Exploration of the Medicinal Flora of the Aljumum Region in Saudi Arabia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Introduction

• Better focus the research objectives.
• About the current situation of traditional medicine in the world, you could refer to some more recent reports (lines 33-34).
• Better highlight the novelty of the research with respect to the studies already conducted in the same area, indicating the bibliographic references (lines 85-86).

Methods

• Describe in more detail the method used for the sampling of vegetation.
• Report any research limitations, as the vegetation census was conducted only during a flowering season.
• Which species coverage, abundance-dominance indices were used (Braun-Blanquet scale for example)? Specify the formulas used and the results that justify the percentages (distribution rate) reported in Table 1.
• Could the collected data be processed according to other indices specific to your research approach?
• How were plant samples identified and authenticated? Only through the guides or also through the support of taxonomy experts?
• Voucher numbers are missing.

Results

• Review the plant nomenclature according to worldfloraonline.org or theplantlist.org. It would be good to indicate the criterion followed and standardize it. For example, according to both web sites: Abutilon figarianum Webb is synonym of Abutilon pannosum var. figarianum (Webb) Verdc. (Accepted name)
• In Table 3 it would be useful, alongside the indication of traditional medicinal use, also to indicate the corresponding bibliographic reference.

Conclusion

To better highlight the significance of the results and the interest in future research.

Author Response

RESPONSE FOR REVIEWERS

The manuscript (applsci-1349647) entitled “Exploration of the medicinal Flora of Al-Jumum region in Saudi Arabia”

Reviewer1 :

INTRODUCTION

Comments:

1. Better focus the research objectives.
2. About the current situation of traditional medicine in the world, you could refer to some more recent reports (lines 33-34).
3. Better highlight the novelty of the research with respect to the studies already conducted in the same area, indicating the bibliographic references (lines 85-86).

Responses:

1. Great, it has been done
2. Yes, it has been updated
3. Yes, several paragraphs have been added to the introduction to achieve this suggestion.

METHODS

Comments:

1. Describe in more detail the method used for the sampling of vegetation.
2. Report any research limitations, as the vegetation census was conducted only during a flowering season.
3. Which species coverage, abundance-dominance indices were used (Braun-Blanquet scale for example)? Specify the formulas used and the results that justify the percentages (distribution rate) reported in Table 1.(Could the collected data be processed according to other indices specific to your research approach)
4. How were plant samples identified and authenticated? Only through the guides or also through the support of taxonomy experts?
5. Voucher numbers are missing.

Responses:

1. More details have been added to the section on materials and methods to achieve your recommendation
2. This time frame was sufficient to gather samples throughout the flowering season, when plants are most abundant and diverse in the region, as well as due to the restriction imposed due to the Corona pandemic.
3. It was added in Part 2.2 in M&M
4. It was added in Part 2.3 in M&M
5. Voucher specimens are preserved at the Department of Biology, Aljumum university college, Umm Al-Qura university.

RESULTS

Comments:

1. Review the plant nomenclature according to worldfloraonline.org or theplantlist.org. It would be good to indicate the criterion followed and standardize it. For example, according to both web sites: Abutilon figarianum Webb is synonym of Abutilon pannosum var. figarianum (Webb) Verdc. (Accepted name)
2. In Table 3 it would be useful, alongside the indication of traditional medicinal use, also to indicate the corresponding bibliographic reference.

Responses:

1. Thank you, the proposed sites have been returned to standardize the scientific names of plant species
2. Ok, it has been done

CONCLUSION

Comments:

1. To better highlight the significance of the results and the interest in future research.

Responses:

1. This part has been rewritten according your suggestion.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled “Exploration of the medicinal Flora of Al-Jumum region in Saudi Arabia” has been thoroughly reviewed. The corrections required are mentioned below

Abstract

Methodology points are missing in this section. Brief details are required that how many visits were carried out to the research area? What about the year and seasons in which the authors visited? Result section also requires proper arrangement and inclusion of striking findings. This sentence is a mixture of two different results, it needs rephrasing L16-18: “The most distributed species were Calotropis procera, Panicum turgidum and Aerva javanica (5.31%), with (4) endemic families Fabaceae (32.35%), Poaceae (20.58%), Asteraceae and Brassicaceae (17.64%)”. The abstract completely lacks medicinal portion results that needs to be included.

Introduction

In this section most sentences need rephrasing, for instance “There are approximately 4 x 105 out of flowering plants known worldwide” (L: 52). What the authors mean by these numeric values by linking them globally. Most citations are also wrongly placed e.g., “About 104 species of them have been studied and described scientifically in alternative medicine system” as no citation found but the first part of sentence has 3 citations. The current study is not purely based on medicinal objective but also chronology as mentioned in M & M, therefore, some details or life form classes should be explained in Introduction as well.

In this section, the text related to study area should be shifted to the “2.1 Study area” sub-section of M & M and explain the floristic biodiversity and medicinal plants related here in introduction. And link that with the Hypothesis and goals of the current study.

Materials & methods

Again, please shift the general details of the study area to the section 2.1. Other sub-sections/headings must be included in M & M, for instance, Field investigations and Plants collection, Plants identification, Statistical analyses etc. How many field surveys/visits were carried out to the study area? L. 118: Medicinal uses mentioned in this study are gathered from the Literature? Any limitation or criteria for the selection of previously published articles? If yes, all these details must be clearly explained in M & M for readers to avoid confusion. If No, then the authors need to mention the details of interviews and all other details mostly the ethnobotanist do in such studies. For instance, see Methodology in (https://www.mdpi.com/2223-7747/8/12/581).

Results

What is the Plant habit percentage based on 98 species? Include it in the results so that the readers may know about the herb, shrub, or tree layers range in the study area. Most species names in the manuscript are non-italicthat needs correction. In the table 1 caption study site names should also be included with the coordinates mentioned in A, B, C etc. Again, if the results mentioned in Table 3 are from the study area, then in methodology complete explanation will be a MUST for medicinal part. If they are gathered from literature, then citations must be placed in the relevant placed. In results section, only placing a Table 3 is not enough as all these folk medicinal uses must be classified based on the number of species reported for each disease treated. The medicinal plants part used may also be classified in similar way.

Discussion

This section is very briefly described, it needs some valid explanation with relevant citations. Line: 123, the authors mentioned 98 species while on L. 218: they mentioned 94 species. Which one is the correct figure? Please correct it throughout the manuscript. L. 222: two semi-colons placed in one place and no sentence ending (.) is present after the citation.

The authors must discuss the current results with literature in a proper scientific way. Here some brief points are required from the previous studies and mention either they are contrary or similar. Here the authors need to do the proper reasoning following the results and then go for the literature comparison.

Conclusion

I suggest the authors to only place highlighted findings and novelty of the current study. Then proceed towards the future recommendations.

Author Response

RESPONSES FOR REVIEWERS

The manuscript (applsci-1349647) entitled “Exploration of the medicinal Flora of Al-Jumum region in Saudi Arabia”

Reviewer2 :

ABSTRACT

Comments:

1. Methodology points are missing in this section (Brief details are required that how many visits were carried out to the research area? What about the year and seasons in which the authors visited)
2. Result section also requires proper arrangement and inclusion of striking findings
3. This sentence is a mixture of two different results, it needs rephrasing L16-18: “The most distributed species were Calotropis procera, Panicum turgidum and Aerva javanica (5.31%), with (4) endemic families Fabaceae (32.35%), Poaceae (20.58%), Asteraceae and Brassicaceae (17.64%)”.
4. The abstract completely lacks medicinal portion results that needs to be included.

Responses:

• This point has been added to the manuscript
• The proposed modification has been made
• The proposed modification has been made on manuscript.
• The medicinal plant part is documented in the abstract.

INTRODUCTION

Comments:

1. In this section most sentences need rephrasing
2. For instance, “There are approximately 4 x 105 out of flowering plants known worldwide” (L: 52). What the authors mean by these numeric values by linking them globally
3. Most citations are also wrongly placedg., “About 104 species of them have been studied and described scientifically in alternative medicine system” as no citation found but the first part of sentence has 3 citations.
4. The current study is not purely based on medicinal objective but also chronology as mentioned in M & M, therefore, some details or life form classes should be explained in Introduction as well.
5. In this section, the text related to study area should be shifted to the “2.1 Study area” sub-section of M & M
6. Explain the floristic biodiversity and medicinal plants related here in introduction. And link that with the Hypothesis and goals of the current study

Responses:

• All introduction has been rephrasing
• We mean, there are approximately 4x105=(400000) species out of flowering plants known worldwide
• Ok, all citations have been corrected.
• The proposed modification has been made in page 2
• The proposed modification has been made
• The explanation of floral biodiversity and medicinal plants were mentioned.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Comments:

1. Shift the general details of the study area to the section 2.1.
2. Other sub-sections/headings must be included in M & M, for instance, Field investigations and Plants collection, Plants identification, Statistical analyses
3. How many field surveys/visits were carried out to the study area?
4. 118: Medicinal uses mentioned in this study are gathered from the Literature? (Any limitation or criteria for the selection of previously published articles? If yes, all these details must be clearly explained in M & M for readers to avoid confusion. If No, then the authors need to mention the details of interviews and all other details mostly the ethnobotanist do in such studies. For instance, see Methodology in (https://www.mdpi.com/2223-7747/8/12/581).

Responses:

• Ok, it’s done
• Thank you, good idea, other sub-sections/headings were created
• The field visit was explained under subtitle 2.2.1. field trips
• Yes, it’s added under M&M subtitle 2.4. Ethnomedicinal Data

RESULTS

Comments:

1. What is the Plant habit percentage based on 98 species? (Include it in the results so that the readers may know about the herb, shrub, or tree layers range in the study area)
2. Most species names in the manuscript are non-italic that needs correction
3. In the table 1 caption study site names should also be included with the coordinates mentioned in A, B, C etc
4. if the results mentioned in Table 3 are from the study area, then in methodology complete explanation will be a MUST for medicinal part. If they are gathered from literature, then citations must be placed in the relevant placed.
5. In results section, only placing a Table 3 is not enough as all these folk medicinal uses must be classified based on the number of species reported for each disease treated.
6. The medicinal plants part used may also be classified in similar way.

Responses:

• Ok, it’s done in page 4 L163
• species names were converted to -italic form through manuscript
• The names of the regions have been added to the title of Table 1, See P 6
• The citations of medicinal uses were added.
• I think that adding other tables to classify the plant species in the study area based on the diseases and parts used will lead to a lengthy presentation of the results for the same information shown in Table 3.

DISCUSSION

Comments:

1. This section is very briefly described, it needs some valid explanation with relevant citations
2. Line: 123, the authors mentioned 98 species while on L. 218: they mentioned 94 species. Which one is the correct figure?
3. Please correct it throughout the manuscript. L. 222: two semi-colons placed in one place and no sentence ending (.) is present after the citation.
4. The authors must discuss the current results with literature in a proper scientific way )Here some brief points are required from the previous studies and mention either they are contrary or similar. Here the authors need to do the proper reasoning following the results and then go for the literature comparison).

Responses:

• I've improved this part
• Thank you, species number was corrected to 90 as species appear in table 1
• Corrected for the entire manuscript
• This part has been rewritten

CONCLUSION

Comments:

1. I suggest the authors to only place highlighted findings and novelty of the current study. Then proceed towards the future recommendations.

Responses:

• This part has been rewritten

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In the title "Flora" it must be written in lowercase letters.

Line 122: compared to the previous manuscript you have indicated 8 plant collection territories (previously there were 6), but you wrote 10 places.

From an ethnobotanical point of view, your research still has many aspects of weakness. Eg:

• In Section 2.4., You wrote that you have collected the data not only through literature, but also through ethnobotanical interviews (40 informants). Where are the data relating to informants? Gender, age, level of education, information distribution? Where are the data reported by the informants?
• In table 3 there is no reference to informants' information, but only to bibliographic information. The traditional ways of administration of the herbal remedies reported by informants are lacking and the “folk medicine” indications are mostly pharmacological and not ethnobotanical indications.
• The vernacular names reported by informants of the plants are missing.
• The indication of the voucher numbers is still missing.
• To collect ethnobotanical information, what ethical protocols did you follow? Did you get the PIC (written informed consent) from each informant?
• Have you calculated any ethnobotanical index, such as Fidelity Level (FL), Informant Consensus Factor (Fic), Use Value (UV), Relative Frequency of Citations (RFCs), etc…? Have you processed the data relating to the uses of the plants?
• Line 202: you have indicated 18 types of diseases treated with plants. Could you indicate the categories of diseases?

There are also botanical inaccuracies, such as in table 1 the names not in italics; in some cases the author who described the species is missing and the family is not written correctly (eg Rhaminaceae. Please check.)

Author Response

The response was provided with an attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Revised version of the manuscript entitled “Exploration of the medicinal Flora of the Aljumum region in Saudi Arabia” has been thoroughly reviewed. The authors mostly covered my suggestions and raised points but there are still some issues that needs to be resolved.

Abstract

Sentence showing the aim of the study should be placed after background. L 16-18: “The current study aimed…..in the literature” should be placed before “In the flowering………to the study area”.

Introduction

L 56: How is it possible, only 104 species have been studied and described scientifically in alternative medicine systems? Please search literature for this or otherwise remove this part of sentence. L 80: After thoroughly reviewing the manuscript, I haven’t seen anything related to chronology/lifeform in M & M, Results or Discussion sections. So, remove this line and delete the citation as well. But keep in mind, double check the citations and references during revision of the manuscript as the citations format is numbered. Therefore, it is better to use Mendeley< Zotero or Endnote for this purpose.

Materials & methods

Re-write L111-112: The data were……..from the study area. L 112: correct the spelling of diversity. L 124-125: Th chronology or Life form classes methodology is missing, atleast add a statement that “Different life-form spectra were determined according to the Raunkiaer classification” following a citation. L 1139: Replace the word “reported” with “recorded”. For your knowledge, you recorded in the field and now reporting in the paper. L 140: Replace the word “applied” with “used”. L 141-143: this lengthy line is a very confusing and of no use. Reduce it to “informants and traditional healers” and place citations[40-43] after it. Remove the rest part “to confirm……according to”. Section 2.5. L147-148: Where are the graphs or tables that are generated through SPSS, even no standard error values are given. The result section has only pie chart and bar graph that was drawn using MS Excel. So, remove such irrelevant statements and add only those which you people used for this study.

Author Response

The response was provided with an attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf