Adaptability and Stability Comparisons of Inbred and Hybrid Cotton in Yield and Fiber Quality Traits
, Tingxiang Qi 1, Liping Guo 1, Huini Tang 1, Xuexian Zhang 1, Hailin Wang 1, Xiuqin Qiao 1, Meng Zhang 1, Bingbing Zhang 1, Juanjuan Feng 1, Muhammad Shahid Iqbal 1,2, Jianyong Wu 1,3,* and Chaozhu Xing 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The grammar must be substantially improved. You need to describe the soil types at each location. Soil types have a tremendous influence on GxE. Also, were all the trials irrigated, and if so, the method and frequency of irrigation needs to be described. The number of bolls per plant is an irrelevant yield component, especially in commercially competitive field grown cotton. Boll weight has a marginal value. I was surprised to see as much GxE variation for fiber length and strength. The GxE for the other fiber traits were consistent with most other observations. It was virtually impossible to read and understand the biplot figures. In your conclusion, I appreciated your identification of which lines were the most stable, but I would also like to understand which location was the most discriminating.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer!
We are thankful for your useful suggestions. We have revised our manuscript accordingly. Changes can be seen in red color in the manuscript. Attachment file contian point by point response of your comments.We hope that you will be pleased with this revision.We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting study for comparing stability in cotton populations tested in six environments for different traits.
In general, the study was well conducted; however, some major changes should be done before publishing this manuscript.
Seems like there are many figures. Perhaps 3 would be ok and the rest should be send to the supplementary section.
The English writing could be improved a little bit.
The table with the variance components have some small values showing highly significance. Please make a double check about these.
Enclosed a document with some suggestions/recommendations.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We are thankful for your helpful suggestions. We have revised our manuscript accordingly. Changes can be seen in red color in the manuscript. We hope thta you will be satishfied with this revision. we look faward to hearing from you soon. Word file in attachment contains point by point response of your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I have reviewed the changes to the manuscript and find authors have addressed all my concerns.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The subject of this research could be interesting, but the authors fail to make a compelling case for the research. The paragraph structure is long, meandering, and often fails to make a succinct point in support of the research. The authors do not maintain a scientific writing style when building the introduction.
The materials and methods section is unclear on some important points. Why were these samples selected to be used in this experiment? What controls were used? Are there any more details about the agronomic practices? Were the agronomic practices regional? Were they recommended by an agency? Were the 50 boll samples were taken twice? What type of ginning and cleaning treatments were performed on the fiber quality samples? How was the number of significant IPC axes determined? Was any of the data, such as the boll count data, transformed before analysis? What technique was used for the calibration of the HVI elongation data?
The figures need proper legends and fonts. The font and legends in the current presentation are illegible. Acronyms must be defined before they are introduced.
The results provide a written summary of the tables and figures but do not explain why these points are interesting. The results should include some discussion about the relationships between genetic and environmental factors.
Author Response
Hi Dear
We are grateful for your beneficial suggestions. Please see the attachment file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
My comments/suggestions are included in the attached PDF report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Hi Dear,
We are grateful to you for your constructive suggestions. These improved our initial draft. All possible changes can be seen in red-colored in the revised manuscript. Please see the attachment file to see our response.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
