Comparison of Desired-Genetic-Gain Selection Indices in Late Generations as an Insight on Superior-Family Formation in Bread Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript “Comparison of late generations selection indices as an insight on superior families formation in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)” is dedicated to the serious and relevant problem of selection for multiple traits in late generations and preserving genetic variability. The experiment details are well described and the results are supported by the tables and statistics analysis.

However, there are some issues that should be commented or corrected.

The most principle notes:

1.       Did you use “weight-free and the desired gains indices” model? If so, you should emphasize this at the end of Introduction (97-101) and clearly stated in Methods. Moreover, I recommend that you use “desired genetic gain selection index” in the title of the manuscript.

2.       In line 143 you wrote “Generally, the decrease in GCV% from C0 (F6), to C1 (F7) and C2 (F8)” – the generations where the cycles of selection were performed, C0 (F6), to C1 (F7) and C2 (F8), should be clearly described at the end of Introduction (97-101) and should be clearly designated Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 in Methods section (lines 303-308).

Minor issues and misprints:

1.       The abbreviation should be deciphered not only abstract but also in Introduction and Results where it appears for the first time. For example, you give GY/P (line 65), GY (line 66), GCV, DH, PH (lines 104-105), SL, MSW, NG/S (line 125) without preliminary deciphering. It must be corrected.

2.       In different parts of the manuscript you use different designations of cycles of selection: c1 and c2; C1 and C2; C₁ and C₂; cycle1 and cycle2; cycle 1 and cycle 2. Please, make the uniform and consistent designation.

3.       Table 2. Please show by asterisks the statistical significance of the correlations

4.       Table 3, Table 6, Table 4 The layout of the Tables 3, 4 and 6 must be improved. In its present state the column “Index No.” does not correspond to the lines GCV% and PCV%. It would be better to make separated columns “Index” and “Cycle”.

5.       The sentences beginning from [reference] like in “[21]found that the index based on “desired gains” (line 70), “[23] noted that the use of selection index was”, “[27] stated that selection indices proved to be the best breeding”, Stylistically, are rather strange. Please, change the construction either in the manner “Author et al. [ref.] found that…” or “It was noted that … [ref.]”.

6.       Line 126 “and positive with N/P” – did you mean NS/P? Please correct.

7.       Line 109 “selectin” should be corrected to “selecting”

8.       Line 303 “the best plant in GY from each was saved for the second season” – did you mean plural count, i.e. “plants”?

 

 

Kind regards,

Reviewer.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks a lot for your time and effort and appreciate your respectable view and valuable comments which added a lot to the manuscript.

All comments have been taken in consideration and the manuscript was renamed and revised according to them. All the points have been done and a revised word file is attached holding labeled revisions.

for comment no.8: it is for a single plant.

with full respects and regards

rasha

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author of the manuscript entitled "Comparison of late generations selection indices as an insight on superior families formation in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)" by MAHDY ET AL.

THE MANUSCRIPT HAS A GREAT POTENTIAL FOR SELECTION STRATEGY IN WHEAT, especially for grain yield related traits.

The Abstract is very well written and described the work strongly.

The introduction needs to be improved in terms of references, the style is not fit well with the MDPI reference style.

The objectives of the study are not clearly mentioned, please mention them at the end of the introduction with the major output.

 

Broad sense heritability should be written as H²

^{the genetic gain was not well described}

^{please write the equation for all indices, heritability and genetic gain..... and check all of them.}

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks  lot for your time and valuable comments, it really added to the manuscript.

The manuscript was revised according to your comments; references were edited, equations were added in statistical analysis part, and an attached revised word file is inserted. 

Grateful for your expertise, and effort.

with full regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx