Morphological and Physiological Responses of Cucumber Seedlings to Supplemental LED Light under Extremely Low Irradiance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article seems to me an original, complete, interesting and useful work. My congratulations on the quality of the microscope images.
I wanted to propose some suggestions:
Page 2 line 81 Please describe the Yamarak nutrient solution.
Page 2 Line 89 To include following "constant"
Page 3 line 117 Shoot lenght "it is not described"
Page 3 line 107 phosphate buffer ¿pH?
Page 3 line 117 OD "it is not described"
Page 4 Table 1 Please to use g plant-1 "to homogenize the nomenclature"
Page 6 line 196 B, RB, RGB present similar level than control and only G and R decrease
Page 7 Figure 3 D cm2 plant-1
Page 7 Figure 3 E missing error bars "Please check if it is correct"
Page 10 Figure 5 SOD in 1R1B-50 it is not relevant, I think it should be commented in the text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript written by Yiting Zhang, Hao Dong, Shiwei Song, Wei Su, Houcheng Liu entitled "Morphological and physiological responses of cucumber seedlings to supplemental LED light under extremely low irradiance" has been very carefully prepared. The obtained results have a practical dimension and can be used in the cultivation of cucumber. The experiments were planned and performed reliably, with attention to detail and appropriate controls. The figures and tables included in the work are provided with the necessary descriptions and legends. The results are discussed clearly.
One should only pay attention to the explanation of all the abbreviations in the manuscript. There are many of them and some of them probably escaped the authors' attention.
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript has an interesting topic.
However, it has crucial issues like followings;
It could be a good paper.
- Materials and Methods needs to be written with very specific details. For example, how namy seeds were sown to be analysed although it is written in each Figure and Table.
- 0.5 g of fresh roots was used for the further analysis. However, authors did not spcifiy how many plants were used for having this much gram of roots.
- This is minor but the conclusion part in the abastract is too vague. Authors said "might". But to me, they can use "may" at least.
Other than that, statisctical methods are sound with good results.
Overall, it is fine paper but authors should be aware what I mentioned.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
