Genetic Diversity and Population Differentiation of Pinus koraiensis in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A solid manuscript in general. Some minor improvement could be achieved in:
1) Introduction which sounds a little verbose. Suggest to shorten it by removing unnecessary descriptions about species' value and breeding, etc. since the primary objectives of this study are to reveal the levels of genetic diversity and population genetic structure using EST-SSR markers.
2) Material and Methods - suggest to describe more clearly about the ages and crown positions of sample trees and their neighborhoods. Tree age, crown position (dominant position or understory trees) and abundance can potentially affect the results.
3) Results - Table 3, suggest to use lines to divide the a, b, c portions of the AMOVA results.
4) Discussion -- again, can be improved to increase conciseness and logic. suggest to avoid stretching too far from the core content of the study.
If possible, it would be highly interesting if morphological data of population performances from common garden experiments can be linked to the revealed levels of population genetic diversity in this study.
Author Response
List of responses
Manuscript ID: horticulturae-1193373
Genetic Diversity and Population Differentiation of Korean pine (Pinus koraiensis) from Natural Locations in China
Dear Editor-in-chief and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Genetic Diversity and Population Differentiation of Korean pine (Pinus koraiensis) from Natural Locations in China” (horticulturae-1193373). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving the quality our paper. We have studied all comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet the standard of your highly esteemed journal. For ease of tracking, we highlighted the changes with yellow color in the revised version. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewers’ comments are given below.
Responds to reviewer’s comments:
Reviewer #1
A solid manuscript in general. Some minor improvement could be achieved in:
1) Introduction which sounds a little verbose. Suggest to shorten it by removing unnecessary descriptions about species' value and breeding, etc. since the primary objectives of this study are to reveal the levels of genetic diversity and population genetic structure using EST-SSR markers.
Response: We appreciate the valuable comment and shortened the introduction as suggested (see the Introduction section).
2) Material and Methods - suggest to describe more clearly about the ages and crown positions of sample trees and their neighborhoods. Tree age, crown position (dominant position or understory trees) and abundance can potentially affect the results.
Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. As the sampled individuals are naturally grown, it is difficult to determine the age of the tree. As to the crown position, all needle samples were collected from the middle position, which is clearly stated in the revised version (see L447).
3) Results - Table 3, suggest to use lines to divide the a, b, c portions of the AMOVA results.
Response: Comment well appreciated and the suggestion incorporated (see Table 3).
4) Discussion -- again, can be improved to increase conciseness and logic. suggest to avoid stretching too far from the core content of the study.
Response: we appreciate the valuable comment by the reviewer and condensed the discussion as suggested (see the new discussion section).
If possible, it would be highly interesting if morphological data of population performances from common garden experiments can be linked to the revealed levels of population genetic diversity in this study.
Response: Unfortunately, we have not conducted a common garden experiments to evaluate morphological variation among and within population. Therefore, we couldn’t supply these data.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors present a study about “Genetic Diversity a of Korean in China”. From my understanding, the technical parts of this work were done carefully and correctly. Moreover, I appreciate the effort the authors collecting the data. The research question is a very interesting and original topic. However, this article has some important weaknesses that I list below:
- Title is long and complex, simplify it, please.
- The article is written as a report, maybe is a master thesis document transformed in an article.
- The Writing must be improved, some repetitions in the text
- More references should be provided: See report.
- Hypothesis are lacking. what do you expect… why do you expect it?
- Methods section is very long
- Figure 1 must to be re-edited: not clear
- Many tables are nowt well edited
- Results: Tables are not clear due to the edition and structure, simplify it, please.
- Discussion
- Future research and recommendations are not indicated.
- There are important elements that must be more strongly highlighted in this paper:
- What are the original elements of this research?
- Need to study this subject?
- Implications for forest management (not only for conservation)?
More comments in the document revised.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
List of responses
Manuscript ID: horticulturae-1193373
Genetic Diversity and Population Differentiation of Korean pine (Pinus koraiensis) from Natural Locations in China
Dear Editor-in-chief and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Genetic Diversity and Population Differentiation of Korean pine (Pinus koraiensis) from Natural Locations in China” (horticulturae-1193373). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving the quality our paper. We have studied all comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet the standard of your highly esteemed journal. For ease of tracking, we highlighted the changes with yellow color in the revised version. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewers’ comments are given below.
Responds to reviewer’s comments:
Reviewer #2
The authors present a study about “Genetic Diversity a of Korean in China”. From my understanding, the technical parts of this work were done carefully and correctly. Moreover, I appreciate the effort the authors collecting the data. The research question is a very interesting and original topic. However, this article has some important weaknesses that I list below:
1) Title is long and complex, simplify it, please.
Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion and shortened the title as follows: “Genetic Diversity and Population Differentiation of Pinus koraiensis in China” (see the new title)
2) The article is written as a report, maybe is a master thesis document transformed in an article.
The Writing must be improved, some repetitions in the text
Response: Actually the manuscript was not a master thesis document. We thoroughly checked the manuscript and avoided repetitions.
3) More references should be provided: See report.
Response: We addressed the suggestion made on-line on the manuscript and provided the requested references (see L57, L72)
4) Hypothesis are lacking. what do you expect… why do you expect it?
Response: we provided a hypothesis in the revised version (see L107-110)
5) Methods section is very long
Response: We attempted to clearly and sufficiently describe the methodology we used. Thus, we believe that it is necessary to describe the method well.
6) Figure 1 must to be re-edited: not clear
Response: We have edited Fig. 1 to make it clearer (see the new Fig. 1).
7) Many tables are not well edited
Response: We have carefully edited the tables in the revised version
8) Results: Tables are not clear due to the edition and structure, simplify it, please.
Response: We edited the tables and believe that the tables are clear and self-standing
9) Discussion
Future research and recommendations are not indicated.
Response: We recommended future study at the end of the conclusion section in the revised version (see L525-529).
10) There are important elements that must be more strongly highlighted in this paper:
- What are the original elements of this research?
- Need to study this subject?
- Implications for forest management (not only for conservation)?
Response: we addressed the comments in the revised version. The original element of this study lies on the fact that it is the first comprehensive study involving a large number of samples and ample molecular markers (see L101-104). The fact that previous studies conducted on limited number of samples and markers necessitated this study, which is clearly stated in the introduction section (see L93-98). This is stated in the introduction section. We also added implications of the findings from forest management perspective in the sub section 3.4 (see L423-431)..
11) More comments in the document revised.
Response: We went through the on-line comments and addressed all of them accordingly. The changes are all highlighted with yellow color for ease of tracking.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This article refers to the investigation of 109 genetic variation and evaluation of the genetic diversity of Pinus koraiensis There were collected germplasm resources from 480 individuals of 16 natural populations. Its structure is typical for research articles. It was written quite well. However, please move the chapter "Materials and Methods" before "Results" after "Introduction".
Detailed comments:
- Please remove "China" from keywords.
- The article should be written impersonally, avoiding the word "we" - see line 107 and others.
- Tables and figures with their descriptions should be placed on one page.
- Figure 1 is illegible. Please correct the resolution.
Author Response
List of responses
Manuscript ID: horticulturae-1193373
Genetic Diversity and Population Differentiation of Korean pine (Pinus koraiensis) from Natural Locations in China
Dear Editor-in-chief and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Genetic Diversity and Population Differentiation of Korean pine (Pinus koraiensis) from Natural Locations in China” (horticulturae-1193373). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving the quality our paper. We have studied all comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet the standard of your highly esteemed journal. For ease of tracking, we highlighted the changes with yellow color in the revised version. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewers’ comments are given below.
Responds to reviewer’s comments:
Reviewer 3
1) Please remove "China" from keywords.
Response: We have removed “China” from keywords.
2) The article should be written impersonally, avoiding the word "we" - see line 107 and others.
Response: The word “we” has been modified in text.
3) Tables and figures with their descriptions should be placed on one page.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We have modified the Tables and Figures.
4) Figure 1 is illegible. Please correct the resolution.
Response: We have edited Fig. 1 to make it clearer (see the new Fig. 1). The width of the line and the number shown next to the arrows indicate the size of migration rate. Thus, some line may be unclear.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
