Biodiversity Conservation in Xishuangbanna, China: Diversity Analysis of Traditional Knowledge Related to Biodiversity and Conservation Progress and Achievement Evaluation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have carefully read the manuscript, under my evaluation I have been able to see that it is a very well written and developed essay, well presented and above all clear, giving details of all the characteristics of the study site, its biodiversity and traditional knowledge. It also proposes the use of diversity and richness indices to have a numerical measure to evaluate the performance of conservation actions and their impact on biodiversity. I consider that the manuscript is adequate, with all sincerity I did not find points that should be improved, it is quite detailed. However, as a suggestion rather than a criticism, it should include a little more images to reduce the text and to be able to graph the results of the interviews and the advances in conservation. This would help to make it more attractive for reading. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your advice is very important to me. Thank you very much for your recognition of my work. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files. In order to increase the readability of the article, Figure 2 is added.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Diversity REV

This is an interesting note on an original topic. Manuscript is well-written (I am not a Mother Tongue in English: perhaps a bit improvement of style and language should be added). Manuscript reports original applications regarding the diversity indices (applied to traditional knowledge): I like this approach. I have only minor points to suggest: (1) some sections are too much long (I have had some difficulties to read them); (2) I would emphasize the role of ‘wise people’ (as indigenous communities) adding some references on this concep; (3) References aree too-much Chinese oriented. However, this is an useful paper (also for conservation managers). Recommendation are good! Therefore, I think that this ms deserves to be published on Diversity after MINOR REVISIONS. Here below some minor points that, I hope, could improve a bit the first draft.

MINOR POINTS

Add some sentences about the concept of ‘wise people’ (see Conservation biology, 7(2), 424-426; African Journal of Ecology, 62(1), e13179) and their role in conservation projects (Web Ecology, 20(1), 11-17). For my experience, in conservation projects aimed to protect local ecosystems the role of stakeholders, native people and, among them, ‘wise-people’ is strategic. Two or three sentences and references about it could improve the text.

Rows 580-582. ‘Due to the popularization of modern science and technology and the increase of medical choice opportunities, more people will choose modern medical treatment instead of folk herbal medicine.’ Here, you should add sme references in this regard. I think that this is a globaò phenomenon and many papers should be available.

Bibliography is a bit too much Chinese-oriented. I think that some more papers from analogous experiences available worldwide should be added.

Improve a bit the quality of figures to improve readability.

Add the role of anonymous reviewers in the Acknowledgements.

I like to read a new revised version of this good ms.

Have a nice work.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your advice is very important to me. Thank you very much for your recognition of my work. According to your suggestions, the following modifications have been made. First, the map of the study area in Figure 1 was redrawn to make it clearer. Second, in section 3.3.2 of the paper, the definition and role of wise people have been added. Third, new references are added based on your suggestions. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf