Gender Differences in Knowledge, Use, and Collection of Wild Edible Plants in Three Spanish Areas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is well structured, correctly designed, and written. The English level is very good. While the key results are not abundant nor particularly novel, they are supported by empirical data, which are scarce in the field of gender dynamics. However, there are aspects, apart from some repetitions that occur in the text, that the authors need to refine. The authors sometimes generically mention results from previous ethnographic studies carried out by them, but without going into detail. While this is legitimate, they should consider incorporating more information from them or explaining more clearly what specific results they are referring to or where to find them in previous publications. Readers cannot be expected to have to search for such previous work in detail to get the necessary information. Also:

Lines 34-35: "researchers have often presented unitary models of local knowledge systems only based on information collected among men."

Is this so? This statement lacks value. Either the authors support it with bibliographic citations, or it should be rewritten.

Lines 47-49: “Moreover, besides gender, other individual characteristics such as class, occupation, ethnicity, formal education, social status, or religion should also be considered for understanding the diverse ways in which women and men interact with the environment.”

This statement is obviously a great truth. I would like to believe that the authors chose the interviewees from a group that shares these characteristics so that comparing their gendered ethnobotanical knowledge makes sense. Maybe they could help with more information about the informants. Also, the manuscript lacks information on how they were selected. Do they belong to different generations? What is their origin, are they from other regions or even other countries? Do they commute for work to big cities? Are they maybe being influenced culturally by them? According to Google, all study areas are only about an hour away from a big city, not only the settlements in the Sierra Norte de Madrid (cf. lines 195-196). Perhaps the answer is that they are all traditional, local inhabitants who have not lived elsewhere for a long time. If so, please make it clear.

Lines 133-136: “Conversely, the consolidated intensive monoculture agrobusiness in Doñana is employing a high number of female immigrant workers to gather red fruits.  Local women are also seasonally employed in this industry, handling the final product in factories [42]. Overall, women’s involvement in agricultural activities in Doñana is disappearing.”

There is an apparent contradiction between these sentences. If agriculture has increased (even if it is now industrial), it cannot be disappearing. Perhaps the authors mean "local women’s involvement in traditional agricultural practices are disappearing"?

Lines 161-167: Where does the information in this paragraph come from? Please cite.

Lines 293-294: “Our ethnographic fieldwork suggests that, in Doñana, needs for reward or self-affirmation of masculinity are satisfied through WEP gathering”.

I do not question this statement, but I cannot find any information or empirical data in the manuscript supporting this assertion. I ask the authors to explain why this is the case.

Lines 294-297: “In semi-structured interviews, men mentioned the consumption of many species, including Rubus ulmifolius, Chamaerops humilis, Glycycrrhiza glabra, Foeniculum vulgare, Cra-296taegus monogyna or Armeria arenaria, that could be eaten raw in the fields.”

In semi-structured interviews? Which ones? How many? Why do not the authors add one (or parts of it) in supplementary information? Also, unless the "Sustainability" rules state otherwise, authors should write the scientific names of plants in italics (see also lines 345-346, 358).

Lines 302-303: “We argue that the analysis of the environments where gathering takes place can help explain gendered differences in gathering”.

Are you sure? Is it the "environments" that explain the "gendered differences" or is it the gendered activities that take place in them who explain the different environments? It cannot be ignored that these environments have been shaped by humans.

Line 308: “As one informant from Donaña told us.”

Something is wrong with this sentence. Perhaps the authors might consider omitting it. Also, making it clear with it that the above statement (lines 306-308) is based on just a single assertion from a single informant does not seem like an elegant idea.

Line 324-325: “In sum, latifundismo seems to have weaken the relation between domestic and agrarian spaces [51]”

Are you sure you can support such a statement about latifundismo with what Descola [51] wrote about the Amazonian peoples? I have reread it and I think it is not so, but I am open to an explanation. By the way, include it in the manuscript, or please change or delete the source used.

Lines 349-353: “In this sense, the next quotation reveals a great deal about this masculine universe.  When one of the authors (born in a village of the Sierra Morena study area) stayed home to take care of his son while his wife left to work, a neighbor (a woman born in an agrotown of Western Andalusia), yell at him: “Go gather asparagus, faggot”.

Is this paragraph necessary? As far as I know, the expression “go gather asparagus” is common throughout Spain and can be used regardless of the sex of the person to whom it is dedicated.

Lines 414: “The same behavior is common among adults, as fields are not considered a suitable place for women to be alone. It is even rare to see a group of women in the mountains. These ideas are embedded in popular culture.  Thus, referring to a woman, a popular Andalusian song says: […]”

“Is” common or “was” common? Is this still so? Is it really rare to see nowadays a group of women in the Spanish mountains? Please check this sentence. And maybe the authors want to reveal to us which song it is.

Lines 598-600: What kind of source is [42]? The information is incomplete. Is it a book? An article? A flyer? A love letter? The same happens with [29] (lines 576-577). [36] (lines 589-590) should be cited as Prados, M.J.; del Valle Ramos, C. The authors need to check and correct/complete the bibliographic sources.

Author Response

We are grateful for the time you took to comment on our manuscript and the positive and constructive feedback provided. We have attended the suggested changes, deleting unnecessary text, adding cites and making our manuscript more robust in those parts that seemed weaker. 

The authors. 

All the best. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The title does not match the content: the word dynamics should be removed. Suggestion: 
   Gender differences in knowledge, use and collection of wild plants in the three Spanish regions or 
   Differences in knowledge, use and collection of wild plants with respect to gender in the three Spanish regions.
2. The section on methods is not at a satisfactory level. Three surveys are mentioned, and then there is one on which the research is based (which one is it?).
   There is no data on sampling, sample size, and sampling method.
   The sample is not sufficiently described in terms of variables that could significantly affect gender differences:
    - Do respondents (males and females) from all three regions live in villages or are there any who are in the city?
    - What is the structure of the respondents with regard to profession and education by region and gender?
    - What is the age structure of the respondents by region and gender?
3. Excerpts on the specific contribution of the research in relation to the existing ones and suggestions for other researchers are missing in discussion or conclusion.
4. The limitations encountered by the researchers during the study are not listed.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We are grateful for the time you took to read and comment our manuscript. We have include suggestions and we answer in the attached file. 

All the best.

Authors. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript still lacks the elements customary in research paper conclusions, i.e.:

• A brief description of the contribution of their research to the existing knowledge base with recommendations for further work and other researchers.
• What do they see as limitations of the research conducted and this work based on it?

Author Response

Thanks a lot for the final comments. We added a deep review of limitations / contribution of our manuscript in the conclusions (lines 499-511). 

Regards. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx