Analysis of Linkage on Interaction of Main Aspects (Genotype by Environment Interaction, Stability and Genetic Parameters) of 1000 Kernels in Maize (Zea mays L.)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The title doesn't fit with the research objective. Please explain what is the main arguments. I don't see any relation between the main argument with the research objective, methodology, and conclusion.
2. Discrebed the story of DH lines used in your experiment that needs to be evaluated using AMMI in the Introduction section, how did you increase the seed of each DH line for consecutive years?
3. Please describe how the DH line is developed, what is generation selfing of and what parental lines are used for each DH line.
4. Did your experiment use a single cross? how can it be used to analyze gene interaction (additive gene effect)
5. Please provide a resume of agronomic data (maturity, plant high, and grain yield) of each DH line
6. What kind of kernel type of DH lines are used (Flint, dent, semi-flint/dent)?
7. Please reanalyze of ANOVA of AMMI, there should be blocks nested in Environments or B(E)
8. Fig 8 doesn't have a scientific sound.
The authors use good English but need to be checked by any native English speakers, especially for style and grammar
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Reviewer #1
Point 1: The title doesn't fit with the research objective. Please explain what is the main arguments. I don't see any relation between the main argument with the research objective, methodology, and conclusion.
Response: We have corrected the title of the manuscript to relate more to the purpose of the research undertaken. New title: “Analysis of Linkage on Interaction of Main Aspects (Genotype by Environment Interaction, Stability and Genetic Paramaters) of 1000-Kernels”.
Point 2: Discrebed the story of DH lines used in your experiment that needs to be evaluated using AMMI in the Introduction section, how did you increase the seed of each DH line for consecutive years? Please describe how the DH line is developed, what is generation selfing of and what parental lines are used for each DH line.
Response: We described how to obtain the DH lines used in our experiment. We have added text: “This study was based on a total of 26 doubled haploid (DH) maize (Zea mays L.) lines derived from cross of two flint grain type cultivars: ES Palazzo and Anjou 258. All DH lines were developed by the in vivo method described by Prigge and Melchinger [81], where F1 plants of each cross are pollinated by an inducer line, followed by identification of haploid seeds using an embryo color marker. Chromosome doubling was promoted by colchicine treatment to produce D0 plants, which were then self-pollinated to produce the D1 generation. All DH lines were flint kernel type.”.
Point 3: Did your experiment use a single cross? how can it be used to analyze gene interaction (additive gene effect)
Response: DH lines obtained from crossing two parental lines constitute the mapping population. Not very numerous, but enough to estimate genetic parameters related to gene action.
Point 4: Please provide a resume of agronomic data (maturity, plant high, and grain yield) of each DH line
Response: The purpose of this study was to analyze the weight of 1,000 kernels. Analogous analyses for maturity, plant height and grain yield would result in a fourfold increase in the size of the manuscript. The weight of 1,000 kernels is the most important trait determining grain yield, so we focused on its characterization in our study.
Point 5: What kind of kernel type of DH lines are used (Flint, dent, semi-flint/dent)?
Response: All DH lines had a kind of flint kernel type. We have added this information in the current version of the manuscript.
Point 6: Please reanalyze of ANOVA of AMMI, there should be blocks nested in Environments or B(E)
Response: The blocks were nested in Environments. Through an oversight, this information was not in the manuscript. We have made a correction in the current version of the manuscript.
Point 7: Fig 8 doesn't have a scientific sound.
Response: We have corrected the caption for Figure 8. The new caption, is: “A heatmap showing relationships the 1,000-kernels weight between different years of the study.”
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I have completed my review of the manuscript titled " Analysis of Linkage on Interaction of Main Arguments of 1000- Kernels " . After thorough evaluation, I regret to inform you that I cannot recommend the publication of this manuscript due to serious flaws and significant scientific and language issues that undermine its quality and credibility. The manuscript suffers from severe language issues and lacks the clarity necessary for effective communication The author(s) must provide the line numbers before submission to the journal. It is hard for the reviewer to point out the line without lining numbersThe article is portrayed as very weak and it possesses various grammatical and scientifically weak sentences, such as an abstract
lime#. The 1,000 kernel weight is an important component of maize grain yield, and understanding its genetic mechanism is crucial to improving its ultimate performance. Abstract. 1. The abstract lacks M&M, results, and a conclusion. It is hard to understand what the paper is really talking about. It really needs to be rewritten with distinct M&M, results, and conclusions. 1. In this study, 26, and this study have been repeated, which exhibits unscientific soundness 2. The authors have written the complete objectives in the abstract Introduction. 1. The introduction is too lengthy and it sounds like a massive collection of information. The authors failed to connect it with the research aims and objectives. It needs reduction and must be targeted only at the information which links the research studies. 2. Maize has numerous applications? 3 The word maiz has been used many times in a single paragraph. It lacks flow and consistency 4. It serves an essential ecological role in utilizing carbon dioxide and water during photosynthesis. Is using water an ecological role? 5 such as drought or diseases. What if it writes about biotic and abiotic stresses? 6. agronomy, and plant competition. What does the author mean here by agronomy as a main factor? Materials and Methods 1. Plant material for field trials consisted of 26 doubled haploid (DH) maize (Zea mays L.) lines. The 26 DH lines were p / A lot of information has been repeated such as 26 DH lines 2. The kernels maize harvest: double check 3. Who provided the Mize genotypes? 4. I couldn't observe the parameters in M& M Results and discussion I don't know how the authors described the results and discussion without describing the parameters The manuscript suffers from severe language issues and lacks the clarity necessary for effective communicationAuthor Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Reviewer #2
Point 1: I have completed my review of the manuscript titled " Analysis of Linkage on Interaction of Main Arguments of 1000- Kernels " . After thorough evaluation, I regret to inform you that I cannot recommend the publication of this manuscript due to serious flaws and significant scientific and language issues that undermine its quality and credibility. The manuscript suffers from severe language issues and lacks the clarity necessary for effective communication The author(s) must provide the line numbers before submission to the journal. It is hard for the reviewer to point out the line without lining numbers
Response: We have revised the manuscript to avoid serious flaws. We also focused on relevant scientific issues emphasizing the importance of estimating genotype-environment interactions and estimating genetic parameters. We also improved the manuscript in terms of language. We prepared the manuscript according to the format downloaded from the journal's website. For reasons unknown to us, when formatting the manuscript into a .pdf version, the line numbers were lost. In the current form of the manuscript, we added line numbering.
Point 2: The article is portrayed as very weak and it possesses various grammatical and scientifically weak sentences, such as an abstract.
lime#. The 1,000 kernel weight is an important component of maize grain yield, and understanding its genetic mechanism is crucial to improving its ultimate performance.
Response: We have corrected the manuscript to be grammatically and scientifically correct. Thank you for pointing out the first sentence in the Abstract. We have corrected it to make it sound more scientific. The corrected sentence reads: “The assessment of 1,000-kernels weight holds significant importance in determining maize grain yield, and elucidating its underlying genetic mechanisms is imperative for enhancing its overall performance.”
Point 3: Abstract. 1. The abstract lacks M&M, results, and a conclusion. It is hard to understand what the paper is really talking about. It really needs to be rewritten with distinct M&M, results, and conclusions. 1. In this study, 26, and this study have been repeated, which exhibits unscientific soundness 2. The authors have written the complete objectives in the abstract
Response: We have improved Abstract to make its structure clear. Noted: M&M: “The material for the study consisted of 26 doubled haploids (DH) maize lines obtained from crossing two cultivars with flint kernels. Lines were planted in the northern part of the Lower Silesia voivodship in Poland in ten years (2013–2022). The 1,000-kernels weight was assessed.”; aim of the paper: “The purpose of the research were: (1) assess genotype by environment interaction (GEI by the Additive Main effects and Multiplicative Interaction (AMMI) model; (2) selection of stable DH lines and environment–specific lines; and (3) estimate the parameters connected with the additive and additive-by-additive interaction (epistasis) gene action.”; results: “The results indicate a significant effects of genotype and environmental, as well as the GEI, on the 1,000 kernels weight. Estimates of additive gene action effects were significantly larger than zero in each year of study, except 2022. Estimates of epistasis (total additive–by–additive interaction) effects for 1,000-kernels weight based on DH lines were statistically significant in 2013, 2015 and 2017 (positive effects) as well as in 2018 and 2020 (negative effects).”; and conclusion: “The lines KN07 and KN10 are recommended for further inclusion in the breeding program because their stability and the highest averages of 1,000 kernels weight.”.
Introduction.
Point 4: 1. The introduction is too lengthy and it sounds like a massive collection of information. The authors failed to connect it with the research aims and objectives. It needs reduction and must be targeted only at the information which links the research studies.
Response: We shortened the Introduction to make it more related to the objectives of the work undertaken, namely the significance of the weight of 1,000 kernels of corn and the evaluation of genotype-environment interactions.
Point 5: 2. Maize has numerous applications?
Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out the imprecision of the indicated sentence. We have removed it in the current version of the manuscript.
Point 6: 3 The word maiz has been used many times in a single paragraph. It lacks flow and consistency
Response: We have revised the manuscript so that the term 'maize' is not repeated too often.
Point 7: 4. It serves an essential ecological role in utilizing carbon dioxide and water during photosynthesis. Is using water an ecological role?
Response: We thank the Reviewer for drawing attention to the indicated sentence. In fact, we applied too far-reaching dependencies. We have removed this sentence in the current version of the manuscript.
Point 8: 5 such as drought or diseases. What if it writes about biotic and abiotic stresses?
Response: Thank you for your attention. We have corrected the indicated sentence. Corrected sentence: " The size and weight of maize kernels are closely related to quality, yield, and resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses [24,25]. ".
Point 9: 6. agronomy, and plant competition. What does the author mean here by agronomy as a main factor?
Response: We corrected this sentence.
Materials and Methods
Point 10: 1. Plant material for field trials consisted of 26 doubled haploid (DH) maize (Zea mays L.) lines. The 26 DH lines were p / A lot of information has been repeated such as 26 DH lines
Response: We corrected second sentence.
Point 11: 2. The kernels maize harvest: double check
Response: We corrected this sentence. New sentence: “Maize kernels were harvested using a Wintersteiger combine.”
Point 12: 3. Who provided the Mize genotypes?
Response: We described how to obtain the DH lines used in our experiment. We have added text: “This study was based on a total of 26 doubled haploid (DH) maize (Zea mays L.) lines derived from cross of two flint grain type cultivars: ES Palazzo and Anjou 258. All DH lines were developed by the in vivo method described by Prigge and Melchinger [81], where F1 plants of each cross are pollinated by an inducer line, followed by identification of haploid seeds using an embryo color marker. Chromosome doubling was promoted by colchicine treatment to produce D0 plants, which were then self-pollinated to produce the D1 generation. All DH lines were flint kernel type.”.
Point 13: 4. I couldn't observe the parameters in M& M Results and discussion I don't know how the authors described the results and discussion without describing the parameters
Response: The main objective of the research undertaken was to determine stable genotypes, i.e. the best in terms of the observed trait, regardless of the weather conditions that occurred. However, since a side goal was to identify genotypes specific to specific conditions, the manuscript was supplemented with weather-related parameters. Many thanks to the reviewer for pointing this out.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Manuscript evaluation
Summary
In this research the authors evaluate the weight of 1,000 grains in 26 double haploid lines of maize (Zea mays L.) in the northern part of the Lower Silesian Voivodeship, Poland in 10 years. As highlighted, 1,000-grain weight is an important component of corn grain yield, and understanding its genetic mechanism is crucial to improving its final performance. The objectives of the study were to evaluate the genotype by environmental interaction (here the environments were years) for the weight of crops; select DH lines that are stable throughout all years of study and specific to certain environmental conditions; and estimate the parameters related to additive gene action and additive-by-additive interaction (epistasis). The main method adopted in the analysis was the additive main effects and multiplicative interaction (AMMI) model. The strong points of the work are the organization and structuring of the text with well-specified details, in which the authors were faithful to the objectives, focusing on the main findings. The topic is interesting and, in fact, the analysis is of fundamental importance in optimizing productivity.
General concept comments
The text, in general, is well structured. However, greater details could be added to the methodology regarding the location where the tests were carried out (temperature, rainfall, latitude, ...). The authors need to explain that the region is actually a homogeneous environment, in which there are no interactions with possible specific locations that could exist within the region considered. In other words, this region cannot be subdivided into environments with contrasting characteristics, influencing the cultivars' responses differently. Because here the authors only considered years as possible different environments. If the objective is only in relation to the year, the authors could discuss this better, indicating to the reader whether the region is really homogeneous or if they just wanted to highlight the differences in relation to the years. If this is the case there could be better genotypes in certain sub-regions within this target region and then research results would be limited. Conclusions can also be improved by focusing on the main results of the analyses.
Revision
The work is well structured and the authors were very competent in building the theoretical framework. The introduction presents relevant information with solid justifications for conducting the research. The references cited are adequate and are well mixed in the text, supporting and substantiating the justifications. The research topic is interesting and there is a gap explored by the authors.
In the methodology, more about the test region should be added: locations, temperature, rainfall, (…). Furthermore, authors must explain that the region is homogeneous and that there is no need to subdivide the region into distinct sub-regions, i.e., that only years are the sources of important variation. As for the analysis itself, the controls adopted are adequate for the objectives and the methods were well detailed, allowing the reader to replicate the study. In fact, in this regard, again, the authors were very competent, adopting auxiliary criteria and offering a very complete analysis.
The results focused on the main findings and the authors were faithful to the objectives stipulated for the research. Graphs and tables are of good quality and are adequately integrated into the text, allowing greater clarity for interpretations. The results of the research were relevant in that stable and productive cultivars were identified and contribute to increasing productivity in the region.
However the conclusions could be reformulated, as they do not reflect the main findings.
Specific Comments
1) Standardize notation regarding the interaction between genotypes and environments: GEI or GE? In the text there is GEI and GE, please check.
2) In the “Materials and Methods” section, is the planted area large? Is this area homogeneous? Do I mean homogeneous in the sense that there is no genotype interaction at specific locations? There is concern about the representativeness of the data, as the objective is to establish general conclusions. There is no information about the characteristics of the region where the tests took place. Climate data: temperature and rainfall, etc. Furthermore, a map of the region would be interesting for the reader to have the dimensions of the area in which the research experiments were carried out.
3) Below equation 1 it is written “??? is the score eigenvector for PCA”, ??? is not the eigenvector but the coordinate of the eigenvector “environmental score” please correct this.
4) Above equation 2 the authors write: “In the biplots, which is the simplest way to represent the AMMI1 and AMMI2 models, genotype-environment interactions are placed on the vertical axis (IPCA 1 and IPCA 2), while genotype-environment averages are placed on the horizontal axis”. The means of genotypes and environments are placed on the abscissa only in AMMI1, in AMMI 2, the two axes describe the GEI.
5) Below Figure 5, the authors begin the paragraph: “The AMMI1 biplot (Figure 1)....” in Figure 1 the AMMI2 biplot is represented, please correct it.
6) Below Figure 7: “...as well as 202 and 2021 (r=–0.44) (Figure 8).” It says 202 and the correct one is 2020.
7) In the “discussions” section, it would be interesting to discuss what happened over the years to try to explain the genotype-by-year interaction. Were there years that were colder than others? Rainier years than others? This could explain the GEI observed in the analyses.
8) In the “Conclusions” section, conclusions must be placed in relation to the main findings of your research and analysis carried out. Here there is a departure from the topic. Include the conclusions regarding the GEI interaction in the sense of years, explaining the importance of years in the evaluation of the evaluated characteristic. In addition, of course, to the main findings, which is the identification of resistant cultivars adapted to varying conditions over the years: temperature, rainfall...
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Reviewer #3
Point 1: In this research the authors evaluate the weight of 1,000 grains in 26 double haploid lines of maize (Zea mays L.) in the northern part of the Lower Silesian Voivodeship, Poland in 10 years. As highlighted, 1,000-grain weight is an important component of corn grain yield, and understanding its genetic mechanism is crucial to improving its final performance. The objectives of the study were to evaluate the genotype by environmental interaction (here the environments were years) for the weight of crops; select DH lines that are stable throughout all years of study and specific to certain environmental conditions; and estimate the parameters related to additive gene action and additive-by-additive interaction (epistasis). The main method adopted in the analysis was the additive main effects and multiplicative interaction (AMMI) model. The strong points of the work are the organization and structuring of the text with well-specified details, in which the authors were faithful to the objectives, focusing on the main findings. The topic is interesting and, in fact, the analysis is of fundamental importance in optimizing productivity.
Response: Thank you very much.
Point 2: General concept comments
The text, in general, is well structured. However, greater details could be added to the methodology regarding the location where the tests were carried out (temperature, rainfall, latitude, ...). The authors need to explain that the region is actually a homogeneous environment, in which there are no interactions with possible specific locations that could exist within the region considered. In other words, this region cannot be subdivided into environments with contrasting characteristics, influencing the cultivars' responses differently. Because here the authors only considered years as possible different environments. If the objective is only in relation to the year, the authors could discuss this better, indicating to the reader whether the region is really homogeneous or if they just wanted to highlight the differences in relation to the years. If this is the case there could be better genotypes in certain sub-regions within this target region and then research results would be limited. Conclusions can also be improved by focusing on the main results of the analyses.
Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have added temperature, precipitation and longitude and latitude in the manuscript. We have also added the information that “The study region is a homogeneous environment with no interaction with specific locations in the region under consideration.”
Point 3: The work is well structured and the authors were very competent in building the theoretical framework. The introduction presents relevant information with solid justifications for conducting the research. The references cited are adequate and are well mixed in the text, supporting and substantiating the justifications. The research topic is interesting and there is a gap explored by the authors.
Response: Thank you very much.
Point 4: In the methodology, more about the test region should be added: locations, temperature, rainfall, (…). Furthermore, authors must explain that the region is homogeneous and that there is no need to subdivide the region into distinct sub-regions, i.e., that only years are the sources of important variation. As for the analysis itself, the controls adopted are adequate for the objectives and the methods were well detailed, allowing the reader to replicate the study. In fact, in this regard, again, the authors were very competent, adopting auxiliary criteria and offering a very complete analysis.
Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have added temperature, precipitation and longitude and latitude in the manuscript. We have also added the information that “The study region is a homogeneous environment with no interaction with specific locations in the region under consideration.”
Point 5: The results focused on the main findings and the authors were faithful to the objectives stipulated for the research. Graphs and tables are of good quality and are adequately integrated into the text, allowing greater clarity for interpretations. The results of the research were relevant in that stable and productive cultivars were identified and contribute to increasing productivity in the region.
Response: Thank you very much.
Point 6: However the conclusions could be reformulated, as they do not reflect the main findings.
Response: Conclusions are supplemented by the main findings of the research obtained.
Specific Comments
Point 7: 1) Standardize notation regarding the interaction between genotypes and environments: GEI or GE? In the text there is GEI and GE, please check.
Response: We have standardized the notation throughout the manuscript as GEI.
Point 8: 2) In the “Materials and Methods” section, is the planted area large? Is this area homogeneous? Do I mean homogeneous in the sense that there is no genotype interaction at specific locations? There is concern about the representativeness of the data, as the objective is to establish general conclusions. There is no information about the characteristics of the region where the tests took place. Climate data: temperature and rainfall, etc. Furthermore, a map of the region would be interesting for the reader to have the dimensions of the area in which the research experiments were carried out.
Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have added temperature, precipitation and longitude and latitude in the manuscript. We have also added the information that “The study region is a homogeneous environment with no interaction with specific locations in the region under consideration.”
Point 9: 3) Below equation 1 it is written “??? is the score eigenvector for PCA”, ??? is not the eigenvector but the coordinate of the eigenvector “environmental score” please correct this.
Response: We corrected this sentence.
Point 10: 4) Above equation 2 the authors write: “In the biplots, which is the simplest way to represent the AMMI1 and AMMI2 models, genotype-environment interactions are placed on the vertical axis (IPCA 1 and IPCA 2), while genotype-environment averages are placed on the horizontal axis”. The means of genotypes and environments are placed on the abscissa only in AMMI1, in AMMI 2, the two axes describe the GEI.
Response: We corrected this sentence.
Point 11: 5) Below Figure 5, the authors begin the paragraph: “The AMMI1 biplot (Figure 1)....” in Figure 1 the AMMI2 biplot is represented, please correct it.
Response: We corrected this sentence.
Point 12: 6) Below Figure 7: “...as well as 202 and 2021 (r=–0.44) (Figure 8).” It says 202 and the correct one is 2020.
Response: We have corrected our mistake. Thank you very much.
Point 13: 7) In the “discussions” section, it would be interesting to discuss what happened over the years to try to explain the genotype-by-year interaction. Were there years that were colder than others? Rainier years than others? This could explain the GEI observed in the analyses.
Response: Supplemented the Discussion with a reference to atmospheric conditions in the context to the results obtained. This is undoubtedly an enrichment of the manuscript, for which we sincerely thank the Reviewer.
Point 14: 8) In the “Conclusions” section, conclusions must be placed in relation to the main findings of your research and analysis carried out. Here there is a departure from the topic. Include the conclusions regarding the GEI interaction in the sense of years, explaining the importance of years in the evaluation of the evaluated characteristic. In addition, of course, to the main findings, which is the identification of resistant cultivars adapted to varying conditions over the years: temperature, rainfall...
Response: The "Conclusions" section is supplemented with conclusions with regard to the main findings of the research and analysis carried out. Conclusions regarding the GEI in relation to atmospheric conditions occurring in each year of the study were included. We added: “The present work demonstrated that the lines KN07 and KN10 are recommended for further inclusion in the breeding program because their stability and the highest averages of 1,000 kernels weight. Four DH lines are recommended for breeding programs in specific weather conditions. The KN03 and KN04 lines have very good 1,000 kernel weight values under water-deficient conditions; the KN09 line under drought conditions; and the KN21 line under conditions characterized by high humidity. The study of DH lines is characterized by significant parameters related to the additive effect and epistasis, which indicates the consolidation of the observed feature in subsequent years of the study.”.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Please add “Maize” in the title
2. Please provide the main agronomic traits data (plant height, day to flowering, and grain yield) of 26 maize genotypes. it is not necessary, the data are presented in all locations, if you have 2-3 locations, it is enough to give information on the relative performance of DH lines and a sight to the reader regarding the relation between those agronomics traits with 1000-kernel weight. You can be presented in the table using intervals for each agronomic parameter and inform them that the data obtained only in a particular experiment.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Reviewer #1
Point 1: Please add “Maize” in the title
Response: We added the term "Maize" in the title of the manuscript.
Point 2: Please provide the main agronomic traits data (plant height, day to flowering, and grain yield) of 26 maize genotypes. it is not necessary, the data are presented in all locations, if you have 2-3 locations, it is enough to give information on the relative performance of DH lines and a sight to the reader regarding the relation between those agronomics traits with 1000-kernel weight. You can be presented in the table using intervals for each agronomic parameter and inform them that the data obtained only in a particular experiment.
Response: The characteristics of the 26 DH lines studied in terms of the main agronomic traits (plant height, flowering day and grain yield) in each year of the study are shown in Table 3. The values given represent the range of mean values for the surveyed lines in each year of the survey.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The author(s) must address the following concerns in order to improve the paper quality: We corrected this sentence, and we corrected the second sentence. This is not a professional attitude. Each comment that has been addressed must be numbered and refer to the line number. incomplete sentence. what environmental,? The results indicate significant effects of genotype and environmental, as well as the GEI, on the 1,000 kernels weight The introduction is still large. It must be one and a half page Table 1 and Table 2 miss the unit of rain and temperature respectively. who provided this data? cite the source, please. Both tables are unclear, what does the author mean IV V VI V Months, so write it down as you had mentioned for the yearThe author explained extensively but still, it lacks, where the experiment/research concluded. Who provided the Mize genotypes?
NA
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Reviewer #2
Point 1: The author(s) must address the following concerns in order to improve the paper quality: We corrected this sentence, and we corrected the second sentence. This is not a professional attitude. Each comment that has been addressed must be numbered and refer to the line number.
Response: Sorry, for too cursory answers. The corrected sentences in the current form of the manuscript are on the lines 16–20 and are in the form: " The assessment of 1,000-kernels weight holds significant importance in determining maize grain yield, and elucidating its underlying genetic mechanisms is imperative for enhancing its overall performance. The material for the study consisted of 26 doubled haploids (DH) maize lines obtained from crossing two cultivars with flint kernels. Lines were planted in the northern part of the Lower Silesia voivodship in Poland in ten years (2013–2022). ".
Point 2: incomplete sentence. what environmental,? The results indicate significant effects of genotype and environmental, as well as the GEI, on the 1,000 kernels weight
Response: Thank you very much for pointing out our mistake. We have corrected the sentence. In the current version it has the form: "The results indicate a significant effects of genotype and environment, as well as the GEI, on the 1,000 kernel weight.".
Point 3: The introduction is still large. It must be one and a half page.
Response: We shortened the Introduction to a length of less than 1.5 pages. We have removed 11 longer passages.
Point 4: Table 1 and Table 2 miss the unit of rain and temperature respectively. who provided this data? cite the source, please. Both tables are unclear, what does the author mean IV V VI V Months, so write it down as you had mentioned for the year
Response: We added units in Table 1 - mm, and in Table 2 - degrees Celsius. The meteorological data provided from the Research Centre for Cultivar Testing mete-orological station located in Krościna Mała. We added this information in the manuscript. We corrected Tables 1 and 2 by replacing IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X and XI with the names of the corresponding months: IV - April, V - May, VI - June, VII - July, VIII - August, X - September, X - October, XI - November.
Point 5: The author explained extensively but still, it lacks, where the experiment/research concluded. Who provided the Mize genotypes?
Response: Thank you very much for appreciating our corrections to the manuscript, which we made based on your valuable comments. We have added information that the experiment was conducted in the village of New Village. The DH lines were made available by the Breeding Company, subject to secrecy of information. The manufacturer of the lines was kept secret by this company.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
