Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I donot think the manuscript is an academic study or scientific report.

There is only one section (Introduction), no scientific data, only some figures are pictures or illustrations rather than results.

Based on the above fact, I prefer to reject the manuscript.

Author Response

Not applicable

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The title is accepted.

2. Very poor the Abstract (need to clarify the problem statement, objectives, experimental approach, findings, conclusion, and suggestions.

3. Too long Introduction (make it short and precise, write clearly the problem statement, objectives, and experimental approach, then end with the objectives of the study).

4. Not found the Method

5. Not found Result and discussion, as well as the Findings.

6. Not found the conclusions and recommendations.

Author Response

Not applicable

Reviewer 3 Report

The publication quality parameters of the work are very good, and the historical approach to a biocultural landscape and its conservation requirements are very relevant today. But the section dedicated to research design and methodology could be improved. More detail would be needed in the explanation of the design and articulation of the transdisciplinary research program that supports this comprehensive approach.

Making the suggested changes may improve the text, but they are not necessary if it means deleting other parts of the text, although the parts dedicated to the description of the different biocultural landscapes in historical evolution could be lightened. This could be done in order to give more relevance to the methodological part.

Author Response

February 10, 2023.  Dear reviewer 3, The authors of the manuscript "Historical evolution and multidimensional characterization of the Butia Palm Landscape: A comprehensive conservation approach" appreciate the suggestions and comments you did.  The changes made to the manuscript are indicated below, following the recommendations made. Changes are noted in the text.

• We introduced a general objective and specific objetives at the end of the introduction, modifying the original text (one paragraph went to methodology and another to conclusions).
• We reorganized the contents including sections on methodology, resuls and discussion.
• We developed the section on methodology in greater depth, including some authors.
• We draw conclusions.
• We deleted the original figure 2 as suggested and 5 new figures were inserted in different parts of the text.
• We edited the manuscript with a professional editing service as required.

Without another particular, Best regards