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.
The corrections you have made are acceptable for your manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Julin Maloof, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have sufficiently addressed the previously noted shortcomings.
The authors have sufficiently addressed the previously noted shortcomings.
The authors have sufficiently addressed the previously noted shortcomings.
The authors have sufficiently addressed the previously noted shortcomings.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The author has allayed my concerns.
Your manuscript needs major revisions. Please revise it according to reviewers' comments.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
Introduction
Line 39 and Line 44: Clarify the correct usage ("Turkey" or "Türkiye") and ensure consistency throughout the manuscript.
Line 52-54: You mentioned: "There is currently no breeding program exclusively dedicated to silage-specific maize cultivars, and the majority of hybrids used for silage originate from non-silage types (Ozata et al., 2012)."
This statement is a significant claim; however, the full citation for Ozata et al. (2012) is missing in the reference list. Please provide a complete citation.
Line 55-56: Similarly, you cite Cerit et al. (2016), but there is no complete citation in the reference list. Ensure all citations in the text are fully and accurately listed in the references.
Line 49-50: You referenced Eker et al. (2022), who conducted a study on chickpea rather than maize. Since this manuscript deals with DH maize breeding, it is more appropriate to cite studies directly focused on maize or clearly specify if this reference is used to explain a general principle. Clarify or replace this citation accordingly.
General note on references:
Carefully review the entire manuscript to ensure all in-text citations have corresponding complete references. Expand your literature review to include recent studies relevant to maize breeding for silage, as the current references appear limited.
Literature Depth, Currently, the cited literature seems limited.
Recommendation: Expand your literature review to include recent and relevant studies on maize silage breeding, genetics, and cultivar development. This will strengthen your manuscript by clearly placing it within the current research context.
Materials and Methods
Line 92: You mention donor genotypes with FAO maturity groups ranging from 500 to 750 crossed with the Stock6 inducer line. Given that there is approximately a 30-day maturity difference between FAO 500 and FAO 750 groups, justify clearly why this wide range was selected. Which specific FAO group(s) would be ideal or preferable for silage production in your study areas?
Material source: Clarify the origin of the materials used before developing DH inbred lines. Specify clearly where your donor maize materials were sourced.
Discussion suggestion: Clearly discuss and provide recommendations on which FAO group(s) is better suited for starting new dedicated breeding programs for silage maize in Türkiye. For instance, consider providing guidance specifically for regions like Bursa and Sakarya. Are these two locations similar or different enough to justify different FAO maturity group recommendations?
Study limitations and future directions:
Clearly discuss the limitations of your study in the Discussion section. Include brief and specific recommendations or future directions that other researchers or breeders could pursue based on your findings.
Ideotype clarification:
Clarify whether there is an ideal plant type (ideotype) specifically recommended for silage maize in your conditions. For instance, is taller maize always the best for silage maize? Provide a brief justification or explanation in the discussion.
Briefly discuss whether a specific ideotype (e.g., plant height, biomass distribution) is ideal for silage maize. Explicitly state your recommendation or hypotheses on desirable maize traits suitable for silage production.
Line 105-106:
Define briefly what the abbreviations “Csa” and “Cfa” represent. Readers unfamiliar with Köppen-Geiger climate classifications will benefit from clarity.
Line 121-123 (Fertilization details):
Provide specific details on what you consider "standard fertilizer" applications. Explicitly state the amount and type of fertilizer applied (e.g., NPK amounts). Clarify if the fertilization rates and types were identical across locations and years or if variations occurred. For example, was nitrogen applied at 100 kg/ha, and what about phosphorus and potassium?
Data availability please deposition of raw data, scripts, etc., in public repositories (e.g. GitHub, Dryad or others) it could be reproduceable for next research who would like to.
Carefully check and revise the manuscript, paying close attention to consistency, clarity, and completeness of references.
PeerJ emphasizes transparent, reproducible, and methodologically rigorous science. The current manuscript shows good potential, but further clarification, consistent referencing, detailed methodological transparency, and explicit discussion of limitations and future research suggestions are necessary. Addressing these points will enhance your manuscript's robustness and ensure alignment with PeerJ's aims and publishing standards.
Your study contains important information for silage corn breeders, but it needs some minor revisions as I have indicated below.
The Abstract and Introduction sections are adequate and explanatory. The purpose of the study is stated briefly and clearly. Express it more clearly
The selection of genotypes is described in the Materials and Methods section, but more detail is needed. The pedigrees of inbred and DH lines should be presented in a table. The data on the traits of the selected genotypes that were subject to selection should be provided in a Supplementary File.
In the Results section, instead of using the terms “year I or year II,” use “first year” and “second year” throughout the text. When describing plant morphological and yield-related traits, as with chemical traits, first present the variance analysis results and then describe the average values.
Check abbreviations throughout the text. If you are going to use an abbreviation, explain it the first time it appears and then use only the abbreviation to ensure consistency. For example, once you have abbreviated “doubled haploid” as ‘DH’ the first time it appears, do not write it out in full again, and there is no need to write “doubled haploid (DH)” again in the Conclusion section. Correct this and ensure consistency.
As a general comment, the aim of your study does not seem to be limited to evaluating DH inbred lines. Essentially, you are comparing DH inbred lines, conventional inbred lines, and commercial cultivars. Rewrite your purpose accordingly. Explain why DH inbred lines are superior with literature support and reorganize the Conclusion section. The conclusion section should include your most important findings and sustainable recommendations.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The article is written in clear and understandable English. Literature references were found to be relevant and sufficient. Tables and raw data are shared.
Original primary research within the Journal's Aim and Scope. The research question is well-defined, relevant, and meaningful. Methods are described with sufficient detail and information to ensure reproducibility.
All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled. The conclusion section is well expressed, but it needs to be written in a little more detail. It is very superficial.
Materials & Methods
Line 76
The phrase "recently developed hybrids" is vague. While the development sources are mentioned (DH and conventional), more detail is needed on the background of these lines.
-Briefly describe the DH line development process (e.g., via anther or microspore culture).
-Provide selection criteria for the conventionally developed lines (e.g., yield potential, disease resistance, forage quality).
Line 82-89
Heterotic group classification is mentioned to be based on pedigree and topcross performance, but the methodology is too general.
-Indicate whether reference heterotic groups or standard testers were used.
-Clearly define the topcrossing method—what testers were used, and which traits were prioritized to assess heterotic response?
Line 116
What methods did you use to perform soil analyses?
Line 123
How much did you apply as a base fertilization to each location? Although the soil analysis results for the locations are similar, both soils are deficient in N, Bursa soil is insufficient in P, and K is sufficient in both locations. Did you apply the same amount of fertilizer to both locations? Which fertilizer did you apply to the soil as an N source?
Results
Line 149
The results will be more striking if you provide numerical values for the lowest and highest yields in both locations.
Table 4
Table 4 has the title "Mean of forage yield (t ha-1), plant height (cm), ear ratio (%), and stem ratio (%)" but the order in the table is plant height (cm), ear ratio (%), stem ratio (%), and yield (t ha-1).
It would be better if both the title and the table were in the same order.
Discussion
Line 200-215
The findings are presented appropriately, but no physiological or structural explanation is provided as to why these genotypes provide high yields. For example, explanations such as “the contribution of high ear ratio to yield” or “the effect of low stem ratio on quality” would provide a stronger argument.
Line 218-220
It is stated that all genotypes fall within the desired ranges for quality parameters, but numerical values are not provided.
-Present minimum, maximum, and mean values for each parameter to increase transparency.
-Especially clarify the ADL value of genotype S11, which reportedly falls outside the desired range.
Line 226
Only Burgu and Mut (2023) is cited, limiting the literature context.
-Compare findings with other recent studies on silage maize quality from different regions or environments.
-Discuss the impact of elevated ADL levels on digestibility and animal performance based on literature.
Line 241-260
Although multiple studies are cited, some points appear somewhat repetitive and not sufficiently detailed. Additionally, some references are dated, and including more recent studies would improve the section’s relevance.
The superior performance of DH hybrids is broadly stated, but it is not clearly specified which parameters (e.g., yield, quality, stress tolerance) demonstrate this advantage.
-Clearly specify which agronomic and quality traits (e.g., forage yield, protein content, resilience) the DH hybrids excelled in, both in your study and referenced literature.
-Detail how genotypes S6, S9, and S11 specifically outperformed other genotypes in the study.
While DH lines are described as genetically more homozygous and stable, the direct implications of this on agronomic performance are not fully elaborated.
-Discuss the impact of genetic homozygosity on traits such as genetic stability, phenotypic consistency, and stress tolerance with literature support.
-Include a brief discussion on the advantages and potential limitations of DH lines in breeding programs.
The connection between literature findings and your own results is made, but the unique contribution and practical significance of your study are not sufficiently emphasized.
-Clearly articulate how your findings contribute to the existing body of knowledge.
Conclusions
Line 263
An introductory sentence such as "The purpose of this study..." may be unnecessary in the conclusion; it is assumed that this statement is already included in the introduction.
Instead, it is more effective to go directly to the findings by choosing phrases such as "The findings of this study..." or "The results obtained..."
The practical implications of the results or their implications for future research are not clearly stated.
It should be emphasized how the resulting superior hybrids can contribute to closing the feed gap in the livestock sector.
The potential for application can be indicated with statements such as, "These lines are planned to be included in the registration process in the future."
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.