Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a valuable contribution to the field, and needs significant attention to strengthen, enrich and refine the arguments and article structure. It may be that there are nuances in translation to English that impede the clarity of sentences and arguments. I indicate minor revisions because the material is present in the current draft of the manuscript; the authors just have to refine it.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments: That said, overall, the article needs refining and focusing, to pull in and our leave out all/some of the threads; attention to both the article and many sentences regarding structure and flow is needed. Some writing is quite dense and could be opened/simplified for clarity. Often sentences can be written more strongly with active, positive language rather than having statements twisted in reverse/negative languaging (eg. P5.L217; and 5.227 – perhaps write as: “A brief review of some literary moments elucidates the history of the devaluation of plants.”

Response : Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. The text has been revised and expanded in several sections, with footnotes added to enrich and clarify many points that previously remained unclear or uncertain. We have also enhanced the coherence and overall flow of the arguments and their presentation.

Comments: The manuscript starts with strength. As it carries on, the writing gets confusing and the argument(s) lose strength via the writing structure (paragraphs/sentences) and content. Often the writing makes sweeping claims, which are not referenced and often do not seem to align with the authors’ arguments. In relation to the rich content and detail in “A Story of Cinchona,” the subsequent sections need attention, as noted above and below, as well as more substance. “Plant Subjects” is quite thin for a case study.

Response : Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. The text has been revised to specify general statements and support them with appropriate references. We have also worked to enhance the coherence of the arguments. The “Plant Subjects” section has been expanded and refined, incorporating additional data and clarifying information so that the case study more effectively contributes to the broader reflection developed throughout the text.

Comments: Relational Extractivism – providing a full, clear definition would be helpful in the Introduction (and Abstract) to set the stage for this interesting concept. The way this term is related to in section 3 (Plant as Resource), it seems two contradictory ideas are united for this term; this is confusing because the point usually is that relationaliity is denied, ignored, unseen and thus objectifies nonhumans in the West’s extractive practices and goals. If the point is that the extraction of plants is relational when acknowledging plant agency, etc. then this needs to be more clearly indicated.

Response : Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have e defined the concept more clearly and clarified the ambiguities in the original wording.

Comments: Extra botanical capacities – a richer description/definition of the concept would be helpful. It would be fitting to spend more words on this because it is in the title.

Response : Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have defined the concept more clearly and clarified ambiguities in the original wording.

Comments: Title – consider reworking to be more inclusive of the main threads of the article.

Response : Thank you for pointing this out. In light of the changes and clarifications made to the text, we consider the original title to be relevant and therefore prefer to keep it in its original version.

Abstract

Comments 1 - 1.9 - Western categories such as biology

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text.

1.  

Comments 2. - 1.36 - check languaging for clarity; may need elaboration for clarity

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text.

Comments 3 - 2.54 - suggestion to use the same term as the heading below (“vegetal turn”)

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text

 

2.  

Comments 4 - 126 - “discovery,” - definition from Western perspective would be clear to include (place here with first mention.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text. A more extensive explanation of the meaning given to the notion of discovery is developed in this section to clarify the meaning of the notion of “relational Extractivism.”

     Comments 5- 144 - expand on “instability of their names” to clarify this point

3.  

4. Comments 6- 158 - “discovering” – if definition included in section 2, not needed

 

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. The term has already been defined in section 2.

5.  

Comments 7 - 5.227 - As noted above, it would be stronger, clearer for the paragraph/section to start with a positive statement, and in keeping with the many strong positive statements throughout the article.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text.

Comments 8 - 5.229 – Would be helpful to readers who are new to this field and/or to the scholars cited to indicate who they are, eg. Hallé’, Canguilhem, etc.

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text.

Comments 9 - 6.253 - Consider adding the English translation of this French quote in square brackets immediately following the quote. This might be a way to include the original French for other quotes in the manuscript, as relevant.

Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text: the direct quotation has been replaced by the translation published in English.

Comments 10 - 6.240 - It would be helpful to have some of Linnaeus’s own words regarding this hierarchy before reading Buffon’s oppositional stance.

Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text and we added an explanatory note.

Comments 11 - 6.258 - would like more insight into Linneaus’s non-anthropocentric view

Response 11: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text and we added an explanatory note.

Comments 12 - 6.258 - please elaborate on where/how Buffon insists that animals are positioned higher than plants, for clarity.

Response 12: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text and we added an explanatory note.

Comments 13 - 6.262 - Strong first sentence needs tie into western approaches within the sentence.

Response 13: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text

Comments 14 - 6.266 - “plastic image of death” - plastic might not be the most fitting word due to its many qualities. Do you mean superficial?

Response 14: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated and corrected the text

 

                 Comments 15 - Tie this section into perception of plants more clearly

Response 15: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated and corrected the text and the phrase is better linked to the in-depth discussion of perceptions about plants.

Comments 16 - 6.274 - “Plant and fixity” = blurred: stronger to say something like “synonymous” for accuracy.

Response 16:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text.

Comments 17 - 6.275 - What certain movements in plants and is there a reference for this, “since antiquity”?

Response 17:Thank you for pointing this out. The previous paragraph already explains how the term “movement” is used in relation to “ancient thought”.

Comments 18 - 7.283 - add “perceived boundary” ?

Response 18:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text.

Comments 19 - 2.294 - Rephrase as a statement for better reading flow.

Response 19:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text.

Comments 20 - 7.296 - finesse link to Fontaine

• Comments 21 - Including an adjective or time reference for the lords would help clearly link them to the Cartesian thinkers.

Response 20-21:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text.

Comments 22 - 7.305 - “however” not needed.

Response 22:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have corrected the text.

Comments 23 - 7.306 - Does the Gammont law represent the entirety of the West? Seems like a sweeping statement; sentence needs honing.

Response 23:Thank you for pointing this out. However, expanding this section would shift the focus to a topic—animal protection laws and their ethical implications—that would exceed the scope of this article. However, we have improved this section by providing greater detail and context.

• Comments 24 - This paragraph could be enriched, with precision, detail and
• Response 24:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text and we have added a note.
• Comments 25 - Includw more info on the Swiss debate (content/year).

Response 25:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text

Comments 26 - 7.310 - Another example of a backwards sentence, fitting two concepts together awkwardly. Active sentence suggestion: The instrumentalization of plants is rooted in the perception of them as absolute otherness, mundane and insignificant.

Response 26:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text

Comments 27 - 7.321 - Add Western philosophy

Response 27:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text

Comments 28 - 7.323 - Add: As briefly seen (exampled)

Response 28:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text

Comments 29 - 7.324 - sentence is a bit awkward

Response 29:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text

Comments 30 - 7.324 - “metaphysical degradation” – “disregard” might be stronger here as degradation holds a recognition of their metaphysicality to begin with.

Response 30:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text

• Comments 31 - To this end, including a brief discussion above of what constitutes a plant’s metaphysicality would be useful.
• Response 31:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text
• Comments 32 - 324 - ‘The West obstinately …” sentence unclear.
• Response 32:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text and the concept has been expressed more clearly.

Comments 33 - 7.332 - “despise” seems out of place and not accurate. There is a love of plants but the philosophers have been conditioned and build on this conditioning to simply not see plants as anything other than objects and background. Also, “despise” is irrelevant in this context; it is a relational emotion but there is no relation - relationally is irrelevant to them.

• Note that not all philosphers/scholars saw plants this way (eg. Charles and Francis Darwin)

Response 33:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text

Comments 34 - 8.334 - qualify “humans” as this article is not lumping all humans together

Response 34:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text

Comments 35 - 8.338 - Bold statement that could be dialed back. Globally, the dignity of animals has not been 100% established, there are still issues. If you feel the need to state this as fact, a reference is needed. The “what about plants?” Question has already been established in the article thus far so is not needed. Revisit this closing paragraph to the section.

Response 35:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text and the concept has been expressed more clearly.

5.  

Comments 36 - A clear definition of The Vegetal Turn in Western academia is needed, with references. Opening the section with this would be useful. And add a contextualizing line after a colon to the heading (Vegetal Turn: …)

Response 36:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text and the concept has been expressed more clearly.

Comments 37 - Opening paragraph needs refinement. Bridge needed b/t Amazonian perspectives and western scholar perspectives.

Response 37:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text and the concept has been expressed more clearly.

Comments 38 - Overall, this section needs reworking for clarity and accuracy of elements and argument.

Response 38:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text and the concept has been expressed more clearly.

 

Comments 39 - 8.343 - suggestion to qualify the word “elements,” perhaps as inert.

Response 39:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text and the concept has been expressed more clearly.

Comments 40 - 8.348 - Are these qualities of nonhumans considered to be metaphysical elements of being?

Comments 41 - Second paragraph - refine for reading flow.

Comments 42 - At 8.50, need context for agricultural practices (whose?).

Comments 43 - At 8.357, it is abrupt to suddenly make the statement following “Therefore.” This is the first time we’re hearing of Americanist anthropology; it needs at least brief discussion/context and situation in the Nature/Culture context.

 

Response 40-43:The paragraph has been updated, some parts have been changed, and, to improve consistency and clarity in the arguments, some paragraphs have been added and others relocated in this section. In addition, an explanatory note has been added.

 

Comments 44 - 8.361 - This paragraph feels quite problematic. It could be the way the sentences are structured but it sounds as though the authors are using metaphysics as a tool rather than incorporating/working with metaphysics as a way of understanding and being in relation with the world. A definition of metaphysics is needed, as mentioned above. Here, it seems to be viewed as separate from reality, and strategies in academic research. This disregards the metaphysical elements of life that are inherent to plants and our relations with them. And does not align with the authors’ article argument(s).

Response 44:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text and the concept has been expressed more clearly. we added an explanatory note

 

 

Comments 45 - 8.380 - “it is now also turning to indigenous theories, which are inseparable from these practices,” - needs clarity. Western colonial approaches have disregarded Indigenous knowledge overall and in these practices. More precision needed in explanation.

Response 45:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text and the concept has been expressed more clearly.

 

Comments 46 - 9.382 - “For this reason, plants, animals, and the myriad of other non- human beings have become central elements in scientific research.” Vague sentence: these aspects of life have been central to scientific research for 100s of years. What is different now? And is there any difference in the treatment of nonhumans in science research broadly? The ontological turn (OT) has not fully crossed over into the sciences. Dates and milestones in the OT would be helpful to include.

Response 46:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text and the concept has been expressed more clearly.

 

Comments 47 - 9.389 - Sentence needs refining and references needed for the claims. It is surprising, and does not seem accurate, to read the statement that plants are leading, ahead of animals. The subsequent paragraph re Coccia does not support this claim.

Response 47:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text.

Comments 48 - 9.393 - as above and more of the point needs to be made.

Response 48:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text.

Comments 49 - 10.435 - include an elaborating sentence about this ancient thought.

Response 49:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text and the concept has been expressed more clearly.

 

Comments 50 - 10.460 - last sentence needs elaboration and more linkage to preceding arguments.

Response 50:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text .

 

Comments 51 - As per the general comments above, a revamp of writing in this section is needed for structure, focus, flow of argument.

Response 51:Thank you for pointing this out. This entire section has been improved by rephrasing the text, clarifying certain concepts, adding a notes section, and improving the bibliographic citations.

6.  Plant Subjects

Comments 52 - 11.522 - “yoshin” term needs English equivalent/definition.

Response 52:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text .

 

Comments 53 - 11.533 - what is meant by shamanic initiation and/or is dieting with plants not also engaged by lay people for healing purposes and relations/teachings with/by plants?

Response 53:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text .

 

Comments 54 - 11.539 - how are these airs different or the similar to the airs mentioned at 10.525? Perhaps “airs” needs and explanation

Response 54:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text and the concept has been expressed more clearly.

 

Comments 55 - 11.543 (+536) - using rao and plants together seems odd: is rao specifically “medicinal” or “medicinal plants”?

Response 55:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the text and the concept has been expressed more clearly.

Comments 56 - More work needed for this section overall. The opening paragraph might be better in the preceding section. Use this section to better tie up the weave of all the key points made in the paper.

Response  56:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have reworded the conclusions and also modified the previous sections to make them clearer and better argue the key points.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. I think the authors offer a very convincing argument at the interface between a critique of Western science (i.e., botany), coloniality (i.e., the case of Cinchona) and the ontological reestablishment of the "eco-cosmological" richness of Amazonian vegetal selves. As the authors rightly suggest: “(t)he biodiversity cultivated by Amazonian peoples does not fit within the philosophers’ vegetal label.” Indeed, this article presents a very convincing case for the restoration of the “ontological dignity” of vegetal beings and relations in the Peruvian Amazon today, with potential repercussions in the Andean-Amazonian region more broadly.

I will share some comments in the order in which I read the text. I'll ask the authors to take them with a grain of salt. Some of these comments concern organization and citations, while others address conceptual clarity and argumentative precision.

Abstract: Although the theoretical approach to plant agency in Amazonia is sophisticated and relevant, it is not very clear what is the methodological orientation of the article. If ethnographic, I encourage the authors to specify the “who” - which community? - and Where? More contextual detail can be includued in the abstract itself. Anchoring the text in Amazonian socioecological specificity would provide a much more interesting basis for the article's commendable theoretical claims from the get-go.

On concepts: “Amerindian perspectivism” , “animism”, “discontinuity/continuity”…

• (Line 31) Are “Amerindian perspectivism” and “animism” the same thing in Amazonia?
• (Line 35) Please define both “multinaturalism” and “relational ontology”
• (Line 41) Source: Does the notion of “mythical times” make this trans-ontological human condition less current or valid?
• (Line 44) Descola's Beyond Nature and Culture can be cited here. A brief explanation of “interiority/exteriority” and “continuity/discontinuity” seems appropriate for the arguement.
• (Line 88) Please expand on the evocative notion of “extra-botanical capacities” and the Shipobo-Konibo relational worlds where such “extra-botanical capacities” unfold.
• (Line 548): “Relational Extractivism” – please expand and maybe bring the concept a littler earlier?

On key arguments of the text:

• (Line 56) “That is, what defines a species is both its reflective point of view, about itself, and its relational point of view, from other species towards it; it is not a notion that distinguishes and segregates beings into static domains, but rather a principle of relation” (2) This is very compelling. The “principle of relation” renders any 'species', relational beings, and 'humanity', an emergent property of the encounter of beings rather than a self-contained point of view of an isolated self (human and or not).
• (Lines 62 – 65) “If what distinguishes species is not, primarily and exclusively, their anatomical and morphological differences, but rather their habits and behaviors, or "what distinguishes species is much more their ethogram — what they eat, where they live, whether they are social or solitary, etc. — than their anatomy or physiology" (...) then there would be no cosmopractical or operative relevance to the macro-categories of plant, animal, and human.” While I agree with this general affirmation, it is rather unclear where the authors are going with this claim.  It may become clearer as the argument progresses. 
• (Line 73) “Without assuming a taxonomic definition of plant, what other ways could we consider these beings in Amerindian contexts?” (2) Excellent question. I would encourage the authors to further discuss how this ontological view - which of course exceeds botany or zoology – may affect a specific field of practice/knowledge (?). Lines 353 - 356, however, offer those “practical” insights. I would encourage the authors to raise some of these ideas at the outset, as they foreground the political value of the rich ontological discussion of the introduction.
• Lines 75-79 can be included in the abstract. They account for both the methodology and the hypothesis.
• Lines 140 - 146 are central to the argument. I think they can go in the introduction, before the ontological discussion of animism and perspectivism. Rather than starting with this critical ontological discussion, the geopolitics of colonial sciences (140 - 146) helps orient the reader much better and, in my opinion, grounds the argument much more effectively.
• Section 2 (A Story of Cinchona) could benefit from more sources to substantiate historical and theoretical claims.
• Lines 220- 225 are also a key part of the argument. I would include the anthropocentric reductionism of the plant's relational worlds (and agency!) at the beginning of the introduction - again, take this with grain of salt.
• - Perhaps section 4 (History of a Devaluation: Western philosophy) can go before section 2 (A Story of Cinchona), which, in turn, can be an ethnohistoric example of this ontological “devaluation” of plants, while operating as a kind of pledge to restore the ontological richness of so-called 'plants': those relational worlds with interiority and agency!
• (Lines 364 – 367): “Therefore, the ontological formulation of the problem in our reflection is not conceived in substantive terms; that is, ontology is not a metaphysics of Being, but a "technology of ethnographic description" and also a maneuver for transforming our concepts in view of an alternative description of the world, aligned with indigenous philosophies.” (364 – 367) Beautifully said and crucial! Again, as a matter of organization, I would suggest defining “ontology” or, rather, specifying the conceptual uses of ontology in the context of the argument at the beginning of the text. Why does ontology - as an ethnographic technology - matter for the vegetal turn - as an ethico-ontological gesture to reestablish the value of the plant in contexts of planetary crisis? Indeed, this article is an effective illustration of the restoration of the “ontological dignity” of vegetal selves. Yet, I would encourage the authors to be more explicit about this specific - and key - contribution.
• (Lines 389 – 394): Please add citations.
• (Lines 575 – 576): “The protocol developed by the collective, therefore, emerged from the premise that Covid-19 was not only a biological condition but also a relational one.” If I may, Law Humans and Plants: The Lawness of Life (2024) discusses the notions of “relational protocol” and “vegetal agency” in some detail. An ethnographic illustration of plants' “extra-botanical capacities” and relational agencies in chapter 4 (with ethnobotanist David Rodriguez-Mora).

Thanks again.

 

Author Response

Comments Abstract: Although the theoretical approach to plant agency in Amazonia is sophisticated and relevant, it is not very clear what is the methodological orientation of the article. If ethnographic, I encourage the authors to specify the “who” - which community? - and Where? More contextual detail can be included in the abstract itself. Anchoring the text in Amazonian socioecological specificity would provide a much more interesting basis for the article's commendable theoretical claims from the get-go.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore,  updated the abstract to better specify how case studies (historical and ethnographic) based on two specific plants are studied to support our arguments.

 

Comments 1: (Line 31) Are “Amerindian perspectivism” and “animism” the same thing in Amazonia?

Response 1: Agree. We have, accordingly, edited the text to make it clearer this point.

Comments 2: (Line 35) Please define both “multinaturalism” and “relational ontology”

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, We included an explanatory note and bibliographic references to better clarify these concepts.

Comments 3: (Line 41) Source: Does the notion of “mythical times” make this trans-ontological human condition less current or valid?

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. The way we use this notion has been clarified and corrected in the text.

Comments 4: (Line 44) Descola's Beyond Nature and Culture can be cited here. A brief explanation of “interiority/exteriority” and “continuity/discontinuity” seems appropriate for the arguement.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have included an explanatory note and bibliographic references to better clarify these concepts.

Comments 5: (Line 88) Please expand on the evocative notion of “extra-botanical capacities” and the Shipobo-Konibo relational worlds where such “extra-botanical capacities” unfold.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we expanded the concept.

Comments 6: (Line 548): “Relational Extractivism” – please expand and maybe bring the concept a littler earlier?

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, We clarified the concept and we expanded the section of the text for a better understanding of the general context of our argument.

Comments 7: (Line 56) “That is, what defines a species is both its reflective point of view, about itself, and its relational point of view, from other species towards it; it is not a notion that distinguishes and segregates beings into static domains, but rather a principle of relation” (2) This is very compelling. The “principle of relation” renders any 'species', relational beings, and 'humanity', an emergent property of the encounter of beings rather than a self-contained point of view of an isolated self (human and or not).

Comments 8: (Lines 62 – 65) “If what distinguishes species is not, primarily and exclusively, their anatomical and morphological differences, but rather their habits and behaviors, or "what distinguishes species is much more their ethogram — what they eat, where they live, whether they are social or solitary, etc. — than their anatomy or physiology" (...) then there would be no cosmopractical or operative relevance to the macro-categories of plant, animal, and human.” While I agree with this general affirmation, it is rather unclear where the authors are going with this claim.  It may become clearer as the argument progresses. 

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, We have made some changes to the structure of the text so that this topic is explored in greater depth and is clearer below.

Comments 9: (Line 73) “Without assuming a taxonomic definition of plant, what other ways could we consider these beings in Amerindian contexts?” (2) Excellent question. I would encourage the authors to further discuss how this ontological view - which of course exceeds botany or zoology – may affect a specific field of practice/knowledge (?). Lines 353 - 356, however, offer those “practical” insights. I would encourage the authors to raise some of these ideas at the outset, as they foreground the political value of the rich ontological discussion of the introduction.

Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. For reasons of brevity, we have updated the text, particularly section .5, which cites some ethnographic studies and the issues that this research raises within the debate addressed in the article; however, on this occasion, they cannot be analyzed in depth.

Comments 10: Lines 75-79 can be included in the abstract. They account for both the methodology and the hypothesis.

Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have included in the abstract.

Comments 11: Lines 140 - 146 are central to the argument. I think they can go in the introduction, before the ontological discussion of animism and perspectivism. Rather than starting with this critical ontological discussion, the geopolitics of colonial sciences (140 - 146) helps orient the reader much better and, in my opinion, grounds the argument much more effectively.

Response 11: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. This is an interesting comment that allows us to better define some of the issues raised in this section and to improve the text. However, despite the relevance of the issue highlighted by the reviewer, the decision to place it at this point is simply to use it as a paradigmatic case and not as one of the central themes of the article.

Comments 12: Section 2 (A Story of Cinchona) could benefit from more sources to substantiate historical and theoretical claims.

Response 12: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. The references have been appropriately implemented in this section.

Comments 13: Lines 220- 225 are also a key part of the argument. I would include the anthropocentric reductionism of the plant's relational worlds (and agency!) at the beginning of the introduction - again, take this with grain of salt.

Response 13: Thank you for pointing this out. The decision to place this paragraph at the end of this section responds to the need for a certain argumentative gradualism that produces partial conclusions that add to the others, without being exhausted in this section of the text.

Comments 14: Perhaps section 4 (History of a Devaluation: Western philosophy) can go before section 2 (A Story of Cinchona), which, in turn, can be an ethnohistoric example of this ontological “devaluation” of plants, while operating as a kind of pledge to restore the ontological richness of so-called 'plants': those relational worlds with interiority and agency!

Response 13: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Both sections of the text have been modified and updated thanks to reader comments. However, in order not to lose the original flow of the argument, we thought it would be better to improve each section without changing the order.

Comments 15: (Lines 364 – 367): “Therefore, the ontological formulation of the problem in our reflection is not conceived in substantive terms; that is, ontology is not a metaphysics of Being, but a "technology of ethnographic description" and also a maneuver for transforming our concepts in view of an alternative description of the world, aligned with indigenous philosophies.” (364 – 367) Beautifully said and crucial! Again, as a matter of organization, I would suggest defining “ontology” or, rather, specifying the conceptual uses of ontology in the context of the argument at the beginning of the text. Why does ontology - as an ethnographic technology - matter for the vegetal turn - as an ethico-ontological gesture to reestablish the value of the plant in contexts of planetary crisis? Indeed, this article is an effective illustration of the restoration of the “ontological dignity” of vegetal selves. Yet, I would encourage the authors to be more explicit about this specific - and key - contribution.

Response 15: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. This section has been improved by adding an explanatory note and a paragraph, including some key references, which deepens and clarifies our arguments.

Comments 16: (Lines 389 – 394): Please add citations.

Response 16: Thank you for pointing this out. The citation is now visible in the text.

Comments 17: (Lines 575 – 576): “The protocol developed by the collective, therefore, emerged from the premise that Covid-19 was not only a biological condition but also a relational one.” If I may, Law Humans and Plants: The Lawness of Life (2024) discusses the notions of “relational protocol” and “vegetal agency” in some detail. An ethnographic illustration of plants' “extra-botanical capacities” and relational agencies in chapter 4 (with ethnobotanist David Rodriguez-Mora).

Response 16: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We reviewed the indicated text and specified the use of protocol based on the notion of relationality. In addition, we consider it pertinent to cite the text indicated by the author in a footnote, due to its theoretical relevance and because it is a reference point for a central debate in the field of law and research processes with indigenous peoples.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a wonderful article and makes an important contribution to western understandings of plants as subjects, and how their extra-botanical capacities are important counter-elements to western capitalist appropriation and exploitation. The writing quality is high and mostly clear, and I think with some medium revisions it will be ready for publication. Primarily, I would like to see the article integrated a bit more around the central concept of extra-botanical capacities, with this as a through-line in each section, developing the concept further with each literature review and empirical section. Further, the empirical examples could be better integrated with the literature review sections. Right now, each section feels a bit disjointed. In particular, the introduction and conclusion could use some work on framing the purpose and contribution of the paper, the main concept, and the case studies.

Introduction: The literature review on Amerindian perspectivism is excellent, and I did learn some nuance on the subject by reading this article. However, it does not directly explain the purpose of the paper nor link explicitly to the concept of extra-botanical capacities. I would like to see the introduction reframed  to better reflect the substance of the article, or at least reorganized so that the purpose of the article comes sooner.

Conclusion: The conclusion is great, though I was surprised that healing had not been discussed explicitly earlier in the article, so it came a little bit unexpectedly as part of the conclusion. I would suggest discussing healing in the introduction as part of the extra-botanical capacities framing.

The section on cinchona only has one citation. I imagine there are historical documents that need to be cited here, since none of this is common knowledge.

The vegetal turn section is a bit undercited and refers to only a few articles from the vegetal turn, most of which are not specifically related to Amazonia and not particularly recent. There is a lot of literature on plant subjectivity based on Amazonian ontologies that could be integrated here.

Below, I have some more specific notes:

Line 117 - parenthesis should just read: "(quina, in Spanish)"

Line 119 - At first I thought Loja tree was a different plant. Consider just consistently calling it cinchona.

Line 187 - should this say "powdered cinchona" since quinine you are distinguishing as the molecule?

Line 175-179 - This section is very grammatically confusing. Needs to be unpacked and clarified. The last sentence it's unclear what "their" is, but i think it's referring to Indigenous Peoples.  "The scholarly construction of the world never suppresses the mediations, frictions, epistemic and material resistances that give consistency to the world, producing a fractured image of nature. These are the non-Western origins of modernity. The Americas, in this sense, played a central role in the constitution of the world, bodies, and European natural
knowledge; in other words, they were always good for thinking, though never enough to
have their scientific value recognized. "

Line 243 - Quote should be translated to English

Line 395 - seems to be a missing citation

 

Author Response

Comments - Introduction: The literature review on Amerindian perspectivism is excellent, and I did learn some nuance on the subject by reading this article. However, it does not directly explain the purpose of the paper nor link explicitly to the concept of extra-botanical capacities. I would like to see the introduction reframed  to better reflect the substance of the article, or at least reorganized so that the purpose of the article comes sooner.

Response : Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we updated the text. The paragraph has been improved and better explains how the theoretical proposal relates to works and debates present in the literature. The bibliographical references have also been expanded.

Comments - Conclusion: The conclusion is great, though I was surprised that healing had not been discussed explicitly earlier in the article, so it came a little bit unexpectedly as part of the conclusion. I would suggest discussing healing in the introduction as part of the extra-botanical capacities framing.

Response : Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we updated the teconclusion.

Comments: The section on cinchona only has one citation. I imagine there are historical documents that need to be cited here, since none of this is common knowledge.

Response : Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we expandes the bibliographical references.

Comments: The vegetal turn section is a bit undercited and refers to only a few articles from the vegetal turn, most of which are not specifically related to Amazonia and not particularly recent. There is a lot of literature on plant subjectivity based on Amazonian ontologies that could be integrated here.

Response : Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we updated the text. The bibliographical references have also been expanded.

Comments 1: Line 117 - parenthesis should just read: "(quina, in Spanish)"

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we updated the text (Line 117)

Comments 2: Line 119 - At first I thought Loja tree was a different plant. Consider just consistently calling it cinchona. Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we clarified this point and updated the text (Line 119)

Comments 3: Line 187 - should this say "powdered cinchona" since quinine you are distinguishing as the molecule? Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we clarified this point and updated the text (Line 187) Comments 4: Line 175-179 - This section is very grammatically confusing. Needs to be unpacked and clarified. The last sentence it's unclear what "their" is, but i think it's referring to Indigenous Peoples.  "The scholarly construction of the world never suppresses the mediations, frictions, epistemic and material resistances that give consistency to the world, producing a fractured image of nature. These are the non-Western origins of modernity. The Americas, in this sense, played a central role in the constitution of the world, bodies, and European natural knowledge; in other words, they were always good for thinking, though never enough to have their scientific value recognized. " Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we improved the paragraph, following the reviewer's instructions, to make it clearer and more effective. (Line 175) Comments 5: Line 243 - Quote should be translated to English Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we updated the text with a direct quote taken from the English edition of the book. (Line 243-251) Comments 6: Line 395 - seems to be a missing citation Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we updated the text with the missing bibliographic reference (Line 395)