We Only Collect What We Need: Women’s Experiences on Collecting Cauchao (Amomyrtus luma Molina) in Food Systems of Extreme South Forests in Chile

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research explores the traditional knowledge of food and the nutritional composition of cauchao using a mixed methods approach. The case study involved in-depth interviews with 12 women gatherers, followed by a thematic analysis. The macronutrient composition of cauchao was determined through proximate chemical analyses, and dietary fiber was assessed using the enzymatic-gravimetric method.

 

1.     The article is both interesting and original, addressing a significant issue for traditional communities. However, a few improvements are necessary:

2.        The sample size is somewhat small for a comprehensive statistical analysis. However, the authors have effectively dealt with this limitation by citing the individuals studied and grouping the issues discussed.

3.     The article lacks a dedicated literature review section. Please add this to provide context and background for the study.

4.     The discussion section requires improvement. As a crucial part of a scientific article, the discussion should clearly compare the findings of this study with those of other researchers. For instance, data from the discussion, such as Figure 2, should be relocated to the literature review. The discussion should highlight similarities and differences between this research and previous studies, offering a more structured and coherent narrative. Currently, the discussion is somewhat disorganized and needs refinement.

Author Response

Point-by-point response to Comments of reviewer 1

Comments 1: The article is both interesting and original, addressing a significant issue for traditional communities. However, a few improvements are necessary Response 1: Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. We have responded to the comments point by point to improve the manuscript. Comments 2: The sample size is somewhat small for a comprehensive statistical analysis. However, the authors have effectively dealt with this limitation by citing the individuals studied and grouping the issues discussed. Response 2: We appreciate this comment. Comments 3: The article lacks a dedicated literature review section. Please add this to provide context and background for the study. Response 3: We agree with this comment. We have included a literature review (lines 84 – 108) section. The first paragraph provides the study's context with biodiversity concepts. The second paragraph denotes the gap in knowledge of the traditional use of native fruits in Chile and the role of women in gathering. The third paragraph describes the distribution and habitat of cauchao and its uses. The fourth paragraph emphasizes the importance of the study of wild fruits. Comments 4: The discussion section requires improvement. As a crucial part of a scientific article, the discussion should clearly compare the findings of this study with those of other researchers. For instance, data from the discussion, such as Figure 2, should be relocated to the literature review. The discussion should highlight similarities and differences between this research and previous studies, offering a more structured and coherent narrative. Currently, the discussion is somewhat disorganized and needs refinement. Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We have included more explanations about Figure 2 because it is part of the research results. Therefore, we have moved Figure 2 (now Figure 3) from the discussion section to the results section (line 268). We have improved the discussion section, highlighting similarities and differences with previous studies.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of your manuscript, “We only collect what we need: Women's experiences on collecting cauchao in food systems of extreme south forests,” presents interesting knowledge in the field. However, we have the following comments and questions:

1. You can improve the title by adding the scientific name of cauchao and Chile.
2. In the abstract section, 12 women? This sample seems to be not enough. The authors should clarify this sample in the method section.
3. For Figure 1, please add the source and date.
4. From lines 66 to 76, kindly clarify the objective of this research.

5.       The introduction fails to explain the central issues or questions of the research. For example, what is the necessity of using these two methods? Furthermore, the introduction has not highlighted the problems, such as the significance of the study, the research gap, and what is missing and needed within the selected area.

6.       Description of the study area: please add the map of the selected area for the audience.

7.       Lines 114-115, this sentence should be moved to the “Informed Consent Statement section”.

8.       The presentation of data needs to move after the method and material.

9.       The process of the Chemical analysis needs further explanation. Globally, the method is interesting, but we encourage adding a flowchart to explain all the method processes.

10.    In the results section, the presentation of section 3.2 is long. We propose to summarise it and then move the table to the appendix section.

11.    Section 3.2. Nutritional content of cauchao fruit needs further explanation by focusing on the mean results.

12.    Through the paper, please replace the “we” by “this research,” for example, to avoid the personality.

13.    What is the innovation and significance of this study?

We hope these comments help.

 

Best regards

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions of reviewer 2

Comments 1: You can improve the title by adding the scientific name of cauchao and Chile.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have included the scientific name and Chile in the title (lines 2 – 4).

Comments 2: In the abstract section, 12 women? This sample seems to be not enough. The authors should clarify this sample in the method section.

Response 2: We agree with this comment. Therefore, we would like to provide detailed information to clarify this issue. The section material and methods can explain the sampling method. The rural office of Cisnes provided a link between the community and the study researchers (lines 152 – 153). The selection and the number of participants are detailed in subsection 2.2 (Selection and description of participants). First, the rural office of Cisnes identified 74 women gatherers (lines 163 – 164). Second, the rural office of Cisnes invited women gatherers to participate in the research (lines 167 – 168). Third, a remote meeting was held to explain the research procedure to all the gatherers interested in participating (lines 169 – 171). In this context, 15 female gatherers participated in the meeting; 12 agreed to participate in the research (lines 171 – 172). Note that we used convenience sampling, using a "snowball" strategy; each participant was asked about potential new participants (lines 175 – 177). Comments 3: For Figure 1, please add the source and date. Response 3: We have included the author of the picture and the date (lines 43 – 44). Comments 4: From lines 66 to 76, kindly clarify the objective of this research. Response 4: We have clarified that this research aimed to explore the traditional knowledge of food and the nutritional composition of cauchao to gain insights into women gatherers' food systems and livelihoods (lines 76 – 78). Comments 5: The introduction fails to explain the central issues or questions of the research. For example, what is the necessity of using these two methods? Furthermore, the introduction has not highlighted the problems, such as the significance of the study, the research gap, and what is missing and needed within the selected area. Response 5: We agreed with this point. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have included a literature review (lines 84 – 108) section. The first paragraph provides the study's context with biodiversity concepts. The second paragraph denoted the gap in knowledge of the traditional use of native fruits in Chile and the role of women in gathering. The third paragraph describes the distribution and habitat of cauchao and its uses. The fourth paragraph emphasizes the importance of the study of wild fruits. Comment 6: Description of the study area: please add the map of the selected area for the audience. Response 6: We have included a map of the study area in subsection 2.1 (Description of the research area) in material and methods (Figure 2, line 160). Comment 7: Lines 114-115, this sentence should be moved to the “Informed Consent Statement section”. Response 7: We have moved the sentence to the Informed Consent Statement section (lines 481 – 482). Comment 8: The presentation of data needs to move after the method and material. Response 8: In the results section, we have moved subsection 2.5 (Presentation of data) to subsection 3.2 (Thematic patterns of collected data). Therefore, we have included the presentation of qualitative data in lines 235 – 236, the current food supply chain, and a circular model of a sustainable food system in lines 261 – 266. Comment 9: The process of the Chemical analysis needs further explanation. Globally, the method is interesting, but we encourage adding a flowchart to explain all the method processes. Response 9: We have included a flowchart to explain proximate chemical analysis in Appendix B (line 500). Subsection 2.4 (Chemical analysis) describes the component of proximate chemical analysis (lines 204 – 205). Comment 10: In the results section, the presentation of section 3.2 is long. We propose to summarise it and then move the table to the appendix section. Response 10: We agree with this point. We have moved Table 2 to the appendix section (Appendix C, line 504). In the revised version of the manuscript, Table 2 corresponds to Table C1, line 505). Comment 11: Section 3.2. Nutritional content of cauchao fruit needs further explanation by focusing on the mean results. Response 11: We have included more explanation of fruit composition (lines 274 – 276). We have discussed in detail the results of the chemical analysis (lines 331 – 356) in subsection 4.2. (Only collect what we need for our diet and nutritional well-being) in the discussion section Comment 12: Through the paper, please replace the “we” by “this research,” for example, to avoid the personality. Response 12: We have changed “we” by “this research” in the manuscript. Comment 13: What is the innovation and significance of this study? Response 13: To the best of our knowledge, mixed methods research is innovative in investigating the traditional use of cauchao fruit and nutritional composition. We have included this sentence in the introduction (lines 81 – 83). Furthermore, we highlighted that producing scientific knowledge is necessary to guide knowledge transfer with women gatherers (lines 66 – 67).

Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: Moderate editing of English language required.

Response 1: We have reviewed the manuscript using Grammarly software for English editing. We hope we have improved in this revised version.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reading the title, abstract and bibliographic references of the article "We collect only what we need: Women's experiences of collecting cauchao in food systems of extreme southern forests" by Carolina Fredes, Alejandra Parada, Carolina Aguirre, Loreto Rojas, Paz Robert, and Margarita Bernales, we can say that the authors clearly present the purpose of the work, what and how they thought about the research.

The title of the article is informative and relevant. I would also add to the title, the area/region where the research was done.

The abstract is described very clearly, concisely, and to the point. The summary is structured according to the requirements of the journal, to provide a clear overview of the research, the research methods and working tools are very clearly defined, and the research results are very relevant.

Introduction

Some questions and suggestions for improvement:

- Some botanical characteristics of the analyzed species, their habitat, cultivation, and their uses can be added to the introduction.

- In what other regions of South America is it still cultivated?

- What is the importance of Cauchao fruit in forest ecosystems? What is meant by the concept of forest food systems?

- What is the role of women in subsistence economies?

The introduction can be improved with revised specialized literature related to this subject.

Also, you can move the “Description of the research area” to the Materials and Methods section.

Materials and Methods

Some questions and suggestions for improvement:

- When choosing the participants, what were the selection criteria of the study participants to obtain the representative sample?

- What was the type of interview (structured - fixed questions, semi-structured - flexible questions, or free conversation?

- Why was a sample of exactly 12 people chosen? Do you consider this sample to be representative of the study? Why? Why weren’t men included in the research?

The analysis of qualitative data involves a high degree of subjectivity, and the interpretation of the results must be well-founded. Therefore, the number of interviews chosen in the context of the present study should be justified!

- I think it would be good to explain what the enzymatic-gravimeter method entails, and why it is useful in the case of research.

At paragraph 2.3. “Chemical analysis” I would suggest attaching some images of taking samples for the chemical analysis of the fruits, either in the text or in the Appendix!!!

Also, the Interview guide can be added to the Appendix part of the research!

Results

In the results section, Table No. 2 can be reorganized by themes and sub-themes more distinctly.

Here you can try using some graphs or diagrams to illustrate the relationships between the different themes identified or to show the frequency of certain concepts mentioned by the participants.

Where possible, the clarity of the information would be more evident by presenting it in the form of graphs or diagrams.

Discussion

In the Discussion section, educational factors could also be taken into account, namely, what is the role of university programs in raising awareness of food waste, but also the impact of education on knowledge about food management, or, some social factors such as cultural traditions and eating habits of the community. As a supplement, paragraph 4.5 "Strengths and limitations" could take into account the impact of climate change on forest resources, as well as some strategies for the conservation of forests and biodiversity.

Conclusions

The conclusions could be more detailed, by including some socio-economic aspects related to this research, such as the economic value of the Cauchao fruit for local communities and household incomes, and the impact on food security.

References

Bibliographic references are relevant and relatively recent, with authors correctly citing, generally including appropriate key studies.

The article "We collect only what we need: Women's experiences of collecting cauchao in food systems of extreme southern forests" by Carolina Fredes, Alejandra Parada, Carolina Aguirre, Loreto Rojas, Paz Robert, and Margarita Bernales, presents an opportunity to inform future research, being a self-consistent article and responding to the proposed research objective.

Author Response

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions to reviewer 3

Comments 1: Reading the title, abstract and bibliographic references of the article "We collect only what we need: Women's experiences of collecting cauchao in food systems of extreme southern forests" by Carolina Fredes, Alejandra Parada, Carolina Aguirre, Loreto Rojas, Paz Robert, and Margarita Bernales, we can say that the authors clearly present the purpose of the work, what and how they thought about the research.

Response 1: Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. We have responded to the comments point by point to improve the manuscript.

Comment 2: The title of the article is informative and relevant. I would also add to the title, the area/region where the research was done.

Response 2: Thank you for the comment. We have added the area of research in the title.

Comment 3: The abstract is described very clearly, concisely, and to the point. The summary is structured according to the requirements of the journal, to provide a clear overview of the research, the research methods and working tools are very clearly defined, and the research results are very relevant.

Response 3: Thank you. We appreciate this comment.

Comment 4: Introduction. Some questions and suggestions for improvement: - Some botanical characteristics of the analyzed species, their habitat, cultivation, and their uses can be added to the introduction.

Response 4: We have included a literature review section that describes botanical characteristics, distribution, habitat, and uses (lines 109 – 119). Note that this species is not cultivated (lines 115 – 116).

Comment 5: - In what other regions of South America is it still cultivated?

Response 5: The Luma tree is not currently cultivated. It is also distributed in Argentina in South America (lines 110 – 112). We have included the species' natural distribution in the literature review section (lines 112 – 120).

Comment 6: - What is the importance of Cauchao fruit in forest ecosystems? What is meant by the concept of forest food systems?

Response 6: Unfortunately, we did not focus the research on the role of cauchao in forest ecosystems. We have included a definition for forest food systems using the concept of food systems (lines 68 – 71).

Comment 7: - What is the role of women in subsistence economies?

The introduction can be improved with revised specialized literature related to this subject.

Response 7: We have included the role of women in gathering in the literature review section (lines 104 – 108). We have also included antecedents of the participation of women in micro and small enterprises in the Aysen region (lines 140 – 143) and the gap in income between women and men (lines 143 – 144). These antecedents are detailed in subsection 2.1 (Description of the research area) in the materials and methods section.

Comment 8: Also, you can move the “Description of the research area” to the Materials and Methods section.

Response 8: We have moved the subsection Description of the research area to the material and methods section (lines 136 – 161).

Comment 9: Materials and Methods. Some questions and suggestions for improvement: - When choosing the participants, what were the selection criteria of the study participants to obtain the representative sample?

Response 9: Thank you for the comment on these points. The sample was not representative; it was an intentional sample obtained by convenience (lines 176 – 178). Given the qualitative research paradigm, repetitiveness was not sought.

Comment 10: - What was the type of interview (structured - fixed questions, semi-structured - flexible questions, or free conversation?

Response 10: We have included the type of interview (i.e., semi-structured interview) in subsection 2.2 (Interviews, lines 176 – 178).  We have also included the interview guide in the appendix section (Table A1, lines 499).

Comment 11: - Why was a sample of exactly 12 people chosen? Do you consider this sample to be representative of the study? Why? Why weren’t men included in the research?

Response 11: Thank you for the comment on these points. We used convenience sampling, according to the availability of women gatherers to participate in the interviews. The selection of the participants is detailed in subsection 2.1. (lines 162 – 174) and sampling method is detailed in lines 176 – 178. Information saturation criteria determined the final number of participants. We have explained this point in lines 184 – 186. This research focused on women because traditionally, gathering has been associated with women in south Chile. We have included antecedents in this point in the subsection literature review (lines 104 – 108).

Comment 12: The analysis of qualitative data involves a high degree of subjectivity, and the interpretation of the results must be well-founded. Therefore, the number of interviews chosen in the context of the present study should be justified!

Response 12: The final number of participants was determined by information saturation criteria. This was achieved with 12 interviews. We have explained this point in lines 184 – 186.

Comment 13: - I think it would be good to explain what the enzymatic-gravimeter method entails, and why it is useful in the case of research.

Response 13: The enzyme-gravimeter method is a reference method for determining dietary fiber. The technique is useful for determining soluble and insoluble dietary fiber. We have included a flow chart to describe proximate analysis (Appendix B, line 500), and we have separated the explanation of proximate analysis and enzymatic-gravimeter method in two sentences (lines 205 – 206 and lines 206 – 208).

Comment 14: At paragraph 2.3. “Chemical analysis” I would suggest attaching some images of taking samples for the chemical analysis of the fruits, either in the text or in the Appendix!!!

Response 14: We thank this comment. It is an interesting point. Unfortunately, we did not request permission to use pictures of women gatherers taking samples in the ethics evaluation. We will consider this point in future research.

Comment 15:  Also, the Interview guide can be added to the Appendix part of the research!

Response 15: We have included the interview guide in the appendix section (Table A1, line 499).

Comment 16: Results. In the results section, Table No. 2 can be reorganized by themes and sub-themes more distinctly. Here you can try using some graphs or diagrams to illustrate the relationships between the different themes identified or to show the frequency of certain concepts mentioned by the participants. Where possible, the clarity of the information would be more evident by presenting it in the form of graphs or diagrams.

Response 16: The thematic analysis carried out for the study is descriptive. No inferential analysis was carried out that allowed the preparation of graphs or diagrams. However, we have included a figure (Figure 3, lines 269 – 270) that summarizes women's participation in food systems (Figure 3A) based on the interview results, and we have a proposal for more sustainable food systems for gatherers (Figure 3B).

Comment 17: Discussion. In the Discussion section, educational factors could also be taken into account, namely, what is the role of university programs in raising awareness of food waste, but also the impact of education on knowledge about food management, or, some social factors such as cultural traditions and eating habits of the community. As a supplement, paragraph 4.5 "Strengths and limitations" could take into account the impact of climate change on forest resources, as well as some strategies for the conservation of forests and biodiversity.

Response 17: We appreciate these comments. Education is a crucial factor in promoting the development of gatherers. In this area, we have included the participation and interconnection among gatherers, stakeholders, and academia in our proposal for sustainable food systems (lines 264 – 267). Thus, Figure 3B (line 269) proposes that gatherers work associatively on projects with industry and academia, acquire technical tools to stabilize byproducts and develop new foods. Note that the quantification of food loss in the post-collection and processing stages is also included. We have included a brief explanation of climatic change in forest biodiversity (lines 91 – 95), and we have included the characterization of biodiversity and wild foods as a strategic priority area proposed by FAO for the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity for food and agriculture (lines 122 – 124). We have preferred to include both points in the new literature review section in the revised version of the manuscript.

Comment 18: Conclusions. The conclusions could be more detailed, by including some socio-economic aspects related to this research, such as the economic value of the Cauchao fruit for local communities and household incomes, and the impact on food security.

Response 18: We did not evaluate the economic income associated with the commercialization of cauchao. However, some women gatherers sold the fruit or made products that they sold. Therefore, we have highlighted the economic income that the sale of fruit or products could generate in the conclusion section (lines 463 – 466). We have included a sentence detailing how gathering impacted food security's dimensions (i.e., availability and access to a nutritious fruit) in lines 466 – 469.

Comment 19: References. Bibliographic references are relevant and relatively recent, with authors correctly citing, generally including appropriate key studies.

Response 19: We thank this comment. We have included more references in the literature section.

Comment 20: The article "We collect only what we need: Women's experiences of collecting cauchao in food systems of extreme southern forests" by Carolina Fredes, Alejandra Parada, Carolina Aguirre, Loreto Rojas, Paz Robert, and Margarita Bernales, presents an opportunity to inform future research, being a self-consistent article and responding to the proposed research objective.

Comment 20: We sincerely appreciate this review. We hope the point-by-point response to the comments has improved the manuscript's revised version.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have corrected all reviewer comments.

Author Response

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions to Reviewer 1

Comment 1: The authors have corrected all reviewer comments.

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s comment.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Please enhance the presentation of the methodology, particularly by improving the flowchart of proximate chemical analysis within the main text of the paper.

2. Clarify and emphasize the innovation and significance of this study.

We hope these comments help.

 

Best regards

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions to Reviewer 2

Comment 1: Please enhance the presentation of the methodology, particularly by improving the flowchart of proximate chemical analysis within the main text of the paper. Response 1: We have moved the flowchart of proximate chemical analysis within the main text (line 216). Comment 2: Clarify and emphasize the innovation and significance of this study. Response 2: We appreciate the comment. In the introduction section, we have clarified and emphasized the significance of the study (lines 72 – 75) and the innovation (lines 82 – 87). We sincerely thank the reviewer's comment, and we hope these responses improve the quality of the manuscript.