Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Can genetic diversity of the studied oaks influence their health and survival in unfavourable weather conditions as a consequence of the observed climate change? Nowakowska et al. 2007 studied thirteen populations of pedunculate oak (Quercus robur L.) to determine genetic variation and similarity in relation to health and resistance to stress factors. All studied oak populations were characterised by high genetic variation (GST = 0.818). A large genetic distance separated two populations (Jarocin and Karczma Borowa) from the remaining populations, which showed a haplotype pattern typical for Balkan and Iberian oak refugia. The health status of stands was monitored in two populations, Młynary and Jarocin. Different levels of damage symptoms were found, but mortality was higher in Jarocin, where a high frequency of the Balkan haplotype "7" was found. Severe tree damage (60%) occurred in the stand in Jarocin, probably due to a combination of unfavourable climatic conditions and infection by pathogens such as Phytophthora. The population with higher cpDNA diversity (Młynary) proved to be better adapted to variable environmental conditions (drought, high temperature) than Jarocin with lower genetic diversity. It may be worth responding to these observations in the discussion.

Reference to be cited: Nowakowska, J. A., Oszako, T., Bieniek, J., & Rakowski, K. (2007). GENETIC CHARACTERIZATION IN RELATION TO THE HEALTH STATE OF OAK POPULATIONS IN THE ELBLASKI AND KROTOSZYÑSKI REGIONS OF POLAND. Forest Research Papers, (3), 33-51.

L98 – improve bracket

L110 – change to km²

L198 – start the sentence with “Ex situ”

L 290  - delete this instruction “section may be divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn.”

In general, I would suggest such a layout when a new numbered paragraph (subparagraph) starts after pressing "enter", with spacing between paragraphs and from the left (see L268-on)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors of this study examine three species of oaks that are endangered and belong to the IUCN category of dangerous, vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered species. These species are special in that they can only be preserved ex-situ. In this study, the authors found that the overall genetic diversity of the studied rare oaks is relatively low compared to the more common oaks. And this suggests that genetic diversity may be low for other endangered oak species as well. The authors hypothesized that for this reason it should be tested by analyzing several even more damaged oaks.

The introduction is written clear and highlighted the importance of this study.  It is highlighted the main four aims of the work. The Materials and Methods described with sufficient details. The methodology provides references to sampling and genotyping methods. The oak species studied in the manuscript are well described. The used statistical methods are described in detail. The paper provides a fairly detailed description of the results. Just in the first sentence would not like to see a list of what data is presented in the table, but an explanation of what was obtained, e.g. whether there is a difference between the results obtained, how much they differed. The discussion clear and broad.

Minor mistakes:

62 line: GSPC - explain the abbreviation

71 line: IUCN - explain the abbreviation

184 line: move the explanation of the abbreviation to line 181

98-99 line: When mentioning tree names for the first time in the manuscript, their full binominal name should be written: Quercus boyntonii Beadle, Quercus oglethorpensis W.H.Duncan, Quercus georgiana M.A.Curtis.

287-290 lines: maybe something is missed here

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf