Indigenous Mapping for Integrating Traditional Knowledge to Enhance Community-Based Vegetation Management and Conservation: The Kumeyaay Basket Weavers of San José de la Zorra, México

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript will require extensive copy-editing before publication.  It reads like it was composed by a student with many typos, grammatical errors and a bit of redundancy.  It was apparently written in Spanish and then translated into English without being checked.  After the paper is copy-edited and rewritten, the authors should have a good story to tell.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. "It also should be noted that the process of creating participatory maps itself claims to be an empowering process [33-35]. In this research empowerment will be considered as a process of enhancing a group's capacity to make purposive choices and to transform those choices into desired actions and outcomes [36]. Moreover, this empowerment should be measured and described beyond anecdotal experiences [22]. “ 116-120

This could be more than a note and needs to be described and explained in more detail - especially re. last sentence

2. "In this article, we will describe a process of participatory research based on a trans- 136 disciplinary paradigm. This process used indigenous mapping as a crucial tool. The objectives to achieve are, to map indigenous knowledge and ecological aspects of spiny rush and willow and create a conservation and management plan that leads a community-based strategy to restore, manage and conserve the plants with importance for basket weaver and, to promote the empowerment of the indigenous community."

The final paragraph of intro section could include a more detailed yet brief summary of following paper (by section theme)

3. Description of six phases in methods section could be numbered according to list presented at beginning of this section

4. Good colourful diagrams that contribute to text

5. Perhaps a little more discussion of the challenges of integrating “scientific” and Indigenous knowledge.

6. I am personally interested in more discussion of the relationship between the phases in the context of iterative processes.

7. The entire paper needs copy editing for grammar and style. I attached a highlighted version of the paper with some areas indicated.

8. An important contribution. Interesting and informative with potential for more detailed papers on various themes.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper describes and interesting project, that for all intents and purposes, proved successful.  That being, to engage an indigenous community through participatory methods to map the natural resources in their region, and to apply their traditional ecological knowledge.

It is apparent that English it not the first language of the authors, and this is one of the challenges in reading the paper.  It would benefit the manuscript significantly, if they could have someone whose primary language is English to thoroughly edit the paper to improve the grammar and style.

The paper is also longer than it needs to be. There are many places that repeat the same information that could be removed or re-organized.  Additionally, the authors may want to consider inserting more 'sub-sections' to help break punctuate the flow of the paper.

The only scientific comment I have is regarding the formula used for the calculation of volumes of the willow and spiny rush.  The authors used a volume of a cone, which may be sufficient, but it appears both of these vegetation types are more spherical than cone-shaped (or semi-spherical). The authors should describe a rationale as to why a cone formula is used instead of a sphere, and perhaps some reference(s) given if available. The other aspect of the formula is the correction factors applied to the cone formula of 0.3 and 0.5.  The authors should also describe how these values were determined (by reference, or estimation)? 

Finally, the Discussion section requires further editing. I suggest for the benefit of the authors, to re-think/re-organize the 'key points' they wish to discuss from their results and highlight only the most important ones.  There is much repetition in this section that could be removed.

I wish the authors the best and I hope my comments are received constructively.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx