Construction of the Core Collection of Catalpa fargesii f. duclouxii (Huangxinzimu) Based on Molecular Markers and Phenotypic Traits
, Junhui Wang 1 and Wenjun Ma 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is interesting
Please correct in line 17 cone collection with core collection
It might be useful to add the difference between conservation unit and core collection.
For correct definitions see the link
EUFORGEN European forest genetic resources program http://www.euforgen.org
The manuscript carries out phenotypic and genotypic identification in order to build a core collection of Catalpa fargesii f. duclouxii.
The topic is of great interest for the conservation of genetic resources. The methods of analysis and molecular markers used are adequate.
The paper is clearly written and the materials and methods are clear.
It could be useful and this would represent an added value for the article, if the authors discussed the usefulness of building a core collection for this species, rather than constituting evolutionary units of conservation in situ.
The aspect useful for the gene conservation of the species is never presented.
Author Response
Point 1: Please correct in line 17 cone collection with core collection.
Response 1: Thanks for your comments. We had made correction according to the comments. “cone” had been changed into “core”.
Point 2: It might be useful to add the difference between conservation unit and core collection. For correct definitions see the link
EUFORGEN European forest genetic resources program http://www.euforgen.org
Response 2: Thanks for your comments. Conservation unit can effectively protect gene resources and prevent gene loss, while core collection can also prevent gene loss to a large extent, but cannot completely represent the gene resources to be protected.
Point 3: The aspect useful for the gene conservation of the species is never presented.
Response 3: Thanks for your comments. We had made correction according to the comments. We have added the aspect useful for the gene conservation of species.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
- Some ideas or words are incomplete. See lines 85, 197, 205, 214.
- Lines 226-228 are Materials and Methods.
- Should Include data to show how the genetic resources of catalpa have decreased sharply.
- In the experimental design clarify if all the clones were included in each block. If so, the block was too long. Additionally, should write the number of replications.
- The subtitles in Discussion should be your findings.
- The last paragraph of Discussión should be the conclusions.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Point 1: Some ideas or words are incomplete. See lines 85, 197, 205, 214.
Response 1: Thanks for your comments. We had made correction according to the comments.
Point 2: Lines 226-228 are Materials and Methods.
Response 2: Thanks for your comments. We had made correction according to the comments. Lines 226-228 had been deleted.
Point 3: Should Include data to show how the genetic resources of catalpa have decreased sharply.
Response 3: Thanks for your comments. We had made correction according to the comments. We have added some data to prove it.
Point 4: In the experimental design clarify if all the clones were included in each block. If so, the block was too long. Additionally, should write the number of replications.
Response 4: Thanks for your comments. The materials were planted using a randomized complete block design with 4 blocks and 2 trees per block. The land for plant planting is a flat land, and there is no phenomenon of long block. Please see the attached picture.
Point 5: The subtitles in Discussion should be your findings.
Response 5: Thanks for your comments. We had made correction according to the comments. The subtitles had been changed.
Point 6: The last paragraph of Discussión should be the conclusions.
Response 6: Thanks for your comments. We had made correction according to the comments. We had added the conclusions.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
- Major Concern: Limited information in the method's section will prevent the reproducibility of the study. Please provide detailed information on the whole data analysis process, why specific clustering parameters were selected, provide their equations, how SNP genotyping was performed and talk about the entire SNP filtering pipeline.
- Conclusion is missing
- Spelling corrections need to be done throughout the manuscript; for example, in line 17, the core is written as cone.
- Please abbreviate the terms when used for the first time in the text.
- Lines 60-65: Need to be reframed, as they are contradictory to each other
- Result section: Severe English editing is needed for this section, which reduces the significance of the associated results
- Please provide some figures in the results section demonstrating the different clusters and genetic distances evaluated in this study.
- The complete document needs to be proofread for language editing.
Author Response
Point 1: Limited information in the method's section will prevent the reproducibility of the study. Please provide detailed information on the whole data analysis process, why specific clustering parameters were selected, provide their equations, how SNP genotyping was performed and talk about the entire SNP filtering pipeline.
Response 1: Thanks for your comments. We had added detailed information on the whole data analysis process..
Point 2: Conclusion is missing.
Response 2: Thanks for your comments. We had added conclusion.
Point 3: Spelling corrections need to be done throughout the manuscript; for example, in line 17, the core is written as cone.
Response 3: Thanks for your comments. We had made correction according to the comments.
Point 4: Please abbreviate the terms when used for the first time in the text.
Response 4: Thanks for your comments. We had made correction according to the comments.
Point 5: Lines 60-65: Need to be reframed, as they are contradictory to each other.
Response 5: Thanks for your comments. We had made correction according to the comments. Lines 60-65 had been deleted.
Point 6: Result section: Severe English editing is needed for this section, which reduces the significance of the associated results
Response 6: Thanks for your comments. We had made correction according to the comments.
Point 7: Please provide some figures in the results section demonstrating the different clusters and genetic distances evaluated in this study.
Response 7: Thanks for your comments. We had made correction according to the comments. Figure had been added.
Point 8: The complete document needs to be proofread for language editing.
Response 8: Thanks for your comments. We had made correction according to the comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Manuscript should be accepted for the publication.
