Accumulation of Alkaloids in Different Tall Fescue KY31 Clones Harboring the Common Toxic Epichloë coenophiala Endophyte under Field Conditions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The author replies are in the attached Word file in blue font.
Please note the Title change as suggested by Reviewer #3.
Thank you for your suggestions and corrections
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
GENERAL
Congratulations on your interesting work.
The report does raise some questions:
The Introduction and/or Materials and Methods sections need to explain why the alkaloids were measured in seed. [In Lolium perenne, alkaloid concentrations are much higher in seed than in herbage and while lolitrem B is markedly higher than ergovaline in herbage, the reverse may be observed in seed]. Are there studies with tall fescue that suggest that seed is a reliable predictor of EAs and lolines in herbage? It is most commonly the grazed herbage that produce mammalian toxicity problems so would you explain why your assessment was based on cumulative, unchecked growth and why analysis was restricted to seed. Similarly, why was the analysis limited to total ergot alkaloids rather than the commonly studied toxin, ergovaline? Please can you justify that decision?
ABSTRACT
No data are presented in the abstract. Reference is made that significant differences were observed. Statistically sig. differences are not necessarily indicative of economic significance. Could the abstract be improved so as to attract more readers to proceed to the full text?
The INTRODUCTION
is brief and needs more justification for the hypothesis and methodology. Line 42: References 3-8 embrace more species than tall fescue. That needs to be made clear lest some readers think indole-diterpines and peramine may be found in tall fescueE+.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
KY31 has been widely used for ~80 years. Is there any evidence of varying toxin production within that old cv from diverse regions of US? How were the 16 clones selected?
You inform us that 'environmental' conditions [soil, management and weather?] are relevant. Soil fertility and fertilizer effects have been recognized for many years. It would be relevant then, to describe the soil type, soil fertility and fertilizer used to maintain the field experiment – to ensure other researchers can reproduce such conditions if they wanted to verify your findings.
The design is unclear. It appears the paper is only reporting selected parts of a wider study. What are the 34 clone pairs harbouring ‘other endophyte strains’? Where is that information and data?
Section 2.3: The seed yield and plant height data is not presented; why describe how it was collected then? Why was biomass not measured on a DM basis, only air-dry? Line 96: was it two or three years?
RESULTS
Line 142-143: show units.
DISCUSSION
Can the standout low EA production in 2017 be discussed in relation to nuances of weather, pertinent other studies, age of plants etc ? Line 210-211: The major conclusion that the genetic influence is mainly a grass rather than an endophyte genotype effect was well demonstrated in Lolium perenne work a long time ago. Should that be acknowledged?
It might be helpful to other researchers if you could indicate what future workers should do to extend your work. Do you recognise any limitations of your work (inclu some commented on above) that may have influenced the results and so should be borne in mind when interpreting them?
Author Response
The author replies are in the attached Word file in blue font.
Please note the Title change as suggested by Reviewer #3.
Thank you for your suggestions and corrections
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Please notice that all comments and suggestion included in the attached, uploaded document.
This excellent approach could have been more significant if it had been carried out using the technology molecular which you have flagged to do in future.
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
The author replies are in the attached Word file in blue font.
Please note the Title change as suggested.
Thank you for your suggestions and corrections
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Expanded Introduction and Discussion most helpful.
