Response of Maize Hybrids in Drought-Stress Using Drought Tolerance Indices

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see in attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 
Thanks a lot for reviewing my article and sending your comments to me. Your comments were useful to my revised article. 
We revised my article based on your comments.
L 47 and 75 revised.
we added some literature review in the introduction
Table 1: we used an average of all samples, and the Lab sent this result to me. 
We added figures of rainfall and temperature in materials and methods. And write some paragraphs about the analysis.
We added some discussion about my topic with a literature review too. 
We agree with your idea about table 10, but we would like to show this report to researchers and farmers to use this article to manage the farm. So, the table is useful to understanding them.
We appreciate you and thank you so much for your comments.

we revised the article by the English editor too.
We hope my revision will satisfy you. 

Best regards 

Reviewer 2 Report

All the comments are in the review report.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 
Thanks a lot for reviewing my article and sending your comments to me. Your comments were useful to our revised article. 
I agree with your comment about maize hybrid, but we used maize hybrids used more by farmers and researchers in the Damavand area.
We revised the article based on your comments and more details of materials and methods.
Line 15 and 20 we revised based on your comments.
We used maize instead of corn
We added all abbreviations too.
We carried out our research in the Damavand location in Iran in 2020. We added more information on materials and methods. 
we revised and added some paragraphs in the results and discussion
we removed lines 256- 258.
We revised our article by the English editor
we appreciate you and thank you so much for your comments.
We hope my revision will satisfy you. 
Best regards 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript can be accepted in the current form.

Author Response

Dear Reviwer

we appreciate you.

your comments were useful to our article.

best regards

 

Reviewer 2 Report

All the comments are in the Review report.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Review

We appreciate you

We revised my article based on your comments.

*Some minor English corrections are still needed (e.g. Lines 125-126: Phrase
'How to calculate the indicators was as follows: In these formulas' should be
rephrased as e.g. 'The following indices were used as indicators: TOL etc.'

We revised it

Specific comments
Introduction
* All the abbreviations (e. g. 'TOL', 'GMP' etc.) should be mentioned together
with their respective terms only once (in the Introduction or Materials and
methods). There is no need to repeat both the term and the abbreviation later in
the text (it is repeated even in the Results and discussion).
Line 39: How many hectares and tons? It is not clear what 22.2 * 108 hectares
and 25.1 * 109 tons means.

We revised them
* Lines 75 and 78: GMP is stated for 'product geometric mean index' in Line
75, and for 'Geometric Means Productivity Index' in Line 78.

We revised them

Materials and methods
* What is the yield sample size?

We collected 642 samples from 108 rows in this study.
* Lines 113-125: Explanation about PCA is not clear, it should be rephrased,
plus it is stated twice.

We revised it

Results and discussion
* Adjust the titles of the tables, and use one unified font - why are the values in
different font sizes?

We revised them

* There are no units for yield in the tables (e.g. t/ha or hg/ha).

Units for yield were Kg/ha in this study.

* It would be much better to present PCA results with graphs instead of tables
(or at least both).

We added figure

Conclusions
* Complete and/or add to the conclusions about hybrid tolerance and PCA

 We added some sentences.

We hope this revision will be satisfactory to you.

Best Regards