Biodiverse food plants in the semiarid region of Brazil have unknown potential: A systematic review

PONE-D-20-06488

Dear Dr. Jacob,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Rainer W. Bussmann

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

A truly excellent paper. All reviewers agreed that it essentially can be accepted as is. One suggested to include another reference, which this editor however deems unnecessary. As such, the paper is one of the few that can be accepted for publication right away.

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The paper is written in good English and is great to read. It is a very interesting approach to wild foods. I enjoyed reading it.

I am not myself and expert on Brazilian flora so I cannot assess the sources used but from a perspective of someone studying wild foods the paper can be published nearly as it is. I would only add a few references on other paper discussing the potentially edible plants of an area, particularly:

Blanco-Salas, J., Gutiérrez-García, L., Labrador-Moreno, J. and Ruiz-Téllez, T., 2019. Wild plants potentially used in human food in the Protected Area" Sierra Grande de Hornachos" of Extremadura (Spain). Sustainability, 11(2), p.456.

Jug-Dujakovic M, Luczaj L. THE CONTRIBUTION OF JOSIP BAKICS RESEARCH TO THE STUDY OF WILD EDIBLE PLANTS OF THE ADRIATIC COAST: A MILITARY PROJECT WITH ETHNOBIOLOGICAL AND ANTHROPOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS. Slovensky Narodopis. 2016;64(2):158.

Reviewer #2: The article is well written and can be of interest for many readers. Authors guide attention to the important shortcomings in data collection on wild food plants and although the results could cover wider scope of plants, the limitations of the study are well explained.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript has been very well developed, the objectives are quite clear and supported by a solid (and replicable) methodology have allowed us to present interesting and very solid results. The discussions provide an interesting perspective on the species that have been selected. It is highly appreciated that authors identify the limitations of their work. Congratulations to the authors for their solid and interesting work.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Łukasz Łuczaj

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No