All Populations Matter: Conservation Genomics of Australia’s Iconic Purple Wattle, Acacia purpureopetala
, Jia-Yee S. Yap 1, Peter D. Wilson 1, Helen T. Murphy 2 and Andrew Ford 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review manuscript 1141545
All populations matter: conservation genomics of Australia’s iconic purple wattle, Acacia purpureopetala, MDPI Diversity
Australian populations of the threatened species purple wattle were assessed for levels of genetic diversity, and also for genetic, geographic and floristic distances. This information has the potential to inform conservation activities that would ensure the survival of the species in the long-term.
Minor comments
Lines 54-61- Do these Acacia species hybridize in nature?
Lines 186-190- Was the GBS method also used in this study? If so, please include a description of this method.
Table 1- Please include a more descriptive legend that includes definitions of the variables included in the table.
Figure 2- PCA axes’ titles are hard to read, please increase the font size.
Table 2- Variables “ar-low”, “ar-high” and “pa” are included in the figure legend but not in the table.
Lines 337- 342- I suggest including more information (biology, mating system, distribution, others) about the other Acacias that might help explain the differences observed in Figure A2.
Lines 357-359- Where can we found the results of these correlations? Please add a Table’s reference.
Line 512- typo in “however”
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
An excellent study! I am very impressed with the combining of multiple data types, the robust, extensive data set, the analysis, and the conclusions and recommendations.
I recommend the study be published after the comments below are addressed.
L 15 Please move “were recovered” to immediately after “SNP markers”
L 45 Please clarify, 80 of what? Threatened Acacia species?
L 56 Please clarify, is this 1000 spp. in Australia? Or worldwide?
L 63 The statement ending here makes an excellent point. Nicely stated.
L 108-109 Please rephrase this statement to be clearer: “with the intention that exact same samples in this study will not be the target individuals.”
L 148 “100s” Please do not use the “grocer’s apostrophe.”
L 247-248: Some of this seems like it is more results than methods.
L 328 There is something missing here, “size=___” perhaps effective population size (Ne)?
L 374 This is an interesting area of discussion for modelling ex situ genetic capture. Please see Griffith et al. 2021 (Int. J. Pl. Sci. preprint). Balancing number of sites with number of individuals is key to gaining more diversity – but greenhouse culture does not always allow all samples to survive.
Figure 3. Please specify if these are envisioned as clonal collections (i.e. vegetative cuttings) or seed collections. Because these two methods have bearing on the genetics. I infer from this reading that these models are based on resampling the in-situ dataset, and are therefore modeled as ex situ clones of the in situ plants, and assume 100% survival. Please see Griffith et al. 2020 (Int. J. Pl. Sci. 181: 485) for discussion of how these differences matter for ex situ collections development.
L 470-471 This section mentions that collections can be of seeds or cuttings. I think that this is a good place to briefly discuss the genetic difference.
L 472 Yes, seed collection will show lesser diversity, perhaps due to inbreeding, but also due to real-world greenhouse germination and survival rates of less than 100%, as well as attrition rates of living collections. Please see Griffith et al. 2021, which assesses how an ex situ collections development effort is impacted by seedling survival rates, and also Griffith et al. 2017 (Curator The Mus. J. 60:395) which demonstrates how quickly living collections can be lost.
L 477 Please replace “living material” with “vegetative material” (Seeds are also living!)
L 478: There is a long list of references that could be added at the end of this recommendation. This study is a good confirmation of the principle that each pop. should be collected from. Two examples: Krishnan et al. 2013 (Tree Gen. and Gen. 9:179) and Griffith et al. 2015 (Int. J. Pl. Sci. 176:1).
L 479 “half-siblings”
L 482 Please place a comma after “researchers”
L 483 This excellent recommendation essentially seeks to maximize the number of maternal lines. A good citation here is Wood et al. 2020 (Cons. Bio. 34:1416).
L 498 The opposite effect is also a big concern – that the introduced genetics will swamp the local genetics. Local adaptations are important to in situ populations. See Silva et al. 2020 (AoB Plants 12(1)p.plaa003)
L 507. I think this idea is excellent! An appropriate citation here is Kay et al. 2011 (HortTech. 21:474), which showed how reduced prices for cultivated rare plants can limit poaching.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
I have made several comments and suggestions, which I hope you will find useful and constructive.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for addressing all the issues raised.
