Review Reports - Farmers’ Variety Naming and Crop Varietal Diversity of Two Cereal and Three Legume Species in the Moroccan High Atlas, Using DATAR

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The abstract is not enough. The results are not fully reflected. The introduction is weak, not enough literature is given. also the aim of the study is missing. I get lost while reading the materials and methods part. it is so complicated that I could not understand whether it is the introduction of a field or the introduction of the study. 215 farmers are not understandable how they were selected. I could not see any statistical explanation. Statistics are missing. the discussion part is also weak and not discussed with enough literatures. for all these reasons, the article does not seem scientific.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

Sustainability-2382638 “Varietal diversity of two cereals and three legume species in the Moroccan High Atlas, using DATAR”

Reviewer1:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript uses DATAR to explain the diversity of two cereals and three legume species in the

The abstract is not enough. The results are not fully reflected.

Response: After making some major amendments to the manuscript, the abstract was modified accordingly. The use of the local terminology as a valuable way to assess diversity and the importance of a better understanding of the factors influencing the presence and distribution of crop varietal diversity were highlighted (L28 to L41)

The introduction is weak, not enough literature is given. also the aim of the study is missing.

Response: The introduction was greatly restructured to clarify the hypothesis, the justification of the study and the aims of the study (L46-L93). The background information was reorganized and then the study on varietal naming by local farming communities followed by the assessment of the crop varietal diversity still found in the fields were presented.

I get lost while reading the materials and methods part. it is so complicated that I could not understand whether it is the introduction of a field or the introduction of the study. 215 farmers are not understandable how they were selected. I could not see any statistical explanation. Statistics are missing.

Response: The material and methods section was also greatly amended to clarify the different uses of the surveys and sampling strategies / experimental design (see changes L165-203). For the study on varietal naming by farmers, ethnosemantic and ethnotaxonomic study, results from focus group discussions, household surveys and market surveys were used. A much higher number of farmers were interviewed and much higher number of variety names was available than when taking into account only HHS. This has been clarified in L 221-223. Diversity indicators were calculated only based on data collected during household surveys (L 191-196 and L280-282).

the discussion part is also weak and not discussed with enough literatures. for all these reasons, the article does not seem scientific.

Response: The Results section was reorganized. In addition to the strictly descriptive analysis, we have added an analysis of correlations between richness and economic and ecological factors (L333-347). The discussion has been reorganized and clarified with additional literature references and discussion on the results of a correlation analysis included in the results section.

Reviewer 2 Report

The title of this manuscript could be improved on the basis of major findings as it seems too general.

In abstract, the conclusion statement seems too general and please explain the application of work.

Novelty statement is also omitted from the manuscript which is important for emphasizing the exclusivity of your study. Th objectives of the study needs to be clearly addressed in the manuscript.

The discussion should be interpreted with the results as well as discussed in relation to the present literature.

Conclusion section failed to enlighten the spirit of the finding and is missing the results. Random addition of results should be avoided. Revise it precisely.

Please maintain the uniformity in referencing.

It is suggested not to begin the sentence with the abbreviation. Make sure that all abbreviations are fully identified at first use in both the abstract and body of the manuscript. Afterward, the abbreviation can be used alone.

Over all, error in sentence formation, please revise the whole manuscript to avoid the use of long sentences and some paragraphs are very short. Paraphrasing is also required in the manuscript.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

Sustainability-2382638 “Varietal diversity of two cereals and three legume species in the Moroccan High Atlas, using DATAR”

Reviewer2:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title of this manuscript could be improved on the basis of major findings as it seems too general.

Response: We have modified the title of the article to reflect better the full content of the article: the study of the variety naming by farmers and the study on crop variety distribution. “Farmers’ variety naming and cop varietal diversity of two cereals and three legume species in the Moroccan High Atlas, using DATAR” L2-4

In abstract, the conclusion statement seems too general and please explain the application of work.

Response: After making some major amendments to the manuscript, the abstract was modified accordingly. The use of the local terminology as a valuable way to assess diversity and the importance of a better understanding of the factors influencing the presence and distribution of crop varietal diversity were highlighted (L28 to L41)

Novelty statement is also omitted from the manuscript which is important for emphasizing the exclusivity of your study. Th objectives of the study needs to be clearly addressed in the manuscript.

Response: The introduction was greatly restructured to clarify the hypothesis, the justification of the study and the aims of the study (L46-L93). The background information was reorganized and then the study on varietal naming by local farming communities followed by the assessment of the crop varietal diversity still found in the fields were presented.

The discussion should be interpreted with the results as well as discussed in relation to the present literature.

Response: Elements of the discussion that were misplaced in the Results section were moved and some additional results have been added to the correct section. The discussion section has been reorganized and clarified.

Conclusion section failed to enlighten the spirit of the finding and is missing the results. Random addition of results should be avoided. Revise it precisely.

Response: Based on the changes in the results and discussion sections, the conclusion was amended. It now reflects more evidently the results and findings of the previous section.

Please maintain the uniformity in referencing.

Response: References were checked and modified to ensure uniformity.

Response: All abbreviations and acronyms were checked to ensure they are fully spelled out in their first use in the abstract and body of the text. We limited as much as possible the use of abbreviations to start sentences.

Over all, error in sentence formation, please revise the whole manuscript to avoid the use of long sentences and some paragraphs are very short. Paraphrasing is also required in the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Response: Edits of the English language were done on the whole manuscript, particularly to ensure the consistency of verb tenses. When needed sentences were shortened and some paragraphs re written.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript uses DATAR to explain the diversity of two cereals and three legume species in the Moroccan High Atlas. The topic is interesting and within the scope of the Journal. The database is also interesting and commendable. Unfortunately, the research is somehow descriptive and did not use enough results based on the measurements presented in the result section. Overall, the discussion is very poor in the manuscript. Some clarifications are also needed for the experimental design description. The paper also needs thorough editing for consistency and the English language.

English language is fine

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

Sustainability-2382638 “Varietal diversity of two cereals and three legume species in the Moroccan High Atlas, using DATAR”

Reviewer3:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Response:

We have modified the methodology section and clarified the experimental design (see changes L165-203).
The Results section was reorganized. In addition to the strictly descriptive analysis, we have added an analysis of correlations between richness and economic and ecological factors (L333-347).
The Discussion part was amended. The first paragraph, L349-364, was reviewed to improve the discussion on crop varietal units of farmers. In the last paragraph, L412-425, were integrated the discussion on the correlation analysis results and its limitations.

The paper also needs thorough editing for consistency and the English language

Response: Edits of the English language were done on the manuscript, particularly to ensure the consistency of verb tenses.

Reviewer 4 Report

Intraspecific crop diversity is deteriorating and a better understanding of this diversity in the field is necessary. This article adds important information for five species in Morocco, but widely grown internationally. Little has been researched in the ways in which Amazigh communities label and classify animal and plant agrobiodiversity. Table S2 is particularly useful in this regard. The authors indicate that local terminology either overestimates or more often underestimates local agrobiodiversity with a rather large variation in naming both at the regional level and according to the source of information (producers vs. sellers). The article collates vernacular names and as the authors point out, genomic analyses are essential to enable comparison with crop germplasm collections in other countries. This article is a valuable contribution to the enormous task of cataloguing agrobiodiversity before any more is lost.

Specific comments and corrections:

L21: ‘spp’ should not be italics

L22: ‘fava’ is incorrect. The correct scientific binomial for faba bean is Vicia faba L. , syn. Faba vulgaris Moench according to Kew Plants of the World online.

L38: delete ‘a’

L40: Insert ‘a’ thus - ‘in a climate’

L48: correct ‘fava’ to ‘faba’

L110: change ‘in’ to ‘to’

113: change ‘aid’ to ‘arid’

L141: delete ‘have’

L145: In the sentence beginning ‘FGD’ change to ‘For FGD, about 15 farmers gathered for discussions where they described the varieties they grew, indicated……’

L148: Change to ‘A total of 11 FGD sessions were conducted …’

L154: change to ‘… in question, followed by snowball sampling until a representative sample was achieved.’

L155: change ‘take’ to ‘took’ and change ‘identify’ to identified’

L156: ‘surface’ is awkward, suggest change to ‘which type (or category) of land…’ and change ‘are’ to ‘were’

L161: change ‘kept’ to ‘retained’

L161 – 163: delete ‘for each crop’ and check the data with L189 (111 crop varieties) and L241-242 (55 varieties) and whether it is 9 or 10 for pea. These three sentences do not agree and correction is needed.

L164: change to ‘The community evenness was calculated as the Simpson index estimated using the frequency...'

L170: change ‘estimate’ to estimated’

L281: change ‘more’ to ‘greater’

L375: delete ‘ the quality of’

Table S2: In row with

Lincoln

English heirloom of pea (very sweat).

Change ‘sweat’ to ‘sweet’.

If it is the journal style to spell out numerals from zero to ten, correct these throughout the text.

On the whole the English is very good. However, as indicated above, there ae places where the verb tense is incorrect and phraseology could be improved.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4

Sustainability-2382638 “Varietal diversity of two cereals and three legume species in the Moroccan High Atlas, using DATAR”

Reviewer2:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Response: Thank you so much for your comments and suggestions and for your overall positive appreciation of our study.

Specific comments and corrections:

L21: ‘spp’ should not be italics

L22: ‘fava’ is incorrect. The correct scientific binomial for faba bean is Vicia faba L. , syn. Faba vulgaris Moench according to Kew Plants of the World online.

L38: delete ‘a’

L40: Insert ‘a’ thus - ‘in a climate’

L48: correct ‘fava’ to ‘faba’

L110: change ‘in’ to ‘to’

113: change ‘aid’ to ‘arid’

L141: delete ‘have’

L145: In the sentence beginning ‘FGD’ change to ‘For FGD, about 15 farmers gathered for discussions where they described the varieties they grew, indicated……’

L148: Change to ‘A total of 11 FGD sessions were conducted …’

L154: change to ‘… in question, followed by snowball sampling until a representative sample was achieved.’

L155: change ‘take’ to ‘took’ and change ‘identify’ to identified’

L156: ‘surface’ is awkward, suggest change to ‘which type (or category) of land…’ and change ‘are’ to ‘were’

L161: change ‘kept’ to ‘retained’

L164: change to ‘The community evenness was calculated as the Simpson index estimated using the frequency...'

L170: change ‘estimate’ to estimated’

L281: change ‘more’ to ‘greater’

L375: delete ‘ the quality of’

Table S2: In row with

Lincoln

English heirloom of pea (very sweat).

Change ‘sweat’ to ‘sweet’.

If it is the journal style to spell out numerals from zero to ten, correct these throughout the text.

Response: Your specific comments and corrections have been included to the main text and supplementary materials.

Response: With regards to your specific comment for L161-163 in link with results in L189 and L241-242, we have clarified the totals found: First, diversity indicators were calculated only based on data collected during household surveys (L 191-196 and L280-282). In addition, one of the pea varieties was found in 2 different sites, therefore the total number of varieties, all hubs included, is not the addition of the number of varieties for each site, but the addition of the total number of distinct varieties from each site. We have corrected the error in the manuscript and added further explanation in L 298-301. Finally, for the ethnosemantic and ethnotaxonomic study, varietal naming obtained from FGD, HHS and market surveys were used. Therefore, a much higher number of variety names was available than when taking into account only HHS. This has been clarified in L 221-223.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

On the whole the English is very good. However, as indicated above, there ae places where the verb tense is incorrect and phraseology could be improved.

Response: Edits of the English language were done on the manuscript, particularly to ensure the consistency of verb tenses.

Reviewer 5 Report

Dear editor

The manuscript cover genetic resources of crops that is a key subject in food security. However there are several shortcomings:

Title: Varietal diversity is not a suitable title.Variation showing differentiation under species level and diversity above species level

Abstract should be revised after main text corrections

Introduction

Introduction does not follow a standard structure, so:

The hypothesis should be improved clearly

The justification and necessity of study must be improved

The aims of study?

The literature review represent a suitable view on importance the study

The introduction should be improved significantly

Study area:

This section should be summarized

Results

The results should be provide an exact view on study without analysis

The compassion by other studies, analysis and etc should be cited in discussion, accordingly the authors should be divide this section to results and discussion

Discussion

Discussion should be improved through:

The extensive review as well comparison to last and similar references

The main achievements must be provided clearly

The other comment cited in text

The manuscript must be revised in detail (major revision)

Best Regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Dear editor

The manuscript cover genetic resources of crops that is a key subject in food security. However there are several shortcomings:

Title: Varietal diversity is not a suitable title.Variation showing differentiation under species level and diversity above species level

Abstract should be revised after main text corrections

Introduction

Introduction does not follow a standard structure, so:

The hypothesis should be improved clearly

The justification and necessity of study must be improved

The aims of study?

The literature review represent a suitable view on importance the study

The introduction should be improved significantly

Study area:

This section should be summarized

Results

The results should be provide an exact view on study without analysis

The compassion by other studies, analysis and etc should be cited in discussion, accordingly the authors should be divide this section to results and discussion

Discussion

Discussion should be improved through:

The extensive review as well comparison to last and similar references

The main achievements must be provided clearly

The other comment cited in text

The manuscript must be revised in detail (major revision)

Best Regards

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 5

Sustainability-2382638 “Varietal diversity of two cereals and three legume species in the Moroccan High Atlas, using DATAR”

Reviewer5:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript cover genetic resources of crops that is a key subject in food security. However there are several shortcomings:

Title: Varietal diversity is not a suitable title.Variation showing differentiation under species level and diversity above species level

Response: With regards to the title, we modified it to “Crop varietal diversity” (L2 to L4), with reference to crop genetic diversity in the form of varieties (or landraces) and the traits they carry. We made this choice, based on the wealth of literature that local or traditional varieties, referred to by Harlan as landraces, in his classic book in 1975 "Crops and Man, American Society of Agronomy", continue to be managed by farmers as distinct units. These named and described crop varietal units continue to adapt and evolve under human management and environmental pressures as units, whose genetic makeup is changing over time. We fully acknowledge the need to integrate genetic tools in the improvement of varieties, but deem that the starting point of crop improvement in the local crop varieties themselves linked to the farmers' management and cultural needs. In this regard, we have added the citation: Casañas F, Simó J, Casals J and Prohens J (2017) Toward an Evolved Concept of Landrace. Front. Plant Sci. 8:145. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00145 to the text.

Abstract should be revised after main text corrections

Response: After making some major amendments to the manuscript, the abstract was modified accordingly. The use of the local terminology as a valuable way to assess diversity and the importance of a better understanding of the factors influencing the presence and distribution of crop varietal diversity were highlighted (L28 to L41)

Introduction

Introduction does not follow a standard structure, so:

The hypothesis should be improved clearly

The justification and necessity of study must be improved

The aims of study?

The literature review represent a suitable view on importance the study

The introduction should be improved significantly

Response: The introduction was greatly restructured to clarify the hypothesis, the justification of the study and the aims of the study (L46-L93). The background information was reorganized and then the study on varietal naming by local farming communities followed by the assessment of the crop varietal diversity still found in the fields were presented.

Study area:

This section should be summarized

Response: The section about the study area was shortened (see changes L118-127 and L137-139).

Results

The results should be provide an exact view on study without analysis

The compassion by other studies, analysis and etc should be cited in discussion, accordingly the authors should be divide this section to results and discussion

Response: The Results section was reorganized. In addition to the strictly descriptive analysis, we have added an analysis of correlations between richness and economic and ecological factors (L333-347). Misplaced discussion elements were also moved to the Discussion section.

Discussion

Discussion should be improved through:

The extensive review as well comparison to last and similar references

The main achievements must be provided clearly

Response: The discussion has been reorganized and clarified with additional literature references and discussion on the results of a correlation analysis included in the results section. The first paragraph, L349-364, was reviewed to improve the discussion on crop varietal units of farmers. In the last paragraph, L412-425, were integrated the discussion on the correlation analysis results and its limitations.

The other comment cited in text

The manuscript must be revised in detail (major revision)

Response: All the comments included in the attached document have been addressed. The manuscript has undergone a major revision as is visible in the new revised manuscript provided in track change mode.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

It was determined that the authors were unable to make most of the corrections I mentioned. For example, in the first article they sent, there were only 43 references, but now there are 48. However, I stated that both the literature in the introduction was insufficient and that the discussion section was not discussed with sufficient literature. Again, it is still not explained how 215 farmers were identified.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 – Round 2

Sustainability-2382638 “Farmers’ variety naming and crop varietal diversity of two cereals and three legume species in the Moroccan High Atlas, using DATAR”

Reviewer1:

It was determined that the authors were unable to make most of the corrections I mentioned.

For example, in the first article they sent, there were only 43 references, but now there are 48. However, I stated that both the literature in the introduction was insufficient and that the discussion section was not discussed with sufficient literature.

Response: We appreciate the suggestions to expend the literature review in the manuscript. In this regard we revised and developed the introduction and the discussion sections. 92 references were added mainly to the introduction and discussion sections. The manuscript has now a total of 140 references.

Again, it is still not explained how 215 farmers were identified.

Response: We have provided a detailed description of the methodology of how the farmers were selected. We controlled all our data sets and files to make a clear explanation of the total number of farmers and informants interviewed. We modified the abstract L26 “282 Amazigh informants”. We then rewrote parts of the Methodology section L183-186, L192-197, L203-204, L206-210. (Line numbering of the manuscript showing markup).

Reviewer 2 Report

The title of this manuscript could be improved on the basis of major findings as it seems too general.

Novelty statement is also omitted from the manuscript which is important for emphasizing the exclusivity of your study.

Th objectives of the study needs to be clearly addressed in the manuscript.

The discussion should be interpreted with the results as well as discussed in relation to the present literature. This section needs thorough revision.

Conclusion section failed to enlighten the spirit of the finding and is missing the results. Random addition of results should be avoided. Revise it precisely.

Please maintain the uniformity while in-text citation and referencing.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 – Round 2

Sustainability-2382638 “Farmers’ variety naming and crop varietal diversity of two cereals and three legume species in the Moroccan High Atlas, using DATAR”

Reviewer2:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title of this manuscript could be improved on the basis of major findings as it seems too general.

Response: We have modified the title of the article to reflect better the full content of the article: the study of the variety naming by farmers and the study on crop variety distribution. “Farmers’ variety naming and cop varietal diversity of two cereals and three legume species in the Moroccan High Atlas, using DATAR” L2-4

In abstract, the conclusion statement seems too general and please explain the application of work.

Response: After making some major amendments to the manuscript, the abstract was modified accordingly. The use of the local terminology as a valuable way to assess diversity and the importance of a better understanding of the factors influencing the presence and distribution of crop varietal diversity were highlighted (L28 to L41)

Novelty statement is also omitted from the manuscript which is important for emphasizing the exclusivity of your study. Th objectives of the study needs to be clearly addressed in the manuscript.

Response: The introduction was greatly restructured to clarify the hypothesis, the justification of the study and the aims of the study (L46-L105). The background information was reorganized and then the study on varietal naming by local farming communities followed by the assessment of the crop varietal diversity still found in the fields were presented.

The discussion should be interpreted with the results as well as discussed in relation to the present literature.

Response: Elements of the discussion that were misplaced in the Results section were moved and some additional results have been added to the correct section. The discussion section has been reorganized and clarified.

Conclusion section failed to enlighten the spirit of the finding and is missing the results. Random addition of results should be avoided. Revise it precisely.

Response: Based on the changes in the results and discussion sections, the conclusion was amended. It now reflects more evidently the results and findings of the previous section.

Please maintain the uniformity in referencing.

Response: References were checked and modified to ensure uniformity.

Response: All abbreviations and acronyms were checked to ensure they are fully spelled out in their first use in the abstract and body of the text. We limited as much as possible the use of abbreviations to start sentences.

Over all, error in sentence formation, please revise the whole manuscript to avoid the use of long sentences and some paragraphs are very short. Paraphrasing is also required in the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Response: Edits of the English language were done on the whole manuscript, particularly to ensure the consistency of verb tenses. When needed sentences were shortened and some paragraphs re written.

Reviewer 5 Report

Dear editor

The manuscript is acceptable

Best Regards

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 – Round 2

Sustainability-2382638 “Farmers’ variety naming and crop varietal diversity of two cereals and three legume species in the Moroccan High Atlas, using DATAR”

Reviewer 3:

Dear editor

The manuscript is acceptable

Best Regards

Response: We appreciate your comment that the manuscript is acceptable. Thank you.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made almost all the corrections in line with the opinion given. The article is acceptable in this form.