Effect of Daily Light Integral on Cucumber Plug Seedlings in Artificial Light Plant Factory
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Cui et al explored the effect of Daily Light Integral on the morphology and on some physiological traits of cucumber seedlings. The topic is within the scope of Horticulturae. The concept is rather interesting, however, a significant improvement of the manuscript is required in order to be accepted for publication. The main problem is the presentation which is considerably lacking (especially considering the poor use of the English language). Another problem is that the authors focused on the morphology and conducted some trivial physiological assays leaving much to be desired. On the other hand, I have found the flowering observation interesting.
Here are some specific points for improvement.
Line 10: revise, this phrase is incomprehensible
Line 11-12: revise
Line 13: revise “save energy consumption”
Line 14 do not use unexplained abbreviations in the introduction (it is better to avoid them altogether)
Line 15 I do not understand the second experiment as described in the abstract, please be more specific.
Lines 15-16 revise
Line 18 revise becoming “compact” to “more compact”
Lines 25-26 revise
Line 26 revise to seedlings
Line 34 provide a reference
Line 36 focus on the morphological characteristics connected to the quality and the productivity of the plants. Is the production of healthy, vigorous plants in a short cultivation period the target for producers? Which practice leads to increased quality? In my opinion, such an approach will benefit the introduction of the manuscript (thankfully in the discussion the authors follow this approach but a revision is required whatsoever).
Line 38 revise “went up”
Line 49 (to line 54) In my opinion the energy-saving aspect of this research must be introduced here.
Line 67 revise
Line 81 revise
Line 90 revise to sampling
2.3 Describe in detail the experimental design of the two experiments.
Line 108 revise to sowing
Line 112 explain de-enzyme
The experimental design leaves much to be desired, the assays are not presented in a way focused on the quality of the seedlings but on their biomass accumulation. An improvement is required.
Improve the legends of the tables and figures by adding more information.
Line 175 please explain the fluctuation
Table 3. Transfer in the supplementary data part of the manuscript
Line 292 this argument is not supported
Line 296. This finding/argument must be reinforced with references
Line 297 revise “developed best”
Line 314 revise
Line 321 provide a reference
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
In the present manuscript the authors describe the effects of DLI and photoperiod/light intensity on cucumber seedling growth.
Therefore, they gathered a lot of physiological data and presented them in various ways. This is a particular point which needs improvement, because partially there are pages full of tables and figures making the readability of the manuscript quite difficult. Therefore, I would recommend to shift Tables 4, 5, and 6 to supplementary material. Additionally, R2 of Table 3 values should be included into the corresponding graphs. The remaining information of Table 3 can then also be shifted to supplements. Another improvement in this regard would be to combine Figures 3a+b, 3c+d, 7a+b and 7c+d into single figures each. Furthermore, you have to edit most of the figure captions: In Fig. 2 you point to other figures, what is irritating. Instead you should give a detailed description of the elements in the caption of Fig. 2 and then refer to it in subsequent figures. I also noticed that letters as indicators of significant differences are never been described in any caption.
Another aspect to be improved would be the language of the manuscript. It must be completely read edited by a native speaking colleague. Especially the introduction is partially hard to understand.
Minor points:
- line 60: What is of higher Fv/Fm?
- line 112: What does "de-enzyme" mean?
- lines 114-117: What´s the reference to this definition?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have made an attempt to revise their work according to the reviewer's suggestion. I believe that the manuscript can be now accepted. Some minor points for revision are listed (without the need for another round of review).
Line 37 replace normal with typical
Line 38 replace stronger with vigorous
Line 43 remove “ratio”
Line 53 replace “Therefore, the DLI” with “Therefore an optimal DLI….”
Line 285 revise “Increasing DLI in low irradiance conditions” to “Increasing DLI along with low irradiance”
Line 306 revise/explain “higher biomass”
Line 318 revise high to higher
Line 334 revise
Author Response
Thank you for your recognition of our work and valuable suggestions.
Point 1: Line 37 replace normal with typical
Response 1: Done
Point 2: Line 38 replace stronger with vigorous
Response 2: Done
Point 3: Line 43 remove “ratio”
Response 3: Done
Point 4: Line 53 replace “Therefore, the DLI” with “Therefore an optimal DLI….”
Response 4: Done
Point 5: Line 285 revise “Increasing DLI in low irradiance conditions” to “Increasing DLI along with low irradiance”
Response 5: Done
Point 6: Line 306 revise/explain “higher biomass”
Response 6: Replace “higher biomass” with “higher shoot fresh and dry mass.”
Point 7: Line 318 revise high to higher
Response 7: Done
Point 8: Line 334 revise
Response 8: Replace “In this study, higher PPFDs decreased daily electron transport through PSII, resulting in a decline in photosynthate.” with “In this study, ΦPSII decreased as PPFD increased, resulting in a decline in photosynthate.” If the modification is still not appropriate, please inform us to modify it again.
