Biocultural Importance of the Chiuri Tree [Diploknema butyracea (Roxb.) H. J. Lam] for the Chepang Communities of Central Nepal
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript deals with an interesting area of tree species and their cultural importance to indigenous people, and I thank you for the hard work done by the authors. But the authors have a lot of room to improve the manuscript, and here are my specific suggestions:
- I think the author should mention a general recommendation of the study based on its findings for the worldwide readers at the end of the abstract. The last line of the abstract is also repeated in the conclusion, so delete it.
- The study deals with the biocultural aspects of indigenous people and there is no separate theoretical framework for the study. I proposed to put a separate theoretical framework at the beginning of the methodology or at the end of the introduction. It would be helpful for readers.
- Give emphasis to the economic aspect of the Chiuri tree, by which I mean the economic analysis of the tree with some economic data using tables/figures. In addition, the relationship of the Chiuri tree with the livelihood parameters of the indigenous people would need more emphasis.
Good luck
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Comment: The manuscript deals with an interesting area of tree species and their cultural importance to indigenous people, and I thank you for the hard work done by the authors. But the authors have a lot of room to improve the manuscript, and here are my specific suggestions:
Response: Thank you for recognizing the relevance of our work and for providing constructive comments to improve the quality of our manuscript. Below we provide responses to your specific comments.
Comment: I think the author should mention a general recommendation of the study based on its findings for the worldwide readers at the end of the abstract.
Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We already recommended further studies to quantify the threats and formulate corresponding forest and wildlife management strategies. We added a last sentence to the abstract – for international readers – to highlight the usefulness of the cultural keystone species framework in landscape assessment for management and conservation (lines 21-23). We could not expand more because the abstract has already slightly more than 200 words.
Comment: The last line of the abstract is also repeated in the conclusion, so delete it.
Response: Thank you for this observation. As some readers will only read the abstract, we thought it important to keep this sentence, especially since it includes a recommendation, as requested in your previous comment. Nevertheless, we added an ending to the sentence to better link it to the theme of the special issue (lines 19-21).
Comment: The study deals with the biocultural aspects of indigenous people and there is no separate theoretical framework for the study. I proposed to put a separate theoretical framework at the beginning of the methodology or at the end of the introduction. It would be helpful for readers.
Response: We modified the introduction so that one of the paragraphs now presents a conceptual framework (and a few new references) based on cultural salience and cultural keystone species (lines 63-79).
Comment: Give emphasis to the economic aspect of the Chiuri tree, by which I mean the economic analysis of the tree with some economic data using tables/figures. In addition, the relationship of the Chiuri tree with the livelihood parameters of the indigenous people would need more emphasis.
Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We added information on the importance of the chiuri tree for Chepang subsistence and livelihood in the Introduction (lines 50-62).
Reviewer 2 Report
The study is interesting and provide information that is worth publishing. However, the manuscript requires extensive editing.
My main concerns (but not limited to) are:
Discussion (and conclusion) does not include information that addresses the changes that affect Chepang people and how it reflects on chiuri. Basically, as it is, the manuscript informs on the importance of chiuri for the Chepang using (insufficiently described) CKS. I agree that information solely is important but a more profound of discussion is needed, while the Conclusion is disappointingly vague. Why and how this study informs readers and help us to expand this results elsewhere - as an international journal, it should have a broad application.
Complementary, authors were excessively succinct in explaining methods (both how the work and their interpretation), study contextualization etc. It feels like authors did not put enough effort in writing the manuscript.
L16 – the statement “could not be replaced by any other species” has no context. Was there any action towards replacing it? Rephrase.
L37-39 – Is it a wordwide process? Clarify.
L37-39- Although I do not disagree with the statement in general, it assumes that all Indigenous peoples are in a position to protect biodiversity – e.g., some do not live in biodiversity rich places (by displacement, choice). Please refrain over generalizations.
L39-43 – What were the drivers that led to those changes? The implementation of national policy? Displacement for a dam? Explain.
L57-58 – Sentence has no real connection with the rest of the paragraph.
L66-72 – This is all part of the study results and should not be in Introduction. Instead, authors should state their objectives, hypothesis and mention why the manuscript is important.
Introduction – authors need to put their study in important and more importantly how it is a novelty. There are many citations that show the chiuri’s cultural importance so how this study adds to the scientific understanding of the topic.
L80-84 – This information should be in the Introduction section. However, it should be expanded so readers can understand the context better.
Figure 1 – what is a “study wards” – explain and be consistent with the text.
What does it mean RM after some names?
What are local bodies? Does it refer to villages cited in table 1? Terminology should be consistent.
L99 – reference for figure 2 is misplaced. It is likely better placed at L106
L97-106 – It would be interesting to provide information about chiuri’s life expectancy, size. As shade-intolerant, does it grows in old-growth forests or it behaves as a pioneer species – this kind of information gives the reader a more complete understanding of the species and possible management practices.
L121 - Local interpreters are also Chepang? Do the Chepang communities accept them, trust them? How authors were sure that interpreters did “translated” the information discussed without much bias?
L123 – briefly explain what “non-probability sampling” is as many readers might not be used with such method.
L125-126 – Authors need to explain the method to evaluate “information saturation”. What is it? How do you measure it?
L129- As in other parts of the manuscript, authors do not provide information enough so a wider audience can understand the topic discussed. What is ICI, how is calculated, why is important and how it is used?
L150-151 – Did the communities help validating the results?
L146-148 – Again, detailed information needs to be provided regarding the method used.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Comment: The study is interesting and provide information that is worth publishing. However, the manuscript requires extensive editing. My main concerns (but not limited to) are:
Response: Thank you for your interest in our study. Below we provide responses to your specific comments.
Comment: Discussion (and conclusion) does not include information that addresses the changes that affect Chepang people and how it reflects on chiuri. Basically, as it is, the manuscript informs on the importance of chiuri for the Chepang using (insufficiently described) CKS. I agree that information solely is important but a more profound of discussion is needed, while the Conclusion is disappointingly vague. Why and how this study informs readers and help us to expand this results elsewhere - as an international journal, it should have a broad application.
Response: Thank you for these comments. We added some information on the causes of cultural change in the Introduction (lines 41-44). We also reordered parts of the Introduction to improve flow and to add a conceptual framework as a response to a comment made by Reviewer 1, where we better explained the CKS framework (lines 63-79). In the Conclusion, we added text to emphasize the usefulness of the CKS concept in landscape assessment for management and conservation purposes. This, we hope, increases the relevance of our study for international readers (lines 386-390).
Comment: Complementary, authors were excessively succinct in explaining methods (both how the work and their interpretation), study contextualization etc. It feels like authors did not put enough effort in writing the manuscript.
Response: Sorry about that. We added some information to the Material and Methods section, hoping it is now clearer (lines 147-158).
Comment: L16 – the statement “could not be replaced by any other species” has no context. Was there any action towards replacing it? Rephrase.
Response: Rephrased (line 14).
Comment: L37-39 – Is it a wordwide process? Clarify.
Response: Yes, it is a worldwide process. Globally it has been found that when cultural diversity is lost, biological diversity is also lost as culture and ecosystems are closely linked. We added a sentence and reference to make this clearer (lines 39-41).
Comment: L37-39- Although I do not disagree with the statement in general, it assumes that all Indigenous peoples are in a position to protect biodiversity – e.g., some do not live in biodiversity rich places (by displacement, choice). Please refrain over generalizations.
Response: The sentence implies that when Indigenous people do live close to nature, their actions tend to favor biodiversity. We still believe this statement to be correct and we do not see it as implying a generalization to Indigenous people living in urban setting.
Comment: L39-43 – What were the drivers that led to those changes? The implementation of national policy? Displacement for a dam? Explain.
Response: We clarified the drivers of changes and provided two additional references in support (lines 41-44).
Comment: L57-58 – Sentence has no real connection with the rest of the paragraph.
Response: Thank you for this observation. We have reorganized the Introduction to add a conceptual framework (lines 63-79). The sentence which lacked connection is now in this new paragraph which we hope has a clearer thread.
Comment: L66-72 – This is all part of the study results and should not be in Introduction. Instead, authors should state their objectives, hypothesis and mention why the manuscript is important.
Response: As it is a journal obligation to provide main results/conclusions at the end of the Introduction, we left these sentences as they are.
Comment: Introduction – authors need to put their study in important and more importantly how it is a novelty. There are many citations that show the chiuri’s cultural importance so how this study adds to the scientific understanding of the topic.
Response: We believe that our study is original in two ways and we tried to make it clearer in the last paragraph of the Introduction (lines 80-92) and throughout the manuscript. First, we use chiuri as a case study to demonstrate the usefulness of the CKS framework in landscape assessment for management and conservation. This was not clearly mentioned in the initial submission, but now is. We think it links well with the topic of the special issue on benefits people get from the forest. Second, while it is true that our study is one more on the cultural importance of chiuri, it insists on the difficulty to maintain balance between multiple benefits people get from the ecosystem (chiuri fruits, chiuri honey, chiuri branches, bat meat). Again, we think this fits nicely with the theme of the special issue.
Comment: L80-84 – This information should be in the Introduction section. However, it should be expanded so readers can understand the context better.
Response: We believe this information belongs to the Materials and Methods section as it explains the study setting (now lines 100-104). We have modified the subsection’s title from “Study Area” to “Study Setting” to better reflect this (line 94).
Comment: Figure 1 – what is a “study wards” – explain and be consistent with the text. What does it mean RM after some names? What are local bodies? Does it refer to villages cited in table 1? Terminology should be consistent.
Response: Thank you for this observation and sorry for overlooking it. Wards are local level administrative units of the government of Nepal. Each district includes several local bodies such as municipalities or rural municipalities (RM), which are further divided into wards, which include villages such as those considered in this study (study sites). We added the explanation in the caption of figure 1 and in the Data Collection sub-section (lines 110-113 and 135).
Comment: L99 – reference for figure 2 is misplaced. It is likely better placed at L106
Response: Thank you for this observation. We now refer to figure 2 at line 129 (formerly 106).
Comment: L97-106 – It would be interesting to provide information about chiuri’s life expectancy, size. As shade-intolerant, does it grows in old-growth forests or it behaves as a pioneer species – this kind of information gives the reader a more complete understanding of the species and possible management practices.
Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We added more information in sub-section “Chiuri Tree” (lines 123-131).
Comment: L121 - Local interpreters are also Chepang? Do the Chepang communities accept them, trust them? How authors were sure that interpreters did “translated” the information discussed without much bias?
Response: Yes, local interpreters are Chepang. In our experience, involving interpreters suggested by the locals is best, as they are trusted by participants. Triangulation of the information between participants ensured data validity.
Comment: L123 – briefly explain what “non-probability sampling” is as many readers might not be used with such method.
Response: Added (lines 147-150).
Comment: L125-126 – Authors need to explain the method to evaluate “information saturation”. What is it? How do you measure it?
Response: “Information saturation” is reached when any further data collection does not add new information. This is a standard method in qualitative research. A short elaboration has been added (lines 150-152).
Comment: L129- As in other parts of the manuscript, authors do not provide information enough so a wider audience can understand the topic discussed. What is ICI, how is calculated, why is important and how it is used?
Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We moved some of the text that was at the beginning of the Results to better explain what the ICI is and how it is calculated (lines 154-158).
Comment: L150-151 – Did the communities help validating the results?
Response: Yes, it was already mentioned at lines 152-153 (now lines 181-182).
Comment: L146-148 – Again, detailed information needs to be provided regarding the method used.
Response: We do not see what details are missing. We already provided the interview guide (Appendix 1) and explained how the data were analyzed (we used standard thematic analysis; lines 177-180).
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Corrections were sufficient.
