Combining Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Scientific Observations to Support Mangrove Restoration in Madagascar
, Celestin Aina 1, Cicelin Rakotomahazo 1,2, Leah Glass 1, Lantoasinoro Ranivoarivelo 2 and Thierry Lavitra 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article aims combining TEK and scientific observations to support mangrove restoration in Madagascar
The article is based on original (empirical) data and has relevant methodology in terms of ecological engineering, but it remains very technical, with a mainly operational scope and with serious conceptual and methodological flaws:
1) The contribution of TEKs beyond planting techniques is not addressed.
2) The authors assume results without basing them on the literature and without discussing them. Replanted areas are not recolonized areas. The article does not rely sufficiently on the most recent works in the field and does not correctly discuss the levers and constraints of the various restoration techniques.
3) The research methodology is not clear. It is based on the "empirical" knowledge : what doest it mean ? TEK or scientific knowledge through fieldwork ? The surveys or information collected from IPLCs are only technical and do not deal with more political, social or cultural issues.
Participatory mapping of degraded area is a relevant tool, but what are the measures/indicators of degradation according to the IPLC ?
4) The article could be more accurate in terms of recommandation : active restoration through tree planting (propagules or seed collect and replantation) is recommended only to accelerate the natural (or passive) restoration of mangrove, i.e. if hydrosedimentologic conditions are restored.
5) The search results are not meaningful.
The main hypothesis is debatable : the correlation between the number of participants in replanting propagules and the survival rate is not correctly discussed.
The number of people involved in planting programs is not a measure of success. Thus, the « Plant Your Tree » program in Senegal (cited, but not quoted) had a very large number of village communities involved and thousands of hectares replanted. However, the survival rate (the effective restoration of mangrove forests) is very low.
Author Response
- The contribution of TEKs beyond planting techniques is not addressed.
TEK contibuted to the development of the mangrove management plan of the mangrove forests in the BdA: mangrove zoning and also the local regulation governing the use of mangrove in each zones.
2) The authors assume results without basing them on the literature and without discussing them. Replanted areas are not recolonized areas. The article does not rely sufficiently on the most recent works in the field and does not correctly discuss the levers and constraints of the various restoration techniques.
Paragraph specific to the restoration technic was inserted in the discussion section
3) The research methodology is not clear. It is based on the "empirical" knowledge: what does it mean? TEK or scientific knowledge through fieldwork? The surveys or information collected from IPLCs are only technical and do not deal with more political, social or cultural issues.
Participatory mapping of degraded area is a relevant tool, but what are the measures/indicators of degradation according to the IPLC ?
There is no collective agreement on the indicators of degraded zone but this is often based on the cut stumps/ cleared cutting mangrove in the forests where mother trees are no longer present
4) The article could be more accurate in terms of recommendation: active restoration through tree planting (propagules or seed collect and replantation) is recommended only to accelerate the natural (or passive) restoration of mangrove, i.e. if hydro sedimentologic conditions are restored.
It is arguable that direct planting of mangrove propagules is well suited approach (active) to restore degraded mangrove where the hydro sedimentologic conditions are unaltered. Planting of wilding seedling/ nursery-raised saplings is possible but expensive compared with the direct planting of propagules. It is however, important to promote passive restoration through the mangrove management to enhance natural recovery.
5) The search results are not meaningful.
The main hypothesis is debatable: the correlation between the number of participants in replanting propagules and the survival rate is not correctly discussed.
The number of people involved in planting programs is not a measure of success. Thus, the « Plant Your Tree » program in Senegal (cited, but not quoted) had a very large number of village communities involved and thousands of hectares replanted. However, the survival rate (the effective restoration of mangrove forests) is very low.
It is not surprising that when a lot of people were participating the survival rate low because more people planting who maybe just wanted the compensation (meal/money), and didn’t care to plant properly. But the survival rate probably correlates to whether planters were trained and motivated – but it doesn’t relate to the total number of planters. IF all the planters were trained and motivated, then the success rate would probably have been the same no matter how many were planting.
Reviewer 2 Report
The review work reported is interesting. There, however, are some concerns that the authors need to address (major revision):
1. Tittle: It is better the TEK is not abbreviated because it is not common like PCR
2. Kindly provide appropriate map to show the study sites and revise the legend.
3. Data analysis, please provide number of formula and for the next oneFigure :
Surviving trees in the area replanted = (Total number of live seedlings) / (Total
number of plots) × (area replanted)/ (area of plot) (1)
4. Figure 3, provide error bars or deviation bars, also number of observations (n)
5. Discussion: Discuss how the TEK and scientific observations to support mangrove restoration in Madagascar in detail.
6. Please add limitation of your methods and study and how solve the problem ?
7. Revise the conclusion to answer the main of your study, there is a reference in the Conclusion, which is typo ?
8. References, Ref #22 is like copy and paste? Kindly revise your references according to Forests guideline
Moderate editing of English language
Author Response
- Tittle: It is better the TEK is not abbreviated because it is not common like PCR - Addressed
- Kindly provide appropriate map to show the study sites and revise the legend.
Addressed
- Data analysis, please provide number of formula and for the next one Figure :
Surviving trees in the area replanted = (Total number of live seedlings) / (Total
number of plots) × (area replanted)/ (area of plot)
Addressed (1)
- Figure 3, provide error bars or deviation bars, also number of observations (n)
This is a total rather than a mean so doesn't need error bars.
- Discussion: Discuss how the TEK and scientific observations to support mangrove restoration in Madagascar in detail.
New subtitle: TEK and scientific observations to support mangrove restoration was inserted in the discussion.
TEK supported the initial phase (design and implementation) and scientific observation were applied to answer specific questions, the factors influencing the survival rate.
TEK was used to develop mangrove management plan and zoning and the scientific knowledge was used to define the quota of the mangrove wood that community can harvest within the sustainable use zone. Also GIS software was used to refine the participatory zoning.
- Please add limitation of your methods and study and how solve the problem ?
New subtitle about the limitation of the method was inserted into the discussion.
In paractice the study used both TEK and scientific observations. However, to provide a more robust comparison of the TEK and scientific approaches this would require comparision between some sites only applying TEK, and some sites only applying scientific observations, and some sites with both. Separating the contribution of TEK was therefore a limitation of this study.
- Revise the conclusion to answer the main of your study, there is a reference in the Conclusion, which is typo ?
Conclusion is updated
- References, Ref #22 is like copy and paste? Kindly revise your references according to Forests guideline
References are updated
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have taken suggestions into account and have made a number of very pertinent corrections. Nevertheless, I stand by my conclusion: Due to the lack of problematization and discussion of the working hypotheses, this article is not up to the standard of a scientific journal. It is more a report of an engineering action with empirical factual data (collected in the field) but does not really contribute to the debate on the costs and benefits of mangrove restoration or the levers and constraints. More than the number of people involved, it would have been interesting to identify the resistance (people who refused to participate), the risks of conflicts (especially over land)
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we thank you for taking the time to review our paper and your careful consideration of its content.
We appreciate the importance of considering more broadly the costs and benefits of mangrove restoration; however, we believe this goes beyond the intended scope and focus or are not directly applicable to the area of focus. The paper aims to demonstrate the complementarity of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) with scientific knowledge towards informing mangrove restoration in Madagascar – the results emphasize that scientific observations build on TEK and contribute to fill technical gaps in TEK. Such a comparison goes beyond the intended scope of our paper which focusses on outlining the synergistic approach specifically between TEK and outside technical expertise. Given the urgent need for expanded restoration across similar sites in Madagascar, Africa, and beyond, we believe our findings to be timely, relevant, and informative to many others sites – we believe our demonstration of the utility of TEK towards effective restoration can help facilitate a much needed boost towards incorporating TEK in ecologically and technically sound mangrove restoration. If helpful, we could expand the greater context surrounding our efforts as they relate to the broader themes of costs and benefits; however, the specifics of these considerations go beyond the goal of this manuscript.
Regarding the topic of conflict over land, we provided additional context in the body of the manuscript in the section 4.2. Since BdA is located within a gazetted marine protected area (National decree No 2015-752), the area has stable land tenure. Both private and customary property rights ‘land were mapped during the participatory mapping, and overlap issues was also resolved during the validation workshop of the mangrove zoning gathered community representatives of each village and assisted by the chef Fokontany, head of the smallest administrative division, the risk of conflict over land is relatively low. In addition, the 10 village agreed a set of rules to regulate resources use and prevent conflict among mangrove users.
Regarding the identification of people who refused to participate, while community participation in mangrove replanting was high, not all of the community groups participated – this does not reflect refusal but rather typically reflects other factors associated with cultural roles and expectations for different members of local society. As an example, elderly people were actively involved in participatory mangrove zoning and shared their traditional ecological knowledge during this activity (Rakotomahazo et al., 2019); as such their direct participation in mangrove replanting was low because local culture does not permit elders to carry out strenuous outdoor work beyond fishing. This additional context was provided in the body of the manuscript (section 4.2) to more clearly explain the nuance of who did not participate directly in planting.
Again, we appreciate your time insight and welcome the opportunity to make additional modifications to our manuscript towards publication.
Best regards,
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed my comments and suggestions, I would recommend it in present form.
The authors have addressed my comments and suggestions, I would recommend it in present form.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we thank you for taking the time to review our paper and your careful consideration of its content.
As recommended, we change the form in present-mainly in the results section.
Again, we appreciate your time insight.
Best regards,
