Invisible Treasures: Assessing Indonesia’s Unique Agrobiodiversity for Food and Nutrition Security

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract is good; keywords have to be alphabetically arranged.

The introduction successfully highlights the importance of Indonesia as a biodiversity hotspot, particularly in terms of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. The authors provide a solid background on the challenges facing agrobiodiversity. However, 

it lacks specificity in a global context; the introduction could benefit from a broader cover of agrobiodiversity conservation in neighbouring counties (SE Asia) and/or on a global level.

Please state the aims clearly at the end of the introduction, specifying the targeted crops and regions.

In methods, the authors mentioned "focus group discussions (FGDs), key informant interviews and rapid field observations"; this has to be further explained, as does the field assessments chapter.

The study area map is not very clear; maybe the authors provided a higher-quality figure separately.

Line 225, Oryza has to in italic. 

251 Colocasia esculenta has to in italic, the same with Dioscorea in 291 (please check latin names throughout the manuscript).

Please include the authorship of the plant names with the first mention of every species.

The results are generally fine. However, the findings are mostly descriptive, with little to no quantitative analysis to back claims about the extent of genetic erosion or the prevalence of different varieties. This reduces the scientific robustness of the claims made.

Although community knowledge is acknowledged throughout the paper, there is little detail on how indigenous and local knowledge systems can be integrated into formal conservation programs. Please include some relevant info on this. 

Overall, the paper is interesting and deserves to be considered for publishing.

Author Response

Comment 1: Keywords have to be alphabetically arranged.

Response 1: Keywords have been alphabetically arranged

Comment 2: The introduction successfully highlights the importance of Indonesia as a biodiversity hotspot, particularly in terms of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. The authors provide a solid background on the challenges facing agrobiodiversity. However, it lacks specificity in a global context; the introduction could benefit from a broader cover of agrobiodiversity conservation in neighbouring counties (SE Asia) and/or on a global level.

Response 2:  Thank you for the comment. Given the length of the paper, we are not able to add an overview of the regional or global agrobiodiversity context. However, some text and references have been added regarding broader biodiversity challenges in Southeast Asia. We have also highlighted the role of Indonesia as center of diversity for the target species, and included estimated numbers of varieties per crop globally, as an indication of the significance of the diversity in Indonesia.

Comment 3 - Please state the aims clearly at the end of the introduction, specifying the targeted crops and regions.

Response 3: The aim of the study was stated in lines 87-95 of the Introduction. Nonetheless, the introduction has now been reorganized to present this more clearly (see lines 124-132 in Track Changes view). A mention of the 3 study regions was added.

Comment 4 - In methods, the authors mentioned "focus group discussions (FGDs), key informant interviews and rapid field observations"; this has to be further explained, as does the field assessments chapter.

Response 4 – The methods section has been revised to include more detail about the study methods, scope, and number of informants.

Comment 5 - The study area map is not very clear; maybe the authors provided a higher-quality figure separately.

Response 5 – A more readable, high-resolution map was provided to the publishers in the supplementary material. However, it is attached again for your reference/ease of retrieval.

Comment 6 - Line 225, Oryza has to be in italic. 

Response 6 – The font has been changed to italics

Comment 7 – 251 Colocasia esculenta has to be in italic, the same with Dioscorea in 291 (please check latin names throughout the manuscript).

Response 7 – All taxa have been updated accordingly

Comment 8 - Please include the authorship of the plant names with the first mention of every species.

Response 8 – Authorships have been included according to the Kew Plants of the World online (https://powo.science.kew.org/)

Comment 9 - The results are generally fine. However, the findings are mostly descriptive, with little to no quantitative analysis to back claims about the extent of genetic erosion or the prevalence of different varieties. This reduces the scientific robustness of the claims made.

Response 9 – Thank you for this important comment. The study is mainly descriptive as it maps the local diversity of crops with conservation importance. We have added a new table 3 to provide a quantitative overview of the number of varieties found in the field. We also reorganized the results section for easier reading and to help the results come out more clearly. A section on study limitations was also included in the discussions section to address this comment.

Comment 10 - Although community knowledge is acknowledged throughout the paper, there is little detail on how indigenous and local knowledge systems can be integrated into formal conservation programs. Please include some relevant info on this. 

Response 10 – Unfortunately, a detailed discussion on this topic was beyond the scope of this study, but we have added a recommendation to highlight its importance in future studies. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The content of the article is a valuable review of the literature on the subject, but the profile of the journal seems to be focused on research work.

I suggest moving the publication to another journal that prefers review texts.

The authors have developed interesting comparisons based on data collected in Indonesia. However, global conditions are different, so it would be worthwhile to create a comparative analysis to the conditions of agrobiodiversity in the world, with particular emphasis on development forecasts in Europe and, for example, the USA. 

The comparative analysis was carried out on too small a group and too much data.

Are the authors able to assess how selected plant species could be introduced into cultivation in other countries in order to increase food security in the world?

Not all items of literature are cited in a manner consistent with the requirements of the journal – please correct again, e.g.:

Item no. 59 of the cited literature: no DOI number (DOI 10.1088/1755-1315/346/1/012067).

In the case of positive (other) reviews, I conditionally allow the publication of the article in this journal, but after taking into account my comments.

 

Author Response

Comment 3 - The authors have developed interesting comparisons based on data collected in Indonesia. However, global conditions are different, so it would be worthwhile to create a comparative analysis of the conditions of agrobiodiversity in the world, with particular emphasis on development forecasts in Europe and, for example, the USA.

Response 3 - Some text and references have been added regarding broader biodiversity challenges in Southeast Asia. Global conditions vary and challenges related to agrobiodiversity are highly context specific. Our focus on Indonesia aimed to provide a detailed case study within the scope of the article. However, we recognize the importance of broadening the analysis to include global comparisons. Expanding the discussion to include development forecasts for regions such as Europe and the USA would provide a more comprehensive perspective. In future work, we will consider including such analyses to enhance the global relevance of our findings.

Comment 4 - The comparative analysis was carried out on too small a group and too much data.

Response 4 - We do not quite understand this comment. The study did not include a comparative analysis, rather, it’s a descriptive study of varietal diversity of selected crops in their center of origin, combining desk review, expert consultations, interviews and observation. We have clarified the study methods in the methods section and Table 2.

Comment 5- Are the authors able to assess how selected plant species could be introduced into cultivation in other countries to increase food security in the world?

Response 5 - Unfortunately, the topic was beyond the scope of this study.

Comment 6 - Not all items of literature are cited in a manner consistent with the requirements of the journal – please correct again, e.g.: Item no. 59 of the cited literature: no DOI number (DOI 10.1088/1755-1315/346/1/012067).

Response 6 – Not all articles, particularly older ones, have a DOI number but the issue was addressed where possible.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well-documented and presents a detailed analysis of the conservation of agricultural genetic resources in Indonesia. I congratulate the authors for it! However, certain sections could benefit from clearer structuring, additional details on methodology, and better integration of tables and figures into the text. These adjustments would help improve the clarity and accessibility of the paper while preserving its scientific value.

1. Introduction

Comment

The introduction is well structured and clearly presents the context of Indonesia's agricultural biodiversity. However, some information related to losses of genetic resources is presented quite generally. No recent data or statistics are included to support the magnitude of the impact on food security.

The research objectives or the main questions that the study aims to answer are not explicitly stated.

Possible improvements

It would be useful to include current statistical data and concrete examples to illustrate the problems of genetic erosion and land use changes.

Clarifying the objectives and research questions could better guide the reader through the rest of the paper.

2. Materials and Methods

Comment

The section describes the methods used (literature reviews, expert consultations, focus groups and field observations), but does not provide sufficient detail on how the study sites were selected. The selection criteria are presented very briefly and not fully explained.

Methodological limitations are not discussed and data analysis procedures are not detailed enough.

Possible improvements

A more detailed description of the selection criteria for the sites and the procedures used for data collection and analysis is needed.

A section dedicated to methodological limitations would bring more transparency and help the reader understand the limitations of the approach.

3. Results

Comment

The presentation of results is detailed, but tables and figures are not always well integrated into the text discussion. Some results, such as those related to taro and yam diversity, could be explained more clearly.

A large volume of technical information is presented, which may make the section difficult to follow for a reader less familiar with the subject.

Possible improvements

Integrating tables and figures more effectively into the text and explaining the meaning of each data set would help clarify the main points.

A better organization of the results, with clear summaries after each section, would make it easier to understand the main conclusions.

4. Discussion

Comment

The discussion makes the connection between the obtained results and the existing literature, but it is not clear how the study makes new contributions to this field. Some references to the impact of climate change and unsustainable agricultural practices are presented without sufficient detail.

The recommendations for public policy are quite general and not sufficiently developed to provide clear direction for policy makers.

Possible improvements

The discussion could be enhanced by a more detailed comparison of the study results with existing research, highlighting the original contributions of this study.

Expanding the discussion on practical and policy implications would add value by providing clear policy suggestions for conservation and sustainable use.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

Comment

The conclusions summarize the main findings well, but do not elaborate on the limitations of the study or specifically discuss future research directions.

The recommendations are general and do not provide practical solutions or details on how the discussed conservation measures can be implemented.

Possible improvements

A more extensive discussion of the methodological limitations and their implications for the study results would be useful.

Formulating more specific recommendations for genetic resource conservation and public policy would provide a more applicable and practical conclusion to the paper.

Author Response

1. Introduction

Comment 1 - The introduction is well structured and clearly presents the context of Indonesia's agricultural biodiversity. However, some information related to losses of genetic resources is presented quite generally. No recent data or statistics are included to support the magnitude of the impact on food security.

Response 1: Some text and references have been added regarding broader biodiversity challenges in Southeast Asia. We have also highlighted the role of Indonesia as center of diversity for the target species, and included estimated numbers of varieties per crop globally, as an indication of the significance of the diversity in Indonesia.

Comment 2 - The research objectives or the main questions that the study aims to answer are not explicitly stated.

Response: The aim of the study was stated in lines 87-95 of the Introduction. Nonetheless, the introduction has now been reorganized to present the main questions and the study aims more clearly (see lines 124-132 in Track Changes view).

Possible improvements

It would be useful to include current statistical data and concrete examples to illustrate the problems of genetic erosion and land use changes.

Response: Some text added.

Clarifying the objectives and research questions could better guide the reader through the rest of the paper.

Response: The introduction has now been reorganized to present the main questions and the study aims more clearly (see lines 124-132 in Track Changes view). We also reorganized the results and discussion sections of the paper to clarify the main findings.

2. Materials and Methods

Comment

The section describes the methods used (literature reviews, expert consultations, focus groups and field observations), but does not provide sufficient detail on how the study sites were selected. The selection criteria are presented very briefly and not fully explained.

Methodological limitations are not discussed, and data analysis procedures are not detailed enough.

Possible improvements

A more detailed description of the selection criteria for the sites and the procedures used for data collection and analysis is needed.

Response: The methods section has been revised to include more detail about the study methods, scope, and number of informants.

A section dedicated to methodological limitations would bring more transparency and help the reader understand the limitations of the approach.

Response: We have added mention of limitations in the first paragraph of discussions.

3. Results

Comment

The presentation of results is detailed, but tables and figures are not always well integrated into the text discussion. Some results, such as those related to taro and yam diversity, could be explained more clearly.

A large volume of technical information is presented, which may make the section difficult to follow for a reader less familiar with the subject.

Response: The section has been entirely revised to make results easier to follow.

Possible improvements

Integrating tables and figures more effectively into the text and explaining the meaning of each data set would help clarify the main points.

Response: Tables were added explaining the meaning of datasets.  

A better organization of the results, with clear summaries after each section, would make it easier to understand the main conclusions.

Response: The section has been entirely revised to make main conclusions easier to follow.

4. Discussion

Comment

The discussion makes the connection between the obtained results and the existing literature, but it is not clear how the study makes new contributions to this field. Some references to the impact of climate change and unsustainable agricultural practices are presented without sufficient detail.

The recommendations for public policy are quite general and not sufficiently developed to provide clear direction for policy makers.

Possible improvements

The discussion could be enhanced by a more detailed comparison of the study results with existing research, highlighting the original contributions of this study.

Response: We have added more comparison with literature throughout the discussion.

Expanding the discussion on practical and policy implications would add value by providing clear policy suggestions for conservation and sustainable use.

Response: We have added a synthesis of recommendations for improving conservation and sustainable use of the target crops in the subsections of the discussion, based on the extensive stakeholder consultations and addressing the key drivers of genetic erosion identified through this study.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

Comment

The conclusions summarize the main findings well, but do not elaborate on the limitations of the study or specifically discuss future research directions.

The recommendations are general and do not provide practical solutions or details on how the discussed conservation measures can be implemented.

Possible improvements

A more extensive discussion of the methodological limitations and their implications for the study results would be useful.

Response: Section on limitations was added to the end of the discussion.

Formulating more specific recommendations for genetic resource conservation and public policy would provide a more applicable and practical conclusion to the paper.

Response: More specific recommendations to counter each main driver of genetic erosion have been added to the text. These include recommendations on public policies such as procurement and school feeding programs. That said, a wider policy analysis required for detailed policy recommendations was beyond the scope of this study.