Old Sacred Trees as Memories of the Cultural Landscapes of Southern Benin (West Africa)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, the paper was an interesting blend of ethnography, plant species identification, and sociology, and the use of 'trees' or LOTs was great. However, the implementation of the idea was not so well executed. The main aspect - which I think needs to be addressed is that the relationship between the ethnography and plant species analysis needs to be presented in a clearer way. And furthermore, that the analysis/results should also reflect this difference better. At times, I was confused whether the paper was discussing the population of people, or the population of trees. The other issue is that the study offers a unique perspective on 'local' or emic knowledge that can say a lot more than support traditional narratives on male/patrimony power; it ought to be a mission of the paper to explore 'other' narratives through the data. This may be countered perhaps by the topic of preservation though, but as this knowledge is used to support various knowledges to that effect, I think this issue is worth exploring more. Perhaps in this paper, or another. The last issue is one of expression. There is use of a lot of unnecessary hyperbolic language that distracts somewhat from what is being said. And often terms are slightly confused over what they mean, or there is unnecessary exaggeration. The text also needs a careful reading, as there are also a lot of typos and grammatical errors that also distract from the what is being said in the paper.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments 
GENERAL COMMENTS AND THEIR ANSWERS (Pdf file)
Overall, the paper was an interesting blend of ethnography, plant species identification, and sociology, and the use of 'trees' or LOTs was great. 

Comment 1. The implementation of the idea was not so well executed. The main aspect - which I think needs to be addressed is that the relationship between the ethnography and plant species analysis needs to be presented in a clearer way. And furthermore, that the analysis/results should also reflect this difference better. At times, I was confused whether the paper was discussing the population of people, or the population of trees.

Response 1:  We are grateful to the reviewer for this useful comment. Appropriate improvements have been made in the current version of the manuscript. The study deals with the distribution of LOT in cultural urban landscapes with associated traditional knowledge (cultural, medicinal, craft, food use, etc.) and historical (history of the establishment of centenarian individuals, reasons for protection in our days, etc.).

Comment 2. The other issue is that the study offers a unique perspective on 'local' or emic knowledge that can say a lot more than support traditional narratives on male/patrimony power; it ought to be a mission of the paper to explore 'other' narratives through the data. This may be countered perhaps by the topic of preservation though, but as this knowledge is used to support various knowledges to that effect, I think this issue is worth exploring more. Perhaps in this paper, or another.

Response 2:  We thank the reviewer for his great suggestion and guidance. The study sought to highlight the sacred and cultural memories that support the preservation of LOT individuals in our days, held in secret and known by a minority. The issue raised is worth explorating and we plan this for the next paper. 

Comment 3. The last issue is one of expression. There is use of a lot of unnecessary hyperbolic language that distracts somewhat from what is being said. And often terms are slightly confused over what they mean, or there is unnecessary exaggeration. The text also needs a careful reading, as there are also a lot of typos and grammatical errors that also distract from the what is being said in the paper.  

Response 3:  We sincerely thank the reviewer for his guidance on the editorial quality of the manuscript. The whole manuscript was carefully edited to improve the spelling and readership.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

Comment 1: Line 42

Response 1:  The full stop has been set (Line 42)

Comment 2: Line 63 “Whose?”

Response 2:  We are grateful to the reviewer for this helpful comment. The reference has been put (Line 100).

Comment 3: Line 72 “What do you mean here - 'diversity is done' - assessed or analysed, explored, investigated. Needs an action.”

Response 3:  We thank the reviewer for his suggestion. The appropriate term has been used in the current version of the manuscript (Line 73).

Comment 4: “Typo”

Response 4:  The line has been corrected

Comment 5: Line 80 “As we're moving into the analysis of a population's perception toward LOTs, I think a bit more context is needed. As it is, the switch from plant sciences to ethnography is a little confusing, and a better link is needed. Why is it useful to understand a living population's understanding of LOT; and what does the study gain from this analysis? How does it 'protect' or 'manage' the LOT resource? It needs spelling out here.”

Response 5:  We are grateful the reviewer for pointing out these suggestion. The paragraph has been reorganised with explanations clarifying the usefulness of involving the living population in the knowledge of LOT conservation factors (Line 103-110). 

Comment 6: Line 98 “What does this actually mean? Are you trying to say that human decisions have influenced the location of LOTs? If so, say, something less hyperbolic ... as this phrase needs a bit more specificity ... 'anthropogenic determinants' needs some clarity on what you mean. An example, might suffice, if you want to keep this turn of phrase (e.g ....).”

Response 6:  We are grateful the reviewer for pointing out these suggestion. the idea has been improved accordinglyword has been used (Line 113-116).

Comment 7: Line 124“What do you mean here? That 50 people were randomly selected to assess their knowledge of LOT ... this statement needs a context, as it isn;t clear what kind of 'survey' you are conducting - a survey of the LOT or of people's understanding/knowledge of LOTs?.” Line 129-130 “This statement, or an edited version, needs to go before the sentence relating to the comment before.

Response 7:  We are grateful to the reviewer for pointing out this suggestion. Sub-section 2.2 has been added for further explanation (Line 145-151), and sub-section 2.3 has been reorganised following the suggestion (Line 162 -169).

Comment 8: Line 138 ”Not sure what you mean by this 're-established' here ... doesn't make sense 

Response 8:  Another appropriate word has been used (Line 176).

Comment 9: A break in the text here - to separate it from UV analysis (Line 165).

Response 9:  The suggestion has been taken into account (Line 204)

Comment 10: Should you quote the reference here, rather than the number for the reference?
(Line 188)

Response 10:  The references have been quoted (Line 230).

Comment 11: Not sure what you mean here ... of the study's cities? (Line 195)
Response 11:  Appropriate word has been used (Line 237).

Comment 12: Line  252”Typo - remove full stop at the end of landscape”. 
Response 12:  full stop has been removed according to the suggestion (Line 297).

Comment 13: Line 254 “And what's the point? Which kingdoms are the oldest? It is implied but not stated emphatically”.

Response 13:  The paragraph has been reorganized according to the suggestion. The specificity on the state of the kingdoms has been brought (Line 296-297).

Comment 14: study's district i.e. the districts in the study (Line 258)

Response 14: The phrase has been improved (Line 305-306)

Comment 15: centrally? (Line 259)
Response 15:  Appropriate term has been used (Line 306).

Comment 16: Line 343 “Do you mean to say cultural methods? Or is it cultural values attached to conserving?”

Response 16:  Appropriate term has been chosen (Line 391 -395).

Comment 17: Line 377 “ within the ”

Response 17 : the suggestion has been taken into account (Line 426) 

Comment 18: Line 378  “impact” delete this ...

Response 18:  the suggestion has been taken into account (Line 427)

Comment 19: Line 417” The use of this term feels a little out of place in this context - as it did before. Better to use an anthropological term rather than a biological term - try 'emic' knowledge or simply 'local' knowledge.” 

Response 19: The appropriate term has been set (Line 467)

Comment 20: Line 445“And have these enabled their conservation? If so, this ought to be added to link it up with the Royal protection; a difference between maintaining authority (perhaps - through the display of power in the preservation of trees in courts, and the prosaic, practical use of trees to help people when they are ill).”

Response 20:  Appropriate sentences have been used for explanation (Line 494-496).

Comment 21: Line 456 “I think it would be useful to denote what kinds of knowledge women have about the trees, and to what extent this differs. I can sense that the overtly male tradition of knowledge - bound up in power relations and the transference of power and knowledge - is an historical fact, but in my experience there are often many subverted - or rather innate type of knowledge - that can be expressed by the Other (in this case women). This study has the potential to explore this issue well, rather than simply supporting an existing knowledge and power relations.”

Response 21: This part of the discussion section has been reorganised (Line 505-510).

Comment 22: Line 465 “.” Remove

Response 22: This suggestion has been taken into account (Line 522)

Comment 23: Line 468 “ an”

Response 23:  This suggestion has been taken into account (Line 525)

Comment 24: Line 515 “ Why capitalization? I think valorization is sufficient here.” You use the personal quite a lot in this paper. I think that is fine, but some readers may have an issue with it because it suggest a less objective stance. If you want to use 'our' perhaps near the start you should state your own personal relationship to the study ... and in doing so, embedded it in the research - which it always is of course, but it needs stating in this paper perhaps.

Response 24:  The appropriate terms have been used (Line 573) 

Comment 25: Line 520 ” ensured what? protection? status? monument status as places of memory?”

Response 25:  The appropriate terms have been used (Line 578-579), and the section has been reorganized.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of research is very interesting and I believe that it will attract attention of many readers. There are few things that need to be taken into consideration in order to increase a quality of research. 

In the title try to avoid separating words into syllables. Also, try to avoid using "we" and "our" (for example, line 93 or 96) through research. 

Why the authors used three cities (Abomey, Ketou and Lokossa) as sampled area? Is it because these cities have the largest areas under the old native trees or there is some other reason? Add this to the subsection 2.1. Study area and sites. In the subsection 2.2. Sampling design and data collection, authors mentioned that they used data collected from surveys. It is not clear what kind of questionnaire was used - verified scale or authors created questions by themselves? Also, authors mentioned that 50 people were randomly selected for research, but only those with knowledge of the founding history. My question is how did you randomly selected participants if only those who have knowledge could be taken into consideration? How did you contact them? 

In the subsection 4.1., authors indicated that gender showed differences in sharing knowledge about LOT. Can this results be relevant since the distribution of participant by gender is not equal - men were quite dominant (66%)? 

Section 5. Conclusion should be expanded. What are the limitations of the applied methodology? What are recommendations for future research for the selected communities or those who have similar situation? Answering these questions can make the research more applicable to other areas worldwide, avoiding to be just a case study.   

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Comment 1: In the title try to avoid separating words into syllables. Also, try to avoid using "we" and "our" (for example, line 93 or 96) through research.

Response 1:  We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. In the current version of the manuscript, separated words have been corrected (line 2-3). The paper has less been personnalized through use of expression such as ‘we’ and ‘our’.

Comment 2: Why the authors used three cities (Abomey, Ketou and Lokossa) as sampled area? Is it because these cities have the largest areas under the old native trees or there is some other reason? Add this to the subsection 2.1. Study area and sites

Response 2:  We are grateful to the reviewer for this helpful comment. Appropriate improvements have been made in the current version of the manuscript. From line 125 to line 130 the reasons for the choice of the three study cities have been highlighted.  

Comment 3: In the subsection 2.2. Sampling design and data collection, authors mentioned that they used data collected from surveys. It is not clear what kind of questionnaire was used - verified scale or authors created questions by themselves? Also, authors mentioned that 50 people were randomly selected for research, but only those with knowledge of the founding history. My question is how did you randomly selected participants if only those who have knowledge could be taken into consideration? How did you contact them?

Response 3:  We thank the reviewer for his guidance. Details on the procedure followed for the investigations have been made by adding a paragraph related to the administrative arrangements implemented prior to the execution of the investigations (under section 2.2, Lines 145- 151. Also, clarification was provided on the exact methodology used (Line 162-165.

Comment 4: In the subsection 4.1., authors indicated that gender showed differences in sharing knowledge about LOT. Can this results be relevant since the distribution of participant by gender is not equal - men were quite dominant (66%)?

Response 4:  We thank the reviewer for this comment. Based on the observation that local knowledge is unequally distributed between the gender and is not a function of the number of people surveyed, this study sought to shed light on the gender most involved in the use and maintenance of LOT.

Comment 5: Section 5. Conclusion should be expanded. What are the limitations of the applied methodology? What are recommendations for future research for the selected communities or those who have similar situation? Answering these questions can make the research more applicable to other areas worldwide, avoiding to be just a case study.  

Response 5:  We are grateful to the reviewer for pointing out these weaknesses. A paragraph has been added in this section as a response to the suggestion (Line 582-597).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx