Photoreceptors Modulate the Flowering and Morphogenesis Responses of Pelargonium × hortorum to Night-Interruption Light Quality Shifting

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The Design and presentation were appropriate. But from my point of view minor revision ( introduction, result, and discussion should be described elaborately) and accepted.

Author Response

Authors revised introduction, results, and discussion. Authors added general conclusions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Authors revised Introduction and Results section. We added statistical differences in figures 3, 4, 5 and 6. We also added general conclusions. Thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

General comments

This is a generally well-written manuscript on the interesting subject of light controlling the morphology of ornamental plants. The methodology used is sound and relevant publications are cited in the introduction and discussions section.  With some modifications, the manuscript could be further improved, see detailed comments below.

Detailed comments

Line 71: Please insert scientific name

Line 73: This is a bit unclear “from a glasshouse bench” – please rephrase

Line 83: Please insert information on the EC and pH of the nutrient solution

Line 87: Please insert information on the manufacturer of the LED device

Figure 1: I would suggest to move figure 1 to the results section, as the figure displays results from your measurements

Results section/figure 3, line 169: You state that “NI-FrB led to the tallest plants, etc…”. Was the differences statistically significant? I would suggest to also indicate statistical differences in figure 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Figure 7: The picture unfortunately is of low quality with plants positioned too closely. There seems to be some leaf damages that could be signs of nutrient deficiency, possibly due to low transpiration?

Line 282: Phytochrome photostationary state is a concept that is sometimes used to describe this (Sager et al 1988. Photosynthetic efficiency and phytochrome photoequilibria determination using spectral data. Trans. ASABE (Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng.) 31, 1882–1889). Perhaps this could be worth including.

Discussion section: Pelargonium is a day-neutral plant, so I would not anticipate great effects on flowering due to light treatments. This is also confirmed by the results from the study with non-significant differences for flowering. Hence, perhaps no use in too much discussion on regulation of flowering, if not applicable to the study?

Line 313: I would suggest to include a few sentences with the general conclusions.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing this manuscript.

 

1. Line 71: Please insert scientific name

    Response: Authors added scientific name.

2. Line 73: This is a bit unclear “from a glasshouse bench” – please rephrase

    Response: Authors changed sentence.

3. Line 83: Please insert information on the EC and pH of the nutrient solution

   Response: Authors added the EC and pH.

4. Line 87: Please insert information on the manufacturer of the LED device

   Response: Authors added the the manufacturer of the LED device

5. Figure 1: I would suggest to move figure 1 to the results section, as the figure displays results from your measurements

   Response: Authors removed Figure 1 and added references from previously published papers to avoid repetitiveness.

6. Results section/figure 3, line 169: You state that “NI-FrB led to the tallest plants, etc…”. Was the differences statistically significant? I would suggest to also indicate statistical differences in figure 3, 4, 5 and 6.

    Response: Authors added statistical differences in figures 3, 4, 5 and 6.

7. Figure 7: The picture unfortunately is of low quality with plants positioned too closely. There seems to be some leaf damages that could be signs of nutrient deficiency, possibly due to low transpiration?

   Response: Authors added picture of top view. There were no nutrient deficiencies during the experiment.

8. Line 282: Phytochrome photostationary state is a concept that is sometimes used to describe this (Sager et al 1988. Photosynthetic efficiency and phytochrome photoequilibria determination using spectral data. Trans. ASABE (Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng.) 31, 1882–1889). Perhaps this could be worth including.

   Response: Authors added reference.

9. Discussion section: Pelargonium is a day-neutral plant, so I would not anticipate great effects on flowering due to light treatments. This is also confirmed by the results from the study with non-significant differences for flowering. Hence, perhaps no use in too much discussion on regulation of flowering, if not applicable to the study?

   Response: Geranium, a day-neutral plant, did not show any difference in flowering between treatments, but there was a difference between treatments in days to flowering. Therefore, it is seems to necessary to discuss the results sufficiently in this paper.

10. Line 313: I would suggest to include a few sentences with the general conclusions.

   Response: Authors added general conclusions.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

After correcting some indications, authors got improve the manuscript. Thank you to correct the indicated mistakes.

However, the introduction continues being a bit short. I am sure authors can add more information to explain more about the background of the topic of this study, for example the importance of molecular analyses, the use of artificial light in agriculture …. 

 

Also, in this version a brief description of all figures continues being presented . In my opinion, the results are poorly commented. You have a lot of information that you can comment on and highlight. In addition, to facilitate the reading and understanding of the manuscript by the reader, you should add a brief comment close to each figure. 

Author Response

Thank you for the reviewing this manuscript. The authors have added a Introduction and Results section as pointed out by the reviewer.