You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Eduardo Estrada-Castillón1,
  • José Ángel Villarreal-Quintanilla2 and
  • Tania Vianney Gutiérrez-Santillán1,*
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Yuhua Wang Reviewer 2: Rainer Bussmann Reviewer 3: Anonymous Reviewer 4: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There are no ethnobotanical studys about Iturbide, Mexico. In the face of the increasing loss of young population, it is urgent and important to carry out ethnobotanical survey. The manuscript documents the useful plants by the means of ethnobotany methods, which gives the reader a lot of useful information. Some suggestions as following.

(1) Could you please introduce the ethnic comosition, socioeconomic status and its culture of the study area in "2.1 Study site"?

(2) There is a lot of use as "ethnobotanical use" and "ethnobotanical knowledge" in the text, I don't agree such concepts. Could you please express it in a more specific or accurate way?

Author Response

We appreciate the positive comments on the manuscript, extensive ethnographic and biological work was carried out for its development. We recognize the importance of documenting the ethnobotany of northeastern Mexico, one of the implications is the high richness of flora, associated with environmental heterogeneity, socioecologically to the relatively new (non-ancestral) profound knowledge of rural mestizo communities.
1. Sociocultural and socioeconomic information on the inhabitants of Iturbide, Nuevo León, Mexico was added to the study site section. Complementing the description made in the Introduction section.
2. The conceptual contexts on: ethnobotanical uses and ethnobotanical knowledge were modified, adding in the introduction in paragraph 2, from the integration of the Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK). To complement, as was the case in the rest of the writing, more appropriate synonyms were used.

Best regards

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have presented an excellent paper - well researched and well written. 

Some minor revisions:

Fig. 2: Some images are distorted. The figure should be redone without distorting the individual images, especially of people.

The authors should indicate under "Consent statement" that they obtained prior informed consent from all participants, including consent for having their images shown. This is already indicated in the text and figure legends, but for completeness should also be indicated under the respective field "Informed Consent Statement "

 

Author Response

We appreciate the good comments of the Reviewer, it motivates us to correct this publication and to continue with the development of more works.
a) Figure 2 was edited
b) Previously, in figure 2, the obtaining of Prior and Informed Consent for taking photographs and for their publication had been added, under the ethical principles of the International Society of Ethnobiology 2006; http://ethnobiology.net/codeofethics/.
We improved the wording of the figure caption, expressing that during the taking of photographs the permission of the informants was obtained, as well as for its publication.

Best regards

Reviewer 3 Report

I believe this article adequately reviews the Traditional Knowledge on Plants Used in the Semiarid Mountains of Northeastern Mexico. It is well written, and seems like a systematic and well done work. Therefore, it deserves to be published in its current state.

Author Response

The reviewer is thanked for his excellent comments, it motivates us to continue our research in a little explored area of Mexico and also full of socio-cultural conflicts. With a high diversity of flora derived from environmental heterogeneity. In addition, we are interested in the documentation of arid and semi-arid zones, as well as with mestizo rural inhabitants. We have found (in another work and in the present) the importance of ornamental plants, despite the conditions of solar radiation, the dedication of people to take care of these plants, and how through it, the categories of use are not static and change over time, and surely with globalization, displacing the two main categories of use, medicinal and edible.

Best regards

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

I found your manuscript very interesting for the numerous new ethnobotanical data for this Mexican region until recently little known and now studied by you.

However, you should strive to better frame the issue at the beginning of the Introduction, highlighting the importance of ethnobotany in general, reporting some examples of similar studies in other parts of the world and highlighting, therefore, the importance in your area of study, to justify your best research. I suggest, for example, these following paper published in MDPI:

1) Bhat, M.N.; Singh, B.; Surmal, O.; Singh, B.; Shivgotra, V.; Musarella, C.M. Ethnobotany of the Himalayas: Safeguarding Medical Practices and Traditional Uses of Kashmir Regions. Biology 2021, 10, 851. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10090851

2) Singh, B.; Singh, B.; Kishor, A.; Singh, S.; Bhat, M.N.; Surmal, O.; Musarella, C.M. Exploring Plant-Based Ethnomedicine and Quantitative Ethnopharmacology: Medicinal Plants Utilized by the Population of Jasrota Hill in Western Himalaya. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7526. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187526

3) Perrino, E.V.; Wagensommer, R.P. Crop Wild Relatives (CWRs) Threatened and Endemic to Italy: Urgent Actions for Protection and Use. Biology 2022, 11, 193. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11020193

4) Abdul Aziz, M.; Ullah, Z.; Pieroni, A. Wild Food Plant Gathering among Kalasha, Yidgha, Nuristani and Khowar Speakers in Chitral, NW Pakistan. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9176. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219176

Also, in some parts of the Introduction, there is a mix of Materials and Methods and Discussion: you are asked for more logic and consistency in the writing of your manuscript.

Figures are often positioned away from their mention in the text.

Please, consider to change "species" with "taxa" in several parts of the manuscript. I highlighted something, but not all the necessary.

Some sentences and some captions have no sense (read the notes in the manuscript).

Bibliographic references must be carefully checked because they do not seem to correspond properly between text and References list.

There are many other comments and notes in attached pdf, but not enough to completely evaluate your manuscript, since it was very difficult for me follow its scheme.

I suggest to revise deeply the manuscript and resubmit it to the journal after major revisions.

Best regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Each of the corrections mentioned by the reviewer have been made, we consider that each of the observations have improved the work for publication, we appreciate the work of the reviewer. Through your comments we made adjustments in various sections, contributing better to the discussion.
a) A review of the suggested citations was made, to include them appropriately in the introduction, in addition others of interest were added to frame an introduction that highlights ethnobotanical work worldwide, in remote regions and with different indigenous groups.
b) Changed the introduction and the section on materials and methods
c) Figures were placed closer to their initial citation
d) The term “species” was changed to “taxa” as long as the context allowed it.
e) The order of the subtitles of the manuscript was modified.
f) The new citations were added to the document and in the references section, each of the citations were reviewed in order of appearance in the text and in the list of references. Quotations that did not contribute to the text and the discussion were eliminated.
g) All comments added in pdf format were addressed
h) the work was left with changes control for the revision of the required observations

Best Regards

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

I see that you have greatly improved your manuscript according to my suggestions and corrections and those of other reviewers. However, some parts need to be better organized. In particular, you mention several APPENDICES in the text, but I don't see them at the end of the text, before the References. If you want to publish them separately, you must consider them as Supplementary materials. If you choose to do so, however, you cannot cite scientific names in the text without indicating their authorship: this is incorrect in a scientific text. Therefore, I suggest you to correctly put the APPENDICES in their place in your future article, according to the editorial rules of the journal.

Please, follow my advice in the attached pdf.

Best regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We appreciate each of the corrections and comments made, work, we strive to adjust each of them, none was rejected, on the contrary, your review work complements our research

Response: Second Review

  1. Appendix A was added to the final part of the document.
  2. The corrections mentioned in the attached file were made
  3. The contribution of each of the authors in the investigation was added
  4. The contribution and significance of each of the citations was evaluated and those that were most important and contributed to strengthening the manuscript were selected.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

I have reviewed your interesting manuscript for the third time. However, I still see several mistakes in it: please, check the whole manuscript, Appendix A and References carefully. The scientific nomenclature must be carefully reviewed: in the text there are numerous notes and corrections for it. I started correcting Appendix A as well, but I ask you to complete this review by following https://powo.science.kew.org/.

Finally, I noticed that a useful reference is missing and I added it in the text, but you should insert it and update it in the References list.

Best regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Specifically, we comment that:

  1. a) The number of citations was substantially reduced; it was analyzed that each one contributed to the manuscript. Also, citations provided by the reviewers were included, as well as some that improved the understanding of the work.
  2. b) Change control has been used in each of the revisions (a function that allows modifications to the text in "Word"), effectively, so that editors and reviewers can track it and be easily identified.
  3. c) This is the third letter to the editor, in the previous one the general modifications to the manuscript were mentioned, as well as the observations made for each of the reviewers.
  4. d) The text has been reviewed by an "English" language specialist.

Previous letter

In general, they were carried out:

  1. General text changes
  2. Appointment Adjustments: the contribution of each one of the bibliographical references was verified, those that were considered non-significant for the work were eliminated. These have been reduced by a third of the original ones.
  3. Writing in the Introduction and in the Materials and Methods section Adjustment in the discussion
  4. Use of track changes
  5. A style review was made in the English writing

Reviewer 4

Response: First Review

Each of the corrections mentioned by the reviewer have been made, we consider that each of the observations have improved the work for publication, we appreciate the work of the reviewer. Through your comments we made adjustments in various sections, contributing better to the discussion.

  1. a) A review of the suggested citations was made, to include them appropriately in the introduction, in addition others of interest were added to frame an introduction that highlights ethnobotanical work worldwide, in remote regions and with different indigenous groups.
  2. b) Changed the introduction and the section on materials and methods
  3. c) Figures were placed closer to their initial citation
  4. d) The term “species” was changed to “taxa” as long as the context allowed it.
  5. e) The order of the subtitles of the manuscript was modified.
  6. f) The new citations were added to the document and in the references section, each of the citations were reviewed in order of appearance in the text and in the list of references. Quotations that did not contribute to the text and the discussion were eliminated.
  7. g) All comments added in pdf format were addressed
  8. h) the work was left with changes control for the revision of the required observations

 

Response: Second Review

We appreciate each of the corrections and comments made, work, we strive to adjust each of them, none was rejected, on the contrary, your review work complements our research.

  1. a) Appendix A was added to the final part of the document.
  2. b) The corrections mentioned in the attached file were made
  3. c) The contribution of each of the authors in the investigation was added
  4. d) The contribution and significance of each of the citations was evaluated and those that were most important and contributed to strengthening the manuscript were selected.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf