PONE-D-24-08984A socioeconomic and cost benefit analysis of Tropical Race 4 (TR4) among producers in ColombiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ritter,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 28 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rajappa Janyanaik Joga, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"This work was funded by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) in the project, “Innovations for the prevention and management of the banana fungal disease Foc TR4 (ALER4TA)”, implemented by the Fund for the Promotion in Agriculture (i4Ag) as part of the special initiative Transformation of Agricultural and Food Systems."

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"Special thanks to Jorge Eliecer Vargas who provided valuable guidance and information during the socioeconomic study. We are grateful for the funding for this work from the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). We are thankful for the support in the data collection process to the banana producer associations Augura and Asbama, the producer cooperatives, members from the Latin American and Caribbean Network of Fair-Trade Small Producers and Workers (CLAC, for its acronym in Spanish) and, last but not least, to Leonardo  García and his data collection team. The opinions expressed are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the funders or institutions of affiliation."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

"This work was funded by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) in the project, “Innovations for the prevention and management of the banana fungal disease Foc TR4 (ALER4TA)”, implemented by the Fund for the Promotion in Agriculture (i4Ag) as part of the special initiative Transformation of Agricultural and Food Systems."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. In the online submission form, you indicated that "Not all data can be shared publicly because of concerns of confidentiality. Some data are available from the authors (contact via Jonathan Mockshell at j.mockshell@cgiar.org) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to the data."

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

7. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

8. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 5 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

9. We notice that your supplementary tables are included in the manuscript file. Please remove them and upload them with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Scientific Quality:

� The paper presents an important contribution to the literature by investigating the socioeconomic implications of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense Tropical Race 4 (TR4) on banana producers in Colombia. The study employs a mixed-methods approach, including interviews with producers and key stakeholders, as well as a cost-benefit analysis, to assess the susceptibility of banana farming systems to TR4. The findings shed light on the financial viability of current monitoring strategies and provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of preventive measures implemented by producers.

� While the study provides a comprehensive analysis of the socioeconomic aspects of TR4 on banana producers in Colombia, the methodology section lacks detail regarding the sampling strategy for selecting interview participants. Providing information on how participants were chosen would enhance the transparency and reproducibility of the study.

� The paper would benefit from a more thorough discussion of the limitations inherent in the cost-benefit analysis. For instance, the analysis may overlook certain intangible costs and benefits associated with TR4 mitigation measures, such as the psychological impact on farmers or the long-term environmental consequences. For example:

Line 652: The study of Martínez et al. (2023) and Olivares (2023) underscores the critical threat posed by TR4 to the global banana industry, particularly in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), where its presence has been increasingly reported. Indeed, as highlighted by Rodríguez et al. (2023a; 2023b), Campos (2023) TR4 represents a significant risk to banana production in LAC countries, including Colombia, Peru, and Venezuela. The recent emergence of TR4 in these regions underscores the urgency for effective containment and control measures to safeguard the banana industry and mitigate potential economic losses.

Moreover, the socioeconomic characterization of banana-producing regions, such as the Changuinola district in Panama (Rodríguez et al., 2021; Gracia et al. 2020; Montenegro et al. 2021), serves as a valuable reference for understanding the socioeconomic dynamics and vulnerability factors that may exacerbate the impact of TR4 on local communities. Identifying key socio-economic indicators, such as education, unemployment, and food security, enables stakeholders to formulate tailored strategies to enhance resilience and support sustainable land management practices (Olivares et al. 2020; Olivares and Hernández, 2020).

Furthermore, Vega et al. (2022); Olivares et al. (2022); and Campos (2023), emphasize the need for proactive measures, including prevention, rapid containment, and quarantine protocols, to mitigate the spread of TR4 and safeguard the livelihoods of small and medium-sized banana farmers in affected regions. By integrating risk analysis and climatic suitability mapping, stakeholders can identify high-risk areas and implement targeted interventions to prevent further dissemination of the pathogen. The findings presented in the paper underscore the urgent need for coordinated efforts among stakeholders, including government agencies, researchers, and local communities, to combat the spread of TR4 and safeguard the long-term sustainability of the banana industry in Colombia and beyond.

� The abstract provides a concise overview of the study; however, it could be improved by including specific quantitative results from the cost-benefit analysis to give readers a better understanding of the magnitude of potential losses and benefits associated with TR4 mitigation strategies.

Recommendations:

� Consider providing more detailed information on the sampling methodology employed for selecting interview participants, including criteria for inclusion and exclusion, to enhance the rigor and reproducibility of the study.

� Expand the discussion section to include a more thorough analysis of the limitations of the cost-benefit analysis, including potential biases and uncertainties, to provide a balanced interpretation of the findings.

Improvement Advice:

� To strengthen the scientific rigor of the study, consider incorporating quantitative measures of the socioeconomic impact of TR4 on banana producers, such as estimating the potential reduction in yields or income losses due to TR4 infection.

� To enhance the generalizability of the findings, consider expanding the study to include a broader sample of banana-producing regions in Colombia and possibly other countries affected by TR4, to capture variations in socioeconomic conditions and farming practices.

References:

� Incorporating the suggested and relevant recent literature is crucial for enriching the scholarly discourse surrounding the socioeconomic impact of Fusarium wilt (TR4) on banana production in Colombia and neighboring regions. By drawing upon the latest research findings and insights from impact journals, such as those focusing on banana pathology, agricultural economics, and regional socioeconomic dynamics, the manuscript can offer a comprehensive and up-to-date analysis of the challenges and opportunities faced by banana producers. Furthermore, integrating recent literature enhances the paper's credibility, ensuring that it aligns with the latest advancements and understanding in the field. This comprehensive approach not only strengthens the scientific foundation of the study but also provides valuable context and perspective for policymakers, researchers, and stakeholders seeking effective strategies to mitigate the impact of TR4 on banana production and safeguard the livelihoods of farming communities.

Campos, B. O. O. (2023). Banana production in Venezuela: Novel solutions to productivity and plant health. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34475-6

Gracia, E. J. M., Rodríguez, J. E. P., & Campos, B. O. O. (2020). Adaptation to climate change in indigenous food systems of the Teribe in Panama: a training based on Cristal 2.0. Revista Luna Azul, (51), 182-197. : https://doi.org/10.17151/luaz.2020.51.10

Martínez, G.; Olivares, B.O.; Rey, J.C.; Rojas, J.; Cardenas, J.; Muentes, C.; Dawson, C. 2023. The Advance of Fusarium Wilt Tropical Race 4 in Musaceae of Latin America and the Caribbean: Current Situation. Pathogens, 12, 277. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12020277

Montenegro-Gracia, E. J., Pitti-Rodríguez, J. E., & Olivares-Campos, B. O. (2021). Identification of the main subsistence crops of Teribe: a case study based on multivariate techniques. Idesia (Arica), 39(3), 83-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-34292021000300083

Olivares B, Vega A, Calderón MAR, Rey JC, Lobo D, Gómez JA, Landa BB. 2022. Identification of Soil Properties Associated with the Incidence of Banana Wilt Using Supervised Methods. Plants, 11(15):2070. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11152070

Olivares, B., Hernández, R. 2020. Application of multivariate techniques in the agricultural land’s aptitude in Carabobo, Venezuela. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems, 23(2):1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.56369/tsaes.3233

Olivares, B., Pitti, J., Montenegro, E. 2020. Socioeconomic characterization of Bocas del Toro in Panama: an application of multivariate techniques. Revista Brasileira de Gestao e Desenvolvimento Regional, 16(3):59-71. https://doi.org/10.54399/rbgdr.v16i3.5871

Olivares, B.O. (2023). Fusarium Wilt of Bananas: A Threat to the Banana Production Systems in Venezuela. In: Banana Production in Venezuela. The Latin American Studies Book Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34475-6_3

Rodríguez, J. E. P., Olivares, B. O., Montenegro, E. J., Miller, L., & Ñango, Y. (2021). The role of agriculture in the Changuinola District: A case of applied economics in Panama. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems, 25(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.56369/tsaes.3815

Rodríguez-Yzquierdo, G.; Olivares, B.O.; González-Ulloa, A.; León-Pacheco, R.; Gómez-Correa, J.C.; Yacomelo-Hernández, M.; Carrascal-Pérez, F.; Florez-Cordero, E.; Soto-Suárez, M.; Dita, M.; et al. Soil Predisposing Factors to Fusarium oxysporum f.sp Cubense Tropical Race 4 on Banana Crops of La Guajira, Colombia. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2588. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13102588

Rodríguez-Yzquierdo, G.; Olivares, B.O.; Silva-Escobar, O.; González-Ulloa, A.; Soto-Suarez, M.; Betancourt-Vásquez, M. Mapping of the Susceptibility of Colombian Musaceae Lands to a Deadly Disease: Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense Tropical Race 4. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 757. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae9070757

Vega, A.; Olivares, B.O.; Rueda Calderón, M.A.; Montenegro-Gracia, E.; Araya-Almán, M.; Marys, E. 2022. Prediction of Banana Production Using Epidemiological Parameters of Black Sigatoka: An Application with Random Forest. Sustainability 14, 14123. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114123

Reviewer #2: The article is not solid, the data obtained is hypothetical because the producers interviewed do not have the disease and therefore, there is no direct relationship between the data and the conclusions. For the cost benefit analysis, they used very general cost data that does not come from a reliable source.

The sample size is not adequate, it is unbalanced in the study areas. The data obtained does not allow us to have an analysis of costs, much less the benefits of the implementation of biosecurity vs. the losses that can be caused by the disease that is the focus of the study, TR4. If anything, they can serve to characterize the producers of Magalenda, because they do not even have a sample population that allows them to characterize the producers of Antioquia.

The title of the article has nothing to do with the results and furthermore the conclusions reached have nothing to do with the information obtained in the materials and methods, reflecting a very large decontextualization of the TR4 problem in Colombia.

Although the authors explain in the text why they do not have information on the farms affected by TR4, the basic information exercise was also very poor, for example, the production costs of bananas for export, if they could be obtained with good work in field and then from this information it would have been possible to estimate the cost of biosecurity implementation.

The cost of the disease has many dimensions, for example in: loss of jobs, or loss of land value, that were not explored by the authors. On the other hand, it is strange in the document that it was not analyzed what it has cost the country and its institutions to prevent and carry out surveillance on the disease, these data could also be estimated and no effort was made in this regard.

It is not an article that contributes to knowledge and is not interesting. It does not have rigor in the materials and methods, nor in the recommendations and conclusions, which are not derived from the results obtained, rather they are hypotheses, which also demonstrate a low contextualization and knowledge of the topic and the reality of the disease in Colombia and other South American countries.

The recommendations for the prevention of the pathogen indicate a great lack of knowledge of phytopathology in general and of the understanding of the sociocultural patterns of Colombia and Latin America and the Caribbean.

Reviewer #3: The article is not solid, mainly because information was obtained from farms that do not have Foc TR4, the data obtained from free farms makes the results hypothetical. The estimated costs are not adequate because they do not consider real costs of farms that implement biosecurity measures in the presence of the pathogen. The population sampled between both departments is very unbalanced and the analysis for the department of Antioquia and its distribution of types of producers is not representative.

The title of the article has no relationship with the results and conclusions. There is a marked decontextualization of the Foc TR4 problem in Colombia and the productive realities of export bananas in that country. Socioeconomic impact indicators such as job losses are not considered in this study and that is significant for these regions that make a living from banana production.

The article is not robust and does not represent new knowledge, due to the hypothetical nature of the results and its poor capacity for analysis.

Reviewer #4: General comments:

The paper by Ritter et al is an important assessment of the impact of TR4 in commercial and small-scale farming systems in Colombia. The authors could only work with the situation available, which includes the limited spread of the disease in the study areas, and the collaboration of growers. Still, the information obtained is important for the larger scientific community, especially the outcome that investment in preventative and mitigating measures can significantly increase the net value of banana production in both regions. The paper is reasonably well written, but the Discussion can be more comprehensive with more references.

I also have some specific questions and recommendations, which are listed below.

Title:

Why does the title of the manuscript on page 1 differ from that on page 3?

Abstract:

Page 3, line 46: ‘Susceptibility’ should rather be replaced with ‘vulnerability’. Also add the region to this sentence, i.e. Colombia.

Introduction:

Page 4, line 66: Replace ‘targets’ with ‘blocks’.

Page 4, line 70: Please indicate what you mean with ‘but also raises concerns for various other crops’.

Page 4, line 70: What is meant with ‘Foc exhibits diverse populations’?

Page 4, line 70: In the same sentence it is stated that ‘TR4 being the sole strain capable of affecting the economically vital Cavendish cultivar’, which is not entirely true. Fusarium subtropical race 4 can also affect Cavendish bananas, although this happens in the subtropics. Also, do the authors consider Foc VCG 0121 a member of Foc TR4, as this strain can also cause disease to Cavendish bananas.

Page 4, line 75: There is no proof that Foc TR4 is more aggressive than other races. It only affects more banana cultivars than the other races.

Pg 4, line 79: TR4 was not identified in Asia in the 1970s. That is simply speculation. The fungus was only identified after affecting Cavendish bananas in Malaysia and Indonesia in the 1990’s.

Pg 4, line 80: Please provide references for the occurrence of Foc TR4 in Africa, Colombia, Peru and Venezuela.

Pg 4, line 88: Please provide a reference for the interventions implemented in Colombia.

Pg 5, lines 92-93: Please see de Figueiredo Silva et al. (2023). Estimating worldwide benefits from improved bananas resistant to Fusarium Wilt Tropical race 4. Journal of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association 2(1).

Materials and Methods:

Page 6, lines 130-131: The sentence starting with ‘This section ….’ is unnecessary. Please remove.

Page 6, lines 133-134. Rewrote this as follows: The departments of Antioquia and Magdalene in Colombia were selected due to several strategic considerations (Fig. 1).

Page 6, line 134. Please start a sentence with a capital letter. It would also be acceptible if you start the sentence with ‘Firstly, these departments ….’.

Page 7, line 157: Mention the name of your organization here.

Page 8, line 173: ‘….as explained below.’

Page 10, line 244: Please correct this sentence by deleting one ‘steps’.

Page 12, line 260: This sentence starting with ‘This section …’ is unnecessary, and can be deleted.

Page 15, line 329: Should the mean yield in Antioquia not be 46.24 instead of 44.1 tons/ha?

Page 16, line 341: The word ‘conditions’ can possibly be replaced with ‘differences’.

Page 16, line 353: Fix $688 USD.

Page 17, line 369: In section 3.2., more reference should be made to Table A1.

Page 19, line 414: In section 3.2.2., please briefly describe the nature of the cement paths and fences. Are the paths between or in plantations, between blocks? Are the fences on farm borders, or within farms?

Page 21, lines 459-464: Not necessary to repeat this information that was already mentioned in the Methodology section.

Page 21, line 471: Table 3 provides a comprehensive overview ….

Pages 21, 22 and 23, sections 3.3.1., 3.3.2. and 3.3.3: Too much Methodology included in the beginning of these sections. Rather move the methods used to the Methodology sections.

Page 23, line 511: This must be a mistake, as I cannot see the financial performance of biosecurity strategies being presented in Table 1. Should it be Table 5?

Page 24, line 531: Refer to Table 5 in this section.

Page 25, line 551. Refer to Table 6 here.

Discussion:

Page 27, lines 575-578: The first two sentences in this paragraph says essentially the same thing. Please merge or delete one of the sentences.

Page 27, line 578: The statement starting with ‘TR4 poses a serious threat ….’ is redundant and should rather be used in the Introduction.

Page 27, line 585: Please add references to this paragraph.

Page 27, lines 586-588: The authors should vindicate the statement ‘banana farms …. in both Antioquia and Magdalena are highly susceptible to the spread of TR4’ based on the findings of your study.

Page 27, line 588: Infested soil, not infected soil.

Page 28, lines 594-605: This paragraph is full of unsupported statements, such as that TR4 spread would lead to massive job losses, unemployment, and hunger. Why can these farms not grow other crops, for instance, to generate income? Are there any literature or experiences substantiating these statements? Maybe cite some work done in the early 1900s in Latin America following the Gros Michel – race 1 epidemic.

Page 28, line 606: This section also requires some references for certain statements, especially on pro-active measures as the main means by which TR4 can be mitigated, and on the availability of resistant varieties. Please add these.

Page 29, line 614: It is not true that there are no banana varieties resistant or tolerant to TR4. Both FHIA-1 and GCTCV-218 (Formosana) are resistant and tolerant, respectively. Consult the literature on this. There might be other reasons why these are not acceptable for planting in Colombia.

Page 29, lines 615-617: What do these statistical regional differences mean? This should also be discussed here, and not only the reason for the differences.

Page 30, line 642: I appreciate that the current study is very unique, and based on predictions. If possible, however, one hope that the authors could compare their results to what happened in terms of the financial and social impact during the Gros Michel-Foc race 1 epidemic in Latin America in the early 1900s.

Page 31, line 666 onwards: There are also other interventions that need to be mentioned here. For instance, the fencing of properties and regulation of access, the digging of trenches and canals to direct the flow of water. Disinfection is a science by its own, and should be correctly used, while cement paths are not affordable by all.

Page 31, line 679-683: The authors also discuss what government, cooperatives and associations should do, but not what they have already done, or not done. That would provide some perspective.

Pg 32, line 704: The use of drones to detect TR4 is not well proved and should be recommended with care. Rather explain that it should be used to identify symptomatic or suspect plants that must be further investigated.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-08984_reviewer 060524.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-08984_reviewer. RevGR.pdf

A socioeconomic and cost benefit analysis of Tropical Race 4 (TR4) prevention methods among banana producers in Colombia

PONE-D-24-08984R1

Dear Dr.Thea Ritter,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Rajappa Janyanaik Joga, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: