Advancing Light-Mediated Technology in Plant Growth and Development: The Role of Blue Light

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your manuscript addresses an important and current topic in plant photobiology, focusing on the role of blue light across multiple plant developmental processes. The review is comprehensive and presents a significant number of references. Nevertheless, a more critical and synthetic approach is needed. Below are detailed recommendations to improve the manuscript.

Abstract: Recommend replacing generic statements (e.g., "blue light has emerged as a critical wavelength") without quantitative support.

Keywords: "light quality" is a very generic keyword, I recommend replacing it with "spectral composition" or "photoreceptors". This improves the searchability of the manuscript.

1. Introduction: The introduction is redundant with the abstract and some points need to be better articulated:

• The knowledge gap being addressed (e.g., lack of species-specific light response data).
• The novelty of this review compared to previous ones.

2. Blue Light: This topic is dense, largely due to the lack of a figure or schematic summarizing the blue light signaling pathways. I recommend that the authors provide a figure that encompasses the signaling mechanisms involving CRY, CRY2, Pho1/2, and downstream targets such as HY5.

3. Plant Morphology and Development: In subsections 3.1 to 3.3 an extensive list of studies is presented, but the authors did not include any interpretive synthesis, which made the text very dense and uninformative. To solve this problem, I recommend that the authors consider condensing repetitive cases or focusing more on physiological patterns and/or species-specific trends. A good alternative to make this topic less dense would be to create a comparative table summarizing: Species/Blue Light Treatments/Morphological Responses.

4. Photosynthetic Efficiency: This topic is largely based on Hogewoning et al. (2010). Although this article is fundamental, it would be helpful for the authors to review the literature and add relevant and recent articles on the topic. In addition, I recommend that they provide a more comprehensive discussion of the potential of blue light to induce photoinhibition at high intensities and its role in chloroplast development under fluctuating light conditions.

5. Flowering and Photoperiodic Responses: This is one of the strongest sections of the manuscript. However, I recommend that the authors exercise caution in the use of photoperiodic terminology, such as “day-neutral plants” and “facultative long-day plants.” While these terms are widely accepted in the literature, providing concise and precise definitions would greatly benefit non-specialist readers and prevent potential misinterpretations. Additionally, I strongly suggest including a summary table to consolidate the key findings presented in this section. A suggested structure could be: Species | Photoperiodic Classification | Blue Light Intensity | Observed Response.

6. Plant Secondary Metabolism: The authors have been efficient in compiling numerous examples in this section. However, the integration of the discussion remains suboptimal. In several instances, the narrative appears fragmented and lacks a coherent structure. To improve clarity, I recommend reorganizing the discussion by grouping the information according to major classes of secondary metabolites (e.g., flavonoids, carotenoids, terpenoids). Furthermore, the section would greatly benefit from the inclusion of more mechanistic insights into transcriptional regulation, particularly focusing on the CRY–HY5–MYB signaling axis, which is known to mediate blue light-induced metabolic responses.

7. Blue Light-Mediated Stress Resilience: The current discussion is too superficial and would benefit from greater mechanistic depth. I strongly recommend the inclusion of a figure that synthesizes the different types of abiotic stress, key physiological markers, and the regulatory genes known to be modulated by blue light. Additionally, it would be valuable to expand the discussion on the role of blue light in priming plants for tolerance to abiotic stressors such as drought and salinity. Particular attention should also be given to its application in pre-acclimation strategies during nursery stages, which can enhance plant resilience and post-transplant performance.

8. Conclusion: The conclusion, as currently written, is overly general and lacks the specificity expected in a scientific review. I recommend that the authors articulate at least two to three clear and well-supported conclusions derived from the body of reviewed literature. Moreover, it is important to identify the major research gaps that warrant urgent investigation—particularly those related to the lack of consensus on optimal spectral ratios among different cultivars. Finally, the authors should highlight potential applications of blue light regulation through smart LED systems within controlled environment agriculture (CEA), emphasizing how spectral modulation can enhance crop quality, energy efficiency, and stress resilience.

References: I recommend updating the reference list, as a considerable number of citations date back to before 2010. Additionally, there is a noticeable concentration of self-citations and repeated use of studies from the same research group. To improve the scientific breadth and objectivity of the review, I suggest diversifying the sources and incorporating more recent reviews

I commend the authors for the comprehensive literature coverage and encourage them to undertake a major revision by incorporating the specific suggestions outlined above. The topic is undoubtedly relevant, and with improved structural organization and critical synthesis, this review has the potential to make a significant contribution to the field.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is generally correct but could benefit from professional copyediting. Avoid overuse of adjectives (e.g., “critical,” “remarkable,” “significant”) without evidence. Shorten overly long and complex sentences for better readability.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is a review of the effects of LEDs with blue light on plant growth. The paper presents different perspectives on the effects of blue light on plant growth. There are several areas that require further improvement as follows.

1. The current status of research on the effects of blue light on different states of plants is proposed to be presented in a table.
2. The latest relevant research developments should be added to the paper.
3. There is a small issue, title “2. Stem Elongation and Leaf Expansion of Mature Plants” is displayed in bold, while other titles of the same level are not.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: At the end of the second paragraph of Section 2, entitled "Blue Light," it is recommended that a reference be included, at the end of the paragrph, to provide greater emphasis to the statement.

Comment 2: In secrtion 3.2, in the sentence “For example, increasing the blue light percentages can decrease tomato growth, primarily
through its impact on morphology and subsequent light interception [93].”, it would be beneficial for the reader to mention the percentage increase mentioned.

Comment 3: At th eend of section 3.3 "Optimizing root architecture via blue light could increase resource efficiency in hy-
droponic and aeroponic systems." It is recommended that this concept be further elaborated upon, with a particular focus on the optimization of root architecture.

Comment 4: In the final paragraph of Section 5, the authors enumerates several possible courses of action. It can expand on how the spectrum is modified in real time and include success cases.

Comment 5: Before the conclusions, it is recommended to include a paragraph on future trends in this subject area. This will allow the authors to comment on the future of LED light systems and whether the effects of their use in agriculture.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have satisfactorily addressed the suggestions and recommendations previously provided. Given the scientific relevance of the manuscript, I consider it suitable for publication, pending the editor's final decision.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have well addressed all my comments. I have no more concerns.