Temperature during Seed Maturation Influences Timing of Bud Burst in Seedlings and Saplings of Prunus padus

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Currently, climate change, expressed by high temperatures, is becoming more and more important. For this reason, deeper research and understanding of epigenetic is very much important in the context of woody plants. However, we still know little how environmental factors, during seed maturation, affect the next generation. I believe that the presented work will be a valuable source of information.

Discussion -verify the correctness of the sentence

Remarkably, the first year after germination (2017 for X1 and 2018 for X2) the seedlings from the warm seed maturation condition burst their buds earlier compared to the warm condition seedlings ....

Author Response

Remark reviewer 1: Discussion -verify the correctness of the sentence: Remarkably, the first year after germination (2017 for X1 and 2018 for X2) the seedlings from the warm seed maturation condition burst their buds earlier compared to the warm condition seedlings ....

Our reply: Indeed, we made a mistake in this sentence! Now it is correct: “Remarkably, the first year after germination (2017 for cross X1 and 2018 for cross X2) the seedlings from the warm seed maturation condition burst their buds earlier compared to the cold seed maturation seedlings, whereas in the second (2018 for cross X1 and 2019 for cross X2) and third year (2019 for cross X1) after germination, these warm seed maturation seedlings burst their buds later than the cold seed maturation seedlings.”

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors addressed whether and how temperature can influence bud burst in seedlings and saplings of Prunus padus. They attributed the timing to budburst to a putative epigenetic memory. 

Overall, I think that the paper is well written, however, to a broad audience of scientists that may want to read it, too many symbols were used to described years, crosses and stages of evaluation. I believe that Figure 1 must be improved for a better understanding of the paper. A whole-page figure would be better perhaps, as it could provide a timeline with figures from each phase in a logical sequence. Many steps were involved from cuttings to crosses and phenological observations. I strongly suggest to the authors to consider that. 

A general concern that I have is the emphasis that the introduction puts into epigenetic mechanisms, while the authors based their conclusions on phenotypic measurements only. From the data, it could be assumed that an epigenetic memory is involved. But that needs further confirmation. DNA sampling and at least a quantification of global DNA methylation should be required to appropriately reach such conclusion. Alternatively, the authors should rewrite several sentences from the introduction and discussion/conclusion (mainly), not being definitive into what concerns epigenetics. PS: there are standard kits from rapid quantification of total DNA methylation from DNA samples. Consider that for improving your paper or do not be so conclusive in the matter. That is my general recommendation. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I believe that the changes sufficiently addressed my concerns.