The article offers valuable insights into biocultural systems using network and RLQ analysis. However, a critical issue lies in the interpretation of the RLQ results regarding the relationships between biocultural features and nature’s contributions to people (NCP). The paper assumes a direct and unidirectional influence of biocultural features on NCP without thoroughly addressing potential bidirectional or feedback relationships, such as how changes in NCP might, in turn, alter biocultural practices. Moreover, while the study highlights the strength of correlations between certain biocultural features and NCP (e.g., species richness and cultural identity), it does not account for the possibility of spurious correlations arising from shared underlying drivers (e.g., climatic or economic factors). These unaddressed complexities could lead to an oversimplification of the relationships reported. Could the authors clarify whether sensitivity tests or additional modeling approaches were used to evaluate the robustness of these findings against alternative explanations, such as confounding factors or feedback loops?
