Phenotypic Diversity in Wild and Cultivated Date Palm (Phoenix, Arecaceae): Quantitative Analysis Using Information Theory

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In my opinion, the presented work is of high value and deserves to be published. The work is not characterized by special originality, because similar studies have already been carried out, but not for Phoenix, and the results are in large part consistent with work on, for example, genetic variability of the genus. The strength of the presented work is the correct planning and execution of the analyses and the detailed presentation of the results together with their discussion.

I have some minor comments:

Figure 2 should be simplified. I think it is not very readable as it is now. A simple diagram with information in boxes should be fully sufficient and will fit better with the other figures in the work, which are usually simple and very readable.

In Figure 6, the authors have used a phylogenetic tree but have not mentioned the source of the tree. It should be cited at least in the caption. Theoretically, if the photos of seeds are not by the authors, they should also be signed. Then this also applies to figures 1 and 9. In figure 1, the herbarium in Paris is mentioned, but the form of citation does not meet their requirements.

The methodology lacks information on how data were collected for analysis. The authors did not mention where the specimens came from, did they conduct measurements on live material or on herbarium or mixed material? Can they indicate any vouchers for data collected in this way? If it is not possible to cite the material from which the data were obtained, then it would be good practice to make the raw data base available, either as supplementary material or in some open repository. However, this requires at least an explanation in the methodology.

The discussion lacked a link between the data acquired and information on the frequency of Phoenix dactylifera cultivation in given regions of its occurrence. What significance might this have? Wouldn't greater phenotypic variability be associated with regions where Ph. dactylifera is grown more frequently, perhaps for a long time? Where there will be more cultivated varieties, but also varieties that may arise partly naturally or by selective cultivation on a small scale. This may then also partly explain such a high fruit and seed heterogeneity. It would be useful to discuss the results in the context of the Phoenix crops, their intensities, the varieties/cultivars used (at least in rough terms), whether there is a predominance of one or perhaps many "smaller" varieties/cultivars, etc. This also fits in with the scope of the journal.

Author Response

• In my opinion, the presented work is of high value and deserves to be published. ....
• Response: Many thanks for your appreciation of our work.
• I have some minor comments: Figure 2 should be simplified. I think it is not very readable as it is now. A simple diagram with information in boxes should be fully sufficient and will fit better with the other figures in the work, which are usually simple and very readable.
• Response: We reorganized the entire figure with the purpose of facilitating readability.
• In Figure 6, the authors have used a phylogenetic tree but have not mentioned the source of the tree. It should be cited at least in the caption.
• Response: Many thanks for your comment since information given by us was insufficient. Tree is original but phenetic not phylogenetic, we included a phrase in this sense in the caption.
• Theoretically, if the photos of seeds are not by the authors, they should also be signed.
• Response: autorhip attribution is now added in the figure caption.
• Then this also applies to figures 1 and 9. In figure 1, the herbarium in Paris is mentioned, but the form of citation does not meet their requirements.
• Response: Authorship is now specifically acknowledged in the captions. Most images are from the authors of this manuscript. We expanded citation of P herbarium sheet.
• The methodology lacks information on how data were collected for analysis. The authors did not mention where the specimens came from, did they conduct measurements on live material or on herbarium or mixed material? Can they indicate any vouchers for data collected in this way?
• Response: Measurements were mostly done on live material. A list of accessions and herbarium specimens consulted is given as Supplementary Table 1.
• If it is not possible to cite the material from which the data were obtained, then it would be good practice to make the raw data base available, either as supplementary material or in some open repository. However, this requires at least an explanation in the methodology.
• Response: crude matrix of individual descriptions, matrix of OTUs /variable frequencies and dissimilarity matrix will be available at Phoenix-Spain.org once published this paper. This is stated now in methods.
• The discussion lacked a link between the data acquired and information on the frequency of Phoenix dactylifera cultivation in given regions of its occurrence. What significance might this have? Wouldn't greater phenotypic variability be associated with regions where Ph. dactylifera is grown more frequently, perhaps for a long time? Where there will be more cultivated varieties, but also varieties that may arise partly naturally or by selective cultivation on a small scale. This may then also partly explain such a high fruit and seed heterogeneity. It would be useful to discuss the results in the context of the Phoenix crops, their intensities, the varieties/cultivars used (at least in rough terms), whether there is a predominance of one or perhaps many "smaller" varieties/cultivars, etc. This also fits in with the scope of the journal.
• Response: Many thanks for your comment. You are true. We are somewhat limited in space so we needed to be sucint. However we introduced some of your ideas along the discussion and in the conclusions since these are completely coherent with our results.

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Abstract is too long; please rewrite abstract more concise.

2. The first and second paragraphs of the introduction could be omitted

3. The pictures in figure 1 and figure 9 do not compare things that are equal (not apple to apple comparison), so the diversity of trees, fruitlet, fruit, seed, etc. is not clearly visible

 

Author Response

Many thanks for your evaluation of our paper.

Concerning your comments:

• Abstract is too long; please rewrite abstract more concise.
• Response: We reorganized and shortened the abstract.

• The first and second paragraphs of the introduction could be omitted

• Response: We omitted these paragraphs and accordingly deleted the cited references.
• The pictures in figure 1 and figure 9 do not compare things that are equal (not apple to apple comparison), so the diversity of trees, fruitlet, fruit, seed, etc. is not clearly visible
• Response: We absolutely agree with you. We reorganized Figures covering separately palm-tree, leaf, flower, fruit and seed, and accrdingly expanded their number in order to best suit the comparison requirements.

Reviewer 3 Report

e.g. l69-72 I'm not a native speaker, but to my opinion some sentence should be shortened

l81-90 citation is missing and please give an example

Fig. 1 Scale is missing, it's important for a paper focussing on phenotypical traits

Fig. 3 name the axis

Fig. 9: Scale is missing and in part the quality of the fotographs should be improved e.g. 9k and 9a

The  discussion part should be shortened and condensed to a discussion of the most relevant aspects.

 

Author Response

Dear referee, many thanks for your valuable comments.

Concerning the poins your raised:

e.g. l69-72 I'm not a native speaker, but to my opinion some sentence should be shortened

Response: Since we have not visible the line counting we interpreted the cited sentence and shortened

l81-90 citation is missing and please give an example

Response: citations were added 

 

Fig. 1 Scale is missing, it's important for a paper focussing on phenotypical traits

Response: Many thanks!. We thoroughly added scales into Figures 1 to 5 following your advise.

Fig. 3 name the axis

Response: Many thanks, we have missed this! We slightly changed the structure of the figure adding names to the axes

Fig. 9: Scale is missing and in part the quality of the fotographs should be improved e.g. 9k and 9a

Response: scales were added. The quality of the photographs is good, perhaps the problem is the low resoltion of the pdf supplied.

The  discussion part should be shortened and condensed to a discussion of the most relevant aspects.

Response: We slightly edited the discussion but shortening would led to miss relevant points

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

thanks for the corrections! Sorry, there is still the point with the scale. It would be nice, if you insert the scale always at the same position (e.g. lower right corner) otherwise it's perhaps a bit confusing.