Centro De Investigación Científica De Yucatán, A
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Mérida, Yucatán a 07 de mayo de 2013 Dra. Teresa Terrazas Editora en Jefe, Botanical Sciences Presente Estimada Dra. Terrazas: Anexo a la presente le envío la versión revisada del manuscrito titulado “Distylous traits in Cordia dodecandra and C. sebestena (Boraginaceae) from the Yucatan Peninsula”, MS1264, en colaboración con César Canché-Collí. Como se detalla abajo, esta versión incorpora prácticamente todos los cambios sugeridos por los tres revisores y por usted (su carta de decisión enviada el 30 de diciembre, 2012). Quiero añadir que agradecemos el tiempo y el esfuerzo de los revisores y recibimos con entusiasmo las sugerencias y correcciones, los cuales han mejorado en gran medida el manuscrito. Esperamos que esta nueva versión sea apropiada para su publicación en Botanical Sciences. Sin más por el momento le envío un cordial saludo y quedo de usted, Atentamente Azucena Canto [email protected] Respuesta a las revisiones Para ayudar al seguimiento de los cambios hechos al manuscrito, nuestras respuestas a las sugerencias y correcciones se escriben en color azul después de los párrafos correspondientes a las revisiones originales. Los números de línea refieren a los de la versión revisada. Para ahorrar espacio, a los párrafos originales se les ha extraído algunas líneas no esenciales [se marcan los sitios extraídos]. Editora en jefe Los revisores coinciden en que el manuscrito tiene información valiosa, pero no debe ser aceptado en la forma en que se encuentra (ver comentarios abajo y en texto), ya que requiere de cambios mayores y reescribirse desde introducción hasta discusión. Se ha editado por completo todo el manuscrito re-enfocándolo a la luz de los comentarios. Abajo se detallan en extenso todos los cambios. [texto cortado] para demostrar la heterostilia es necesario datos experimentales que no se presentan en este trabajo. Cuando planeamos el estudio estábamos interesados en mostrar la segregación de morfos florales a través de la variación morfológica, pero concordamos que es necesario incluir datos experimentales sobre el sistema reproductivo. Para esto y con los datos que disponemos hemos incluido los resultados experimentales sobre el sistema reproductivo de C. dodecandra. Desafortunadamente para C. sebestena no pudimos contar con los individuos suficientes para realizar los experimentos, pero en su defecto hemos incluido variables sugerentes del sistema reproductivo. Se detalla más adelante. Como señala el revisor 1 si se define mejor el objetivo se podría dar una mejor orientación a los resultados y discusión. Se ha cambiado la redacción del objetivo para aclarar la finalidad del estudio y los resultados se han organizado bajo la premisa del objetivo y asimismo, la discusión. Se detalla más adelante. Resolver los problemas de pseudoréplicas y los propósitos de los análisis e índices empleados es fundamental. Hecho. Se han reanalizado los datos corrigiendo el problema de pseudoréplicas y se ha añadido aclaraciones de la finalidad de los análisis y los índices utilizados. Revisor # 1 I think the objective of the study should be better defined as the description of reciprocal herkogamy in this two species rather than the proposed aims. Done. The objective has been rewritten, as suggested. I missed an important conclusion at the end of the abstract, about the differences between both species or the implications the findings may have. Closing sentences have been added. In the analytical part, I think the authors should re-focused the PCA proposal. Done (P9L16-22 and P10L1-7) They also must be careful with their real “n” in the statistical analysis and look carefully to the possibility of pseudoreplication. They should also use the Sanchez et al 2008 index to determine the reciprocity in the populations, since it is a more intuitive and generalizing method. The index of Sanchez et al. (2008) was used in this version. Another major problem in my opinion is that the English style needs correction [text excised here]. A native English speaker revised this version. 1.- P2L1. please, re-write the sentence with a correct definition of heterostyly and reciprocal herkogamy Definition of distyly has been added (P2L2-4). 2.- P1L4. Are you sure there are minimal studies? I think there are not many but still… Sentences about the number of quantitative studies of distyly have been removed from the Abstract and Introduction. 3.- P1L4. We used both qualitative and quantitative approaches to describe this type of polymorphism in two tree species in Yucatan, Mexico. Changes were made in this part to make more explicit the significance of studying distyly using the proposed indices and the uni- and multivariate analysis (P2L8-12). 4.- P1L7. Variation in floral morphology and degree of reciprocity between morphs were explored using univariate and multivariate analyses, as well as relative reciprocity, reciprocity and precision indices. Sentences of this part were changed to clarify the analytical approach used for studying variation in floral morphology and reciprocal herkogamy (P2L8-12), as detailed in the Materials and Methods (P9L11-22, P10L1-22 and P11L1-15). 5.- P1L8. “…clearly distylous and reciprocally herkogamous”. Distylous species are characterized by several other features (like the SI the authors mentioned) so I would not talk about anything but morphological aspects – ie, reciprocal herkogamy, since they do not look at any other. Agreed. Experimental data of self-incompatibility and morph ratio have been incorporated and analyzed (P2L13-18). 6.- Introduction. “Heterostyly is a genetically-controlled floral polymorphism...” Changes were made in the Introduction, as suggested. Distyly definition was incorporated in the opening paragraph (P5L2-5). 7.- P4L3. (tristyly) morphs that exhibit reciprocal. This sentence has been removed to refocus Introduction, as suggested. 8.- P4L5. An incompatibility system usually exists in association with the morphs that restricts fertilization within and between morphs (REF). Suggested sentence has been added (P5L7-8). 9.- P4L6. There are also morphological variations between morphs linked to stamen shape, corolla dimensions and pollen size and production. Include also Dulberger 1992. Suggested sentence was incorporated and Dulberger´s study was cited (P5L8-11). 10.- P4L12. Change reproductive, Done (P5L19). 11.- Re-write: Reciprocal herkogamy should be adequately described in the species because it is fundamental for understanding, for example, aspects of pollen flow, reproductive isolating mechanisms and floral sex ratios, as well as the origin, relationships and evolutionary routes of reproductive strategies between species (Richards and Koptur, 1993; Arroyo and Barrett, 2000; Sánchez et al., 2008). Done (P5L18-21). 12.- P4L15. “…description of heterostyly generally involve….” (ej., Miller…). Parts of the Abstract, Introduction and Discussion have been extensively rewritten to incorporate all suggestions. The sentence in P4L15 was removed to convey a more straightforward, sharply focused message. 13.- P4L18. …have, however, proposed… This comment was taken in count. 14.- P4L21. change identifying by characterizing This comment was taken in count. 15.- P5L5. Include genus Glandora (Ferrero et al 2011 Plant Biology) and other recent papers This comment was taken in count. 16.- P5L10. Please, include a brief explanation of the possible pathways of evolution between heterostyly, dioecy…. then, change “For example” by “For this reason, distyly….” This comment was taken in count. 17.- P5L16. Delete, and thus distyly, is redundant This comment was taken in count. Comentario fg2. domesticated or cultivated? This point is clarified in the Material and Methods section (P8L7-11). 18.- P5L17. ¿what reproductive aspects do you analyze? Changes were made in the Material and Methods and reproductive aspects analized in the manuscript were more clearly marked (P11L16-22 and P12L1-12). 19.- Material and Methods. P6L12. year round? Changes were added in this section to clarify this point (P7L19-21). 20- P6L19-22. How far are the sampled points? they could be considered the same population of pollen flow is possible among these areas… Geographical coordinates were added in the Table 2 for all sampled points and changes were added to clarify the closeness in distance between all sampling points. Statistical comparison between sampled points have been performed to test differences in morphology (P7L19-21 and P10L7-10). 21.- P7L7. There are not 16 lines in Fig 1. Refer also to table 1. Moreover, what does the Total stamens mean? Explain here the herkogamy distance and that it is also calculated Changes were made to the Fig. 1 to clarify this point. Herkogamy distance was added in the Introduction; in the Material and Methods was clarify how distance among organs was measured (P5L11-16, P10L11-22 and P11L1-15). 22.- P8L13. a principal components analysis (PCA) was run to determine if the combined contribution of the floral traits resulted in a clear separation of morphs, and to identify the traits causing the variation. I think the best approach to separate the morphs would be a discriminant analysis rather than a PCA, so the authors must clarify what is the objective of this analysis and then choose. Principal component analysis (PCA) is effective for revealing patterns in flower morphology without assuming an underlying causal structure of distylous morphology, as was the aim in this study. Conveniently it was applied here to determine if the combined contribution of measured traits produced a clear