Study on the Compatibility of Distant Hybridization Between Rhododendron Subgenus Tsutsusi and R. moulmainense, a Fragrant Rhododendron from China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See the comments in the file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See the file

Author Response

As the article has been further revised, we now need to resubmit the response to you. Please refer to the attachment "Response 1".

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses an important topic in ornamental plant breeding: the compatibility of distant hybridization to develop fragrant Rhododendron varieties. The study combines morphological, histological, and statistical analyses to assess reproductive barriers, providing valuable insights into cross-compatibility and pollination techniques.

 

However, the following comments could be addressed:

 

1/ The English language requires thorough editing for grammar, syntax, and scientific flow. Moreover, ensure botanical names are consistently italicized and formatted

 

2/ The abstract is too long and descriptive; should concisely summarize objectives, methods, key results, and conclusions.

 

3/ The introduction contains repetitive background information on hybridization barriers and ornamental value.

 

4/ The methodology is generally clear but lacks detail in certain areas. Specify the number of replicates per cross combination.

 

5/ What genetic or physiological differences among these cultivars could explain the complete sterility of ‘Carnation’ × R. moulmainense compared to the moderate fertility of ‘Red Tiara’ and ‘Fuchsia Parasol’?

 

6/ Were any genetic distance or molecular marker analyses performed to correlate compatibility levels with genetic relationships? There is no mention of genetic or molecular evidence that could confirm the cytological observations, despite references to such studies.

 

7/ In the discussion section, separate pre-fertilization barriers, post-fertilization barriers, and pollination method optimizations into subsections. Moreover, some interpretations (such as callose accumulation being the main barrier) should be supported by quantitative metrics.

 

8/ Could additional techniques, such as in vitro pollen germination tests or molecular marker-assisted verification of hybrids, strengthen your conclusions?

 

9/ How do your findings compare numerically to hybridization success in related species or subgenera?

 

10/ The reference list is comprehensive and consistent, but needs to be checked for uniform formatting.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Should be reviewed

Author Response

As the article has been further revised, we now need to resubmit the response to you. Please refer to the attachment "Response 2".

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have carefully and thoroughly addressed all the comments and concerns raised during the review process. The revisions provided are adequate, and the responses demonstrate that the authors have taken the feedback into serious consideration. The revised manuscript has improved and could be considered for publication.