Petal Morphology Is Correlated with Floral Longevity in Paeonia suffruticosa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I found your article is well organized, the hypothesis are clearly expressed and most of it are demonstrated and sustained by the results.    

The cited references in the introduction section are related to the subject. The methods and materials are well described. For table 1, (d) from FL means days? 

For the abstract section: line 7: "...water supply traits - vein density is written 2 times.

For the results section, I have some suggestions:

1. page 6, last phrase on the page: "long FL was significantly thicker that that with shorter FL" - figure 6 does not reveal that. There is no statistical interpretation. 

2. page 9, first paragraph:  What means FMA, PMA?

3. point 3.5: line 5 (of this paragraph) "...vein density were mainly positively loaded on component 2, while vessel diameters...were negatively loaded on component 2? 

4. discussion section: the last but one paragraph: what is LMA, FMA?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your comments, those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance for our research. According to your comments, we tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.

We appreciate for reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestion. The following part is the point-by-point responses to the reviewer:

 

Response to reviewer ’s comments:

I found your article is well organized, the hypothesis are clearly expressed and most of it are demonstrated and sustained by the results.    

The cited references in the introduction section are related to the subject. The methods and materials are well described.

 

For table 1, (d) from FL means days? 

Response: Thank you for your comment, (d) mean day, We have revised it. Thank you.

 

For the abstract section: line 7: "...water supply traits - vein density is written 2 times.

Response: Thank you for your reminding, which is highly appreciated. We have deleted “vein density” in abstract. Thank you.

 

For the results section, I have some suggestions:

1) page 6, last phrase on the page: "long FL was significantly thicker that that with shorter FL" - figure 6 does not reveal that. There is no statistical interpretation. 

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We are sorry for incorrect citations; we have added (table 2) at the end of the sentence. Please refer to the revised version of the paper for details. Thank you.

 

2)page 9, first paragraph:  What means FMA, PMA?

Response: Thank you for your question. FMA and PMA refer to petal dry mass and petal fresh mass, respectively, we have revised the sentence and added full name, please refer to the revised version of the paper for details. Thank you.

 

3)point 3.5: line 5 (of this paragraph) "...vein density were mainly positively loaded on component 2, while vessel diameters...were negatively loaded on component 2?

Response: Thank you for your question. FMA and PMA refer to petal dry mass and petal fresh mass, respectively, we have revised the sentence and added full name, please refer to the revised version of the article for details. Thank you.

 

4)discussion section: the last but one paragraph: what is LMA, FMA?

Response: Thank you for your question. lMA and PMA refer to leaf dry mass and petal fresh mass, respectively, we have revised the sentence and added full name, please refer to the revised version of the article for details. Thank you.

 

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

 

Corresponding author:

Name: Songlin He

E-mail: [email protected]

Name: Wenqing Jia

E-mail: [email protected]

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The work entitled "Petal morphology is correlated with floral longevity in Paeonia suffruticosa" contains interesting research results. However, some aspects need to be corrected.

I have doubts about the quality of the photos posted in the work, some of them require additional marking.

In several places in the Results section, the data is an exact copy of the data from the tables – these fragments of text need to be corrected.

In the Abstract, Discussion and Conclusions, there is information about the effect of the thickness of the collenchyma layer on the lifespan of the petals, while in the Results section the Authors do not mention anything about collenchyma.

When describing the results, I propose to provide general information on what tissues are included in the petals of the examined varieties of Paeonia suffruticosa.

The description of the results also lacks detailed information on the thickness of the adaxial and abaxial cuticle layer.

The remaining comments are in the form of comments on the pdf file, which I have attached.

The article may be publish in Agronomy after prior correction, according to the reviewer's instructions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewers:

Thank you for your comments, those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance for our research. According to your comments, we tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.

We appreciate for reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestion. The following part is the point-by-point responses to the reviewer:

 

Response to reviewer’s comments:

 

The work entitled "Petal morphology is correlated with floral longevity in Paeonia suffruticosa" contains interesting research results. However, some aspects need to be corrected.

1)  have doubts about the quality of the photos posted in the work, some of them require additional marking.

Response: We are very sorry for the poor quality of the photos in the paper. Based on your suggestions and comments, we have replaced the A image in Figures 2 and 3, the F image in Figure 6, and added additional markings in Figures 4-6, thanks.

 

2) In several places in the Results section, the data is an exact copy of the data from the tables- these fragments of text need to be corrected.

 

Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. According to your suggestions and comments, we have carefully revised some paragraphs in the results, as detailed in the revised manuscript, thanks.

 

3) In the Abstract, Discussion and Conclusions, there is information about the effect of the thickness of the collenchyma layer on the lifespan of the petals, while in the Results section the Authors do not mention anything about collenchyma.

Response: We are very sorry for the mistake in the paper. collenchyma layer is a mistake. It should be mesophyll thickness. We have revised it in the paper, thanks.

 

4) When describing the results, I propose to provide general information on what tissues are included in the petals of the examined varieties of Paeonia suffruticosa.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have revised relevant sentences. Please refer to the revised version of the article for details. Thank you.

 

5) The description of the results also lacks detailed information on the thickness of the adaxial and abaxial cuticle layer.

The remaining comments are in the form of comments on the pdf file, which I have attached. The article may be publish in Agronomy after prior correction, according to the reviewer's instructions.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have revised relevant sentences. Please refer to the revised version of the article for details. Thank you.

 

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

 

Corresponding author:

Name: Songlin He

E-mail: [email protected]

Name: Wenqing Jia

E-mail: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The reviewed paper is devoted to associations of some anatomical features of petals with floral longevity in peonies. This topic is of interest for both botanists and breeders. However, this work needs a very deep elaboration before it can be recommended for publication.
Firstly, language and style of this manuscript require a serious work. I recommend authors to have their text reviewed by both native speaker (or specialized English editing service) and a specialist in plant anatomy. Many of terms are used in an inappropriate or incorrect way. Authors need to distinguish between structures (cuticle, epidermis) and parameters (thickness, density). I have made numerous corrections and suggestions directly in the file (see attached) but much more work is needed.
Secondly, the statistical part of this work needs improvement. It is completely unclear what sample sized were, how many flower per plant, petal per flower etc. were analyzed. Depending on this, correct statistical procedure can be chosen.
It is also not obvious which petals were sampled for comparison. As authors state themselves, three of chosen cultivars were single-flowering (i.e. having both petals and stamens) while other three were double-flowering (with stamens converted into petals). These stamen-derived petals may be of different structure. Was the position of petal somehow considered in a process of sampling?
After making recommended corrections, this paper can be reconsidered to make a final conclusion whether it can be accepted for publication in Agronomy. I wish authors good luck.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your comments, those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance for our research. According to your comments, we tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.

We appreciate for reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestion. The following part is the point-by-point responses to the reviewer:

 

Response to Reviewer’s comments:

 

1) The reviewed paper is devoted to associations of some anatomical features of petals with floral longevity in peonies. This topic is of interest for both botanists and breeders. However, this work needs a very deep elaboration before it can be recommended for publication.

Firstly, language and style of this manuscript require a serious work. I recommend authors to have their text reviewed by both native speaker (or specialized English editing service) and a specialist in plant anatomy. Many of terms are used in an inappropriate or incorrect way. Authors need to distinguish between structures (cuticle, epidermis) and parameters (thickness, density). I have made numerous corrections and suggestions directly in the file (see attached) but much more work is needed.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have made careful revisions to the language and style of the manuscript. We have asked a friend from the UK to help revise the article and have asked plant experts to review terms in this paper. please refer to the revised paper for details. Thank you for your warm-hearted work. I hope the revised manuscript meet with approval. Thank you.

 

2) Secondly, the statistical part of this work needs improvement. It is completely unclear what sample sized were, how many flower per plant, petal per flower etc. were analyzed. Depending on this, correct statistical procedure can be chosen.

 

Response:  We are very sorry for the inconvenience caused by the statistical work in this article. We have added “To assess the stability of micromorphological details, three petals per flower, two flowers per bush and three bushes per cultivar were analyzed. Petal micromorphology data are the average of at least 18 replicates.” to Statistical analysis, we hope that our modifications will be approved by you, thanks.

 

3) It is also not obvious which petals were sampled for comparison. As authors state themselves, three of chosen cultivars were single-flowering (i.e. having both petals and stamens) while other three were double-flowering (with stamens converted into petals). These stamen-derived petals may be of different structure. Was the position of petal somehow considered in a process of sampling? After making recommended corrections, this paper can be reconsidered to make a final conclusion whether it can be accepted for publication in Agronomy. I wish authors good luck.

Response: Thanks for your comments. To assess the stability of micromorphological details, three petals per flower, two flowers per bush and three bushes per cultivar were analyzed. Petal micromorphology data are the average of at least 18 replicates. All samples were cut from the central part of the 1rd-3rd petal of the outer whorl of the flower. We have added the relevant sentence to method, thanks.

 

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

 

Corresponding author:

Name: Songlin He

E-mail: [email protected]

Name: Wenqing Jia

E-mail: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

As I may see, the authors have significantly elaborated their paper thus improving it. I noticed several minor flaws to be corrected.
1. It is 'Pearson's' correlation coefficient, not 'Pearsons'.

2. When listing measured parameters, please avoid plurals. For example, in Abstract it is better to write about correlation between vessel number and vessel diameter, not numbers and diameters. Please carefully check it. In some cases, however, plurals are of reason (e.g. number of vessels).

3. I cannot understand what you mean by the 1st-3rd petal. To identify their position, it is of utmost importance to specify these petals belong to the outer whorl what you did successfully. However, there is no obvious sequence of them. How do you distinguish between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd petal? Please clarify this in a text or remove their numbering completely.

4. In the References list, please avoid capitalizing Latin specific epithet while generic name should begin from a capital letter. For example, it is Mimulus guttatus, not Mimulus Guttatus. Abbreviation 'var.' should not begin with a capital letter. All generic and specific Latin names should be italicized (they are not in newly added references). These minor things indicate the overall accuracy of a text and should be taken into account.

After condidering these minor suggestions, this manuscript can be accepted for publication. 

Author Response

Dear  Reviewer:

Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript again. We really appreciate all your comments and suggestions. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance for our research. We haves studied reviewer’s comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The changes we have made are marked in red in the revised manuscript. The following part is the point-by-point responses to the reviewer:

1. It is 'Pearson's' correlation coefficient, not 'Pearsons'.

Response: We are very sorry for the mistake in the paper. Thank you for your valuable comment, we have revised it in the paper, please refer to the revised version of the article for details. Thanks.

2. When listing measured parameters, please avoid plurals. For example, in Abstract it is better to write about correlation between vessel number and vessel diameter, not numbersand diameters. Please carefully check it. In some cases, however, plurals are of reason (e.g. number of vessels).

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have revised relevant words in abstract. Please refer to the revised version of the article for details. Thanks.

3. I cannot understand what you mean by the 1st-3rd petal. To identify their position, it is of utmost importance to specify these petals belong to the outer whorl what you did successfully. However, there is no obvious sequence of them. How do you distinguish between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd petal? Please clarify this in a text or remove their numbering completely.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. the petal used for the experiment was 1-3 petals from the outer wheel of the flower, it is easy to misunderstand the expression. We greatly appreciate your suggestion, according to your suggestion, we have removed their numbering completely. Thanks

4. In the References list, please avoid capitalizing Latin specific epithet while generic name should begin from a capital letter. For example, it is Mimulus guttatus, not Mimulus Guttatus. Abbreviation 'var.' should not begin with a capital letter. All generic and specific Latin names should be italicized (they are not in newly added references). These minor things indicate the overall accuracy of a text and should be taken into account.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment, we revised the relevant words and did a thorough check of the references. Please refer to the revised paper for the modification, thanks.

 

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Corresponding author:

Name: Songlin He

E-mail: [email protected]

Name: Wenqing Jia

E-mail: [email protected]