Tailored Spectral Lighting Enhances Growth and Photosynthetic Efficiency of Wasabia japonica

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.It is innovative to cultivate wasabi using artificial lighting and the authors took a long time to finish the work.

2. This work is more like a test than an experiment. The scientificity of this work is not enough. The light environment of CK and other treatments, the plant factory and greenhouse, showed unreasonable design and vague and incomprehensible purpose.

3.The discussion and conclusion were unobjective and unscientific. The authors said in L371” QD light significantly improved plant height, petiole length, and leaf dimensions compared to the control. This growth enhancement is attributed to the QD lighting's specific wavelength spectrum, which closely matches wasabi's photoreceptor absorption peaks.” It’s all because of the unreasonable experimental design.

In L379, the authors said “Unlike conventional LED lighting, which emits sharp peaks at specific wavelengths, QD lighting offers a broader range from 630 to 680 nm, matching wasabi's absorption spectrum. This broader spectrum likely contributes to more favorable growth outcomes.” It’s not true because using LED can also provide spectrum range from 630 to 680 nm, the negative effects of LED in this work is all because the authors intentionally choose not to use LED spectra that are more competitive and comparable.

Author Response

Comments 1: [It is innovative to cultivate wasabi using artificial lighting and the authors took a long time to finish the work.]

Response 1: [We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s acknowledgment of the innovative aspects of cultivating wasabi using artificial lighting. This work required significant time and effort to ensure the reliability and reproducibility of the results. We are grateful for the recognition of the dedication involved in completing this study.]

 

Comments 2: [This work is more like a test than an experiment. The scientificity of this work is not enough. The light environment of CK and other treatments, the plant factory and greenhouse, showed unreasonable design and vague and incomprehensible purpose.]

Response 2: [We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback regarding the clarity and scientific rigor of our experimental design. While we acknowledge the reviewer’s concerns, we believe the dual cultivation system used in our study—combining a highly controlled plant factory with a semi-natural greenhouse—provides significant value in understanding the effects of quantum dot (QD) lighting on W. japonica.

The plant factory allowed us to isolate and precisely control environmental variables, ensuring that the observed results were attributable solely to the QD lighting treatments. This setup is crucial for identifying the theoretical potential of QD lighting. Conversely, the greenhouse experiment enabled us to test the practical applications of the optimized lighting conditions in a more variable, semi-natural environment.

The rationale behind our control group (CK) design was to provide a realistic baseline for comparison: a red:blue lighting ratio of 7:3 in the plant factory, known for its efficacy in general plant growth, and natural sunlight as the primary source in the greenhouse. These controls were specifically chosen to align with standard practices while allowing us to highlight the unique benefits of QD lighting.

By employing this dual system, we aimed to bridge the gap between theoretical efficacy and practical feasibility, offering insights into both controlled and applied agricultural settings. We hope this clarifies the intent and scientific rigor of our experimental design.]

 

Comments 3: [The discussion and conclusion were unobjective and unscientific. The authors said in L371” QD light significantly improved plant height, petiole length, and leaf dimensions compared to the control. This growth enhancement is attributed to the QD lighting's specific wavelength spectrum, which closely matches wasabi's photoreceptor absorption peaks.” It’s all because of the unreasonable experimental design.]

Response 3: [The statement regarding the alignment of QD lighting spectra with the photoreceptor absorption peaks of wasabi was intended as a hypothesis rather than a definitive conclusion. The growth enhancement observed may stem from the QD lighting's specific wavelength spectrum aligning closely with wasabi's photoreceptor absorption peaks. Unlike past approaches that primarily considered photosynthetic pigments (e.g., chlorophyll a & b, carotenoids), this study aimed to incorporate newly identified photoreceptive pigments into the discussion. However, quantitative data on the absorption levels of these photoreceptors are not yet available. Our intent was to explore this area further and present a hypothesis for future research directions. The text in the discussion section has been revised to reflect this approach more clearly.]

 

Comments 4: [In L379, the authors said “Unlike conventional LED lighting, which emits sharp peaks at specific wavelengths, QD lighting offers a broader range from 630 to 680 nm, matching wasabi's absorption spectrum. This broader spectrum likely contributes to more favorable growth outcomes.” It’s not true because using LED can also provide spectrum range from 630 to 680 nm, the negative effects of LED in this work is all because the authors intentionally choose not to use LED spectra that are more competitive and comparable.]

Response 4: [We appreciate the reviewer's insightful comments regarding the spectral capabilities of LEDs and the economic considerations in lighting design. While we acknowledge that LEDs can achieve broader spectra, including the range of 630–680 nm, through the use of various phosphors, we also recognize the significant cost implications. In practice, LEDs commonly mass-produced in China for plant lighting applications include Warm/Cold White, Red (660 nm), and Blue (450 nm) chips. Among these, the cost of a 660 nm LED chip is approximately 2.5 times higher than that of a 450 nm chip, with non-standard wavelengths such as 700 nm, 510 nm, or 470 nm costing more than 10 times as much.

The advantage of quantum dots (QDs) lies in their ability to achieve diverse wavelengths by adjusting their size (or synthesis time) using the same material. In this study, the use of the most cost-effective 450 nm LED chip to generate other wavelengths through QDs highlights the practical application of this approach. However, we acknowledge that this aspect pertains to material science rather than directly to wasabi growth, and therefore, it was not explicitly discussed in the manuscript. We hope this clarifies our reasoning and intent.]

 

We sincerely appreciate the reviewers’ thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Their valuable insights have greatly helped us refine and enhance the quality of our work.

Below, we summarize the key revisions made in response to Reviewer 1’s comments:

1. Acknowledgment of Innovation: - Reviewer 1 recognized the innovative nature of cultivating wasabi using quantum dot (QD) lighting. We have acknowledged this in our responses and further clarified the experimental setup to highlight the challenges and significance of this work.
2. Experimental Design and Scientific Rigor: - In response to concerns about the clarity and scientific rigor of our experimental design, we have provided additional details regarding the dual cultivation system (plant factory and greenhouse). This clarification emphasizes the value of combining a controlled environment with a semi-natural one to bridge theoretical efficacy and practical feasibility.
3. Hypothesis vs. Conclusion: - The statement regarding the alignment of QD lighting spectra with wasabi’s photoreceptor absorption peaks has been revised to reflect its hypothetical nature. We clarified that this interpretation is tentative and intended to guide future research.
4. Economic and Practical Considerations in Lighting Design: - We addressed the reviewer’s insights regarding LED capabilities and cost implications. The advantages of QD lighting in generating diverse spectra using cost-effective 450 nm LED chips were emphasized, while acknowledging that this aspect is more relevant to material science than directly to wasabi growth.

All revisions made to the manuscript have been highlighted in yellow for the reviewer’s convenience. We have also provided a detailed, point-by-point response to Reviewer 1’s comments, which is attached to this letter. We thank the reviewer for their valuable contributions to improving our manuscript and hope that our revisions meet their expectations. We look forward to your feedback.

Sincerely,

Sunghwan Bae

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear editor and authors.

The original version of the manuscript has been markedly imporved. I am very grateful to the authors for considering all the suggestions performed by the reviewer.

In my opinion the manuscript is suitable for publication, provided that minor writing and edition corrections are incorporated (please see the revised file attached). 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: [glucosinolates]

Response 1: [The terminology "glucosinolates" has been revised]

 

Comments 2: [add spacing]

Response 2: [Spacing issues in the indicated sections have been corrected for uniform formatting.]

 

Comments 3: [Revise spacing]

Response 3: [Spacing issues in the indicated sections have been corrected for uniform formatting.]

 

Comments 4: [Repeating data already present in the tables should be avoided, particularly when non-significant differences are found.]

Response 4: [Repeated data in the text have been removed where they overlap with table content, particularly for non-significant differences, to improve conciseness.]

 

Comments 5: [Non-significant, (please correct in the rest of the text, if it corresponds)]

Response 5: [Instances of "non-significant" have been reviewed and corrected throughout the text for consistent usage.]

 

Comments 6: [the growth characteristics]

Response 6: [We have removed the phrase 'the growth characteristics' as per the reviewer’s suggestion.]

 

Comments 7: [Suggested text modification: In fact, the rhizomes of plants receiving supplemental lighting had 152% and 206% greater fresh and dry weights, respectively, than those of the control group.]

Response 7: [The suggested modification has been incorporated to enhance clarity: “In fact, the rhizomes of plants receiving supplemental lighting had 152% and 206% greater fresh and dry weights, respectively, than those of the control group.”]

 

Comments 8: [References, Italics, Abbreviate]

Response 8: [Italics and abbreviations have been adjusted as requested. Consistency across all references has been ensured.]

 

Comments 9: [Please abbreviate and do not use italics (as in the remaining citations). Check other citations depicted in green]

Response 9: [Italics and abbreviations have been adjusted as requested. Consistency across all references has been ensured.]

 

Comments 10: [Do not use Italics (or use them for all Journal names).]

Response 10: [Journal names have been formatted consistently without italics.]

 

Comments 11: [Correct (use the same criterion as the remaining citations)]

Response 11: [Journal names have been formatted consistently without italics.]

 

Comments 12: [Functional Plant Biology]

Response 12: [The journal "Functional Plant Biology" has been abbreviated correctly as "Funct. Plant Biol."]

 

We sincerely appreciate the reviewers’ thoughtful and constructive comments on our manuscript. The valuable feedback provided has greatly improved the quality and clarity of our work.

For Reviewer 2, we have made the following revisions:

- Corrected spacing issues and terminology inconsistencies throughout the manuscript.

- Removed redundant data that overlapped with tables, particularly for non-significant differences.

- Incorporated the suggested text modifications for better clarity and accuracy.

- Adjusted italics and abbreviations in references to ensure consistency, including correctly abbreviating "Functional Plant Biology" as "Funct. Plant Biol."

We thank the reviewer for pointing out these details, which have significantly enhanced the presentation and coherence of our manuscript. All changes made to the manuscript have been highlighted in pink for easy reference. A detailed, point-by-point response to Reviewer 2’s comments is attached. Thank you for considering our revised manuscript for publication. We look forward to your feedback.

Sincerely,

Sunghwan Bae

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary

L29: replace plant height by plant length throughout the text

L30: use  µmol.m^-².s^-1 for photosynthetic rate in all text

Reduce data related to the methodology to be consistent with the journal (max 200 words)

Introduction

References in the text: In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ] and listed accordingly in the reference list.

L 118 : Materials and Methods

L199: did these leaves fully adult (source)?

Experimental design and statistical analysis

Some data should be placed in the Materials and methods section to avoid redundancy and start from L268.

Results

Tables: titles of all tables must be at the top of each table.

Table 2: Photosynthetic rate is given in µmol, not mmol.

In Table 2, the unit of transpiration rate should be µmol H2O.m-².s-1.

The universal classification of means indicates that those with the highest value should have the letter 'a'  etc...

Stomatal conductance, usually measured in mmol m⁻² s⁻¹ as mentioned in Material and Methods and not in ppm

The reference list must be revised according to the Horticulturae authors' instructions.

General comment

The wasabi plant needs at least 75% shade during the day. Wasabi does not tolerate direct sunlight well, so it is recommended to use some plants that are shaded at this level as a control.

Author Response

Comments 1: [Summary, L29: replace plant height by plant length throughout the text]

Response 1: [We have replaced all instances of "plant height" with "plant length" throughout the manuscript to ensure consistency.]

 

Comments 2: [Summary, L30: use  µmol.m^-².s^-1 for photosynthetic rate in all text]

Response 2: [The photosynthetic rate unit has been updated to µmol·m⁻²·s⁻¹ consistently across the manuscript.]

 

Comments 3: [Summary, Reduce data related to the methodology to be consistent with the journal (max 200 words)]

Response 3: [The methodology section in the abstract has been condensed to adhere to the journal’s word limit while retaining critical details. In a previous review, there was a suggestion to include detailed methodological descriptions. This creates some concern due to the contrasting feedback. However, to adhere to the word limit, the methodology section has been condensed to 200 words while retaining essential details.]

 

Comments 4: [Introduction, References in the text: In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ] and listed accordingly in the reference list.]

Response 4: [All references in the text have been reformatted to use square brackets [ ] in accordance with the journal’s guidelines.]

 

Comments 5: [L 118 : Materials and Methods]

Response 5: [The title of the section has been changed from 'Method' to 'Materials and Methods’]

 

Comments 6: [L199: did these leaves fully adult (source)?]

Response 6: [We have specified that the leaves used for measurements were fully matured (source leaves).]

 

Comments 7: [Experimental design and statistical analysis, Some data should be placed in the Materials and methods section to avoid redundancy and start from L268.]

Response 7: [Redundant data from the Results section has been relocated to the Materials and Methods section for better clarity and structure.]

 

Comments 8: [Results, Tables: titles of all tables must be at the top of each table.]

Response 8: [The titles of all tables have been moved to the top as per the journal’s formatting requirements.]

Comments 9: [Results, Table 2: Photosynthetic rate is given in µmol, not mmol.]

Response 9: [The photosynthetic rate in Table 2 has been corrected to µmol as specified.]

 

Comments 10: [In Table 2, the unit of transpiration rate should be µmol H2O.m-².s-1.]

Response 10: [The unit for transpiration rate has been corrected to µmol H₂O·m⁻²·s⁻¹ throughout the manuscript and tables.]

 

Comments 11: [The universal classification of means indicates that those with the highest value should have the letter 'a'  etc...]

Response 11: [The means in all tables have been reclassified following the universal classification standard, ensuring that the highest value is assigned the letter 'a.' Specifically, the letter assignments in Table 1 have been reviewed and corrected to reflect this classification.]

 

Comments 12: [Stomatal conductance, usually measured in mmol m⁻² s⁻¹ as mentioned in Material and Methods and not in ppm]

Response 12: [The unit for stomatal conductance has been corrected to mmol·m⁻²·s⁻¹ in all relevant sections and tables.]

 

Comments 13: [The reference list must be revised according to the Horticulturae authors' instructions.]

Response 13: [The reference list has been revised to align with the Horticulturae authors’ formatting instructions.]

 

Comments 14: [General comment, The wasabi plant needs at least 75% shade during the day. Wasabi does not tolerate direct sunlight well, so it is recommended to use some plants that are shaded at this level as a control.]

Response 14: [We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s attention to this detail. Your suggestion to include the use of a 50% shading net has helped us address an important aspect of the experimental setup that was previously omitted. This adjustment has been incorporated into the Materials and Methods section to ensure clarity and completeness.]

 

We are grateful to the reviewers for their thoughtful comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each comment and made the necessary revisions to enhance the quality and clarity of our work.

For Reviewer 3, we have implemented the following changes:

- Replaced "plant height" with "plant length" throughout the manuscript for consistency.

- Corrected the units for photosynthetic rate, transpiration rate, and stomatal conductance to µmol·m⁻²·s⁻¹ and mmol·m⁻²·s⁻¹ where applicable.

- Reformatted references in the text to square brackets [ ] and revised the reference list as per the journal’s guidelines.

- Condensed the abstract's methodology section to comply with the journal’s word limit.

- Relocated redundant data to the Materials and Methods section. - Ensured all table titles are at the top, with values classified according to universal standards.

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s attention to detail, especially in pointing out overlooked aspects and unit misrepresentations in the manuscript. These corrections have significantly improved the clarity and reliability of the study. The reviewer's thorough evaluation has been instrumental in refining the manuscript to meet the highest standards of accuracy. To aid in the review process, we have highlighted all the revised sections in the manuscript with a light blue highlight for easy identification. A detailed point-by-point response to Reviewer 3’s comments is attached for your review. Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your feedback.

Sincerely,

Sunghwan Bae

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary

The manuscript provides a thorough evaluation of the variation in growth parameters of Wasabi japonica under different environmental conditions and the influence of tailored quantum dot lighting. However, the manuscript (including text, references, and figures) requires reformatting to comply with the MDPI template. Certain methodological aspects also require clarification to strengthen the study's reproducibility and comprehensiveness.

Title

• Ensure the species name (Wasabi japonica) is written in italics.

Abstract

• Begin the abstract with a brief background (1–2 lines) to provide context for the study.

Introduction

• Lines 69–77: Synthesize this paragraph to improve readability and focus.
• Line 112: Avoid mentioning "gene expression" in this context, as it does not align with the manuscript's scope.

Materials and Methods

1. Plant Material:
• Provide more details about the plant material. For instance:
• Is it a commercial variety?
• Or a breeding line developed by Cheorwon Saemtong Wasabi?
2. Substrate:
• If a commercial substrate was used, specify its brand name and chemical parameters (e.g., pH, nutrient composition).
3. Figure 1 Description:
• Include additional details about the abbreviations used in the figure to aid clarity.
4. SPSS Version:
• Specify the version of SPSS software used for statistical analysis (e.g., SPSS 27.0).
5. Water Use Efficiency (WUE):
• Mention the formula or method used for calculating WUE, as it is not detailed in this section.

Discussion

• The discussion is well-written, providing a thoughtful interpretation of the results.

 

Author Response

Comments 1: [Summary: The manuscript provides a thorough evaluation of the variation in growth parameters of Wasabi japonica under different environmental conditions and the influence of tailored quantum dot lighting. However, the manuscript (including text, references, and figures) requires reformatting to comply with the MDPI template. Certain methodological aspects also require clarification to strengthen the study's reproducibility and comprehensiveness.]

Response 1: [We sincerely thank Reviewer 4 for the constructive and insightful comments, which have significantly improved the quality of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed all the points raised and provide detailed responses to each comment below. Revisions made to the manuscript are green highlighted for clarity.]

 

Comments 2: [Title, Ensure the species name (Wasabi japonica) is written in italics.]

Response 2: [All instances of Wasabi japonica in the manuscript have been italicized to maintain consistency and adhere to proper scientific formatting conventions.]

 

Comments 3: [Abstract, Begin the abstract with a brief background (1–2 lines) to provide context for the study.]

Response 3: [We have revised the abstract to highlight the role of QD lighting in promoting sustainable farming practices, particularly for high-value crops like Wasabi japonica.]

 

Comments 4: [Introduction, Lines 69–77: Synthesize this paragraph to improve readability and focus.]

Response 4: [We have synthesized the paragraph in lines 69–77 to improve readability and focus. Redundant details have been removed, and the key points regarding the cultivation challenges of Wasabi japonica and the benefits of quantum dot lighting have been streamlined to enhance clarity and flow.]

Comments 5: [Introduction, Line 112: Avoid mentioning "gene expression" in this context, as it does not align with the manuscript's scope.

Response 5: [We have removed the mention of "gene expression" in line 112, as suggested, to ensure the manuscript remains aligned with its scope. The focus of the manuscript has been maintained on physiological and agronomic parameters rather than molecular mechanisms.]

 

Comments 6: [Materials and Methods, Plant Material: Provide more details about the plant material. For instance: Is it a commercial variety? Or a breeding line developed by Cheorwon Saemtong Wasabi?]

Response 6: [We have clarified that the plant material used in the study is a commercial variety (Wasabi japonica cv. ST1), sourced from Cheorwon Saemtong Wasabi, Gangwon-do, Republic of Korea. This information has been added to the "Materials and Methods" section to ensure transparency and reproducibility of the study.]

 

Comments 7: [Materials and Methods, Substrate: If a commercial substrate was used, specify its brand name and chemical parameters (e.g., pH, nutrient composition).]

Response 7: [We have added detailed information about the substrate (BM6, Berger, Quebec, Canada) used in the study. The pH of this soil is 6.]

 

Comments 8: [Materials and Methods, Figure 1 Description: Include additional details about the abbreviations used in the figure to aid clarity.]

Response 8: [We have revised the figure captions to provide a more detailed description of the spectral distributions and daily light integral (DLI) values shown in Fig. 1. These revisions highlight the relationship between blue-to-red conversion ratios and the QD lighting treatments.]

 

Comments 9: [Materials and Methods, SPSS Version: Specify the version of SPSS software used for statistical analysis (e.g., SPSS 27.0).]

Response 9: [We have specified that SPSS version 23.0 was used for statistical analyses.]

 

Comments 10: [Materials and Methods, Water Use Efficiency (WUE): Mention the formula or method used for calculating WUE, as it is not detailed in this section.]

Response 10: [We have added a detailed explanation of the WUE calculation method. Specifically, WUE was calculated as the ratio of the net photosynthetic rate (A) to the transpiration rate (E), and this has been clearly integrated into the "Materials and Methods" section.]

 

Comments 11: [Discussion, The discussion is well-written, providing a thoughtful interpretation of the results.]

Response 11: [We appreciate this positive feedback on the discussion section.]

 

 

We are pleased to submit the revised version of our manuscript, "Enhanced Rhizome Production in Wasabi japonica Using Tailored Quantum Dot Lighting," for your consideration. We sincerely thank the reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive feedback, which has greatly enhanced the quality of our work.

In response to Reviewer 4's comments, we have made the following key revisions:

• Ensured consistent formatting of scientific names throughout the manuscript.
• Added detailed descriptions of the substrate and nutrient solutions used.
• Specified the statistical methods and software version employed.
• Improved figure captions to provide clearer insights into the experimental setup.
• Clarified the method for calculating water use efficiency (WUE).
• Enhanced the abstract to emphasize the role of QD lighting in sustainable agriculture.
• Streamlined the introduction for clarity and better contextualization of the study’s objectives.
• Synthesized lines 69–77 to improve readability and focus.
• Removed references to "gene expression" to ensure alignment with the manuscript’s scope.

We believe these changes have addressed all concerns raised and have further strengthened our manuscript. Thank you for the opportunity to improve our work through this review process. We look forward to your feedback and hope our revised manuscript will be considered suitable for publication.

Sincerely,

Sunghwan Bae

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is interesting to cultivate wasabi using hydroponic under artificial lightings.

However, this research lack of appropriate experimental design (different among lighting sources, lighting qualities, power consumption, environmental factors, etc.), make it difficult to demonstrate the effect of QD and LED light on plant growth.

In my opinion, the conclusion in this article cannot be drawn from the existing research content and results in this manuscript.

Maybe the authors could remove all contents referring LED in the manuscript and focused on the light spectrum and different environment factors of QD on wasabi growth.

Author Response

Comments 1: It is interesting to cultivate wasabi using hydroponic under artificial lightings. However, this research lack of appropriate experimental design (different among lighting sources, lighting qualities, power consumption, environmental factors, etc.), make it difficult to demonstrate the effect of QD and LED light on plant growth. In my opinion, the conclusion in this article cannot be drawn from the existing research content and results in this manuscript.

Response 1: We acknowledge the reviewer’s concerns regarding the conclusions drawn in the manuscript. To address this, we have revised the discussion and conclusion sections to highlight the preliminary nature of our findings. The revised text now emphasizes that the results provide a hypothesis for future research rather than definitive conclusions. We have also clarified that additional studies are needed to validate the observed effects of QD lighting on wasabi growth under various environmental conditions.

 

Comments 2: Maybe the authors could remove all contents referring LED in the manuscript and focused on the light spectrum and different environment factors of QD on wasabi growth.

Response 2: Thank you for this suggestion. In response, we have reduced references to LED lighting in the manuscript and emphasized the effects of QD lighting on wasabi growth. The remaining mentions of LED lighting serve solely as a reference point to compare the control condition with QD treatments. This adjustment aligns with the study’s primary focus on exploring the tailored spectral effects of QD lighting.

 

 

 

All revisions have been clearly marked in [sky blue] within the manuscript for ease of review. Additionally, a detailed, point-by-point response to Reviewer 1’s comments is included for your reference.

We believe that the revisions address the reviewer’s concerns comprehensively and enhance the overall quality and clarity of our work. We are grateful for this opportunity to refine our manuscript and hope that it now meets the high standards of the journal.

Thank you for considering our revised manuscript for publication. We look forward to your feedback.

 

Sincerely,

Sunghwan Bae

Cheorwon Plasma Research Institute

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

zValues are represented as Mean±SD. 320 yMeans followed by different letters denotes significant differece at p<0.05 according 321 to Duncan’s multiple range test (This information must be provided under the table 1 and 2)

Standardise the references by adding the year of publication after the list of authors and in parentheses.

Author Response

Comments 1: zValues are represented as Mean±SD. 320 yMeans followed by different letters denotes significant differece at p<0.05 according 321 to Duncan’s multiple range test (This information must be provided under the table 1 and 2)

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to improve the presentation of Tables 1 and 2. As recommended, we have repositioned the annotations, including the Mean±SD values and the details specifying the use of Duncan’s multiple range test (p<0.05), from above the tables to below them.

 

Commnets 2: Standardise the references by adding the year of publication after the list of authors and in parentheses.

Response 2: Thank you for highlighting the need for consistency in the reference formatting. We have revised all references to include the year of publication in parentheses immediately following the list of authors.

 

 

We are pleased to submit the revised version of our manuscript, titled "Enhanced Rhizome Production in Wasabia japonica Using Tailored Quantum Dot Lighting," for your consideration. We sincerely appreciate the thoughtful and constructive comments provided by Reviewer 3, which have been instrumental in improving the clarity and presentation of our work.

 

Key Revisions in Response to Reviewer 3:

1. Tables 1 and 2 Annotations: - The annotations specifying Mean±SD values and the use of Duncan’s multiple range test (p<0.05) have been repositioned from above the tables to below them, as recommended. This adjustment enhances the consistency and readability of the data.
2. Reference Standardization: - All references have been revised to include the year of publication in parentheses immediately following the list of authors, ensuring alignment with the journal’s formatting guidelines.

These revisions have been carefully implemented to address the reviewer’s concerns, and we believe they contribute to the overall improvement of the manuscript. All changes have been highlighted in [color used for highlights(yellow)] for ease of review, and a detailed point-by-point response to Reviewer 3’s comments is attached for your reference. We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable feedback and look forward to receiving your further feedback on our manuscript.

Sincerely,

Sunghwan Bae

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors addressed all the Reviewer's comments

Author Response

We sincerely thank Reviewer 4 for their positive evaluation of our manuscript. We deeply appreciate the recognition of the quality and significance of our research. This encouraging feedback motivates us to continue advancing our work in this field. Should any additional suggestions arise in the future, we would be glad to address them promptly. Thank you once again for your thoughtful review.

Sunghwan Bae

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. It’s interesting and important to explore new light sources and high value plants.

2. As the authors replied according to my first review, the light sources is not that important, in my opinion, the authors should focused on the effects of different spectrum on wasabi growth, delete all contents about LED or “control group”, take a QD spectrum as the control, and delete all QD words from the manuscript including title (because the manuscript didn't show us what characteristics of QD light sources that enable them to exhibit spectral advantages), just mention the QD light sources in material and methods part once, to make the whole work more logically and scientifically.

Author Response

Comments 1: It’s interesting and important to explore new light sources and high value plants.

Response 1: Thank you for acknowledging the significance of exploring new light sources and high-value crops like Wasabi (Wasabia japonica). We appreciate your encouragement, which further motivates us to refine our study and align it with the expectations of the research community.

Comments 2: As the authors replied according to my first review, the light sources is not that important, in my opinion, the authors should focused on the effects of different spectrum on wasabi growth, delete all contents about LED or “control group”, take a QD spectrum as the control, and delete all QD words from the manuscript including title (because the manuscript didn't show us what characteristics of QD light sources that enable them to exhibit spectral advantages), just mention the QD light sources in material and methods part once, to make the whole work more logically and scientifically.

Response 2: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's insightful feedback, which has greatly contributed to improving the clarity and focus of our manuscript. Based on your comments, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript to shift the emphasis from quantum dot (QD) technology to the effects of tailored spectral compositions. Below, we outline the key changes made:

1. Careful Consideration of General LED Exclusion:
   In the initial manuscript, we included general LED lighting as a control, designed with a 70:30 blue-to-red ratio, which is widely recognized as optimal for plant growth. This decision was made to provide baseline data using a standard lighting system for comparison. However, we acknowledge that this inclusion may have unintentionally emphasized QD technology by comparing it directly to general LEDs, leading to a potential misunderstanding of the study's focus.

To address this, we made the difficult decision to exclude the general LED control data entirely. While this removal required substantial restructuring of the manuscript, it was necessary to ensure the focus remained on the effects of specific spectral compositions tailored for Wasabia japonica. As previously mentioned, QD technology was utilized solely as a tool to achieve these spectral compositions, and we have clarified this throughout the manuscript.

1. Clarification of QD as a Tool:
   The revised manuscript explicitly states that QD technology is not the focus of this study but rather a means to achieve precise spectral adjustments. For example, in Section 2.2 (Light Treatments and Selection), we clarified:
   "Quantum dots were utilized solely as a tool to tailor spectral compositions optimized for Wasabia japonica's photoreceptor absorption characteristics."
   This clarification helps eliminate any misconceptions that the study centers on QD technology itself.
2. Revisions to Figures, Tables, and Terminology:
   All figures, tables, and captions have been updated to reflect these changes. For instance, Table 1 and Table 2 now use the terms "Control, Spectrum A, Spectrum B, and Spectrum C" instead of "QD A, QD B, QD C, and QD D." This ensures consistency with the revised manuscript narrative and maintains a clear focus on the spectral compositions.
3. Discussion Section Refinement:
   The discussion now focuses on the physiological and morphological effects of tailored spectral compositions, highlighting their impact on Wasabia japonica's growth and rhizome production. The role of QD technology is mentioned briefly, only as a tool to achieve these effects, ensuring that the study's primary focus is on the outcomes of spectral optimization.
4. Acknowledgment of Reviewer's Feedback:
   We deeply considered your suggestion to remove QD-specific references and have taken significant steps to reframe the manuscript accordingly. Your valuable insights helped us refine the study’s narrative and remove any unintended biases toward QD technology, ensuring that the focus remains squarely on the effects of specific spectral treatments.

We hope these revisions effectively address your concerns and provide clarity regarding the study's objectives and methodology. Thank you once again for your thoughtful and constructive feedback.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.     Some technique terms in the abstract part should be clearly explained, like “QD D” (line 26; what does D refer to?), and “humidity” (line 21; relative humidity?) ought to be clearly explained, which may confuse the readers.

2.     The experimental design and statistical analysis of his text are unclear, why use different cultivation system (plant factory and greenhouse), how the light was supplemented etc. are not mentioned. 

3.     The author chose different cultivation time in plant factory (140days) and greenhouse (520days), respectively, detailed explanation should be added to the paper to expound the reasons. Besides, the cultivation time of the natural conditions should also be added to this part.

4.     Analysis and discussion about the difference between LED and QD on plant growth is far from in-depth and comprehensive. I can’t understand how the differences occurred and the reason authors set up plant factory and greenhouse.

5.     There are still sloppy editorial mistakes in this paper: “he” (line 345), “ar” (line270, 281). The author should check these subtle grammar mistakes carefully and use sentences more accurate.

6.     Figures about the wasabi cultivated in the plant factory and the greenhouse should be added to the paper.

7. All references are about the effects of LEDs on other plants but wasabi. So, if the light authors used  (Quantum Dot Lighting) showed significant differences from LED, maybe the experience of LED's impact on plant growth is not applicable for describing the response of plants under QD light source in this article.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comments

Author Response

Comments 1: [Some technique terms in the abstract part should be clearly explained, like “QD D” (line 26; what does D refer to?), and “humidity” (line 21; relative humidity?) ought to be clearly explained, which may confuse the readers.]

Response 1: [Clarification of technical terms will be provided in the abstract. "QD D" refers to the quantum dot lighting configuration with a 70% conversion ratio from blue to red spectrum. "Humidity" in this context refers to relative humidity (RH), which was controlled within a specific range in the plant factory. In the abstract, revise the sentence to include: "QD D (quantum dot lighting with a 70% conversion from blue to red spectrum)" and "90±5% relative humidity of 90±5%". Additionally, the term "humidity" has also been revised to "relative humidity" throughout the main text for clarity.]

 

Comments 2: [The experimental design and statistical analysis of his text are unclear, why use different cultivation system (plant factory and greenhouse), how the light was supplemented etc. are not mentioned. ]

Response 2: [We will clarify the rationale for using both cultivation systems. The plant factory provided a highly controlled environment to evaluate light effects without external environmental factors, while the greenhouse trial was designed to assess how these optimized light conditions impact plant growth in a more natural, but supplemented, setting. To clarify the experimental design and statistical analysis, a second paragraph has been added to the "2.4 Experimental design and statistical analysis" section of the main text. This paragraph explains the differences between the plant factory and greenhouse systems, as well as the rationale for using each environment.]

 

Comments 3: [The author chose different cultivation time in plant factory (140days) and greenhouse (520days), respectively, detailed explanation should be added to the paper to expound the reasons. Besides, the cultivation time of the natural conditions should also be added to this part.]

Response 3: [The different cultivation periods were selected based on the growth cycles necessary for optimal results in each environment. In the plant factory, a 140-day period was sufficient to observe significant morphological and physiological responses to the lighting treatments under controlled conditions. In contrast, the 520-day period in the greenhouse was chosen to ensure full rhizome maturation under semi-natural conditions. Additionally, wasabi cultivation in natural environments generally takes about two years due to the slow growth rate in the absence of supplemental lighting. These explanations have been added to the "2.1.1 Plant factory condition" and "2.1.2 Greenhouse condition" sections for clarity.]

 

Comments 4: [Analysis and discussion about the difference between LED and QD on plant growth is far from in-depth and comprehensive. I can’t understand how the differences occurred and the reason authors set up plant factory and greenhouse.]

Response 4: [Thank you for your valuable comment. To address the differences in plant growth effects between LED and QD lighting, we have expanded the discussion in Section 4.1. Specifically, QD lighting demonstrates unique advantages by broadening the red spectrum to better match the absorption needs of wasabi, making it more favorable for growth compared to conventional LED lighting. While LED lighting emits sharply peaked light at specific wavelengths, QD lighting provides a broader range from 630 to 680 nm, aligning closely with the absorption spectrum of wasabi (see Fig. 4). This broader spectrum likely enhances photosynthetic activity, leading to increased biomass accumulation. The extended red wavelength range provided by QD lighting appears to yield more favorable growth outcomes for wasabi. Including both plant factory and greenhouse conditions emphasizes the benefits of QD lighting in controlled and semi-controlled environments, as reflected in the revised manuscript.]

 

Comments 5: [There are still sloppy editorial mistakes in this paper: “he” (line 345), “ar” (line270, 281). The author should check these subtle grammar mistakes carefully and use sentences more accurate.]

Response 5: [We will carefully proofread the manuscript for any grammatical errors and typographical mistakes, ensuring that the writing is clear and accurate.]

 

Comments 6: [Figures about the wasabi cultivated in the plant factory and the greenhouse should be added to the paper.]

Response 6: [The images of wasabi cultivated in the plant factory are shown below (A: Control, B: QD A, C: QD B, D: QD C, E: QD D). However, as you can see, the quality of the images is not ideal, and thus, they have not been included in the manuscript. The distance between the plants and the camera was not consistent, and there were overlapping plants due to double planting in some areas. For these reasons, we believe it would be better to exclude these images from the manuscript.]

 

Comments 7: [All references are about the effects of LEDs on other plants but wasabi. So, if the light authors used  (Quantum Dot Lighting) showed significant differences from LED, maybe the experience of LED's impact on plant growth is not applicable for describing the response of plants under QD light source in this article.]

Response 7: [Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the lack of references specific to quantum dot lighting's effects on wasabi growth. In response to your comment, we have revised the manuscript to include additional references that address the specific impact of light treatments on wasabi, particularly focusing on the effects of transmitted light on wasabi growth and isothiocyanate contents (Hisamatsu et al., 2020). Furthermore, we have also added a recent study that demonstrates the potential of quantum dot films in improving light use efficiency and crop quality, which provides relevant insights into how QD lighting can enhance wasabi production (Hebert et al., 2022). These additions strengthen the manuscript by directly relating the findings of quantum dot lighting to wasabi cultivation, ensuring that the conclusions drawn from this study are well-supported by relevant literature.]

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear editor and authors

The main scope of the present work was to evaluate the impact of various LED light sources on the growth of Wasabia japonica plants in a controlled plant factory. After selecting the optimal lighting conditions according to the traits analyzed, a test was also performed in a greenhouse to evaluate its effect on wasabi rhizome production.

The manuscript is in general well written, although some (mostly minor) text corrections and/or modifications have been suggested. Despite the experimental design is appropriate to address the objectives proposed, some methodological aspects need to be better clarified. On the other hand, the discussion of part of the responses related to leaf traits should be expanded, in the context of published data regarding the effect of different light wavelengths on key physiological processes controlling, particularly, leaf growth and morpho-anatomical features.

Finally, while supplementary material was available for evaluation, no mention of supplemental files has been performed in the manuscript, so it is not clear the need for those files to be included (and hence were not revised).

Please find detailed comments on these and other aspects in the revised pdf file attached

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: [Were these plants always the same (then repeated measures should have been considered) or randomly selected on each sampling date?

It is not clear to me how the measurements were performed (or graphically represented) since petiole length should increase with time (although not necessarily at a constant RATE), up to a final length, and this is not the behavior shown in Figure 2... (particularly in plants with supplemental lighting).

Something similar also occurs with the number of leaves: it should not decrease with time, but incomprehensible "oscillations" can be seen also in the plants supplemented with LEDs.

Please explain.]

Response 1: [The plants were randomly selected for measurement on the days we visited the greenhouse. For each control and treatment group, data were collected from 3 randomly chosen plants(Table 3 confirms that the data was indeed repeated for 9 plants), and the averages of these three plants were used to generate the graphs in Fig. 2. The oscillations observed are largely influenced by seasonal factors. The experiment was conducted in Cheorwon, a region in Korea with four distinct seasons. In 2024, the summer temperatures in Cheorwon reached up to 36°C, while the winter saw lows of -16°C. Although the optimal growth temperature for Wasabia japonica is known to be between 12-18°C, maintaining these ideal conditions throughout the experiment posed some challenges.

In Fig. 2, the sharp increase in growth observed from 100 days (6th spot) to 250 days (14th spot) corresponds to the period from late winter (January 24th) to early summer (June 27th) in Korea. This period had a very positive effect on the growth of Wasabi, with the benefits of supplemental lighting becoming particularly evident. However, during the monsoon season in July, which lasted about a month, the lack of sunlight caused a decline in Wasabi growth. After the monsoon (17th spot, July 25th), a heatwave followed with temperatures exceeding 30°C, leading to the observed oscillations in growth.]

 

Comments 2: [If growth dynamics (rate?) is represented, the legend of both the Y axis and the whole figure should be corrected accordingly, since "petiole length" cannot decrease with time as shown is certain DAP intervals. Please also check this question in the other graphs.]

Response 2: [Upon review, it was confirmed that the Y-axis of the graph represents absolute values rather than rates. Wasabia japonica grows petioles straight from the rhizome in the ground, reaching up to about 50 cm. After a certain period, the leaves age, and the entire petiole falls off, allowing the rhizome to expand. Therefore, we believe that the Y-axis is correctly representing the normal growth process. However, we recognize that the term "dynamics" may cause confusion, so we have replaced it with "characteristics" throughout.]

 

Comments 3: [Not clear. Apart form the notable biomass differences, Fig. 3 shows that most rhizomes from plants grown with supplemental lighting are consistently larger than those from the other treatment. How is it possible that size differences could not be detected?

Were ANOVA assumptions tested before performing the analysis?]

Response 3: [Thank you for your insightful comment. The differences in rhizome size between treatments, as shown in Figure 3, can be attributed to the substantial increase in both fresh and dry weights under supplemental lighting. While the statistical analysis did not reveal significant differences in parameters such as rhizome length and width, fresh and dry weights showed significant differences with p-values less than 0.01. This indicates that, although no statistically significant differences were found in terms of length and width, the variations in size based on weight were clearly captured by the analysis.

Before conducting the ANOVA, we carefully checked the key assumptions. Normality was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test, and p-values greater than 0.05 confirmed that most of the data followed a normal distribution. Homogeneity of variances was assessed using Levene's test, and while most variables met this assumption, petiole width did not. For this reason, we applied Welch’s t-test to account for unequal variances. Lastly, independence of observations was ensured through the use of a randomized complete block design, which minimized dependencies between data points. The results of the normality and homogeneity tests are attached below as supporting evidence. Additionally, to clarify this point, the above explanation has been incorporated into the Materials and Methods section under 2.4. Experimental design and statistical analysis.]

 

	Petiole Length	Petiole Width	Leaf Length	Leaf Width	Rhizome Length	Rhizome Width	Rhizome FreshWeight	Rhizome DryWeight
Control Mean	468.26	22.33	146.26	146.48	86.70	19.88	30.00	5.03
Control Std	64.12	2.98	24.75	26.56	35.34	6.95	11.11	2.07
Treatment Mean	498.04	25.85	147.11	149.96	138.81	24.74	75.56	15.29
Treatment Std	51.35	3.41	19.44	22.92	71.36	9.09	32.63	8.07
Normality Control (p-value)	0.092	0.341	0.823	0.929	0.184	0.004	0.996	0.996
Normality Treatment (p-value)	0.369	0.520	0.801	0.410	0.053	0.011	0.143	0.175
Levene (p-value)	0.499	0.750	0.586	0.635	0.237	0.618	0.040	0.039
Statistical Test	t-test (Equal Var)	t-test (Equal Var)	t-test (Equal Var)	t-test (Equal Var)	t-test (Equal Var)	Mann- Whitney U	Welch's t-test	Welch's t-test
p-value	0.293	0.033	0.936	0.770	0.067	0.037	0.003	0.005
Significant	ns	*	ns	ns	ns	*	*	*

 

 

Comments 4: [Red:far red ratio?; red:blue ratio?.]

Response 4: [We apologize for not clearly specifying the ratio. The correct ratio is Red:Blue = 7:3. This information has been included in the revised manuscript for clarity.]

 

Comments 5: [Not clear. Is this referred to lettuce or wasabi? How are the mentioned traits expected to reduce the photosynthetic capacity per plant? Please revise the wording and/or explanation.]

Response 5: [Thank you for your feedback. We have revised the wording in Section 4.2 to clarify that the comparison with lettuce was made to illustrate how the Red: Blue = 7:3 ratio affects photosynthesis in general, but the focus of the study is on wasabi. Specifically, the control group, while having the highest photosynthetic efficiency, exhibited the lowest values in morphological traits such as the number of petioles and leaf length, as shown in Table 1. This indicates that while photosynthesis itself was efficient, the utilization of assimilates produced by photosynthesis was relatively low, likely due to the limited morphological development. Therefore, the revised explanation now highlights the need for optimizing the light spectrum to balance photosynthetic efficiency with better utilization of the assimilates produced. We have incorporated these changes into the revised manuscript for clarity.]

 

Comments 6: [Please replace with: resulted in (a high photosynthetic rate)]

Response 6: [Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the sentence as per your recommendation. The word "demonstrated" has been replaced with "resulted in (a high photosynthetic rate)" to provide a clearer and more accurate description. This revision has been incorporated into the updated manuscript for clarity.]

 

Comments 7: [within the conditions tested (please add).]

Response 7: [Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the sentence to incorporate your feedback. The phrase "to be optimal" has been updated to include "within the conditions tested" for clarification. This change has been reflected in the revised manuscript to better specify the context of the findings.]

 

Comments 8: [Supplemental lighting also affected the behavior of some key morphological parameters of leaves (see Fig.2) . Which may be the physiological basis of those responses? Please discuss.]

Response 8: [Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your comment, we have expanded the discussion to address the potential physiological basis of the observed morphological changes in leaves due to supplemental lighting. It is well established that specific wavelengths of light can influence the activity of phytochromes and cryptochromes, which are responsible for regulating key photoreceptive pathways. These pathways affect cell expansion, stomatal aperture regulation, and overall leaf morphology.

In the case of QD D lighting, the high photosynthetic rate and water use efficiency observed could be linked to enhanced stomatal regulation, as well as improved leaf development, as seen in Figure 2. The increase in leaf area and petiole length, for example, may result from the influence of supplemental lighting on cell elongation and division, driven by photoreceptor-mediated signaling. These physiological responses likely contributed to the improved photosynthetic efficiency and growth performance under QD D lighting.

We have incorporated these discussions into the revised manuscript to further clarify the connection between supplemental lighting and the morphological and physiological responses observed.]

 

Comments 9: [Supplementary data are never mentioned in the text.]

Response 9: [Thank you for your feedback. In response to your comment, all supplementary data have been removed from the manuscript to ensure clarity and consistency. The revised manuscript no longer includes any reference to supplementary data.]

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. How the Wasabi chloroplasts absorption spectrum was measured should be described in material and methods.

2. I still can't get the point about QD light. As the authors said, the better growth was because of the expanded spectrum by using QD light, which is more consistent with Wasabi absorption spectrum. However, by using customized LED light (maybe blue LED with appropriate LED phosphors), the same even more consistent absorption spectrum could be obtained very easy, but the authors choose a totally different light quality (R:B=3:7) as the control. In one word, the results were all about different spectrum but LED or QD. In my opinion, experiment using LED and QD with the same spectrum can only demonstrate the superiority of QD.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear editor and authors

The original version of the manuscript has been considerably improved. I am grateful to the authors for having considered most of the corrections and suggestions performed in my first revision. Nevertheless, apart from minor text modifications, there are still some methodological aspects that need to be better clarified, as well as some topics in the Discussion that have to be revised, before considering the manuscript suitable for publication.

Please find my detailed comments in the revised file attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf