Integrative Effects of CO2 Concentration, Illumination Intensity and Air Speed on the Growth, Gas Exchange and Light Use Efficiency of Lettuce Plants Grown under Artificial Lighting
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
the paper "Integrative effects of CO2 concentration, light intensity and air velocity on the growth, gas exchange and light use efficiency of indoor cultured lettuce" investigates and quantifies the integrative effects of CO2 concentration, light intensity, and air velocity on the growth, gas exchange and light use efficiency (LUE) of lettuce plants (Lactuca sativa L.) grown under artificial light.
The results showed that lettuce growth and gas exchange were closely related to CO2 concentration and light intensity, while air velocity enhanced CO2 transport during photosynthesis, and shows the interaction of the three factors considered on environmental parameters such as shoot and root fresh weight, shoot dry weight, plant height, root length and photosynthetic parameters. With the quantified data obtained, authors determine how CO2 concentration, light intensity and air velocity interact with their combined effects on the growth and productivity of indoor culture lettuce.
The paper is interesting and well written and it ca be accepted for pubblication in Horticulturae with minor revision. However the discussion is long and complex and in my opinion, it should be reduced where possible.
Check the words spacing applied on the manuscript (e.g. in the abstract line 14 and so on).
Line 94-107: Some concepts are repetitive, revise and eliminate repeats.
Line 160: replace par with PAR
Line 167: check the points in the formula
Line 190-192: the presentation of the data could be easier for the reader by citing the data in Fig. 1 then in Fig. 2 and then in Table 3 and so also in line 222-224.
In Table 3. Number of leaves (per plant)
Line 375-378: the statement raises some doubts, in fact the high light reduces the plant height, but usually this is not considered a negative parameter, the plant compactness a qualitative parameter positive and generally appreciated in horticultural crops. In my opinion this statement should be eliminated or clarified.
Thanks for your consideration.
Regards.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
reviewer comments in black lines
The responses in red lines
The modification in the revised manuscript in red lines
Dear authors,
the paper "Integrative effects of CO2 concentration, light intensity and air velocity on the growth, gas exchange and light use efficiency of indoor cultured lettuce" investigates and quantifies the integrative effects of CO2 concentration, light intensity, and air velocity on the growth, gas exchange and light use efficiency (LUE) of lettuce plants (Lactuca sativa L.) grown under artificial light.
Point1: The results showed that lettuce growth and gas exchange were closely related to CO2 concentration and light intensity, while air velocity enhanced CO2 transport during photosynthesis, and shows the interaction of the three factors considered on environmental parameters such as shoot and root fresh weight, shoot dry weight, plant height, root length and photosynthetic parameters. With the quantified data obtained, authors determine how CO2 concentration, light intensity and air velocity interact with their combined effects on the growth and productivity of indoor culture lettuce.
Thank you very much for your comment. The most significant two- and three-way interactions have been added in the abstract. The modification in the revised manuscript in P1, L18-22.
Point2: The paper is interesting and well written and it ca be accepted for publication in Horticulturae with minor revision. However, the discussion is long and complex and in my opinion, it should be reduced where possible.
Thank you very much. The discussion has been shortened.
Point3: Check the words spacing applied on the manuscript (e.g. in the abstract line 14 and so on).
Thank you for this notice. Words spacing has been checked over the manuscript.
Point4: Line 94-107: Some concepts are repetitive, revise and eliminate repeats.
OK, the concepts have been revised over the manuscript. Thank you.
Point5: Line 160: replace par with PAR
In L 160, ‘’on par’’ means equal to ……. However, the sentence has been rewritten and the modification in the revised manuscript in P4, L162-164. Thank you.
Point6: Line 167: check the points in the formula
The points in the formula have been replaced with ×. Thank you. The modification in the revised manuscript in P4, L172.
Point 7: Line 190-192: the presentation of the data could be easier for the reader by citing the data in Fig. 1 then in Fig. 2 and then in Table 3 and so also in line 222-224.
OK, the arrangement of data citation has been modified. Thank you. The modification in the revised manuscript in P4, L193-197 and P6, L219-222.
Point 8: In Table 3. Number of leaves (per plant)
OK, per plant has been added. Thank you. The modification in the revised version in P7, L248.
Point 9: Line 375-378: the statement raises some doubts, in fact the high light reduces the plant height, but usually this is not considered a negative parameter, the plant compactness a qualitative parameter positive and generally appreciated in horticultural crops. In my opinion this statement should be eliminated or clarified.
I really appreciate your comment. The sentence has been eliminated. Thank you.
Thanks for your consideration.
Regards.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for your manuscript, I found it interesting.
However, in my opinion the manuscript needs improvements.
General comment:
Your experimental design it is quite large and can create confusion in the interpretation of the effects having a three way factors to analyse and describe. Pearson correlation is a respectful and valid analysis to highlight correlations between variables and treatments. however due the large design i suggest to include a Principal component analysis or an heatmap to better appreciate the whole relation between variables and treatment.
Specific comment.
Please uniform the style of the unit, in most of the case you use e.g µmol m-2 etc..in other you use e.g µmol/m². please uniform.
Figure 3. the central figure is not correct the light intensity last point of the axes.
Author Response
Dear authors,
Thank you for your manuscript, I found it interesting.
However, in my opinion the manuscript needs improvements.
General comment:
Point 1: Your experimental design it is quite large and can create confusion in the interpretation of the effects having a three-way factor to analyze and describe. Pearson correlation is a respectful and valid analysis to highlight correlations between variables and treatments. however due the large design I suggest to include a Principal component analysis or a heatmap to better appreciate the whole relation between variables and treatment.
I really appreciate your suggestion. In this study we used the three-way interaction effect which gives the interaction as a ratio between the three variables as shown in table 2. In addition, the three-way interaction in many treatments is not significant or has small effect size. In this case we use the two-way interaction to explain the data. For these reasons we use the 3D plotting and effect size to present and explain our results.
Specific comment.
Point 2: Please uniform the style of the unit, in most of the case you use e.g µmol m-2 etc..in other you use e.g µmol/m². please uniform.
I really appreciate your comment. The units have been uniformed over the manuscript. Thank you.
Point 3: Figure 3. the central figure is not correct the light intensity last point of the axes.
Thank you very much for this notice. The central figure in figure 3 has been corrected. The modification in the revised manuscript in P9, L285.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
