The Value of Stingless Bee Bioproducts for Human Health and Conservation: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Your manuscript titled „The value of stingless bees bioproducts to human health and conservation: a systematic review” sumarizing the current state of knowledge contains interesting results and might interest an international audience. Nevertheless, I have found some imperfections, which (in my opinion) should be corrected or at east clarified before an eventual publication. I have listed them below:

1. I suggest to add the main conclusion in Abstract section.
2. In Introduction chapter I suggest to add short characteristics of tribe stingless bees (approximate species number, range). In my opinio such brief characteristics would be imporant because in Result section (subchapter 3.3.) You reffer to particular species.
3. I think, that in Introduction the prior review articles referring to main topic of Your manuscript should be mentionned,e.g.

• Silva Macêdo, N., de Sousa Silveira, Z., da Silva Sousa, Â. E., Menezes Dantas, D., Bispo Monteiro, A. L., Silva dos Santos, H., & Bezerra da Cunha, F. A. (2023). Floral visitation, phytochemical and biological activities of bioproducts from Tetragonisca angustula (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Meliponini): a review. Chemistry & Biodiversity, 20(12), e202301451.
• de Sousa Silveira, Z., Silva Macêdo, N., de Menezes Dantas, D., Vieira Brito, S., Silva dos Santos, H., Regis de Sousa Gomes, R. V., ... & Vanusa da Silva, M. (2024). Chemical Profile and Biological Potential of Scaptotrigona Bee Products (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Meliponini): An Review. Chemistry & Biodiversity, 21(4), e202301962.

4. The last sentence Introduction chapter (lines 98-99) might be omitted.
5. Material and methods. Line 107 did You use WoS the core collection or all databases? Please, justify why You did not apply other databases such as Scopus, Google Scholar. Also, the period of literature source searching should be added.
6. I encourage Authors to divide chapter Results and discussion into two separate sections.
7. Subchapter 3.5. presents people’s experiences and perceptions regarding the therapeutic uses of stingless bee bioproducts. Nevertheless, there is no description of method referring to this part of findings in chapter Material and methods. Please, suplement this lack.
8. In my opinion chapter Conclusions should be more concise. It should point out the importance and novelty of findings and indicato the directions of further studies.

Author Response

Comments 1: [I suggest to add the main conclusion in Abstract section]

Response 1: Agreed. We restructured the abstract from lines 11 to 15. We added the main conclusion (lines 23-25): “We conclude that traditional meliponiculture systems safeguard knowledges that can be used to improve socio-ecosystem health”.

Comments 2: [In Introduction chapter I suggest to add short characteristics of tribe stingless bees (approximate species number, range). In my opinion such brief characteristics would be important because in Result section (subchapter 3.3.) You refer to particular species.]

Response 2: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We improved the paragraph with the following sentences in lines 77-82: “Stingless bees, also called meliponids, native or indigenous bees, are smaller (2-15 mm) than honey bees (10-15 mm) and are found exclusively in tropical and subtropical regions [23]. Unlike honey bees, meliponids have a vestigial sting, which is not an effective defense [24]. The morphology of the tongue (glossa) also distinguishes meliponids from honey bees, a key trait that influences their foraging efficiency [25] and determines the biological activities of their bioproducts [26)]”.

Comments 3: [I think, that in Introduction the prior review articles referring to main topic of Your manuscript should be mentioned, e. g.

• Macêdo, N., et al. 2023. Floral visitation, phytochemical and biological activities of bioproducts from Tetragonisca angustula (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Meliponini): a review. Chemistry & Biodiversity 20(12), e202301451.
• de Sousa Silveira, Z., et al. 2024. Chemical Profile and Biological Potential of Scaptotrigona Bee Products (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Meliponini): A Review. Chemistry & Biodiversity 21(4), e202301962.]

Response 3: Agreed. The references were useful and improved the manuscript. The reference Macêdo, N., et al. (2023), was cited in the Introduction, lines 82: “…and determines the biological activities of their bioproducts [26]. “The reference de Sousa Silveira et al. (2024) reference was particularly helpful in the Results and Discussion section, specifically in lines 301-302: “This economic strength is backed by recent scientific evidence suggesting that the bioactivity of bioproducts produced by Scaptotrigona species [51] …”

Comments 4: [The last sentence Introduction chapter (lines 98-99) might be omitted.]

Response 4: Agreed. We omitted the last sentence in the Introduction chapter.

Comments 5: [Material and methods. Line 107: Did you use WoS the core collection or all databases? Please, justify why you did not apply other databases such as Scopus, Google Scholar. Also, the period of literature source searching should be added.]

Response 5: We agree with this suggestion. [We declared the use of “all databases” in line 111. We also specified the period of literature searching in lines 110-111: “The scientific articles published between 2000 and 2024”. Additionally, we justified the arguments related to Google Scholar and Scopus in lines 120-123: “The search engine Google Scholar was not employed because it tends to miss literature [38] and has low levels of reproducibility [39]. Neither was the Scopus database used because the license was recently acquired (2025) by the Universidad Veracruzana.”

Comments 6: [I encourage Authors to divide chapter Results and discussion into two separate sections.]

Response 6: After careful consideration, we opted to maintain the Results and Discussion into one section as it is outlined in the instructions for authors. This way of presenting research findings is commonly used in the Social Sciences. However, we realized there needed to be a clearer course of ideas. We therefore added an explanatory paragraph on how the section is organized (see lines 184-190): “The subsequent sections combine the results and discussion to ensure a better flow of ideas. With this rationale, the graphs in Figures 1, 2, and 3 correspond to PRISMA analysis results. Appendix 1. displays the list of prevalent morbidities from Mexico in 2023 and their coincidence with stingless bee species in each country. Figure 4 illustrates the traditional hives used to keep stingless bees in the municipality of Papantla, Veracruz. A discussion follows each figure, supported by the existing literature on the matter.”

Comments 7: [Subchapter 3.5. presents people’s experiences and perceptions regarding the therapeutic uses of stingless bee bioproducts. Nevertheless, there is no description of method referring to this part of findings in chapter Material and methods. Please, supplement this lack.]

Response 7: Agreed. We incorporated a new section (2.3.) consisting of two paragraphs that describes the method referring to people’s experiences and perceptions in lines 140-159:

 2.3. Open interviews with Totonac stingless bee keepers

The primary interest in qualitative, ethnographic research in health sciences is to study events as they are experienced - in a particular time and place, where the researcher works inside the context and is focused on a small number of cases, prioritizing a deeper and more complete scenario of each case [41]. Within the available ethnographic research instruments, we chose open interviews. The open interview is one of the most applied methods to collect qualitative information. It aims to reproduce the discourse that motivates an individual from the studied group. An open interview allows the researcher to identify structural motives that share a common ground, which were learned and understood through a contextual socialization [42].

From the mentioned ethnographic perspective, fieldwork consisted of open interviews. This research tool recognizes that researchers are part of an experience, where the relationship between the ethnographer and the research participants is a key route “to interpretively valid meanings – meanings that are part of the action we are trying to explain [43]). The research team visited local growers and their families in their homes or in their plots. Field diaries and audio recordings (with previous consent) allowed researchers to keep records of each exchange. We used the 1Trascribe software to transcribe each interview.

 Comments 8: [In my opinion, the chapter Conclusions should be more concise. It should point out the importance and novelty of findings and indicate the directions of further studies.]

Response 8: Agreed. The conclusions were reorganized and better synthesized. We also pinpointed the findings' importance and novelty, indicating further studies' directions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review article explores the therapeutic applications of stingless bee bioproducts (honey and propolis) for human health and their implications for biodiversity conservation. The study synthesizes 1,124 references from the Web of Science (2000–2024) and aligns research trends with major morbidities in Mexico. The findings highlight the potential of stingless bee products in treating diseases such as cancer, type-2 diabetes, and obesity. Additionally, the review connects the role of traditional ecological knowledge with conservation efforts, emphasizing the significance of indigenous meliponiculture practices.The study is highly innovative as it integrates human health, biodiversity conservation, and traditional knowledge, demonstrating the ecological and medicinal importance of stingless bees. However, several aspects need improvement to enhance the clarity, rigor, and impact of the review.

Why did the authors choose the study period of 2000–2024? Why were studies prior to 2000 not included?

The authors conducted their literature search exclusively using the Web of Science database, without utilizing Google Scholar or other databases. The rationale for this choice should be explained. The authors may refer to the explanation provided in the review article "Landscape Sustainability and Land Sustainability: A Bibliometric Analysis."

In the methodology section, the authors only describe the process of literature search and selection. However, there is no detailed explanation of how the content of the selected papers was coded or analyzed. The authors are advised to refer to the methodology used in the review article "A Quantitative Review of Nature-Based Solutions for Urban Sustainability (2016–2022): From Science to Implementation."

It is recommended that the authors separate the results and discussion sections. Currently, it is difficult for readers to distinguish between the authors' findings and existing literature.

In Figure 1, the authors follow the PRISMA framework, but the diagram includes only three steps of the process. It is suggested that the authors refer to Figure 2 in "A Quantitative Review of Nature-Based Solutions for Urban Sustainability (2016–2022): From Science to Implementation," and add the “Search” step on the left side of the diagram.

Table 1 is too lengthy. The authors are advised to condense the information or present it in a graphical format.

The manuscript includes citations in Spanish. It is recommended to provide only the translated English version for accessibility to a wider audience.

Author Response

Comments 1: [Why did the authors choose the study period of 2000-2024? Why were studies prior to 2000 not included?]

Response 1: We chose this period because our university can only access research papers published between 2000 and 2024. We clarified this in the Materials and Methods section, lines 112-116.

Comments 2: [The authors conducted their literature search exclusively using the Web of Science database, without utilizing Google Scholar or other databases. The rationale for this choice should be explained. The authors may refer to the explanation provided in the review article "Landscape Sustainability and Land Sustainability: A Bibliometric Analysis.]

Response 2. Agreed. This has been clarified and incorporated in subsection 2.1, Literature sampling process, lines 107-123. The recommended reference is cited in line 116.

Comments 3: [In the methodology section, the authors only describe the process of literature search and selection. However, there is no detailed explanation of how the content of the selected papers was coded or analyzed. The authors are advised to refer to the methodology used in the review article "A Quantitative Review of Nature-Based Solutions for Urban Sustainability (2016–2022): From Science to Implementation."]

Response 3: Agreed. We changed the names of the subheadings 2.1. Literature sampling process (line 107) and 2.2. Selection of studies and data collection (line 125). In subsection 2.2, we explained how the chosen papers were coded or analyzed. We cited the suggested reference at the beginning of subsection 2.2.

Comments 4: [It is recommended that the authors separate the results and discussion sections. Currently, it is difficult for readers to distinguish between the authors' findings and existing literature.]

Response 4: After careful consideration, we opted to maintain the Results and Discussion into one section. This way of presenting research findings is commonly used in the Social Sciences. However, we realized there needed to be a clearer course of ideas. We therefore added an explanatory paragraph on how the section is organized (see lines 184-190): “The subsequent sections combine the results and discussion to ensure a better flow of ideas. With this rationale, the graphs presented in figures 1, 2 and 3 correspond to PRISMA analysis results. Appendix 1. displays the list of prevalent morbidities from Mexico in 2023 and their coincidence with stingless bee species in each country. Figure 4 illustrates the traditional hives used to keep stingless bees in the municipality of Papantla, Veracruz. A discussion precedes each figure, supported by the existing literature on the matter.”

Comments 5: [In Figure 1, the authors follow the PRISMA framework, but the diagram includes only three steps of the process. It is suggested that the authors refer to Figure 2 in "A Quantitative Review of Nature-Based Solutions for Urban Sustainability (2016–2022): From Science to Implementation," and add the “Search” step on the left side of the diagram.]

Response 5: Agreed. Figure 2 was improved according to the journal instructions for authors.

Comments 6: [Table 1 is too lengthy. The authors are advised to condense the information or present it in a graphical format.]

Response 6: We appreciate the reviewer's feedback. Table 1 contains methodological information that cannot be condensed or presented in graphical format. For clarity purposes, we chose to refer to it as Appendix 1, 16-18 pp.

Comments 7: [The manuscript includes citations in Spanish. It is recommended to provide only the translated English version for accessibility to a wider audience.]

Response 7: Thank you for the observation. Two of the most important reasons why we decided to keep the citations in the original language are ethical – to be respectful and maintain accuracy when interpreting people’s testimonies, since ethnographic research brings closeness with the study subjects; and to make the voices of traditional meliponicultors accessible to a wider audience. We believe that the inclusion of citations in both languages does not weaken or change the meaning of what we are trying to convey.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I do not have any further remarks or suggestions for manuscript improvements.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my issues have been well addressed, thank you!