Deeper Insights into Species Diversity and Ecological Characterisation of the Macrosporum Group of the Genus Tuber

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is important and interesting. It reports on the species diversity, phylogenetic relationships, geographic distribution, and ecological characteristics of the Macrosporum group of the genus Tuber, focusing on specimens from southwest China.

Overall, the manuscript is written well and there are no major issues to revise. However, the Abstract needs to be modified. The current version of the abstract is not understandable.  

 

Also, references are not updated. They should be updated by including to introduction and discussion. 

Author Response

Respected reviewer:

Based on your professional and kind comments, our manuscript "Deeper Insights of Species Diversity and Ecological Characterisation of the Macrosporum Group of the Genus Tuber" has been revised.

Here below is our description on revision. Thank you very much.

 

Reviewer 1 Comments

The manuscript is important and interesting. It reports on the species diversity, phylogenetic relationships, geographic distribution, and ecological characteristics of the Macrosporum group of the genus Tuber, focusing on specimens from southwest China.

Overall, the manuscript is written well and there are no major issues to revise. However, the Abstract needs to be modified. The current version of the abstract is not understandable. Also, references are not updated. They should be updated by including to introduction and discussion.

 

Point 1:The Abstract needs to be modified.

Response 1: Based on your valuable comments, we have rewritten the abstract based on the research content and objectives of this article. We hope with these efforts the paper is more neatly prepared, concise, professional and readable.

 

Point 2: References are not updated.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. As you mentioned, we also noticed that most of the publications used were earlier. While the genus Tuber has received considerable attention in the worldwide, there is limited research on the Macrosporum clade within this genus. Thus, the Macrosporum clade is still poorly understood across the world.

It is precisely to clarify the phylogenetic relationships and species diversity of the Macrosporum clade, we conducted a comprehensive studies of all historical studies related to its taxonomy. This included examining the earliest published species and the changes in classification status at the genus, clade and species levels, such as the merger of the genus Paradox with Tuber etc.. Additionally, we utilized all available sequences related to the Macrosporum clade from GenBank to conduct a thorough analysis.

During our research, we found that there is indeed a scarcity of recent references on this clade. Given the limited research in the Macrosporum clade and the presence of the only endangered species within this clade of genus Tuber, we believe it is crucial to emphasize and strengthen research efforts on these biological resources, which is also one of the important reasons for writing this manuscript.

Although no new references were added, we carefully incorporated several sentences, titles, and citations at key points in the text, especially in the discussion section. These modifications have improved the completeness of the manuscript. The changes have been highlighted in yellow and can be found on page 8, specifically lines 294, 295, 315, 319, 322, 324, 325, 331, 333, 335, 338, and 340.

Additionally, we corrected several minor errors in the manuscript and highlighted them in yellow.

On page 2, line54: We changed the number eight to nine.

On page 2, line57: We added “T. sinomacrosporum”.

On page 2, line73: We removed reference [30] because it should have been included on page 3, line 128.

On page 8, line 341, 342 and 345: We have modified the italicized Latin name of Tuber iryudaense and Tuber macrosporum.

On page10, line 365: We have modified the italicized Latin name of Tuber.

 

We genuinely hope that you can recognize and understand our response above.

Thank you very much for all of the constructive suggestions and helpful comments.

 

Sincerely yours,

Rui-Long Liu and Shan-Ping Wan

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Dear Authors!

I have reviewed the manuscript.

The topic of the manuscript is the phylogeny of the genus Tuber, its relatives

relationships of its relatives, providing insights into Chinese species and

groups. This is an overview of the genus.

The topic of the manuscript is a good and timely one, since, as the authors write, it is about this and

and related topics, there is no comprehensive study. It fits well with the

journal topics.

The manuscript is novel in that there are results from the

genus, but few authors have collected them in a single volume.

 

My observations are as follows:

The abstract is not coherent, the point is lost. The abstract is not coherent, the point is lost.

written more systematically, where the hypothesis and results are highlighted. I recommend the use of the

rewrite the chapter.

Also, I have problems with the Introduction chapter, which is the Discussion

chapter will also be affected. Most of the publications used are earlier.

I suggest rewriting and significantly expanding the chapter over the last 5-10 years

results published in the last 5-10 years, with a special focus on genetic results,

and this should be addressed in the Discussion chapter.

The quality of the English language is ok, as are the figures and tables.

Author Response

Respected reviewer:

We greatly appreciate your professional review and valuable comments. As a result, we have revised our manuscript titled "Deeper Insights into Species Diversity and Ecological Characterization of the Macrosporum Group of the Genus Tuber".

Here below is our description on revision. Thank you very much.

 

Reviewer 2 Comments

Dear Authors!

I have reviewed the manuscript.

The topic of the manuscript is the phylogeny of the genus Tuber, its relatives relationships of its relatives, providing insights into Chinese species and groups. This is an overview of the genus.

The topic of the manuscript is a good and timely one, since, as the authors write, it is about this and and related topics, there is no comprehensive study. It fits well with the journal topics.

The manuscript is novel in that there are results from the genus, but few authors have collected them in a single volume.

My observations are as follows:

The abstract is not coherent, the point is lost. The abstract is not coherent, the point is lost. written more systematically, where the hypothesis and results are highlighted. I recommend the use of the rewrite the chapter.

Also, I have problems with the Introduction chapter, which is the Discussion chapter will also be affected. Most of the publications used are earlier.

I suggest rewriting and significantly expanding the chapter over the last 5-10 years

results published in the last 5-10 years, with a special focus on genetic results, and this should be addressed in the Discussion chapter.

The quality of the English language is ok, as are the figures and tables.

 

Point 1: The Abstract needs to be rewrite.

Response 1: Based on your kind comments, we have rewritten the abstract based on the research content and objectives of this article. Please see the abstract section of the revised manuscript. We hope with these efforts the paper is more neatly prepared, concise, professional and readable.

 

Point 2: References are not updated.

Response 2: Thank you very much. As you mentioned, we also noticed that most of the publications used were earlier. While the genus Tuber has received considerable attention in the worldwide, there is limited research on the Macrosporum clade within this genus. The Macrosporum clade is still poorly understood worldwide, although their study can be traced back to 1831.

It is precisely to clarify the phylogenetic relationships and species diversity of the Macrosporum clade, we conducted a comprehensive studies of all historical studies related to its taxonomy. This included examining the earliest published species and the changes in classification status at the genus, clade and species levels, such as the merger of the genus Paradox with Tuber etc.. Additionally, we utilized all available sequences related to the Macrosporum clade from GenBank to conduct a thorough analysis.

During our research, we found that there is indeed a scarcity of recent references on this clade. Given the limited research in the Macrosporum clade and the presence of the only endangered species within this clade of genus Tuber, we believe it is crucial to emphasize and strengthen research efforts on these biological resources, which is also one of the important reasons for writing this manuscript.

Although no new references were added, we carefully incorporated several sentences, titles, and citations at key points in the text, especially in the discussion section. These modifications have improved the completeness of the manuscript. The changes have been highlighted in yellow and can be found on page 8, specifically lines 294, 295, 315, 319, 322, 324, 325, 331, 333, 335, 338, and 340.

Additionally, we corrected several minor errors in the manuscript and highlighted them in yellow.

On page 2, line54: We changed the number eight to nine.

On page 2, line57: We added “T. sinomacrosporum”.

On page 2, line73: We removed reference [30] because it should have been included on page 3, line 128.

On page 8, line 341, 342 and 345: We have modified the italicized Latin name of Tuber iryudaense and Tuber macrosporum.

On page 10, line 365: We have modified the italicized Latin name of Tuber.

 

We genuinely hope that you can recognize and understand our response above.

Thank you very much for all of the constructive suggestions and helpful comments.

 

Sincerely yours,

Rui-Long Liu and Shan-Ping Wan

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommand it for publication.