Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to the author

I think several issues in the Introduction as well as in the Materials and Methods need major revision. These major and several minor concerns are explained in more detail in the following paragraphs.

 

Major concern

Introduction

The role of linkage disequilibrium, pleiotropy, and genetic, developmental, or phylogenetical constraints, as well as the role of antagonists on floral trait evolution, should be considered here and in the Discussion section.

L65–68: But a selfing strategy is expected to also show specialized mechanisms to favor effective self-pollination.

Results

L110–114: Results stated in this section are not clearly different from the next two sections. I suggest eliminating this section and moving the content accordingly to the next two sections.

L216–247: This subsection should be moved to the discussion section.

Discussion

See the first comment for the introduction.

Given that there is information about pollinators as potential drivers of floral traits in only eight species (4%), generalizations about the role of pollinators as selective agents on the phenotypic floral diversity in this genus must be handled with great care. The same applies to the abiotic factors.

Limitations of this review should be included.

Materials and methods

It is not clear how the different species were classified as native or introduced.

Inclusion criteria should be explained clearly, since maybe not all studies evaluate natural selection properly (e.g., phenotypic selection of floral traits requires that fitness vary with trait variation among individuals, which can be assessed by regression analyses). Given that the main focus of this review is about the drivers of phenotypic diversity, careful attention should be paid to whether the reviewed studies clearly evaluate natural selection on floral traits.

Given that not all floral visitors act as effective pollinators of plants, a detailed review of the methodology of the studies that evaluate the selection of floral traits by “pollinators” should be performed.

Conclusions

See the first comment for the introduction.

Figures and Tables

Table 1: This table should summarize examples of selective pressure by biotic and/or abiotic factors on floral traits; however, the body of the table doesn’t show this clearly.

Supplementary information

The term "explosive pollination” was not mentioned at all in the manuscript, nor was its implication on the evolution of this genus.

 

Minor concern

In addition to the following comments and suggestions, several text editions have been added in the PDF file. Letters in blue are suggested as insertions, while strikethrough letters/words are suggested as deletions.

Abstract

L16–17: It is not clear how phenotypic plasticity and soil microorganism interactions are related to abiotic factors.

Keywords: Use words distinct from those used in the abstract and title.

Introduction

L27–29: There is a more recent publication that shows this value as high as 90%; see Tong et al. (2023).

Results

L86–87: It is not clear if 10 or 59 studies were reviewed.

L95–100: The sum of the percentages of all studies is 52% (17+30+5).

L134–137: These two ideas are unlinked.

L218–220: It is not clear how a plant that attract pollinators away from native species benefits co-flowering plants.

L231: I don’t think these studies show strong evidence of coevolution among Lupinus and pollinators. In general, coevolution is widely used but rarely tested.

L234–235: This sentence is not clear. In the previous sentence, it was mentioned that variation promotes adaptive radiation, but here it was mentioned that speciation collapses.

L239–240: Even plants with specialized pollination may exhibit high genetic variation if their pollinators perform cross-pollination. Moreover, plants with a greater variety of pollinators may suffer more heterospecific pollen deposition if they are generalist.

Conclusions

L338–340: This sentence is not clear.

Figures and Tables

Figure 2: The different geographic regions are not clearly identified or stated.

Table 1: The table title is not clear. Rewrote.

Table 2: I think this table should be moved as supplementary information, since its information is not so relevant to the main focus of this review.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please refer to the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript of plants-4080052 provides a valuable review on phenotypic variability of floral traits of Lupinus (Fabaceae). Pollinators and climate (especial temperature) are two main selective factors that drive variation of floral traits. Pollinators shape floral traits through specialized selection that optimizes pollination efficiency, and temperature section promotes its climatic and altitudinal adaptations. This review provides informative evidence for the conservation and management of Lupinus. But the conclusions should be simplified as it too long to understand.  

 

Line 86， 59 ？

Figure 2, the maps are not clear, and Lupinus should be italic in the map.

Lines 110, 145, Lupinus should not be italic as other words.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

You've assembled an interesting literature review (though your search terms may have caused you to miss a few published reports).  I've attached a marked-up version of your paper, with minor edits for your consideration (primarily to improve clarity and conciseness) all highlighted in yellow.  There are also substantive issues that require special attention beyond minor wording changes.  These are included as Notes in red font, 23 of them in the body of the paper and five more related to problematic references.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Generally, your paper reads well.  However, there is a recurring problem with the use of "this,"  "these" and similar words related to ambiguous or vague referents (in particular, see Notes 6, 7, 15, 16, and 17 included in the attached, marked-up copy of your manuscript).  

Author Response

Please refer to the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Several text editions have been added again in the PDF file since they were not considered in the reviewed version. Letters in blue are suggested as insertions, while strikethrough letters/words are suggested as deletions.

Introduction

L37–38: These two paragraphs are unlinked.

Results

L135–136, 198–205: These paragraphs are completely incomprehensible.

Discussion

It should be considered that specialized floral adaptations may only evolve when their pollinators are available in space and time. This implies that their pollinators should be, in a way, resilient or resistant to environmental changes. So, probably vulnerability may be overestimated. However, contemporary environmental changes may be more drastic than previous changes and may surpass the aforementioned resilience.

L363–365: This sentence is not clear; please rewrite.

L365–367, 396: Again, I don’t think there is strong evidence of coevolution.

L375–380: This sentence is not clear; please rewrite.

Figures and Tables

Table 1: In L sp., include which specific corolla trait was analyzed (e.g., shape, color, size). In L. angustifolius explain which type of stress (e.g., hydric, solar radiation) and which environmental factor was evaluated. I think scent (in L. arcticus) and alkaloid production (in L. bakeri) should not be considered as abiotic factors. In L. elegans, specify what kind of variability was evaluated (e.g., genetic, phenotypic).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf