Multi-Traits Selection of Maize Hybrids under Sole-Crop and Multiple-Crops with Soybean

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript submitted by Ruswandi et al. describes a comprehensive analysis of genotype, environment, and their interactions for hybrid maize yields at four locations in West Java. The research topics described are important to a wide range of readers and the entire study is well designed. However, I have found some issues as follows that need to be addressed and corrected.

Many abbreviations without explanation in the abstract. The abstract is difficult to understand, should be rewritten.

A total of 22 maize hybrids were used in this study, but it is not clear what the parental DR, MDR, and BR varieties were. Are they tropical and subtropical maize (lines 46-47)? Detailed characteristics of these parental lines should be described as supplementary data.

What is the difference between sole-crop and mono-crop (monocropping)? The difference should be clearly explained in the manuscript.

The results are not the same across different analyses. The authors do not mention why this is so. This difference should be explained or discussed.

Most of the discussion section, especially from lines 422 to 442, simply repeats the results. The discussion must be rewritten.

English and writing of the manuscript has to be checked by a professional editor.

Author Response

Please check the answers for the reviewer's comments in the bellow attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Lines 37: Agro-ecologies systems, or something like that.

Line 57: The ecosystem will fluctuate because of the climate change… please rewrite the sentences. (the ecosystem will fluctuate within temperature and rainfalls due to climate change scenario).

Line 58: add; climate change will also affect food safety and diminish crop production since plant growth is affected by environmental condition such as nutrition and water availability.

Line 61 to 66: Re- paraphrase. I understand what you mean but it is a bad sentences and wrong concepts.  You can not manipulate climate, or just say it backwards. Multiple cropping system is an excellent tool to test multiples cultivars or maize lines……

Line 85 to 87: please rewrite. Environments do not have abilities.

89 to 91: Please rewrite in different sentences.

91 to 86: …...was to select maize hybrids within favourable traits such us, (name them); identify genotype and environmental interaction within maize yield; to evaluate maize hybrids adaptability to four different location in West Java; and to identify a representative environmental for testing and development new maize hybrids.

Line 102 to 103: conducted in four different environments, and the fields condition were intercropping with soybean or monocropping.

Line 105: namely? Specifically, or something else? Like, the four location at West Java were at Arjasari (Cropping system), Karawang(), Cikandang() and Lembang().

Line 109: Information about locations is presented in Table 2. A randomized block design was used and repeated three times.

Line 116: again namely.

Line: wo husk? Please explain.

Material and Methods with plant materials, experimental design, data collection and data analysis are very well written and particularly suitable for the assays planned. Please check English.

In data analysis all the analysis are well written and understandable, but I don’t have enough knowledge to correct them, but I follow and understand the models.

Results

I think that Principal component analysis and heat maps are very useful in order to see the differences within maize hybrid and environmental correlation within all traits analysed.

Conclusions.

The purpose of the study is completed along side in the manuscript, but, since there is no description of the actual maize hybrids in Indonesia, I cannot say how meaningful this study is optimal for the geographic area. The authors may consider describe the situation in Indonesia as a principal theme in this study. The introgression of new germplasm in the commercial hybrids for sure is an excellent opportunity for Indonesian maize production.

For last, please check spelling of English.

English should be much improved. 

Author Response

Our responses can be read in the following attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Feedback on Manuscript: "Multi-Traits Selection Of Maize Hybrids Under Sole-Crop and Multiple-Crops With Soybean"

Overall, the manuscript presents a good approach towards future studies in plant biology. However, there are some shortcomings that need to be addressed before the article can be recommended for publication.

The manuscript should be checked for minor English grammar mistakes.

Abstract:

The abstract provides a clear overview of the objectives of the study. However, it would be helpful to provide a brief justification for why multi-traits selection is important in plant breeding programs.

The methodology of the study should be briefly mentioned in the abstract to provide context for the findings. For example, the use of a randomized block design and the number of replications could be mentioned.

It would be beneficial to include the sample size or number of maize hybrids evaluated in the study.

The results section of the abstract provides a good summary of the main findings. However, it would be helpful to include some information on the magnitude of the effects observed (e.g., yield differences between the superior hybrids and other traits).

The implications and significance of the findings could be briefly discussed in the abstract. For example, how the identified superior hybrids could contribute to maize breeding programs or the potential impact on commercial hybrids currently in use.

Introduction:

While this section is comprehensive, it may not be suitable for a research article. The authors are advised to divide this part into a maximum of 3 or 4 paragraphs that briefly explain the significance of the current work with clear objectives at the end.

Add hypothesis and significance of the study in last paragraph.

Results:

This section is well-written, but some revisions are suggested to check the results for English grammar/corrections.

Figure 1, 2, 3, and 9 overlap some of the symbols. Authors are advised to correct this avoiding overlapping and save the images in good quality (300 dpi).

Please provide the detailed legends with the figures and the number of biological replicates and technical replicates.

Discussion:

This section discusses the results in relation to previous literature, but the justification for each result should be provided.

This section should also be checked for English language and grammar corrections.

Materials and Methods:

The authors are advised to add the missing results and relevant citations.

https://doi.org/10.1111/ppl.13759

Conclusion:

It is recommended to develop an inclusive conclusion that effectively summarizes the main results obtained from your study and emphasizes their significance for future research. In doing so, it is important to refrain from including specific numerical values or statistics in the conclusion. Instead, focus on explaining how each objective was achieved and highlight the broader implications and significance of your current study.

By providing a comprehensive conclusion, you will ensure that readers gain a clear understanding of the key findings and the relevance of your work in advancing the field. Additionally, this will help to inspire further investigations and encourage future studies in the same or related areas.

It is recommend to conduct a thorough review of the entire manuscript for English grammar and editing. It would be beneficial to engage the services of a professional or a native English speaker to ensure the manuscript is polished and free of any language errors or inconsistencies. A meticulous examination of the manuscript's language and structure will enhance the clarity and readability of your work, providing a more enjoyable reading experience for your audience.

I encourage you to allocate adequate time for this review process, as it plays a crucial role in the overall quality of your manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you for your supporting comments.  Our responses can be read in the bellow attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Most of my concerns were addressed and improved in the revised manuscript.

The English of this paper must be improved by a professional English proofreader prior to publication.