Ethnomedicinal Knowledge of Trichocentrum ascendens (Orchidaceae) in an Indigenous Region of Oaxaca, Mexico

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall view

 

This manuscript documents the ethnomedicinal knowledge associated with Trichocentrum ascendens (Orchidaceae) in the Chinantla region of Oaxaca, Mexico, using semi-structured interviews with key informants. The topic is relevant to ethnobotany, traditional medicine, and biodiversity conservation, particularly given the vulnerability of orally transmitted indigenous knowledge. The manuscript is generally well organized, clearly written, and supported by appropriate references.

The study provides useful descriptive data on traditional uses, preparation methods, and cultural context, and it contributes to the preservation of biocultural heritage. However, as a Communication article, the work would benefit from clearer methodological justification, improved analytical depth, and more cautious interpretation, particularly when linking ethnobotanical findings to pharmacological potential.

Overall, the manuscript may be suitable for move to next step after major to minor revision, depending on how thoroughly the points below are addressed.

 

Major Comments

 

1. The study is based on interviews with only seven key informants across five communities, despite visits to twelve communities. While this is acknowledged, the implications for representativeness and data saturation are not sufficiently discussed. The authors should more clearly justify why this number is adequate for a Communication and clarify whether thematic saturation was achieved.
2. The use of the snowball sampling method and the “key informant” approach is appropriate; however, more detail is needed on:

• Criteria used to define “key informants”
• Whether interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, or summarized
• How consistency of responses was assessed across informants

This would strengthen the methodological transparency and reproducibility.

3. The discussion of “mal de orin” and “dirty blood” is informative, but the manuscript occasionally shifts toward biomedical interpretation without sufficient caution. These conditions should remain clearly framed as culturally defined illnesses, and speculative biomedical equivalence should be carefully avoided or clearly labeled as interpretative.
4. While comparisons with related orchid species are interesting, the discussion at times implies pharmacological relevance (e.g., alkaloids, phenanthrenes) without direct evidence for T. ascendens. These statements should be more clearly framed as hypotheses for future research, not inferred conclusions.

 

Minor Comments

 

1. Tables

• Table 2 would benefit from clearer standardization of dosage language (e.g., as time water, should be revised for clarity and consistency).
• Consider adding a short explanatory note clarifying culturally specific dosage concepts.

1. Language and style

• Minor grammatical and stylistic issues are present and should be addressed in a final proofreading pass.
• Some repetition occurs in the Discussion when comparing  ascendenswith other Trichocentrum species; this could be streamlined.

1. Figures

• Figure 1 is informative and of good quality; however, the legend could be slightly shortened without loss of clarity.
• Ensure that all figures are clearly cited in the text in the correct order.

1. Ethics statement

• The ethics approval and adherence to the Declaration of Helsinki are appropriately stated; consider moving this information into a clearly labeled subsection for visibility.

Author Response

 

Reviewer 1

This manuscript documents the ethnomedicinal knowledge associated with Trichocentrum ascendens (Orchidaceae) in the Chinantla region of Oaxaca, Mexico, using semi-structured interviews with key informants. The topic is relevant to ethnobotany, traditional medicine, and biodiversity conservation, particularly given the vulnerability of orally transmitted indigenous knowledge. The manuscript is generally well organized, clearly written, and supported by appropriate references.

The study provides useful descriptive data on traditional uses, preparation methods, and cultural context, and it contributes to the preservation of biocultural heritage. However, as a Communication article, the work would benefit from clearer methodological justification, improved analytical depth, and more cautious interpretation, particularly when linking ethnobotanical findings to pharmacological potential.

Overall, the manuscript may be suitable for move to next step after major to minor revision, depending on how thoroughly the points below are addressed.

 

 

Dear Reviewer 1,

Comment 1. The study is based on interviews with only seven key informants across five communities, despite visits to twelve communities. While this is acknowledged, the implications for representativeness and data saturation are not sufficiently discussed. The authors should more clearly justify why this number is adequate for a Communication and clarify whether thematic saturation was achieved.

 

Response: We appreciate the comment. We employed purposive and snowball sampling, focusing specifically on key informants, a population that is limited in number and difficult to access. In several of the twelve communities visited, it was not possible to identify individuals with detailed knowledge of T. ascendens. Consequently, the final sample reflects the total number of key informants available during the fieldwork, rather than a predefined target group. Our results are consistent with qualitative ethnobiological research, which focuses on a small number of individuals.

However, after conducting a formal review of thematic saturation, based on the work of [1], which specifically addresses saturation in studies with key informants, we consider that our dataset has reached thematic saturation, which is achieved when additional new observations do not reveal new themes [2]. The last two interviews conducted largely confirmed the information documented above, indicating redundancy and comprehensive coverage of the relevant field of knowledge. It should be noted that initially, the table had been ordered to separate cultural diseases from those that were not.  This new version is organized in the order in which the interviews were conducted, and this restructuring highlights the saturation.

 

This suggestions have been addressed in the manuscript. The following text is the same as the final version of the manuscript (lines 161-180).

 

“This study employed a key collaborators approach combined with snowball sampling method to document the traditional use of T. ascendens in the study area. Despite visiting twelve communities in the Chinantla region, only seven key collaborators were identified in five communities.  In ethnobiological research, key knowledge holders are often few and socially recognized [32], particularly when traditional knowledge was acquired through oral transmission from family members. The small number of participants reflects the restricted distribution of medicinal T. ascendens knowledge within the study communities. Consequently, this knowledge constitutes part of a biocultural legacy that is at risk of disappearing. Thereby, purposive recruitment of key collaborators prioritizes information quality and cultural validity over sample size [33].

 

  The collaborators did not report any new medicinal uses for T. ascendens other than those documented in the first five interviews. This pattern is consistent with the study by Muellmann et al. [34], who compared the information obtained through the evaluation of the community preparation of 4 to 6 versus 6 to 15 key collaborators and found that thematic saturation was achieved after the fourth key informant; despite increasing the sample size, no additional information was obtained. Therefore, based on the present findings, thematic saturation has been achieved in the present study. On the other hand, 86% of respondents reported its analgesic effect in different diseases.”

 

Comment 2. The use of the snowball sampling method and the “key informant” approach is appropriate; however, more detail is needed on:

Criteria used to define “key informants”

Whether interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, or summarized

How consistency of responses was assessed across informants

 

Response: We appreciate the comment. We have expanded the Methods and discussion section to provide additional detail on the inclusion criteria required of key informants and interview procedures.

This suggestions have been addressed in the manuscript. The following text is the same as the final version of the manuscript (lines 282-286).

 

“Inclusion criteria required participants to be at least 18 years old, native to Chinantla, willing to provide informed consent, and recognized within their communities as knowledgeable about local plant use, including traditional healers, medicinal plant vendors, and farmers. Participants’ responses were documented verbatim in writing within the questionnaire during the interview sessions.

In this study, the data showed homogeneity, as collaborators did not report any uses of T. ascendens beyond those documented in the first four interviews.”

 

Comment 3. The discussion of “mal de orin” and “dirty blood” is informative, but the manuscript occasionally shifts toward biomedical interpretation without sufficient caution. These conditions should remain clearly framed as culturally defined illnesses, and speculative biomedical equivalence should be carefully avoided or clearly labeled as interpretative.

 

Response: We appreciate the comment. We agree that “mal de orín” and “sangre sucia” are culturally defined illness categories and should not be equated directly with biomedical diagnoses.

In the revised manuscript, we have carefully rephrased the relevant sections to maintain these conditions within their cultural context and to avoid unfounded biomedical interpretations. The terms are now consistently presented as locally defined syndromes, and any discussion of possible biomedical parallels is explicitly framed as interpretative rather than diagnostic. When biomedical terminology is mentioned, it is clearly identified as being presented from a Western biomedical perspective and not as a direct equivalence to local disease concepts.

 

This suggestions have been addressed in the manuscript. The following text is the same as the final version of the manuscript (lines 188-194).

 

“In the communities studied, “mal de orin” is described as an illness characterized by pain, burning, or difficulty urinating; linked to “orina caliente” and “sangre sucia,” is described as an accumulation of impurities in the blood associated with internal imbalance. On the other hand, in the Western biomedical perspective, the symptoms attributed to “mal de orin” are consistent with an inflammation of the bladder that results in pain when urinating [30], while “sangre sucia” is interpreted as a condition in which toxins accumulate in the blood [35]”

 

Commnent 4. While comparisons with related orchid species are interesting, the discussion at times implies pharmacological relevance (e.g., alkaloids, phenanthrenes) without direct evidence for T. ascendens. These statements should be more clearly framed as hypotheses for future research, not inferred conclusions.

 

Response: We appreciate the comment. The discussion has been revised to clarify that pharmacological compounds reported for related orchid species are mentioned only as background information and potential directions for future research. No pharmacological activity is inferred for T. ascendens, as no phytochemical analyses were conducted in this study. Also, the conclusions confirm the results obtained and avoid speculation.

 

Minor Comments

Tables

Table 2 would benefit from clearer standardization of dosage language (e.g., as time water, should be revised for clarity and consistency).

Consider adding a short explanatory note clarifying culturally specific dosage concepts.

Language and style

Minor grammatical and stylistic issues are present and should be addressed in a final proofreading pass.

Some repetition occurs in the Discussion when comparing  ascendens with other Trichocentrum species; this could be streamlined.

Figures

Figure 1 is informative and of good quality; however, the legend could be slightly shortened without loss of clarity.

Ensure that all figures are clearly cited in the text in the correct order.

Ethics statement

The ethics approval and adherence to the Declaration of Helsinki are appropriately stated; consider moving this information into a clearly labeled subsection for visibility.

 

Response: We appreciate the comment. These have been addressed in the corrected manuscript.

 

1. The dosage terminology in Table 2 has been standardized and clarified (line 139)
2. The term "time water" is explained in the main text to ensure reader understanding (line 149-148).
3. Grammatical and stylistic errors in the manuscript have been corrected.
4. Repetitive passages in the Discussion have been simplified line.
5. The legend for Figure 1 has been reduced, and all figures are cited in the text in the correct order.
6. The ethical statement now appears in a properly labeled subsection for improved visibility.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Ethnomedicinal knowledge of Trichocentrum ascendens (Orchidaceae) in an indigenous region of Oaxaca, México

Today, generalist botanists or plant experts are disappearing in favor of studies that employ molecular analyses, which are constantly being revised as technology advances. This provides them with a fast and successful career, but ultimately they know everything about nothing. Therefore, works on flora and ethnobotanical and ethnomedicinal studies are always welcome.

In many countries, the use of plants as remedies against diseases is limited to allopathic medicine, ignoring medicinal plants that are a reservoir of secondary metabolites with medical applications, although they have not been studied due to their complexity and the interests of large pharmaceutical companies.

With this attitude, empirical knowledge of plant uses, held by fewer and fewer people, is gradually being lost. Hence the importance of studies like this one. Let's not forget that plant extracts are not included in the US pharmacopoeia. This contrasts sharply with Mexico (a country with very rich biodiversity), which is proud to have a Herbal Pharmacopoeia.

This study is well-designed from an ethnobotanical perspective, using the correct protocols, but it has the weakness of focusing on only one species, with only seven interviews (which are difficult to conduct). This limits the study's ability to produce more robust results or to apply greater statistical power.

The decision to publish this work  depends on the objectives and editorial policy of PLANTS. If published, it would be in the Short-Communication format, which would require reducing the content of the work, for example, by removing the map and figure of the plant, shortening the description of the study area (pp. 221-231) and the conclusions.

 

In any case, the following should be corrected or added:

 

In the abstract, include the common name of the plant in Spanish.

Correct scientific names (pp. 47, 231).

Adapt the bibliography to the publication guidelines.

Provide better support for the statement on page 238.

Author Response

 

Revisor 2

Today, generalist botanists or plant experts are disappearing in favor of studies that employ molecular analyses, which are constantly being revised as technology advances. This provides them with a fast and successful career, but ultimately they know everything about nothing. Therefore, works on flora and ethnobotanical and ethnomedicinal studies are always welcome.

In many countries, the use of plants as remedies against diseases is limited to allopathic medicine, ignoring medicinal plants that are a reservoir of secondary metabolites with medical applications, although they have not been studied due to their complexity and the interests of large pharmaceutical companies.

With this attitude, empirical knowledge of plant uses, held by fewer and fewer people, is gradually being lost. Hence the importance of studies like this one. Let's not forget that plant extracts are not included in the US pharmacopoeia. This contrasts sharply with Mexico (a country with very rich biodiversity), which is proud to have a Herbal Pharmacopoeia.

This study is well-designed from an ethnobotanical perspective, using the correct protocols, but it has the weakness of focusing on only one species, with only seven interviews (which are difficult to conduct). This limits the study's ability to produce more robust results or to apply greater statistical power.

The decision to publish this work  depends on the objectives and editorial policy of PLANTS. If published, it would be in the Short-Communication format, which would require reducing the content of the work, for example, by removing the map and figure of the plant, shortening the description of the study area (pp. 221-231) and the conclusions.

In any case, the following should be corrected or added:

In the abstract, include the common name of the plant in Spanish.

Correct scientific names (pp. 47, 231).

Adapt the bibliography to the publication guidelines.

Provide better support for the statement on page 238.

 

Dear Reviewer 2,

 

We are grateful to the reviewer for the time that you devoted to reviewing this manuscript. Your comments and suggestions contributed significantly to improving its quality. Each of the suggestions addressed is explained below.

 

Responses:

1. The corrected manuscript uses the common name for ascendens in Spanish in the abstract and this recommendation has been standardized throughout the manuscript to maintain consistency and coherence.
2. Scientific names have been corrected where necessary.
3. The reference list has been adjusted to the journal's formatting guidelines.
4. The statement on line 238 has been strengthened with additional information ( lines 258-262).
5. The conclusion length was reduced, confirming the results obtained and avoiding speculation..
6. Regarding the figures and study zone description we fully recognize the need for conciseness in the Brief Communication format. However, we wish to retain these figures and study zone description because they provide essential information to the interpretation of the study. The map geographically situates the research, which strengthens the ethnobotanical work, and the image of the plant allows accurate taxonomic identification of the species, distinguishing if from other morphollogically similar. We also note that Brief Communications published in Plants may include more than one figure when these contribute substantially to clarity and scientific value. Therefore, retaining these visual elements strengthens the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present a communication concerning the use of the orchid Trichocentrum ascendens in traditional medicine by indigenous communities in the Chinantla region of the Mexican state of Oaxaca.
The subject matter and documentation covered in this communication are extremely interesting, as it aims to prevent the loss of important folk medicine knowledge with the aim of identifying and characterising bioactive compounds and furthering their study for pharmacological purposes.
The research carried out by the authors is certainly also valuable from a cultural, sociological and anthropological point of view.
The abstract is adequately informative and arouses a certain curiosity in the reader.
The authors introduce the subject of their study clearly, providing a comprehensive overview of the uses of this plant in traditional medicine in relation to the geographical area of use and clarifying that various species of Trichocentrum appear to have beneficial effects. The scientific bibliography referred to by the authors is consistent with the subject and up to date.
The various sections of the communication are each comprehensive and in-depth in the right way for this type of paper. The materials and methods are informative both in terms of the geographical area from which the information was gathered and the methods used to gather it. The questionnaire given to the people providing the information is well constructed.
The results are reported in a simple, straightforward and easily understandable manner, with tables that summarise them well. The discussion is sufficiently in-depth, with indications, based on the method of preparation for administration, of which bioactive compounds may be present in the plant on which the authors have focused their attention. 
This paper certainly offers the right ideas for proceeding with the characterisation of phytochemicals with biological activity for pharmacological purposes.
It is also worth noting that misleading information is highlighted regarding the use of T. ascendens in cell proliferation and apoptosis studies (lines 204-213).
Notes for the authors
I would replace the term “genre” with “gender” and “sex” with “gender” in line 257, when referring to males/females.
I would reduce the size of Tables 1 and 2.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language requires revision

Author Response

 Response to the reviewers’ commnets

Revisor 3

 

The authors present a communication concerning the use of the orchid Trichocentrum ascendens in traditional medicine by indigenous communities in the Chinantla region of the Mexican state of Oaxaca.
The subject matter and documentation covered in this communication are extremely interesting, as it aims to prevent the loss of important folk medicine knowledge with the aim of identifying and characterising bioactive compounds and furthering their study for pharmacological purposes.
The research carried out by the authors is certainly also valuable from a cultural, sociological and anthropological point of view.

The abstract is adequately informative and arouses a certain curiosity in the reader.
The authors introduce the subject of their study clearly, providing a comprehensive overview of the uses of this plant in traditional medicine in relation to the geographical area of use and clarifying that various species of Trichocentrum appear to have beneficial effects. The scientific bibliography referred to by the authors is consistent with the subject and up to date.
The various sections of the communication are each comprehensive and in-depth in the right way for this type of paper. The materials and methods are informative both in terms of the geographical area from which the information was gathered and the methods used to gather it. The questionnaire given to the people providing the information is well constructed.
The results are reported in a simple, straightforward and easily understandable manner, with tables that summarise them well. The discussion is sufficiently in-depth, with indications, based on the method of preparation for administration, of which bioactive compounds may be present in the plant on which the authors have focused their attention. 
This paper certainly offers the right ideas for proceeding with the characterisation of phytochemicals with biological activity for pharmacological purposes.
It is also worth noting that misleading information is highlighted regarding the use of T. ascendens in cell proliferation and apoptosis studies (lines 204-213).
Notes for the authors
I would replace the term “genre” with “gender” and “sex” with “gender” in line 257, when referring to males/females.
I would reduce the size of Tables 1 and 2.

We are grateful to the reviewer for the time that you devoted to reviewing this manuscript. Your comments and suggestions contributed significantly to improving its quality. Each of the suggestions addressed is below.

 

Responses:

The term “genre” has been corrected to “gender,” and “sex” has been replaced with “gender” (in table 1, line 109 and line 286), when referring to males and females.

Tables 1 and 2 were compacted to improve clarity and conciseness.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I've been reviewing the post again, and it's improved substantially with the reviewers' feedback. It can now be published.