Genetic Parameter Estimates for the Growth and Morphological Traits of Castanopsis hystrix Families and the Genotype × Environment Interaction Effects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is interesting and addresses an important problem in the forest tree breeding – genotype x environment interactions. The species of interest is of great regional importance, too.

Some remarks and recommendations:

Introduction – can be improved

The transition from the part about the importance of GxE interactions, genetic parameters and methods for their study, on the one hand, and Castanopsis, on the other, can be smoother. 

The mentioned methods (page 1, last paragraph) are not the only ones to study GxE interactions. One rather old, but useful reference:

Skrøppa T., 1984. A critical evaluation of methods available to estimate the genotype x environment interaction. Studia Forestalia Suecica, 166: 3-14.  

Please, use “GXE interaction effect” instead of “GXE Interactive effect”. An also use “genotypes” instead of “varieties”, and use “single-location” or “single-site” instead of “singular-location”.

Other terminological remarks:

“coefficients for genetic and environmental variances”  (page 4, last paragraph) is incorrect. The correct terms are “genetic coefficient of variation”, or better “additive genetic coefficient of variation” and “environmental coefficient of variation”. However, the formulae are correct.  

Formula (1): the term “morphological number” is incorrect. Please, use “form factor” instead.

Formula (8): The most frequently used term for si is “selection intensity”, or “intensity of selection”, and not “selection strength”.

Table 3. What is the meaning of the “contribution rate”? Is it “variance component” in %? If so, please, make the correct substitution.

The legend below Table 3 can be improved. In this case (ANOVA) the asterisks indicate significant effects of a given source of variation, not significant differences. In theory, when the F-ratio is statistically significant, this means that at leas one of the mean values is significantly different from the others. And if you are interested to know which one(s), you will have to perform post-hoc tests.

Below   formula 9 (line 185): there is an expression Yijkl = μ +Bi +Pj +Fk+BPij+BFik+eijkl, which has nothing to do with the formula above. Please, correct.

The paper will benefit if you represent table 4 as figures. Now it is full of values and letter and it difficult to read, but this will be the authors’ decision.  

The conclusions could be rewritten in order to be more synthesized. You do not need there sentences like ”This species also has great application prospects and selection potential in tropical and subtropical regions with acidic soils.”, which are true, but are not based on the results of the study.

 

Author Response

Dear Ms. Samantha Cui, and dear reviewer: 
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewer’s concerning our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: 
Responds to the reviewer’s comments: 
Point 1: Introduction – can be improved. The transition from the part about the importance of GxE interactions, genetic parameters and methods for their study, on the one hand, and Castanopsis, on the other, can be smoother.
Response 1: Done, the details please see the revised manuscript.
Point 2:The mentioned methods (page 1, last paragraph) are not the only ones to study GxE interactions. One rather old, but useful reference.
Response 2: The mentioned method had been added. The details please see the revised manuscript.
Point 3: Please, use “GXE interaction effect” instead of “GXE Interactive effect”. An also use “genotypes” instead of “varieties”, and use “single-location” or “single-site” instead of “singular-location”.
Response 3: Done, the details please see the revised manuscript.
Point 4: “coefficients for genetic and environmental variances”(page 4, last paragraph) is incorrect. The correct terms are “genetic coefficient of variation”, or better “additive genetic coefficient of variation” and “environmental coefficient of variation”. However, the formulae are correct.
Response 4: Done, the details please see the revised manuscript.
Point 5: Formula (1): the term “morphological number” is incorrect. Please, use “form factor” instead.
Response 5: Done, the details please see the revised manuscript.

Point 6: Formula (8): The most frequently used term for si is “selection intensity”, or “intensity of selection”, and not “selection strength”.
Response 6: Done, the details please see the revised manuscript.
Point 7: Table 3. What is the meaning of the “contribution rate”? Is it “variance component” in %? If so, please, make the correct substitution.
Response 7: Here, contribution rate refers to the ratio of the variance of each trait variation factor to the total variance. Maybe, this value has no statistical significance, so it has been deleted in the text. The same modifications had been made in the tables 5, 6 and 8. The details please see the revised manuscript.
Point 8: The legend below Table 3 can be improved. In this case (ANOVA) the asterisks indicate significant effects of a given source of variation, not significant differences. In theory, when the F-ratio is statistically significant, this means that at leas one of the mean values is significantly different from the others. And if you are interested to know which one(s), you will have to perform post-hoc tests.
Response 8: The significance of genetic variation was measured by the P value obtained through significance testing. Generally speaking, P<0.05 is a significant difference, and P<0.01 is an extremely significant difference. The P-value had been added in the text, and similar modifications had been made to Tables 5, 6, and 8. The details please see the revised manuscript.
Point 10: formula 9 (line 185): there is an expression Yijkl =μ+Bi +Pj+Fk+BPij+BFik+eijkl, which has nothing to do with the formula above. Please, correct.
Response 10: Done, This formula was redundant, and had been deleted.
(10). The paper will benefit if you represent table 4 as figures. Now it is full of values and letter and it difficult to read, but this will be the authors’ decision.
Response 10: Done, the details please see the revised manuscript.
Point 11: The conclusions could be rewritten in order to be more synthesized. You do not need there sentences like ”This species also has great application prospects and selection potential in tropical and subtropical regions with acidic soils.”, which are true, but are not based on the results of the study.
Response 11: Done, the details please see the revised manuscript.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. 
Best regards!
Sincerely,
Guangjin Liu
Research Institute of Tropical Forestry, Chinese Academy of Forestry, 
[Postal address] 201# Keyuan Road, Pingxiang City, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region
[Phone number] 0771-8585026
[Fax number] 0771-8585026
[Email address] lhlgj0523@163.com

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

ear Authors,

I have some major comments are given follow:

1- Some details about the species could be given such as rotation age. 

2- To understand of studied traits is not easy for readers such as CW, HCB. They could be described.

3-Data collection is not understeable for readers such as from how many trees from sites, block, plot

4- Block and plot is not understeable for readers. 

5- Are the 21 families the same in the sites?

6- Models of  ANOVA and their results given in Tables are not accordance.  Full results could be given. Even the paper focused on the GxE interaction, family and block could be given as source of variation in the results of single site.

7- Which test was used for homogenous group?

So, The material and method and also results have problems,  in the paper.

Best regards,

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Ms. Samantha Cui, and dear reviewer: 
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewer’s concerning our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: 
Responds to the reviewer’s comments: 
Point 1: Some details about the species could be given such as rotation age.
Response 1: Done, the details please see the revised manuscript.
Point 2: To understand of studied traits is not easy for readers such as CW, HCB. They could be described.
Response 2: In the section on trait determination, we detailed the measurement methods for these two traits. The details please see the revised manuscript.
Point 3: Data collection is not understeable for readers such as from how many trees from sites, block, plot.
Response 3: Done, the details please see the revised manuscript.
Point 4: Block and plot is not understeable for readers.
Response 4: Done, the details please see the revised manuscript.
Point 5: Are the 21 families the same in the sites?
Response 5: Yes, these 21 families were shared among the three sites, and they were been planted in a random block design within every block, with a high preservation rate. The minimum number of plants in each block was 3. The details please see the revised manuscript.
Point 6: Models of ANOVA and their results given in Tables are not accordance. Full results could be given. Even the paper focused on the G x E interaction, family and block could be given as source of variation in the results of single site.
Response 6: Done. Tables 3 and 6 had detailed all sources of variation for each trait. The details please see the revised manuscript.
Point 7: Which test was used for homogenous group?
Response 7: The 21 shared families tested have been listed in Table 1, and a random block layout test forest has been used in each site. The observed data obtained is balanced data. Therefore, the experimental methods and data analysis in this article were conducted for the 21 shared families. It is worth noting that there are significant differences in soil and climate among three sites. While, BLUP-GGE is the optimal method to analyze G x E. So, all genetic tests are reasonable and feasible. 

Thank you very much for your suggestion. 
Best regards!
Sincerely,
Guangjin Liu
Research Institute of Tropical Forestry, Chinese Academy of Forestry, 
[Postal address] 201# Keyuan Road, Pingxiang City, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region
[Phone number] 0771-8585026
[Fax number] 0771-8585026
[Email address] lhlgj0523@163.com

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed correctly all my comments and in my opinion the manuscript is ready for publication.

 

Author Response

 

Dear editor:

We gratefully thank editor and all reviewers for their spend making their constructive remarks and useful suggestions, which has significantly raised the quality of the manuscript and has enables us to improve the manuscript. Each suggested revision and comment, brought forward by the reviewers was accurately incorporated and considered. Below the comments of the reviewers are response point by point and the revisions are indicated. And the full text has been revised carefully for another time.

The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Point 1: However, I noticed several editorial issues that need to be addressed. For example, tables are cut, columns in tables (for example those P-values) are in two-columns for a number. These aspects do not allow clear reading. Maybe using a smaller font for the tables will help.
Response 1: The abbreviation “df” was used as degrees of freedom, and provide explanation in the notes. At same time, the font of the data in the table has been reduced. Fortunately, the above issues had been properly resolved. The details please see the revised manuscript.

Point 2: Also, your plots in Figure 1 and 2 are so small that really you can not see anything, and hardly interpret anything, I suggest to make them bigger so at least they can be followed.
Response 2: Done, the details please see the revised manuscript.

Point 3: I also noticed that some equations are with strange numbers, and that in some of these you are missing index (for example Z) is alone, but the you define Eij (see equation 9).
Response 3: We had corrected non-standard equation. At the same time, references were supplemented. The details please see the revised manuscript.

Thank you very much for your suggestion.

Best regards!

Sincerely,

Guangjin Liu

Research Institute of Tropical Forestry, Chinese Academy of Forestry,

[Postal address] 201# Keyuan Road, Pingxiang City, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region

[Phone number] 0771-8585026

[Fax number] 0771-8585026

[Email address] lhlgj0523@163.com

Author Response File: Author Response.docx