Incompatibility Phylogenetic Signals between Double-Digest Restriction Site-Associated DNA Sequencing and Plastid Genomes in Chinese Curcuma (Zingiberaceae)—A Recent Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau Diversification Genera
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper touches on the problem of incompatibility phylogenetic signals between ddRAD and genome plastid in Chinese Curcuma (Zingiberaceae). The diversification of genera is an important process in the plant evolution of species.
The methods were described clear, but the language is not typical to the presentation of genetic molecular data. E.g. it could be more clear to use the words more frequently used in genetics and molecular biology like incompatibility instead of incongruence. Similarly, the word recalcitrant is used rather for the seeds in type but not in relation to the type of question as far as we use content-related English scientific language. As well as elucidate species diversity and evolutionary bursts of speciation, where bud burst is the word used in terms of phenological flushing of buds. so on the use of the term explain species diversity could be more adequate.
The quality of figures should be improved to be able to follow the results, especially Fig. 1. The titles descriptions of figures and tables should be improved to make them more informative.
The English language style is very poor and not typical of scientific papers. It requires to be changed and verified by a native speaker. Sometimes it is difficult to catch the sense of the sentence e.g. the recalcitrant questions in phylogenetic studies on fungi, animals, and plants. The paper should be re-written to make it more informative to scientists of other countries.
Nonetheless, the methological pattern of the presented studies is accurated, and the discussion of the baisis of the obtained results is correct. But, the discussion of the results it is not conluded and summarised.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your valuable suggestion. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’ s comments has replied.
Q1: The paper touches on the problem of incompatibility phylogenetic signals between ddRAD and genome plastid in Chinese Curcuma (Zingiberaceae). The diversification of genera is an important process in the plant evolution of species.
A1: Thank you so much for your careful reading.
Q2: The methods were described clear, but the language is not typical to the presentation of genetic molecular data. E.g. it could be more clear to use the words more frequently used in genetics and molecular biology like incompatibility instead of incongruence. Similarly, the word recalcitrant is used rather for the seeds in type but not in relation to the type of question as far as we use content-related English scientific language. As well as elucidate species diversity and evolutionary bursts of speciation, where bud burst is the word used in terms of phenological flushing of buds. so on the use of the term explain species diversity could be more adequate.
A2: Thank you for your suggestion. This manuscript has been revised by a native English speaker. We have corrected them (incompatibility instead of incongruence , intractable instead of recalcitrant in lines 82 and correct the incorrect sentences in lines 97-99 , etc.) Please check this revised version of manuscript. Thanks!
Q3: - The quality of figures should be improved to be able to follow the results, especially Fig. 1. The titles descriptions of figures and tables should be improved to make them more informative.
A3: Thank you for your suggestion. We have corrected them. Please check it.
Q4: The English language style is very poor and not typical of scientific papers. It requires to be changed and verified by a native speaker. Sometimes it is difficult to catch the sense of the sentence e.g. the recalcitrant questions in phylogenetic studies on fungi, animals, and plants. The paper should be re-written to make it more informative to scientists of other countries.
A4: Thank you so much for your suggestion. This manuscript has been revised by a native English speaker. We have rewrite it lines 80-83. Please check this revised version of manuscript. Thanks!
Q5: Nonetheless, the methological pattern of the presented studies is accurated, and the discussion of the baisis of the obtained results is correct. But, the discussion of the results it is not conluded and summarised.
A5:Thank you so much for your reading and help. We have rewrite the discussion and added Conclusions to the corresponding sections of this manuscript. Please check this revised version of manuscript. Thanks!
Reviewer 2 Report
- Reading the Abstract and Introduction, it is not obvious that the manuscript on Curcuma spp. is suitable for publication in Forests. You should argue and justify the expediency of publishing your manuscript in this journal.
- All abbreviations must be spelled out at the first mention in the text. Check the entire text carefully.
- Line 81-85. You should briefly outline how the methods mentioned work.
- In the Introduction part, you should write more detail information about structure of chloroplast genome.
- You should increase the size of letters and numbers in all Figures with phylogenetic trees.
- 5. Figure 1. Delete the second "a". Move the trees to the left so that the second tree is fully visible.
- In my opinion, the Discussion section is written very poorly. It should be completely rewritten, avoiding abstract reasoning, speculation. To do this, it is necessary to draw conclusions from the presented results (It would be very good if the conclusions were made in a separate chapter). The text made suggestions about the hybrid and polyploid nature of the origin of some species. You need to specify which species you had in mind.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your valuable suggestion. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’ s comments has replied.
Q1: Reading the Abstract and Introduction, it is not obvious that the manuscript on Curcuma spp. is suitable for publication in Forests. You should argue and justify the expediency of publishing your manuscript in this journal.
A1: Thanks so much for your comments about our statement and useful suggestions. Curcuma is a large genera in the family Zingiberaceae, which contains plants with important medicinal, edible, and ornamental values. It is play an important role in the research of genetic diversity for forest and landscape restoration. Curcuma species is an organic part of forests, and mostly grow in disturbed habitats, and the environmental conditions of their habitats vary from tropical rainforest (wet–hot) to Qinghai–Tibet Plateau (cold–drought). It is an crucial biological species resource to research the forest ecosystem and global change study.
Q2: All abbreviations must be spelled out at the first mention in the text. Check the entire text carefully.
A2: Thank you so much for your careful reading. We have check them according to your advice. Please check the revised version of manuscript.
Q3: Line 81-85. You should briefly outline how the methods mentioned work.
A3: Thank you so much for your reading and help. We have added it in line 83-85.
Q4: In the Introduction part, you should write more detail information about structure of chloroplast genome.:
A4: Thank you so much for your careful reading. We have added it in line 90-93.
Q5: You should increase the size of letters and numbers in all Figures with phylogenetic trees.
A5: Thank you for your suggestion. We have corrected them. Please check the revised version of manuscript.
Q6: Figure 1. Delete the second "a". Move the trees to the left so that the second tree is fully visible:
A6:Thank you for your suggestion. We have corrected it. Please check it.
Q7:In my opinion, the Discussion section is written very poorly. It should be completely rewritten, avoiding abstract reasoning, speculation. To do this, it is necessary to draw conclusions from the presented results (It would be very good if the conclusions were made in a separate chapter). The text made suggestions about the hybrid and polyploid nature of the origin of some species. You need to specify which species you had in mind.
A7:Sorry for the trouble. We have rewrite the discussion and added Conclusions to the corresponding sections of this manuscript. Please check it. Thanks.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I appreciate the great effort of the Authors to improve the paper, both from merit and language style.
Currently, it is a professional scientific paper, which can be treated as the source of knowledge for future citations for other researches working with Curcuma sp.
I do not have any other comments. The paper supplies many interesting new data regarding the genetic variation and differentiation of Curcuma sp.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Thanks for your kindly responses.
Best wishes
