You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles

Review Reports

Ecologies2026, 7(1), 4;https://doi.org/10.3390/ecologies7010004 
(registering DOI)
by
  • Pyrus Flavien Ebouel Essouman1,2,*,
  • Timothée Besisa Nguba1,3 and
  • Franck Robéan Wamba1
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Jie Yang

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review for manuscript ecologies-3899147

This is a valuable manuscript reporting on a topic with little previous existing research, that is, the connections between people and peatlands in the Congo basin.

The large number of respondents interviewed for this study is noteworthy, as well as the fact that the vast majority of them belong to indigenous communities, who traditionally hold extensive traditional ecological knowledge.

The recommendations are grounded well in the analysis and would be worth sharing with policy-makers working on developing a National Peatland Strategy for the DRC.

That being said, I still recommend major revisions; there are several areas that need improving before this paper can be published.

Specific comments:

  1. It would be helpful if the authors were to mention which methods they have used somewhere in the introduction, even if very briefly
  2. The weblink in lines 60-61 could be integrated as a source in the reference list instead (minor formatting issue)
  3. Figure 1 is in French; it should be translated into English, since that is the language of the manuscript. It might be helpful for international readers to include the national border of the DRC for orientation. Consider also including the districts and territories that are named in lines 112-120 (that information is better provided in a map than in text).
  4. Table 1 should include some information on peatlands, since that is the ecosystem of interest to this manuscript.
  5. Table 2 does not clarify if these territories are peatlands; based on the description, this seems uncertain. Is Table 2 needed? If yes, please clarify link with peatlands.
  6. Line 137: Might it be more appropriate to describe these as ‘Indigenous autochthonous communities’, considering the word ‘Pygmy’ is considered derogatory in some areas of the Congo basin (e.g., Republic of the Congo)?
  7. Table 3: some village names appear multiple times. Do they happen to have the same name, or why is that? Should these entries be merged? For example, Ingende centre / Ingende; Mpabolia and Mpa bolia; Ngeli alingo/maringo and Ngeli alingo
  8. Lines 159-161: please provide a reference for the Kobo collection application.
  9. Lines 165ff: Please clarify the composition of the focus groups; were they composed homogenously by members of the listed socio-demographic groups (e.g., ‘elderly people’; ‘men’; ‘hunters’, etc.) or were they composed of a mix of these socio-demographic groups? My understanding is that in many villages, the researchers carried out only one focus group (based on numbers in Table 3, e.g., for Ekonda). The methodological implications/limitations should be discussed if, for example, in a village like Mekakalaka and others, only one focus group was carried out with a socio-demographically homogenous group of participants.
  10. Lines 165ff/Lines 174ff: It is not clear how focus groups produced the data for this study. Focus groups are a research method for the collection of qualitative data. Yet the paper presents exclusively quantitative data. I am not sure how a focus group would work in practice if the primary objective was to fill out a close-ended survey for subsequent quantitative analysis. This needs to be described in more detail in section 2.2.3.
  11. Line 190: How come that males are so disproportionately overrepresented in the sample? This would be worth explaining/acknowledging here. Normally, one would expect gender figures closer to 50% male/50% female.
  12. Lines 199ff: Is it not likely that respondents would engage in multiple of these activities at the same time, e.g., ‘agriculture’ and ‘fishing’, even if one of these activities were to be listed as ‘primary’? If so, this would be worth acknowledging here.
  13. Lines 205f: The data depicts not a male-dominated, predominantly Indigenous, agriculturally oriented ‘society’, but a male-dominated, predominantly Indigenous, agriculturally oriented ‘sample of respondents’. Especially the term ‘male-dominated’ is misleading here. Surely, just because males are very strongly overrepresented in the sample of respondents, it does not mean that these villages are predominantly inhabited by males.
  14. Figure 2: I suggest presenting this data not ordered by number of respondents but ordered by number of years (from 0 upwards), and also, to group responses in 5-year brackets (e.g., 26-30; 31-35; 36-40). This would be much more legible. The current visualisation is problematic/misleading because it assumes the data is 100% accurate, which is highly unlikely (e.g., the numbers 30 and 35, listed as most frequent responses, are surely at the top spot because respondents were rounding up numbers, e.g., if they had been active for 28 years they might have said ‘30’ for sake of simplicity or because they struggled recalling the exact start date; I am not convinced that ‘30’ was actually more common than more specific non-rounded numbers such as ‘27’).
  15. Figure 3 does not appropriately capture cultural ecosystem services, a limitation that should be acknowledged in text and Figure caption. Cultural ecosystem services (e.g., certain cultural traditions linked with peatlands) are reported elsewhere in the manuscript, so this is an important omission.
  16. Further, in lines 450-452, the authors seem to suggest that intangible cultural ecosystem services do not matter to IPLC because they do not feature in Figure 3 – however, if no data was collected on this, then that is not a fair assessment. I suggest updating the discussion in lines 450-452, too.
  17. Lines 243ff: For the international reader not familiar with the local context in this part of the DRC, it would be good to read about an example of a plant or tree species that may enhance yields in hunting, fishing, and/or agriculture. Can you please provide this?
  18. Lines 252ff: As above, an example would be good – what is an example of such a sacred species to be found in peatlands?
  19. Lines 259ff: Please describe how these traditional rites and belief systems operate in practice. What exactly do people do with these domestic animals during rites? The international reader would not be familiar with this.
  20. Lines 299-300: Who are the agents introducing ‘external religious systems’ to IPLC and what religious systems are being introduced? This needs to be specified.
  21. Line 328: I did not see a significant association between gender and village status in Table 5 as the authors here claim exists.
  22. Lines 347ff: Which activities exactly are associated with presence of endemic wildlife and endemic plants, scared plants, plants used in rituals, animals used in rituals, and constraints, and how? This is not specified here but is of stronger interest to the reader than the general observation these main activities are statistically associated with these variables. For example, does agriculture as a main activity have a positive or negative association with presence of wildlife? Considering that the ‘main activity’ category has a huge diversity of activities (e.g., teaching, fishing, health, administration, etc.), at present, this passage is not very insightful.
  23. Line 364: As with comment no. 21, the reader needs to know more about the nature of these links between ‘constraints’ and ‘animals used in rituals’. Are you suggesting that fewer animals are used in rituals where external religious systems have been adopted? Or the opposite? This needs to be spelled out explicitly.
  24. Lines 450-452: This statement is not fully convincing, since only one reference is cited. For many other IPLCs (e.g., in the Amazonian peatlands of South America), peatlands are of strong cultural importance, too. Consider consulting some of that literature on the cultural significance of tropical peatlands elsewhere and adjusting your statement accordingly. The conclusions at the end of section 4.1 are convincing and important, however, and resonate with insights from other geographical contexts, something that is perhaps also worth acknowledging here.
  25. Section 4.2: again, it would be interesting to (briefly) compare your findings with those about other tropical peatland contexts, since the audience for this journal is global.
  26. Lines 491: I am not fully convinced by the statements on ‘father-to-son transmission’ of traditional knowledge here. To my mind, this pathway was dominant because the sample was heavily dominated by male respondents (nearly 90%). If you had interviewed a more gender-balanced sample, surely, your results on this aspect would have been different.
  27. Line 550: In what way can findings be compared with Melanesian contexts? Is this peatland-specific literature? If not, perhaps prioritise comparing your findings with other literature on tropical peatlands, which would be of stronger relevance.
  28. Lines 569ff: As above, are these positive or negative associations, between ritual uses and constraints? This would be important to clarify.
Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

While the manuscript is well written and easy to follow, it still contains a number of English language errors (e.g., ‘This Bantu populations’, line 88). Might the authors or the journal editors be able to have it checked for grammar and language before it is published? Considering that presumably none of the authors are native speakers of English (based on their affiliations), it’d be good if the journal could provide this support. Alternatively, perhaps English language support could be sourced via the funder, given that they are based in Canada.

Author Response

Please find the corrections (marked in yellow) in updated attached document 

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: It would be helpful if the authors were to mention which methods they have used somewhere in the introduction, even if very briefly.

Response 1: We agree with this comment. The method have been added. Introduction page 3, lines 113 - 119.

Comments 2: The weblink in lines 60-61 could be integrated as a source in the reference list instead (minor formatting issue).

Response 2: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, done. Introduction page 2, lines 64 and 73

Comments 3: Figure 1 is in French; it should be translated into English, since that is the language of the manuscript. It might be helpful for international readers to include the national border of the DRC for orientation. Consider also including the districts and territories that are named in lines 112-120 (that information is better provided in a map than in text).

Response 3: Agree. We have, accordingly, done. Page 4, line 140

Comments 4: Table 1 should include some information on peatlands, since that is the ecosystem of interest to this manuscript.

Response 4: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, done. The swampy vegetation refers to peatlands, Table 1, page 4

Comments 5: Table 2 does not clarify if these territories are peatlands; based on the description, this seems uncertain. Is Table 2 needed? If yes, please clarify link with peatlands.

Response 5: Yes table 2 is needed, it gives details on the hydrology and soil in the study sites. Table 2, Page 4

Comments 6: Line 137: Might it be more appropriate to describe these as ‘Indigenous autochthonous communities’, considering the word ‘Pygmy’ is considered derogatory in some areas of the Congo basin (e.g., Republic of the Congo)

Response 6: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, done, page 5, line 158

Comments 7: Table 3: some village names appear multiple times. Do they happen to have the same name, or why is that? Should these entries be merged? For example, Ingende centre / Ingende; Mpabolia and Mpa bolia; Ngeli alingo/maringo and Ngeli alingo

Response 7: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, revised. Table 3, pages 5-6 Comments 8: Lines 159-161: please provide a reference for the Kobo collection application

Response 8: Agree. I/We have, provided the versions for KoboCollect and Kobotoolbox. Page 6, lines 179-182

Comments 9: Lines 165ff: Please clarify the composition of the focus groups; were they composed homogenously by members of the listed socio-demographic groups (e.g., ‘elderly people’; ‘men’; ‘hunters’, etc.) or were they composed of a mix of these socio-demographic groups? My understanding is that in many villages, the researchers carried out only one focus group (based on numbers in Table 3, e.g., for Ekonda). The methodological implications/limitations should be discussed if, for example, in a village like Mekakalaka and others, only one focus group was carried out with a socio-demographically homogenous group of participants.

Response 9: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, revised. Each focus group was composed of a mix of socio-demographic groups, page 6, lines 191-199

Comments 10: Lines 165ff/Lines 174ff: It is not clear how focus groups produced the data for this study. Focus groups are a research method for the collection of qualitative data. Yet the paper presents exclusively quantitative data. I am not sure how a focus group would work in practice if the primary objective was to fill out a close-ended survey for subsequent quantitative analysis. This needs to be described in more detail in section 2.2.3.

Response 10: NO, the paper does not present exclusively quantitative data. The most presented data are qualitative, page 7, line 199 - 203

Comments 11: Line 190: How come that males are so disproportionately overrepresented in the sample? This would be worth explaining/acknowledging here. Normally, one would expect gender figures closer to 50% male/50% female.

Response 11: Agree. I/We have, given the explanation. page 7, lines 229 - 232

Comments 12: Lines 199ff: Is it not likely that respondents would engage in multiple of these activities at the same time, e.g., ‘agriculture’ and ‘fishing’, even if one of these activities were to be listed as ‘primary’? If so, this would be worth acknowledging here.

Response 12: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, revised. page 7, lines 240-242

Comments 13: Lines 205f: The data depicts not a male-dominated, predominantly Indigenous, agriculturally oriented ‘society’, but a male-dominated, predominantly Indigenous, agriculturally oriented ‘sample of respondents’. Especially the term ‘male-dominated’ is misleading here. Surely, just because males are very strongly overrepresented in the sample of respondents, it does not mean that these villages are predominantly inhabited by males.

Response 13: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, revised. page 8, lines 246-247

Comments 14: Figure 2: I suggest presenting this data not ordered by number of respondents but ordered by number of years (from 0 upwards), and also, to group responses in 5-year brackets (e.g., 26-30; 31-35; 36-40). This would be much more legible. The current visualization is problematic/misleading because it assumes the data is 100% accurate, which is highly unlikely (e.g., the numbers 30 and 35, listed as most frequent responses, are surely at the top spot because respondents were rounding up numbers, e.g., if they had been active for 28 years they might have said ‘30’ for sake of simplicity or because they struggled recalling the exact start date; I am not convinced that ‘30’ was actually more common than more specific non-rounded numbers such as ‘27’).

Response 14: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, revised. Page 8-9, lines 250-257

Comments 15: Figure 3 does not appropriately capture cultural ecosystem services, a limitation that should be acknowledged in text and Figure caption. Cultural ecosystem services (e.g., certain cultural traditions linked with peatlands) are reported elsewhere in the manuscript, so this is an important omission.

Response 15: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, revised the omission. Information added in page 9, lines 268-269

Comments 16: Further, in lines 450-452, the authors seem to suggest that intangible cultural ecosystem services do not matter to IPLC because they do not feature in Figure 3 – however, if no data was collected on this, then that is not a fair assessment. I suggest updating the discussion in lines 450-452, too.

Response 16: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, the discussion lines 450 – 542 is now in accordance with figure 3. page 9, line 268-269

Comments 17: Lines 243ff: For the international reader not familiar with the local context in this part of the DRC, it would be good to read about an example of a plant or tree species that may enhance yields in hunting, fishing, and/or agriculture. Can you please provide this?

Response 17: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, given the examples. page 10, lines 290-291

Comments 18: Lines 252ff: As above, an example would be good – what is an example of such a sacred species to be found in peatlands?

Response 18: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, given the examples. page 10, lines 298-299

Comments 19: Lines 259ff: Please describe how these traditional rites and belief systems operate in practice. What exactly do people do with these domestic animals during rites? The international reader would not be familiar with this.

Response 19: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, given the description. pages 10-11, lines 307-317

Comments 20: Lines 299-300: Who are the agents introducing ‘external religious systems’ to IPLC and what religious systems are being introduced? This needs to be specified.

Response 20: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, given information. page 12, lines 349-350

Comments 21: Line 328: I did not see a significant association between gender and village status in Table 5 as the authors here claim exists.

Response 21: Agree. I/We have reduce the font size in table 5. In fact, the font size of this table was too large to allow full readability, and some elements were hidden. By reducing the font size, the table now corresponds to the intended interpretation page 12, Table 5

Comments 22: Lines 347ff: Which activities exactly are associated with presence of endemic wildlife and endemic plants, scared plants, plants used in rituals, animals used in rituals, and constraints, and how? This is not specified here but is of stronger interest to the reader than the general observation these main activities are statistically associated with these variables. For example, does agriculture as a main activity have a positive or negative association with presence of wildlife? Considering that the ‘main activity’ category has a huge diversity of activities (e.g., teaching, fishing, health, administration, etc.), at present, this passage is not very insightful.

Response 22: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, revised. page 13, lines 401-403

Comments 23: Line 364: As with comment no. 21, the reader needs to know more about the nature of these links between ‘constraints’ and ‘animals used in rituals’. Are you suggesting that fewer animals are used in rituals where external religious systems have been adopted? Or the opposite? This needs to be spelled out explicitly.

Response 23: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, revised. page 14, lines 422-429

Comments 24: Lines 450-452: This statement is not fully convincing, since only one reference is cited. For many other IPLCs (e.g., in the Amazonian peatlands of South America), peatlands are of strong cultural importance, too. Consider consulting some of that literature on the cultural significance of tropical peatlands elsewhere and adjusting your statement accordingly. The conclusions at the end of section 4.1 are convincing and important, however, and resonate with insights from other geographical contexts, something that is perhaps also worth acknowledging here.

Response 24: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, consulted some additional literature and adjusted our statement accordingly to that . Discussion, page 17, lines 525-533

Comments 25: Section 4.2: again, it would be interesting to (briefly) compare your findings with those about other tropical peatland contexts, since the audience for this journal is global.

Response 25: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, revised. page 17, lines 540-543

Comments 26: Lines 491: I am not fully convinced by the statements on ‘father-to-son transmission’ of traditional knowledge here. To my mind, this pathway was dominant because the sample was heavily dominated by male respondents (nearly 90%). If you had interviewed a more gender-balanced sample, surely, your results on this aspect would have been different.

Response 26: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, discussed. page 18, lines 566-568

Comments 27: Line 550: In what way can findings be compared with Melanesian contexts? Is this peatland-specific literature? If not, perhaps prioritize comparing your findings with other literature on tropical peatlands, which would be of stronger relevance

Response 27: Melanesian peatlands are widespread on the island of New Guinea (both Papua New Guinea and Indonesian Papua). These are tropical peatlands. Page 19, line 624

Comments 28: 28. Lines 569ff: As above, are these positive or negative associations, between ritual uses and constraints? This would be important to clarify.

Response 28: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, clarified. page 19, line 643

5. Additional clarifications

The English language errors have been generally corrected throughout the manuscript

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

please check the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please find the corrections (marked in green) in the updated attached document 

  1. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Research Background Section: It is suggested to provide a more detailed elaboration on the ecosystem services of peatland: In the introduction section, you mentioned that peatlands offer livelihood opportunities to local communities and contribute to the national economy, serving as sources of various resources such as food, medicine, and timber. However, a more detailed classification of peatland ecosystem services (such as regulating services, provisioning services, cultural services, etc.) can be presented, and examples should be provided to illustrate how these services are specifically manifested in the local context. For instance, apart from carbon storage as a regulating service, the role of peatlands in flood regulation, water purification, and how these services affect the daily lives of local communities.

Response 1: I agree with this comment. I have added the other ecosystem services offered by peatlands. Introduction page 2, lines 49 - 57.

 

Comments 2: Research Background Section: Improve the background introduction of the local community's history and culture: Although you mentioned the basic information about the local population composition, such as the general situation of the Bantu people and the indigenous Pygmies, the description of their historical migrations, cultural evolution, and the long-term interaction with peatlands is not detailed enough. It is suggested to add some historical context about how they formed unique lifestyles and knowledge systems in the peatland environment, which will help readers better understand the cultural roots of the current research findings.

Response 2: Agree. But studies about the historical migration, cultural evolution are very rare. Lines 91 – 96 in pages 2 – 3, are the few studies we had found. 

 

Comments 3: Methodology: Details of sample selection need to be further elaborated: When selecting the survey villages, you mentioned three key criteria, but did not provide a detailed explanation of how these criteria can comprehensively represent the diversity of the study area. For instance, different villages may vary in terms of the extent of peatland utilization, community size, and economic development level. You need to explain how these differences are reflected in the sample selection process to enhance the representativeness of the sample.

Response 3: Agree. We have, accordingly, added more information. Page 5, lines 153 - 159

 

Comments 4: Methodology: Quality control details during data collection process: During the data collection process, you used the Kobo Collect application for questionnaire surveys, but did not mention how to ensure the accuracy of data entry. For example, was there a data entry verification mechanism, and how to handle missing data or abnormal data? Additionally, in the focus group discussions, you mentioned the selection criteria for members, but did not provide detailed explanations of the discussion guidance and recording process. This is also crucial for ensuring data quality.

Response 4: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, added more information. page 6, lines 184-189 and 204-209 

 

Comments 5: Discussion: At present, this part lacks a comparative analysis with other studies. It is suggested that the authors incorporate comparisons with other similar studies (such as studies on the relationship between peatlands or wetland ecosystems and local communities in other regions). This will help highlight the uniqueness or universality of your research results. For example, do other communities also have similar biases in their understanding of ecosystem services, or do they face similar threats in the transmission of traditional knowledge?

Response 5: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, done. Page 17, lines 530-533, and lines 540-543 for the relationship between peatlands or wetland ecosystems and local communities in other regions

 

Comments 6: In the conclusion section, the authors proposed suggestions such as incorporating traditional knowledge into management plans and bridging the cognitive gap. However, these suggestions are rather general. For instance, when incorporating traditional knowledge into management plans, how should it be implemented? Through community participatory planning or by establishing some kind of traditional knowledge database? Regarding bridging the cognitive gap, apart from education and publicity, could some economic incentives be considered to encourage community residents to accept a more comprehensive concept of ecosystem services?

Response 6: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, done, page 5, lines 683-694

 

 

  1. Additional clarifications

The English language errors have been generally corrected throughout the manuscript

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Many thanks to the author(s) for such a swift and thorough response to my feedback. I am satisfied with almost all edits/responses made.

I do not have new comments but I do feel that a small number of the original comments were not fully addressed.

One concern I have is methodological, in particular, the lack of explanation in the paper of how focus group discussions could inform the various quantitative analyses presented in this paper, and to what extent it is appropriate to refer to these as ‘mixed-methods’ or ‘qualitative’. In their response to comment 10, the authors simply state:

‘NO, the paper does not present exclusively quantitative data. The most presented data are qualitative.’

Further, in the revised manuscript, they continue to state that:

‘Data were processed using Microsoft Excel 2016, for the establishment of a raw field database and the production of graphs resulting from the descriptive analysis of data. R- Studio version 2025.05.01 and SPSS version 26 were used for data analysis. The Chi-square test was employed to assess the dependence between the qualitative variables that constitute the core of this study (with the assumption that variables are in- dependent, at the threshold of 5%). And the Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) was used to establish the correlation between variables and to graphically represent the relationships between all of them and between individuals.’

Qualitative data from focus groups is more commonly analysed with software for qualitative data analysis, such as NVivo or ATLAS.ti. It is not clear how one could use RStudio or SPSS to analyse focus group data. Were focus group discussions recorded, transcribed? What information was entered into RStudio and SPSS? Such methodological explanations have not been provided. If the authors insist that their analysis is predominantly qualitative, where are their interview quotes (i.e., extracts of their qualitative data)? Why do we see so many Tables with numbers (i.e., indicating quantitative data), including correlations, graphs, etc., which are typical for quantitative analysis?

While it is good that the authors have now included a brief summary of their methods in the introduction, these contradictions have not been resolved.

Overall, this could be explained more clearly; perhaps I have not made myself understood in my previous comments. But I do think this aspect is essential to clarify, so that readers not involved in the project can also reconstruct the methodological steps taken here.

 

Further minor comments in new/revised text:

  1. Table 1 has a row where it looks like words have been cut off; this is entitled ‘Swampy (Peatland) vegeta-‘
  2. Table 2 still does not contain the word ‘peatland’ (see comment 5, initial submission), which is the ecosystem of interest in this manuscript. I still find it would be helpful to readers if the authors could comment on the extent to which ‘hydrography’ and ‘soil’ are typical of peatlands.
  3. I find the revised Figure 2 to be much improved. But I do wonder where the author(s) would place a person at the boundary between categories. For example, if a respondent had 35 years of experience, would they enter the category 30-35 or 35-40 years? Would it not be more appropriate to have no overlap, so that the sorting into categories is always unambiguous? In my original comment (no. 14) I had suggested 26-30; 31-35; 36-40, though I don’t really mind where the boundaries are, so long as there is no overlap between categories.
  4. It is great to see examples now included (responding to original comments 17 and 18). But the international reader still won’t know how, e.g., ‘Milicia excelsa’ helps ‘enhance yields in hunting, fishing, and agricultural activities’. Can this be described in a few words? The new addition of a description about how the slaughter of animals for ritual purposes works in practice (further below in the revised text, responding to comment 19) was very helpful – something similar would be useful for the case of the new examples provided here (e.g., Piptadeniastrum africanum), too.
  5. Line 552: this addition still does not acknowledge that there could be methodological reasons for the dominance of ‘father-to-son transmission’ of traditional knowledge identified in this study. Since the sample of research participants was very heavily male-dominated, it is not surprising that a male-dominated knowledge transmission mechanism was dominant in this study. If the authors had interviewed a larger share of women they may have not found such a dominance of ‘father-to-son transmission’ mechanisms.
Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are still some minor issues with the quality of English language. For example, the following (new) sentence should be adjusted (typos; missing word after ‘qualitative’):

‘Firstly, it uses a mixed-methods approach, buts mostly qualitative to assess ethnobotanical and ethnozoological aspects.’

There are a number of typos spread throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

The Responses 2nd round to reviewer 1 have been uploaded

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors Thanks for the authors' positive response. I have no further comments, and the manuscript is acceptable for publication in ecologies in its current form.

Author Response

The Reviewer 2 have no further comments