The Molecular Phylogeny of Land Plants: Progress and Future Prospects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article presented review of the molecular and phylogenetic techniques in exploring the relationship among land plants. This study will facilitate exploration of plants taxonomy and diversity of the plants. Before recommending this article for publication, there are some shortcomings for that should be resolve.

General comments

Revise the grammatical mistakes and typos. Mostly sentences are not clearly written which must be revised.

Abstract

In abstract the authors should present main findings from the review.

Also add the review process and criteria and range of the study as the topic is very broad.

I would recommend to revise line 15 to 21 as the sentence is very long and beyond the understanding.

Line 20-21 last sentence must be revised.

Add future recommendations of the study.

Introduction

Line 29-31 the sentences have no relation or coherence.

There are many grammatical mistakes and mostly sentences are not cited as well which must be resolve.

The authors should present mechanism, process or method of construction of phylogenetic tree.

Also discuss about the modern tools of reconstruction of the phylogenetic trees.

Add conclusion and recommendations at the last based on the review.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

This article presented review of the molecular and phylogenetic techniques in exploring the relationship among land plants. This study will facilitate exploration of plants taxonomy and diversity of the plants. Before recommending this article for publication, there are some shortcomings for that should be resolve.

Thank you very much for your positive comments on this review!

 

General comments

Revise the grammatical mistakes and typos. Mostly sentences are not clearly written which must be revised.

Response 1: All of the authors have worked hard to further improve our manuscript and some sentences have been rephrased.

 

Abstract

In abstract the authors should present main findings from the review.

 

Response 2: Our manuscript is a review paper, not a research article. In this study, we assess the present situation of phylogenetic studies of land plants by reviewing progress made in large-scale phylogenetic reconstructions of land plants, and then summarize five major aspects of molecular phylogenetics of land plants, which are nowadays being studied and will continue to be goals moving forward. In the revised manuscript, the Abstract has been re-written more clearly.

 

Also add the review process and criteria and range of the study as the topic is very broad.

 

Response 3: Added as you suggested (Lines 18–21).

 

I would recommend to revise line 15 to 21 as the sentence is very long and beyond the understanding.

 

Response 4: These two sentences have been rephrased (Lines 24–31).

 

Line 20-21 last sentence must be revised.

 

Response 5: This sentence has been deleted in the revised version since it is repeated with the sentence in lines 24–26.

 

Add future recommendations of the study.

 

Response 6: We have added a sentence at the end of the Abstract (Lines 23–31).

 

Introduction

 

Line 29-31 the sentences have no relation or coherence.

 

Response 7: To make the Text more coherent, we added a sentence in lines 39–40.

 

There are many grammatical mistakes and mostly sentences are not cited as well which must be resolve.

 

Response 8: All of the authors have worked hard to further improve our manuscript and some mistakes have been corrected. We also checked carefully all the citations.

 

The authors should present mechanism, process or method of construction of phylogenetic tree.

 

Response 9: Mechanism, process or method of construction of phylogenetic tree is not closely related with our manuscript. In this study, our main objectives are 1) to review the progress made in large-scale phylogenetic reconstructions of land plants and assess the current situation of phylogenetic studies of land plants, and 2) to summarize five major aspects of molecular phylogenetics of land plants, which are nowadays being studied and will continue to be goals moving forward.

 

Also discuss about the modern tools of reconstruction of the phylogenetic trees.

 

Response 10: The modern tools of reconstruction of the phylogenetic trees is not related with our manuscript. Please see the above Response 9 to you.

 

Add conclusion and recommendations at the last based on the review.

 

Response 11: We have highlighted that the five major aspects that we pointed out are nowadays being studied and will continue to be goals moving forward (Lines 171–172). We think this is enough.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The review manuscript entitled “Molecular phylogeny of land plants: Progress and future prospects” summarize the major achievements of molecular systematics of land plants, and focuses on the potential research regarding reconstructing the TOL of land plants in the long period future. Altogether, the manuscript is well-written however some of the used references are old and outdated while recent studies have demonstrated phylogenetic status of plants in particular using DNA barcoding analyses. I think the present review manuscript could be published in Diversity after minor revision and these types of manuscripts would usually lead to high citation numbers and it may be impactful in the field. With the comments:

1-However the manuscript is written in a logical scientific way, a grammatical check for possible structural and grammatical errors is required.

2- I strongly recommend authors to summarize some of the most important performed phylogeny analyses as a table could help the reader to have a general view of the recent progress by classifying the used molecular techniques, taxonomical level and …..

 Minor comments:

 

L64: bryophytes, Lycophytes, Monilophytes, gymnosperms, and angiosperms. Some clades have started with capital letters some not.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

The review manuscript entitled “Molecular phylogeny of land plant: Progress and future prospects” summarize the major achievements of molecular systematics of land plant, and focuses on the potential research regarding reconstructing the TOL of land plant in the long period future. Altogether, the manuscript is well-written however some of the used references are old and outdated while recent studies have demonstrated phylogenetic status of plants in particular using DNA barcoding analyses. I think the present review manuscript could be published in Diversity after minor revision and these types of manuscripts would usually lead to high citation numbers and it may be impactful in the field. With the comments:

 

Many thanks for your positive comments!

 

1-However the manuscript is written in a logical scientific way, a grammatical check for possible structural and grammatical errors is required.

 

Response 1: All of the authors have worked hard to further improve our manuscript and some mistakes have been corrected.

 

2- I strongly recommend authors to summarize some of the most important performed phylogeny analyses as a table could help the reader to have a general view of the recent progress by classifying the used molecular techniques, taxonomical level and …..

 

Response 2: Our aim is to summarize the achievements of phylogenetic reconstruction of land plants. Many review papers have done this. In this study, our main objectives are to assess the present situation of phylogenetic studies of land plants by reviewing progress made in large-scale phylogenetic reconstructions of land plants, and then summarize five major aspects of molecular phylogenetics of land plants, which are nowadays being studied and will continue to be goals moving forward. We hope these five aspects can promote the development of plant molecular phylogenetics and other related areas.

 

Minor comments:

L64: bryophytes, Lycophytes, Monilophytes, gymnosperms, and angiosperms. Some clades have started with capital letters some not.

 

Response 3: We have corrected this throughout the Text.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

This review paper is a compilation of conclusions of most papers in the last several decades on the study of land plant phylogeny. If the authors wish to improve their own paper, they could read those papers more carefully so that they can understand the problems more deeply. Many of the papers they cited were not well constructed and thus their conclusions were not as strong as others. Hence, some critical analysis is needed if a good review is to be written.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

This review paper is a compilation of conclusions of most papers in the last several decades on the study of land plant phylogeny. If the authors wish to improve their own paper, they could read those papers more carefully so that they can understand the problems more deeply. Many of the papers they cited were not well constructed and thus their conclusions were not as strong as others. Hence, some critical analysis is needed if a good review is to be written.

Response 1: In this study, our main objectives are to assess the present situation of phylogenetic studies of land plants by reviewing progress made in large-scale phylogenetic reconstructions of land plants, and then summarize five major aspects of molecular phylogenetics of land plants, which are nowadays being studied and will continue to be goals moving forward. We think these five aspects that summarized will facilitate the development of plant molecular phylogenetics and other related areas.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

English still need revisions.