf Miner, Leucoptera coffeella
, Raul Narciso Carvalho Guedes 2, Mateus Pereira dos Santos 1, Daniela Ribeiro da Costa 1, Aldenise Alves Moreira 3, Sylvana Naomi Matsumoto 3, Odair Lacerda Lemos 4 and Maria Aparecida Castellani 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
the submitted manuscript “Arabica coffee in Bahia, Brazil: production systems and management of the Neotropical coffee leaf miner 3 Leucoptera coffeella” is representing original work with interesting subject, the text in mist parts is clear and well written.
In general, the introduction is good, the materials and methods section needs some improvements, as well as the results and discussion sections.
Specific comments by lines:
24: The aim of the work was to carry out a survey on the profile of prevailing coffee producing systems
This sentence structure is wrong and should to be improved
32: change tactic -> strategy
32: change importance -> important
38: keywords: the farmers questionnaires is not important as a key word, may be you an use the word “survey”
43: “2.1 million hectares”, cite please the source of this number
46: thewestern -> the western
121: Date analysis
This part is the one of the main problems of the work. First, the survey reliability should be tested, such as the use of Cronbach's Alpha (a tool for Assessing the Reliability of Scales) or any other method that should be explained. And the questioner may be added as supplementary materials so it will be helpful to better understand the variables that you have found or searched for through the survey.
110: 116 farms surveyed [western region (Farms 1 to 21) and highland region (Farms 22 to 116)
Is there a reason for this difference in numbers of survived farms in the two areas? If not, so you have already decided your data to be different and you must find a statistic method for the comparison between the areas after discussing each of them a part.
115 as mentioned above, the questionnaire structure, number of questions is not so clear, you may ad it as supplementary materials.
128 Coffee regions (western and highland) were considered as principal components.
The adopted technique was the multivariate analysis of PCA (Principal Component Analysis) using the R FactoMinerR package software [26] applying the selected variables to transform data from wide spectrum to low spectrum space.
here you have a critical issue, if this is the explanation of the applied method (PCA) so you have done it wrong, but if you have performed it and did not explain it will you have to better explain the method.
Usually, the PCA is performed without preselecting the components because the analysis should find the PC and how much they have explained the studied variable (as %) and within the PC you can find the factors that consists this PC (which could be one or more).
Results
141: fig.1, you may add the number of sampled farms in each county.
156: “When the area cultivated with coffee was analyzed, linear correlations were also significant with PC1 and PC2 representing 54.28 and 45.71% of variance, respectively. The profile of farms in their respective coffee cultivated areas closely follows the trend of farm overall size with greater coffee areas prevailing in the western region and small coffee areas prevailing in the highlands (Figure 2b), where more uniform and smaller farm (and coffee field) sizes prevail.”
since that you have previously mentioned
“These results indicate the prevalence of small farm size in the highlands (frequently lower than 100 ha), and a broader range of farm size variation in western Bahia with prevalence of large farm size (i.e., > 200 ha) (Figure 2a).”
I thin here you have to improve the variables and instead of using the cultivated area and the natural vegetation area, you have to consider them as a proportion of the total area of the farm (as a percentage), because the adopted technique decision taken by the farmer may follow the percentage of the area dedicate to coffee of the total farm area.
For example: you have found that the western Bahia have large farms (i.e., > 200 ha) so the farm of 200 ha may be occupied by 100 ha of coffee (50%), this area of 100 ha of coffee is bigger than the farms of highlands (frequently lower than 100 ha), which may contain a farm that uses 90% of the farm for coffee but remain for your data as small area of coffee.
The same is valid for the natural vegetation area in the farm which their proportion is very important for the biodiversity conservation and the natural enemies presence, etc..
In my opinion your direction of results and discussion may change if you use the proportional rates of areas.
187: On the other hand, 26.3% of coffee growers in the highland region do not adopt any control method
This part of results is very important, and I don’t why you have ignore it in the discussion or even you have not tried to investigate the reason of this decision or what the loss rate that they may suffer due to this decision, which could be more interesting than the IPM that you have concentrated on in your discussion. Otherwise you have decided to discuss the 1.1% associate chemical and behavioral methods through food bait!!.
Discussion:
In general: why most of this part is dedicated to the IPM?, if there is a reason or idea behind that explain it directly and clearly.
239 in addition -> besides
255 so x
339 remove: “For research articles with several authors, a short paragraph specifying their individual contributions must be provided. The following statements should be used “
Author Response
The Authors made the follow observation and thank for valuable contributions
The title has been changed to “Profile of coffee crops and management of the Neotropical coffee leaf miner, Leucoptera coffeella”. Accepting suggestion a reviewer.
Specific comments by lines:
24: The aim of the work was to carry out a survey on the profile of prevailing coffee producing systems. This sentence structure is wrong and should to be improved: Response: rewritten sentence (corrected version Ln 225)
32: change tactic -> strategy: Response: accepted suggestion (corrected version Ln 31)
32: change importance -> important: Response: accepted suggestion (corrected version Ln 31)
38: keywords: the farmers questionnaires is not important as a key word, may be you an use the word “survey”: Response: accepted suggestion (corrected version Ln 37)
43: “2.1 million hectares”, cite please the source of this number: Response: the reference is CONAB, number 2
CONAB, Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento. Acompanhamento da Safra Brasileira Café. Safra 2020, n.1 – Primeiro Levantamento, Brasília, Brazil, 2020; Volume 6, p-62.
46: thewestern -> the western: Response: corrected (corrected version Ln 44)
121: Date analysis
This part is the one of the main problems of the work. First, the survey reliability should be tested, such as the use of Cronbach's Alpha (a tool for Assessing the Reliability of Scales) or any other method that should be explained. And the questioner may be added as supplementary materials so it will be helpful to better understand the variables that you have found or searched for through the survey.
Response: The Cronbach's Alpha coefficient test was applied to verify the reliability and consistency of the group of multiple-choice and dichotomous responses. The intensity of the relationships was very high (α = 0.91) to moderate (α = 0.65). This information was included in the Material and Methods item. (corrected version Ln 116-118)
110: 116 farms surveyed [western region (Farms 1 to 21) and highland region (Farms 22 to 116). Is there a reason for this difference in numbers of survived farms in the two areas? If not, so you have already decided your data to be different and you must find a statistic method for the comparison between the areas after discussing each of them a part.
Response: Initially, the most representative municipalities were selected in terms of production and different edaphoclimatic conditions. Posteriorly, determined was a number of 5 to 15 properties per municipality were determined for the application of the questionnaire In the western, 21 properties were sampled belonging to 4 municipalities (maximum number of counties that produce coffee in the region). In this region, the maximum number of coffee properties is 22, and the region is more homogeneous (soil, vegetation and climate). In highlands, 7 counties were listed as most representative, with the application of a questionnaire, on average, of 13 per municipality (total of 95). In highlands, the properties are more heterogeneous in terms of vegetation, soil and climate and the survey to encompass most of these specificities, from large properties to those with a predominance of family manpower that produce specialty coffees.
115 as mentioned above, the questionnaire structure, number of questions is not so clear, you may ad it as supplementary materials: the questionnaire be annex sent as supplementary material
128 Coffee regions (western and highland) were considered as principal components:
The adopted technique was the multivariate analysis of PCA (Principal Component Analysis) using the R FactoMinerR package software [26] applying the selected variables to transform data from wide spectrum to low spectrum space.
here you have a critical issue, if this is the explanation of the applied method (PCA) so you have done it wrong, but if you have performed it and did not explain it will you have to better explain the method.
Usually, the PCA is performed without preselecting the components because the analysis should find the PC and how much they have explained the studied variable (as %) and within the PC you can find the factors that consists this PC (which could be one or more).
Response: No. The reviewer has reason. The item Material and Methods was rewritten to correct the misconceptions commit by the authors initially. The Principal Component Analyzes (PCA) was used for the set of observations of the total area, area cultivated with coffee and area of native vegetation. After analyzing the data of the studied variables, PCA formed two distinct groups for each factor. (corrected version Ln 122-126)
Results
141: fig.1, you may add the number of sampled farms in each county.: Response: accepted suggestion
156: “When the area cultivated with coffee was analyzed, linear correlations were also significant with PC1 and PC2 representing 54.28 and 45.71% of variance, respectively. The profile of farms in their respective coffee cultivated areas closely follows the trend of farm overall size with greater coffee areas prevailing in the western region and small coffee areas prevailing in the highlands (Figure 2b), where more uniform and smaller farm (and coffee field) sizes prevail.”
since that you have previously mentioned
“These results indicate the prevalence of small farm size in the highlands (frequently lower than 100 ha), and a broader range of farm size variation in western Bahia with prevalence of large farm size (i.e., > 200 ha) (Figure 2a).”
I thin here you have to improve the variables and instead of using the cultivated area and the natural vegetation area, you have to consider them as a proportion of the total area of the farm (as a percentage), because the adopted technique decision taken by the farmer may follow the percentage of the area dedicate to coffee of the total farm area.
For example: you have found that the western Bahia have large farms (i.e., > 200 ha) so the farm of 200 ha may be occupied by 100 ha of coffee (50%), this area of 100 ha of coffee is bigger than the farms of highlands (frequently lower than 100 ha), which may contain a farm that uses 90% of the farm for coffee but remain for your data as small area of coffee.
The same is valid for the natural vegetation area in the farm which their proportion is very important for the biodiversity conservation and the natural enemies presence, etc..
In my opinion your direction of results and discussion may change if you use the proportional rates of areas.
Response:The Reviewer is correct. Authors accepted the suggestion and organized the data in percentage of area cultivated with coffee and area of native vegetation in relation to the total area of the farm; data plotted in classes and histograms, which were added to the work (Figure 2d and 2e).
The results indicated that occupation of the properties with the coffee crop is more expressive on smaller properties, on average 62.4% of the total area is used with coffee in the highlands region, varying from 20% to 100%; In the western, average occupation with the culture vary 2.0% to 57.2%, with average of 19.3%. With relation to area of native forest, most of the properties in the highlands have to up 20% and in the West from 11 to 30% of the total area comprise areas of vegetation reserve. (this paragraph was included in the results)
These differences in farms sizes and occupancy rates with the coffee crop are reflected in the production systems and type of manpower employed, with mechanized systems and outsourced manpower in the western, for crop management at scale macro. Coffee crops in this region is characterized by present productivity above the national brazilian average and using agricultural inputs, irrigation, appropriate genotypes and mechanization, among other practices. The climate is favorable to quality of the coffee, because at the time harvest, occur conditions of low relative humidity of the air, being the rains concentrated in the summer (Fernandes et al., 2012). In highlands, the use of inputs is less intense and family manpower predominates.. The specificities of some microregions in the higlands, such as the Chapada Diamantina, about the climate and the realization of selective and manual harvesting of the fruits, have guaranteed the production of special coffees of excellent quality, with high aggregated (Bandeira, 2017). (This paragraph was included in the discussion)
Bandeira, F.P. Café da Chapada Diamantina ganha o mundo. Secretária de Agricultura do Estado da Bahia (SEAGRI) – Bahia Oportunidades, June-July 2017, 6-25.
Fernandes, A.L.T., Partelli, F.L., Bonomo, R., Golynski, A. A moderna cafeicultura dos cerrados brasileiros. Pesq. Agropec. Trop. 2012, 42, 231-240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1983-40632012000200015
Considering the areas cultivated with coffee in all the properties sampled, the coffee park in the western includes an area of 10,250 ha and the higlands of 4,602.8 ha.
187: On the other hand, 26.3% of coffee growers in the highland region do not adopt any control method
This part of results is very important, and I don’t why you have ignore it in the discussion or even you have not tried to investigate the reason of this decision or what the loss rate that they may suffer due to this decision, which could be more interesting than the IPM that you have concentrated on in your discussion. Otherwise you have decided to discuss the 1.1% associate chemical and behavioral methods through food bait!!
Response: The reviewer has reason. We really failed in that aspect. The discussion was increased and improved. (corrected version Ln 378-384)
Discussion:
In general: why most of this part is dedicated to the IPM?, if there is a reason or idea behind that explain it directly and clearly:
Response: there is no occult reason! The Authors consider that the use of IPM concepts in practice is the first step to move away from the intensive use of insecticides and migrate to production systems that approximate more of the sustainability. With this work, we detected, mainly in the western region, with some exceptions, that there is no IPM, but IIM (integrated insecticide management). A pathway that if drive away from sustainability. On the other hand, in the higlands, there is group of factors that disfavor the insects population growth, thus reducing the pressure to cause damage, at the same time that it favors the adoption of cultural tactics and natural biological control or even without need for intervention in the agro-ecosystem to control the leaf miner.
239 in addition -> besides: Response: corrected (corrected version Ln 321)
255 so x: corrected Response: (corrected version Ln 345)
339 remove: “For research articles with several authors, a short paragraph specifying their individual contributions must be provided. The following statements should be used “: Response: accepted suggestion (corrected version Ln 435)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors of the manuscript titled “Arabica coffee in Bahia, Brazil: production systems and management of the Neotropical coffee leaf miner Leucoptera coffeella” report the findings of a survey of coffee producers and technicians on their control measures against coffee leaf miner. The authors found that the use of chemical control of the insect is prevalent in both regions surveyed and that there is great room for IPM practices in this agrosystem. The manuscript needs spell-checked and has a few instances where sentences need to be improved for structure and clarity.
Ln 32 – add “…as a management…” and replace “importance” to “important”
Ln 33 – revise to “… in the state of…”
Ln 34-37 – This sentence should be broken into two sentences because it is a run-on as it is now. What does ‘common and similar’ mean? Consider revising to: An increase in the application of systemic insecticides took place in recent years. This increase use increases the risk of selecting populations resistant to insecticides, which impairs the effective use of this management tool and compromises the leaf miner management in the region.
Ln 46: add space between “the western”
Ln 51: add “…, that is responsible…”
Ln 53: revise to “…sustainable production systems.”
Ln 57-59: revise to “… methods consistent with Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and not just on chemically-based control methods that are reliant on insecticide use…
Ln 61: Take aspects into what? I assume these aspects are taken into account in management decisions. And use the IPM abbreviation here and throughout manuscript since it was defined previous.
Ln 64-67: This sentence is long and needs revised.
Ln 68-69: What is the status of the pest mean?
Ln 70: Revise to “… importance and has to take into account…”
Ln 79: Revise to “…, which leads to destruction and fall of leaves and consequently reducing fruit production…”
Ln 83-84: revise to “…miner is chemical control...”
Ln 83 and 80 and throughout manuscript: Be consistent throughout the manuscript with the name of the insect – either scientific or common.
Ln 93: revise to “… individuals and the development of resistance…”
Ln 99-101: This sentence needs revised for clarity. What is a target for insecticide resistance and pest management? And consider revising the rest of the sentence: “remain neglected and unrecognized, which compromises the coffee…”
Ln 102: remove “prevailing in the region” since it is stated specifically at the end of the sentence.
Ln 110: correct to “surveyed”
Ln 115-116: consider revising to “…multiple-choice questions, free and dichotomous responses”
Ln 121: correct to Data
Ln 160: add space after “highlands”
Ln 161-162: revise to “…permanently maintain preservation areas were…”
Figure 5 caption: revise A and B to lowercase to match with figure.
Ln 218: correct spelling of highlands and insecticides
Ln 219-220: Sentence needs revised.
Ln 230-234: Sentence needs to be broken into two. The information is lost in the complex sentence.
Ln 236: correct spelling of contrasting
Ln 249-252: Sentence needs revised: needs to be a complete sentence, should be broken into two, and clarify (i.e., I’m not sure ‘incurred’ is the correct word here).
Ln 253-254: Revise sentence. Consider: Most respondents carried out monitoring of the coffee leaf miner, which is the basis for IPM.
Ln 256: revise to “is a visual”
Ln 263: revise “incurring” with “resulting”
Ln 264: revise to “production”
Ln 270: revise to “thresholds for”
Ln 272 and 274 and 318: fix the close brackets for citations
Ln 273: revise to “…agriculture for the economic benefit…”
Ln 302: revise to “experiencing”
Ln 316: revise to “more”
Ln 315-318: Sentence needs revised and spelling fixed. Consider: Furthermore, many coffee growers make frequent use of insecticides, including relatively more persistent and less selective compounds. Such patterns of insecticide use enhance insecticide resistance and environmental problems [22].
Ln 325: add scientific name
Ln 328: revise to “Such a trend”
Author Response
The Authors made the follow observation and thank for valuable contributions
The title has been changed to “Profile of coffee crops and management of the Neotropical coffee leaf miner, Leucoptera coffeella”. Accepting suggestion a reviewer
Ln 32 – add “…as a management…” and replace “importance” to “important”: Response: corrected (corrected version Ln 30-31)
Ln 33 – revise to “… in the state of…”: Response: corrected (corrected version Ln 32)
Ln 34-37 – This sentence should be broken into two sentences because it is a run-on as it is now. What does ‘common and similar’ mean? Consider revising to: An increase in the application of systemic insecticides took place in recent years. This increase use increases the risk of selecting populations resistant to insecticides, which impairs the effective use of this management tool and compromises the leaf miner management in the region. Response: Common: most producers use insecticide. Similar: uses the same active ingredients. The terms were removed and the sentence rewritten. (original version Ln 33-36)
Ln 46: add space between “the western”; Response: corrected (corrected version Ln 44)
Ln 51: add “…, that is responsible…”: Response: corrected (corrected version Ln 48)
Ln 53: revise to “…sustainable production systems.”: Response: corrected (corrected version Ln 50)
Ln 57-59: revise to “… methods consistent with Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and not just on chemically-based control methods that are reliant on insecticide use…: Response: modified sentence (corrected version Ln 57)
Ln 61: Take aspects into what? I assume these aspects are taken into account in management decisions.: Response: Yes, the Authors agree, the sentence has been modified. (corrected version Ln 62-63)
And use the IPM abbreviation here and throughout manuscript since it was defined previous: Response: accepted
Ln 64-67: This sentence is long and needs revised: Response: corrected sentence (corrected version Ln 65-68)
Ln 68-69: What is the status of the pest mean?: Response: levels vary for each insect species and crop. For example, for leaf miner the action threshold is 20% of leaves with live caterpillars inside the lesions (mines) for hot regions and 30% for colder regions. (corrected version Ln 56-57)
Ln 70: Revise to “… importance and has to take into account…”: Response: corrected (corrected version Ln 57)
Ln 79: Revise to “…, which leads to destruction and fall of leaves and consequently reducing fruit production…”: Response: accepted suggestion (original version Ln 74)
Ln 83-84: revise to “…miner is chemical control...”: Response: corrected sentence (corrected version Ln 78)
Ln 83 and 80 and throughout manuscript: Be consistent throughout the manuscript with the name of the insect – either scientific or common: Response: accepted suggestion, common name (corrected version Ln 84)
Ln 93: revise to “… individuals and the development of resistance…”: Response: accepted suggestion (corrected version Ln 88)
Ln 99-101: This sentence needs revised for clarity. What is a target for insecticide resistance and pest management? And consider revising the rest of the sentence: “remain neglected and unrecognized, which compromises the coffee…”: Response: the sentence has been modified for better understanding. (corrected version Ln 94-98)
Ln 102: remove “prevailing in the region” since it is stated specifically at the end of the sentence.: Response: accepted suggestion
Ln 110: correct to “surveyed”: Response: accepted suggestion (corrected version Ln 104)
Ln 115-116: consider revising to “…multiple-choice questions, free and dichotomous responses”: Response: corrected (corrected version Ln 108-109)
Ln 121: correct to Data: Response: corrected (corrected version Ln 115)
Ln 160: add space after “highlands”: Response: corrected (corrected version Ln 152)
Ln 161-162: revise to “…permanently maintain preservation areas were…”: Response: corrected (corrected version Ln 154)
Figure 5 caption: revise A and B to lowercase to match with figure: Response: corrected
Ln 218: correct spelling of highlands and insecticides: Response: corrected (corrected version Ln 296)
Ln 219-220: Sentence needs revised: Response: sentence corrected (corrected version Ln 294-295)
Ln 230-234: Sentence needs to be broken into two. The information is lost in the complex sentence.: Response: sentence corrected (corrected version Ln 307-315)
Ln 236: correct spelling of contrasting: Response: corrected (corrected version Ln 317)
Ln 249-252: Sentence needs revised: needs to be a complete sentence, should be broken into two, and clarify (i.e., I’m not sure ‘incurred’ is the correct word here). Response: sentence corrected
Ln 253-254: Revise sentence. Consider: Most respondents carried out monitoring of the coffee leaf miner, which is the basis for IPM.: Response: sentence corrected (corrected version Ln 343=344)
Ln 256: revise to “is a visual”: Response: corrected (corrected version Ln 346)
Ln 263: revise “incurring” with “resulting”: Response: corrected (corrected version Ln 353)
Ln 264: revise to “production”: Response: corrected (corrected version Ln 354)
Ln 270: revise to “thresholds for”: Response: corrected (corrected version Ln 360)
Ln 272 and 274 and 318: fix the close brackets for citations: Response: corrected (corrected version Ln 362-364)
Ln 273: revise to “…agriculture for the economic benefit…”: Response: corrected (corrected version Ln 363)
Ln 302: revise to “experiencing”: Response: the word 'experience' has been removed (corrected version Ln 398)
Ln 316: revise to “more”: Response: corrected (corrected version Ln 412)
Ln 315-318: Sentence needs revised and spelling fixed. Consider: Furthermore, many coffee growers make frequent use of insecticides, including relatively more persistent and less selective compounds. Such patterns of insecticide use enhance insecticide resistance and environmental problems [22]. Response: sentence corrected (corrected version Ln 413-414)
Ln 325: add scientific name: Response: corrected (corrected version Ln 421)
Ln 328: revise to “Such a trend”: Response: corrected (corrected version Ln 424)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In my opinion, the manusctipt sent to me for review should not be published here because it is of poor quality. No hypothesis is verified in this publication, and the whole paper looks like a report for the administration of some region. In addition, approximately 40% of the introductory text and approximately 30% of the discussion text is off topic. The title itself indicates the local importance of the problem, and there is nothing new inside the text that would make the work wider. The use of advanced statistics does not make the presented data, as well as the entire work, gain more scientific sense. In general, I believe that this manuscript does not meet the requirements for scientific publications and will not be of interest to a wider group of readers of the Sustainability journal.
Below I present detailed comments:
1. The title would have to be changed to a more general one which does not indicate the locality of the data. In this case, we have a mediocre case study.
2. L26: Why did you use such a division? Why is it important? In my opinion, this division is unnecessary. You use it to differentiate your data and think it's an important factor. I partially agree with this as environmental differences in production are of great importance. But you don't even explain it properly why this division is important. If I planned it, I would change it into a given continuous one, e.g. microclimatic variation (temperature, precipitation, etc.). After all, there are many other factors that are equally important or more important, and you mention them very little. In the discussion, it would be useful if this thread was explained more broadly. However, in the introduction, you must indicate strongly why you are study this factor.
3. L32: important; I recomend you to use English editing service.
4. L41: The introduction is too long, it needs to be radically shortened or changed. It is mostly off-topic these days. For example, I suggest: Start to be limited to max. 4 sentences; L60-73 remove, etc.
5. L46 and 81: spaces
6. L84: . to ,
7. L104: The aim of the research is not supported by a good introduction. There is no complete hypothesis to verify.
8. L110: You have an uneven number of farms for their division. Your survey planning is a bit flawed ... An explanation of this is necessary here.
9. L115 missing paragraph.
10. L153: The figures you suggest are very difficult to interpret and quite unusual. As an interested reader, I had to wonder what this figure is about. I propose to change these "spider webs" into something more reader friendly. Look at the L173, where everything merges.
11. L168: no superscripts with chi square in whole MS
12. L173: Dryland ???? there is nothing in the text on this topic anywhere.
Author Response
The Authors thank for observations, same time in what weave comments the following considerations:
The title would have to be changed to a more general one which does not indicate the locality of the data. In this case, we have a mediocre case study:
Response: The title has been changed to “Profile of coffee crops and management of the Neotropical coffee leaf miner, Leucoptera coffeella”. More information is in the answers below.
L26: Why did you use such a division? Why is it important? In my opinion, this division is unnecessary. You use it to differentiate your data and think it's an important factor. I partially agree with this as environmental differences in production are of great importance. But you don't even explain it properly why this division is important. If I planned it, I would change it into a given continuous one, e.g. microclimatic variation (temperature, precipitation, etc.). After all, there are many other factors that are equally important or more important, and you mention them very little. In the discussion, it would be useful if this thread was explained more broadly. However, in the introduction, you must indicate strongly why you are study this factor.
Response: Bahia has a territory of approximately 600,000 km2 and three different biomes: Cerrado, Caatinga and Mata Atlântica, which have different vegetation and edaphoclimatic conditions.
In the West region, coffee production is installed in the conditions of the Cerrado, the second largest biome in Latin America and occupies 20% of the Brazilian territory, with ground vegetation and bushes with gross rind and twisted trunks, very deep roots, high temperatures with variagate humidity air relative to the time of year. The coffee production areas presente homogeneity, all located in Cerrado areas. In total, 22 coffee crops properties are installed in the region.
On the other hand, in the South-central highlands, coffee crops is established in more heterogeneous regions, both in areas of predominance of Caatinga and Atlantic Forest and transition areas between Cerrado and Caatinga. The Caatinga is an exclusive biome in Brazil and comprehend 11% of the national territory. It presents semi-arid climate (hot and dry, with irregular rainfall distribution) and has diverse vegetation. The mosaic of vegetation includ savannahs, rupestrian fields, forests and caatingas, plants with few leaves and adapted for periods drought; usually low trees, sinuous trunks that have thorns and leaves fall during the dry season. The mosaic of vegetation includ savannahs, rupestrian fields, forests and caatingas, plants with few leaves and adapted for periods drought; usually low trees, sinuous trunks that have thorns and leaves fall during the dry season. The Atlantic Forest is a biome composed of a group of forests and ecosystems that corresponds to 15% of the Brazilian territory. The climate of the Atlantic Forest is predominantly humid tropical, with average temperatures and high air humidity all year and the rains are regular and well distributed.
Various aspects are known of coffee crops in the regions implanted Bahia, such as the technological level of crops, production and productivity, soil management, quality of coffee produced, commercialization, manpower used, among others, considering always the two regions as distinct, what took the Authors adopt this separation.
Initially, the most representative municipalities were selected in terms of production and different edaphoclimatic conditions. Then, a number of 5 to 15 properties per municipality was determined for the application of the questionnaire. In the West, 21 properties were sampled belonging to 4 municipalities (maximum number of municipalities that produce coffee in the region). In this region, the maximum number of coffee properties is 22, and the region is more homogeneous (soil, vegetation and climate). In higlands, 7 municipalities were listed as most representative, with the application of a questionnaire, on average, of 13 per municipality (total of 95). In higlands, the properties are more heterogeneous in terms of vegetation, soil and climate and the survey to encompass most of these specificities, from large properties to those with a predominance of family manpower that produce specialty coffees.
L32: important; I recomend you to use English editing service: Response: the corrected version has been revised
L41: The introduction is too long, it needs to be radically shortened or changed. It is mostly off-topic these days. For example, I suggest: Start to be limited to max. 4 sentences; L60-73 remove, etc.: Response: some excerpts were modified as suggested;
L46 and 81: spaces: Response: corrected
L84: to: Response: corrected
L104: The aim of the research is not supported by a good introduction. There is no complete hypothesis to verify.
Response: We agree with the Reviewer in relation the hypotheses and objectives, which have been rewritten and evidenced.
The demand of coffee producers for solutions to reduce pest populations is high, due failure of control commonly observed in the field. Therefore, a more comprehensive project was elaborate to test the following hypotheses: a) there is a relationship between the size of areas cultivated with coffee and native vegetation and irrigation with the type of management of the leaf miner; b) the control tactics of the leaf miner are differentiated between regions; c) decision-making for pest control is based on monitoring its population; d) the use of insecticides is differentiated between regions; e) there is risk of failure of control for the most used insecticides; and f) there is insecticide-resistant populations of leaf miner in Bahia. In the present article, the “a” and “d” hypotheses were tested, with important subsidies to advance to the “e” hypotheses (Leite et al., 2020 Journal of Economic Entomology – published, unpublished data for Bahia) and “f” (Leite et al. 2020 submitted, unpublished data for Bahia).
Leite, S.A.; Santos, M.P. dos; Resende-Silva, G.A.; Costa, D.R. da; Moreira, A.A.; Lemos, O.L.; Guedes, R.N.C.; Castellani, M.A. Area-wide survey of chlorantraniliprole resistance and control failure likelihood of the Neotropical coffee leaf miner Leucoptera coffeella. J. Econ. Entomol. 2020, 113, 1399-1410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jee/toaa017.
The present study was a basis for studies on the phenomenon of resistance to insecticides and for integrated management of pests, which philosophy takes into account social, ecological and economic aspects.
L110: You have an uneven number of farms for their division. Your survey planning is a bit flawed ... An explanation of this is necessary here:
Response: Initially, the most representative municipalities were selected in terms of production and different edaphoclimatic conditions. Posteriorly, determined was a number of 5 to 15 properties per municipality were determined for the application of the questionnaire In the western, 21 properties were sampled belonging to 4 municipalities (maximum number of counties that produce coffee in the region). In this region, the maximum number of coffee properties is 22, and the region is more homogeneous (soil, vegetation and climate). In highlands, 7 counties were listed as most representative, with the application of a questionnaire, on average, of 13 per municipality (total of 95). In highlands, the properties are more heterogeneous in terms of vegetation, soil and climate and the survey to encompass most of these specificities, from large properties to those with a predominance of family manpower that produce specialty coffees.
L115 missing paragraph.: Response: corrected
L153: The figures you suggest are very difficult to interpret and quite unusual. As an interested reader, I had to wonder what this figure is about. I propose to change these "spider webs" into something more reader friendly. Look at the L173, where everything merges:
Response: The figures denominated “spider webs” by the Reviewer are common in works of this nature, for example Reference number 5 of this work - Sawinska, Z.; Świtek, S.; Glowicka-Woloszyn, R., Kowalczewski, P.E. Agricultural pratice in Poland before and after mandatory IPM implementation by the European Union. Sustainabillity 2020, 12, 1107; http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12031107.
L168: no superscripts with chi square in whole MS: Response: corrected
L173: Dryland ???? there is nothing in the text on this topic anywhere: Response: replaced by non-irrigated
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors responded to all my comments. I agree with the vast majority of their explanations. Nevertheless, I still find the figures style unreadable. Moreover, it is illegible on black and white printouts.
I wish the Authors good luck in their future research.
