the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 09 Dec 2024
Research at the interface between Indigenous knowledge and soil science; weaving knowledges to understand horticultural land use in Aotearoa New Zealand
Abstract. Addressing the complex challenges of soil and food security at international and local scales requires moving beyond the boundaries of individual disciplines and knowledge systems. The value of transdisciplinary research approaches is increasingly recognised, including those that value and incorporate Indigenous knowledge systems and holders. Using a case study at Pōhatu, Aotearoa New Zealand, this paper demonstrates the value of a transdisciplinary approach to explore past Māori food landscapes and contribute to contemporary Māori soil health and food sovereignty aspirations. Engaging at the interface between soil science and Indigenous knowledge (mātauraka Māori) in an Aotearoa New Zealand context, we provide an example and guide for weaving knowledges in a transdisciplinary context. Here, mātauraka Māori, including waiata (songs) and ingoa wāhi (place names), provided the map of where to look and why, and soil analysis yielded insight into past cultivation, soil modification and fertilisation practices. Both knowledges were needed to interpret the findings and support Māori to re-establish traditional horticultural practices. Furthermore, the paper extends the current literature on the numerous conceptual frameworks developed to support and guide transdisciplinary research by providing an example of how to do this type of research in an on-the-ground application.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(2062 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2062 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3546', Jonathan Sandor, 02 Jan 2025
Note: comments also uploaded as a pdf - better to use the pdf.
Review of Gillespie et al. Research at the interface between Indigenous knowledge and soil science; weaving knowledges to understand horticultural land use in Aotearoa New Zealand (https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3546 Preprint).
(Note “L” refers to line number in the manuscript)
This manuscript (ms.) presents a transdisciplinary study of a traditional agricultural system in New Zealand, combining Māori indigenous knowledge with soil science. The ms. is well-written and organized, and contains important, interesting findings and views that are well within the scope of SOIL, and will help advance the interface between indigenous knowledge (IK) and ethnopedology. The present study can be published after some comments and questions relating to IK and traditional agriculture, and technical soils components, are addressed.
However, reflecting the authors’ recognition of the need for more empirical studies to better quantitatively and scientifically support their transdisciplinary approach (TDR), I strongly encourage the authors to consider a more substantial scientific soil study going forward in their future continuation of this research. This would involve more robust sampling and data collection and analyses of traditional fields and soils, and comparison of the agricultural soils with reference (control) natural soils, and perhaps comparisons of a range of Māori field systems. A more quantitative (increased sample size and use of controls) would help to more rigorously test initial findings and inferences that the authors present in their current stage of research. This would not only help support Māori agriculture and food sovereignty development, but would also help advance soil health and food security internationally.
Main Comments and Questions
These comments mainly fall into two areas: 1) the authors’ TDR approach regarding Māori traditional knowledge and goals regarding agriculture, and 2) technical aspects relating to the data collection, analysis, and interpretation of the agricultural fields, soils, phytoliths, charcoal/ash, and stable C and N isotopes.
1. The authors’ TDR and collaborative research framework demonstrates how far ethnopedology studies have advanced from the early days: from recognizing the importance of indigenous knowledge in its own right, to now much more active engagement with indigenous communities in planning and conducting the research to incorporate those communities’ desired outcomes. In this case, those outcomes involve traditional agriculture in relation to food sovereignty and food security. Another component the authors could address going forward is how to encourage community members, especially younger people, to obtain more education and training, and scientific expertise, so that they can more actively conduct, co-lead, and take the lead in the research, while also incorporating and conserving their heritage of traditional agricultural knowledge, language, and culture. Research areas for community members could be soil science, plant and crop sciences (e.g., phytolith and stable isotope analyses such as done in this study, and genetics), agricultural management, among others.
In terms of writing, the use of TDR language and the conceptual framework regarding the importance of indigenous knowledge and active participation and collaboration with indigenous communities is appropriate and understandable. The He Awa Whiria/two streams framework is useful, and Figure 11 is very good. However, the TDR wording can become excessive for scientists or the public unfamiliar with this approach, so please also keep in mind the need to communicate clearly and concisely with simpler and non-repetitive language, depending on the audience. Also, generalizing about Western science as narrow (e.g., L593-4, 626) to promote TDR, can come across as unnecessary stereotyping.
2. The multiple kinds of data (soils, phytoliths, stable C and N isotopes, charcoal and ash) explored in this study are excellent, but an expanded sample design is essential as the studies hopefully go forward. The current data and findings are likely sufficient for this paper, but I encourage the authors to point to the future of this study, especially the need for an expanded and more robust sampling design, data collection, and subsequent analyses to test their current finding and inferences. Currently, it appears that only one specific field of earthen raised mound fields was sampled, whereas more sampling would allow for statistically valid comparisons to test current data hypotheses and inferences. With one field studied so far with two soil pits, more work is needed to test if current findings are representative. I realize that perhaps only one field was identified in the immediate study area, but maybe more could be found, or the soil study expanded to other areas where traditional fields have been identified, as indicated in L346-7 etc.
This research would also greatly benefit from incorporation of reference or control soil sampling; i.e., uncultivated/natural soils with similar comparable geomorphic and pedogenic settings, if these are available. This would help to test the anthropogenic soil change and phytolith and isotope signatures inferred by the authors. The lack of reference soils outside of the field systems for comparison raises questions about the validity of some of the current interpretations, and renders them more speculative. Also, scientific-based comparisons among raised mound fields of different age or settings, or different kinds of Māori traditional field systems would add information that would benefit the scientific scope and interpretations overall. A more quantitative use of control natural soils, and expanded sample design for fields and their soils, would support the need for more empirical studies rightly called for by the authors.
While the current findings are interesting and compelling, they also should be considered more preliminary in my view because of the minimal sampling and lack of control natural areas for comparison. The phytolith data about sweet potato (kūmara) is convincing, but it seems like some of the conclusions are less certain than currently conveyed, especially those regarding the soils and their management (e.g., L529-30, 538-9, 553-4, 658-9). I think some of the conclusions should be less bold and more toned down, and future work needed to test initial findings based on few samples should be acknowledged more.
Other specific comments and questions
The incorporation of Māori terms is important, and most of these terms are reasonably defined when first stated. However, I suggest that the authors add a table of Māori terms (at least the key ones used more than once) to refer to easily – it may be challenging for many readers to remember the word meanings when going through the whole paper, so being able to access the terms in one place (i.e., table or mini-glossary) would be helpful.
State more explicitly in the Methodology section (e.g., first paragraph of Section 3.2 starting with L275, and maybe around L306 and beginning of Findings L314) that you were sampling an inferred traditional earthen raised mound field system. A little more than just stating features as “mounds” or “earth rows” would be clearer to readers.
Questions about Tables 1 and 2, and Figure 5, and need to give more information: Soil morphology and horizon designations (some symbols and terms in the New Zealand system may not be familiar to all readers): color (all moist colors? What are the 2nd colors given in parentheses?); texture (explain the abbreviations, especially “Z”); structure (is polyhedral same as granular or ?); Size (state in column label or caption that this is coarse fragment size; does % abundance mean volume %?); horizon designations in Tables and Fig. 5: does A/B mean same as AB or discrete A and B parts within the horizon?); meaning of (f) and (g) in parentheses for Bw? In Tables, add a column with the specific depth intervals for each horizon. For Figure 5, state the scale units (e.g., numbers are 10 cm intervals). Also, I am not seeing the arrows for “beach gravel additions” stated in the Figure 5 caption. You indicate an “Ap2” in the Figure 5b caption, but that’s not shown in the photo – did you mean “2Ap”?
Regarding the landslide: is this a natural landslide or is there possible anthropogenic influence from the agriculture – e.g., could the field construction and use have induced the landslide? Is this landslide an isolated case, or are these landslides common. Need more context here, and this also shows the need to sample more fields.
Good multiple analyses in soil chemistry (especially Mn in Figure 9) and C and N isotopes in relation to possible soil amendment inputs for nutrient management such as penguin guano and seaweed. Again, all of these analyses (soil chemistry, stable isotopes, charcoal/ash, gravels) and interpretations regarding soil modification would benefit from comparison with some kind of baseline data from control (nonagricultural soils that match the agricultural soils in natural pedogenesis and ecological and geomorphic setting), if they are available. With Mn for example, you indicate increases in inferred modified horizons but just for Pit 2 (what about Pit 1?). Incorporating more fields for soils analyses, and comparison with surface horizons etc. in natural soils, could help better characterize Mn distribution, variability, and test whether Mn is diagnostic of amendment inputs. The greywacke gravel input inference in relation to IK seems valid, but greater sample size and comparison with similar natural horizons in control soils could allow you to be more definitive and certain that this gravel could only be from deliberate input for management (e.g., are you certain that the geologic occurrence and distribution of greywacke isn’t more complex?). Monitoring natural control soils along with the agricultural soils could also allow you to test and quantify drainage and soil warming benefits of gravel inputs.
L404 – explain a bit more about manure. Are you saying that use of manure is totally prohibited by Māori?
L621: define FLN in this ms. (Food-Landscape Network).
Why isn’t “ethnopedology” mentioned in the text (only indirectly in one reference). Topics covered in this ms. seem closely related to the subdiscipline of ethnopedology, and seems like it should be mentioned if not highlighted.
References: good citation of literature on traditional Māori agriculture. It might also be useful to also consider citing some literature on traditional agricultural systems and soils research elsewhere in Polynesia and Oceania that may be relevant to your study and findings. Examples:
Lincoln, N. et al. (2014). Indicators of soil fertility and opportunities for precontact agriculture in Kona, Hawai'i. Ecosphere, 5(4), art42. doi:10.1890/es13-00328.1
Ladefoged, T. N. et al. (2018). Soil nutrients and pre-European contact agriculture in the leeward Kohala field system, Island of Hawai'i. Archaeology in Oceania, 53(1), 28-40. doi:10.1002/arco.5138
Sherwood, S. C. et al. (2019). New excavations in Easter Island's statue quarry: Soil fertility, site formation and chronology. Journal of Archaeological Science, 111, 104994. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2019.104994
Autufuga, D. et al. (2023). Distribution of soil nutrients and ancient agriculture on young volcanic soils of Ta‘ū, American Samoa. Soil Systems, 7(2), 52. doi:10.3390/soilsystems7020052
Also consider other stable isotope research on possible guano use in ancient agriculture:
Santana-Sagredo, F. et al. (2021). White Gold in the Atacama Desert: Isotopic evidence for early seabird guano use in South America. Nature Plants, 7, 152-158. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-020-00835-4
Szpak, P. et al. (2012). Stable Isotope Biogeochemistry of Seabird Guano Fertilization: Results from Growth Chamber Studies with Maize (Zea Mays). PLOS ONE, 7(3). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0033741
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Julie Gillespie, 16 Feb 2025
Thank you for your comprehensive and constructive review of our manuscript.
We have taken on board your comments and have modified the manuscript to address and incorporate them.
The first area of discussion is concerned with the TDR approach regarding Māori
traditional knowledge and goals regarding agriculture.To address the key concerns in this area,
Where possible excess language (E.g. Mode 1 knowledge production replaced with Western scientific knowledge production in line XX) has been omitted. In the section discussing the themes present in the transdisciplinary research literature (L56+), the TDR acronym has been removed from the bullet points to reduce repetition.
In regard to the generalisation of Western Science as narrow, we have made modifications throughout to signify that that is often, but not always, the case.
The second discussion focus was on the technical aspects of the paper. Specific comments are addressed below;
Expansion of sampling for the future of this study: The potential for this is now reflected at various points in the manuscript. There is potential for this study to be expanded, both in terms of the detail that the slope reported and exploring other potential areas within the bay, and other bays in the area. This study has provided a foundation of the considerations for the different knowledges to work together, along with an example of this in practice. As a result, adding more technical detail and study sites into this paper would make it unmanageable for the reader, but looking further would be beneficial in future studies. In regard to the note about the consideration of these results being identified as preliminary, we have modified the manuscript to reflect this.
A table of Māori terms has been added at the end of the manuscript to assist with interpretation. Other suggestions (e.g., earthen raised mound system) have been addressed at the relevant points in the article. Further information is provided in relation to table 1,2 and figure 5 to clarify the New Zealand terms used. More context is provided regarding the landside. These landslides are common, particularly after storm events, where the poorly structured, unstable Pallic Soils slip. This occurs in both areas with dense vegetation coverage, as well as open areas that have been cleared of their original forest cover.
Further details are in the file attached.
Thank you for your comments and the opportunity to improve our manuscript
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Julie Gillespie, 16 Feb 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3546', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Jan 2025
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this article. As someone working on ethnopedology and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) decades ago, it is wonderful to see an article like this, truly weaving the knowledges together, and research being done used co-production and engagement. Doing this type of transdisciplinary research well is complex and takes considerable time, building trust between the holders of the different knowledges. The idea that Indigenous and western science can iterate and inform each other and when woven together produce more comprehensive knowledge is a message that needs to be shared widely, and I commend the authors for this work, a demonstration of “two-eyed seeing.” I provide a few comments to help this manuscript become stronger and more accessible to others.
Using relevant language is critically important, and the authors use both Māori and English terminology. However, this has made the manuscript very difficult to follow, in fact, I find sections of it impenetrable and inaccessible. Readers without familiarity with Māori, and if they are unfamiliar (or hesitant about) understanding why native terminology must be used when research is engaged and co-produced with traditional communities, may not have the patience to wade through the dense text. I worry that this would turn readers off to the approach of creating knowledge together. To help alleviate this challenge I highly recommend the inclusion of a glossary of key and repeated Māori terms so that these can quickly be referenced without having to find the first mention of a term in the manuscript.
One of the challenges of doing engaged research is that communities are not homogenous and have internal power dynamics. Who are the individuals guiding the explication of Māori texts, and who is not involved? Who holds the texts and access to them? The authors mention awareness of power dynamics between Māori and non-Māori team-members, but I would like to understand more about how the team negotiated the Māori side, who chose which texts and why? Additionally, is there a gender dimension in any texts?
The conclusions of this article focus more on the process of doing the TDR research than on the outcomes as these relate to why this research matters for soil and food security. A stronger article would come back to the open question of addressing the soil and food security challenges, and why this weaving of knowledges is better to address these challenges than the separate knowledges.
I would also like the authors to consider how the specific findings of their case study matter beyond this particular location. Inherent in any work trying to weave together TEK and western science is the tension of exceptionalism vs. generalizability, and I would like to see this addressed in the conclusions.
Given the importance of weaving knowledges together to address environmental challenges such as exemplified in this article, I suggest engaging with this reference:
National Science Foundation (NSF) Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education (AC-ERE). 2022. Engaged Research for Environmental Grand Challenges: Accelerating Discovery and Innovation for Societal Impacts. National Science Foundation: Alexandria, VA.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3546-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Julie Gillespie, 16 Feb 2025
Thank you for your comprehensive review and comments that have enabled us to improve the manuscript. The comments are broken into sections and responded to below:
Who are the individuals guiding the explication of Māori texts, and who is not involved?
Co-author of this paper MP has been the key guide in this area and is the mātauranga Māori/knowledge holder for the study site and community. We engaged with relevant local knowledge needed to progress the research through MP, as we explain in the ‘Engagement with Mana Whenua’ section (section 3.1) in the methods. In this section we also describe how the relationship with the broader community at Pōhatu was also established through planting activities (see lines 253-257). While we acknowledge that it could be interpreted that MP acted as a spokesperson for his hapū/sub-tribe, this approach is in line with tikanga Māori/ Māori customs.
Who holds the texts and access to them?
As noted above, with adjusted explanation in section 3.1, co-author of this paper, MP, is the holder of this mātauranga Māori for the hapū/sub-tribe, mentioned in line 258. Importantly, this knowledge is not in 'text' format - it is oral knowledge that is passed from generation to generation. Lines 100-103 have been expanded to reflect this. In this research, this oral knowledge came in the form of pūrakau/stories, waiata/songs and ingoa wahi/names (see section 1.1 and section 3.1 for specific details of this knowledge). Furthermore, the holder of Mātauranga Māori does not act as a gatekeeper, preventing access to this knowledge - but according to cultural protocols it was vital to engage directly with MP to access this knowledge as explained in comment 1 above.
The authors mention awareness of power dynamics between Māori and non-Māori team-members, but I would like to understand more about how the team negotiated the Māori side, who chose which texts and why?
Our mention of power dynamics on lines 241-251 refers to the power imbalance between Western science disciplines and Mātauranga Māori, not members of the research team. The guiding principle of this research was to counter this imbalance, hence our use of the He Awa Whiria/Braided Rivers framework to enable each knowledge stream to exist independently and also make an equal contribution to the research. As a research team, we built genuine and nurturing relationships with each other through the course of this research - this was particular the case for the lead author, JG, who lead relationship building with mana whenua/the local Indigenous community (see section 3.1) with a large degree of humility (mentioned on line 243). As explained in comments 1 and 2 above, MP directed us in our engagement with relevant mātauranga Māori/knowledge in the form of pūrakau/stories, waiata/songs and ingoa wahi/names.
Additionally, is there a gender dimension in any texts?
This is an interesting consideration but in this research we were not looking for or at gendered dimensions of mātauranga Māori, and we did not encounter any findings of relevance in the course of this research.
The conclusions of this article focus more on the process of doing the TDR research than on the outcomes as these relate to why this research matters for soil and food security. A stronger article would come back to the open question of addressing the soil and food security challenges, and why this weaving of knowledges is better to address these challenges than the separate knowledges.
The final paragraph of the paper reflects this, and has been further expanded to reflect the ‘why’ question.
I would also like the authors to consider how the specific findings of their case study matter beyond this particular location. Inherent in any work trying to weave together TEK and western science is the tension of exceptionalism vs. generalizability, and I would like to see this addressed in the conclusions.
The discussion (L616) has been modified to reflect this, as have the conclusions.
National Science Foundation (NSF) Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education (AC-ERE). 2022. Engaged Research for Environmental Grand Challenges: Accelerating Discovery and Innovation for Societal Impacts. National Science Foundation: Alexandria, VA.
Thank you for this references. This is a valuable read that aligns with our motivations and has been reflected in the introduction.
This comprehensive and constructive review has provided the opportunity to elevate our manuscript, thank you for your time and comments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3546-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Julie Gillespie, 16 Feb 2025
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3546', Joe Watkins, 08 Feb 2025
I am not a soil scientist and, therefore, was occasionally lost as the discussion turned from the methods section of the soils research into the specifics of the materials encountered. Therefore, I will not address any of those points raised by the paper’s authors. Rather I will focus on the broader aspect of this article – its work toward better integrating traditional and Western knowledge systems within soil science.
Transdisciplinary Research – TDR – as discussed within the text integrates well the concepts of Indigenous Knowledge (IK)/Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK)/Traditional Knowledge (TK) (or any variation of the theme) held or shared by Indigenous cultures or communities and described by various researchers in various fields. The tendency within Western science to continually subdivide results in ever-specific bands of knowledge. This attempt at fine-grained resolution definitely provides us the details, but the microfocus sometimes becomes confusing when the general population attempts to understand the results of the research.
The article “weaves together Indigenous knowledge and soil science in a place-based case study of food production in Aotearoa New Zealand” in a way that tries to integrate TDR and Maori Science. I’m sure many who are not familiar with alternative ways of knowing struggle to accept the validity of such alternative ways, even when they are obviously valid. The authors’ use of Maori language is commendable, even though it sometimes hinders ease of comprehension of particular issues. Prioritizing Maori language for Maori ideas and terminology serves to de-emphasize the “otherness” of the terminology and to equalize those terms with Western scientific ones. This is important if indeed we desire to draw attention to the utility of Maori knowledge to contemporary society.
Throughout the article, the authors provide guidance on ways that other researchers can better integrate, if they so choose, Maori science into their research, and ways to go about inviting and integrating non-scientific (Maori, in this situation, but other Indigenous people generally) people into the research question and research methodology. The section on methods can be seen as a good general approach to strengthening and further developing positive relationships between Western and non-Western sciences and the people who practice them. The discussion of the braided river concept developed offers a strong visionary example to better understand the inter-relationships of multiple scientific approaches to knowledge production or knowledge gathering.
I could go on describing the positive benefits the authors accrued through their joint uses of Maori and Western sciences, as well as the personal benefits they derived from their relationships with Maori science. They recognize there are some who question the validity of scientific research which sometimes veers outside of the seemingly “objective” lens of Western science. They recognize the necessity for engagement with Indigenous communities when scientific results have impact on those communities. And they recognize the utility Western science can have when mixed with Indigenous sciences for the benefit of global populations.
I will reread this article numerous times and will use portions of it in the future for my anthropological and Indigenous archaeological research. It is a good basic description of how to do more informed research by, for, and with Indigenous communities. Each discipline of science will have to learn how better to customize this type of research for their science, but those attempts will strengthen the explanatory capabilities of the somewhat staid Western sciences that many of us have practiced during our careers.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3546-RC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Julie Gillespie, 16 Feb 2025
Thank you for your support of our manuscript, it is pleasing to see the key themes we aimed to articulate reflected in your response.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3546-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Julie Gillespie, 16 Feb 2025
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3546', Jonathan Sandor, 02 Jan 2025
Note: comments also uploaded as a pdf - better to use the pdf.
Review of Gillespie et al. Research at the interface between Indigenous knowledge and soil science; weaving knowledges to understand horticultural land use in Aotearoa New Zealand (https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3546 Preprint).
(Note “L” refers to line number in the manuscript)
This manuscript (ms.) presents a transdisciplinary study of a traditional agricultural system in New Zealand, combining Māori indigenous knowledge with soil science. The ms. is well-written and organized, and contains important, interesting findings and views that are well within the scope of SOIL, and will help advance the interface between indigenous knowledge (IK) and ethnopedology. The present study can be published after some comments and questions relating to IK and traditional agriculture, and technical soils components, are addressed.
However, reflecting the authors’ recognition of the need for more empirical studies to better quantitatively and scientifically support their transdisciplinary approach (TDR), I strongly encourage the authors to consider a more substantial scientific soil study going forward in their future continuation of this research. This would involve more robust sampling and data collection and analyses of traditional fields and soils, and comparison of the agricultural soils with reference (control) natural soils, and perhaps comparisons of a range of Māori field systems. A more quantitative (increased sample size and use of controls) would help to more rigorously test initial findings and inferences that the authors present in their current stage of research. This would not only help support Māori agriculture and food sovereignty development, but would also help advance soil health and food security internationally.
Main Comments and Questions
These comments mainly fall into two areas: 1) the authors’ TDR approach regarding Māori traditional knowledge and goals regarding agriculture, and 2) technical aspects relating to the data collection, analysis, and interpretation of the agricultural fields, soils, phytoliths, charcoal/ash, and stable C and N isotopes.
1. The authors’ TDR and collaborative research framework demonstrates how far ethnopedology studies have advanced from the early days: from recognizing the importance of indigenous knowledge in its own right, to now much more active engagement with indigenous communities in planning and conducting the research to incorporate those communities’ desired outcomes. In this case, those outcomes involve traditional agriculture in relation to food sovereignty and food security. Another component the authors could address going forward is how to encourage community members, especially younger people, to obtain more education and training, and scientific expertise, so that they can more actively conduct, co-lead, and take the lead in the research, while also incorporating and conserving their heritage of traditional agricultural knowledge, language, and culture. Research areas for community members could be soil science, plant and crop sciences (e.g., phytolith and stable isotope analyses such as done in this study, and genetics), agricultural management, among others.
In terms of writing, the use of TDR language and the conceptual framework regarding the importance of indigenous knowledge and active participation and collaboration with indigenous communities is appropriate and understandable. The He Awa Whiria/two streams framework is useful, and Figure 11 is very good. However, the TDR wording can become excessive for scientists or the public unfamiliar with this approach, so please also keep in mind the need to communicate clearly and concisely with simpler and non-repetitive language, depending on the audience. Also, generalizing about Western science as narrow (e.g., L593-4, 626) to promote TDR, can come across as unnecessary stereotyping.
2. The multiple kinds of data (soils, phytoliths, stable C and N isotopes, charcoal and ash) explored in this study are excellent, but an expanded sample design is essential as the studies hopefully go forward. The current data and findings are likely sufficient for this paper, but I encourage the authors to point to the future of this study, especially the need for an expanded and more robust sampling design, data collection, and subsequent analyses to test their current finding and inferences. Currently, it appears that only one specific field of earthen raised mound fields was sampled, whereas more sampling would allow for statistically valid comparisons to test current data hypotheses and inferences. With one field studied so far with two soil pits, more work is needed to test if current findings are representative. I realize that perhaps only one field was identified in the immediate study area, but maybe more could be found, or the soil study expanded to other areas where traditional fields have been identified, as indicated in L346-7 etc.
This research would also greatly benefit from incorporation of reference or control soil sampling; i.e., uncultivated/natural soils with similar comparable geomorphic and pedogenic settings, if these are available. This would help to test the anthropogenic soil change and phytolith and isotope signatures inferred by the authors. The lack of reference soils outside of the field systems for comparison raises questions about the validity of some of the current interpretations, and renders them more speculative. Also, scientific-based comparisons among raised mound fields of different age or settings, or different kinds of Māori traditional field systems would add information that would benefit the scientific scope and interpretations overall. A more quantitative use of control natural soils, and expanded sample design for fields and their soils, would support the need for more empirical studies rightly called for by the authors.
While the current findings are interesting and compelling, they also should be considered more preliminary in my view because of the minimal sampling and lack of control natural areas for comparison. The phytolith data about sweet potato (kūmara) is convincing, but it seems like some of the conclusions are less certain than currently conveyed, especially those regarding the soils and their management (e.g., L529-30, 538-9, 553-4, 658-9). I think some of the conclusions should be less bold and more toned down, and future work needed to test initial findings based on few samples should be acknowledged more.
Other specific comments and questions
The incorporation of Māori terms is important, and most of these terms are reasonably defined when first stated. However, I suggest that the authors add a table of Māori terms (at least the key ones used more than once) to refer to easily – it may be challenging for many readers to remember the word meanings when going through the whole paper, so being able to access the terms in one place (i.e., table or mini-glossary) would be helpful.
State more explicitly in the Methodology section (e.g., first paragraph of Section 3.2 starting with L275, and maybe around L306 and beginning of Findings L314) that you were sampling an inferred traditional earthen raised mound field system. A little more than just stating features as “mounds” or “earth rows” would be clearer to readers.
Questions about Tables 1 and 2, and Figure 5, and need to give more information: Soil morphology and horizon designations (some symbols and terms in the New Zealand system may not be familiar to all readers): color (all moist colors? What are the 2nd colors given in parentheses?); texture (explain the abbreviations, especially “Z”); structure (is polyhedral same as granular or ?); Size (state in column label or caption that this is coarse fragment size; does % abundance mean volume %?); horizon designations in Tables and Fig. 5: does A/B mean same as AB or discrete A and B parts within the horizon?); meaning of (f) and (g) in parentheses for Bw? In Tables, add a column with the specific depth intervals for each horizon. For Figure 5, state the scale units (e.g., numbers are 10 cm intervals). Also, I am not seeing the arrows for “beach gravel additions” stated in the Figure 5 caption. You indicate an “Ap2” in the Figure 5b caption, but that’s not shown in the photo – did you mean “2Ap”?
Regarding the landslide: is this a natural landslide or is there possible anthropogenic influence from the agriculture – e.g., could the field construction and use have induced the landslide? Is this landslide an isolated case, or are these landslides common. Need more context here, and this also shows the need to sample more fields.
Good multiple analyses in soil chemistry (especially Mn in Figure 9) and C and N isotopes in relation to possible soil amendment inputs for nutrient management such as penguin guano and seaweed. Again, all of these analyses (soil chemistry, stable isotopes, charcoal/ash, gravels) and interpretations regarding soil modification would benefit from comparison with some kind of baseline data from control (nonagricultural soils that match the agricultural soils in natural pedogenesis and ecological and geomorphic setting), if they are available. With Mn for example, you indicate increases in inferred modified horizons but just for Pit 2 (what about Pit 1?). Incorporating more fields for soils analyses, and comparison with surface horizons etc. in natural soils, could help better characterize Mn distribution, variability, and test whether Mn is diagnostic of amendment inputs. The greywacke gravel input inference in relation to IK seems valid, but greater sample size and comparison with similar natural horizons in control soils could allow you to be more definitive and certain that this gravel could only be from deliberate input for management (e.g., are you certain that the geologic occurrence and distribution of greywacke isn’t more complex?). Monitoring natural control soils along with the agricultural soils could also allow you to test and quantify drainage and soil warming benefits of gravel inputs.
L404 – explain a bit more about manure. Are you saying that use of manure is totally prohibited by Māori?
L621: define FLN in this ms. (Food-Landscape Network).
Why isn’t “ethnopedology” mentioned in the text (only indirectly in one reference). Topics covered in this ms. seem closely related to the subdiscipline of ethnopedology, and seems like it should be mentioned if not highlighted.
References: good citation of literature on traditional Māori agriculture. It might also be useful to also consider citing some literature on traditional agricultural systems and soils research elsewhere in Polynesia and Oceania that may be relevant to your study and findings. Examples:
Lincoln, N. et al. (2014). Indicators of soil fertility and opportunities for precontact agriculture in Kona, Hawai'i. Ecosphere, 5(4), art42. doi:10.1890/es13-00328.1
Ladefoged, T. N. et al. (2018). Soil nutrients and pre-European contact agriculture in the leeward Kohala field system, Island of Hawai'i. Archaeology in Oceania, 53(1), 28-40. doi:10.1002/arco.5138
Sherwood, S. C. et al. (2019). New excavations in Easter Island's statue quarry: Soil fertility, site formation and chronology. Journal of Archaeological Science, 111, 104994. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2019.104994
Autufuga, D. et al. (2023). Distribution of soil nutrients and ancient agriculture on young volcanic soils of Ta‘ū, American Samoa. Soil Systems, 7(2), 52. doi:10.3390/soilsystems7020052
Also consider other stable isotope research on possible guano use in ancient agriculture:
Santana-Sagredo, F. et al. (2021). White Gold in the Atacama Desert: Isotopic evidence for early seabird guano use in South America. Nature Plants, 7, 152-158. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-020-00835-4
Szpak, P. et al. (2012). Stable Isotope Biogeochemistry of Seabird Guano Fertilization: Results from Growth Chamber Studies with Maize (Zea Mays). PLOS ONE, 7(3). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0033741
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Julie Gillespie, 16 Feb 2025
Thank you for your comprehensive and constructive review of our manuscript.
We have taken on board your comments and have modified the manuscript to address and incorporate them.
The first area of discussion is concerned with the TDR approach regarding Māori
traditional knowledge and goals regarding agriculture.To address the key concerns in this area,
Where possible excess language (E.g. Mode 1 knowledge production replaced with Western scientific knowledge production in line XX) has been omitted. In the section discussing the themes present in the transdisciplinary research literature (L56+), the TDR acronym has been removed from the bullet points to reduce repetition.
In regard to the generalisation of Western Science as narrow, we have made modifications throughout to signify that that is often, but not always, the case.
The second discussion focus was on the technical aspects of the paper. Specific comments are addressed below;
Expansion of sampling for the future of this study: The potential for this is now reflected at various points in the manuscript. There is potential for this study to be expanded, both in terms of the detail that the slope reported and exploring other potential areas within the bay, and other bays in the area. This study has provided a foundation of the considerations for the different knowledges to work together, along with an example of this in practice. As a result, adding more technical detail and study sites into this paper would make it unmanageable for the reader, but looking further would be beneficial in future studies. In regard to the note about the consideration of these results being identified as preliminary, we have modified the manuscript to reflect this.
A table of Māori terms has been added at the end of the manuscript to assist with interpretation. Other suggestions (e.g., earthen raised mound system) have been addressed at the relevant points in the article. Further information is provided in relation to table 1,2 and figure 5 to clarify the New Zealand terms used. More context is provided regarding the landside. These landslides are common, particularly after storm events, where the poorly structured, unstable Pallic Soils slip. This occurs in both areas with dense vegetation coverage, as well as open areas that have been cleared of their original forest cover.
Further details are in the file attached.
Thank you for your comments and the opportunity to improve our manuscript
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Julie Gillespie, 16 Feb 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3546', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Jan 2025
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this article. As someone working on ethnopedology and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) decades ago, it is wonderful to see an article like this, truly weaving the knowledges together, and research being done used co-production and engagement. Doing this type of transdisciplinary research well is complex and takes considerable time, building trust between the holders of the different knowledges. The idea that Indigenous and western science can iterate and inform each other and when woven together produce more comprehensive knowledge is a message that needs to be shared widely, and I commend the authors for this work, a demonstration of “two-eyed seeing.” I provide a few comments to help this manuscript become stronger and more accessible to others.
Using relevant language is critically important, and the authors use both Māori and English terminology. However, this has made the manuscript very difficult to follow, in fact, I find sections of it impenetrable and inaccessible. Readers without familiarity with Māori, and if they are unfamiliar (or hesitant about) understanding why native terminology must be used when research is engaged and co-produced with traditional communities, may not have the patience to wade through the dense text. I worry that this would turn readers off to the approach of creating knowledge together. To help alleviate this challenge I highly recommend the inclusion of a glossary of key and repeated Māori terms so that these can quickly be referenced without having to find the first mention of a term in the manuscript.
One of the challenges of doing engaged research is that communities are not homogenous and have internal power dynamics. Who are the individuals guiding the explication of Māori texts, and who is not involved? Who holds the texts and access to them? The authors mention awareness of power dynamics between Māori and non-Māori team-members, but I would like to understand more about how the team negotiated the Māori side, who chose which texts and why? Additionally, is there a gender dimension in any texts?
The conclusions of this article focus more on the process of doing the TDR research than on the outcomes as these relate to why this research matters for soil and food security. A stronger article would come back to the open question of addressing the soil and food security challenges, and why this weaving of knowledges is better to address these challenges than the separate knowledges.
I would also like the authors to consider how the specific findings of their case study matter beyond this particular location. Inherent in any work trying to weave together TEK and western science is the tension of exceptionalism vs. generalizability, and I would like to see this addressed in the conclusions.
Given the importance of weaving knowledges together to address environmental challenges such as exemplified in this article, I suggest engaging with this reference:
National Science Foundation (NSF) Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education (AC-ERE). 2022. Engaged Research for Environmental Grand Challenges: Accelerating Discovery and Innovation for Societal Impacts. National Science Foundation: Alexandria, VA.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3546-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Julie Gillespie, 16 Feb 2025
Thank you for your comprehensive review and comments that have enabled us to improve the manuscript. The comments are broken into sections and responded to below:
Who are the individuals guiding the explication of Māori texts, and who is not involved?
Co-author of this paper MP has been the key guide in this area and is the mātauranga Māori/knowledge holder for the study site and community. We engaged with relevant local knowledge needed to progress the research through MP, as we explain in the ‘Engagement with Mana Whenua’ section (section 3.1) in the methods. In this section we also describe how the relationship with the broader community at Pōhatu was also established through planting activities (see lines 253-257). While we acknowledge that it could be interpreted that MP acted as a spokesperson for his hapū/sub-tribe, this approach is in line with tikanga Māori/ Māori customs.
Who holds the texts and access to them?
As noted above, with adjusted explanation in section 3.1, co-author of this paper, MP, is the holder of this mātauranga Māori for the hapū/sub-tribe, mentioned in line 258. Importantly, this knowledge is not in 'text' format - it is oral knowledge that is passed from generation to generation. Lines 100-103 have been expanded to reflect this. In this research, this oral knowledge came in the form of pūrakau/stories, waiata/songs and ingoa wahi/names (see section 1.1 and section 3.1 for specific details of this knowledge). Furthermore, the holder of Mātauranga Māori does not act as a gatekeeper, preventing access to this knowledge - but according to cultural protocols it was vital to engage directly with MP to access this knowledge as explained in comment 1 above.
The authors mention awareness of power dynamics between Māori and non-Māori team-members, but I would like to understand more about how the team negotiated the Māori side, who chose which texts and why?
Our mention of power dynamics on lines 241-251 refers to the power imbalance between Western science disciplines and Mātauranga Māori, not members of the research team. The guiding principle of this research was to counter this imbalance, hence our use of the He Awa Whiria/Braided Rivers framework to enable each knowledge stream to exist independently and also make an equal contribution to the research. As a research team, we built genuine and nurturing relationships with each other through the course of this research - this was particular the case for the lead author, JG, who lead relationship building with mana whenua/the local Indigenous community (see section 3.1) with a large degree of humility (mentioned on line 243). As explained in comments 1 and 2 above, MP directed us in our engagement with relevant mātauranga Māori/knowledge in the form of pūrakau/stories, waiata/songs and ingoa wahi/names.
Additionally, is there a gender dimension in any texts?
This is an interesting consideration but in this research we were not looking for or at gendered dimensions of mātauranga Māori, and we did not encounter any findings of relevance in the course of this research.
The conclusions of this article focus more on the process of doing the TDR research than on the outcomes as these relate to why this research matters for soil and food security. A stronger article would come back to the open question of addressing the soil and food security challenges, and why this weaving of knowledges is better to address these challenges than the separate knowledges.
The final paragraph of the paper reflects this, and has been further expanded to reflect the ‘why’ question.
I would also like the authors to consider how the specific findings of their case study matter beyond this particular location. Inherent in any work trying to weave together TEK and western science is the tension of exceptionalism vs. generalizability, and I would like to see this addressed in the conclusions.
The discussion (L616) has been modified to reflect this, as have the conclusions.
National Science Foundation (NSF) Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education (AC-ERE). 2022. Engaged Research for Environmental Grand Challenges: Accelerating Discovery and Innovation for Societal Impacts. National Science Foundation: Alexandria, VA.
Thank you for this references. This is a valuable read that aligns with our motivations and has been reflected in the introduction.
This comprehensive and constructive review has provided the opportunity to elevate our manuscript, thank you for your time and comments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3546-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Julie Gillespie, 16 Feb 2025
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3546', Joe Watkins, 08 Feb 2025
I am not a soil scientist and, therefore, was occasionally lost as the discussion turned from the methods section of the soils research into the specifics of the materials encountered. Therefore, I will not address any of those points raised by the paper’s authors. Rather I will focus on the broader aspect of this article – its work toward better integrating traditional and Western knowledge systems within soil science.
Transdisciplinary Research – TDR – as discussed within the text integrates well the concepts of Indigenous Knowledge (IK)/Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK)/Traditional Knowledge (TK) (or any variation of the theme) held or shared by Indigenous cultures or communities and described by various researchers in various fields. The tendency within Western science to continually subdivide results in ever-specific bands of knowledge. This attempt at fine-grained resolution definitely provides us the details, but the microfocus sometimes becomes confusing when the general population attempts to understand the results of the research.
The article “weaves together Indigenous knowledge and soil science in a place-based case study of food production in Aotearoa New Zealand” in a way that tries to integrate TDR and Maori Science. I’m sure many who are not familiar with alternative ways of knowing struggle to accept the validity of such alternative ways, even when they are obviously valid. The authors’ use of Maori language is commendable, even though it sometimes hinders ease of comprehension of particular issues. Prioritizing Maori language for Maori ideas and terminology serves to de-emphasize the “otherness” of the terminology and to equalize those terms with Western scientific ones. This is important if indeed we desire to draw attention to the utility of Maori knowledge to contemporary society.
Throughout the article, the authors provide guidance on ways that other researchers can better integrate, if they so choose, Maori science into their research, and ways to go about inviting and integrating non-scientific (Maori, in this situation, but other Indigenous people generally) people into the research question and research methodology. The section on methods can be seen as a good general approach to strengthening and further developing positive relationships between Western and non-Western sciences and the people who practice them. The discussion of the braided river concept developed offers a strong visionary example to better understand the inter-relationships of multiple scientific approaches to knowledge production or knowledge gathering.
I could go on describing the positive benefits the authors accrued through their joint uses of Maori and Western sciences, as well as the personal benefits they derived from their relationships with Maori science. They recognize there are some who question the validity of scientific research which sometimes veers outside of the seemingly “objective” lens of Western science. They recognize the necessity for engagement with Indigenous communities when scientific results have impact on those communities. And they recognize the utility Western science can have when mixed with Indigenous sciences for the benefit of global populations.
I will reread this article numerous times and will use portions of it in the future for my anthropological and Indigenous archaeological research. It is a good basic description of how to do more informed research by, for, and with Indigenous communities. Each discipline of science will have to learn how better to customize this type of research for their science, but those attempts will strengthen the explanatory capabilities of the somewhat staid Western sciences that many of us have practiced during our careers.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3546-RC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Julie Gillespie, 16 Feb 2025
Thank you for your support of our manuscript, it is pleasing to see the key themes we aimed to articulate reflected in your response.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3546-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Julie Gillespie, 16 Feb 2025
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 467 | 140 | 28 | 635 | 17 | 46 |
- HTML: 467
- PDF: 140
- XML: 28
- Total: 635
- BibTeX: 17
- EndNote: 46
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Julie Gillespie
Matiu Payne
Dione Payne
Sarah Edwards
Dyanna Jolly
Carol Smith
Jo-Anne Cavanagh
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2062 KB) - Metadata XML