All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
I have reviewed the revised manuscript and their responses to reviewers’ comments. I think it is not necessary to return it to the reviewers.
Thanks for your revisions, and hope that you continue to submit your work to PeerJ.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Julin Maloof, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Please revise your manuscript to address the reviewers' concerns, and submit a new version at your early convenience. Thanks.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the response letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the response letter. Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
1. The report is too long and hence difficult to grasp the main points. Please try to shorten the volume. In the result section for the MTAs, just focus on yield. And you may add those MTAS which are common with yield, days to heading, plant height and TKW. At the end of the day, we will not use any of the QTLs which are not linked to yield for practical breeding purposes.
2. Too many analysis and supplementary data have been presented. But in fact, the main Tables and graphs ( Tables S1, S2) and Figure S2 should be part of the main document.
3. A table showing the yield performance of the top 20 lines along with the parents across the 28 environments could be presented.
No comment
1. too many analysis but lacks clear reporting. Some of the Tables and Figures should be part of the main document instead of Supplementary.
2. The conclusion part is weak. There are many reports that could lead to a clear recommendation along with the current result. Tell us specifically the MTAs which could be used in marker assisted breeding for yield under moisture stress.
Please try to shorten the volume. In the result section for the MTAs, just focus on yield. And you may add those MTAS which are common with yield, days to heading, plant height and TKW. At the end of the day, we will not use any of the QTLs which are not linked to yield for practical breeding purposes.
2. Too many analysis and supplementary data have been presented. But in fact, the main Tables and graphs ( Tables S1, S2) and Figure S2 should be part of the main document.
3. A table showing the yield performance of the top 20 lines along with the parents across the 28 environments could be presented.
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
This study by Dhakal et al. identified QTLs associated with yield, test weight, heading date and plant height across 28 diverse environments, followed by analyses of QTL pleiotropy and interactions of epistasis, epistasis-by-environment, and additive-by-environment. The field experiments were well designed and phenotypic data were collected and processed appropriately. The consistent QTLs detected in multiple environments would be useful for future cloning and breeding use. This paper was written in a straightforward way and well structured. Care must be taken to correct some minor language problems. In addition, I think that Tables S2 and S3 showed important information so may be included in the main text. Fig. S1c,d are not clear regarding the descriptive statistics.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.