Page 4 L 5 - 6: it will sound good if this sentence (thought) is said to the previous concept L 1 - 3. Here the logic hyperlink between two ideas was lost (cashew & plants). The division of this section into at the least two subsections should sound higher. 10. Data Presentation: The presentation of results is clear, however the inclusion of more figures, equivalent to heatmaps or additional PCA plots, could help visualize the information higher. P8, L16-18 This sentence isn't clear, please rewrite. P11, L4-5 contradicts the outcomes on P8, L13-14. P8, L20-22 The roots of the dendrogram of for the genetic dissimilarity are not clear to decipher any relationships. I see 4 colour clusters on the dendrogram. It's even clear that clusters usually are not delineated primarily based on these predefined sub-counties. The desk showing the cashew genotypes, sub-counties and counties of origins ought to be included to provide some information on samples and sampling process. The space used between samples (which can have a big impression on outcomes), and the motivation behind the choice of limiting the examine to 3 counties only must be offered. Conclusions ought to be drawn by additionally considering the key findings equivalent to relationship between landraces (ancestral subpopulations and three subpopulations), admixture and the potential fixation of alleles revealed by the heterozygosity.

This could replicate the implication of these genetic indices on the background and breeding historical past of cashew landraces already highlighted. These findings (He and Ho) were additionally offered in no right subsection "markers’ characterisation" and are usually not the identical as these introduced in Table 2. The authors should also clarify why no genetic indices of cashew landraces from Lamu were calculated. The authors said that the expected heterozygosity was better than the noticed heterozygosity in distinction of what introduced in Table 2 (which misses the indices of Lamu inhabitants). I suggest the manuscript be returned to authors with the option to resubmit it after substantial revisions. Tables and their captions had been placed at the tip of the manuscript. 19. Table Completeness: Tables should be self-explanatory with detailed captions. 4) The Tables had been separated from the text, reference type and quotation format weren't respected. 6. The manuscript didn’t comply with the reference style and citation format. The authors should also revise the conclusion and relate it to the topic of the manuscript. Authors ought to clarify the rationale behind and the implication on the choice making. The principle causes behind are as observe: 1) it failed to be presented within the advisable construction and written in a comprehensive method to ensure readers perceive the research.

However, discussing potential reasons for the noticed admixture and gene movement in additional detail would add depth. 20. Citation: Add most recent references. I agree with authors that the allele richness among people may play a job in their means to adapt to some stressors when is excessive, authors ought to justify totally their affirmation with out ambiguity that the moderate allele richness observed in cashew landraces explains their skill to adapt to each diseases and climate changes. In case you choose "no", your identity will stay nameless however your overview may still be made public. Would you like your identity to be public for this peer evaluation? 6. PLOS authors have the choice to publish the peer review historical past of their article (what does this mean? ). Authors also used Landscape and Ecological Associations (LEA) R package deal to analyse the genetic population construction of cashew landraces and sub-populations had been validated utilizing Principal Component Analysis (PCA). Referring to outcomes, cashew landraces in Kenya are reasonably divergent demonstrating that they're carefully associated thought they have been separated into 2-three sub-populations based on the inhabitants structure.

If the authors can make the necessary enhancements, the examine has the potential to make a big contribution to the understanding of genetic diversity in Kenyan cashew landraces. Page 1 L 18: the authors indicated that several methods have been employed to know the genetic diversity of various plants. As well as, the dialogue section must be improved and revised avoiding some confusion (e.g. the sentence on page eleven L 19 - 20 itself), contradictions (e.g. Page 11 L thirteen - sixteen and web page 11 L 19 - 20), and explaining deeply findings with or against those that can be found in the literature. 13. Interpretation of Findings: The dialogue interprets the outcomes nicely, however linking the findings to sensible implications for breeding applications may very well be elaborated. 11. Marker Quality: The discussion on marker quality is ample. The authors ought to clarify using PIC as genetic range index within the part of supplies and methods and offered in results as the quality management parameter so as to avoid confusion. The authors have missed to current on this section essential outcomes demonstrating the level of genetic variety within populations.