This paper is a data note introducing a genome from Corylus heterophylla that was produced from Nanopore sequencing plus Hi-C scaffolding. Illumina data was used for assembly polishing and for generating transcriptomes to support gene annotation. Lines 46-50: A reference for these statements is needed. Line 54: What is meant by "most economically wild"? Line-s 242-243: It appears that you are confusing ortholog groups with gene families. OrthoMCL is used to detect ortholog groups, not gene families. Line 290: Hexadecyltrimethyl is missing the "l" at the end.

Declaration of competing interests Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions: Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future? Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future? Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the manuscript? Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript? Do you have any other financial competing interests? Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper? If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below. I declare that I have no competing interests.

I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any comments which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments to the editors, which will not be published. I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal.

Authors' response to reviews: Response to Reviewer #1: 1 Reviewer’s comment: Lines 46-50: A reference for these statements is needed. Author’s response: Thanks for the reviewer helpful comments for our work. As suggested, we added reference in line 52.

2 Reviewer’s comment: Line 54: What is meant by "most economically wild"? Author’s response: Thanks to reviewer’s attention. To avoid confusion, we rewrote this sentence as “Corylus heterophylla is one of the most important economic Corylus species. Among the 1.67 million ha of wild Corylus in China, C. heterophylla occupies 90% of the area.” in the revised manuscript.

3 Reviewer’s comment: Line-s 242-243: It appears that you are confusing ortholog groups with gene families. OrthoMCL is used to detect ortholog groups, not gene families. Author’s response: We agree with reviewer’s opinion. We replaced the “gene families” to “ortholog groups” in the revised manuscript.

4 Reviewer’s comment: Line 290: Hexadecyltrimethyl is missing the "l" at the end. Author’s response: Sorry for this spelling mistake. We have corrected this mistake in the revised manuscript.

Response to Reviewer #2: 1 Reviewer’s comment: The accession IDs for NCBI and SRA were still missing from this version, I would like to request that the data be deposited to the repository upon publication of the assembly. Author’s response: Many thanks for reviewer’s helpful suggestion. As suggested, we have add the NCBI accession IDs for genome (JADOBO000000000) and SRA (SRR12458330, SRR12458329, SRR12458328, SRR12458327) at Availability of supporting data section (lines 346-350)

2 Reviewer’s comment: The paper needs proof reading and help from a native English speaking person. Author’s response: As reviewer’s suggestion, the paper has been send to Charlesworth Author Services Team for English language revision.

3 Reviewer’s comment: Line 16: economically and ecologically important nut tree Author’s response: We have corrected this sentence in the revised manuscript.

4 Reviewer’s comment: Line 19: Nanopore (capital letter) Author’s response: We have corrected the “nanopore” as “Nanopore” in the revised manuscript.

5 Reviewer’s comment: Line 29: bad english: molecular mechanism of hazelnut responsing to environmental stress and serve as a resource ->molecular mechanisms of how hazel nut responds to environmental stresses and serves as a resource (or similar) Author’s response: As reviewer’s suggestion, we have corrected this sentence as “This genome resource will promote research on the molecular mechanisms of how the hazelnut responds to environmental stresses and serves as an important resource for genome-assisted improvement in cold and drought resistance of the Corylus genus” in the revised manuscript (lines 31-34).

6 Reviewer’s comment: 35: provides Author’s response: As suggested, we have corrected the word “provide” as “provides” in the revised manuscript.

7 Reviewer’s comment: 36: There is a high content Author’s response: We have corrected “are” as “is” in the revised manuscript.

8 Reviewer’s comment: 39 ranges (or varies between) Author’s response: We revised this spelling mistake as “ranges” in the revised manuscript.

9 Reviewer’s comment: 45: Inadequate Author’s response: We have revised the spelling mistake as “Inadequate” in the revise manuscript.

10 Reviewer’s comment: 54: "one of the most economically wild Corylus species" - what does this mean? Author’s response: To avoid confusion, we have revised this sentence as “Corylus heterophylla is one of the most important economic Corylus species. Among the 1.67 million ha of wild Corylus in China, C. heterophylla occupies 90% of the area.” in the revised manuscript (lines 54-55).

11 Reviewer’s comment: 85 Qbit -> Qubit Author’s response: We revised this spelling mistake as “Qubit” in the revised manuscript.

12 Reviewer’s comment: 109: fuorometry -> fluorometry Author’s response: We revised the spelling mistake as “fluorometry” in the revised manuscript.

13 Reviewer’s comment: 253: this is the monocot - dicot split time Author’s response: Thanks for reviewer’s comment. To avoid confusion, we revised this sentence as “The monocot-dicot split time (152 - 160 Mya) getting from TimeTree database was also used to calibrate the time estimation”.