Evaluation of the Effects of Culture Media and Light Sources on In Vitro Growth of Brassavola nodosa (L.) Lindl. Hybrid

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Very interesting work, applicable to the producction of large-scale commertial orchids. 

Each treatment 5 repetitions (bottles) and each bottle 4 explants, making a total 20 explants?. Perhaps it would be more advisable to refer to 20 repetitions per tratment??

I leave it to your discretion.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We would like to thank Reviewer 1 for the comments and suggestions.

In response to Reviewer 1, we have added the total number of repetitions to material and methods for better clarity - lines 139-140

Reviewer 2 Report

Compliments on a very important topic and a very well-written manuscript. There is only one minor comment. Please explain in Figure 2, what does SL mean? Same question for NL and RL?

Author Response

We would like to thank Reviewer 2 for the comments and suggestions.

In response to the question related to the symbols in Figure 2, that was a mistake and we have corrected the figure accordingly, replacing SL, NL, and RL for LED-1, LED-2, and LED-3, respectively.

Thanks for catching that mistake for us.

Reviewer 3 Report

I find the manuscript submitted for review interesting, well thought out and carefully prepared.

1. Abstract contains all the necessary elements in the study summary.
2. Keywords are well-chosen. They refer to the most important elements of the research and are different from the words in the title. I only suggest a minor change: "light intensity, light quality" can be changed to "light intensity and quality".contains
3. The introduction is nice and succinct. Well, explains the study design.
4. The study was carried out without methodological errors.
5. The presentation of data, including results, is scientifically substantiated and meets the relevant reporting standards.

In the description of the results, remove the data that is included in the tables.

6. The discussion section contains the appropriate reference of the obtained results to the research of other authors.
7. The conclusions are very clear.
8. In all the text, Latin species names should be written in italics. The same applies to the name "in vitro".
9. Minor comments are included in the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We would like to thank Reviewer 3 for the comments and suggestions. In response to Reviewer 3 comments, we have:

1. Changed keywords to light intensity and quality
2. Removed the data from the description of results
3. Changed all in vitro to italics
4. Made all suggested changes throughout the text

Reviewer 4 Report

Article "Evaluation of the effects of culture media and light sources on in vitro growth of Brassavola nodosa (L.) Lindl. hybrid." Vendrame, W.A.; Xu, J.J.; and Beleski, D. describes a rather narrow aspects in vitro culture of one of the orchids. However, the orchid species, Brassavola nodosa, has not previously been commercially cultivated. The article examines the effects of the culture medium and lighting with different light sources on the performance of growing plantlets. Since there are no sources on the culture of Brassavola nodosa, the authors consider similar aspects of in vitro cultivation of other popular orchids in the Introduction. The goals of the study are outlined quite clearly and the results of the study are reflected in the Abstract. Materials and methods: Lines 89 and 138. Authors would like to clarify what a semi-solid medium is. Results. The authors measured the amount of chlorophyll, but it is unclear why they did this? In the Discussion, it is necessary to explain what is the relationship between the content of chlorophyll and the performance of plantlets. At least 2-3 sentences. The disadvantage of this manuscript is that there is no connection between the fixed parameters (chlorophyll, light intensity, spectral composition, etc.) and the physiological state of orchid plants. This should be reflected in the Discussion and provide references. As I already noted, the article is quite utilitarian, not going beyond a fairly narrow goal. But the work has been done quite painstakingly and in detail. The study is relevant and the results obtained are represented in a good manner.

Pay attention that in vitro is written somewhere in italics, but somewhere not.

I believe that this manuscript, after minor corrections, can be accepted for publication in Horticulturae

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the comments and suggestions.

In response to the comments, we have made the suggested changes. as indicated below:

1. Regarding the clarification about a semi-solid medium, in micropropagation, semi-solid medium is a common and well-known term for any culture medium solidified with agar and it usually does not require explanation.  Although agar is added for support to explants, it is not completely solidified, therefore the term semi-solid. We have changed the text to indicate that the medium was solidified with agar (line 87) and that the medium is semi-solid agar-based (line 88). This should be sufficient for understanding by any researcher in the area of micropropagation.
2. Regarding chlorophyll content, as one of the objectives of the work was to evaluate the effects of light sources on in vitro propagation and plantlet growth and development, light intensity and quality affects photosynthesis, reason why we measured relative chlorophyll content. We have added some explanation on line 55 as chlorophyll content affects photosynthetic activity. We have also added a new reference and citation in the discussion to address the issue of chlorophyll content and plant performance, lines 324-327.