Drought and Darkness during Long-Term Simulated Shipping Delay Post-Shipping Flowering of Phalaenopsis Sogo Yukidian ‘V3’

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper entitled "Drought and Darkness During Long-Term Simulated Shipping Delays Post-shipping Flowering of Phalaenopsis Sogo Yukidian ‘V3’" investigates the effect of shipping conditions on a variety of Phalaenopsis, one of the most commercialized orchid genera worldwide. 
The idea is interesting although the study could have been even of more interest by combining the drought and darkeness effects (a more realistic condition) and not only investigating them separatley. However, results are interesting, all figures and tables are useful for interpretate results but few modifications need to be performed prior to acceptance. 

Here few comments:

Abstract:

ABstract is clear and concise. Please spell out (explain what is) Fv/Fm at line 19 for a broader audience. It is explained only later in M&M.

 

Main text:

Some sentences need eglish editing and/or re-phrasing.

L44-45: Temperature instead of temperatureS. 

L48-50: please Re-phrase

L76: first time talking about PPFD please spell out

L78-80: any citation for this sentence?

L81-84: I suggest to extend a bit this part explaining in particular why this cultivar of Phalaenopsis was chosen for this study .

L87: in vitro in italics

L107-109: please re-phrase, it's not clear. What do you mean by "moving the low-temperature chamber in the growth chamber"? how do you move one chamber into one other?

L192-193: re-phrase, efficiency written twice

L239: change greater with higher

L306-310: I suggest to re-phrase, it's hard to follow

 

Author Response

<Response to Reviewer 1 Comments>
Thank you for your careful comments.

L19: Abstract is clear and concise. Please spell out (explain what is) Fv/Fm at line 19 for a broader audience. It is explained only later in M&M.
 -> Revised by reviewer’s comments (Line 19).

L44-45: Temperature instead of temperatureS. 
 -> Removed '–s' (Line 46)

L48-50: please Re-phrase
 -> Re-phrarsed (Line 49-52)

L76: first time talking about PPFD please spell out
-> Spelled out (Line 78)

L78-80: any citation for this sentence?
-> Added a citation (Line 82)

L81-84: I suggest to extend a bit this part explaining in particular why this cultivar of Phalaenopsis was chosen for this study.
-> Added the reason (Line 86-88)

L87: in vitro in italics
 -> Italicized (Line 91)

L107-109: please re-phrase, it's not clear. What do you mean by "moving the low-temperature chamber in the growth chamber"? how do you move one chamber into one other?
-> Re-phrased the sentence (Line 111-113)

L192-193: re-phrase, efficiency written twice
-> Removed (line 204-205)

L239: change greater with higher
 -> We did not changed it. Our English proofreader said "the number of days to spiking in DSS was greater than that of LSS plants" is an appropriate expression. (Line 252)

L306-310: I suggest to re-phrase, it's hard to follow.
-> Re-phrased (Line 319-324)

All the best,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors performed a study on simulated shipping of Phalaenopsis Sogo Yukidian ‘V3’ to understand the effect of drought and darkness on plant characteristics during post shipping. The paper is well written with clear background and Results and Discussion sections, showing interesting results with a relevant impact on Phalaenopsis trade. I have some objections  related to the Materials and methods section, which must be improved to clarify and allow the repeatability of the work. In particular, timing of all measurements, number of repetitions and characteristics of the two experimental environment must be detailed and described.

Detailed comments below:

• L 46: indicate the definition of spiking here at first mention, instead of at line 72
• L 85: I recommend to clearly divide the two experimental environment with detailed conditions and timing
• L 103-136: authors must explain which were the treatment (10-50 days of simulated shipping?), how many repetitions were prepared for each treatment, how long was the stay in the growth chamber, when the data were collected for each parameter (e.g. at the end of simulated shipping, during or at the end of simulated finishing) and on how many repetition/leaf/plant were the data collected for each parameter
• L 137: also in the Results and Discussion it would be helpful to add when the data are referred to.
• Figure 7. If I understood correctly, the name of x axes it should be “time after the end of simulated shipping”
• L. 336: in the conclusions, and in the abstract as well, I suggest to add which impact can have your results in the Phalaenopsis trade, from a practical point of view.

Author Response

<Response to Reviewer 2 Comments>
Thank you for your careful comments.

L 46 (47): indicate the definition of spiking here at first mention, instead of at line 72 (74)
 -> Line 74 -> Line 47

L 85 (89): I recommend to clearly divide the two experimental environment with detailed conditions and timing
 -> We tried to clarify the meaning by modifying a few sentences. (Line 89-149)

L 103-136 (107-149): authors must explain which were the treatment (10-50 days of simulated shipping?), how many repetitions were prepared for each treatment, how long was the stay in the growth chamber, when the data were collected for each parameter (e.g. at the end of simulated shipping, during or at the end of simulated finishing) and on how many repetition/leaf/plant were the data collected for each parameter
-> We tried to clarify the meaning by modifying a few sentences. (Line 107-149)

L 137 (150): also in the Results and Discussion it would be helpful to add when the data are referred to.
 -> We tried to clarify the meaning by modifying a few sentences. (Line 162)

Figure 7 (L 247). If I understood correctly, the name of x axes it should be “time after the end of simulated shipping”
 -> Revised the name of X axis. “0 day” means the start date of the experiment. (Line 247)

L 336 (348): in the conclusions, and in the abstract as well, I suggest to add which impact can have your results in the Phalaenopsis trade, from a practical point of view.
 -> Since it is difficult to present a practical point of view only with the results of this study, I put two sentences that  And in the case of long-term dark shipping for the Phalaenopsis trade, the box must be opened within 40 days and further studies are needed. (Line 384-387)

All the best,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The effects of light/dark and water on the performance of Phalaenopsis Sogo Yukidian ‘V3 during simulated shipping conditions as well as their post-shipping growth and flowering were investigated. As evaluated by water content, leaf yellowing, chlorophyll content, and chlorophyll a fluorescence, the condition under lighting is a better shipping way for this orchid and the flowering is also better.

The experiments are well designed and the data are solid. However, the chlorophyll determination method was not described.

It needs a minor revision.

 

 

Author Response

<Response to Reviewer 3 Comments>
Thank you for your careful comments.

The chlorophyll determination method was not described.
 -> The method was described (Line 136-138) as follow:

Chlorophyll content (SPAD) were measured using a chlorophyll meter (SPAD-502plus, Konica Minolta, Japan) while avoiding the central leaf vein.  

All the best,

Reviewer 4 Report

I show in yellow and comments in the attached file are addressed

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

<Response to Reviewer 4 Comments>
Thank you for your careful comments.

Line 142-143 (154-156)  Please clarify this in the section of methods.
 -> Clarified (Line 131-133)

Line 199-201 (211-214)  Do you mean an additive effect??..Please clarify.
 -> Clarified (Line 211-214)

Line 313 (Figure 9)  Although may be obvious, please indicate simbology in the caption: L= light, D= dark
 -> Revised (Line 315)

Line 367 (Figure 12)  Add “days” in the figure (eg., 40 days) and delete the lines surrounding the figure title.
 -> Revised (Line 379-381)

All the best,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have properly addressed all the requests.

Regards.