Heritability and Selection Using GGE Biplots and the Sustainability Index (SI) of Maize Mutants under Different Cropping Systems in Upland
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper's subject is interesting even though hard reading some parts (e.g. lines 275-287, 409-436, 455-472, 490-535, and 539-552).
Although the paper's approaches weren't innovative, it is a contribution to the knowledge.
In addition, some aspects should be improved:
Please include a paragraph, at the end of the Introduction section, presenting the paper structure.
The distribution of genotypic diversity based on the first PCA bi-plot (lines 226-235) should be reviewed (please see e.g. Jolliffe, I.T., 2002, Principal Component Analysis, Springer Series in Statistics or Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C., 2010, Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings, Upper Saddle River, NJ.: Prentice-Hall).
In the same subsection, show also the second to fifth PCA bi-plots (PC1-PC3 to PC1-PC6), analyzing the results under the light of the references mentioned above or similar.
Minor improvements:
Abstract: Please improve it, reducing it and avoiding the use of acronyms/codes as in lines 27 and 30-31.
Keywords: Please improve it, avoiding general subjects such as “Stability”, “Sustainability”, etc., and include the methods and technics used.
Line 187: Please replace “According to Sing…” by “According to Singh…”.
Lines 194 and 568: Please replace “…between 8.76 – 1.07…” by “…between 8.76 and 1.07…”.
Line 247: Please replace “…M58, M55, M44…” by “…M58, M35, M44…”. The M55 is repeated.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
If possible, please use ggplot2 for PCA plots.
Moreover, article in current form is too long, some plots can serve as supplementary.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In my opinion, the paper hasn’t been sufficiently improved.
In fact, some parts' hard reading remains, e.g. lines 277-289, 411-416, 424-431, 457-474, 491-535, and 536-549. The authors should rewrite that parts or replace them with synthesis tables.
At the end of the Introduction section, a paragraph presenting the paper structure is still missing.
The Abstract is too extended and should be rewritten in order to reduce it.
The results obtained on the first PCA bi-plot (lines 221-229) should be reviewed under the light of the references as e.g. Jolliffe, I.T., 2002, Principal Component Analysis, Springer Series in Statistics or Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C., 2010, Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings, Upper Saddle River, NJ.: Prentice-Hall).
In the same subsection, still missing and should be shown and analyzed also under the light of the references mentioned above, the second to fifth PCA bi-plots (PC1-PC3 to PC1-PC6).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has been improved, but in my opinion, the main problems still remain.
The Abstract is still too extended and should be rewritten in order to reduce it. Also, the use of acronyms/codes (lines 26-27) should be avoided.
At the end of the Introduction section, the paper structure (sections) and its contents should be presented. The paragraph added in this 3rd version (lines 102-109) doesn’t reflect the paper structure.
Not only the association (lines 136-139) but also the opposition between characteristics can be identified by the projection coordinates analysis and PCA bi-plots.
The results obtained on the first PCA bi-plot (lines 228-236) should be reviewed and appropriately interpreted. The projections of Traits and Genotypes on bi-plot PC1-PC2 couldn’t be analyzed per quadrant (lines 228-236). As previously recognized (lines 203-219), different traits give different contributions to each PC, and those projections must be interpreted under the light of the references as e.g. Jolliffe, I.T., 2002, Principal Component Analysis, Springer Series in Statistics or Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C., 2010, Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings, Upper Saddle River, NJ.: Prentice-Hall or Escofier, B. & Pagès, J. 2016, Analyses factorielles simples et multiples. Cours et études de cas (5e edition), Paris: Dunod.
In the same subsection, what happens with the other Principal Components (PC3 to PC6)? Still missing, at least, the bi-plots PC1-PC3, PC1-PC4, PC1-PC5, and PC1-PC6. They should be shown, analyzed, and interpreted also under light of the references mentioned above.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
