Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Foraging Practices and Sustainable Management of Wild Food Resources in Europe: A Systematic Review

Land 2023, 12(7), 1299; https://doi.org/10.3390/land12071299

by Giorgio Mina¹

, Valentina Scariot²

, Giovanni Peira^1,*

and Giampiero Lombardi²

Reviewer 1:

Birgit Schmook

Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Reviewer 3:

Renata Sõukand

Reviewer 4: Anonymous

Land 2023, 12(7), 1299; https://doi.org/10.3390/land12071299

Submission received: 16 May 2023 / Revised: 21 June 2023 / Accepted: 26 June 2023 / Published: 27 June 2023

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Food Supply Chain and Land Management between Climate Neutrality and Circular Economy Goals: New Challenges for Social and Environmental Transition)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting, but rather short article. Given the importance of TEK the authors would need to give the reader more background on this concept. How as it defined used in the articles the authors reviewed? Was TEK relevant in all the reviewed articles?

And then TEK needs to be better woven into the discussion and conclusion.

The English is ok, but one last revision could be helpful.

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 1:

And then TEK needs to be better woven into the discussion and conclusion.

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you for your precious comments. Following your suggestion, we have added some background of the concept in the introduction (which was lacking) and tried to highlight more the connection between wild plants and TEK in the discussion. Finally, we added this aspect as future research suggestions in the conclusion. The reason for adding it as a future research suggestion is that the concept of TEK is indeed important. However, in our study, it is more of a background against which our research is set, and we think that discussing further how it emerges from the selected publications is beyond the scope of the research questions posed in our study. We think that, given its importance, a discussion around this aspect would need a separate piece of work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

thank you for this much-needed review on a topic which is often mentioned en passant and little systematically studied.

The article nicely tackles the point of food foraging abandonment, persecution and sustainability from a qualitative perspective. Yet, I believe that such a relevant topic deserves also some kind of quantitative discussion. For instance, line 220: several = how many exactly? Line 398: you may want to quantify before getting to this conclusion. A presentation of quantitative results (e.g. how many articles refer to each of the points made in Figures 4 and 5) would make this review way stronger (also in supporting the current conclusions).

Minor comments:

1. Lines 50-53 You may want to present references to each SDG

2. Lines 73-76 Do you refer to the Mediterranean context?

3. Lines 78-79 In which geographical context?

4. Figure 2: I would suggest not including 2023 as the results are partial which is not the case of the previous years.

5. Methods: have you selected a time range for selecting the publications?

6. Lines 212-215 This sentence seems more of a data analysis, how have you come up with these four categories?

7. Figures 4 and 5 are low quality, you may want to improve them for their readability

8. Lines 222-223 how do you support this? The quantitative approach would help this.

9. Lines 255-259 it is possibly redundant

10. Table 3 How do you define sustainable/unsustainable foraging practices?

You may want to carefully double-check the whole text to avoid typos.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for your constructive review and for recognizing the value of our work. We have considered all your comments and addressed them as needed for the improvement of our paper.

Dear authors,

thank you for this much-needed review on a topic which is often mentioned en passant and little systematically studied.

We thank you very much for the suggestion. Actually, we already thought about adding some quantitative perspective. Anyhow, it is difficult to say specifically in a quantitative way which of the individuated reasons is stronger in influencing the abandonment and preservation of foraging practices. This is mainly due to the fact that the argument is approached in a qualitative way in the selected publications. Anyway, as you suggest, adding the number of references for each reason pointed out can help in showing how many times that aspect has been highlighted in the literature. Therefore, following your comment, we have added in Figure 4 and Figure 5 the number of articles that refers to each aspect individuated in the literature for the abandonment and persecution of foraging practices. The number of references was added both for macro-categories and subcategories (the sum of subcategories may vary from that of the macro category because of publications that relate to more than one aspect). Thank you very much for this suggestion, we believe that adding the quantitative perspective has made the results of our review stronger. Furthermore, the conclusions presented in the discussion have been updated following these quantitative results way as well as compared to the results of similar studies found in the literature. The conclusion previously presented was probably a little bit subjective, we think that right now is presented in a more objective way.

Minor comments:

Lines 50-53 You may want to present references to each SDG

The reference for all SDGs is the same (Sharrock, S.; Jackson, P. W. Plant Conservation and the Sustainable Development Goals: A Policy Paper Prepared for the Global Partnership for Plant Conservation. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 2017, 102 (2), 290–302. https://doi.org/10.3417/D-16-00004A.). We have rephrased the sentence to clarify this.

Lines 73-76 Do you refer to the Mediterranean context?

Thank you very much for the observation, this aspect was missing. We updated the text to add this information for each reference.

Lines 78-79 In which geographical context?

As for point 2, we updated the text to add this information.

Figure 2: I would suggest not including 2023 as the results are partial which is not the case of the previous years.

After giving some thought we decided to include 2023 publications. Following the comments of the other reviewers we had to include several missing publications as well as slightly change the search keywords used in the systematic review. These changes have led to include 48 papers in our study, leading to six 2023 publications to be included. Even if, as you suggest, the results of 2023 are partial, we believe that those six articles are of interest and therefore need to be included among the results of our study.

Methods: have you selected a time range for selecting the publications?

We decided not to use a time range in order to include all relevant publications to answer our research questions. This choice was specified in the text. As you can see in Figure 2, most selected publications were published in the last ten years. Anyhow some older publications include some insights that were very useful for the results of our study.

Lines 212-215 This sentence seems more of a data analysis, how have you come up with these four categories?

These four categories were individuated following the full-text reading of selected publications. We tried to group all the reasons for the abandonment/prosecution of foraging practices that emerge from the literature to present a framework for increasing our results' readability. Following your comment, we tried to better explain this aspect in the text.

Figures 4 and 5 are low quality, you may want to improve them for their readability

Thank you for the suggestion, we have changed the figures in order to increase their readability. We hope that now are of higher quality.

Lines 222-223 how do you support this? The quantitative approach would help this.

As previously stated, that conclusion was probably a little bit subjective. It was therefore decided to eliminate the sentence and further discuss all the reasons individuated for the abandonment of foraging practices in the discussion.

Lines 255-259 it is possibly redundant

Following your comment, we decided to remove the sentence because, as you suggested, it was a redundant piece of information.

Table 3 How do you define sustainable/unsustainable foraging practices?

In order to be more objective, we decided to use a more neutral approach. Instead of talking about sustainable/unstainable practices we use the terms potential benefits/potential risks related to management practices of wild food resources.

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for your constructive review and for recognizing the value of our work. We have considered all your comments and addressed them as needed for the improvement of our paper.

Dear authors,

thank you for this much-needed review on a topic which is often mentioned en passant and little systematically studied.

Minor comments:

Lines 50-53 You may want to present references to each SDG

Lines 73-76 Do you refer to the Mediterranean context?

Thank you very much for the observation, this aspect was missing. We updated the text to add this information for each reference.

Lines 78-79 In which geographical context?

As for point 2, we updated the text to add this information.

Figure 2: I would suggest not including 2023 as the results are partial which is not the case of the previous years.

Methods: have you selected a time range for selecting the publications?

Lines 212-215 This sentence seems more of a data analysis, how have you come up with these four categories?

Figures 4 and 5 are low quality, you may want to improve them for their readability

Thank you for the suggestion, we have changed the figures in order to increase their readability. We hope that now are of higher quality.

Lines 222-223 how do you support this? The quantitative approach would help this.

Lines 255-259 it is possibly redundant

Following your comment, we decided to remove the sentence because, as you suggested, it was a redundant piece of information.

Table 3 How do you define sustainable/unsustainable foraging practices?

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for your constructive review and for recognizing the value of our work. We have considered all your comments and addressed them as needed for the improvement of our paper.

Dear authors,

thank you for this much-needed review on a topic which is often mentioned en passant and little systematically studied.

Minor comments:

Lines 50-53 You may want to present references to each SDG

Lines 73-76 Do you refer to the Mediterranean context?

Thank you very much for the observation, this aspect was missing. We updated the text to add this information for each reference.

Lines 78-79 In which geographical context?

As for point 2, we updated the text to add this information.

Figure 2: I would suggest not including 2023 as the results are partial which is not the case of the previous years.

Methods: have you selected a time range for selecting the publications?

Lines 212-215 This sentence seems more of a data analysis, how have you come up with these four categories?

Figures 4 and 5 are low quality, you may want to improve them for their readability

Thank you for the suggestion, we have changed the figures in order to increase their readability. We hope that now are of higher quality.

Lines 222-223 how do you support this? The quantitative approach would help this.

Lines 255-259 it is possibly redundant

Following your comment, we decided to remove the sentence because, as you suggested, it was a redundant piece of information.

Table 3 How do you define sustainable/unsustainable foraging practices?

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for your constructive review and for recognizing the value of our work. We have considered all your comments and addressed them as needed for the improvement of our paper.

Dear authors,

thank you for this much-needed review on a topic which is often mentioned en passant and little systematically studied.

Minor comments:

Lines 50-53 You may want to present references to each SDG

Lines 73-76 Do you refer to the Mediterranean context?

Thank you very much for the observation, this aspect was missing. We updated the text to add this information for each reference.

Lines 78-79 In which geographical context?

As for point 2, we updated the text to add this information.

Figure 2: I would suggest not including 2023 as the results are partial which is not the case of the previous years.

Methods: have you selected a time range for selecting the publications?

Lines 212-215 This sentence seems more of a data analysis, how have you come up with these four categories?

Figures 4 and 5 are low quality, you may want to improve them for their readability

Thank you for the suggestion, we have changed the figures in order to increase their readability. We hope that now are of higher quality.

Lines 222-223 how do you support this? The quantitative approach would help this.

Lines 255-259 it is possibly redundant

Following your comment, we decided to remove the sentence because, as you suggested, it was a redundant piece of information.

Table 3 How do you define sustainable/unsustainable foraging practices?

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for your constructive review and for recognizing the value of our work. We have considered all your comments and addressed them as needed for the improvement of our paper.

Dear authors,

thank you for this much-needed review on a topic which is often mentioned en passant and little systematically studied.

Minor comments:

Lines 50-53 You may want to present references to each SDG

Lines 73-76 Do you refer to the Mediterranean context?

Thank you very much for the observation, this aspect was missing. We updated the text to add this information for each reference.

Lines 78-79 In which geographical context?

As for point 2, we updated the text to add this information.

Figure 2: I would suggest not including 2023 as the results are partial which is not the case of the previous years.

Methods: have you selected a time range for selecting the publications?

Lines 212-215 This sentence seems more of a data analysis, how have you come up with these four categories?

Figures 4 and 5 are low quality, you may want to improve them for their readability

Thank you for the suggestion, we have changed the figures in order to increase their readability. We hope that now are of higher quality.

Lines 222-223 how do you support this? The quantitative approach would help this.

Lines 255-259 it is possibly redundant

Following your comment, we decided to remove the sentence because, as you suggested, it was a redundant piece of information.

Table 3 How do you define sustainable/unsustainable foraging practices?

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for your constructive review and for recognizing the value of our work. We have considered all your comments and addressed them as needed for the improvement of our paper.

Dear authors,

thank you for this much-needed review on a topic which is often mentioned en passant and little systematically studied.

Minor comments:

Lines 50-53 You may want to present references to each SDG

Lines 73-76 Do you refer to the Mediterranean context?

Thank you very much for the observation, this aspect was missing. We updated the text to add this information for each reference.

Lines 78-79 In which geographical context?

As for point 2, we updated the text to add this information.

Figure 2: I would suggest not including 2023 as the results are partial which is not the case of the previous years.

Methods: have you selected a time range for selecting the publications?

Lines 212-215 This sentence seems more of a data analysis, how have you come up with these four categories?

Figures 4 and 5 are low quality, you may want to improve them for their readability

Thank you for the suggestion, we have changed the figures in order to increase their readability. We hope that now are of higher quality.

Lines 222-223 how do you support this? The quantitative approach would help this.

Lines 255-259 it is possibly redundant

Following your comment, we decided to remove the sentence because, as you suggested, it was a redundant piece of information.

Table 3 How do you define sustainable/unsustainable foraging practices?

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for your constructive review and for recognizing the value of our work. We have considered all your comments and addressed them as needed for the improvement of our paper.

Dear authors,

thank you for this much-needed review on a topic which is often mentioned en passant and little systematically studied.

Minor comments:

Lines 50-53 You may want to present references to each SDG

Lines 73-76 Do you refer to the Mediterranean context?

Thank you very much for the observation, this aspect was missing. We updated the text to add this information for each reference.

Lines 78-79 In which geographical context?

As for point 2, we updated the text to add this information.

Figure 2: I would suggest not including 2023 as the results are partial which is not the case of the previous years.

Methods: have you selected a time range for selecting the publications?

Lines 212-215 This sentence seems more of a data analysis, how have you come up with these four categories?

Figures 4 and 5 are low quality, you may want to improve them for their readability

Thank you for the suggestion, we have changed the figures in order to increase their readability. We hope that now are of higher quality.

Lines 222-223 how do you support this? The quantitative approach would help this.

Lines 255-259 it is possibly redundant

Following your comment, we decided to remove the sentence because, as you suggested, it was a redundant piece of information.

Table 3 How do you define sustainable/unsustainable foraging practices?

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for your constructive review and for recognizing the value of our work. We have considered all your comments and addressed them as needed for the improvement of our paper.

Dear authors,

thank you for this much-needed review on a topic which is often mentioned en passant and little systematically studied.

Minor comments:

Lines 50-53 You may want to present references to each SDG

Lines 73-76 Do you refer to the Mediterranean context?

Thank you very much for the observation, this aspect was missing. We updated the text to add this information for each reference.

Lines 78-79 In which geographical context?

As for point 2, we updated the text to add this information.

Figure 2: I would suggest not including 2023 as the results are partial which is not the case of the previous years.

Methods: have you selected a time range for selecting the publications?

Lines 212-215 This sentence seems more of a data analysis, how have you come up with these four categories?

Figures 4 and 5 are low quality, you may want to improve them for their readability

Thank you for the suggestion, we have changed the figures in order to increase their readability. We hope that now are of higher quality.

Lines 222-223 how do you support this? The quantitative approach would help this.

Lines 255-259 it is possibly redundant

Following your comment, we decided to remove the sentence because, as you suggested, it was a redundant piece of information.

Table 3 How do you define sustainable/unsustainable foraging practices?

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for your constructive review and for recognizing the value of our work. We have considered all your comments and addressed them as needed for the improvement of our paper.

Dear authors,

thank you for this much-needed review on a topic which is often mentioned en passant and little systematically studied.

Minor comments:

Lines 50-53 You may want to present references to each SDG

Lines 73-76 Do you refer to the Mediterranean context?

Thank you very much for the observation, this aspect was missing. We updated the text to add this information for each reference.

Lines 78-79 In which geographical context?

As for point 2, we updated the text to add this information.

Figure 2: I would suggest not including 2023 as the results are partial which is not the case of the previous years.

Methods: have you selected a time range for selecting the publications?

Lines 212-215 This sentence seems more of a data analysis, how have you come up with these four categories?

Figures 4 and 5 are low quality, you may want to improve them for their readability

Thank you for the suggestion, we have changed the figures in order to increase their readability. We hope that now are of higher quality.

Lines 222-223 how do you support this? The quantitative approach would help this.

Lines 255-259 it is possibly redundant

Following your comment, we decided to remove the sentence because, as you suggested, it was a redundant piece of information.

Table 3 How do you define sustainable/unsustainable foraging practices?

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for your constructive review and for recognizing the value of our work. We have considered all your comments and addressed them as needed for the improvement of our paper.

Dear authors,

thank you for this much-needed review on a topic which is often mentioned en passant and little systematically studied.

Minor comments:

Lines 50-53 You may want to present references to each SDG

Lines 73-76 Do you refer to the Mediterranean context?

Thank you very much for the observation, this aspect was missing. We updated the text to add this information for each reference.

Lines 78-79 In which geographical context?

As for point 2, we updated the text to add this information.

Figure 2: I would suggest not including 2023 as the results are partial which is not the case of the previous years.

Methods: have you selected a time range for selecting the publications?

Lines 212-215 This sentence seems more of a data analysis, how have you come up with these four categories?

Figures 4 and 5 are low quality, you may want to improve them for their readability

Thank you for the suggestion, we have changed the figures in order to increase their readability. We hope that now are of higher quality.

Lines 222-223 how do you support this? The quantitative approach would help this.

Lines 255-259 it is possibly redundant

Following your comment, we decided to remove the sentence because, as you suggested, it was a redundant piece of information.

Table 3 How do you define sustainable/unsustainable foraging practices?

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for your constructive review and for recognizing the value of our work. We have considered all your comments and addressed them as needed for the improvement of our paper.

Dear authors,

thank you for this much-needed review on a topic which is often mentioned en passant and little systematically studied.

Minor comments:

Lines 50-53 You may want to present references to each SDG

Lines 73-76 Do you refer to the Mediterranean context?

Thank you very much for the observation, this aspect was missing. We updated the text to add this information for each reference.

Lines 78-79 In which geographical context?

As for point 2, we updated the text to add this information.

Figure 2: I would suggest not including 2023 as the results are partial which is not the case of the previous years.

Methods: have you selected a time range for selecting the publications?

Lines 212-215 This sentence seems more of a data analysis, how have you come up with these four categories?

Figures 4 and 5 are low quality, you may want to improve them for their readability

Thank you for the suggestion, we have changed the figures in order to increase their readability. We hope that now are of higher quality.

Lines 222-223 how do you support this? The quantitative approach would help this.

Lines 255-259 it is possibly redundant

Following your comment, we decided to remove the sentence because, as you suggested, it was a redundant piece of information.

Table 3 How do you define sustainable/unsustainable foraging practices?

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for your constructive review and for recognizing the value of our work. We have considered all your comments and addressed them as needed for the improvement of our paper.

Dear authors,

thank you for this much-needed review on a topic which is often mentioned en passant and little systematically studied.

Minor comments:

Lines 50-53 You may want to present references to each SDG

Lines 73-76 Do you refer to the Mediterranean context?

Thank you very much for the observation, this aspect was missing. We updated the text to add this information for each reference.

Lines 78-79 In which geographical context?

As for point 2, we updated the text to add this information.

Figure 2: I would suggest not including 2023 as the results are partial which is not the case of the previous years.

Methods: have you selected a time range for selecting the publications?

Lines 212-215 This sentence seems more of a data analysis, how have you come up with these four categories?

Figures 4 and 5 are low quality, you may want to improve them for their readability

Thank you for the suggestion, we have changed the figures in order to increase their readability. We hope that now are of higher quality.

Lines 222-223 how do you support this? The quantitative approach would help this.

Lines 255-259 it is possibly redundant

Following your comment, we decided to remove the sentence because, as you suggested, it was a redundant piece of information.

Table 3 How do you define sustainable/unsustainable foraging practices?

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for your constructive review and for recognizing the value of our work. We have considered all your comments and addressed them as needed for the improvement of our paper.

Dear authors,

thank you for this much-needed review on a topic which is often mentioned en passant and little systematically studied.

Minor comments:

Lines 50-53 You may want to present references to each SDG

Lines 73-76 Do you refer to the Mediterranean context?

Thank you very much for the observation, this aspect was missing. We updated the text to add this information for each reference.

Lines 78-79 In which geographical context?

As for point 2, we updated the text to add this information.

Figure 2: I would suggest not including 2023 as the results are partial which is not the case of the previous years.

Methods: have you selected a time range for selecting the publications?

Lines 212-215 This sentence seems more of a data analysis, how have you come up with these four categories?

Figures 4 and 5 are low quality, you may want to improve them for their readability

Thank you for the suggestion, we have changed the figures in order to increase their readability. We hope that now are of higher quality.

Lines 222-223 how do you support this? The quantitative approach would help this.

Lines 255-259 it is possibly redundant

Following your comment, we decided to remove the sentence because, as you suggested, it was a redundant piece of information.

Table 3 How do you define sustainable/unsustainable foraging practices?

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for your constructive review and for recognizing the value of our work. We have considered all your comments and addressed them as needed for the improvement of our paper.

Dear authors,

thank you for this much-needed review on a topic which is often mentioned en passant and little systematically studied.

Minor comments:

Lines 50-53 You may want to present references to each SDG

Lines 73-76 Do you refer to the Mediterranean context?

Thank you very much for the observation, this aspect was missing. We updated the text to add this information for each reference.

Lines 78-79 In which geographical context?

As for point 2, we updated the text to add this information.

Figure 2: I would suggest not including 2023 as the results are partial which is not the case of the previous years.

Methods: have you selected a time range for selecting the publications?

Lines 212-215 This sentence seems more of a data analysis, how have you come up with these four categories?

Figures 4 and 5 are low quality, you may want to improve them for their readability

Thank you for the suggestion, we have changed the figures in order to increase their readability. We hope that now are of higher quality.

Lines 222-223 how do you support this? The quantitative approach would help this.

Lines 255-259 it is possibly redundant

Following your comment, we decided to remove the sentence because, as you suggested, it was a redundant piece of information.

Table 3 How do you define sustainable/unsustainable foraging practices?

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for your constructive review and for recognizing the value of our work. We have considered all your comments and addressed them as needed for the improvement of our paper.

Dear authors,

thank you for this much-needed review on a topic which is often mentioned en passant and little systematically studied.

Minor comments:

Lines 50-53 You may want to present references to each SDG

Lines 73-76 Do you refer to the Mediterranean context?

Thank you very much for the observation, this aspect was missing. We updated the text to add this information for each reference.

Lines 78-79 In which geographical context?

As for point 2, we updated the text to add this information.

Figure 2: I would suggest not including 2023 as the results are partial which is not the case of the previous years.

Methods: have you selected a time range for selecting the publications?

Lines 212-215 This sentence seems more of a data analysis, how have you come up with these four categories?

Figures 4 and 5 are low quality, you may want to improve them for their readability

Thank you for the suggestion, we have changed the figures in order to increase their readability. We hope that now are of higher quality.

Lines 222-223 how do you support this? The quantitative approach would help this.

Lines 255-259 it is possibly redundant

Following your comment, we decided to remove the sentence because, as you suggested, it was a redundant piece of information.

Table 3 How do you define sustainable/unsustainable foraging practices?

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for your constructive review and for recognizing the value of our work. We have considered all your comments and addressed them as needed for the improvement of our paper.

Dear authors,

thank you for this much-needed review on a topic which is often mentioned en passant and little systematically studied.

Minor comments:

Lines 50-53 You may want to present references to each SDG

Lines 73-76 Do you refer to the Mediterranean context?

Thank you very much for the observation, this aspect was missing. We updated the text to add this information for each reference.

Lines 78-79 In which geographical context?

As for point 2, we updated the text to add this information.

Figure 2: I would suggest not including 2023 as the results are partial which is not the case of the previous years.

Methods: have you selected a time range for selecting the publications?

Lines 212-215 This sentence seems more of a data analysis, how have you come up with these four categories?

Figures 4 and 5 are low quality, you may want to improve them for their readability

Thank you for the suggestion, we have changed the figures in order to increase their readability. We hope that now are of higher quality.

Lines 222-223 how do you support this? The quantitative approach would help this.

Lines 255-259 it is possibly redundant

Following your comment, we decided to remove the sentence because, as you suggested, it was a redundant piece of information.

Table 3 How do you define sustainable/unsustainable foraging practices?

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for your constructive review and for recognizing the value of our work. We have considered all your comments and addressed them as needed for the improvement of our paper.

Dear authors,

thank you for this much-needed review on a topic which is often mentioned en passant and little systematically studied.

Minor comments:

Lines 50-53 You may want to present references to each SDG

Lines 73-76 Do you refer to the Mediterranean context?

Thank you very much for the observation, this aspect was missing. We updated the text to add this information for each reference.

Lines 78-79 In which geographical context?

As for point 2, we updated the text to add this information.

Figure 2: I would suggest not including 2023 as the results are partial which is not the case of the previous years.

Methods: have you selected a time range for selecting the publications?

Lines 212-215 This sentence seems more of a data analysis, how have you come up with these four categories?

Figures 4 and 5 are low quality, you may want to improve them for their readability

Thank you for the suggestion, we have changed the figures in order to increase their readability. We hope that now are of higher quality.

Lines 222-223 how do you support this? The quantitative approach would help this.

Lines 255-259 it is possibly redundant

Following your comment, we decided to remove the sentence because, as you suggested, it was a redundant piece of information.

Table 3 How do you define sustainable/unsustainable foraging practices?

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for your constructive review and for recognizing the value of our work. We have considered all your comments and addressed them as needed for the improvement of our paper.

Dear authors,

thank you for this much-needed review on a topic which is often mentioned en passant and little systematically studied.

Minor comments:

Lines 50-53 You may want to present references to each SDG

Lines 73-76 Do you refer to the Mediterranean context?

Thank you very much for the observation, this aspect was missing. We updated the text to add this information for each reference.

Lines 78-79 In which geographical context?

As for point 2, we updated the text to add this information.

Figure 2: I would suggest not including 2023 as the results are partial which is not the case of the previous years.

Methods: have you selected a time range for selecting the publications?

Lines 212-215 This sentence seems more of a data analysis, how have you come up with these four categories?

Figures 4 and 5 are low quality, you may want to improve them for their readability

Thank you for the suggestion, we have changed the figures in order to increase their readability. We hope that now are of higher quality.

Lines 222-223 how do you support this? The quantitative approach would help this.

Lines 255-259 it is possibly redundant

Following your comment, we decided to remove the sentence because, as you suggested, it was a redundant piece of information.

Table 3 How do you define sustainable/unsustainable foraging practices?

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for your constructive review and for recognizing the value of our work. We have considered all your comments and addressed them as needed for the improvement of our paper.

Dear authors,

thank you for this much-needed review on a topic which is often mentioned en passant and little systematically studied.

Minor comments:

Lines 50-53 You may want to present references to each SDG

Lines 73-76 Do you refer to the Mediterranean context?

Thank you very much for the observation, this aspect was missing. We updated the text to add this information for each reference.

Lines 78-79 In which geographical context?

As for point 2, we updated the text to add this information.

Figure 2: I would suggest not including 2023 as the results are partial which is not the case of the previous years.

Methods: have you selected a time range for selecting the publications?

Lines 212-215 This sentence seems more of a data analysis, how have you come up with these four categories?

Figures 4 and 5 are low quality, you may want to improve them for their readability

Thank you for the suggestion, we have changed the figures in order to increase their readability. We hope that now are of higher quality.

Lines 222-223 how do you support this? The quantitative approach would help this.

Lines 255-259 it is possibly redundant

Following your comment, we decided to remove the sentence because, as you suggested, it was a redundant piece of information.

Table 3 How do you define sustainable/unsustainable foraging practices?

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for your constructive review and for recognizing the value of our work. We have considered all your comments and addressed them as needed for the improvement of our paper.

Dear authors,

thank you for this much-needed review on a topic which is often mentioned en passant and little systematically studied.

Minor comments:

Lines 50-53 You may want to present references to each SDG

Lines 73-76 Do you refer to the Mediterranean context?

Thank you very much for the observation, this aspect was missing. We updated the text to add this information for each reference.

Lines 78-79 In which geographical context?

As for point 2, we updated the text to add this information.

Figure 2: I would suggest not including 2023 as the results are partial which is not the case of the previous years.

Methods: have you selected a time range for selecting the publications?

Lines 212-215 This sentence seems more of a data analysis, how have you come up with these four categories?

Figures 4 and 5 are low quality, you may want to improve them for their readability

Thank you for the suggestion, we have changed the figures in order to increase their readability. We hope that now are of higher quality.

Lines 222-223 how do you support this? The quantitative approach would help this.

Lines 255-259 it is possibly redundant

Following your comment, we decided to remove the sentence because, as you suggested, it was a redundant piece of information.

Table 3 How do you define sustainable/unsustainable foraging practices?

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for your constructive review and for recognizing the value of our work. We have considered all your comments and addressed them as needed for the improvement of our paper.

Dear authors,

thank you for this much-needed review on a topic which is often mentioned en passant and little systematically studied.

Minor comments:

Lines 50-53 You may want to present references to each SDG

Lines 73-76 Do you refer to the Mediterranean context?

Thank you very much for the observation, this aspect was missing. We updated the text to add this information for each reference.

Lines 78-79 In which geographical context?

As for point 2, we updated the text to add this information.

Figure 2: I would suggest not including 2023 as the results are partial which is not the case of the previous years.

Methods: have you selected a time range for selecting the publications?

Lines 212-215 This sentence seems more of a data analysis, how have you come up with these four categories?

Figures 4 and 5 are low quality, you may want to improve them for their readability

Thank you for the suggestion, we have changed the figures in order to increase their readability. We hope that now are of higher quality.

Lines 222-223 how do you support this? The quantitative approach would help this.

Lines 255-259 it is possibly redundant

Following your comment, we decided to remove the sentence because, as you suggested, it was a redundant piece of information.

Table 3 How do you define sustainable/unsustainable foraging practices?

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for your constructive review and for recognizing the value of our work. We have considered all your comments and addressed them as needed for the improvement of our paper.

Dear authors,

thank you for this much-needed review on a topic which is often mentioned en passant and little systematically studied.

Minor comments:

Lines 50-53 You may want to present references to each SDG

Lines 73-76 Do you refer to the Mediterranean context?

Thank you very much for the observation, this aspect was missing. We updated the text to add this information for each reference.

Lines 78-79 In which geographical context?

As for point 2, we updated the text to add this information.

Figure 2: I would suggest not including 2023 as the results are partial which is not the case of the previous years.

Methods: have you selected a time range for selecting the publications?

Lines 212-215 This sentence seems more of a data analysis, how have you come up with these four categories?

Figures 4 and 5 are low quality, you may want to improve them for their readability

Thank you for the suggestion, we have changed the figures in order to increase their readability. We hope that now are of higher quality.

Lines 222-223 how do you support this? The quantitative approach would help this.

Lines 255-259 it is possibly redundant

Following your comment, we decided to remove the sentence because, as you suggested, it was a redundant piece of information.

Table 3 How do you define sustainable/unsustainable foraging practices?

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for your constructive review and for recognizing the value of our work. We have considered all your comments and addressed them as needed for the improvement of our paper.

Dear authors,

thank you for this much-needed review on a topic which is often mentioned en passant and little systematically studied.

Minor comments:

Lines 50-53 You may want to present references to each SDG

Lines 73-76 Do you refer to the Mediterranean context?

Thank you very much for the observation, this aspect was missing. We updated the text to add this information for each reference.

Lines 78-79 In which geographical context?

As for point 2, we updated the text to add this information.

Figure 2: I would suggest not including 2023 as the results are partial which is not the case of the previous years.

Methods: have you selected a time range for selecting the publications?

Lines 212-215 This sentence seems more of a data analysis, how have you come up with these four categories?

Figures 4 and 5 are low quality, you may want to improve them for their readability

Thank you for the suggestion, we have changed the figures in order to increase their readability. We hope that now are of higher quality.

Lines 222-223 how do you support this? The quantitative approach would help this.

Lines 255-259 it is possibly redundant

Following your comment, we decided to remove the sentence because, as you suggested, it was a redundant piece of information.

Table 3 How do you define sustainable/unsustainable foraging practices?

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for your constructive review and for recognizing the value of our work. We have considered all your comments and addressed them as needed for the improvement of our paper.

Dear authors,

thank you for this much-needed review on a topic which is often mentioned en passant and little systematically studied.

Minor comments:

Lines 50-53 You may want to present references to each SDG

Lines 73-76 Do you refer to the Mediterranean context?

Thank you very much for the observation, this aspect was missing. We updated the text to add this information for each reference.

Lines 78-79 In which geographical context?

As for point 2, we updated the text to add this information.

Figure 2: I would suggest not including 2023 as the results are partial which is not the case of the previous years.

Methods: have you selected a time range for selecting the publications?

Lines 212-215 This sentence seems more of a data analysis, how have you come up with these four categories?

Figures 4 and 5 are low quality, you may want to improve them for their readability

Thank you for the suggestion, we have changed the figures in order to increase their readability. We hope that now are of higher quality.

Lines 222-223 how do you support this? The quantitative approach would help this.

Lines 255-259 it is possibly redundant

Following your comment, we decided to remove the sentence because, as you suggested, it was a redundant piece of information.

Table 3 How do you define sustainable/unsustainable foraging practices?

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for your constructive review and for recognizing the value of our work. We have considered all your comments and addressed them as needed for the improvement of our paper.

Dear authors,

thank you for this much-needed review on a topic which is often mentioned en passant and little systematically studied.

Minor comments:

Lines 50-53 You may want to present references to each SDG

Lines 73-76 Do you refer to the Mediterranean context?

Thank you very much for the observation, this aspect was missing. We updated the text to add this information for each reference.

Lines 78-79 In which geographical context?

As for point 2, we updated the text to add this information.

Figure 2: I would suggest not including 2023 as the results are partial which is not the case of the previous years.

Methods: have you selected a time range for selecting the publications?

Lines 212-215 This sentence seems more of a data analysis, how have you come up with these four categories?

Figures 4 and 5 are low quality, you may want to improve them for their readability

Thank you for the suggestion, we have changed the figures in order to increase their readability. We hope that now are of higher quality.

Lines 222-223 how do you support this? The quantitative approach would help this.

Lines 255-259 it is possibly redundant

Following your comment, we decided to remove the sentence because, as you suggested, it was a redundant piece of information.

Table 3 How do you define sustainable/unsustainable foraging practices?

Reviewer 3 Report

An interesting and important article. Authors have highlighted the most important factors influencing both erosion and enhancement of foraging practice but are heavily missing important literature. Moreover, I would recommend being a bit more critical toward promoting foraging when it refers to centralized means of promotion, as demonstrated by Mattalia et al. 2023 this can decrease the unique local plant uses and instead homogenize the foraging practices over large territories. Also, it is important to highlight that promotion of wild plant use can be inaccurate (Kalle et al. 2020) or proposedly misleading (Prakofjewa et al. 2020). Therefore, it is important also to not forget the political and policy components for the erosion or promotion of local practices (Soukand et al. 2020).

Soukand, R., Stryamets, N., Fontefrancesco, M.F. and Pieroni, A., 2020. The importance of tolerating interstices: Babushka markets in Ukraine and Eastern Europe and their role in maintaining local food knowledge and diversity. Heliyon, 6(1), p.e03222.

Prakofjewa, J., Kalle, R., Belichenko, O., Kolosova, V. and Sõukand, R., 2020. Re-written narrative: transformation of the image of Ivan-chaj in Eastern Europe. Heliyon, 6(8), p.e04632.

Kalle, R., Belichenko, O., Kuznetsova, N., Kolosova, V., Prakofjewa, J., Stryamets, N., Mattalia, G., Šarka, P., Simanova, A., Prūse, B. and Mezaka, I., 2020. Gaining momentum: Popularization of Epilobium angustifolium as food and recreational tea on the Eastern edge of Europe. Appetite, 150, p.104638.

Mattalia, G., Prakofjewa, J., Kalle, R., Prūse, B., Marozzi, M., Stryamets, N., Kuznetsova, N., Belichenko, O., Aziz, M.A., Pieroni, A. and Sõukand, R., 2023. Centralization can jeopardize local wild plant-based food security. NJAS: Impact in Agricultural and Life Sciences, 95(1), p.2191798.

As the authors also did profound statistics on the year of publication and regions covered (which is very important), I would suggest, in order to gain a more precise picture, you need to include the missing articles:

Pieroni, A., 1999. Gathered wild food plants in the upper valley of the Serchio River (Garfagnana), Central Italy. Economic Botany, pp.327-341.

Pieroni, A., 2001. Evaluation of the cultural significance of wild food botanicals traditionally consumed in Northwestern Tuscany, Italy. J Ethnobiol, 21(1), pp.89-104.

Pieroni, A., Nebel, S., Quave, C., Münz, H. and Heinrich, M., 2002. Ethnopharmacology of liakra: traditional weedy vegetables of the Arbëreshë of the Vulture area in southern Italy. Journal of ethnopharmacology, 81(2), pp.165-185.

Pieroni, A., Nebel, S., Santoro, R.F. and Heinrich, M., 2005. Food for two seasons: culinary uses of non-cultivated local vegetables and mushrooms in a south Italian village. International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition, 56(4), pp.245-272.

Łuczaj, Ł.J. and Kujawska, M., 2012. Botanists and their childhood memories: an underutilized expert source in ethnobotanical research. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 168(3), pp.334-343.

di Tizio, A., Łuczaj, Ł.J., Quave, C.L., Redžić, S. and Pieroni, A., 2012. Traditional food and herbal uses of wild plants in the ancient South-Slavic diaspora of Mundimitar/Montemitro (Southern Italy). Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 8(1), pp.1-10.

Svanberg, I., Sõukand, R., Luczaj, L., Kalle, R., Zyryanova, O., Dénes, A., Papp, N., Nedelcheva, A., Seskauskaite, D., Kolodziejska-Degorska, I. and Kolosova, V., 2012. Uses of tree saps in northern and eastern parts of Europe. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae, 81(4).

Pieroni, A., Quave, C.L., Giusti, M.E. and Papp, N., 2012. “We are Italians!”: the hybrid ethnobotany of a Venetian diaspora in Eastern Romania. Human Ecology, 40, pp.435-451.

Łuczaj, Ł., Köhler, P., Pirożnikow, E., Graniszewska, M., Pieroni, A. and Gervasi, T., 2013. Wild edible plants of Belarus: from Rostafiński’s questionnaire of 1883 to the present. Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 9, pp.1-18.

Luczaj, L., Fressel, N. and Perkovic, S., 2013. Wild food plants used in the villages of the Lake Vrana Nature Park (northern Dalmatia, Croatia). Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae, 82(4).

Kalle, R. and Sõukand, R., 2013. Wild plants eaten in childhood: a retrospective of Estonia in the 1970s–1990s. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 172(2), pp.239-253.

Dolina, K. and Luczaj, L., 2014. Wild food plants used on the Dubrovnik coast (south-eastern Croatia). Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae, 83(3).

Bellia, G. and Pieroni, A., 2015. Isolated, but transnational: the glocal nature of Waldensian ethnobotany, Western Alps, NW Italy. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 11, pp.1-20.

Łuczaj, Ł., Stawarczyk, K., Kosiek, T., Pietras, M. and Kujawa, A., 2015. Wild food plants and fungi used by Ukrainians in the western part of the Maramureş region in Romania. Acta Soc Bot Pol 84(3):339–346

Pieroni, A., Nedelcheva, A. and Dogan, Y., 2015. Local knowledge of medicinal plants and wild food plants among Tatars and Romanians in Dobruja (South-East Romania). Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 62, pp.605-620.

Quave, C.L. and Pieroni, A., 2015. A reservoir of ethnobotanical knowledge informs resilient food security and health strategies in the Balkans. Nature Plants, 1(2), pp.1-6.

Sõukand, R. and Pieroni, A., 2016. The importance of a border: Medical, veterinary, and wild food ethnobotany of the Hutsuls living on the Romanian and Ukrainian sides of Bukovina. Journal of ethnopharmacology, 185, pp.17-40.

Sõukand, R. and Kalle, R., 2016. Perceiving the biodiversity of food at chest-height: Use of the fleshy fruits of wild trees and shrubs in Saaremaa, Estonia. Human Ecology, 44, pp.265-272.

Kasper-Pakosz, R., Pietras, M. and Łuczaj, Ł., 2016. Wild and native plants and mushrooms sold in the open-air markets of south-eastern Poland. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 12, pp.1-17.

Pieroni, A., Sõukand, R., Quave, C. L., Hajdari, A., & Mustafa, B. (2017). Traditional food uses of wild plants among the Gorani of South Kosovo. Appetite, 108, 83-92.

Pieroni, A., Ibraliu, A., Abbasi, A.M. and Papajani-Toska, V., 2015. An ethnobotanical study among Albanians and Aromanians living in the Rraicë and Mokra areas of Eastern Albania. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 62, pp.477-500.

Pawera, L., Łuczaj, Ł., Pieroni, A. and Polesny, Z., 2017. Traditional plant knowledge in the White Carpathians: Ethnobotany of wild food plants and crop wild relatives in the Czech Republic. Human Ecology, 45, pp.655-671.

Pieroni, A. and Sõukand, R., 2017. The disappearing wild food and medicinal plant knowledge in a few mountain villages of North-Eastern Albania. Journal of Applied Botany and Food Quality, 90.

Pieroni, A., 2017. Traditional uses of wild food plants, medicinal plants, and domestic remedies in Albanian, Aromanian and Macedonian villages in South-Eastern Albania. Journal of Herbal Medicine, 9, pp.81-90.

Sõukand, R., Hrynevich, Y., Vasilyeva, I. et al. Multi-functionality of the few: current and past uses of wild plants for food and healing in Liubań region, Belarus. J Ethnobiology Ethnomedicine 13, 10 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-017-0139-x

Pieroni, A. and Sõukand, R., 2018. Forest as stronghold of local ecological practice: currently used wild food plants in Polesia, Northern Ukraine. Economic Botany, 72(3), pp.311-331.

Mattalia, G., Sõukand, R., Corvo, P. and Pieroni, A., 2019. Scholarly vs. traditional knowledge: Effects of sacred natural sites on ethnobotanical practices in Tuscany, Central Italy. Human Ecology, 47, pp.653-667.

Łuczaj, Ł., Jug-Dujaković, M., Dolina, K. and Vitasović-Kosić, I., 2019. Plants in alcoholic beverages on the Croatian islands, with special reference to rakija travarica. Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 15(1), pp.1-19.

Pieroni, A. and Cattero, V., 2019. Wild vegetables do not lie: Comparative gastronomic ethnobotany and ethnolinguistics on the Greek traces of the Mediterranean Diet of southeastern Italy. Acta Botanica Brasilica, 33, pp.198-211.

Kolosova, V., Belichenko, O., Rodionova, A., Melnikov, D. and Sõukand, R., 2020. Foraging in boreal forest: Wild food plants of the republic of Karelia, NW Russia. Foods, 9(8), p.1015.

Mustafa, B., Hajdari, A., Pulaj, B., Quave, C.L. and Pieroni, A., 2020. Medical and food ethnobotany among Albanians and Serbs living in the Shtërpcë/Štrpce area, South Kosovo. Journal of herbal medicine, 22, p.100344.

Stryamets, N., Mattalia, G., Pieroni, A., Khomyn, I. and Sõukand, R., 2021. Dining tables divided by a border: The effect of socio-political scenarios on local ecological knowledge of Romanians living in Ukrainian and Romanian Bukovina. Foods, 10(1), p.126.

Berisha, R., Sõukand, R., Nedelcheva, A. and Pieroni, A., 2022. The Importance of Being Diverse: The Idiosyncratic Ethnobotany of the Reka Albanian Diaspora in North Macedonia. Diversity, 14(11), p.936.

Vitasović-Kosić, I., Hodak, A., Łuczaj, Ł., Marić, M. and Juračak, J., 2022. Traditional Ethnobotanical Knowledge of the Central Lika Region (Continental Croatia)—First Record of Edible Use of Fungus Taphrina pruni. Plants, 11(22), p.3133.

Pieroni, A., Sulaiman, N., Polesny, Z. and Sõukand, R., 2022. From Sxex to Chorta: The Adaptation of Maronite Foraging Customs to the Greek Ones in Kormakitis, Northern Cyprus. Plants 2022, 11, 2693.

Mattalia, G., Svanberg, I., Ståhlberg, S., Kuznetsova, N., Prūse, B., Kolosova, V., Aziz, M.A., Kalle, R. and Sõukand, R., 2023. Outdoor activities foster local plant knowledge in Karelia, NE Europe. Scientific Reports, 13(1), p.8627.

Prakofjewa, J., Sartori, M., Šarka, P., Kalle, R., Pieroni, A. and Sõukand, R., 2023. Boundaries Are Blurred: Wild Food Plant Knowledge Circulation across the Polish-Lithuanian-Belarusian Borderland. Biology, 12(4), p.571.

Sulaiman, N., Aziz, M.A., Stryamets, N., Mattalia, G., Zocchi, D.M., Ahmed, H.M., Manduzai, A.K., Shah, A.A., Faiz, A., Sõukand, R. and Polesny, Z., 2023. The Importance of Becoming Tamed: Wild Food Plants as Possible Novel Crops in Selected Food-Insecure Regions. Horticulturae, 9(2), p.171.

It of course depnds how the authors define Europe (would be nice if you’d define it precisely in the article), but geografically it encompas also Georgia and Azerbaijan and Ethnobotany of Europe series contain also the chapers on Armenia, hence I ad here also a few references from that region:

Hovsepyan, R., Stepanyan-Gandilyan, N., Melkumyan, H. and Harutyunyan, L., 2016. Food as a marker for economy and part of identity: traditional vegetal food of Yezidis and Kurds in Armenia. Journal of Ethnic Foods, 3(1), pp.32-41.

Łuczaj, Ł., Tvalodze, B. and Zalkaliani, D., 2017. Comfrey and buttercup eaters: wild vegetables of the Imereti Region in Western Georgia, Caucasus. Economic Botany, 71(2), pp.188-193.

Sõukand, R. and Pieroni, A., 2019. Resilience in the mountains: Biocultural refugia of wild food in the Greater Caucasus Range, Azerbaijan. Biodiversity and Conservation, 28(13), pp.3529-3545.

Pieroni, A. and Sõukand, R., 2019. Ethnic and religious affiliations affect traditional wild plant foraging in Central Azerbaijan. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 66, pp.1495-1513.

Pieroni, A., Sõukand, R. and Bussmann, R.W., 2020. The Inextricable link between food and linguistic diversity: Wild food plants among diverse minorities in Northeast Georgia, Caucasus. Economic Botany, 74, pp.379-397.

Pieroni, A., Hovsepyan, R., Manduzai, A.K. and Sõukand, R., 2021. Wild food plants traditionally gathered in central Armenia: archaic ingredients or future sustainable foods?. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23(2), pp.2358-2381.

Kazanci, C., Oruç, S., Mosulishvili, M. and Luczaj, L., 2021. Wild plants used as vegetables by transhumant people around the Georgia-Turkey border in the Western Lesser Caucasus. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae, 90.

I checked just some key authors in the list; I would invite the authors of this review to continue with the exercise. After all, the number of scholars writing on European ethnobotany is rather limited. You can already see the limits the use of keywords put on your research results.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for your constructive review and for recognizing the value of our work. We have considered all your comments and addressed them as needed for the improvement of our paper. All changes made to the text, along with added references, have been highlighted in yellow.

An interesting and important article. Authors have highlighted the most important factors influencing both erosion and enhancement of foraging practice but are heavily missing important literature. Moreover, I would recommend being a bit more critical toward promoting foraging when it refers to centralized means of promotion, as demonstrated by Mattalia et al. 2023 this can decrease the unique local plant uses and instead homogenize the foraging practices over large territories. Also, it is important to highlight that promotion of wild plant use can be inaccurate (Kalle et al. 2020) or proposedly misleading (Prakofjewa et al. 2020). Therefore, it is important also to not forget the political and policy components for the erosion or promotion of local practices (Soukand et al. 2020).

We thank you very much for highlighting these aspects that were missing. Following your comments, we added these references and critically discuss (both in the results and the discussion) the policy implications of the promotion of foraging practices as well as the possible misleading influence of the literature and media.

We thank you very much for reporting the missing literature. Actually, most of the publications that you reported were already selected by our keywords search. During the paper selection process, following the framework of the selected methodology, a lot of articles were eliminated during the abstract screening process because deemed not useful for answering our research questions. Therefore, following your comments, we took several actions to be more objective and transparent in the paper’s selection process:

- All the publications that were previously discarded during the abstract screening phase were resumed and the full text was read to choose if they need to be included or not. These articles were previously discarded because even if they were on the use of wild plants by local populations, did not apparently contain useful information related to the abandonment and preservation of these practices. By reading the full text we realized that they instead contained useful information.

- For all articles that were still excluded during the abstract screening phase, the reasons for exclusion (with also the total number of articles for each reason) were included within the text to increase the transparency of the selection process. All these papers were on other aspects such as animals’ foraging practices, nutritional value and chemical composition of wild plants, as well as archaeological studies of the use of wild plants by ancient populations.

-Since most of the publications that you reported were already selected by our keywords search, but not all of them, we decided (after an exploratory analysis of the missing articles) to make a little change to the keywords used. The search keyword “ethnobotany” was substituted with “ethnobotan*” to include more declinations of the same concept. This increased the number of screened articles (after the first eligibility criteria applications) from 384 to 457.

- Moreover, to further increase the transparency of the process it was added a table (Table 3) with the ten most productive journals and ten most productive authors for the number of published papers. The number reported in the table refers only to the selected papers for the systematic review. Counting all the references in our papers these numbers increase.

Following these changes, 48 new publications were added to the previously selected papers for our systematic review. Both the statistics presented in section 3.1 and the analysis of our research questions were updated accordingly to these 48 added publications.

We thank you very much for this suggestion. Actually, we did not include publications for these three countries because we did not consider them as part of Europe. As stated in the text, we decided to focus on European countries in order to present results that were comparable because of similar historical and socio-economic conditions. This choice was also made because analysing the influence of different countries on the abandonment and prosecution of foraging practices, although it is an important and interesting issue, goes beyond the objective posed in our study. We believe that the three missing countries, although with some possible similar influences (especially Georgia), show many differences with the other countries selected for this systematic review. Anyhow, as you suggested, a proper definition of what we include/exclude in the definition of Europe was missing. Following your comment, we therefore further specify how we have defined the European boundaries for the selection of papers. We decided to use the M49 geographical subdivision used by the UN statistical office (https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/) as it is an official subdivision. Following this approach, we did not include the articles referred to Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia because they are classified as being part of the Asian continent.

As previously stated, we made several changes in the selection process resulting in an increase in the total number of references from 96 to 156. We now believe that (even if probably we did not cover 100% of what has been published) our selection methodology was able to include most of the literature of interest. Furthermore, including 48 more publications in the results section has indeed added some interesting and useful insight, but overall has confirmed what was already been found. We think that this show that our results are strong and reliable. Thus, further adding these references has been useful for increasing the reliability of our results. Furthermore, more references have been added in the introduction and later analysed in the discussion, thus increasing the background and information provided in our article.

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript is interesting and necessary. The authors have found a new approach to the topic of wild food plants. The authors are also to be complimented for working through a large number of thematic articles.

The reviewer only has questions about the methods.

The authors have made selections among hundreds of articles, but a subjective method has been used in making the selection. In other words, which article is suitable and which is not, the authors have probably decided based on their own knowledge (subjective assessment). In science, especially in the analysis of big data, a subjective approach is very risky. The result is that important authors and articles have been excluded from the final analysis.

You are missing, for example, Ingvar Svanberg, who has published a lot about the wild food plants of Scandinavia. Svanberg has published more on this topic in Swedish, but he also has important articles in English. You are also currently missing, for example, Sulejman Redžić, who was the most important researcher of wild food plants in Eastern Europe. See his article in journal "Ecology of Food and Nutrition". But also see the article in the journal "Collegium Antropologicum". Although this national journal may not be listed in commercial science databases (Scopus by Elsevier and Web of Science (WoS) by Thomson Reuters), it is an important article. Eastern European scientific journals were previously underrepresented in these two commercial databases. Thus, searching these two databases alone will not yield all relevant peer-reviewed journals.

Figure 1 shows that the authors "manually added" 5 articles. Therefore, the authors have also used a search outside the databases. I recommend a few methods for authors to find more thematic articles and add them manually.

First, approach the topic through a person research the given topic. Figure 2 shows that about 10 years ago a real increase in wild food plant research began in Europe. The researchers who have been working on this topic since the time of the rise in popularity of this topic until today are well known in scientific community. Therefore, look at the ORCID or https://scholar.google.com/ profiles of these researchers.

Secondly, however, you can use the search directly from the homepages of journals that publish thematic articles. e.g Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, Journal of ethnopharmacology, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae, Economic Botany, Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, Journal of Herbal Medicine, etc. At the same time, many other journals (e.g. MDPI journals) have started to publish the topic of wild food plants. In this case, you should also specify which specific journals were searched in the method section.

Third, there are no standardized classifications in ethnobotany. This means that different keywords are used. Only using many different similar keywords in the search will give a more adequate result. For example, if both medicinal and food uses of plants are conveyed together in one article. This is how Rainer W. Bussmann, for example, conveys information in his articles, whose articles you probably for this reason did not include in your final analysis. He has studied the Caucasus region, which geographically also belongs to Europe. Medicinal plants and food plants are often discussed together in one article. Take a look at the profiles also of Andrea Pieroni, Manuel Pardo de Santayana and Renata Sõukand and you will see that they have many more articles than you currently have in the used literature. Łukasz Łuczaj, one of today's best-known researchers of wild food plants in Eastern Europe, often mentions together wild food plants and edible mushrooms in his articles. Again, a mechanical search of the database may not find these articles, and therefore you have not used all his thematic articles.

Since the reviewer found in a brief check that there are absent at least several dozens of thematic articles in the final analysis of the manuscript, the authors should add them. The reviewer will not bring them out here, because this is a preliminary assessment. How many articles should be added, for that you have to do data mining. It is enough for the authors to look at the aforementioned scientists who have researched this topic. It is also sufficient to search directly from journals (in this case, indicate in the method which journals data mining was carried out).

Appendix A. I recommend changing the term "Local experts". In ethnobotany, this term refers to professionals who, for example, market or process wild food plants for sale. So I recommend using, for example, the term "local resident".

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The reviewer only has questions about the methods.

You are missing, for example, Ingvar Svanberg, who has published a lot about the wild food plants of Scandinavia. Svanberg has published more on this topic in Swedish, but he also has important articles in English. You are also currently missing, for example, Sulejman Redžić, who was the most important researcher of wild food plants in Eastern Europe. See his article in journal "Ecology of Food and Nutrition". But also see the article in the journal "Collegium Antropologicum". Although this national journal may not be listed in commercial science databases (Scopus by Elsevier and Web of Science (WoS) by Thomson Reuters), it is an important article. Eastern European scientific journals were previously underrepresented in these two commercial databases. Thus, searching these two databases alone will not yield all relevant peer-reviewed journals.

Third, there are no standardized classifications in ethnobotany. This means that different keywords are used. Only using many different similar keywords in the search will give a more adequate result. For example, if both medicinal and food uses of plants are conveyed together in one article. This is how Rainer W. Bussmann, for example, conveys information in his articles, whose articles you probably for this reason did not include in your final analysis. He has studied the Caucasus region, which geographically also belongs to Europe. Medicinal plants and food plants are often discussed together in one article. Take a look at the profiles also of Andrea Pieroni, Manuel Pardo de Santayana and Renata Sõukand and you will see that they have many more articles than you currently have in the used literature. Łukasz Łuczaj, one of today's best-known researchers of wild food plants in Eastern Europe, often mentions together wild food plants and edible mushrooms in his articles. Again, a mechanical search of the database may not find these articles, and therefore you have not used all his thematic articles.

We thank you very much for this in-depth analysis of our work and for your precious suggestions and insight into this scientific topic. We agree with the fact that, while following the framework of the selected methodology, we adopted a perspective excessively subjective during the paper selection procedure. For this reason, a lot of articles were eliminated during the abstract screening process because deemed not useful for answering our research questions. Therefore, following your comments, we took several actions to be more objective and transparent in the paper’s selection process:

-In order to increase the potential selectable articles, we decided to make a little change to the keywords used. The search string “ethnobotany” was substituted with “ethnobotan*” to include more declinations of the same concept. This increased the number of screened articles (after the first eligibility criteria applications) from 384 to 457.

Following these changes, 48 new papers were added to the previously selected papers for our systematic review. Both the statistics presented in section 3.1 and the analysis of our research questions were updated accordingly to these 48 added papers.

Anyhow, even if you suggested that a search performed by authors and journals will provide more results (especially for what concern publications not listed on Scopus and Web of Science), we preferred to stick instead to the chosen methodology. We think that performing a systematic review in a precise and replicable way (and therefore within a well-specified framework) provide more strong and reliable results. Following this approach, we decided to remove the five “manually added” papers from the results sections. These articles were found in the references of other selected articles and gave interesting insight for the discussion of our study. Anyhow, these five papers were not removed from the article, we insert them in the introduction and further analysed them in the discussion. Other relevant references have been added in the introduction as well, thus increasing the background and information provided in our article.

These modifications resulted in an increase in the total number of references from 96 to 156. We now believe that (even if probably we did not cover 100% of what has been published) our selection methodology was able to include most of the literature of interest. Furthermore, including 48 more articles in the results section has indeed added some interesting and useful insight, but overall has confirmed what was already been found. We think that this show that our results are strong and reliable. Thus, further adding these references has been useful for increasing the reliability of our results. Probably some relevant papers are still missing, and this could be a problem if our objectives were (for example) to review wild plant species or culinary uses in a well-defined territory, or differences in their uses among different territories. Anyhow, given the broad scope of our research questions, we think that now (with the added papers) the selected articles are sufficiently representative and that our results can be considered strong.

We thank you for the suggestions, following your comment we changed the terms.

Dear Reviewer,

The reviewer only has questions about the methods.

Third, there are no standardized classifications in ethnobotany. This means that different keywords are used. Only using many different similar keywords in the search will give a more adequate result. For example, if both medicinal and food uses of plants are conveyed together in one article. This is how Rainer W. Bussmann, for example, conveys information in his articles, whose articles you probably for this reason did not include in your final analysis. He has studied the Caucasus region, which geographically also belongs to Europe. Medicinal plants and food plants are often discussed together in one article. Take a look at the profiles also of Andrea Pieroni, Manuel Pardo de Santayana and Renata Sõukand and you will see that they have many more articles than you currently have in the used literature. Łukasz Łuczaj, one of today's best-known researchers of wild food plants in Eastern Europe, often mentions together wild food plants and edible mushrooms in his articles. Again, a mechanical search of the database may not find these articles, and therefore you have not used all his thematic articles.

We thank you for the suggestions, following your comment we changed the terms.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the improvements. I recommend the publication of the current draft.

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors have updated the list of publications and now it is ready to be published.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have made significant revisions to the manuscript. In this case, the manuscript is suitable for publication.

Article Menu

Foraging Practices and Sustainable Management of Wild Food Resources in Europe: A Systematic Review

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI