Tetraploid Induction with Leaf Morphology and Sunburn Variation in Sorbus pohuashanensis (Hance) Hedl

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It was an interesting manuscript and the results are well explained. please consider the below comments:

Authors should be noted in the materials and methods that which statistical design was used. It is very important.

In Table 2, the Authors should be representing the significant differences in each column, for example in 12 h, 24h, and 48 h. Also, in Duncan's test, the treatment with the highest value is usually given the letter a, but in this manuscript have not been followed. Please revise it in whole tables in your manuscript.

Below Figure 4, it should be determined which plants are diploid and which are tetraploid. Please determine left and right in Figure 4.

Author Response

请参阅附件

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Fig 4 should be elobrated a bit more where author is discussing the plant height

satisfactory

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Abstract

Line 10 : Please correction the scientific name of this tree

Line 18 : Please add (w/v) after 0.2% 

Introduction

Line 34, 379 : Use "species" for academic correction

Materials and methods

Line 120 : 20th "th" should be in superscript 

Line 121 : Please define the meaning of standard irrigation and fertilizer management such as how frequently of watering or what fertilizer fomular was used to take care the plant 

Line 124 : Write the scientific name of this tree in Italic form

Line 127 - 128 : Please clarify or give more specific details in the meaning of "the sample" which use for flow cytometry analysis. Which part/organ/ of the plants were used and what size of these plant part/organ

Results

Line 170, 171, 180, 181,194, 195, 197, 210, 327, 329, 331, 332 : please add unit w/v after colchicine concentration 

Figure 2 : Figure2C and 2D both are mixoploid, why the authors wrote caption in 2D as diploid and tetraploid plants please correction and explain

Table 2 : please add "0" into 49.1"0"±1.41, 37.4"0"±0.47, 32.5"0"±0.61, 25.38±3.5"0" and 20.91±3.5"0" to meet the consistency of significant figure using througout this article

Line 184, 214, 220, 235, 270 : please add "Data presented mean + stadard error (SE)."

Table 3: 1) please change induction percentage into induction rate, tetraploid induction "e"fficiency (e in small letter), 2) change Concetration into Colchicine concentration (% w/v) [and also in Table A3]

Table 4 : please arrange (%) of concentration to be in the same line, change induction percentage into induction rate 

Figure 4a and 4b : please add -------2X------- or -------4X------- on the picture to inform which plants are diploid and tetraploid, so the readers can easily follow the results

Table 6 : 1) Please change into Apical leaflet "s"hape index, Middle leaflet "s"hape index (s in small letter), 2) if the authors wrote as percentage of sunburn then please delete (%)

Figure 6 - In caption please change capital letter of Blue Lines or  Green arrows into small letter

Discussion

- In "Colchicine induced tetraploids" the authors should give the reason why different colchicine concentration resulted in different plant responses. The authors should inform some details such "the treatment of 0.2% (w/v) colchicine could increase the possibility of tetraploid induction; meanwhile, increase colchicine concentration causes cell toxicity, increase cytoplasm viscosity which leads to abnormally function of the cell, disrupts microtubule polymerization, and also affects cell division and growth. So colchicine must be applied at precise time and concentration" etc.

- In "Polyploidy and plant resistance", authors should add the discussion from the background knowledge of plant anatomy too. Do the authors gather the data about leaf anatomy such as leaf cuticle thickness or trichome density between 2X and 4X? These anatomical structure may help in the answer why the 4X plants of this study are less resistance to sunburn than 2X. For example - in case of leaf trichomes, it is well know that leaf trichomes are a protective barrier against natural hazards including ultraviolet irradiation, and it has the report that trichome density in4X leaves was reduced to 70% of that in 2X leaves of Tanacetum parthenim (see https://journals.ashs.org/hortsci/view/journals/hortsci/45/1/article-p16.xml). This might be one possible reason related to this study. 

Table A4 - please correction this "Cumulative contribution rate (%) (%)contribution rate（%)"  what do the authors mean?

References

Some journal were written in abrreviation name such as ref [52], [56], [57], [58], [59], [62], [63], [66], [68], whereas most of them were written in full name, please correct these errors. (References of journal article must be written in abrreviation name according to MDPI rules)

Ref [2] - Sorbus sensu stricto, Sorbus must be in italic form

Ref that were Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture (PCTOC) must be written as Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture only 

Ref [14], [17], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [38], [39], [50], [52], [54], [61], [64] - correction again about capital letter of article name

In vitro and via should be in italic form 

This manuscript is well-written but need some corrections such as typing error, italic form of latin word. Please see in comments and suggestions. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf