Response to Selection for Drought Tolerance in Algerian Maize Populations for Spanish Conditions
, Pedro Revilla 2,*, Rosa Ana Malvar 2, Abderrahmane Djemel 1,† and Meriem Laouar 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOur decision is:
Major corrections are presented in the attached manuscript file
should return me after the correction to confirm the completion of all corrections
regards
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Our decision is:
Major corrections are presented in the attached manuscript file
should return me after the correction to confirm the completion of all corrections
regards
Author Response
Thank you for your review of this manuscript, which has certainly considerably improved the text. I have made all the corrections and incorporated the appropriate suggestions.
In the pdf there are responses to each of your comments. As you can see, I have made the corrections, being the main ones that I have:
- changed the title
- removed the dead author
- modified the abstract
- modified the keywords
- corrected the introduction
- corrected the objective
- added the longitude and latitude of the trials
- corrected and amplified the discussion
- modified the conclusion
- removed some old references and added a new one. However, the method employed here is a classical one and requires classic references
However:
- we do not have the data of temperature of the field trials
- the names BTM, TAO,… are full names not abbreviations
- the flowchart is not necessary for these trials because they are very common
- the name of the institute has no translation into English
- the description of ASI and other traits is precise and it is also is several references; therefore, no additional references are made because there already many references
- Table 1 is large and it would be difficult to replace it by a heatmap, which is less clear than the table with numeric values
- adding P, CV and % to the tables 2 and 3 is not necessary for the purpose of this work, and it would imply splitting the tables and having additional tables with too much space
- Principal component analysis is less appropriate than multiple regressions for assessing the contributions of some variable in other variables
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReviewers’ comments
The manuscript titled: “Response to Selection for Reduced Anthesis-Silking Interval in Algerian Maize Populations for temperate conditions” has been critically reviewed. This manuscript seeks to investigate if the selection for reducing ASI made in Algiers was useful also for northern Spain. The manuscript has significant value, however, it needs a major revision to be clear and concise to the reader.
There are some concerns that need to be reviewed before being considered for publication.
General comment
The document needs major improvement in all subsections as per the comments below.
Specific comments
L = line
L12 - Put a comma before "and"
L14 - But this is an objective, it should be more specific.
Break down the word "useful" by explaining the traits of being useful.
L16 – “Selection…”. Was there a statistically significant difference?
L19 – Significant at what level?
L22 – again insert the level of significance.
L22 – “… for most agronomic traits” - Present some of the traits together with the means showing the difference.
L24 – “Photosynthetic traits did not respond..” – In what way? They did not respond at all? Or their response was non-significant?
L33 – “Moreover..” rephrase this sentence
L42 – delete “to the” and replace it with “its”
L43 – Delete “..of grain yield”
L48 – delete “also”
L48 – Check “probably the second favourable should be "unfavourable"
L55 – focuses
L79 – “..was useful..” check a comment in the abstract and correct
M and M
The M and M section need to be revised significantly, starting with:
1. Site selection for this study, include GPS coordinates, soil type, climate data
2. Treatments
3. Experimental design
4. Data analysis
L85-86 – “The populations BTM and LOM…” – But this is part of the results?
L107 – “..three times” – After how long?
L117 – “..three plants per experimental unit..”. What is an experimental unit in this experiment?
L119 - What was the reference CO2?
Wha was the standard PAR?
L120 -123 – “..maximum quantum..” - Why different font/ size?
L140 - We don't use "we", "I" in scientific writing, we use the "third person" or reporting speech.
Results
L144 – analysis
L147 – “..significant..” – at what level? Please apply this comment throughout the document.
L152 – Delete comma and put full-stop after “height”. Then start another sentence.
L159 – “Rank correlations between male and female flowering…” - What was hypothesized to be different among these two?
L160-164 - This sentence has lost its meaning due to its length. Please cut it into pieces accordingly.
L191 - Vertical lines are normally not used, check the guideline of the journal. This comment also applies in Table 2 & 3.
Table 1 - you said nothing about stars appearing next to the numbers
L203 – Table 2 & 3 – The letters are not appearing next to the means
Discussion
The discussion must be re-written, and the approach of writing it must be changed. In the discussion the literature must be used to explain the results that were obtained in this study. It must not stand alone. The main goal is to underpin the findings, compare it with the previous literature and to explain the differences and similarities using the inferences from what has been documented in the literature.
The conclusion must be aligned with the objective of the study.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The document need proofreading, it is full of typos.
Author Response
Thank you for your review of this manuscript, which has certainly considerably improved the text. I have made all the corrections and incorporated the appropriate suggestions
Below are the responses to each of your comments.
The manuscript titled: “Response to Selection for Reduced Anthesis-Silking Interval in Algerian Maize Populations for temperate conditions” has been critically reviewed. This manuscript seeks to investigate if the selection for reducing ASI made in Algiers was useful also for northern Spain. The manuscript has significant value; however, it needs a major revision to be clear and concise to the reader.
There are some concerns that need to be reviewed before being considered for publication.
General comment
The document needs major improvement in all subsections as per the comments below.
Specific comments
L = line
L12 - Put a comma before "and"
Response: Correction made
L14 - But this is an objective, it should be more specific.
Break down the word "useful" by explaining the traits of being useful.
R: Correction made
L16 – “Selection…”. Was there a statistically significant difference?
R: Of course, otherwise, the statement would not be correct
L19 – Significant at what level?
R: Since the word limit cannot be exceeded in the summary, I have added that information in results
L22 – again insert the level of significance.
R: As before, the information has been added in results
L22 – “… for most agronomic traits” - Present some of the traits together with the means showing the difference.
R: the traits are mentioned in the previous sentences, and the word limit of the abstract does not allow adding all the information
L24 – “Photosynthetic traits did not respond..” – In what way? They did not respond at all? Or their response was non-significant?
R: Indeed, the effects were not significant
L33 – “Moreover..” rephrase this sentence
R: Correction made
L42 – delete “to the” and replace it with “its”
R: Correction made
L43 – Delete “..of grain yield”
R: Correction made
L48 – delete “also”
R: Correction made
L48 – Check “probably the second favourable should be "unfavourable"
R: Correction made, it was unclear
L55 – focuses
L79 – “..was useful..” check a comment in the abstract and correct
R: Correction made
M and M
The M and M section need to be revised significantly, starting with:
- Site selection for this study, include GPS coordinates, soil type, climate data
R: Correction made
- Treatments
R: I have included the reference [34]. This information was already published in Benchikh-Lehocine et al 2021 [34]
- Experimental design
R: I have included the reference [34]
- Data analysis
R: I have included the reference [34]
L85-86 – “The populations BTM and LOM…” – But this is part of the results?
R: I have indicated that this comer from Benchikh-Lehocine et al 2021 [34]
L107 – “..three times” – After how long?
R: Correction made
L117 – “..three plants per experimental unit..”. What is an experimental unit in this experiment?
R: Correction made above
L119 - What was the reference CO2?
R: Correction made
Wha was the standard PAR?
R: Correction made
L120 -123 – “..maximum quantum..” - Why different font/ size?
R: Correction made
L140 - We don't use "we", "I" in scientific writing, we use the "third person" or reporting speech.
R: Correction made
Results
L144 – analysis
R: Correction made
L147 – “..significant..” – at what level? Please apply this comment throughout the document.
R: The minimum level of significance is always p=0.05. we have put it several times along the text, but I don't think it is necessary to put it every time the word “significant” is mentioned.
L152 – Delete comma and put full-stop after “height”. Then start another sentence.
R: Correction made
L159 – “Rank correlations between male and female flowering…” - What was hypothesized to be different among these two?
R: The relationship between male and female flowering in Algeria and Spain is important because Algerian varieties could be not well adapted to the Spanish environment, but it’s not the case. This is well known in plant breeding.
L160-164 - This sentence has lost its meaning due to its length. Please cut it into pieces accordingly.
R: Correction made
L191 - Vertical lines are normally not used, check the guideline of the journal. This comment also applies in Table 2 & 3.
R: Correction made
Table 1 - you said nothing about stars appearing next to the numbers
R: Correction made
L203 – Table 2 & 3 – The letters are not appearing next to the means
R: Correction made
Discussion
The discussion must be re-written, and the approach of writing it must be changed. In the discussion the literature must be used to explain the results that were obtained in this study. It must not stand alone. The main goal is to underpin the findings, compare it with the previous literature and to explain the differences and similarities using the inferences from what has been documented in the literature.
R: I have modified the discussion accordingly
The conclusion must be aligned with the objective of the study.
R: I have modified the conclusion accordingly
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsResponse to Selection for Reduced Anthesis-Silking Interval in Algerian Maize Populations for temperate conditions.
Maysoun Benchikh-Lehocine, Lorena Álvarez-Iglesias, Pedro Revilla, Rosa Ana Malvar; Abderahmane Djemel, Meriem Laouar
Lines 16-17: Selection reduced ASI and anthesis and increased yield for BTM and LOM.
Please explain in the abstract, what are BTM and LOM
Lines 82-84: Three cycles of selection for reduced ASI were carried out in four open-pollinated maize populations (BTM, TAO, IGS and LOM) collected in Saharan oases, as previously described [29,34].
Please add description regarding the populations (how many lines were in each population)?
In Benchikh-Lehocine, M.; Revilla, P.; Malvar, R.A.; Djemel, A. Response to Selection for Reduced Anthesis-Silking Interval in Four Algerian Maize Populations. Agronomy 2021, 11, 382. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11020382 there is We have evaluated a representative sample of 18 open-pollinated populations for drought tolerance (Table 1), along with breeding populations from the dry Spain [EPS14(FR)C3], the humid Spain [EPS13(FR)C3], and the Canary Islands (La Oliva), along with two hybrids between inbreds developed from US Corn Belt germplasm (A641×W182B) and (A239×A251)A635.
In Djemel, A., Revilla, P., Hanifi-Mekliche, L. et al. Maize (Zea mays L.) from the Saharan oasis: adaptation to temperate areas and agronomic performance. Genet Resour Crop Evol 59, 1493–1504 (2012). https://doi-1org-16k4gcsi317b8.han.ump.edu.pl/10.1007/s10722-011-9778-2 there is description: These populations were assayed along with 13 cultivars from the dry Spain, four cultivars from the humid Spain, four cultivars and three single crosses from the US Corn Belt, and three crosses among cultivars from these temperate origins.
Lines 84-85: The four Algerian populations and their cycles of selection were evaluated in Algiers along with temperate checks.
Please explain “with temperate checks” meaning.
Lines 120-123: Finally, when senescence begun, maximum quantum efficiency of photosystem II calculated from Minimum fluorescence (Fo) and Maximum fluorescence (Fm) as Fv/Fm, where Fv = Fm – Fo, recorded in the second leaf by using a portable OS-30p Chlorophyll Fluorometer (Opti-Sciences) after at least 20 minutes dark treatment.
Please explain, how the dark treatment was done.
Line 185-189: Female flowering, quantum efficiency of photosystem II, and WUE were higher under drought than under well-watered conditions, while plant height, ears per plant, yield, stomatal conductance, substomatal conductance, and transpiration were higher under well-watered conditions (Tables 2 and 3)
Please correct “substomatal conductance”
Line 191: Table 1.
Please add description, what *, ** means.
Line 201: Table 2
Please add the raw data for the means at the Supplemental Materials. Days of flower and ears per plant should be whole numbers.
Line 203: a Means followed by the same letter, within the same column and section, are not significantly different at p = 0.05
There are no any letter in the Table 2 and 3.
Line 206. Table 3.
Values for Quantum Efficiency of Photosystem should be up to 0.8. Substomatal [CO2] can’t be -8.35.
Line 230: Fig. 1
Please correct the description on the first graph BTM ASI Well-Watwred. Please add A), B), C), D).
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Thank you for your review of this manuscript, which has certainly considerably improved the text. I have made all the corrections and incorporated the suggestions
Response to Selection for Reduced Anthesis-Silking Interval in Algerian Maize Populations for temperate conditions.
Maysoun Benchikh-Lehocine, Lorena Álvarez-Iglesias, Pedro Revilla, Rosa Ana Malvar; Abderahmane Djemel, Meriem Laouar
Lines 16-17: Selection reduced ASI and anthesis and increased yield for BTM and LOM.
Please explain in the abstract, what are BTM and LOM
R: The names BTM, TAO,… are full names not abbreviations
Lines 82-84: Three cycles of selection for reduced ASI were carried out in four open-pollinated maize populations (BTM, TAO, IGS and LOM) collected in Saharan oases, as previously described [29,34].
Please add description regarding the populations (how many lines were in each population)?
In Benchikh-Lehocine, M.; Revilla, P.; Malvar, R.A.; Djemel, A. Response to Selection for Reduced Anthesis-Silking Interval in Four Algerian Maize Populations. Agronomy 2021, 11, 382. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11020382 there is We have evaluated a representative sample of 18 open-pollinated populations for drought tolerance (Table 1), along with breeding populations from the dry Spain [EPS14(FR)C3], the humid Spain [EPS13(FR)C3], and the Canary Islands (La Oliva), along with two hybrids between inbreds developed from US Corn Belt germplasm (A641×W182B) and (A239×A251)A635.
In Djemel, A., Revilla, P., Hanifi-Mekliche, L. et al. Maize (Zea mays L.) from the Saharan oasis: adaptation to temperate areas and agronomic performance. Genet Resour Crop Evol 59, 1493–1504 (2012). https://doi-1org-16k4gcsi317b8.han.ump.edu.pl/10.1007/s10722-011-9778-2 there is description: These populations were assayed along with 13 cultivars from the dry Spain, four cultivars from the humid Spain, four cultivars and three single crosses from the US Corn Belt, and three crosses among cultivars from these temperate origins.
R: We have corrected that section following the reviewers’ proposals
Lines 84-85: The four Algerian populations and their cycles of selection were evaluated in Algiers along with temperate checks.
Please explain “with temperate checks” meaning.
R: We have made the correction accordingly
Lines 120-123: Finally, when senescence begun, maximum quantum efficiency of photosystem II calculated from Minimum fluorescence (Fo) and Maximum fluorescence (Fm) as Fv/Fm, where Fv = Fm – Fo, recorded in the second leaf by using a portable OS-30p Chlorophyll Fluorometer (Opti-Sciences) after at least 20 minutes dark treatment.
Please explain, how the dark treatment was done.
R: We have made the correction accordingly
Line 185-189: Female flowering, quantum efficiency of photosystem II, and WUE were higher under drought than under well-watered conditions, while plant height, ears per plant, yield, stomatal conductance, substomatal conductance, and transpiration were higher under well-watered conditions (Tables 2 and 3)
Please correct “substomatal conductance”
R: We have made the corrections throughout the text to “substomatal CO2 concentration”
Line 191: Table 1.
Please add description, what *, ** means.
R: We have made the correction accordingly
Line 201: Table 2
Please add the raw data for the means at the Supplemental Materials. Days of flower and ears per plant should be whole numbers.
R: The values shown in Table 2 for days of flower and ears per plant are the means of the raw data. These raw data will be made available to readers upon request.
Line 203: a Means followed by the same letter, within the same column and section, are not significantly different at p = 0.05
There are no any letter in the Table 2 and 3.
R: We have made the correction accordingly
Line 206. Table 3.
Values for Quantum Efficiency of Photosystem should be up to 0.8. Substomatal [CO2] can’t be -8.35.
R: We have removed that number because it is a mathematical artifact in the calculations.
Line 230: Fig. 1
Please correct the description on the first graph BTM ASI Well-Watwred. Please add A), B), C), D).
R: We have made the correction. However, adding the letters A), B), C), D) is not necessary because the four graphs have clear titles
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper submitted for review entitled: 'Response to selection for reduced anthesis-silking interval in Algerian maize populations for temperate conditions' (agronomy ID-3424285), concerns the effect of shortening Anthesis-Silking Interval (ASI) in two maize genotypes to reduce drought susceptibility and to check whether selection for reducing ASI made in Algiers was also useful for northern Spain. The evaluation criteria were: vigour, days of female over male flower, plant height, ears per plant, yield and selected parameters of leaf gas exchange (stomatal conductance, net fotosynthetic rate, concentration substomatal CO2, transpiration rate and WUE. I positively assess the topic, its innovation and usefulness for agricultural practice. However, I have a lot of criticism about the article itself. It contains a number of defects and missing information. This makes many parts of the work difficult to understand. This is especially true of the chapter 'Material and methods' In its present form, this chapter is unacceptable. In fact, it needs to be written again. Numerous faults can also be found in the chapter ‘Results’.
I include detailed comments below.
Abstract
This chapter is written well.
Introduction
I suggest that this chapter be supplemented with content on the effects of drought on maize morphological traits, physiological processes (mainly photosynthesis) and maize grain yield.
Lines 78-80. The aim of this study is too general.
Material and methods
This chapter is very poorly written. In this form it is unacceptable. It is chaotic, disorganised, has many faults and missing information. It is also difficult to understand. This also makes the ‘Results’ chapter difficult to understand. The experiment should be written in such a way that it can be repeated under different conditions. It should be rewritten.
In this chapter, please describe the experience in detail. This description is too general and not very understandable. What were the factors of the experiment. When was the experiment established, when was it completed. What was the maize agronomic practice (after which preceding crop, fertilisation, sowing depth, plant protection measures, harvesting - when, how was it harvested). On which soil the experiment was carried out (classification, composition, properties). Please describe in detail the climatic conditions in the study area and the temperature and precipitation during the study period. During which periods of maize vegetation were weather conditions unfavourable for this plant and why? I suggest to divide it into subchapters (for example Site, soil and climate, Experimental design, Measurements, Statistical analyses). Have the same experiments been conducted in Algeria and Spain?
Line 94. How many plots there were, what was the area of the plot.
Line 107. When was the well-watered trial irrigated. How was it irrigated, how much water was applied, how was the application rate determined?
Lines 109, 111. How many plants were analysed?
Lines 112, 113. From each plot?
Line 114. Date, from ...to...
Line 117. How many leaves on the plant were selected? Which leaves were they?
Line 118. What they were: the photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD), the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, the vapor pressure, and the chamber temperature.
Results
Line 144. I don’t understand. What three environments. In the Material and methods chapter it is only about drought and irrigation.
Line 146. Where are these interaction data. It may be worth presenting them e.g. in Supplementry material.
Line 155. What environments?
Line 157. Please refer to the tables.
Line 173. Or all of them? In my opinion, only AAD and ADP.
Line 179. With which features (exactly). Drought - this only applies to PAD in Spain.
Line 185. Please show. If not in the text then in the Supplementary material.
Table 2. Below this table, please write an explanation of the abbreviations below the table.
Line 203, 208. Where in the tables are these letters?
Line 206. In table 3 has no statistical analysis data.
Figure 1. In this figure, indicate what the numbers on the vertical axis and the horizontal axis mean.
Line 239. Or 1068 (see Figure 1).
Line 244. Why such a statement. Table 3 does not show significant differences.
Discussion
In my opinion, the discussion is too general. To a small extent, it is based on the authors' own research results.
Line 300. Why? Please explain. It is not possible to say that there is no effect of selection on photosynthetic parameters, as there is no statistical analysis.
Conclusions
Line 312. This cannot be concluded as it is not supported by statistical analysis.
References
References: 14,16,18,19, 36, 37,38, 42 are too old. Please replace them with newer references.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your review of this manuscript, which has certainly considerably improved the text. I have made all the corrections and incorporated the suggestions
Below are the responses to each of your comments.
The paper submitted for review entitled: 'Response to selection for reduced anthesis-silking interval in Algerian maize populations for temperate conditions' (agronomy ID-3424285), concerns the effect of shortening Anthesis-Silking Interval (ASI) in two maize genotypes to reduce drought susceptibility and to check whether selection for reducing ASI made in Algiers was also useful for northern Spain. The evaluation criteria were: vigour, days of female over male flower, plant height, ears per plant, yield and selected parameters of leaf gas exchange (stomatal conductance, net fotosynthetic rate, concentration substomatal CO2, transpiration rate and WUE. I positively assess the topic, its innovation and usefulness for agricultural practice. However, I have a lot of criticism about the article itself. It contains a number of defects and missing information. This makes many parts of the work difficult to understand. This is especially true of the chapter 'Material and methods' In its present form, this chapter is unacceptable. In fact, it needs to be written again. Numerous faults can also be found in the chapter ‘Results’.
I include detailed comments below.
Abstract
This chapter is written well.
Introduction
I suggest that this chapter be supplemented with content on the effects of drought on maize morphological traits, physiological processes (mainly photosynthesis) and maize grain yield.
Response: I have modified this section according to the reviewer's requirements, and most of the information required by the reviewer is provided in the references. I have also included a new reference that is a recent review about photosynthetic traits and drought.
Lines 78-80. The aim of this study is too general.
R: The objective has been rewritten
Material and methods
This chapter is very poorly written. In this form it is unacceptable. It is chaotic, disorganised, has many faults and missing information. It is also difficult to understand. This also makes the ‘Results’ chapter difficult to understand. The experiment should be written in such a way that it can be repeated under different conditions. It should be rewritten.
In this chapter, please describe the experience in detail. This description is too general and not very understandable. What were the factors of the experiment. When was the experiment established, when was it completed. What was the maize agronomic practice (after which preceding crop, fertilisation, sowing depth, plant protection measures, harvesting - when, how was it harvested). On which soil the experiment was carried out (classification, composition, properties). Please describe in detail the climatic conditions in the study area and the temperature and precipitation during the study period. During which periods of maize vegetation were weather conditions unfavourable for this plant and why? I suggest to divide it into subchapters (for example Site, soil and climate, Experimental design, Measurements, Statistical analyses). Have the same experiments been conducted in Algeria and Spain?
Line 94. How many plots there were, what was the area of the plot.
Line 107. When was the well-watered trial irrigated. How was it irrigated, how much water was applied, how was the application rate determined?
Lines 109, 111. How many plants were analysed?
Lines 112, 113. From each plot?
Line 114. Date, from ...to...
Line 117. How many leaves on the plant were selected? Which leaves were they?
Line 118. What they were: the photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD), the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, the vapor pressure, and the chamber temperature.
R: I have modified this section according to the reviewer's requirements. I have described the experiment in detail, the soil, fertilizer, irrigation, etc. The climatic conditions are available in the links provided (https://www.worldweatheronline.com/lang/es/pontevedra-weather-history/galicia/es.aspx). The experiments in Algeria have already been described in the reference 34, so I have only explained the details for Spain.
Results
Line 144. I don’t understand. What three environments. In the Material and methods chapter it is only about drought and irrigation.
R: The three Algerian trials come from a previous work and, in this work, we carry out combined analyses of variance with the previous trials and the new one. I hope it is clear in the corrected version.
Line 146. Where are these interaction data. It may be worth presenting them e.g. in Supplementry material.
R: The combined analyses of variance were made solely to find out if there were significant differences among environments, treatments and genotypes, and if the genotype x environment interactions were significant; therefore, it is not worthwhile presenting a big table that is used only to comment in a couple of sentences.
Line 155. What environments?
R: we have mentioned three Algerian and one Spanish environment. It should be clear now
Line 157. Please refer to the tables.
R: As explained above, these data are not shown because they are not really relevant for the objective; they are just a necessary first step for the relevant analyses
Line 173. Or all of them? In my opinion, only AAD and ADP.
R: This has been modified
Line 179. With which features (exactly). Drought - this only applies to PAD in Spain.
R: This has been modified
Line 185. Please show. If not in the text then in the Supplementary material.
R: As explained above, the analyses of variance were made solely to find out if there were significant differences among environments, treatments and genotypes, and if the genotype x environment interactions were significant; therefore, it is not worthwhile presenting a big table that is used only to comment in a couple of sentences.
Table 2. Below this table, please write an explanation of the abbreviations below the table.
R: This has been modified as requested
Line 203, 208. Where in the tables are these letters?
R: there was a mistake that has been corrected
Line 206. In table 3 has no statistical analysis data.
R: Indeed, we did the ANOVA for making the Fishers’ protected LSD and, according to this procedure, as differences were not significant among genotypes for these traits, the LSD was not calculated. I have explained now that in the table.
Figure 1. In this figure, indicate what the numbers on the vertical axis and the horizontal axis mean.
R: This has been modified as requested
Line 239. Or 1068 (see Figure 1).
R: there was a mistake that has been corrected
Line 244. Why such a statement. Table 3 does not show significant differences.
R: there was a mistake that has been corrected
Discussion
In my opinion, the discussion is too general. To a small extent, it is based on the authors' own research results.
R: We have modified this section
Line 300. Why? Please explain. It is not possible to say that there is no effect of selection on photosynthetic parameters, as there is no statistical analysis.
R: There were statistical analyses, as explained before. There was no significant response in photosynthetic traits due to selection to reduce ASI; however, the lack of significance of the simple regression does not preclude performing a multiple regression to use the observed diversity to study possible cause-effect relationships between traits; in fact, the multiple regression of photosynthetic traits did show significant effects of some photosynthetic traits.
Conclusions
Line 312. This cannot be concluded as it is not supported by statistical analysis.
R: This section has been modified
References
References: 14,16,18,19, 36, 37,38, 42 are too old. Please replace them with newer references.
R: I have deleted three references, because they were dispensable, and I have included a new one. This breeding program is a classic one and the most innovative aspects are the material with which it is done, that it is tested in another environment, the traits that are measured, as well as the analyses that are done. So, we have to cite classic works. I am not able to delete the other references because they provide important content and I do not think it is appropriate to give that information with more modern references that cite the old ones because that would mean giving credit to those who have cited the first authors without recognizing the merit of those who first said it.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Author
unfortunately
there are Some of our simple corrections that haven't corrected till now such as
- the flowchart is not necessary for these trials because they are very common
- Table 1 is large and it would be difficult to replace it by a heatmap, which is less clear than the table with numeric values
- adding P, CV and % to the tables 2 and 3 is not necessary for the purpose of this work, and it would imply splitting the tables and having additional tables with too much space
must correct it, if all the necessary revisions are not correct, the manuscript will be rejected, as these changes are crucial for this manuscript to be suitable for publication in the agronomy journal.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Perhaps my previous explanations were not clear enough; thus, here are the responses to these new comments:
The objective of this study was to investigate if the selection for reducing ASI made in Algiers had a positive effect on drought tolerance in northern Spain.
To address this objective, the main analysis is the regression analysis that we have made to determine the response to selection in the target environment. Then we added correlations to know the relationship between the values of the environments. Finally, we presented the means to compare the values obtained in each environment.
The reviewer says that we have to make a flowchart of the trials, but it is a classical design that is well known to any reader who can understand this work. That flowchart has no interest and, in addition, it would be a drawing that would not contribute anything to the work and would barely be mentioned in the text.
He also suggests that we change a correlation table for a heatmap. I guess he likes drawings, but it makes no sense to change a table in which precise data are given for a drawing that is much less precise and rigorous.
Finally, adding P, CV and % to the tables of means is to introduce irrelevant information and of no value to this work. This information could not be discussed in the text without deviating from the objective of the work, as it does not serve the purpose of this work.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article has been revised in line with my comments in the review. Now this article is much better than the previous version.
Author Response
Ok Thank you
