Ethnobotany of the Useful Native Species in Linares, Nuevo León, México

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I miss a clear statement of the aim and objectives of this research. There's an indication this is about documenting knowledge about plant uses. But there's also analysis on correspondence of age versus knowledge,  calculations of the importance of medicinal species, etc. So make it clear what the purpose is of the research, and list all the objectives of what you investigate. That way, the conclusions can then indicate how these objectives have been achieved (or not) and what the research found. At the moment those conclusions are fairly vague.

Similarly, it is not clear what was asked in the interviews. Plant uses that interviewees know about? Useful plants that they know? Plants that they use themselves? Plants on their land / in their gardens that they use? Were these free listing interviews where interviewees listed all useful plants they know / use. Describe that in detail.

The methods description also needs to clearly outline the sampling strategy of interviewees. You mention people with dedicated activities, so would you describe those as key informants (people likely to know a lot about useful plants), a common term used for interviews? Then you also indicate that interviewees were chosen randomly. That contradicts the focus on those categories of people. Make it clear what the strategy was: completely random, or random within those categories which would be stratified random sampling.

In the results section you also use a lot of information from literature, yet this is not mentioned in your Methods section. Include this also, and explain the rationale. What did you investigate in literature. The species that were elicited during interviews? The uses mentioned? Uses of the same species in other areas? E.g., starting from the useful species listed during interviews, we consulted literature to investigate ……

So overall, structure the paper so you have clear aims & objectives, for which you apply suitable methods to investigate those aims, followed by results, and then a conclusion / discussion on how the research achieved the aims.

You mention that the number of interviewees was obtained from the law of diminishing returns. Provide evidence of this in your research, e.g. a graph that indicates the number of new species mentioned as interviews progressed from interview 1 to 180.

Line 144: Sturges Rule, do you have a reference for this?

The three indices that you calculate are only calculated for medicinal plants. Explain why this limitation. You first investigate all useful plants; then limit that part of the research to only medicinal plants. Why. Also explain in the methods that you are categorising the medicinal uses according to systems listed in Table 3.

Line 106: is the inventory of plant resources all plants, or just useful plants?

Line 108: how many plant species were collected? That is not given in the results

Line 147: explain what your use categories are here. The categories listed in Table 3? In that case it’s better to use the term medical system insetad of use category. Or the use categories ornamental, medicinal, food, etc?

In your results, indicate for the 152 useful species that you recorded the percentages of trees, shrubs and herbaceous.

Line 182-183: when indicating number of species between brackets avoid confusion with your references between square brackets; best to always add spp behind the numbers, so (58 spp).

For ornamental plants, indicate the percentage of native and exotic.

Table 3: In the title description, also explain what nur means. Explain what the roman numbers mean, XI, IV, etc. Explain which standard/definition/ontology you use to define those medical system categories. WHO definition?

Line 359: which species is this best honey plant? Oak?

Lines 457-459: why is this use not medicinal ? Because it a topical application?

Table 4: Only Native species are listed, so why mention also E in the title?

Line 475: What does “These systems” mean here?

Lines 476-480: If Croton suaveolens is a species most used for circulatory system illnesses, then why is it not included in Table 4 as most used species? Same for Annona muricata and Opuntia ficus-indica.

Table 5: In title explain meaning of Ip and Iu. Also explain why Ip = Iu. Ailment is not the correct term for those medical systems.

Lines 506-509: if this research shows that Linares stands out for its biocultural richness, support this with evidence that points to a high use of native species found in this research. Do you know how many native species occur in Linares? You indicate 245 species of trees and shrubs (line 206). Which percentage of those did you find in your research?  Do you have numbers for native herbaceous species?

Conclusions need to refer back to your aims & objectives (which need defining).

Line 546: why is informed consent statement not applicable? In line 133 you indicate that you obtained prior informed consent. That needs to be explained here.

Appendix A: Indicate in the tale also which species are native / exotic, and indicate how many interviewees mentioned each use.

Tipos / English to correct:

Line 90: platew should be plateau I assume

Line 122: interviews with people (not to people)

Line 245: interviewees

Line 441: 10 species

There are also at times sentences repeated, that is the case in line 128 (age 25 to 81), lines 485-486,

Author Response

I miss a clear statement of the aim and objectives of this research. There's an indication this is about documenting knowledge about plant uses. But there's also analysis on correspondence of age versus knowledge,  calculations of the importance of medicinal species, etc. So make it clear what the purpose is of the research, and list all the objectives of what you investigate. That way, the conclusions can then indicate how these objectives have been achieved (or not) and what the research found. At the moment those conclusions are fairly vague.

We include objectives of this work at the end of the introduction

Similarly, it is not clear what was asked in the interviews. Plant uses that interviewees know about? Useful plants that they know? Plants that they use themselves? Plants on their land / in their gardens that they use? Were these free listing interviews where interviewees listed all useful plants they know / use. Describe that in detail.

We conducted random interviews (with the exception of a quarantining woman who previously informed us by the residents, she had extensive knowledge of the use of plants). Among the people interviewed, the main activities they are engaged in were: housewives, pastors, primary school teachers, small businessmen, retirees, bricklayers),

The methods description also needs to clearly outline the sampling strategy of interviewees. You mention people with dedicated activities, so would you describe those as key informants (people likely to know a lot about useful plants), a common term used for interviews? Then you also indicate that interviewees were chosen randomly. That contradicts the focus on those categories of people. Make it clear what the strategy was: completely random, or random within those categories which would be stratified random sampling.

All records were made in written form. One hundred and eighty interviews were conducted, all of them including at least four general questions,”a) plant name?, they were asked if they know the common name of the plant they use, b) use?, what type of use they give to the plant (medicinal, ornamental, food, timber, fodder, craft, etc.), c) plant part used? if they use a part (root, stem, leaves, inflorescences, flowers, seeds, etc.) of the plant for a certain purpose, and d) how to prepare it? a) plant name?, b) use? c) plant part used? and d) how to prepare it?, the way of preparing the plants or their parts for use (raw, cooked, boiled, ground, toasted, etc. .); all the plants mentioned by each interviewee were registered in a list with all the known species and their uses [35]”

In the results section you also use a lot of information from literature, yet this is not mentioned in your Methods section. Include this also, and explain the rationale. What did you investigate in literature. The species that were elicited during interviews? The uses mentioned? Uses of the same species in other areas? E.g., starting from the useful species listed during interviews, we consulted literature to investigate

All interviews were recorded in Spanish. The useful species listed during the interviews were consulted in the literature to investigate their uses in other areas

So overall, structure the paper so you have clear aims & objectives, for which you apply suitable methods to investigate those aims, followed by results, and then a conclusion / discussion on how the research achieved the aims.

We include it, at the end of the conclusion

According to the results obtained in this study and the methodology used, they allowed us to know the use of native species in the municipality of Linares and its relationship with other regions of Mexico and abroad regarding the diversity and uses of the species

You mention that the number of interviewees was obtained from the law of diminishing returns. Provide evidence of this in your research, e.g. a graph that indicates the number of new species mentioned as interviews progressed from interview 1 to 180.

After having carried out 180 interviews and having recorded 152 useful plant species, the information gain was less than 15%, so it was decided to stop the interviews. We recorded, collected and stored in the herbarium CFNL 152 useful species included within 131 genera and 59 families of vascular plants (Appendix A, supplementary material).

Line 144: Sturges Rule, do you have a reference for this?

The number of individuals interviewed was defined according to the "Law of Dimin-ishing Returns" [34]. It was already included

In the three indices that you calculate are only calculated for medicinal plants. Explain why this limitation. You first investigate all useful plants; then limit that part of the research to only medicinal plants. Why. Also explain in the methods that you are categorising the medicinal uses according to systems listed in Table 3.

Because we were interested in knowing quantitatively which medicinal species are the most used and important for the inhabitants of Linares

Line 106: is the inventory of plant resources all plants, or just useful plants?

Only useful plants

2.4. Data analysis and use significance

2.4. Use significance for medicinal species

Line 108: how many plant species were collected? That is not given in the results

After having carried out 180 interviews and having recorded 152 useful plant species, the information gain was less than 15%, so it was decided to stop the interviews. We recorded, collected and stored in the herbarium CFNL 152 useful species included within 131 genera and 59 families of vascular plants

Line 147: explain what your use categories are here. The categories listed in Table 3? In that case it’s better to use the term medical system insetad of use category. Or the use categories ornamental, medicinal, food, etc?

Table 3. Types of diseases mentioned by informants from Linares, Nuevo León, Mexico. There were variations in the frequencies of mention of the categories (nt) and therefore, differences were recorded in the values in the Informant Consensus Factor (ICF) index; nur = number of uses mentioned

In your results, indicate for the 152 useful species that you recorded the percentages of trees, shrubs and herbaceous.

The herbaceous species total 62, followed by trees (30 species), shrubs (29 species), succulents (26 species) and vines (5 species).

Line 182-183: when indicating number of species between brackets avoid confusion with your references between square brackets; best to always add spp behind the numbers, so (58 spp).

For ornamental plants, indicate the percentage of native and exotic.

the title of the manuscript indicates it

Ethnobotany of the useful native species in Linares, Nuevo León, México

Table 3: In the title description, also explain what nur means. Explain what the roman numbers mean, XI, IV, etc. Explain which standard/definition/ontology you use to define those medical system categories. WHO definition?

We deleted the Roman numbers to avoid confusion.

Line 359: which species is this best honey plant? Oak?

Lines 457-459: why is this use not medicinal ? Because it a topical application?

Table 4: Only Native species are listed, so why mention also E in the title?

Only native, E was deleted

Line 475: What does “These systems” mean here?

These same systems

Lines 476-480: If Croton suaveolens is a species most used for circulatory system illnesses, then why is it not included in Table 4 as most used species? Same for Annona muricata and Opuntia ficus-indica.

Because is used also  for other purposes

Table 5: In title explain meaning of Ip and Iu. Also explain why Ip = Iu. Ailment is not the correct term for those medical systems.

Table 5. Plant species with ethnobotanical medicinal use that obtained FL =100% value in Linares, Nuevo León, Mexico.

We changed Ailemt for System

Lines 506-509: if this research shows that Linares stands out for its biocultural richness, support this with evidence that points to a high use of native species found in this research. Do you know how many native species occur in Linares? You indicate 245 species of trees and shrubs (line 206). Which percentage of those did you find in your research?  Do you have numbers for native herbaceous species?

Linares stands out as an area where plants have a wide ethnobotanical use and the biocultural richness of this knowledge is manifested by the wide and varied use that is given to its native plants, of the 3,175 species registered for Nuevo León, about 78% are native species, the 152 species of registered useful native plants represent about 21%.

Conclusions need to refer back to your aims & objectives (which need defining).

We corrected it.

Line 546: why is informed consent statement not applicable? In line 133 you indicate that you obtained prior informed consent. That needs to be explained here.

Appendix A: Indicate in the tale also which species are native / exotic, and indicate how many interviewees mentioned each use.

Only native species are included in this manuscript

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Tipos / English to correct:

Line 90: platew should be plateau I assume

corrected

Line 122: interviews with people (not to people)

According to the interviews with local people,

Line 245: interviewees

Line 441: 10 species

There are also at times sentences repeated, that is the case in line 128 (age 25 to 81), lines 485-486,

No

Reviewer 2 Report

At first glance, the manuscript gives the impression of a scientific article. At the same time, delving into this manuscript, it remains unclear why it was written at all and what was meant to be said?

Research articles are divided into review articles and research articles. The review article provides an overview of what has already been written on this topic. A research paper attempts to answer hypotheses or research questions. This manuscript uses quantitative research methods (statistical analysis). At the same time, the quantitative research method always requires either a specific hypothesis or the search for an answer to the research question. This manuscript does not mention at all why this research was done at all (hypotheses or research questions not mentioned at all - some journals this is considered a sufficient error that the manuscript is rejected by the editor even before peer review)? For what purpose was the data collected? What is the purpose of this manuscript? This manuscript gives an overview of what data was collected, but there is no conclusion that was concluded based on the given data.

The purpose of qualitative research is to raise hypotheses and provide information in depth. The purpose of quantitative research is always to test hypotheses. What is the difference between qualitative and quantitative research I suggest authors read this:

Pratt, M. G. (2008). Fitting oval pegs into round holes: Tensions in evaluating and publishing qualitative research in top-tier North American journals. Organizational Research Methods, 11(3), 481-509.

Looking at the bibliography in the manuscript, it turns out that many similar articles from the given region (Nuevo León) have already been published by the authors. The purpose of science is not to collect data (line 84: “great importance to document this knowledge”) e.g. from every village, but to analyze the data. The purpose of science is to provide new information through analysis, to solve problems, etc. What new information did this manuscript add to their already abundantly published similar articles from the Nuevo León region? The authors already have enough knowledge that they could have already made a proper analysis article.

The manuscript completely lacks the socio-cultural background of both the researched area and the informants. How many people live in the area? What is the main ones field of activities (e.g. agriculture, forestry, cattle breeding, industry, trade, etc.) in the region? How advanced is the medical system? How many books and magazines have been published on the use of plants? What was the cultural background of the informants? How educated were the informants (primary education, secondary education, higher education)? Why exactly 180 people had to be interviewed? Why such a number? But why not 50, or 100, or instead 300 people? Did people live in cities or villages? Are natives also living in the area? Were they interviewed too? What is the religion of the informants? Etc. The description of the data collection method is also very incomplete in the manuscript. How long were the interviews? How were the informants found? Was it a random or pseudorandom method? What were the questions the authors asked? You say you used a semi-structured method. This means both questionnaire survey and free answers. Line 131-132: ”/---/ all of them including at least four general questions, a) plant name?, b) use? c) plant part used? and d) how to prepare it?” . Such a structure of the questionnaire results in very vague answers. When asking in this way, people do not clearly understand what is being asked of them at all? Take a look at your data. These data do not tell the reader anything. These data are incomplete and raise many questions. E.g:

It is a climbing plant. What is made of this wood? How widely is this plant grown in home gardens? In one garden? In every garden?

Was this plant grown in all gardens? It is unclear in which rituals this plant was used? On what holidays? Did all informants use this plant in rituals? I recommend that the authors clarify first how the plants used in the rituals are studied:

Łuczaj, Ł. (2011). Herbal bouquets blessed on Assumption Day in south-eastern Poland: freelisting versus photographic inventory. Ethnobotany Research and Applications, 9, 001-025.

Łuczaj, Ł. (2011). Changes in Assumption Day Herbal Bouquets in Poland: a nineteenth century study revisited. Economic Botany, 65, 66-75.

Łuczaj, Ł. J. (2012). A relic of medieval folklore: Corpus Christi Octave herbal wreaths in Poland and their relationship with the local pharmacopoeia. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 142(1), 228-240.

Łuczaj, Ł., Wolanin, M., Drobnik, J., Kujawska, M., Dumanowski, J., Walker, K., & Tomczyk, M. (2022). Dysphania schraderiana (Schult.) Mosyakin & Clemants–An overlooked medicinal and ritual plant used in Poland. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 284, 114755.

Stryamets, N., Fontefrancesco, M. F., Mattalia, G., Prakofjewa, J., Pieroni, A., Kalle, R., ... & Sõukand, R. (2021). Just beautiful green herbs: use of plants in cultural practices in Bukovina and Roztochya, Western Ukraine. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 17, 1-25.

Matejić, J. S., Stefanović, N., Ivković, M., Živanović, N., Marin, P. D., & Džamić, A. M. (2020). Traditional uses of autochthonous medicinal and ritual plants and other remedies for health in Eastern and South-Eastern Serbia. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 261, 113186.

The authors state in their manuscript that they have used that book: Martin, G. J. (1995). Ethnobotany: a methods manual. London: Chapman & Hall

Gary Martin also emphasizes the importance of socio-cultural background in his book. If the authors had read this book, they would have known this and written about it in their manuscript. Whay is importance of the socio-cultural background I recommend the authors also read:

Davis, A., & Wagner, J. R. (2003). Who knows? On the importance of identifying “experts” when researching local ecological knowledge. Human ecology, 31(3), 463-489.

Since the authors use a quantitative method, I recommend the authors to look at the following articles. In them, authors can learn how to formulate hypotheses for their research (quantitative research always requires the formulation of hypotheses or the search for answers to research questions):

Vogl, C. R., Vogl-Lukasser, B., & Puri, R. K. (2004). Tools and methods for data collection in ethnobotanical studies of homegardens. Field methods, 16(3), 285-306.

Höft, M., Barik, S. K., & Lykke, A. M. (1999). Quantitative ethnobotany. Applications of multivariate and statistical analyses in ethnobotany. People and Plants working paper, 6, 1-49.

Leonti, M. (2022). The relevance of quantitative ethnobotanical indices for ethnopharmacology and ethnobotany. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 288, 115008.

Robbins, M. C. (2023). The Nolan Index: A Quantitative Measure of List Similarities. Journal of Ethnobiology, 43 (1): 12–18.

I recommend the authors to think about whether it is necessary to provide so much information in one manuscript (from medicinal plants to plants used for composting)? Think about what you want to say with this article? Who is the target audience for your article? How does your article help this audience? Perhaps it would be worthwhile to make two, three or four analytical articles from this article. Analyze a specific topic thoroughly. Eg: medicinal plants; food plants; utility plants, ritual plants? In this case, no topic has been properly analyzed. Some statistics have been made and text from the table has been copied in between, which can also be read from the table.

Author Response

At first glance, the manuscript gives the impression of a scientific article. At the same time, delving into this manuscript, it remains unclear why it was written at all and what was meant to be said?

Research articles are divided into review articles and research articles. The review article provides an overview of what has already been written on this topic. A research paper attempts to answer hypotheses or research questions. This manuscript uses quantitative research methods (statistical analysis). At the same time, the quantitative research method always requires either a specific hypothesis or the search for an answer to the research question. This manuscript does not mention at all why this research was done at all (hypotheses or research questions not mentioned at all - some journals this is considered a sufficient error that the manuscript is rejected by the editor even before peer review)? For what purpose was the data collected? What is the purpose of this manuscript? This manuscript gives an overview of what data was collected, but there is no conclusion that was concluded based on the given data.

We eliminate the statistical analysis

The purpose of qualitative research is to raise hypotheses and provide information in depth. The purpose of quantitative research is always to test hypotheses. What is the difference between qualitative and quantitative research I suggest authors read this:

Pratt, M. G. (2008). Fitting oval pegs into round holes: Tensions in evaluating and publishing qualitative research in top-tier North American journals. Organizational Research Methods, 11(3), 481-509.

Looking at the bibliography in the manuscript, it turns out that many similar articles from the given region (Nuevo León) have already been published by the authors. The purpose of science is not to collect data (line 84: “great importance to document this knowledge”) e.g. from every village, but to analyze the data. The purpose of science is to provide new information through analysis, to solve problems, etc. What new information did this manuscript add to their already abundantly published similar articles from the Nuevo León region? The authors already have enough knowledge that they could have already made a proper analysis article.

The manuscript completely lacks the socio-cultural background of both the researched area and the informants. How many people live in the area? What is the main ones field of activities (e.g. agriculture, forestry, cattle breeding, industry, trade, etc.) in the region? How advanced is the medical system? How many books and magazines have been published on the use of plants? What was the cultural background of the informants? How educated were the informants (primary education, secondary education, higher education)? Why exactly 180 people had to be interviewed? Why such a number? But why not 50, or 100, or instead 300 people? Did people live in cities or villages? Are natives also living in the area? Were they interviewed too? What is the religion of the informants? Etc. The description of the data collection method is also very incomplete in the manuscript. How long were the interviews? How were the informants found? Was it a random or pseudorandom method? What were the questions the authors asked? You say you used a semi-structured method. This means both questionnaire survey and free answers. Line 131-132: ”/---/ all of them including at least four general questions, a) plant name?, b) use? c) plant part used? and d) how to prepare it?” . Such a structure of the questionnaire results in very vague answers. When asking in this way, people do not clearly understand what is being asked of them at all? Take a look at your data. These data do not tell the reader anything. These data are incomplete and raise many questions. E.g:

It is a climbing plant. What is made of this wood? How widely is this plant grown in home gardens? In one garden? In every garden?

Corrected

Was this plant grown in all gardens? It is unclear in which rituals this plant was used? On what holidays? Did all informants use this plant in rituals? I recommend that the authors clarify first how the plants used in the rituals are studied:

Łuczaj, Ł. (2011). Herbal bouquets blessed on Assumption Day in south-eastern Poland: freelisting versus photographic inventory. Ethnobotany Research and Applications, 9, 001-025.

Łuczaj, Ł. (2011). Changes in Assumption Day Herbal Bouquets in Poland: a nineteenth century study revisited. Economic Botany, 65, 66-75.

Łuczaj, Ł. J. (2012). A relic of medieval folklore: Corpus Christi Octave herbal wreaths in Poland and their relationship with the local pharmacopoeia. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 142(1), 228-240.

Łuczaj, Ł., Wolanin, M., Drobnik, J., Kujawska, M., Dumanowski, J., Walker, K., & Tomczyk, M. (2022). Dysphania schraderiana (Schult.) Mosyakin & Clemants–An overlooked medicinal and ritual plant used in Poland. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 284, 114755.

Stryamets, N., Fontefrancesco, M. F., Mattalia, G., Prakofjewa, J., Pieroni, A., Kalle, R., ... & Sõukand, R. (2021). Just beautiful green herbs: use of plants in cultural practices in Bukovina and Roztochya, Western Ukraine. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 17, 1-25.

Matejić, J. S., Stefanović, N., Ivković, M., Živanović, N., Marin, P. D., & Džamić, A. M. (2020). Traditional uses of autochthonous medicinal and ritual plants and other remedies for health in Eastern and South-Eastern Serbia. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 261, 113186.

The authors state in their manuscript that they have used that book: Martin, G. J. (1995). Ethnobotany: a methods manual. London: Chapman & Hall

Gary Martin also emphasizes the importance of socio-cultural background in his book. If the authors had read this book, they would have known this and written about it in their manuscript. Whay is importance of the socio-cultural background I recommend the authors also read:

Davis, A., & Wagner, J. R. (2003). Who knows? On the importance of identifying “experts” when researching local ecological knowledge. Human ecology, 31(3), 463-489.

Since the authors use a quantitative method, I recommend the authors to look at the following articles. In them, authors can learn how to formulate hypotheses for their research (quantitative research always requires the formulation of hypotheses or the search for answers to research questions):

Vogl, C. R., Vogl-Lukasser, B., & Puri, R. K. (2004). Tools and methods for data collection in ethnobotanical studies of homegardens. Field methods, 16(3), 285-306.

Höft, M., Barik, S. K., & Lykke, A. M. (1999). Quantitative ethnobotany. Applications of multivariate and statistical analyses in ethnobotany. People and Plants working paper, 6, 1-49.

Leonti, M. (2022). The relevance of quantitative ethnobotanical indices for ethnopharmacology and ethnobotany. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 288, 115008.

Robbins, M. C. (2023). The Nolan Index: A Quantitative Measure of List Similarities. Journal of Ethnobiology, 43 (1): 12–18.

 I recommend the authors to think about whether it is necessary to provide so much information in one manuscript (from medicinal plants to plants used for composting)? Think about what you want to say with this article? Who is the target audience for your article? How does your article help this audience? Perhaps it would be worthwhile to make two, three or four analytical articles from this article. Analyze a specific topic thoroughly. Eg: medicinal plants; food plants; utility plants, ritual plants? In this case, no topic has been properly analyzed. Some statistics have been made and text from the table has been copied in between, which can also be read from the table.

Some changes has been incorporated.

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Introduction

An extensive investigation, which does not show why a new study was needed, seeing that a number of previous investigations took place in this area - this needs to be clarified - what are the other studies lacking that this investigation attempted to close?

2. Discussion

Reasons must be provided as to why the specific results were obtained - for example, why is the Asteraceae so popular etc. Most of the discussion relies on the "I-Found-they-Found" principle which lacks contextualised understanding.

Additional editorial and scientific issues are highlighted in the accompanied reviewer's annotated manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The quality of English is satisfactory, with minor issues highlighted in the accompanied reviewer's annotated manuscript.

Author Response

Due to the high amount of changes, we suggest to follow the track changes in the word file.

Reviewer 4 Report

In this paper an ethnobotanical study of useful native plant species in the Linares area of Mexico is carried out. As Mexico has a wide biodiversity and large flora and is a centre of crop domestication and ancient culture it is important to record the ethnobotany of the area.

General comments:

There is a comprehensive study detailing the uses of plants in the municipality of Linares, NE Mexico. However, it would be helpful to have some details in the introduction of the population, and whether the interviewees live in the city, on the outskirts, whether they generally have gardens etc.

Also, additional information on how the number of utilised plants compares to the total flora of the area.

Some more specific comments are made below which may be helpful for the authors:

Abstract

Combine the first two sentences in the abstract. Repetitive.

Introduction Line 53 small areas?

Materials and Methods

Line 90 plateau.

Line 91 this line has a problem see continuation on line 94.

Line 116 give abbreviation in full CFNL

Results and Discussion

Suggested corrections to Tables and Figures:

Figure 2.

x-axis label Family

y-axis use number of not #

spelling genera not gernera (green symbol)

Figure 3.

This is missing

Figure 4. correct

x-axis Number of records

y-axis Species

Figure 5.

Does scorched mean steamed or grilled?

Food preparation method? Rather than application method.

Number not #

Figure 6, 7 and 8.  

Number not #

Highest number of mentions to be going up or down in figure? Not consistent.

Table 1. Linares, Nuevo Leon, Mexico. include.

Remove full stops in column headers

Put Family, then genera then species in rows as in title.

Table 3.

explain nur in title.

Table 4

Give UV1 in full

Exotic is not needed there are only N.

Table 5

Explain FL, Ip and Iu in title.

Arrange according to alphabetical order by species and /or ailment.

Left align columns

Text

Line 234 preparation methods? Rather than application

Line 235 scorched means steamed or grilled?

Line 277-283 this paragraph should be improved to help comprehension.

Line 277 after this line till 390 the species names are not in italics.

Conclusions

Authors should conclude whether the aims of the research have been achieved and the relevance of the work.

References

There are a lot of references. It is appreciated that ethnic studies are often in the national language but there are very many references in Mexican (Spanish). Is it possible for the reader to access all of these sources?

Please check the format of the references and be consistent.

Line 564- page numbers 279-292.

Use of ; or , between authors names

Line 573 correct et al.

Year in bold or not.

Line 631 has 37Z before the author’s name.

Line 635 1^st.

Line 707 journal abbreviation Journ or J line 746 Ind or Indust

Line 717/ 721/724/728/749 species names should be in italics.

minor correction needed

Author Response

Much of the suggested changes have been implemented base in other referees’ changes. Follow the manuscript with track changes activated…

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made some corrections to the manuscript based on the reviewer's recommendations and explained their views as to why they had not considered some of the recommendations. The reviewer is satisfied with the given answers and approves the publication of the manuscript.

Author Response

We thanks the reviewer for the comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

It is unclear why NONE of the suggested corrections were attended to. Please refer to the first review version for items that need to be corrected. 

The quality of English is satisfactory, with minor issues highlighted in the accompanied reviewer's annotated manuscript.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, much of the comments were implemented base in other reviewers suggestions. Now we have implemented additionally all the suggested comments. These can be followed in the track changes of the manuscript...

Thanks for the comments and time dedicated to the manuscript

regards

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Abstract: Do not start with the aim, but start with the problem statement sentence (what is the problem that this paper tries to address?)

Other small issues are indicated in the accompanied reviewer's annotated manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We thanks the referee for the comments provide... We tried to answer all of them or explaining some unclear aspects of the manuscripts.

The specific changes follow below: