Influence of Day and Night Temperature and Radiation Intensity on Growth, Quality, and Economics of Indoor Green Butterhead and Red Oakleaf Lettuce Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is very interesting and very well done. The experimental procedures are described correctly and in detail. The results are very valuable to improve lettuce production in indoor agriculture. The document is very well written and presented, with some small improvements it can be published in this important journal. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The revised version of our manuscript (1982605) entitled " Influence of day and night temperature and radiation intensity on growth, quality, and economics of indoor green butterhead and red oakleaf lettuce production" is enclosed. We have listed the reviewers’ comments below (in plain font) and stated how their concerns were addressed (in bold font). 

 

Reviewer 1:

Introduction

• Line 43: I suggest briefly including the importance or some characteristics of the cultivars that were evaluated
  • Addressed in materials and methods when cultivars are mentioned.
• Line 57-60: correct citation form. On the subject of light curves there are more recent studies
  • Fixed format and updated the references.
• Line 60-61: connect two phrases related to efficient use of light

Materials and methods

• Table 1: Temperature Canopy is mean or day?
  • Clarified that only air temperature mean was for the day and night.
• Line 200-201: better to mention the variable as incidence of tipburn
  • Changed to incidence of tipburn.
• In statistical analysis include that tests of normality and homogeneity of variances were performed.
  • Added to end of materials and methods.
• Line 216: Tukey Kramer is mentioned but in table 2 it says only Tukey
  • Fixed on table 2.

Results

• Line 242: delete (Lactuca sativa)
  •  
• Table 4: in daily labor change hr by h
  • Changed hr to h.

Discussion

• I suggest explaining in more detail the effect of PPFD and temperature on physiological and growth variables, basing the explanations, for example, on photosynthesis, respiration, cell division and elongation, and translocation of assimilates, among others. This is because most of the explanations are very general and are based on comparisons with other studies.
  • Explanations have already been provide in the introduction (lines 52 to 67).

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript explores the topic of "Influence of day and night temperature and radiation intensity on growth, quality, and economics of indoor green butterhead and red oakleaf lettuce production"

 

The experiments were well-described, designed, and conducted. The data was well analysed and presented. The result of the article is credible and reliable.

 

It would be good to make a list of the most important abbreviations used in the manuscript

 

I recommend adding photos of the two varieties of lettuce used in the study under the Methods and Materials section.

Author Response

• It would be good to make a list of the most important abbreviations used in the manuscript
  • No abbreviation list was added as the Sustainability template does not call for a list of abbreviations and a review of Sustainability articles did not find any containing a list of abbreviations.

 

• I recommend adding photos of the two varieties of lettuce used in the study under the Methods and Materials section.
  • We do not believe that a photo of the lettuce varieties would add any value to the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript titled “Influence of day and night temperature and radiation intensity on growth, quality, and economics of indoor green butterhead and red oakleaf lettuce production” reports findings of some importance.

The abstract is somewhat well written provided with important data.

Line # 11: Start the sentence with word i.e. eleven.

Keywords correspond to the aim.

The introduction is specific and focused on. However, the objectives need revision. The hypotheses have also been provided.

Materials and methods section is well written. However, the authors should describe what parameters were studied under the quality.

Results are quite interesting and analysis is strong; well written and explained.

Discussion confirmed results very well and is a logical explanation of results.

Conclusion needs revision and should be strengthened with data. The authors should give some recommendation on the basis of their findings.

Numerous stylistic errors have also been spotted.

References are adequate and need to be crosschecked. In some references journal abbreviations were used. There should be consistency in the references.   

In some cases, the authors used first form of speech. Usually results are written in the third form of speech with passive voice e.g.

Line # 14: Therefore, we quantified how----

Line # 27: ------economic analysis, we recommend growing---------

Line # 121-122: We postulated that 1) increasing PPFD will increase biomass produ----

Line # 340: In the current study, we observed the greatest SFM for ‘Rouxaï RZ’ --------

Line # 354: ----to our results where the SFM of ‘Rouxaï RZ’ was----------

Line # 375: we determined that PPFD only influenced---

Line # 386: In our study, tipburn incidence in both-------

Line # 396: We did not find a relationship between tipburn-----------

Line # 404: our study, maintaining a ~60%---------

Line # 408: ---but severity was not recorded in our study.

Line # 412: In our study, h° and L* of ‘Rouxaï RZ’ foliage----

Line # 430: Our model was unable to account for----

Line # 433: Additionally, our----

Line # 450: Ultimately, we recommend a PPFD of-----

Author Response

• Line # 11: Start the sentence with word i.e. eleven.
  • Change made
• The introduction is specific and focused on. However, the objectives need revision. The hypotheses have also been provided.
  • The objectives were refined.
• Describe what parameters were studied under the quality.
  • Described which parameters were assessed for quality in Growth data collection and analysis
• Conclusion needs revision and should be strengthened with data. The authors should give some recommendation on the basis of their findings.
  • Added more data and explanation to the conclusion.
• References are adequate and need to be crosschecked. In some references journal abbreviations were used. There should be consistency in the references.
  • Removed abbreviations of journals.
• In some cases, the authors used first form of speech. Usually results are written in the third form of speech with passive voice e.g.
  • No changes were made to forms of speech. First form with active voice enables more concise sentences than third form.