The Expanding Role of DNA Barcodes: Indispensable Tools for Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors reviewed the role of DNA barcodes in fields of ecology, evolution and conservation. The structure of the manuscript is much clear. Many examples make the manuscript understandable to readers. The topic of the manuscript falls into the scope of the journal, and is helpful for us to identify rare species, assess species interaction, protect endangered species etc. The manuscript is well written. It is suggested to adding more details on problems and challenges of using DNA barcodes.
Specific concerns:
Line 26: For the citation, the year “2003” repeats
Line 332: What does the word “cm” mean?
Line 484: What does the word “ITS” mean?
Author Response
Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful revisions; your edits have helped improve this manuscript. We have responded to each suggested revision, below:
It is suggested to adding more details on problems and challenges of using DNA barcodes.
We felt this could require adding a section that highlighted challenges of plant DNA barcodes; however, we agree a general statement would be a helpful addition and have added a sentence highlighting the shortcomings of traditional DNA barcodes to lines 990–996.
Specific concerns:
Line 26: For the citation, the year “2003” repeats
This has been fixed – we have updated the reference format (numerical) to conform to the journal requirements.
Line 332: What does the word “cm” mean?
Abbreviation replaced to spell out “centimeter”
Line 484: What does the word “ITS” mean?
This has been spelled out the first time “the nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer”
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is a very interesting end exhaustive review. It will certainly be a very useful reference for anyone applying to this type of research. Only a few formal corrections are needed.
Small corrections
Line 220: 2021 instead of 2020?
Line 165: a after 2008 should be deleted
Lines 171-172: Bezeng and van der Bank instead of Bezeng et al.
Line 191: Anderson-Teixeira et al. 2014 is cited as 2015 in references
Line 195: Nitta et al. 2020
Line 267: Anderson-Teixeira et al. 2014 is cited as 2015 in references
Line 296: Faith 1992, 1994 instead of Faith 1992, Faith 1994
Line 463: 2015 and not 20215
Line 478: Insert ] after 2020
Line 566: salsedoi in italic
References
Lines 694-696: Cited as 2014 in the text
Lines 718-721: The reference is written twice
Lines 738-739: Cited as 2018 in the text
Lines 826-828: Hassold et al 2016, not 2003
Lines 842-843: Hobern is correctly cited as 2020 in the text
Line 938: Not in alphabetic order
Line 1021: 2021?
Author Response
Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful revisions; your edits have helped improve this manuscript. We have responded to each suggested revision, below:
Line 220: 2021 instead of 2020?
Done as requested
Line 165: a after 2008 should be deleted
Done as requested
Lines 171-172: Bezeng and van der Bank instead of Bezeng et al.
Done as requested
Line 191: Anderson-Teixeira et al. 2014 is cited as 2015 in references
Done as requested
Line 195: Nitta et al. 2020
Done as requested
Line 267: Anderson-Teixeira et al. 2014 is cited as 2015 in references
Done as requested
Line 296: Faith 1992, 1994 instead of Faith 1992, Faith 1994
Done as requested
Line 463: 2015 and not 20215
Done as requested
Line 478: Insert ] after 2020
Done as requested
Line 566: salsedoi in italic
Done as requested
References
Lines 694-696: Cited as 2014 in the text
Original (2015) is correct; in text dates have been changed.
Lines 718-721: The reference is written twice
Duplicate has been removed
Lines 738-739: Cited as 2018 in the text
Corrected to 2019 in text
Lines 826-828: Hassold et al 2016, not 2003
Done as requested.
Lines 842-843: Hobern is correctly cited as 2020 in the text
Corrected.
Line 938: Not in alphabetic order
The original reference list was submitted in alphabetical order, but has been revised to conform to the journal requirements (numerical order).
Line 1021: 2021?
Yes – this has been corrected.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript is well written. However, it can be improved by adding tables and proper graphics at certain places. At the moment all written make it little burdensome.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful revisions; your edits have helped improve this manuscript. We have responded to each suggested revision, below:
The manuscript is well written. However, it can be improved by adding tables and proper graphics at certain places.
We have added Table 1; which consolidates information about available plant DNA barcodes across the Tree of Life and that we hope provides helpful information to readers about the current scope of DNA barcode sequences available for research in ecology, evolution, and conservation.
