Population Genetic Structure of Meloidogyne javanica Recovered from Different Regions of Iran

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

this is a piece of good work. The number of studied populations as well as a big area geographically covered (Iran) add a large amount of data to the biology of M. javanica.

Here are some my remarks which could improve the text:

- in the Introduction it is stated that "So far, genetic diversity of M. javanica has been determined only in two regions of Iran". How about the rest of the world? Make a literature reviev and add some data on that or clearly state that this kind of data is not available.  This should be made in the Introduction

- the four groups which you have detected in Iran. How does it relate to the whole, global range of this species? Are there any tips in the literature which could suggest how many similar gropus could be expected globally? Or maybe it is an interesting field of study for future projects? This should be added to the Discussion

- in line 93 phrase "Interventionary studies involving(....)" was probably misplaced from other text, it has nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Editor of Agriculture

With regards, it is appreciated for your attention as well as valuable comments of respected reviewers. The authors try to consider the comments of the reviewers. According to the comments, there are some minor revisions which have been considered in the text with the following response:

Reviewer 1:

- In the Introduction it is stated that "So far, genetic diversity of M. javanica has been determined only in two regions of Iran". How about the rest of the world? Make a literature review and add some data on that or clearly state that this kind of data is not available.  This should be made in the Introduction.

Re: It was considered and some notes added in introduction section.

- The four groups which you have detected in Iran. How does it relate to the whole, global range of this species? Are there any tips in the literature which could suggest how many similar groups could be expected globally? Or maybe it is an interesting field of study for future projects? This should be added to the Discussion.

Re: It was considered and some notes added in conclusion section.

- In line 93 phrase "Interventionary studies involving (....)" was probably misplaced from other text, it has nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph.

Re: It was considered and edited in mentioned line.

Thanks!

Best regards

Authors of the manuscript

Reviewer 2 Report

The present study deals with the genetic diversity of M.javanica isolated from different geographical regions of Iran. this is an intensive study; clearly, the authors made an effort to get the isolates from the various areas. The study is scientifically sound and the experiments have been scientifically validated. Even though it is an interesting study and novel, especially for Iran, some improvement is needed to be appropriate for publication in the journal. 

1: Some English improvement is needed for the MS to flow better and make it easier for readers to digest the context.

2: There are some mistakes in table one (elevation) that must be corrected.

3: The gel photos for SCAR PCR must be added. Due to the high inter- and intraspecies variation, morphometrical values certainly cannot assist us in terms of species characterization, therefore, I feel that the morphometric table should be replaced by a photo plate containing the perineal patterns of different populations.

4: The discussion is not satisfactory, the authors need to discuss their results in detail, for example how nematode biology (reproduction in particular) can contribute toward a low genetic diversity. and also how the information in terms of genetic diversity could assist in mitigating nematode damage.

 

Detail review is provided in the attached PDF

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear editor of Agriculture

With regards, it is appreciated for your attention as well as valuable comments of respected reviewers. The authors try to consider the comments of the reviewers. According to the comments, there are some minor revisions which have been considered in the text with the following response:

Reviewer 2:

1: Some English improvement is needed for the MS to flow better and make it easier for readers to digest the context.

Re: The English language editing was carried out in the text.

2: There are some mistakes in table one (elevation) that must be corrected.

Re: It was considered and corrected in mentioned section.

3: The gel photos for SCAR PCR must be added. Due to the high inter- and intraspecies variation, morphometrical values certainly cannot assist us in terms of species characterization, therefore, I feel that the morphometric table should be replaced by a photo plate containing the perineal patterns of different populations.

Re: The gel photos of species-specific primers, RAPD and ISSR added in MS.

Regarding the morphometric data, it should be mentioned that in nematology, morphometric data are an important part and even if they do not help to separate species, they can still help in increasing information. The addition of morphometric data from different parts of the world and from different populations may cause conflicting results in the future.

4: The discussion is not satisfactory, the authors need to discuss their results in detail, for example how nematode biology (reproduction in particular) can contribute toward a low genetic diversity. and also, how the information in terms of genetic diversity could assist in mitigating nematode damage.

Re: This study was limited to investigation the genetic structure of these nematodes, so, more detailed information will be needed to carry out on pathogenicity and other aspects.

Detail review is provided in the attached PDF

Re: All the mentioned notes in attached file were considered in MS.

Thanks!

Best regards

Authors of the manuscript

Author Response File: Author Response.docx