Evaluation of Grain Yield Stability in Some Selected Wheat Genotypes Using AMMI and GGE Biplot Methods

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract - necessary more information about objetive the study. 
line 20 - what's AMMI
38 - name its necessaru italic
40 - 42 - reference
51- 54- confuse. 
59 - 63 ; 77; 79 - name author not necessary;
padronization its necessary only cm or m; sugstion olny m 

Why choose G25 control?

demonstrate on a map where the locations of the experiment were.

Was it the same experimental arrangement?

Better detail the management of the experiment.

I suggest doing an analysis comparing the mean between the genotypes because I don't know what the differences are

The figures are unformatted, I suggest reviewing their formatting

References need updating many are old

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thanks a lot for your comment on our article.

I revised my article based on your comments and I hope it will be satisfactory for you.

Your comments:

Abstract - necessary more information about objetive the study. 
line 20 - what's AMMI
38 - name its necessaru italic
40 - 42 - reference
51- 54- confuse. 
59 - 63 ; 77; 79 - name author not necessary;( this analysis know about them and I must used their name).
padronization its necessary only cm or m; sugstion olny m 

Thank you for your comment. I revised my article based on your comments. Thank you.

Why choose G25 control?

Control was the last commercial hybrid introduced in the different climates in the year of the experiment, which had the highest performance compared to the other hybrids introduced. G25 genotype is a popular hybrid to their locations.

demonstrate on a map where the locations of the experiment were.

Thank you for your comment. I added a figure about it.

Was it the same experimental arrangement?

Yes, it is. It is the same experimental design and arrangement.

Better detail the management of the experiment.

Thank you for your comment. I revised my article based on your comment.

I suggest doing an analysis comparing the mean between the genotypes because I don't know what the differences are

Thank you for your comment. I added to table 4 about it.

The figures are unformatted, I suggest reviewing their formatting

Thank you for your comment. I revised them.

References need updating many are old

Yes, some references were old because the literature review explains my study from 20 years ago until today. I hope you are accepting of my references because there explain my analysis and result based on 20 years ago analysis with Prof Dr. Yan and another researcher.

Much appreciated!

best regards

Reviewer 2 Report

This study used MMI and GGE biplot methods to evaluation of grain yield stability in some selected wheat genotypes. The results of the ideal genotype diagram were G12 and G21 genotypes, and based on the exemplary environment diagram results, Damavand and Varamin environments were identified as ideal environments. The amount of data is rich in the article. However, the followings need to be clarified before its consideration for publication.

Major revision

1. The abstract needs to be summarized and concise to be more readable.
2. The specific results need to be put into the abstract.
3. How to eliminate the error of the annual field experiment?
4. The results in Figure 2 and Figure 3 do not appear to be two-year averages from the graph. The same as the other figures.

Minor revision

1. Consistency in article format.
2. Keep pictures beautiful and legible.
3. Maintain a standardized and uniform reference format.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thanks a lot for your comment on our article.

I revised my article based on your comments and I hope it will be satisfactory for you.

Your comments:

This study used MMI and GGE biplot methods to evaluation of grain yield stability in some selected wheat genotypes. The results of the ideal genotype diagram were G12 and G21 genotypes, and based on the exemplary environment diagram results, Damavand and Varamin environments were identified as ideal environments. The amount of data is rich in the article. However, the followings need to be clarified before its consideration for publication.

Major revision

1. The abstract needs to be summarized and concise to be more readable.

I revised the abstract

1. The specific results need to be put into the abstract.

I revised the abstract based on your comment.

1. How to eliminate the error of the annual field experiment?

We can use replication for eliminating errors.

1. The results in Figure 2 and Figure 3 do not appear to be two-year averages from the graph. The same as the other figures.

I used GGE biplot software to get these plots. For this issue, I added a Comparison of Duncan's mean grain yield in two cropping years and five experiments areas. Maybe can help to understand clearly.

Minor revision

1. Consistency in article format.

I revised them.

1. Keep pictures beautiful and legible.

I revised them

1. Maintain a standardized and uniform reference format

I revised them.

Much Appreciated!

best regards

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

After the review, the article was improved and can be accepted. All my suggestions were accepted.

Reviewer 2 Report

It can be accepted now.