Growth of Populus × euramericana Plantlet under Different Light Durations
, Ning Liu 3,†, Changjun Ding 1,2, Fenfen Liu 1,2, Xiaohua Su 1,2,* and Qinjun Huang 1,2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
no suggestions
Author Response
Your approval is an affirmation of our scientific research. The paper has been slightly modified. Thank you so much!
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Different light intensities and light duration have important effects on plant growth, this manuscript examined plantlet height (H), ground diameter (GD), number of nodes (NN), number of leaves (NL), and SPAD value under different light time to examine the response of Populus euroamericana plantlets to light duration. The selected topic and research results will play a role in understanding the effect of different light duration on the growth of poplar seedlings, and can guide the efficient plantlet propagation of poplar in the future. In addition, there are still some issues in the manuscript that need to be addressed by the authors.
1. In the line 17, 22 and other lines,” Populus euroamericana” should italic.
2. In the figure 1, The authors seem to obtained the experimental material by cuttings, and "seedling" in the manuscript is not appropriate，plantlet is recommended.
3. In the Keywords, it is not appropriate to use “seedlings” as a keyword.
4. In the line 113-114, author has lost the reference [34].
5. In the line 194-195, the moisture content is difficult to guarantee complete consistency and the authors should indicate the error line.
6. In the line 217, the information labeled A “SPAD-502Plus” is necessary.
7. In the Table 2, it seems necessary for the authors to analyze the significance of differences between the experimental group and CK.
8. The depiction of the results seems too simplistic.
9. Are there environmental (temperature, watering) differences between greenhouse rooms?
10. In addition to the duration of light, will the LED light intensity be uneven? How to solve?
11. In addition to this study, what follow-up should be written in the discussion section? For example, I think microenvironment may be a good research direction.
12. The Gompertz growth curve was well applied in this study, which is consistent with the results of many greenhouse seedling studies. If you have more greenhouse 'climate' data, I suggest that you can refer to the research models of crops such as corn and wheat. I believe that the concepts of 'accumulated temperature' and 'accumulated light' can be well applied to the tree seedling curve (No one has done it yet I think).
13. In conclusion, the experimental design of this study is rigorous, the experimental materials have great potential, the workload is sufficient, and the analysis is reasonable. I think it can be published as a paper after making appropriate revisions, and more in-depth research is necessary in the future.
Author Response
Most comments have been modified in the paper, these are responses to your suggestions
5. In the line 194-195, the moisture content is difficult to guarantee complete consistency and the authors should indicate the error line.
The error of the graph has been shown in the form of shadow7
Multiple comparisons performed poorly due to growth arrest during the experiment and the range of variability was too large. Their significant differences can be found in the figure and model parameters.
- Are there environmental (temperature, watering) differences between greenhouse rooms?
No, because the light-shielding plastic sheet is breathable, there is no significant difference in the environment between greenhouses.
- In addition to the duration of light, will the LED light intensity be uneven? How to solve?
Light intensity does affect the results. In this study, 30 clones were originally used as material, but we found that the light intensity under the lamp was higher. So we selected 16 clones under lights, and there were no significant differences in intensity within and between groups of lights.
- The Gompertz growth curve was well applied in this study, which is consistent with the results of many greenhouse seedling studies. If you have more greenhouse 'climate' data, I suggest that you can refer to the research models of crops such as corn and wheat. I believe that the concepts of 'accumulated temperature' and 'accumulated light' can be well applied to the tree seedling curve (No one has done it yet I think).
Thank you for your suggestion. I found a similar model you mentioned in the research on tomatoes. We will try its application in the future.
- In conclusion, the experimental design of this study is rigorous, the experimental materials have great potential, the workload is sufficient, and the analysis is reasonable. I think it can be published as a paper after making appropriate revisions, and more in-depth research is necessary in the future.
Thank you for your comments and opinions, we have learned a lot.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I believe that artificial light is indicated only in situations where, for various reasons (e.g. accelerated pollution), natural light registers values of duration and quality below normal for a certain location.
I recommend that, in addition to the duration of lighting, the subsequent researches may also analyze light quality, natural and artificial, because it directly influences the growth and development of the seedlings.
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript was to study the growth of Populus × euramericana seedlings under different circadian rhythm conditions. A total of six different treatments were performed, and seedling height, ground diameter, number of nodes, number of leaves, and SPAD value were measured. The manuscript has many flaws, as follows.
(1) Both the English language and the presentation need to be greatly improved. Poor English language makes it difficult to understand what the author wants to express in many sentences. In addition, the writing also failed to meet the requirements of a scientific paper.
(2) The study referred to 16 poplar clones in the methods. What is the difference between these clones? A list of the clones will be helpful. Is there any previous phenological study of these clones? Are there differences in the growth of different clones under different circadian rhythms? Which is more significant, the difference between clones or the difference between different treatments?
(3) There are obvious errors in the setting of CK in this study, many different factors to be considered here. The paper does not provide a light spectrum of LED lighting conditions. LED lighting is with a stable light intensity, while the light intensity of natural light is affected by different times of the day and various weather conditions. In addition, natural light gradually shortens with the change of seasons, it may not be served as CK for the fixed duration of LED lighting.
(4) The occurrence time of terminal bud cessation of different plant materials in different treatments should be mentioned, and corresponding photos should be provided.
(5) The information of the specific leaves corresponding to the SPAD value was not mentioned.
(6) The introduction part should cite relevant literatures on the effect of day length on plant growth.
(7) The test used six areas in the greenhouse. Are there differences in temperature and relative moisture between different areas in the greenhouse? How is the dark treatment used for LED lighting handled? Is it a self-contained and light-tight greenhouse, or was it just shaded with shade nets? The leakage of natural light can affect the results of experiments.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article must be completely rewritten. From the crumbs of the methodology, I can understand that there is data material, you just have to understand what and how you want to show it in the article. First of all, setting the goals and hypotheses of the article according to the data and data analysis.
I confess, unfortunately I did not read beyond the 110th line of the article. some comments below.
The introduction is very general, there is no specificity and orientation to the topic covered in the article. The purpose of the article is not defined or hypothesized.
M&M
2.1. Test Design – described very poorly
No transcripts of abbreviations
16 P. × euramericana clones – what about clones? From where, why these clones?
Propagated by cuttings or seeds?
Where were they grown? in pots? in growing cassettes? Volume, substrate, etc.
Line 71-73 what is this spectrum of light - full-spectrum LED ??? How to measure the light received by plants – in wat or µmol m−2 s−1
Greenhouse was a plastic or glass?
Maybe use not days but day of year or the date its will be easy to understand.
Somewhere missing 2.2.
2.3. Methods
Explain why you used different growth models to analyze plant responses to light duration?
How measure H, GD and other things? What kind of instrument you used? Etc.
Results
3.1. Growth of Seedlings
Line 92-94. not clear, what do you mean by this? First, it should be understood whether there are significant differences between the variants or not, and then table 2 should also be described.
Line 107-110. What do you mean by this? Is significant differences or not?
