Practice and Biodiversity of Informal Ornamental Horticulture in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This analysis is based on personnel surveys of the informal horticulture industry in Kinshasa, with a focus on the status of the workers. A second analysis is a list of the plant species propagated by these nurseries and their conservation status (indigenous, endangered, invasive), which is useful for developing outreach to encourage the growers to propagate appropriate plant species. The authors’ findings that the nursery sites are often insecure will hopefully help them secure these sites. I understand that such a survey has not been done in the Congo, and there are only a few in Africa, so it has importance in elevating the visibility of the horticulture industry. The horticultural industry provides employment for both educated and untrained workers, and deserves community and government support to thrive.

 

I have a number of specific comments and suggestions:

 

37 “urbanization expected worldwide”

“underway” would be a better word than “expected” as this urbanization is already happening.

 

67 “spontaneously-grown”

You might define this term. Perhaps expand to “spontaneously establishing and growing”

 

82 “circulation of species”

Need a better word than “circulation”. Maybe disbursement of species?

 

97 “threatened”

Clarify, perhaps change to “threatened conservation status”.

 

Figure 1 legend: add that horticultural sites are shown with red triangles.

 

114 “If the natural vegetation of the Kinshasa region…”

Perhaps a better way to state this is “The natural vegetation of the Kinshasa region was likely composed of….and has been largely replaced by grassy savannah…”

 

122 “activity rate”

Unclear. I believe you mean employment rate.

 

134  Are respondents people you talked to, or who filled out a questionnaire? Please clarify your methods, as readers may not be familiar with, or have access to, citation [31].

 

149 To clarify, give examples of phytosanitary products used by these nurseries.

Also explain what you mean by form of support. Is this a bank or government loan? Private funding?

 

173 “biological types” are usually called life forms, as in Raunkiaer’s publication.

 

Table 1 change “ans” to years

“Other activities”  could be more clearly stated: e.g.,  other income sources, other jobs, other work, or other employment

 

Table 1. I am not sure a parametric statistical test should be applied to this data set where the sample size is so different among groups. Significance occurs most often in the group with the largest number of respondents (Gr. V). A non-parametric ranking approach may be more appropriate.

 

225 “Most of them are newcomers to the trade (Table 1).”

But from Table 1, 6-8 years of service has the largest representation in column 1 (showing means), and under Gr V. These are experienced workers. Please justify your conclusion, or revise. The principal components analysis is useful to see how different these groups are, coupled with the data in Table 1.

 

Table 2

What doe “supported by” mean? See my comment above for l. 149.

 

251 Please describe or give examples of plant protection products. E.g., are these pesticides to control for insects? Also see my comment for l. 149.

 

386, 416, 434 Add a few sentences about the rationale for planting indigenous species in urban horticultural areas. There is a global effort, including urban landscapes, to restore damaged ecosystems and provide habitat for pollinators, butterflies, birds, and other species. See for instance the UN Decade on Restoration  https://www.decadeonrestoration.org/

Or the article

Elmqvist et al. 2015. Benefits of restoring ecosystem services in urban areas. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14:101-108 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343515000433

There are many more published examples using native species for urban horticulture.

 

Table 3 correct spelling of “Acantanceae” to Acanthaceae

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Objectives

Thus, the present study aims to provide a better understanding of this phenomenon of IHS proliferation in Kinshasa through the following three questions: (i) what is the profile of the producers engaged in the activity? (ii) Under what conditions do they ensure the production of ornamental plants in the different sites? (iii) What ornamental species do they produce; their diversity in terms of biological types, their invasive status and their conservation status?

 

M&M describes the sampling method used, could please justify this type of sampling? Why 178 is a good size?

To understand the factors and variables you should consider including a list of them.

Discussion paragraph 4.1 should be in the M&M chapter. According to your objectives, the sampling method is not part of the results.

Results

Figure 2. And the statistical analysis is not clear enough, how many variables and which ones did you include in the APC? Most of your variables are categorical using different scales (no numeric), was the multivariate analysis done suitable for these variables?

What conglomeration method was used?

Maybe is a good idea to provide more details of the statistical analysis.

Table 1 is not understandable. What is the meaning of mean and standard error? If the variables are categories, maybe you should provide the percentage of each category.

Table 2 does not need the total number of, and column p-value is not a value.

In line 223 you mentioned: ”Apart from these differences between the groups of sites identified, we note that they are made up exclusively of males, with individuals of varied but young age brackets (between 19 and 45), and of equally varied levels of education and seniority in the trade”.

The difference you are talking about is arithmetic, to compare the groups you probably should use an ANOVA test.

According to your objectives, I invite you to clearly describe the profile of the groups identified in terms of the characteristics measured.

Was diversity similar among groups?

What is the relationship between diversity and other factors?

Pictures qualities are not good enough.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Table 2 is a difficult to understand.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf