Landscape and female fertility evaluation of seven heavenly bamboo cultivars as potential non-invasive alternatives to the wildtype

Julia Rycyna; Sandra Wilson; Zhanao Deng; Basil Iannone; Gary Knox

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0310246

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 25, 2023
18 Mar 2024 Decision Letter - Rajappa Janyanaik Joga, Editor PONE-D-23-16117Landscape and female fertility evaluation of seven heavenly bamboo cultivars as potential non-invasive alternatives to the wildtypePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Rycyna, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 02 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Rajappa Janyanaik Joga, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data). 3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: "All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files." Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This study evaluates several new heavenly bamboo variety against wildtype over three years at multiple sites across Florida to evaluate their horticultural and invasive potential. The study achieves this well. The abstract summarises main study results well but a little more context for the study would be useful. Is there a risk of invasiveness? Is the main aim to understand what causes reduced fecundity? The introduction gives good study context but some extra details could be included as suggested in specific comments. The study is incremental but the importance of monitoring new cultivars for their invasive potential is clearly described. The methods are mostly clear and comprehensive but a little more detail on the authors' definition of quality and form would be useful. The results are also comprehensive, but a few minor queries listed in specific comments remain. The discussion showed good interpretation and overview in terms of the aims of the study. There is useful consideration of both vegetative and sexual aspects of invasiveness. The value of multiple test sites across a climatic range are highlighted. The discussion on seed viability could also highlight the overall very low fruit number of most varieties. Ideas for future studies are suggested. The conclusions provide good overview to finish. Overall this is a well-presented study of relatively specialist interest but of regionally important value for plant invasion management. Specific comments L26-27 Perhaps add why reduced fecundity might sometimes be a desirable trait. L43-45 One-third to two-thirds repeated as percentages. L47-48 Mention DNA content measures and their reason earlier in the abstract methods. L48-49 Name the four cultivars here. L58 Add a comma between "India heavenly" L62 It would be worth to add any observed negative ecological impacts of invasiveness. L64 It is not clear to me from this description how morphology relates to dormancy. L78 Explain to the reader why ploidy measurement is relevant to the study questions. L97 It would be worth to briefly define what you mean by landscape performance here. L114-115 Adding the size ranges for each classification would be even more helpful. L121 What does "disked" mean in this context? L122-124 What was the fumigant treatment targetting? L136-147 Field conditions might be better presented in the results section. L156-164 More specific detail on the scored parameters would be helpful. What is meant by "form" and what form characteristics merit different ratings. L190-191 Repetition. L223-225 Specify that this result applies to the combined year 1 and 2 data. It might be worth adding that results were less clear for year 1 alone. L268-269 Clarify in the methods that growth index was a separate measure (mean of the two widths and height?) L303 Specify that this fruit reduction is relative to wildtype. L321 The formula needs to be multiplied by 100 to generate percentages. From P19 line numbering lost. P20 para 3. Specify if these seeds per fruit counts were from the x-ray analysis. If not, present some summary x-ray analysis results or omit this from the methods. P21 para 1. The methods did not include germination tests. P22 para 2. Did this study categorize the sizes of varieties or simply validate them based on previous knowledge? The supplementary information misses the plant and seed measures. Reviewer #2: In the realm of horticulture, this publication plays a crucial role by providing valuable insights for the industry. It serves as a window through which professionals can select appropriate specimens to meet their landscaping needs. However, it is imperative that the authors adhere diligently to formal protocols when writing scientific names. For instance, consider the species "Nandina domestica Thunb.", which belongs to the family Berberidaceae. It is essential to recognize that this species hails from the berberis family and is not related to the grass family (Poaceae). Additionally, when referring to varieties, hybrids, cultivars, and mutants, strict adherence to the guidelines outlined in the International Code of Cultivated Plants Nomenclature (ICCPN) is essential. In conclusion, the observations and experiments conducted suffice for now, but minor edits are necessary. Please refer to the uploaded PDF for specific revisions. Congratulations on your work! ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-16117 reviwedMC 02.17.2023.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310246.r001
Revision 1
1 May 2024 Author Response Reviewer 1 Comments Line 26-27: Perhaps add why reduced fecundity might sometimes be a desirable trait. This has been fixed. Line 43-45: One-third to two-thirds repeated as percentages. Fractions have been removed. Line 47-48: Mention DNA content measures and their reason earlier in the abstract methods. Thank you, we tried to rework the abstract by moving it earlier in the abstract; however, the flow of the abstract then did not match the flow of the methods and results. So we preferred to leave it were it is for consistency. Line 48-49: Name the four cultivars here. Cultivar names have been added. Line 58: Add a comma between "India heavenly" Comma has been added. Line 62: It would be worth to add any observed negative ecological impacts of invasiveness. Thank you, in lines 66 we added “displacing native species” to show negative ecological impacts Line 64: It is not clear to me from this description how morphology relates to dormancy. Thank you, Nandina has a rudimentary embryo and therefore classified as morphologically dormant. Morphological dormancy in this case is referring to the rudimentary embryo. Line 78: Explain to the reader why ploidy measurement is relevant to the study questions. We have included a sentence on line 84-86 to explain the importance of ploidy. In much of our work in breeding sterile cultivars for noninvasiveness, the ploidy level is triploid and not diploid. Line 97: It would be worth to briefly define what you mean by landscape performance here. Thank you, we clarified landscape performance on line 105 by adding the example of visual appeal. Landscape performance is already detailed with the visual quality scale listed on lines 165-172. Line 114-115: Adding the size ranges for each classification would be even more helpful. We have added size ranges in the footnotes. Line 121: What does "disked" mean in this context? By plowing the fields, roots of previous plant matter is dried out so that there is less plant competition. Line 122-124: What was the fumigant treatment targeting? The fumigant was multipurpose with the intention to sterilize the soil before planting. Soil was not tested for specific pathogens to target. Line 136-147: Field conditions might be better presented in the results section. Thank you, the environmental and soil condition at each site were characterized and objective of our study and therefore we included it as general methodology. Line 156-164: More specific detail on the scored parameters would be helpful. What is meant by "form" and what form characteristics merit different ratings. Thank you we added that form is referring to irregular branching on line 174. Line 190-191: Repetition. The replicated sentence was removed and fixed on line 194. Line 223-225: Specify that this result applies to the combined year 1 and 2 data. It might be worth adding that results were less clear for year 1 alone. This change has been made. Line 268-269: Clarify in the methods that growth index was a separate measure (mean of the two widths and height?) Growth index was calculated as two perpendicular widths [(width1 + width2)/2] we explained this in line 191-193 of the material and methods. Line 303: Specify that this fruit reduction is relative to wildtype. This change has been made. Line 321: The formula needs to be multiplied by 100 to generate percentages. The formula has been changed to generate percentages. From P19 line numbering lost. Numbering was added to the remaining pages. Page 20 para 3: Specify if these seeds per fruit counts were from the x-ray analysis. If not, present some summary x-ray analysis results or omit this from the methods. Good point the x-ray analysis was to determine a baseline on seed fill. The seed per fruit counts were not from the x-ray analysis. Results came from the tetrazolium tests so we removed the mention of x-rays from the methods section. Page 21 para 1: The methods did not include germination tests. Germination was not mentioned in the methods because this study did not perform any germination. This study only looked at seed viability (destructive measure) because there were not enough seeds to perform both seed viability and germination. The words germination have been removed from the Seed Viability paragraph. Page 22 para 2: Did this study categorize the sizes of varieties or simply validate them based on previous knowledge? Size categories were determined based on previous knowledge from Wilson et al. 2014. The supplementary information misses the plant and seed measures. We only provided supplementary table for the soil conditions and a supplementary figure on the environmental conditions. Seed viability were provided directly in Table 8. The standard in the field is to report the processed data and not all the raw data needs to be presented. Reviewer 2 Comments In the realm of horticulture, this publication plays a crucial role by providing valuable insights for the industry. It serves as a window through which professionals can select appropriate specimens to meet their landscaping needs. Thank you! However, it is imperative that the authors adhere diligently to formal protocols when writing scientific names. For instance, consider the species "Nandina domestica Thunb.", which belongs to the family Berberidaceae. It is essential to recognize that this species hails from the berberis family and is not related to the grass family (Poaceae). Additionally, when referring to varieties, hybrids, cultivars, and mutants, strict adherence to the guidelines outlined in the International Code of Cultivated Plants Nomenclature (ICCPN) is essential. In conclusion, the observations and experiments conducted suffice for now, but minor edits are necessary. Please refer to the uploaded PDF for specific revisions. Line 27: complete the scientific name followed by its proper family designation 'Nandina domestica Thunb. (Berberidaceae) This change has been made. Line 29: heavenly bamboo cultivars This change has been added. Line 32: In northcentral Florida heavenly bamboo cultivars are .... This change has been added. Line 111: are this cultivated varieties, hybrids through natural selection or crossbreeds, need also to specify for clarity We have changed the table title to include cultivars and the wildtype to explain that the plant studied are not hybrids or crossbreeds. Line 112: This would be more clear if labeled as Cultivar Name We have left the column as Taxon because it would be inaccurate to label it as cultivar name when there is no cultivar name for the wildtype. Instead we added a new column label common name to distinguish between cultivar names and trademark names that are commonly used. As per the ICBN general provisions for the name of cultivars we have added the unambiguous common name equivalent to accompany the cultivar epithet. Line 475: Please elucidate the proper usage of what is considered a taxon and cultivars. Also refer to The International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP) how cultivar names are formally written. Also refer the legitimacy of the cultivar's registration used in the study. As defined by the ICNCP, taxon is “a group into which a number of similar entities may be classified”. We decided it was appropriate to use this term because it would be incorrect to label them as cultivars since the wildtype is not a cultivar name. So, we decided to use the word cultivar when we only discuss cultivars and taxon when we are also discussing the wildtype. We refer to the plants by the cultivar epithet because the ICNCP allows it if it “is obvious from the context without confusion” and we have edited the description table to reflect the formal writing conventions. The cultivars chosen for this study were ones already available in the industry. Some cultivars are registered with US Plant Patents while others were not. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers -PONE-D-23-16117.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310246.r002
28 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Rajappa Janyanaik Joga, Editor Landscape and female fertility evaluation of seven heavenly bamboo cultivars as potential non-invasive alternatives to the wildtype PONE-D-23-16117R1 Dear Dr.Julia Rycyna, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Rajappa Janyanaik Joga, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310246.r003
Formally Accepted
13 Sep 2024 Acceptance Letter - Rajappa Janyanaik Joga, Editor PONE-D-23-16117R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Rycyna, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Rajappa Janyanaik Joga Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310246.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .