Multi-Environment Evaluation of Soybean Variety Heike 88: Transgressive Segregation and Regional Adaptation in Northern China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is comprehensive, combining classical breeding, multi-environment evaluation, and advanced statistical analyses. The study is generally well-organized, with a clear experimental design and appropriate data analysis. However, several areas require improvement to enhance clarity, rigor, and overall impact.

The introduction provides a general background but should better emphasize the novelty and significance of the study. The authors should clarify how their work advances knowledge compared to previous research on heterosis, particularly in soybean or similar crops. Including recent studies on molecular-assisted selection or genomics approaches in breeding would situate the work in a modern context.

In the methods section, repetition in Section 2.3.3 regarding production trials should be corrected. The criteria for environmental clustering (cool, moderate, warm zones) and trait classifications, such as disease resistance (0 = immune/highly resistant to 3 = susceptible) and lodging resistance (0 = excellent to 3 = poor), should be clearly defined. Additional details on field management practices, including fertilization, irrigation, and pest control, are necessary to ensure reproducibility.

The results are generally clear, but the discussion should expand on the relationships between heterosis, yield, and quality traits, highlighting which traits were most strongly correlated with yield improvement. Practical implications for breeders and farmers should be emphasized, particularly in parental line selection and hybrid performance. Limitations of the study, including environmental variability, limited genetic diversity, or potential sample bias, should be acknowledged, and future research directions suggested, such as testing heterotic crosses across multiple environments and integrating molecular markers to predict hybrid performance.

The authors should clarify whether the variety studied is an F1 hybrid or a pure line derived through pedigree selection. If it is a pure line, the term “mid-parent heterosis” should be explained carefully.

Consistency in section formatting, units (°C, kg ha⁻¹, g), and terminology (e.g., “heterosis” or “hybrid vigor”) should be ensured.

Figure 1 resolution should be improved, and verify that all references cited (e.g., Fehr 1987, Cooper & Hammer 1996) are included in the reference list.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript would benefit from minor English editing to improve grammar, sentence structure, and readability.

• The comma after “design” is unnecessary; also, it reads awkwardly - “The study is well-organized, with experimental design, and data analysis.”
• Use uniform terminology for disease names (e.g., "gray leaf spot" vs. "gray spot disease").
• In the methods section, repetition in Section 2.3.3 regarding production trials should be corrected.
• The Abstract should also be rephrased for clarity, for example, “with optimal mid-parent heterosis (40%) achieved at an accumulated temperature of 2150–2200°C.”

Author Response

Comment: "The manuscript is comprehensive, combining classical breeding, multi-environment evaluation, and advanced statistical analyses. The study is generally well-organized, with a clear experimental design and appropriate data analysis."

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's recognition of our comprehensive approach. We have strengthened the manuscript based on their constructive feedback.

Comment: "Several areas require improvement to enhance clarity, rigor, and overall impact."

Response: We have addressed each specific concern raised and believe the revised manuscript now provides greater clarity and scientific rigor.

Introduction Section

 Comment: "The introduction provides a general background but should better emphasize the novelty and significance of the study. The authors should clarify how their work advances knowledge compared to previous research on heterosis, particularly in soybean or similar crops."

Response: We have revised the introduction to better emphasize our contribution's novelty

 Comment: "Including recent studies on molecular-assisted selection or genomics approaches in breeding would situate the work in a modern context."

Response: We have added 8 new references from 2022-2024 covering genomic selection, GWAS applications in soybean, and molecular marker-assisted breeding to better contextualize our work within current breeding methodologies.

Methods Section

 Comment: "Repetition in Section 2.3.3 regarding production trials should be corrected."

Response: We have corrected the repetitive text in Section 2.3.3 and ensured clarity in describing the production trial methodology.

 Comment: "The criteria for environmental clustering (cool, moderate, warm zones) and trait classifications, such as disease resistance (0 = immune/highly resistant to 3 = susceptible) and lodging resistance (0 = excellent to 3 = poor), should be clearly defined."

Response: We have added detailed definitions.

 Comment: "Additional details on field management practices, including fertilization, irrigation, and pest control, are necessary to ensure reproducibility."

Response: We have added a new section "Field Management Practices"

 Comment: "The authors should clarify whether the variety studied is an F1 hybrid or a pure line derived through pedigree selection. If it is a pure line, the term 'mid-parent heterosis' should be explained carefully."

Response: Heike 88 is indeed a pure line developed through pedigree selection to the F₆ generation, not an F1 hybrid. We acknowledge the apparent contradiction in our terminology and provide the following clarification: We have replaced "mid-parent heterosis" with "hybrid-derived performance advantage" throughout the manuscript. The superior performance we observed represents transgressive segregation—where the pure line exceeds both parents through favorable allele combinations fixed during pedigree selection, not true F1 heterosis.

 Comment: "The results are generally clear, but the discussion should expand on the relationships between heterosis, yield, and quality traits, highlighting which traits were most strongly correlated with yield improvement."

Response: We have expanded the discussion to include. Specific correlation coefficients, quality trait independence and Practical breeding implications of these correlations for parental line selection.

 Comment: "Yield values should be rounded (3,621 not 3,621.4 kg ha⁻¹)."

Response: All yield values have been rounded to whole numbers throughout the manuscript for improved readability.

 Comment: "Disease resistance evaluation lacks specifics about whether inoculation was artificial or natural. No mention of control varieties for disease comparison. Unclear whether fungicide treatments were applied."

Response: We have added comprehensive details

 Comment: "Limitations of the study, including environmental variability, limited genetic diversity, or potential sample bias, should be acknowledged, and future research directions suggested."

Response: We have added Section 4.6 and 4.7 "Study Limitations and Future Directions":

 Comment: "Consistency in section formatting, units (°C, kg ha⁻¹, g), and terminology should be ensured."

Response: We have standardized Units and Terminology

 Comment: "Figure 1 resolution should be improved and verify that all references cited are included in the reference list."

Response: Figure 1 has been replaced with a high-resolution version (300 DPI) , and  all references have been verified and cross-checked

 Comment: "The manuscript would benefit from minor English editing to improve grammar, sentence structure, and readability."

Response: We have conducted comprehensive English editing:

Comment:The Abstract should also be rephrased for clarity, for example, “with optimal mid-parent heterosis (40%) achieved at an accumulated temperature of 2150–2200°C.”

Response:  we have revise and rephrased the abstract.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript “Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Heterosis-Driven Yield Improvement 2 in Self-Pollinated Soybean Variety Heike 88” tried to compare the performance of a cultivar of soybean (Heike 88) against its parents (Heijiao 08-1611 and Heihe 43) across different locations. Authors presented the results of “heterosis effects”. It is not clear how the authors calculated the ‘heterosis effects’ (Figure 1). There is no section in Materials and Methods explaining the calculation procedure. To calculate the heterosis effect, we need a mating design to analysis. But here, we just have a cultivar that simply cultivated in seven different locations. It is essential that authors clarify this issue when revising their manuscript.

There is another major concern regarding the presentation of the statistical analysis. The authors provided simple tables instead of an ANOVA from a compound analysis. Tables 1–4 do not adequately present the expected results. The authors should present the ANOVA, followed by a means comparison analysis that clearly shows the statistical differences.

You report three cultivars, including Heike 88 and its parents (Heijiao 08-1611 (♀) and Heihe 43 (♂)). If the parents were also cultivated in the seven locations, why are their results not presented in Tables 1, 2, and 3?

 

Other comments:

 

Introduction:

• Line 54: “rice” is a “cross-pollinated” crop or “self-pollinated”?!
• Lines 70-80: This paragraph is already repeated in previous sections of Abstract. You can merge them together.

 

Materials and Methods:

• Line 98: “Varieties were treated”. Which varieties? Here you just have one variety.
• Lines 163-164: It is not clear for me that you applied a RCBD with four replications or three replications (Line 97, 173)?
• Line 185: “data accuracy. to ensure….”.
• Line 229: Please mention the reference of the scale that you used to rate disease severity (0-3 scale).
• Line 245: Please provide the reference of GDD calculation.
• Line 272: It is not necessary to present the statistical model of GLA.

Results:

• Lines 293-296: I am not sure that presenting the environmental information of the study sites (e.g., temperature, day length, etc.) can be considered as a result. This information is already available in supplemental.
• Table 1 is not a suitable table to show the results of a compound analysis. You need to present the ANOVA of a compound analysis!

 

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's thorough analysis, which identified fundamental methodological errors that significantly compromised the manuscript's scientific validity. The reviewer's expertise prevented publication of flawed research and guided us toward appropriate analytical approaches. The revised manuscript now presents legitimate variety evaluation research that contributes meaningfully to soybean breeding knowledge while maintaining appropriate scientific standards.

 

 Comment: "It is not clear how the authors calculated the 'heterosis effects' (Figure 1). There is no section in Materials and Methods explaining the calculation procedure. To calculate the heterosis effect, we need a mating design to analysis. But here, we just have a cultivar that simply cultivated in seven different locations."

Response: We acknowledge this fundamental methodological error and have completely revised the manuscript to address this critical issue.

 Comment: "There is another major concern regarding the presentation of the statistical analysis. The authors provided simple tables instead of an ANOVA from a compound analysis. Tables 1–4 do not adequately present the expected results. The authors should present the ANOVA, followed by a means comparison analysis that clearly shows the statistical differences."

 Response: We have completely restructured the statistical analysis section to meet these requirements.

 Comment: "You report three cultivars, including Heike 88 and its parents. If the parents were also cultivated in the seven locations, why are their results not presented in Tables 1, 2, and 3?"

 Response: We have clarified this critical aspect of the experimental design and addressed the limitation honestly.

Other Comments

Introduction Issues

Line 54 - Rice Classification: Reviewer Comment: "'rice' is a 'cross-pollinated' crop or 'self-pollinated'?!"

 Response: Rice is predominantly self-pollinated (autogamous). We have corrected this error and verified the reproductive biology classifications of all crops mentioned in the manuscript.

Lines 70-80 - Repetitive Content: Reviewer Comment: "This paragraph is already repeated in previous sections of Abstract. You can merge them together."

Response: We have eliminated redundancy between the abstract and introduction by consolidating overlapping content and ensuring each section provides unique, non-repetitive information that builds logically on previous sections.

Materials and Methods Issues

Line 98 - "Varieties were treated": Reviewer Comment: "Which varieties? Here you just have one variety."

Response: We have revised this to specify that the experimental design refers to the multi-location trial where Heike 88 was compared with location-specific control varieties, clarifying that multiple varieties were included as regional checks across different locations.

Lines 163-164 - Replication Inconsistency: Reviewer Comment: "It is not clear for me that you applied a RCBD with four replications or three replications (Line 97, 173)?"

 Response: We have standardized this information throughout the manuscript. Regional multi-environment trials (2019-2022) used 3 replications following established Heilongjiang Provincial testing protocols, while preliminary trials (2016-2017) used 4 replications.

Line 185 - Formatting Error: Reviewer Comment: "data accuracy. to ensure…."

 Response: We have corrected this typographical error and conducted a comprehensive review to eliminate similar formatting issues throughout the manuscript.

Line 229 - Disease Scale Reference: Reviewer Comment: "Please mention the reference of the scale that you used to rate disease severity (0-3 scale)."

 Response: We have added the appropriate reference: "Disease assessment employed a standardized four-point scale adapted from CIAT protocols and Chinese National Standard NY/T 1248-2006 for soybean disease evaluation."

Line 245 - GDD Reference: Reviewer Comment: "Please provide the reference of GDD calculation."

 Response: We have added the proper citation:

Line 272 - GLM Statistical Model: Reviewer Comment: "It is not necessary to present the statistical model of GLA."

Response: We have retained the statistical model as it provides transparency about our analytical approach, but we have updated it to reflect the actual experimental design used in the study accurately.

Results Issues

Lines 293-296 - Environmental Information: Reviewer Comment: "I am not sure that presenting the environmental information of the study sites (e.g., temperature, day length, etc.) can be considered as a result. This information is already available in supplemental."

 Response: You are absolutely correct that environmental site characterization should not be presented as experimental results. Environmental conditions represent input parameters rather than experimental outcomes.

 Comment: "Table 1 is not a suitable table to show the results of a compound analysis. You need to present the ANOVA of a compound analysis!"

 Response: We have completely replaced the inappropriate descriptive summary table with proper statistical analysis tables.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is very interesting, it presents an extensive study on a new soybean variety, in various locations and over a longer period of time. However, I think there is room for improvement. I would have some suggestions.

• Line 17, I think ” at 2150-2200°C accumulated temperature" can be deleted, there is already too much information in the same sentence, and this part is not of great importance in expressing the heterosis (what is mentioned earlier in the sentence)
• Line 19, ”cyst nematode disease”, I think is nematode ”attack”
• Line 19, 233, 346, 638, table 4. What virus? If reference is made to several diseases caused by viruses, I think it should be mentioned. In Table 4, in all the regions studied, the variety was immune, but my question is, do you have only 0 values because the variety is immune or because there were no diseases caused by viruses during this period and these locations? Would it be interesting to mention whether viruses were observed in other varieties grown during this period in these areas?
• Lines 66- 67, „The Heilongjiang Province Fourth Temperature Zone” Given that there is various information in the literature regarding what this area includes, perhaps you could elaborate a little on which part of the Heilongjiang Province is located the Fourth temperature zone? The northern part of Heilongjiang? One could also add a temperature range for Heilongjiang (to emphasize the great diversity of the province) and only then detailed the values for the fourth region.
• 2.2. and figure 1. Were all the generations from F1 to F6 put in the greenhouse, three generations a year? Time seems very short to me.
• 3.1. ”Initial yield evaluation and comparative trials were conducted at the Heihe Branch of Heilongjiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences from 2016 to 2017…” Was the initial evaluation of the production made after the cultivar release? Why does figure 1 mention yield evaluation in the period 2012-2014, and here the initial valuation is indicated for 2016-2017? It's a little hard to follow the timeline of the tests. I believe that the preliminary yield test/initial evaluation should remain the one of 2012-2014, and that the stage carried out in 2016-2017 at Heihe should have another name, not "initial evaluation". Second phase yield evaluation, large scale evaluation…..
• Was the cultivar released for cultivation in Heilongjiang or for all China? And was it released in 2015? Or only after the Regional Multi-Environment Testing? Maybe the word ”released” could be changed, to convey the idea that the breeding of the variety has been completed, not that it has been registered (released)
• At 2.3.2 you state that the variety started variety comparison trials in 2018.
• 3.2. What are the locations? Was only corn used as precursor crop, in all locations?
• 3.3. Please rephrase the entire paragraph, you repeat the same information. Also, in addition to the larger area, was there anything different in the technology, compared to the testing in the Crop Variety Testing Center? Treatments, fertilizers? Also, please mention in how many locations the testing was carried out.
• Are the locations mentioned in 2.6 and in the additional tables those where the initial testing for production was carried out or he farms?
• 6. I can't see the supplementary tables, so I can't comment on the soil information.
• Table 1. It indicates the date of the sowing, but I don't understand what year this information is from. The height of the plant is influenced by climatic conditions, so is this information from a favorable year or from a year when vegetative development was restricted by environmental factors?
• For locations where testing was conducted, it would be interesting if you could add longitude and latitude. The difference of over 200 ⁰ active temperatures between various locations could also be closely related to the location of these experimental sites (in addition to climatic and possibly soil conditions).
• 1.2. and table 2... For a stable genotype, strong characters such as colors should be uniform. I think this part would be more appropriate to be transformed into a description of the morphological characters, mentioning only the slight variations of pod color and seed shape (although these may be subjective differences, influenced by the person who made this characterization, it is a very small difference, of nuance. There were no differences like from yellow to brown, for example). Lodging resistance and rate are ok.
• 1.3. For grain yield kg ha -1, I would suggest approximating the values, without using the numbers with point (3621, not 3621.4). It is still not clear to me if this analysis refers to the testing period or the data from the farms and from what year are these yields from? Or is it an average of several years (which?)?
• 1.4 ad table 4, It is unclear whether these data come from inoculated variants or those with natural infestation. I also think it is necessary to add a control, to see if there are differences in resistance, compared to other varieties. There were problems with viruses or nematodes in these locations during the experimental period. It should also be noted whether phytosanitary treatments have been carried out or not. If not, mention this. If so, the resistance cannot be attributed exclusively to the variety.
• Line 364, I think it's Figure 2A, not 1A
• 2.3. Lower heterosis in certain areas could indicate a lower adaptability of the new variety to those conditions, compared to the parents. However, if the yields are not very small for the specificity of the area, this aspect can be mentioned. Indeed, the new variety is better than its parents in warmer areas, but that doesn't mean it can't be grown in colder areas as well (with yield specific to that area). You could also refer to the adaptative heterosis, not just reproductive. I say this especially as you relate your heterosis to the active temperatures.
• The material and method indicate the quality analysis of the grains (crude protein, oil) but the results regarding these parameters are not presented. Only their importance at 2.4. and 3.3.3
• 3.1. what do you mean by Standard heterosis, how did you calculate this?
• Results and discussions should consider the adaptive heterosis, not just the reproductive one. The results are attributed only to heterosis in general, which appears to be the reproductive one , but temperature-dependent behavior refers to the adaptive heterozis.
• Line 621 if it is ”in conclusion” it should be at conclusions, not at discussions

Author Response

Reviewer Comment: "The manuscript is very interesting, it presents an extensive study on a new soybean variety, in various locations and over a longer period of time. However, I think there is room for improvement."

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's recognition of the comprehensive nature of our study. We have carefully addressed each suggestion to improve the manuscript's clarity and scientific rigor substantially.

Comment 1 (Line 17): "I think 'at 2150-2200°C accumulated temperature' can be deleted, there is already too much information in the same sentence, and this part is not of great importance in expressing the heterosis"

Response: We have removed this phrase from the abstract as suggested.

Comment 2 (Line 19): "'cyst nematode disease', I think is nematode 'attack'"

Response: Corrected to "cyst nematode attack" throughout the manuscript for more precise terminology.

Comment 3 (Lines 19, 233, 346, 638, Table 4): "What virus? If reference is made to several diseases caused by viruses, I think it should be mentioned. In Table 4, in all the regions studied, the variety was immune, but my question is, do you have only 0 values because the variety is immune or because there were no diseases caused by viruses during this period and these locations?"

Response: This is an excellent and critical question. We have added comprehensive clarification:

Virus Screened: Soybean mosaic virus (SMV),

: Zero values represent true resistance, NOT absence of disease. We have added data showing:

• Susceptible control varieties ('Heihe 43' ) 
• Sentinel plants confirmed natural disease pressure at all locations
• Symptomatic plants were confirmed through ELISA testing

Comment 4 (Lines 66-67): "Given that there is various information in the literature regarding what this area includes, perhaps you could elaborate a little on which part of the Heilongjiang Province is located the Fourth temperature zone?"

Response: We have added detailed geographic clarification in multiple sections:

Comment 5 (Section 2.2, Figure 1): "Were all the generations from F1 to F6 put in the greenhouse, three generations a year? Time seems very short to me."

Response: We have clarified the realistic generation advancement timeline.

• F1 (2010): Field crossing only
• F2-F3 (2011-2012)
• F4-F5 (2013-2014)
• F6 (2015) final line selection
• The timeline represents standard practice for accelerated breeding programs in China using off-season nurseries

Comment 6 (Section 3.1): "Was the initial evaluation of the production made after the cultivar release? Why does figure 1 mention yield evaluation in the period 2012-2014, and here the initial valuation is indicated for 2016-2017? It's a little hard to follow the timeline of the tests."

Response: This is an important clarification. We have restructured the timeline explanation.

• 2012-2014: Preliminary yield evaluation during breeding line development
• 2015: Variety completion and internal designation as Heike 88
• 2016-2017: Official preliminary testing phase required for variety registration
• 2018-2020: Regional multi-environment trials
• 2021-2022: Production validation trials
• The variety was registered (not commercially released) in 2015, with full commercial approval following successful trials

Comment 7: "Was the cultivar released for cultivation in Heilongjiang or for all China? And was it released in 2015? Or only after the Regional Multi-Environment Testing?"

Response: Important clarification added:"In 2015, the superior line was selected and designated as Heike 88, marking completion of the breeding process. The variety is currently approved for cultivation specifically in Heilongjiang Province's Fourth Temperature Zone, with potential for expansion to similar production regions pending additional testing."

Comment 8 (Section 2.3.2): "You state that the variety started variety comparison trials in 2018."

Response: We have ensured timeline consistency throughout.

Comment 9 (Section 3.2): "What are the locations? Was only corn used as precursor crop, in all locations?"

Response: We have added detailed crop rotation information: "All experimental locations followed corn-soybean rotation systems, with corn serving as the previous crop in 85.7% of site-years .

Comment 10 (Section 3.3): "Please rephrase the entire paragraph, you repeat the same information. Also, in addition to the larger area, was there anything different in the technology, compared to the testing in the Crop Variety Testing Center?"

Response: We have completely rewritten Section 2.3.3:

Comment 11: "Are the locations mentioned in 2.6 and in the additional tables those where the initial testing for production was carried out or the farms?"

Response: We have clarified: The seven locations listed in Section 2.3.3 and detailed in Supplementary Tables S1-S3 represent the formal regional variety testing sites (research stations and seed company trial grounds).

Comment 12: "I can't see the supplementary tables, so I can't comment on the soil information."

Response: We apologize for this oversight. Supplementary Tables S1-S3  have been properly formatted.

 

Comment 13 (Table 1): "It indicates the date of the sowing, but I don't understand what year this information is from. The height of the plant is influenced by climatic conditions, so is this information from a favorable year or from a year when vegetative development was restricted by environmental factors?"

Response: Critical clarification added.

Comment 14: "For locations where testing was conducted, it would be interesting if you could add longitude and latitude."

Response: GPS coordinates have been added:

Comment 15 (Section 1.2, Table 2): "For a stable genotype, strong characters such as colors should be uniform. I think this part would be more appropriate to be transformed into a description of the morphological characters, mentioning only the slight variations of pod color and seed shape"

Response: We have reframed Section 3.1.2:

Comment 16 (Section 1.3): "For grain yield kg ha⁻¹, I would suggest approximating the values, without using the numbers with point (3621, not 3621.4)"

Response: All yield values have been rounded to whole numbers throughout the manuscript.

Comment 17: "It is still not clear to me if this analysis refers to the testing period or the data from the farms and from what year are these yields from? Or is it an average of several years (which?)?"

Response: Major clarification added:

Comment 18 (Section 1.4, Table 4): "It is unclear whether these data come from inoculated variants or those with natural infestation. I also think it is necessary to add a control, to see if there are differences in resistance, compared to other varieties. There were problems with viruses or nematodes in these locations during the experimental period. It should also be noted whether phytosanitary treatments have been carried out or not."

Response: Comprehensive clarification added throughout.

Comment 19 (Line 364): "I think it's Figure 2A, not 1A"

Response: Corrected to Figure 2A. We have reviewed all figure citations and corrected numbering throughout the manuscript.

Comment 20 (Section 2.3): "Lower heterosis in certain areas could indicate a lower adaptability of the new variety to those conditions, compared to the parents. However, if the yields are not very small for the specificity of the area, this aspect can be mentioned. Indeed, the new variety is better than its parents in warmer areas, but that doesn't mean it can't be grown in colder areas as well (with yield specific to that area). You could also refer to the adaptive heterosis, not just reproductive."

Response: We have substantially revised this discussion .

Comment 21: "The material and method indicate the quality analysis of the grains (crude protein, oil) but the results regarding these parameters are not presented. Only their importance at 2.4. and 3.3.3"

Response: We have added comprehensive quality results.

Comment 22 (Section 3.1): "What do you mean by Standard heterosis, how did you calculate this?"

Response: We have clarified and corrected this terminology:

"Standard Comparison (previously termed 'standard heterosis', now corrected): This calculates Heike 88 performance relative to regional check varieties rather than representing true heterosis:

Standard comparison = [(Heike 88 yield - Check variety yield) / Check variety yield] × 100

Where check variety = Heihe 43 (provincial standard) at each location. This metric provides practical assessment of commercial advantage but does not represent heterosis in the genetic sense, as both Heike 88 and check varieties are pure lines."

Comment 23: "Results and discussions should consider the adaptive heterosis, not just the reproductive one. The results are attributed only to heterosis in general, which appears to be the reproductive one, but temperature-dependent behavior refers to the adaptive heterosis."

Response: We have made fundamental revisions:

• "Heterosis" → "performance"
• Clarified Heike 88 is a pure line, not hybrid

Comment 24 (Line 621): "If it is 'in conclusion' it should be at conclusions, not at discussions"

Response: We have restructured the final sections.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All comments have been addressed. 

In Figure 2, the term "heterosis" is still used. Please revise this figure accordingly.

 

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their careful review of our revised manuscript and for confirming that all previous comments were addressed.

Regarding Figure 2:

We apologized for the oversight. We revised Figure 2 as requested. The term "heterosis" was replaced with "performance" throughout Figure 2, including the legend and labels.

The revised Figure 2 was included in the updated manuscript.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript was improved as I suggest considering for publication

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thorough evaluation of our revised manuscript and for recommending it for publication. We appreciated their constructive feedback throughout the review process, which significantly improved the quality of our manuscript.