Phenotypic Comparison of Three Populations of Juniperus turbinata Guss. in North-Eastern Morocco

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Sahib et al's manuscript addresses the diversity of three wild Juniperus turbinata populations based on nine measured and eight calculated characteristics of cones, seeds, shoots, and leaves. Although the study is in a way very narrow because only three populations were analyzed, for me as a botanist this is interesting and I would be keen to learn more about this species and its variability. In general, I believe the results of this study will enrich the knowledge and understanding of the diversity of juniper species. In addition, the paper could be of interest to all those dealing with morphometric analysis and those trying to answer the question of how environmental factors impact the plasticity and adaptability of plant species. Therefore, I think it is quite appropriate to address regional questions without including trees from the entire range.

Overall, the manuscript is basically written clearly but the English still needs to be improved by a native English speaker. Certain sentences in the paper are written strangely.

The introduction is clearly and well written. Nevertheless, there is still room for improvement. The first paragraph of the introduction could be extended. Some more information should be provided on the complex Juniperus phoenicea. Furthermore, at the beginning of the second paragraph, a few more significant characteristics of the studied species could be listed, such as, for instance, dioecy, pollination, cone dispersal etc.

Authorities should be listed in the title, summary and the main document – and only when mentioned for the first time. There is no need to list authorities throughout the entire paper. In the penultimate paragraph of the introductory part, the names of the taxa below the species should be checked and specified for each authority. The study objectives should be defined better. In addition, the last paragraph of the introduction should also define the study hypotheses.

Appendix 1 can be put in the form of a table in the supplemental material.

Table 1 is superfluous. All characteristics are also listed in Table 3 which shows the results of descriptive statistical analysis. Table 1 should be deleted and all studied characteristics listed and described in the textual part of the subsection Plant material.

Certain parts of the manuscript use the term population, and certain use the term site. This should be harmonized throughout the manuscript. It is better to use the term population.

I think that the hierarchical analysis of variance is a much better choice to test differences between studied populations. Test the differences between populations and between individuals within the population and calculate the share of variability in the overall variance: interpopulation variability, intrapopulation variability and error.

In addition to arithmetic mean and coefficient of variation, in the results the authors also show standard deviation and minimum and maximum value or range. The subsection on Data analysis does not list all descriptive parameters shown in Table 3.

Table 3 is overloaded with data and quite difficult to read. The results would be better presented in three separate tables: (1) descriptive statistics; (2) analysis of variance; (3) discriminant analysis.

Discriminant analysis should be described better in Materials and methods, as well as in Results. The results of canonical discriminant analysis should be shown on a biplot. In addition, a classification discriminant analysis can also be carried out. The quality of the Figure 2 is quite poor. Furthermore, there is no need to write the names of the populations in two places. Groups in the Figure 2 should not be written over marks for individuals. On the graph, instead of U1 and U2 it should read discriminant function 1 and 2 or canonical variant 1 and 2.

Second subsection of the Results, Differences between populations, should be divided into three paragraphs: the first on descriptive statistics, second on analysis of variance, and third on discriminant analysis.

The results of correlation analysis among the studied morphological characteristics should be shown in table format in the supplemental material.

The discussion is mostly well written, informative and interesting. Still, some parts or even entire paragraphs boil down to a repetition of the results. More references should be included, especially in the part pertaining to the subsection Influence of abiotic factors related to biogeographical pattern. In MDPI journals, such as Forests and Plants, several papers have been published on this topic on different woody species.

Fourth paragraph of the subsection Taxonomic classification and differences between the three populations is mostly a repetition of the results. In addition, the said paragraph is mostly redundant with the following paragraph of the same subsection. Fourth paragraph should be combined with the fifth, i.e. the results of this study should be compared to the results of other studies in one paragraph.

Given that the first subsection of the Discussion is related to the issue of taxonomy, the last few sentences of the fifth paragraph fit better in the next subsection on the adaptability of populations.

In subsection 4.2 the authors state that the wind and birds are pollination factors? Birds pollinate? Or do they take part in the dispersal of cones and thus contribute to the gene flow between populations?

Further comments and minor corrections are provided in the enclosed document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editors, Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to improve our manuscript by the revised version and thank to your useful comments.

We really appreciate Reviewers’ comments. We hope this revision will satisfy reviewers queries, and that our work will be considered for publication in Forests.

With kind regards

Dr Addi and the co-Authors

Reviewer 1 Overall, the manuscript is basically written clearly but the English still needs to be improved by a native English speaker. Certain sentences in the paper are written strangely.

Authors: the manuscript was revised by an English professor at the faculty of letter at Mohamed the 1st University

Reviewer 1: The introduction is clearly and well written. Nevertheless, there is still room for improvement.

Authors: Thank you very much for your useful suggestions, a paragraph was added to the introduction section

Reviewer 1: Authorities should be listed in the title, summary and the main document – and only when mentioned for the first time. There is no need to list authorities throughout the entire paper. In the penultimate paragraph of the introductory part, the names of the taxa below the species should be checked and specified for each authority. The study objectives should be defined better. In addition, the last paragraph of the introduction should also define the study hypotheses.

Autors: authorities were corrected in the entire manuscript. The study objectives were numerated at the end of the introduction section.

Reviewer 1: Appendix 1 can be put in the form of a table in the supplemental material.

Autors: we had put the appendix 1 in the supplemental material

Reviewer 1: Table 1 should be deleted and all studied characteristics listed and described in the textual part of the subsection Plant material.

Autors: Table 1 was deleted the studied characteristics were numbered in Table 2

Reviewer 1: Certain parts of the manuscript use the term population, and certain use the term site. This should be harmonized throughout the manuscript. It is better to use the term population.

Autors: we had put the term population instead of the term site in the concerned parts

Reviewer 1: I think that the hierarchical analysis of variance is a much better choice to test differences between studied populations. Test the differences between populations and between individuals within the population and calculate the share of variability in the overall variance: interpopulation variability, intrapopulation variability and error.

Autors: Thank you for pointing this test out, our choice for the tests had provided the adequate answers as well.

Reviewer 1: In addition to arithmetic mean and coefficient of variation, in the results the authors also show standard deviation and minimum and maximum value or range. The subsection on Data analysis does not list all descriptive parameters shown in Table 3.

Autors: we had added the missing descriptive parameters on data analysis subsection.

Reviewer 1: Table 3 is overloaded with data and quite difficult to read. The results would be better presented in three separate tables: (1) descriptive statistics; (2) analysis of variance; (3) discriminant analysis.

Autors: Table 3 was split in 3 tables as suggested.

Reviewer 1: Discriminant analysis should be described better in Materials and methods, as well as in Results. The results of canonical discriminant analysis should be shown on a biplot. In addition, a classification discriminant analysis can also be carried out. The quality of the Figure 2 is quite poor. Furthermore, there is no need to write the names of the populations in two places. Groups in the Figure 2 should not be written over marks for individuals. On the graph, instead of U1 and U2 it should read discriminant function 1 and 2 or canonical variant 1 and 2.

Autors: the description paragraph of the discriminant analysis was modified and reformulated. The names of the group in two places in the biplot and outside the biplot are automatically provided by SPSS.

Reviewer 1: Second subsection of the Results, Differences between populations, should be divided into three paragraphs: the first on descriptive statistics, second on analysis of variance, and third on discriminant analysis.

Autors: the requested modification was applied the subsection was divided into two paragraphs.

Reviewer 1 The results of correlation analysis among the studied morphological characteristics should be shown in table format in the supplemental material.

Autors: the results of correlation were added in the supplemental material.

Reviewer 1: The discussion is mostly well written, informative and interesting. Still, some parts or even entire paragraphs boil down to a repetition of the results. More references should be included, especially in the part pertaining to the subsection Influence of abiotic factors related to biogeographical pattern. In MDPI journals, such as Forests and Plants, several papers have been published on this topic on different woody species.

Autors: New references from MDPI journals were added.

Reviewer 1: Fourth paragraph of the subsection Taxonomic classification and differences between the three populations is mostly a repetition of the results. In addition, the said paragraph is mostly redundant with the following paragraph of the same subsection. Fourth paragraph should be combined with the fifth, i.e. the results of this study should be compared to the results of other studies in one paragraph.

Autors: we don’t think that the paragraph is a repetition of the results; our point in this paragraph was to compare our results with other works on Mediterranean region it was necessary to remind the values found.

Reviewer 1: Given that the first subsection of the Discussion is related to the issue of taxonomy, the last few sentences of the fifth paragraph fit better in the next subsection on the adaptability of populations.

Autors: the requested modification was applied.

Reviewer 1: In subsection 4.2 the authors state that the wind and birds are pollination factors? Birds pollinate? Or do they take part in the dispersal of cones and thus contribute to the gene flow between populations?

Autors:the sentence was modified

Reviewer 1: Further comments and minor corrections are provided in the enclosed document.

Autors: all comments were taken into consideration

Reviewer 1 : Question line 57: All of these papers included populations from Morocco?

Autors: The reference number 12 (mazur et al. 2003) was substituted by (Dzialuk 2011)

Reviewer 1: Sentence line 121 To eliminate the most redundant features Person correlation coefficients was performed amongst traits with r values r ≤ 0.95.

Autors:  the sentence was replaced by “the correlation between traits was examined with Pearson’s correlation in order to assess the redundant ones”

Reviewer1: The results of correlation analysis among the studied morphological characteristics should be shown in table format in the supplemental material.

Autors : The results of correlation analysis are shown in table in the supplemental material.

Reviewer 1: Sentence line 131 The frequency distribution of the examined characters was normal. The Length of seeds in continental region and the character width of seeds in semicontinental region both showed close to normal distribution frequency

Autors: was replaced by “Amongst 17 examined traits 15 had normal frequency distribution”

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The methods and conclusions of this paper are reliable. It will be better if the authors could describe the economic or ecological importance of Juniperus turbinata in order to attract the attentions of readers in the introduction part.

Author Response

Dear Editors, Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to improve our manuscript by the revised version and thank to your useful comments.

We really appreciate Reviewers’ comments. We hope this revision will satisfy reviewers queries, and that our work will be considered for publication in Forests.

With kind regards

Dr Addi and the co-Authors

 

Reviewer 2:

The methods and conclusions of this paper are reliable. It will be better if the authors could describe the economic or ecological importance of Juniperus turbinata in order to attract the attentions of readers in the introduction part.

 

Authors: Thank you very much for this comment. We now mentioned this point in the revised version.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is oriented to the problem of phenotypic characteristics of comparison of three populations of Juniperus turbinata Guss in North-Eastern Morocco. The problem in a systematic point of view in botanical science is very important when on the same area can occur the species morphologically closed related. The state of the art of the studies is correct from the scientific point of view and proper, relevant references were cited, and the design pattern of analysis was performed.

The quality of figures and tables presentation is very low is could be improved.

The language should be more precise in the paper to reflect the scientific character of the presented data. The article is dominated by colloquial language that requires substantive correction as scientific terms. Some examples are given below e.g.

line 85 Plant materiel some French(?) Language term?

line 88 For the current study, 280 cones and 280 branches from 28 bushes or shrubs (?) more botanical term

Line 131 - 133 The Length of seeds in continental region and the character width of seeds in semicontinental region both showed close to normal distribution frequency, allowing statistical analysis. so(?) yet or not (?) it is a very important question to chose proper statistical evaluation test! It should precise when a decision was made to use parametric tests.

Line 172-173 The discrimination analysis amongst the three population at shrubs level (?) 

Line 281-282 Continental population shows signs of drought resistant and benefits better from the light in high altitudes

and so on...

Anyway, the interpretation of the data and statistical analysis process is correct, but the very careless language should be verified.

The conclusions of the paper should express more precisely and closed to the results of the performed studies. The conclusions are very general and could be driven without performed studies so they should be constructed to be important to the readers and possessed the character of explanation why the research was undertaken. 

Author Response

Dear Editors, Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to improve our manuscript by the revised version and thank to your useful comments.

We really appreciate Reviewers’ comments. We hope this revision will satisfy reviewers queries, and that our work will be considered for publication in Forests.

With kind regards

Dr Addi and the co-Authors

Reviewer 3: The quality of figures and tables presentation is very low is could be improved.

Autors: the quality of figures and table was improved

Reviewer 3: The language should be more precise in the paper to reflect the scientific character of the presented data. The article is dominated by colloquial language that requires substantive correction as scientific terms. Some examples are given below e.g.

Autors: the remarks were taken into consideration

Reviewer 3: line 85 Plant materiel some French(?) Language term?

Autors: plant samples was modified by plant materiel

Reviewer 3: line 88 For the current study, 280 cones and 280 branches from 28 bushes or shrubs (?) more botanical term

Autors: the remark was taken into consideration

Reviewer 3: Line 131 - 133 The Length of seeds in continental region and the character width of seeds in semicontinental region both showed close to normal distribution frequency, allowing statistical analysis. so(?) yet or not (?) it is a very important question to chose proper statistical evaluation test! It should precise when a decision was made to use parametric tests.

Autors:  The sentence was made more clear

Reviewer 3: Line 172-173 The discrimination analysis amongst the three population at shrubs level (?) 

Autors: the entire paragraph was reformulated

Reviewer 3: Line 281-282 Continental population shows signs of drought resistant and benefits better from the light in high altitudes

Autors: this was our observations in the field

Reviewer 3: Anyway, the interpretation of the data and statistical analysis process is correct, but the very careless language should be verified.

Autors: the manuscript was revised by an English professor at the faculty of letter at Mohamed the 1st University

Reviewer 3: The conclusions of the paper should express more precisely and closed to the results of the performed studies. The conclusions are very general and could be driven without performed studies so they should be constructed to be important to the readers and possessed the character of explanation why the research was undertaken. 

Autors: modifications were added to conclusion.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

First of all, congratulations once again on your work. The paper is now improved, but there is still a little work to be done before it is accepted for publication.

In several places in the paper there is mention of northwestern populations of Juniperus turbinata from Morocco. Weren’t the authors researching northeastern populations?

The third paragraph of the introduction is written awkwardly and unclearly. Please rewrite. The second sentence is long and in a way composed of unconnected parts. In addition, the suggestion is to have the second paragraph pertain to the distribution and ecology of the studied species, and the third to its morphology and biology.

In the material and methods and in the results, the authors report to have made a biplot for the discriminant analysis. What is shown on Figure 2 is not a biplot. The figure is now of considerably better quality, but the captions on the figure are in French? Please rework the figure. The markings on the figure for the continental population should be in a more intense color – they are currently not visible well enough. Site should be changed to population. There is no need to write above the graphs canonical discriminant functions in French. It suffices to specify on the axes the names of the first and second discriminant function. In addition, canonical discriminant analysis is not mentioned anywhere in the paper? Why not? Analyses must be clearly described in the material and methods. The same goes for the results.

Lines 271 to 312. I agree with the authors that the paragraph in which they compare their results with other authors’ results is important and should be left in the paper. However, the paragraph is written unclearly, it is difficult to follow and understand it. In view of that, this paragraph should be shortened and made more comprehensible. Maybe the authors could somehow pool the results of other research when comparing, or provide a range, or even more simply, write that their results are similar to those from other research or that the values obtained in their research are higher or lower compared to those from other research. The paragraph should be organized by first clearly and specifically providing the values obtained in their research, then comparing the results first with the descriptions from flora and botanical books and then with the research of other authors for the species. After that, differences between Juniperus phoenicea and J. turbinata can be described. Furthermore, at the end of the paragraph the authors explain why semicontinental populations have a greater number of leaves per 5mm section of ultimate lateral shoot. Doesn’t that correspond with the heading of subsection 4.2. Influence of abiotic factors related to biogeographical pattern? I think that should be integrated into that subsection.

I particularly like subsection 4.2. However, in the same section the authors could in a way also address a broader readership, not just those interested in the genus Juniperus. The abstract well reads that the phenotypical difference between populations demonstrates a certain adaptability of the species in a biogeographical pattern. A few more examples could be also provided for other Mediterranean species, which grow in similar environmental conditions, or in different ecogeographical or biogeographical regions.

Further comments and minor corrections are provided in the enclosed document.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Dear Editors, Dear Reviewer

Much obliged to you for offering us the chance to work on our manuscript by the changed form and thank you again for your helpful remarks. We trust this second revision will fulfil reviewers' inquiries. We have given specific consideration to your remarks and ideas, in the second revised version of the manuscript changes are appearing in yellow.

With kind respects

Reviewer: In several places in the paper there is mention of northwestern populations of Juniperus turbinata from Morocco. Weren’t the authors researching northeastern populations?

Authors: Thank you for pointing this out, we corrected north-eastern populations instead of north-western.

Reviewer: The third paragraph of the introduction is written awkwardly and unclearly. Please rewrite. The second sentence is long and in a way composed of unconnected parts. In addition, the suggestion is to have the second paragraph pertain to the distribution and ecology of the studied species, and the third to its morphology and biology.

Authors: the requested modification was applied.

Reviewer: In the material and methods and in the results, the authors report to have made a biplot for the discriminant analysis. What is shown in Figure 2 is not a biplot. The figure is now of considerably better quality, but the captions on the figure are in French? Please rework the figure. The markings on the figure for the continental population should be in a more intense color – they are currently not visible well enough. The site should be changed to population. There is no need to write above the graphs canonical discriminant functions in French. It suffices to specify on the axes the names of the first and second discriminant function. In addition, canonical discriminant analysis is not mentioned anywhere in the paper? Why not? Analyses must be clearly described in the material and methods. The same goes for the results.

Authors : several changes have been made in this section

Reviewer Lines 271 to 312. I agree with the authors that the paragraph in which they compare their results with other authors’ results is important and should be left in the paper. However, the paragraph is written unclearly, it is difficult to follow and understand it. In view of that, this paragraph should be shortened and made more comprehensible. Maybe the authors could somehow pool the results of other research when comparing, or provide a range, or even more simply, write that their results are similar to those from other research or that the values obtained in their research are higher or lower compared to those from other research. The paragraph should be organized by first clearly and specifically providing the values obtained in their research, then comparing the results first with the descriptions from flora and botanical books and then with the research of other authors for the species. After that, differences between Juniperus phoenicea and J. turbinata can be described. Furthermore, at the end of the paragraph the authors explain why semicontinental populations have a greater number of leaves per 5mm section of ultimate lateral shoot. Doesn’t that correspond with the heading of subsection 4.2. Influence of abiotic factors related to biogeographical pattern? I think that should be integrated into that subsection.

Authors: likewise, many changes have been made in this section

Reviewer: I particularly like subsection 4.2. However, in the same section the authors could in a way also address a broader readership, not just those interested in the genus Juniperus. The abstract well reads that the phenotypical difference between populations demonstrates a certain adaptability of the species in a biogeographical pattern. A few more examples could be also provided for other Mediterranean species, which grow in similar environmental conditions, or in different ecogeographical or biogeographical regions.

Authors: we had added some recent studies from MDPI journals and others.

Reviewer: Further comments and minor corrections are provided in the enclosed document.

Authors: all comments were taken into consideration

We are thankful for your valuable comments that increase the quality of our
manuscript.

Best regards.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors and editor,

I have read the reviewed version of the paper with great interest. In my opinion, the paper has been improved significantly, and a few more comments and minor corrections are provided in the attached document.

All the best in further work!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Once again thank you very much for your comments and appreciation for at least parts of our responses and modifications provided with the last revision. We really appreciate your time and effort, as well as the tone of the discussion to improve and/or clarify our work. We hope that we have clarified at least the most important sticking points of your review report. Therefore, according to your comments, we have revised thoroughly our manuscript (underlined in yellow.