Yield Adaptability and Stability in Chickpea Based on AMMI, Eberhart and Russell’s, Lin and Binns’s, and WAASB Models

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has to check the data results and also the calculation methods for the comparisons. Some specific comments were as following:

• Title: need modification, what did adaptability indicate?
• Abstract: not clear, and the required elements were lacking, such as treatments, genotype numbers, and key results were not fully described. Some abbreviations lack of full name. What is “the Average Sum of Ranks”; why released FLIP02-23C as the chickpea cultivar BRS Aleppo and FLIP03-109C as BRS Kalifa, what was BRS Aleppo and BRS Kalifa?
• Introduction: some more description about GEI needed; the introduction pay much attention on the methods, while the progress about chickpea and also the interaction of genotype and environment was lacking; the targets for this research also is missing.
• Materials and Methods: what was the site conditions for the field experiment? how the “four different planting dates” in 2020, and three different planting dates in 2021 were selected? Detailed information for the seven cultivars needed; totally 15 lines were used (and how about the difference between seven cultivars with the six from ICARDA and two from ICRISAT)? More description about experimental design needed (how about plant spacing, how about the field management during plant growth, and sampling needed, how about the rainfall during their growth periods, etc.; at present, the statistical analysis was data calculation actually, and the more explanations about the index corresponding to the experimental design required; the differences comparisons between genotype, planting years, experimental sites and their interactions were missing.
• Results: the descriptions was two simple, and direct comparisons for lines difference and treatments difference needed before further analysis; why the df for Replication/Environment was 14, and Environment was 6, more descriptions needed; what was the unit for yield in table 2, and how Environmental Index was calculated? Please check the yield as shown in table 4, which was only 145-680 kg/ha, why was so low?
• Discussion: the results were not fully and clearly discussed, and here the GEI was not one factor, the site condition and management measures such as agronomy and field management should be carefully considered.
• Conclusions: the “multi-environment trials” was inaccurate; how this conclusion “It was observed that yield was influenced by Genotypes (G), Environments (E), and the interaction between Genotype and Environment (GEI)” was obtained?

 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Recommendations for the Authors - Agriculture - 3874271

The Materials and Methods section could be supplemented with details about crop management practices (soil preparation fertilization, herbicide application, and cultivar characteristics) to allow full reproducibility of the experiment.

The interpretation of complex statistics (AMMI, WAASB, stability indices) could be explained more clearly in the text, describing the main observations from the biplots and the relationship  between stability and mean yield.

In the Discussion section it would be useful to highlight the practical implications of the results for genotype selection, adaptability, and stable production.

The bibliography requires corrections:  references 22 and 35 have titles fully written in uppercase, some DOIs (e.g., reference 8) are inconsistently formatted, and reference 6 (FAO) does not provide complete details of the online source.

The suggested changes are minor and aim to improve clarity, reproducibility, and correct interpretation of the data. The manuscript can be accepted for publication after implementing these minor revisions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The title needs moificaitons and which is too general for uni and multivariat.
2. the abstract lacks of specific data results, and the firat appearance for abbreviation should come with its full name such as AMMI, etc. such questions exist in other sections.
3. in table 4, significance ar 0.05 level should be marked using small letters.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf