Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I appreciated your work regarding NTFPs in Congo. Please see below some comments and suggestions trying to improve the quality of your study.

Abstract. It is complete and well written.

Key words. Two of them appear in the title. Try to use alternative ones.

Introduction. I found it a bit long, but OK. The first paragraphs cite studies done in several countries, and then authors deal with Africa, with foucs on the miombo. It is a good introduction. The objective and hypotheses are well presented.

Study Area. Can you tell about the human population that lives in this area (numbers...how many, and density in rural and urban areas).

Section 2.2.1. I did not understand the sentence on lines 162-164. "village of the two villages". A bit of confusion.

Table 1. Complete its title. Mention interviews, NTFPs, miombo, Congo. Its content: place sample size in another column, coordinates are not necessary here. Maybe move them to the text.

Methods. The reading run well; it is clear throughout the sections.

Results. Figures and Tables. Mention miombo, Congo.

Results. You divided it into two sections, but the discussion is with 4 corresponding sections, besides 4.5. Try to make the sections comparable (divide results in 4 sections). It would easy the reading.

Table 3. Title. You say "top-five" but numbers of species in each category range from 3 to more than 10.

Table 4. The title sounds contradictory. It says "species inventoried" but there are species in the list that were not inventoried in the villages. You have to explain better how species with "-" were included here in the table. Maybe cite in the title the number of species recorded in each village. The list of species followed which criteria ? Alphabetic ? First column (No): is it really necessary ? Values: the number of digits after the dot should be the same for each variable.

Conclusions. Please check if you are repeating sentences places in the Results and/or Discussion. 

References. Many were cited, indicating that authors know well the literature. I did not check if they are properly written and formatted.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer Comments

 

Point 1 The survey sample volume in Table 1 does not match the description in the text, with a total of 100 samples in the texts, and 100 in each of the village areas in the table, totaling 200 samples, requiring a more unified and clear description.

 

Point 2 In the sub-section on ethnobotanical data collection (2.2), consider briefly mentioning the ethical considerations and informed consent process, especially when conducting interviews involving human subjects. Ethical approval or consent procedures are essential in research involving people.

 

Point 3 In the sub-section on economic value assessment (2.3), provide a bit more detail on the specific criteria used to identify and include/exclude NTFP sellers from the study. What factors determined whether a seller was included or removed from the database?

 

Point 4 Table2 requires the tabular format to be adjusted so that the complete contents of the table cannot be seen.

 

Point 5 provides a concise explanation of the various diversity indices used to measure plant diversity to ensure that the reader understands their importance.

 

Point 6 carefully examines the accuracy and clarity of statistical tests and their results.

 

Point 7 The impact of logging methods on forest ecosystems is currently only subjective and can only be analyzed by reference to the results of other articles, but it is not possible to clarify the correlation between the two in the findings of the present study and whether the direct or indirect impact on the diversity of species in populations can be obtained through statistical analysis.

 

Point 8 Where relevant, provide specific examples or case studies to illustrate the impact of unsustainable harvesting practices or the success of certain conservation efforts. This can make the discussion more concrete and relatable.

 

Point 9 In the section discussing sustainable practices, consider discussing potential solutions or strategies that could be implemented to encourage more sustainable harvesting practices in the study area.

 

Point 10 While the call to action is clear, you can strengthen it by specifying what types of policies or initiatives should be undertaken for monitoring, regulation, and sustainable management of plant-based NTFPs. Providing concrete recommendations can make the call to action more actionable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx