Seed Exchange Networks of Native Maize, Beans, and Squash in San Juan Ixtenco and San Luis Huamantla, Tlaxcala, Mexico
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have reviewed the paper, unfortunately I am not satisfied by the questions/objectives of the research article.
The diversity associated with these crops need to have name signatures, pictures of seed types, which are not provided. Also, the diversity of the crops and seeds r performed at national govt level also.
The analysed data does not provide holistic picture and I donot agree with the strategies used for analyses.
I find that authors should make use of the scientific information available on the seeds and reason of selection of those varieties. Information regarding yield cropping performed would provide value addition also.
In recent times as part of sustainable cultivation of crop in these regions where the research is performed crop is supposed to be planted along with other crops to cover also.
A more complete data would be useful, details of analyses and insights could be useful.
At this time, the research article is more regional study, in appropriate for publication.
Authors could provide details listed above for value addition and scientific reporting.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment"
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this manuscript, the authors present the results of an analysis of the networks and interactions between farmers involved in the native maize, bean, and squash seed exchange networks of the Mexican state of Tlaxcala, based on interviews, questionnaires, and social network analysis.
Based on their analysis, the authors conclude that maize, bean and squash seed exchange networks can play an important role in maintaining diversity by encouraging the movement of different seeds between farmers.
The experiments are adequately described, and the results are presented and discussed at an appropriate scientific level. The conclusions are formulated following the experimental data. Although it is debatable whether the study can reveal the “agrobiodiversity” and the hypotheses of the maintenance and conservation of agrobiodiversity assumed in the manuscript (starting with the abstract), alleged for the three species and their unknown number of genotypes, the approach of the investigation could be accepted.
However, as major issues, some additional data would be helpful for the readers to understand the procedures and the way of working, the questions asked during the interviews and the questionnaires used.
For this purpose, in an additional file, this data could be included in the form of additional tables. In addition to the survey questions, it would be useful to systematize the data on respondents, on the types of interviews and questionnaires.
In this way, the sections "2.3. Interviews with farmers" (Lines L128-147) and "2.4. Questionnaires applied to farmers 148" (L148-157) would certainly be much clearer and better understood.
As minor issues, some additional data or revision are needed to clarify and properly define several aspects as background and material and methods used in the study and the context of the research.
L 83-85: “Farmers of these municipalities have maintained and preserved different varieties of maize, beans, and squash due to their traditions, diet, and economic criteria [31,32]”. In general, even an uninformed reader knows that Mexico is a center of origin and diversification of maize, a variety of species of beans, and some species of squash.
But the text in lines L 83-85 is quite ambiguous and the references to the two sources of information do not help to reveal the importance of the background of the subject presented in the manuscript. Therefore, the topic deserves a little debate, respectively a brief presentation, even without citations/references (just from the investigators' perspective).
Some aspects included in "2. Materials and Methods", "2.1. Study zone" should be reviewed and included in a paragraph of the 'Introduction' chapter (i.e., see L101-107).
Please check, restructure a little and rephrase, this is also the case for the following text: “The landraces of maize (Zea mays L.) recorded for Tlaxcala belong to the conical racial group, which includes Chalqueño, Conical, Conical cob, and Cacahuacintle [34]. This racial group is found from 2000 to 2800 m [35], it is characterized by producing conical cobs, with large numbers of grain rows (14-20), 4-8 mm grains, weak root system and presence of anthocyanins in grain [34].”.
For the Discussions chapter, I invite you to see the article https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10745-021-00274-5, with reference to "identify bottlenecks in seed availability and determine the influences of the market, institutions, and cultural context". Haven't you noticed such aspects, influences, which are worth a brief discussion?
Author Response
"Please see the attachment"
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
The topic is very interesting and the manuscript is well written, but in order to be more comprehensive for the readers please check my suggestions:
-please provide the age range for the interviewed farmers
-on what criteria you selected the farmers?
-could you describe the future directions of the seeds exchange networks?
Author Response
"Please see the attachment"
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
This is the very good choice of the topic, entitled " Seed exchange network of native maize, ............................................., Mexico" that evaluate the processes and structure of seed exchange network of native maize, beans and squash among farmers and other sectors, and analyze their influence on agro-biodiversity conservation. They found that nodal farmers involved in the greatest number of exchanges of different varieties, and promote circulation of a large number of seeds within the network, thereby contributing to maintenance and conservation of agro-biodiversity.
This manuscript provides most of the information in the field of seed exchange of the respective crops. The authors tried their best to garner information, and provide evidences as much as possible. However, this can be significantly improved, for example, by correcting typos, smoothness and replacing complicated and long sentences with short and sensible sentences.
Some of the suggestions to improve the overall quality of this manuscript are highlighted below:
a. Interview with farmers, in page 3, line 132 the authors talked about the average age of the farmer, please provide the age range as well.
b. Line 132, the authors mentioned about the snowball sampling technique, elaborate it more.
c. page 4, line 145, Did authors uploaded the transcribed from interview?
d. Line 150-151, What was the criteria for selecting farmers, for example, men or women?
e. Line 171, authors said 'sex' were they talking about male or female, If that was the case gender would be more appropriate word.
f. most of the result parts, authors described in detail. For example, line 280-296. It looked like this should have been explained in methodology part instead of in the result section. Please review methods and results section very carefully and update accordingly.
g. Results from table 7, and line 448-455 is the repetition of the same things, which is redundant. Please review the redundant sentences from results and discuss part and remove them.
h. What are the future directions for seed exchange networks.
Thank you
Author Response
"Please see the attachment"
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The work submitted now is improved, however, the reply to seventh comment with regard to the paper published at earlier time is inappropriate.
In my opinion the data should be analysed for more questions asked rather than one taken in account. The work of 2015 and justifications provided are rather obsolete in today's context.
Please consider some work of analyses of your data as constructive suggestions and do perform it, else I am afraid I would not be able to reduce my stringency. At this time, I think the authors should look at the data and understand to infer and provide future course of work they plan to perform/ ed.
Please provide an insight as a evidence for submission for improvement in conservation purpose.
Please list out lacuna and pitfalls which your suggestions and analyses could improve in discussions please quote suitable references.
The necessity to address would enable you to leave bench mark for the analyses purposes
You can use statstical tools for this purposes, which is essential.
Please perform data analyses using all your parameters and for this purpose you could consult biostastician for better and faster output
In my opinion, the scope is more than projected
The outreach with raw data would also be useful (in addition to ones provided).
Author Response
"Please see the attachment"
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
Good job!
Author Response
"Please see the attachment"
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
