Stability and Yield Performance of Durum Wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) Genotypes Across Environments in Southern Peru

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting study which evaluates the performance and stability of 11 elite durum wheat genotypes and one commercial variety (‘INIA 412 Atahualpa’) across three semi-arid environments in southern Peru during the 2023–2024 growing season. The research aims to identify genotypes that maximize yield and stability under water-limited conditions, using advanced statistical methods like AMMI, GGE biplots, WAASBY, and ASV indices. It is based on 3 environments, it would be nice to have it repeated also across several seasons.

in The Title and row 181 was mentioned T. durum L. while on rows 15, 41 T. durum Desf. please be consistent.

Reference citations are overall fine. I would suggest to look at https://doi.org/10.1007/s42976-024-00517-3 for (row 79); https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14030458 for rows 84; 88-91; and discussion.  A reference(s) should be added for row 629-630.  Please check Gomez & Gomez (row 227), as far as I remember it deals with statistics rather than procedures.

In section 2.2, please report also  annual rainfall.

 

Table 1 should have a proper caps.

Rows 218-221, please check 100-50-50 plus 100-0-0 does not give 200-100-100

row 232 please disclose the acronyms

row 276 genotype-environment affinity as not a clear meaning. do you intend interaction?

row 913, be carful to doble cc

 

 

Author Response

Author´s Reponse to the Review Report

Manuscript ID: ijpb-3948785

Title: Stability and Yield Performance of Durum Wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) Genotypes Across Environments in Southern Peru

Journal: International Journal of Plant Biology

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript and for providing constructive comments and suggestions. Your feedback has greatly contributed to improving the clarity, reproducibility, and scientific rigor of our study. Below, we provide point-by-point responses to each of your comments. We have checked carefully all suggestions and we have modified the document with the corrections highlighted with turquoise color.

Major comments

Comment 1. in The Title and row 181 was mentioned T. durum L. while on rows 15, 41 T. durum Desf. please be consistent.

Response 1. Thank you for your observation. We have homogenized the name throughout the manuscript, ensuring consistency with the correct taxonomic authority Triticum durum Desf.

Change in manuscript: Section 2.4 (Plant Material, page 5, paragraph 1, lines 185 — all instances now uniformly read T. durum Desf.

 

Comment 2. Reference citations are overall fine. I would suggest to look at https://doi.org/10.1007/s42976-024-00517-3 for (row 79); https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14030458 for rows 84; 88-91; and discussion. A reference(s) should be added for row 629-630.  Please check Gomez & Gomez (row 227), as far as I remember it deals with statistics rather than procedures.

Response 2.1. Thank you for your suggestions. We have incorporated the recommended references in the indicated sections to strengthen the scientific context and discussion. Additionally, the citation of Gomez & Gomez (1984) has been replaced by two more appropriate methodological references related to agronomic procedures:

[30] CIMMYT. From Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendations: An Economics Training Manual, Rev. Ed.; International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center: Mexico, D.F., Mexico, 1988.

Change in manuscript: Section 2.6 (Agronomic Measurements, page 6, paragraph 2, lines 226-229.

“Grain yield (GY, kg ha⁻¹) was determined by harvesting a 1 m² area from each plot at 120 days after sowing, followed by threshing and cleaning of the grains. The recorded weight was extrapolated to a hectare basis and adjusted to 12% moisture, following the methodology of CIMMYT (1988) and adapted from INIA (2019) [30,31]., as explained by the following equation:”

 

Response 2.2. We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. A reference has been added to support the statement that IPCA1 often reflects a composite environmental index related to temperature and moisture gradients across environments.

Change in manuscript: Section 4 (Discussions, page 21, paragraph 2, line 649).

 

Response 3. Thank you for your suggestion. We have included detailed meteorological data for each experimental site in Supplementary Table S1, titled “Meteorological data recorded during the experimental period (2024–2025)”. This table presents monthly mean temperature, relative humidity, and precipitation values for Santa Elena, San Francisco de Paula, and Santa Rita de Siguas. Additionally, we have updated the text in Section 2.2 to indicate that all experimental sites recorded 0% precipitation during the growing season.

Change in manuscript: Section 2.2 (Weather Records, page 4, paragraph 2, lines 151-153.

“As shown in Table S1, precipitation remained negligible throughout the cropping period, with cumulative rainfall close to 0 mm.”

Change in Supplementary material:

Table S1. Meteorological data recorded during the experimental period (2024–2025), including monthly mean temperature (°C), relative humidity (%), and precipitation (mm) for each site.

 

Comment 4. Table 1 should have a proper caps.

Response 4. Thank you for noticing this detail. The title of Table 1 has been corrected to use proper capitalization.

Change in manuscript: Section 2.3 (Soil characteristics, page 5, lines 171-172).

“Table 1. Physicochemical Characteristics of the Soils Before Planting the Durum Wheat Crop.”

Comment 5. Rows 218-221, please check 100-50-50 plus 100-0-0 does not give 200-100-100

Response 5. Thank you for your observation. We have clarified the description of the fertilization scheme to ensure accuracy and readability. The revised text now specifies the total basal fertilization rate and how it was applied at different growth stages.

 

Change in manuscript: Section 2.5 (Experimental Desing and Managment, page 6, paragraph 2, lines 220-222).

“Basal fertilization totaled 200–100–100 kg ha⁻¹ (N–P–K), with 100–50–50 kg ha⁻¹ incorporated at sowing and 100–0–0 kg ha⁻¹ top-dressed at early tillering”

 

Comment 6. row 232 please disclose the acronyms

Response 6. Thank you for pointing this out. We have clarified the meaning of the acronym in the revised text by providing its full form to enhance reader understanding.

Change in manuscript: Section 2.6 (Agronomic, page 7, paragraph 1, lines 235).

““...according to the International, American Association of Cereal Chemists (AACC) procedures.”.”

 

Comment 7. row 276 genotype-environment affinity as not a clear meaning. do you intend interaction?

Response 7. Thank you for pointing out this ambiguity. We confirm that the intended meaning refers to the genotype × environment interaction.

Change in manuscript: Section 3.1 (Grain yield, page 8, paragraph 1, lines 281).

““...demonstrating a strong genotype–environment interacction affinity.”

 

Comment 8. Row 913, be careful to double “cc”.

Response 8 Thank you for your observation. The double “cc” in reference 13 has been corrected.

We are grateful to the reviewer for their thoughtful and constructive feedback. We believe that the revisions have significantly strengthened the clarity, reproducibility, and practical relevance of our manuscript.

Sincerely,

Dr. Daniel Matsusaka

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript reported a comprehensive study of the adaptability and phenotypic stability of durum wheat in the regions of Republic of Peru. The research involved the agronomic traits observation with multiple location of field experiments of the 11durum wheat lines for recommendation of potential cultivar for breeding program. The feasibility and reliability of the field trail, adaptation and statistics methods were clearly presented, and the results are attractive for durum wheat germplasm evaluation, cultivation and breeding. It is suitable for the publication after  revision.

1. The abbreviation such as for ANOVA, GGE, AMMI were firstly appeared, the complete name should be indicated.
2. Overall, the description for durum wheat and common wheat may be distinguished. Otherwise, it possibly would be confused to the readers.
3. The materials of TD Lines will be suggested to provide the organization or institutions of the breeders, or the relevant citation. Their contributions for the lines may not be ignored.
4. About the plant height, whether over 100cm is the commonly likely favorited for the durum wheat among the different environment? For specific genotype the most important traits such as plant height may be recommended for specific regions of the durum wheat breeding program.
5. The statistical analysis for the overall manuscript, the relevant significant values may provide for the comparative descriptions of the agronomic traits.

Author Response

Author´s Reponse to the Review Report

Manuscript ID: ijpb-3948785

Title: Stability and Yield Performance of Durum Wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) Genotypes Across Environments in Southern Peru

Journal: International Journal of Plant Biology

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript and for providing constructive comments and suggestions. Your feedback has greatly contributed to improving the clarity, reproducibility, and scientific rigor of our study. Below, we provide point-by-point responses to each of your comments. We have checked carefully all suggestions and we have modified the document with the corrections highlighted with turquoise color.

Comment 1. The abbreviation such as for ANOVA, GGE, AMMI were firstly appeared, the complete name should be indicated.

Response 1. Thank you for your valuable observation. We have revised the abstract to include the full names of all abbreviations at their first mention to ensure clarity for readers unfamiliar with these statistical models.

Change in manuscript: Abstract (lines 21–25):

“….with combined analysis of variance (ANOVA), the additive main effects and multiplicative interaction (AMMI) model, and genotype and genotype-by-environment (GGE) biplots, complemented by the AMMI stability value (ASV) and weighted average of absolute scores and best yield index (WAASBY).”

 

 

Comment 2. Overall, the description for durum wheat and common wheat may be distinguished. Otherwise, it possibly would be confused to the readers.

Response 2. Thank you for your observation. We have clarified the description of the fertilization scheme to ensure accuracy and readability. The revised text now specifies the total basal fertilization rate and how it was applied at different growth stages.

 

Change in manuscript: Introduction (page 2, paragraph 1, lines 45-51)

“Agronomically, durum wheat is traditionally favored in Mediterranean and other semi-arid systems, where it adapts well to heat and limited water availability. In regions facing heat and water constraints, identifying durum genotypes that combine competitive yield with stable semolina quality is therefore a strategic breeding priority [6,7]. In contrast, Common wheat (T. aestivum L.; AABBDD, 2n=6x=42) spans soft–hard classes, is milled chiefly into fine flour, and forms extensible gluten networks suited to leavened breads [1,8].”

Comment 3. The materials of TD Lines will be suggested to provide the organization or institutions of the breeders, or the relevant citation. Their contributions for the lines may not be ignored.

Response 3. Thank you for this important observation. We have clarified the origin of the durum wheat lines used in the study by specifying the institution responsible for their development and collaboration.

 

Change in manuscript: Section 2.4 (Plant Material, page 5, paragraph 3, lines 178-180).

“The elite durum wheat lines were developed by the Durum Wheat Improvement Program at CIMMYT and provided to INIA under collaborative breeding and evaluation agreements.”

 

Comment 4. About the plant height, whether over 100cm is the commonly likely favorited for the durum wheat among the different environment? For specific genotype the most important traits such as plant height may be recommended for specific regions of the durum wheat breeding program.

Response 4. We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. In response, we have expanded the discussion on plant height to clarify the agronomic relevance of genotypes exceeding 100 cm and their environmental adaptability. The revised section highlights that taller genotype (TD-062 and TD-043) expressed vigorous vegetative growth under favorable environments such as Santa Elena and Santa Rita, whereas intermediate genotypes (TD-033, TD-026, and TD-020), with heights close to 100 cm, exhibited greater stability and consistent performance across environments. This information provides a clearer interpretation of how plant stature relates to environmental conditions and breeding implications in southern Peru.

 

Change in manuscript:  Section 4 (page 22, paragraph 2, lines 743 - 761).

“Interestingly, our results revealed that the tallest genotypes, TD-062 (118.8 cm) and TD-043 (113.7 cm), exhibited vigorous vegetative growth but produced comparatively lower yields (< 2.5 t ha⁻¹). In contrast, the highest-yielding genotypes (TD-020, TD-026, and TD-033) maintained intermediate stature close to 100 cm, suggesting that excessive plant height may divert assimilates toward structural biomass rather than grain filling. This inverse relationship between plant height and yield agrees with modern breeding outcomes reported by De Careddu et al. (2024) [xxxx1], who documented that genetic reductions in plant stature—largely resulting from the incorporation of semi-dwarf Rht alleles—enhanced the harvest index (HI) and yield stability in Italian durum wheat cultivars.

From an agronomic perspective, genotypes exceeding 100 cm in height, such as TD-062 and TD-043, displayed vigorous vegetative growth under favorable environments (Santa Elena and Santa Rita) but may be prone to reduced yield efficiency or lodging in more stressful sites. Conversely, intermediate genotypes (TD-033, TD-026, and TD-020), positioned near the origin of the GGE biplot, exhibited high stability and consistent performance across environments, indicating broad adaptability rather than site-specific preference. These findings highlight the importance of balancing plant stature and environmental adaptability in durum wheat breeding, supporting targeted selection for both stable and responsive genotypes in southern Peru.”

 

Comment 5. The statistical analysis for the overall manuscript, the relevant significant values may provide for the comparative descriptions of the agronomic traits

Response 5. Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In the revised version, we have added explicit references to significant p-values in the Results section to strengthen the comparative interpretation of the agronomic traits. These values were derived from the AMMI-based analysis of variance, which was the core analytical framework employed in this study.

We would also like to clarify that a post-hoc Tukey test was not performed, as the AMMI model (Additive Main effects and Multiplicative Interaction) focuses on partitioning and interpreting the genotype × environment interaction rather than providing pairwise mean comparisons. Nonetheless, the statistical significance of genotype and environment effects, as well as their interactions, has been explicitly indicated throughout the text to improve transparency and interpretability.

Change in manuscript: Section 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 (Results: Grain yield, Hectoliter weight, Plant heigh, Thousand kernel weight)

We are grateful to the reviewer for their thoughtful and constructive feedback. We believe that the revisions have significantly strengthened the clarity, reproducibility, and practical relevance of our manuscript.

 

Sincerely,

Dr. Daniel Matsusaka

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript deals with an interesting topic but must be modified according to previous comments for achieving sufficient scientific quality to be published.

In Figures (as examples 7 and 8), names are superimposed and are unable to show valid information. Also, Table S2 must be improved because information is not clear.

Author Response

Author´s Reponse to the Review Report

Manuscript ID: ijpb-3948785

Title: Stability and Yield Performance of Durum Wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) Genotypes Across Environments in Southern Peru

Journal: International Journal of Plant Biology

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript and for providing constructive comments and suggestions. Your feedback has greatly contributed to improving the clarity, reproducibility, and scientific rigor of our study. Below, we provide point-by-point responses to each of your comments. We have checked carefully all suggestions and we have modified the document with the corrections highlighted with turquoise color.

 

Comment 1. Does the title describe the article's topic with sufficient precision?
No. I consider the title emphasizes the use of statistical methods, which are not a novelty in analyzing assays like the one described in the manuscript. The title should be focused on the study on genotype by environment interaction, stability, and performance in a non-traditional wheat production area.

Response 1. We appreciate the reviewer valuable suggestion. In accordance with this comment, we have revised the title to better reflect the biological and agronomic focus of the study rather than the statistical approach.

Change in manuscript: Title (lines 3-4).

“Stability and Yield Performance of Durum Wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) Genotypes Across Environments in Southern Peru”

 

Comment 2. In Introduction, current status of wheat production in the focused area must be presented, especially in respect to the performance of traits that are under study. Also, in lanes 61-62 authors mention that "...however, wheat’s complex allohexaploid architecture and the magnitude of G×E interactions...W and the wheat under assay is allotetraploid.

Response 2. We appreciate the reviewer’s careful reading and valuable suggestions. The introduction has been revised accordingly. We have added a concise paragraph describing the status of wheat production in the studied region, including cultivated area, production share, yield levels, and climatic constraints, based on national sources. This addition contextualizes the relevance of the study area and highlights its contribution to national durum wheat production under semi-arid, irrigation-dependent conditions.

Change in manuscript: Section 1 (Introducction, page 2, paragraph 4, line 57-69):

 

“….In recent decades, wheat yields in Peru have shown an upward trend, particularly in highland regions such as Arequipa, La Libertad, Junín, Cusco, and Ayacucho. Particularly, Arequipa has consistently achieved the highest productivity, reaching a national record of 7.12 t ha⁻¹ in 2013, which is nearly three times higher than the maximum yield reported in Junín (2.4 t ha⁻¹ in 2015). However, by 2021, Arequipa and Junín accounted for only 6.4% and 3.3% of total national production, respectively, due to their limited harvested area (1.7% and 2.4%). Expanding the agricultural frontier in the coastal valleys, where climatic conditions are more favorable, could enhance national self-sufficiency if the mean yield of 6.78 t ha⁻¹ obtained in Arequipa between 2012 and 2021 were replicated nationwide [11]. These trends highlight the strong influence of local adaptation and environmental factors on wheat productivity and emphasize the need to characterize genotype-by-environment (G×E) interactions to guide future breeding and yield-stability improvement efforts…”

Change in manuscript: Section 1 (Introduction, page 2, paragraph 5, line 77):

“….complex allotetraploid architecture….”

 

Comment 3. A great issue in South America's agriculture is variability among years and assays are accomplished in just one production campaign. Also, as ANOVA is applied, the assumptions on statistical distributions for this parametric test must be checked.

Response 3. We appreciate this valuable observation. The assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variances were evaluated for all traits prior to performing the ANOVA. The Shapiro–Wilk test and Q–Q plots indicated that all variables followed a normal distribution, except for plant height, which showed mild deviation from normality. However, Levene’s test confirmed homogeneity of variances (p > 0.05) for all traits, including plant height. Given the balanced experimental design and the robustness of mixed-effect ANOVA to moderate deviations from normality, we considered the analysis valid.

Change in manuscript: Section 2.7 (Statistical Analysis, page 2, paragraph 2, line 242-244):

This information has been incorporated in the revised Statistical Analysis section (2.7).

Traits	Shapiro TEST	Levene TEST
Grain Yield	0.054	0.992
Thousand kernel weight	0.989	0.098
Plant Height	0.001	0.888
Hectoliter weight	0.982	0.324

 

Comment 4. As previously mentioned, there are fundamental considerations that must be added to the manuscript.

Response 4. We understand the reviewer’s concern and acknowledge that the manuscript required additional contextual and methodological detail. In the revised version, (i) the title has been reformulated to highlight the focus on genotype × environment interaction, stability, and yield performance in southern Peru; (ii) the Introduction now presents the current status of durum wheat production in the study region and the key agronomic traits under evaluation; and (iii) the Statistical Analysis section was updated to include tests of ANOVA assumptions (normality and homogeneity of variances). We believe these additions address the fundamental considerations mentioned by the reviewer and improve the overall clarity and scientific rigor of the manuscript.

Change in manuscript: Title, Introduction and Material and Methods.

 

Comment 5. As previously mentioned, there are fundamental considerations that must be added to the manuscript.

Response 5. We understand the reviewer concern and acknowledge that the manuscript required additional contextual and methodological detail. In the revised version, (i) the title has been reformulated to highlight the focus on genotype × environment interaction, stability, and yield performance in southern Peru; (ii) the Introduction now presents the current status of durum wheat production in the study region and the key agronomic traits under evaluation; and (iii) the Statistical Analysis section was updated to include tests of ANOVA assumptions (normality and homogeneity of variances). We believe these additions address the fundamental considerations mentioned by the reviewer and improve the overall clarity and scientific rigor of the manuscript.

Change in manuscript: Title, Introduction and Material and Methods.

 

Comment 6. At least, not in the present version because of previously mentioned failures.

Response 6. We appreciate this general assessment. The revised manuscript incorporates all requested improvements, including clarification of the title, expansion of the introduction with regional production context, and inclusion of ANOVA assumption checks.

 

Comment 7. Table S2 is completely unclear. All figures must be improved in its graphical quality.

Response 7. We appreciate the reviewer valuable comment. Table S2 has been substantially revised to improve clarity. In addition to the full pedigree notation, a new column entitled “Origin (simplified)” has been added to summarize the main parental combinations for each genotype. This allows readers to quickly visualize the number and order of crosses performed during the breeding process. Furthermore, a short explanatory note has been included to clarify that the “Origin” column (pedigree notation) follows CIMMYT conventions (“/” = single cross, “//” = double cross, “*” = backcross) and that the number of parental entries reflects the degree of genetic recombination and breeding complexity of each line.

 

Comment 8. Table S2 is completely unclear. All figures must be improved in its graphical quality.

Response 8. We thank the reviewer for this constructive comment. We would like to clarify that all figures were originally generated and exported at high resolution (600 dpi) using the ggsave() function in R to ensure publication-quality graphics. To further improve readability, especially in Figures 7 and 8, the genotype labels were repositioned and resized to avoid overlap, and the color contrast was adjusted for better visual distinction. These modifications enhance interpretability without altering the results or underlying data.

Additionally, Table S2 was reformatted and now includes a “Origin (simplified)” column with a brief explanatory note to clarify the pedigree structure of each genotype.

All figures were exported directly from R using the ggsave() function (dpi = 600, width = 6, height = 4 in, png) to ensure publication-quality resolution according to the journal’s standards.

We are grateful to the reviewer for their thoughtful and constructive feedback. We believe that the revisions have significantly strengthened the clarity, reproducibility, and practical relevance of our manuscript.

 

Sincerely,

Dr. Daniel Matsusaka

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is now acceptable for publication. Having been modified according to this reviewer's suggestions, this study greatly contributes to the knowledge of durum wheat production in the Arequipa region of Peru. I just consider that a commentary must be added by authors in Material and Methods in respect to the fact that Environment refers to Locations, given that the assay was accomplished during just an agronomic campaign (i.e., Year was not taken into account within the Environment source of variation).

This version is appropriate for publication.

Author Response

Manuscript ID: ijpb-3948785
Title: Stability and Yield Performance of Durum Wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) Genotypes Across Environments in Southern Peru
Journal: International Journal of Plant Biology

Dear Editor,

On behalf of all co-authors, I am pleased to submit the revised version of our manuscript entitled “Stability and Yield Performance of Durum Wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) Genotypes Across Environments in Southern Peru” (Manuscript ID: ijpb-3948785) for further consideration in International Journal of Plant Biology.

In response to the reviewer’s final comment, we have added a clarifying statement in the Materials and Methods (Section 2.1 – Ubication, page 3, paragraph 4, lines 119–122) to specify that the term Environment refers exclusively to the experimental locations, as the field trials were conducted during a single agronomic campaign (2023–2024). Accordingly, the Year factor was not included as a source of environmental variation. This clarification has been incorporated into the revised version and is highlighted in the updated file for transparency. The modifications are highlighted in the revised file for transparency.

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback, which helped improve the clarity and methodological precision of our manuscript. We hope that this revision meets the journal’s publication standards and look forward to your favorable evaluation.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Dr. Daniel Matsusaka