Genotype–Environment Interactions for Tree Growth and Leaf Phytochemical Content of Cyclocarya paliurus (Batal.) Iljinskaja
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you very much for the invitation to review the manuscript entitled "Genotype by Environment Interaction for Tree Growth and Leaf Phytochemical Content of Cyclocarya paliurus" (forests-1246689). The Authors provide an interesting manuscript. Apart from high accumulation of secondary metabolite, a desire genotype should have high stability across environments or good performance over a specific environment. The assessment of the stability for C. paliurus genotype is essential for cultivation in large area to meet the increasing demand of tea production.
I have only some comments to the Authors:
- Please enter the family to which the species belongs.
- How many trees from one genotype and how many samples from one tree were used in the experiment?
- Please describe briefly how to identity and quantify the secondary metabolites.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: 1. Please enter the family to which the species belongs.
Response 1: Cyclocarya paliurus belongs to the Juglandaceae family. Done as you suggested in line 30. Thank you very much.
Point 2: 2. How many trees from one genotype and how many samples from one tree were used in the experiment?
Response 2: Three sample trees of each genotype per location were chosen and about 50 g fresh fully developed leaves for each tree was collected in the sampling. Leaf sample (0.8 g) for each genotype at each test site from three trees was extracted with to determine the secondary metabolites in the experiment. We have added these information in line 91 and line 100. Thank you very much.
Point 3: 3. Please describe briefly how to identity and quantify the secondary metabolites.
Response 3: Done as you suggested. The detail description was in line 105-135. Thank you for your suggestion.
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript has a substantial dataset with 13 genotypes, 7 flavonoids, and 6 treterpenoids, although only 2 locations and 1 year. The statistical analysis needs substantial changes, but these changes would be easy to implement.
Since Tables 1 and 2 already present the chemical data, there is a simple way to show which genotypes or “families” are the winners. In each column in these tables, bold the winner, and perhaps also use italics to show second place. For example, in Table 1 a reader could then see at a glance that family JH1 has the highest contents for 6 of these 8 flavonoids, and comes in second for the other 2 flavonoids. By contrast, the situation for Table 2 is more complicated.
It is extremely odd to use GGE or AMMI or any other such analysis when there are only 2 locations or environments. The authors should seriously consider presenting the DBH and tree height in a similar manner as the chemical data in Tables 1 and 2. This would be more straightforward.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: 1. This manuscript has a substantial dataset with 13 genotypes, 7 flavonoids, and 6 triterpenoids, although only 2 locations and 1 year. The statistical analysis needs substantial changes, but these changes would be easy to implement. Since Tables 1 and 2 already present the chemical data, there is a simple way to show which genotypes or “families” are the winners. In each column in these tables, bold the winner, and perhaps also use italics to show second place. For example, in Table 1 a reader could then see at a glance that family JH1 has the highest contents for 6 of these 8 flavonoids, and comes in second for the other 2 flavonoids. By contrast, the situation for Table 2 is more complicated.
Response 1: Done as you suggested. In the tables, the highest value was marked using bold and the second place was marked using italics in each column. Thank you for your suggestion.
Point 2: 2. It is extremely odd to use GGE or AMMI or any other such analysis when there are only 2 locations or environments. The authors should seriously consider presenting the DBH and tree height in a similar manner as the chemical data in Tables 1 and 2. This would be more straightforward.
Response 2: Done as you suggested. We have changed the figure 3 (original manuscript) into table 1 in the revised version. In the table presenting the DBH and tree height, the highest value was marked using bold and the second place was marked using italics in each column. These tables only showed the mean value across the two sites. Therefore, we showed “which-won-where” pattern and stability using GGE. Yes, GGE or AMMI analysis are often applied in studies when more than 2 locations or environments. However, the requirement is not absolute. For example, Ling et al. (2020) used GGE analysis when there are only 2 locations in their study (Ling, J.J.; Xiao, Y.; Hu, J.W.; Wang, F.; Ouyang, F.Q.; Wang, J.H.; Weng, Y.H.; Zhang, H.G. Genotype by environment interaction analysis of growth of Picea koraiensis families at different sites using BLUP-GGE. New Forest, 2020, doi:10.1007/s11056-020-09785-3). Moreover, we will definitely perform a future study to evaluate genotype by environment interaction for tree growth and leaf phytochemical yield of Cyclocarya paliurus by choosing a large number of genotypes and locations.
