Population Genetic Structure Analysis Reveals Significant Genetic Differentiation of the Endemic Species Camellia chekiangoleosa Hu. with a Narrow Geographic Range

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Do we have bottlenecks in the provinces (southern Zhejiang, southern Anhui, northeastern Jiangxi, southern Hunan and northern Fujian), that can affect the diversity Patten.
2. The diversity analysis targeted larger area of distribution. The populations targeted from four provinces only,

It's depending on the availability of the material or the are other limitations. Earlier study using ISSR makers was done even the smaller samples size. Therefore, its recommend

To include all the natural populations, at least at the county level.

3. Generally, EST SSR makers have lower polymorphic potential, why not the makers from the genomic regions other than the expressed genome was considered?
4. I believe the sample size of 528 individuals representing 12 geographical populations are good, BUT not complemented with the average (4.625) and effective number of alleles ( 2.682, any justifications. Its limitation of markers or the targeted species remained with low level of diversity.
5. Diversity inferences (GST, FST, RST)  are in contradiction of the AMOVA, wherein maximum diversity (more than 75%) existing within the populations. OR the differentiation is restricted with few populations.
6. Another, Noticeable is the model based structure analysis , Wherein delta K is 10, means the populations are expected to differentiated.
7. The English of the manuscript required critical language check.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper reports on the genetic structure of an endemic Camellia species, C. chekiangoleosa, in China via SSR technique. The finding of this work is based on the 16 SSR markers, conducted on 12 natural populations, and the results are well-discussed. The paper is well-written, with less to no mistake in the information conveyed. The objective of this work is clear and achieved through this study. For the analysis part, the methods are relevant and results are presentable. I could hardly find any errors or mistakes in this work after reading for at least twice.

My only comments for this paper are as below:

line 43, line 340. The sentence starts with "C. chekiangoleosa". With the species name at the first of the sentence, the genus name should be spelled out in full. i.e Camellia chekiangoleosa. I might missed out some of them in this comment, please check for this mistake throughout the manuscript.

line 308 C. huana

line 311 C. micrantha?

line 313 Camellia nitidissima var microcarpa is not an accepted species name. Based on the most recent classification, it should be regarded as synonym to Camellia petelotii var. microcarpa (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:970989-1). Please change to the correct species name to avoid misleading issues.

I am not sure if this will be edited by the proof editor, but the references were not properly formatted. Some examples are reference number 35, 41, 42, 46, 47. Please check all of them if the authors are required to correct them accordingly.

All in all, it is a good manuscript that fits well to the scope of the Journal. I highly recommend it to be published in Forests.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Huang et al's manuscript (MS) titled "Population genetic structure analysis reveals significant genetic differentiation of the endemic species Camellia chekiangoleosa with a narrow geographic range" addresses the genetic diversity of 12 wild Camellia chekiangoleosa populations based on EST-SSR markers with multiple approaches. In general, the finding from this paper will enrich the knowledge and understanding of the genetic diversity of plant species in China. Overall, the MS is basically written clearly but the English still needs to be improved by a native English speaker. Certain sentences and even certain paragraphs are sound strange. In the second paragraph of the Introduction, several sentences should be added on the morphology and biology of the studied species. In addition, the Introduction should define the endangerment of the studied species better, and better present the results of previous research on the studied species. Moreover, the aims and hypotheses of the study should be defined better. Most of the methods used for data analysis are acceptable, and the results are more or less clearly presented. Nevertheless, the quality of the figures is very poor. Images of much better quality should be enclosed. Figures 4 a and b could be placed under Supplement Material, and Figure 4c could be merged with Figure 1. The results of the Mantel test should be presented better and more informatively in the figure (r, r-squared, p value etc.). The discussion mostly boils down to the repetition of results and requires considerable changes. Certain paragraphs in the discussion are difficult to read and consist of disconnected sentences. The results should be discussed better, more references should be added, and the discussion itself should be organized better and more logically in sub-sections. There is also room for improvement in the section on Conclusions.

Further comments and minor corrections are provided in the enclosed document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors has responded the all the concerns.  I do not have any further comments. Manuscript can be accepted. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper has been significantly improved. However, the quality of the figures is still very poor.

Nevertheless, my major concern for this study are the results of the Mantel test. The results are not clearly presented. Coefficient of determination (r-squared) should be computed. In addition, regression line through a scatterplot of data should be presented as well. The same goes for the equation of the regression line. This part of the study must be reviewed once again.

Certain sentences and paragraphs are difficult to read - highlighted in the main document.

Figure 4. Results of the structure analysis of Quercus variabilis populations when K=10.  Did the authors research Quercus variabilis?

Additional comments and corrections are marked in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors and editor,

I have read the reviewed version of the paper with great interest. In my opinion, the paper has been improved significantly, and a few more comments and minor corrections are provided in the attached document.

All the best in further work!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx