Re-Evaluating Botryosphaeriales: Ancestral State Reconstructions of Selected Characters and Evolution of Nutritional Modes
, K. W. Thilini Chethana 1,2,*, Alan J. L. Phillips 4, Jian-Kui Liu 5, Milan C. Samarakoon 6, E. B. Gareth Jones 7, Samantha C. Karunarathna 8 and Chang-Lin Zhao 9,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript proposed by Rathnayaka and co-workers (jof-2144279) entitled “Re-evaluating Botryosphaeriales: Ancestral state reconstructions of selected characters and evolution of nutritional modes” presents the re-evaluation of Botryosphaeriales based on ancestral character evolution, divergence time estimation, and phylogenetic relationships.
In my opinion, the manuscript needs major revision.
My major comments are presented below.
Major concerns:
- Abstract – please determine the importance of the topic and determine why the re-evaluation is needed
- Abstract – in my opinion, abstract should be modified, especially due to the last sentences:
In the current study, we could not provide strong evidence for our hypothesis which states that Botryosphaeriales species had an ancestral endophytic nutritional mode, which later diversified into saprobic and pathogenic modes. This is mainly due to the significantly low number of studies reporting on endophytic botryosphaerialean taxa.
There are two hypotheses presented in the materials and methods section. It suggests that there is only one hypothesis. Additionally, the hypothesis should be presented as first, then the explanation.
- Introduction is too long and in my opinion should be divided into the subsections.
- Table 3 is too long, it should be presented in supplementary data
- the hypotheses (page 6, lines 227-231, should be mentioned also in the introduction (they are shortly presented, page 5) and results and discussion sections (page 26).
- authors should consider changing the way data is presented due to illegibility of images. The size of figure 4 makes data analysis difficult. The same is with the figure 7.
- results and discussion section should be divided into the subsections
- reference to the research hypotheses in the conclusion section should be more elaborate
- the conclusion should better presents the idea, novelty and superiority of this work over previous ones
- Changes in the text are needed
- Check and correct English
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on this manuscript. Please see the attachment of response letter.
Thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on this manuscript. Please see the attachment of response letter.
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors
The manuscript entitled “Re-evaluating Botryosphaeriales: Ancestral state reconstructions of selected characters and evolution of nutritional modes” is interesting to me. The manuscript is well-worth publishing. I think the study is good and the data presented in the manuscript is sufficient. I pointed out some minor correction in the. The content of the paper could be published in JoF.
Best regards
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on this manuscript. Please see the attachment of response letter.
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I am satisfied with the revised version of the manuscript. The author provided answers and comments to all of my questions, and the text was significantly improved. The paper can be accepted for publication.
