Genetic Evaluation of a Wildtype Population of Cornus mas Accessions in Austria
, Simon Fink 1, Veronika Hanzer 1, Johann Sölkner 2 and Margit Laimer 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study performed genotyping for 447 accessions of Cornus mas from four regions in Lower Austria. The results showed that all accessions were distinguished by seven microsatellite loci, and suggested that the large extent of genetic variations among the accessions are helpful for the genetic improvement of this species. This study provides pattern of genetic diversity of Cornus mas in Austria, while the discussion is fragmented and need to be revised. Specific comments and suggestion are as follows.
In Table 3, parentheses at the locus names, such as (BG) and (BD) are not explained. What are they? FIS are not found in the table, and this is mentioned in the text “(data not shown , repository)”. What is the “repository” here?
Bar plots with K=3, 4, 9 and 11 in Figure 2. It should be okay if you show that with only K=9, because you only discuss about the results based on the bar plot with K=9. Other plots can be replaced into appendix.
The first, second and third paragraphs in Discussion explain about Cornus mas plants, but they do not have to be in Discussion. They should be included in the Introduction.
Based on Figure 4, the authors mentioned that three spontaneous mutations are related to the color of fruits skin and flesh. I do not fully understand how you can explain like this way.
“The distribution of genotypes among the valleys studied (Figure 3) could also correlate with a different altitudinal distribution of the occurrence…” in the text (page 11). It is not able to see any correlations with altitude for me. It is need to add more explanation in the text and figures (in necessary).
Other than STRUCTURE analysis, PCA and cladistic analysis will al be useful to describe the genetic variability and the genetic relationship. It is recommended that these be used to clarify what the author wishes to emphasize.
Author Response
Thank you for improving Table 3, in fact we only wanted to indicate the loci.
The term “repository” was removed as suggested.
Bar plots for K3, 4 and 11, were removed.
The paragraphs 2 and 3 were moved to the introduction, as suggested, however introduction was shortened.
We clarified the potential of spontaneous mutation.
We agree that “correlate” should be replaced by “reflect”.
We appreciated the suggestion for additional statistical analyses however we feel confidence that our data are robust enough to support our objectives.
We moved the order of Fig. 4 and 5 since they appeared inverted.
The authors are deeply grateful for the reviewer's contribution.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have done a great job improving the manuscript.
I would suggest revising the title according to the results of your study, because the title is very general and does not convey the scientific meaning of the research.
Author Response
Thank you for improving our manuscript by revising it.
We follow your advise and propose to change the title to:
Genetic evaluation of a wildtype population of Cornus mas accessions in Austria
Reviewer 3 Report
The opening statement in the manuscript emphasizes:
Cornus mas grows in the “Cornelian cherry valley” in Lower Austria. The characterization of the biodiversity of this underutilized crop was undertaken to increase its visibility and to develop breeding parameters.
However, throughout the manuscript especially in the discussion section, the history of the cornelian cherry dominates, instead of the evaluation of obtained results in the context of contemporary breeding advancement.
Furthermore, if the genotypes are going to be parents in future crosses, some basic pomological and tree characterization would be beneficial. Overall diversity per se, does not mean much for the breeders, they decide upon numerous characters.
Those data should be amended.
Please use Cornus mas for the first mentioning, but abbreviate further to C. mas
NA
Author Response
The authors are agreeing to move information written in the discussion to the introduction, please see amendment.
We agree with the reviewers that to develop breeding parameters is a comprehensive undertaking.
The authors are aware that the modern plant breeding include the genomics, the phenotyping as well as environmental data. The purpose of our investigation, in this paper, was to evaluate the diversity of a population in Lower Austria. Only when we have an overview of the genetic potential in the area, we can proceed to the next step in the breeding program.
The basic information about fruit quality parameters were published in a previous paper which we cited (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10341-022-00764-w Erwerbs-Obstbau (2022) 64:673–683).
Environmental data collection is in progress but at the moment are not available to be included in the present manuscript.
Cornus mas was abbreviated in the manuscript and the authors decided to leave the full name only in two cases that we consider relevant, in the introduction and in Figure 5 referring to the karyotype.
The authors are deeply grateful for the reviewer's contribution.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The points that I have suggested are improved. One that I have to mention is that even though the text has stated that "all accessions could be distinguished from each other", this is not shown in any figures or tables. It is difficult to tell only from the STRUCTURE bar plot. This is the reason why I suggested you to perform cladistic analysis to show the differences among accessions.
Author Response
We said that "all accessions could be distinguished from each other", because we thought this would be visible also for the reader from the STRUCTURE bar plots in figures 2 and 3. However, we agree that it is difficult to see. Given that we are handling a population of open pollinated wild plants even with a high range of phenotypic differences, these results appear quite convincing to us and in our view do not require additional confirmation at the moment.
Reviewer 3 Report
Historical part still dominates, and references regarding breeding goals are missing.
Author Response
We made an additional effort to reduce the historical part.
It is correct, that references regarding breeding goals are missing, because the breeding history of C. mas in fact has only begun very recently.
