Influence of Far-Red Intensity during the Seedling Stage on Biomass Production and Photomorphogenic Characteristics in Leafy Greens under Sole-Source Lighting
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The MS "Influence of Far-red Intensity during the Seedling Stage on Biomass Production and Photomorphogenic Characteristics in Leafy Greens under Sole-Source Lighting" is well whritte and structured. I would recomment it for publications, but there is a major concern:
How FW can be higher provided that DW does not change and moisture content is similar in all treatments. What is suggested explantion?
Minor: usually the higherst values is attributed by "a" letter and others smaller get "b", "c"
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for your time and efforts on this manuscript. We really appreciate your input and integrity upholding the scientific peer-review process.
Author
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
It is good to see research on the effect of long-wavelength radiation (red light) on specific plant physiological responses. The background covers the lighting impacts of leafy greens from SSL and horticultural research perspectives. The study looks well designed and controlled. I think the results would be intriguing for readers. It’d be interesting if the authors extended the discussion of the potential implications of this research to the next-generation smart/intelligent/integrative horticultural lighting systems (e.g., is it too soon to use findings from this and similar studies to build such systems).
Some minor notes:
- Leave a space between unit and number (e.g., 4000 K instead of 4000K).
- A photo of the experimental set up would be demonstrative.
- More detail on the light measurement locations would be helpful.
- Figure 1: Spectral power distributions are all normalized, and figures are relatively small. Authors should consider using absolute irradiance in the y-axis and provide illuminance and irradiance at plant level in addition to PAR, given its limitations (i.e., limited wavelengths, ignorance of specific pigment absorption, light duration, distribution, plant morphology, or variability in plant response). For more see:
o Durmus, D. (2020). Real-time sensing and control of integrative horticultural lighting systems. J, 3(3), 20.
o Zhen, S., van Iersel, M., & Bugbee, B. (2021). Why far-red photons should be included in the definition of photosynthetic photons and the measurement of horticultural fixture efficacy. Frontiers in Plant Science, 12, 1158.
- A reference is needed when referring to the CIE 1976 L*a*b* (CIELAB) color space.
- I assume it is ANOVA but which statistical tools were used? Were the parametric assumptions checked? I might have missed, but I couldn’t see any effect sizes.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for your time and efforts on this manuscript. We really appreciate your input and integrity upholding the scientific peer-review process.
Author
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This subject should be of interest to many readers and the introduction is quite good. The technical aspect of presentation is clean and professional. However the results are difficult to read because they are a recitation of information contained in tables and figures with few deductive summaries. The statistical analyses were not properly conducted or communicated and this constitutes most of the critique.
The experiment had 2 factors, light level x cultivar. ANOVA needs to dictate how the data is presented. For FW if light x cv was significant, then Table 1 is not needed and figure 2 is proper. DW and Moisture content do not need to be in the table if they were not significant, a simple text statement “21 mg DW with 93% moisture is sufficient.” Table 3 is not needed unless there are no significant interactions of light x cv for each response. Figure 3 is proper when the interaction is significant. SLA makes this plainly obvious, the error in light levels in table for SLA is so large because RO is significantly affected by light level. Leaf length the same way, Fig 5 works fine. This makes a main effects table entries useless. Table 5 has no significant effects, treatment means may be stated as text and eliminate the table.
Why use Tukey’s on quantitative treatment levels, a linear or polynomial fit would be preferred. What is the control? Is it white light-LED? Is there FR in the white light source used? Where is the control in Tables?
Dry mass and fresh mass are used in discussion. Fresh weight is used in results. Mass is the correct term and should be used throughout. Grams are a measure of mass, weight is a force measured in Newtons (N).
The discussion is too lengthy and lacks proper summaries.
203 L*a*b needs to be defined in a parenthetic expression the first time it is used.
242 Tukey’s HSD is for qualitative treatments. Light levels 5,10,20,30 are quantitative
279 38% greater than control (Table 3)- what is control?
279-81 if a linear method were used, then a positive slope for leaf area would indicated so much surface gain per unit light applied without the arbitrary, incremental steps
288 this is the first place I saw 5 mentioned as control, Figure 1 caption states 5 was a supplement
292 if only 20 and 30 had effect, a quadratic term is inferred.
297 text would be much more satisfying if a significant slope or a regressed line were known
325 stars on graphs are not needed if each cultivar has a linear fit, with a significant positive slope
334 we were doing just fine with line graphs, why bar graphs here?
415 biomass did not increase, when random error is large compared to response, than you must think about error control
423 large, thinner cell walls with intact membranes would create a more negative pressure potential and increase cell size without an increase in solutes or dry mass
440-48 no pick and choose models, interac
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for your time and efforts on this manuscript. We really appreciate your input and integrity upholding the scientific peer-review process.
Author
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
All my comments are in the manuscript. Just to point out here, the titles of the tables and figures are too long.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for your time and efforts on this manuscript. We really appreciate your input and integrity upholding the scientific peer-review process.
Author
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
Overall, the article is well structured and appropriately written. There are some concerns.
In Introduction:
Page 2 line 64: “SSL” The full word should be spelled when first mentioned.
In Results:
Page 7 Table2
Page 8 Table 3
Page 11 Table 4 and 5
In the absence of statistical differences no labeling required.
Page 9 lines 345-346: “a*(green vs. red) coordinates were similar under all radiation treatments (P = 0.1027) indicating that ‘Red Oak’ seedlings were a similar hue of red across all radiation treatments.”
“(P = 0.1027)” Is it correct? Figure 7 showed a statistically significant decreased in a*.
In Discussion:
Page 12 Lines 415-416: “Dry biomass of seedlings also increased, though not statistically significant.” When there was no statistical difference, it could not be said whether it increased or not.
Page 13 Lines 493-494: “Inversely, though not a significant result, a* coordinates decreased meaning red leaves were less red as FR treatments increased.” Figure 7 showed a statistically significant decreased in a*.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for your time and efforts on this manuscript. We really appreciate your input and integrity upholding the scientific peer-review process.
Author
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
this paper makes a good contribution to the science
