Co-Producing an Ethnobotanical Garden to Support the Conservation of Indigenous Crop Diversity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This paper describes the dynamic changing forms of TEK using the Kalibuan Tribe in Taiwan as a case study. The authors compile several forms of data from engagement with this community over more than three years. This process of engagement is the novelty in the paper, though this is not highlighted. There is rich detail in the results and discussion and this paper has much potential. The topic is interesting, the process with the community is of high interest, and the findings are relevant. However, it requires more detail in the methods and introduction and reorganization to present a clear story. I suggest re-thinking the actual purpose of the paper or reworking the paper to make the case for your very clear “discussion” points (which should be the conclusion). The authors need to connect the findings with their hypothesis more clearly.

 

One suggestion is to use some of the rich information in 3.4 to set the stage for the paper and include more background information from 3.3 in the introduction.

 

The paper is currently structured as results and then discussion. It should be a combined results and discussion section (especially since there are references and explanations in this section) with a clear conclusion that supports your general purpose/hypothesis (that some TEK is lost over time due to changes in environments, but it is still dynamic and moves with the community even as they are displaced).

 

The introduction and methods need more information about the background, purpose (why does this matter?), and description of the methods. For example, much of the information in the results section 3.3 focuses on naming conventions and the meaning of different plants. Where did this information come from? Was it the interviews? How does it fit in with this idea of dynamic TEK? These connections need to be spelled out/made clear.

 

Introduction

The introduction needs more structure, references, linkages between ideas, and motivation for the study. It also seems like section 3.4 in the results provides an excellent explanation of what the setting is for this work and is more like a background. Consider adding this to the introduction along with a brief explanation of the Kalibaun. It appears to me the purpose of this paper is to describe this process at the garden and the learning from the community that informs the design and rediscovery of this knowledge.

 

Paragraph 2 needs references and the first sentence is confusing. Why the use of “optimistic”?

 

Paragraph 3 needs more development and some of that information is in lines 194-198 of the results.  This is an excellent point that TEK is vulnerable but there is also literature on how it is dynamic. Give some examples of this from the literature. Then why is important for it to be dynamic? Then make the case for why you need to consider all of these different elements to understand this dynamic knowledge. I would also encourage not saying “attempts to describe” – your whole point is to describe these dynamic elements of TEK. “Attempt” undersells the effort.

 

Methods

Literature review – using what resources? How was this conducted?  

 

During the implementation of the tribal-based garden, were all of the participants interviewed? Or that was a selection? How were people brought in to engage with the garden? What was the gender of the people interviewed? Of the 8 elders interviewed, was this included in the n=24? How did you select the people to be interviewed? Was it intentional? Were there specific elders or knowledge holders targeted? Why did you focus so much on elders? Did the younger people not have gardens? I realize there may be obvious answers to this, but these things should be described and not assumed. What was the method and purpose of the agricultural calendar? Did you use this to see changes/shifts in the TEK from before and now?

 

Most importantly, how was the information analyzed? There were 24 interviews. What was the goal of the interviews? What were the types of questions asked in the interviews? Was it open-ended questions or a set of questions used with each person? What language were they conducted in? Does language play a role here in terms of ecological knowledge and was the interviewer well versed in that language? Were they recorded, transcribed? How were the interviews analyzed? Did you use thematic analysis or narrative? Please describe in more details this process and use references.

 

Please provide information about informed consent in the methods (in addition to the statement at the end).

 

 

Results –

You could definitely strengthen this paper if you could point towards differences in knowledge between different people in the tribe. For example, was it the elders that only had the planting memories and knowledge? Or were the younger people in the tribe aware of these practices? Were there differences in their knowledge? How has knowledge changed between generations? Does this play into the dynamics of knowledge change/adaptation?

 

Could you please clarify what you mean here? Because the subsequent stories show that oral histories, including knowledge that falls into the category of TEK, moved with the people. “For example, while the formation of the Kalibuan tribe resulted from forced re-location by the colonial government, discussing Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) from the perspective of being forcibly removed from their original environment suggests 201 that TEK cannot be inherited.”

Could you please clarify where the stories are coming from in 3.3.1? Are they stories that emerged in the interviews or workshops? Or are the documented somewhere else? This section needs to be better situated, linked to the methods and process of learning this information from the Kalibuan with an explanation of why it is important.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Review report for JZBG manuscript 

General comments: -

This topic is scientifically sound and has a great impact on the field. The manuscript will be suitable for publication after taking care of some minor comments.

Detailed comments:

The English language and writing style is ok but some minor check spelling and grammar modifications is required.

Abstract:

This section is well written

Keywords:

-The keywords has been chosen very carefully and accurately.

Introduction:

-This section needs to be elongated and enriched with more background about this topic specifically because the results are mainly based on the review.

Materials and Methods

It is ok and adequate 

 Results:

The results are very interesting.

Discussion:

This section is poorly written. Please rewrite this section and the author is advised to combine the results and discussion in one section and discuss all results in details for better understanding.

 

References

This section is out of date and doesn’t have enough citations . Please add more related and UpToDate citations to improve this section .

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing style and English language is ok but some minor modification is required 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled "Co-producing an ethnobotanical garden to support the conservation of Indigenous crop diversity" offers an exciting exploration into interdisciplinary research. Nonetheless, it requires significant revisions to enhance its clarity, comprehensiveness, and overall contribution to the field.

Firstly, the term "New TEK" is inappropriate as traditional knowledge, by definition, cannot be "new." It is recommended to replace this with "LEK" or "Local and Indigenous Knowledge" to reflect better the dynamic and evolving nature of such knowledge systems.

The introduction lacks a critical literature review, a clearly defined research gap, and the specific aims and objectives of the study, which are essential for setting the context and framing the research questions. In the materials and methods section, the process of interviewing needs a more detailed description, especially regarding the socio-demographic characteristics of participants and the ethical considerations of the study. The use of the term "tribe" is advised against due to its potentially pejorative connotations; "ethnic group" is suggested as a more neutral alternative. Furthermore, a third key component of the methodology remains unclear and needs elucidation for better understanding.

The text within lines 78-81 should be omitted as it likely detracts from the core content or coherence of the paper. 

The results section requires reorganization to directly present the findings, with background information about the study group potentially being moved to the materials and methods section under a "Study Site" subsection.

The discussion should be expanded to thoroughly address the study's specific objectives, as it currently lacks length and depth.

Lastly, the paper lacks a concluding section, which is crucial for summarizing the findings, their implications, and potential directions for future research.

In summary, addressing these issues will significantly strengthen the manuscript, making a more compelling case for its contribution to understanding and conserving Indigenous crop diversity through the co-production of an ethnobotanical garden. The manuscript shows promise but requires substantial revisions for consideration of acceptance.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Editing is required. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I found this paper of significant interest and creative with regards to methodology, including engaging the different age and gender groups, especially the elder women, who as is often the case, hold much of the TEK. That TEK has become especially important especially now for the possibility of sustainable development, even though loss is a constant. Developing community gardens based on the plants and their cultural context with the full engagement of the people is critical to conserve the tribes' bio- and cultural diversity. Significant accomplishments include the development of a seasonal calendar, which fostered further sharing and preserving TEK. Developing a program and brochures for a wider audience, including tourists, is a sound, creative idea - whenever given an opportunity for people to learn, take it.

I have few edits or recommendations as I found the paper to be well-researched, assembled, and written. As is often the case with ethnobotanical publications, they often do not lend themselves to the strict organization of the scientific publishing guidelines, especially when we have to fit text in with Results, Discussion and Conclusion. I think your Results could be Results and Discussion, while your very short Discussion could be Conclusion. Also, on line 290 it reads "... rear of the tribe..." although I think you mean to say "rear of the Garden(?)...; likewise on line 292: "panoramic view of entire tribe" - I think you mean garden?

I was following the descriptions of the six branches of the Bunun well thanks to the chart, text and map, but admittedly got confused when reading lines 103-111 when the Kalibuan tribe was introduced.  I think part of my issue is the use of the word, "ancient" in describing many of the tribes. I also had a hard time figuring out what tribe is what and where despite the nice map. Are the four ancient tribes still up in the hills? Also, in line 112, I am assuming the authors are referring to the Kalibuan tribe but not sure.

One other suggestion that would add even more value to your program and thus paper is incorporating the making ethnobotanical vouchers in the form of herbarium specimens of the plants grown in the Garden (see: Mark Nesbitt's article: http://www.marknesbitt.org.uk/uploads/1/7/7/1/17711127/cbc_22.pdf and Robert Bye's classic paper: Bye, R. A. (1986). Voucher specimens in ethnobiological studies and publications. Journal of Ethnobiology 6: 1–8). In my opinion, this would raise the paper's and program's significance even more.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for all of the revisions. My remaining suggestion is to clarify the different sets of people engaged with. Perhaps a table would help with the method (interviews, art activity, and ecological calendar) as rows and the number of men and women in each activity as columns.

How many women were part of this? "For the data application of TEK within the tribe, we partner with tribal women to co-create an ecological calendar."

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the manuscript "Co-producing an ethnobotanical garden to support the conservation of Indigenous crop diversity" the authors have successfully addressed several previously raised concerns. However, a crucial area still requires enhancement:

The introduction lacks a clear discussion of the co-production of an ethnobotanical garden for the conservation of Indigenous crop diversity. It is unclear whether this aspect has been studied before, and both the research aim and specific objectives of the paper remain undefined.

I recommend reorganizing the structure to present the study site before the methodology to improve narrative flow.

Additionally, the term "tribe" should be replaced with "ethnic community/group" to reflect a more accurate and respectful terminology.

Concerning Chapter 3.1, "Changes in Tribal Livelihoods," this section does not present study results but rather provides background information about the study area. It would be more appropriate to include this content in a separate background section.

Although the discussion has been expanded, the results chapter still lacks clarity, as it primarily discusses rather than presents the results. For a more effective results section, I suggest including tables of findings and graphs to clearly depict the data. 

Overall, the manuscript still needs substantial improvement to meet academic standards.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some moderate editing is required to improve the English in this text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the numerous revisions made by the authors in the manuscript titled "Co-producing an Ethnobotanical Garden to Support the Conservation of Indigenous Crop Diversity". I recommend one minor revision:

Chapter 2 should be renamed to "Materials and Methods." This chapter should include a historical background of the study site, specifically "A Historical Review of the Relocation of the Bunun Tribal Ethnic Community." It should also cover the current stage, titled "Changes in the Livelihoods of the Kalibuan Community," and then detail the methods used, which includes "Data Collection (Research Method)" and "Data Analysis," with additional information on how the data was analyzed.

With this minor revision, I recommend acceptance of the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please review the English language for errors in grammar and punctuation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx