Conservation of Biocultural Diversity in the Huasteca Potosina Region, Mexico

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

GENERAL

The study is an original contribution, carried out in a biocultural diverse area of Mexico, with three main indigenous groups interacting with plants (Nahua, Teenek and Pame). The manuscript is interesting and has potential to be considered for publication. However, several aspects should be attended before being considered again for review. Research questions and aims are unclear, there are long sections of the text unnecessary, the methods need to be more clearly explained, and the Discussion should be clearer explaining the meaning of the results to evaluate the state and trends of biocultural diversity. A methodological reflection is recommendable in this respect. Before resubmitting the manuscript, it should be reviewed by a native English speaker to improve wording and grammar. Some specific recommendations are provided below.

 

ABSTRACT

According to the authors “The study aimed to analyze the conservation of biocultural diversity in this region” it would be recommendable to specify what about conservation (state?, actions for?, for instance). It is unclear what the factor and indexes calculated were used for and based in what type of information; please specify. After reading the whole text it is clear that biodiversity information is based on plants. Please indicate that in the Abstract. The information about results from the indexes is general and with unclear meaning. The conclusions “The Nahua ethnic group is the one that showed the greatest ethnobiological knowledge. Finally, there is a trend toward the loss of biocultural diversity” require more support from the results described.

INTRODUCTION

The first paragraph of this section mainly describes methods. It is unnecessary since these are described below. Remove this paragraph recovering the aims (I recommend to show them at the end of the section). Start the section explaining the challenge of biocultural diversity conservation and specifically in the region studied.

The first and last sentences of the second paragraph are useful to contextualize the research reported, but most information of this paragraph, related to the dynamics of ecosystems on earth is unnecessary. I suggest removing it.

The ideas and concepts of culture in the third paragraph can be summarized are unnecessarily textual.

I suggest the authors to summarize the theoretical issues about culture, biocultural diversity and socioecological systems and to provide more contextual information about the biocultural diversity of the region studied, the problems and the importance of studying that regional biocultural diversity and challenges for its conservation. The research questions and aims.

 

METHODS

The subsection 2.1 would be improved with tables summarizing environmental and cultural information of the region. Table 1 is pertinent to be referred to here and probably complemented with other information now showed in the text but that would be more easy to follow in the Table.

The subsection 2.2. History and socio-ecological systems in the Huasteca Potosina is too long it should be more concise.

The subsection 2.4. Species research materials could be better labelled “Ethnobotanical information”. The study is very much supported on ethnobotanical information but the term ethnobotany does not appear in the text.

Section 3. Methods should be part of the section 2. Materials and Methods. Please check

The heading of the Subsection 3.1 related to consensus factor index mixes the topic and the explanation. Please establish the title of the subsection and separate the explanation of the index. The same for heading of subsection 3.2 and 3.3. Please, in each subsection describing the indexes make explicit the source of information. It is important to provide clear elements to have an idea about the comparability of the data used for each site and culture.

 

RESULTS

The cultural groups studied live in areas with different number and types of ecosystems. The indexes used are based on the number of species used in general and for different purposes. Are these data comparable? Is the total richness of plant species similar in each territory studied? How do the authors think that the information could be standardized to avoid bias in the interpretation?

Table 4 and Figure 7 repeat information. It is unnecessary, one or the other, but not both

Table 6 lacks a heading explaining its content.

Table 7 lacks a heading, but the table is unnecessary; the information can be mentioned in the text.

Heading of Table 8 need an explanation of its content.

 

DISCUSION

The articulation of the different sources of information is still confusing. It is unclear how the different indexes used complement to each other and how they evaluate the state of biocultural diversity. More effort is required in this respect, as well as a reflection about the sufficiency of these indexes to evaluate state and trends of bicultural diversity. Th Conclusions section mention some trends but the support of the statements is unclear.

Author Response

Please find attached the text of the response to reviewer 1 and again thank him for his invaluable feedback on our work. We sincerely believe that it has contributed significantly to improve it for publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The paper is very interesting and addresses an innovative issue in link with conservation. The following problems must be addressed to improve the final quality of the manuscript.

My first major comment is the writing style used for the contexte. I suggest that the authors rewrite the introduction starting from the general framework and ending with the presentation of the situation of Huasteca potosina region, as case study. Readers will be more interested to understand the theoretical aspect aspect of the concept of social-ecological system before seeing its application to the case study.

My second major comment is to condense methodology section. Authors gave too much detail about the location of the study area. The presentation of the study area took 7 pages. I suggest to condense it on no more than 3 pages. What is important to know in this section is the study area floristic composition, its history and how all this support the cultural diversity.

The other important aspect in method section is research sample constitution. The description of research sampling method is sorely lacking in the manuscript. It must be shown to show that the research sample used is representative of the overall study population. 

My other large scale comment is regarding the figures, I think there is much room for improvement on the clarity of presentation and selection of figures. I suggest to authors to improve information presented on x-axis.

 

 

Author Response

I attach the text of the response to reviewer 2 and again thank him for his three comments, which helped to organize the restructuring of the work. Most of the comments were heeded.
Kind regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Although I could not find point by point responses to suggestions and comments of the previous review round, it is noticeable that the authors attended numerous suggestions. The manuscript significantly improved. It is clear that the authors conducted extensive fieldwork and collected important information. However, some issues are still to be attended. Mos importantly, English wording and grammar need a careful review. Some examples of the need of attending this aspect are provided below, but a review throughout the text is needed since some sentences are difficult to read. The authors performed quantitative approaches to study how important is a socioecological system performance for conserving biocultural diversity among different cultural groups. I emphasize the importance of establishing what trends were expected in relation to the values of the indexes used. In the Results section several comparisons are showed on these indexes in several environments and the reader wonders how these indexes were among cultural groups studied.

 

Line 10-11 The study aimed to…

Line 13 occurring in the region

Line 14 indigenous and mestizo people. It was conducted through obtaining information on three indicators

Line 16. For analysing the information

Lines 18-22. The very long sentence needs to be carefully re-written.

Lines 30 31 The piece of the sentence “Beyond conceiving culture as the exclusive expression of the arts,” is unnecessary, there area dozens of definitions of culture and the authors chose the one of UNESCO.

Lines 36-38. In this sentence starting “It is indispensable…” it is unclear what does “It” mean.

Line 98 “SES that inhabit the region…” should be “SES that occur the region…”

Line 101. The subheading “2.1. Importance of the biodiversity of the region included in the study” could be changed “2.1. Importance of biodiversity in the study region”

Lines 104-105 “between the Nearctic region and the Neotropical region” should be “between the Nearctic and Neotropical regions”

Line 102-107. Long sentences like this one abound throughout the text. I suggest to divide them in shorter sentences, more friendly to the readers.

Line 123. Th end of another log sentence “…located. [21] (pp75-76)” is confusing

Line 128 Check and correct the sentence “However, in grand areas, most of the primitive vegetation has disappeared…”

Author Response

We appreciate your interest in improving this work. We hope you will find that we have met all your requirements in a timely manner,

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors attended all suggestions satisfactorily. The manuscript has substantially improved and should be accepted.