Influence of White, Red, Blue, and Combination of LED Lights on In Vitro Multiplication of Shoots, Rooting, and Acclimatization of Gerbera jamesonii cv. ‘Shy Pink’ Plants
, Hyun-Young Song 3, Su-Young Lee 3 and So-Young Park 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study evaluated the influence of different LEDs on growth and physiological parameters of Gerbera.
Authors should take note of the following comments to improve their submission:
- Take note of the different stages of regeneration. Rooting of shoots stage is part of regeneration. This was stated in the Abstract. Which needs to be revised and its grammar improve. See Line 19-… Line 21/20 Do you mean, ….Red plus blue LED affected regeneration process by inhibiting shoot growth and rooting??? Line 25-28 need to be rephrased..
- Scientific terms such as species names, in vitro, ex vitro genus name Gerbera and Chrysanthemum need to be italicized.
- The Methodology needs to be seriously revised. “In vitro grown plants were used in this study”, but shoot induction was initiated? How do you reconcile these contradictory statements??
- Methods under 2.1 is not clear, especially paragraph 3 (Line 95-99), how does it fits with those above???
- Authors should clearly describe how and when fresh weights/dry weight were measured??
- Check thoroughly, section 2.3 as some paragraphs were repeated. I don’t believe “harvested” is a proper term, including “culture invitation” in Line 341.
- What was the logic for collecting data indicated under section 2.3 and then again 2.4. This gives a wrong impression in terms of methods structure, unless 2.3 was misplaced. Furthermore, is estimation of Chlorophylls not data??? Generally, what is the difference between section 2.3 and 2.4 paramers???
- Line 132, it is important to provide equations and indicating how chlorophyll amounts were worked out.
- Observe grammar rules when constructing Figure legends. This will improve how they read..
- If different letters indicate significance, what about “y”???
- Discussion should not repeat objectives/ methodology of the study. Authors failed to discuss their results, instead just mention increase/decrease of parameters tested without explaining what that imply???
- Whenever common names of plants are used, scientific names should be given, at least once followed by the consistent use of such a common name….
- Conclusion section should be revised. Avoid repeating results but explain implications of the findings in this study and how they chart a way forward???
- Check typos: Line 29, 87 (4 four?), 92 (“..50 ml of medium was taken in each culture vessel???”), 213 (to say plants were “all excellent” is exaggeration, rather explain what was observed), 260 (typo: ….under different LED sources were measured in vitro grown plants..???), 296 (..bread???).
- Reference are not consistent, check even how DOIs are written.
Grammar needs serious improvement.
Author Response
Response to reviewer comments
Manuscript ID: agronomy-2549603
Type of manuscript: Article
Title: Influence of white, red, blue, and combination of LED lights on in vitro multiplication of shoots, rooting, and acclimatization of Gerbera jamesonii cv. Shy Pink plants
The authors are thankful to anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on the manuscript and we have revised the manuscript in the light of the reviewer’s comments and incorporated all the corrections suggested by them. Corrections have been included in the revised manuscript in track change format. Following are the specific changes carried out in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer #1
Query # 1 – Take note of the different stages of regeneration. Rooting of the shoots stage is part of regeneration. This was stated in the Abstract. Which needs to be revised and its grammar improve. See Line 19…Line 21-/20 Do you mean… Red plus blue LED affected the regeneration process by inhibiting shoot growth and rooting??? Lines 25-28 need to be rephrased.
Answer: The content of the abstract has been revised suitably as per the suggestion of the reviewer.
Query # 2 – Scientific terms such as species name, in vitro, ex vitro, genus name Gerbera, and Chrysanthemum need to be italicized.
Answer: All the terminologies such as genus, species name, in vitro, and ex vitro have been italicized throughout the manuscript as per the suggestion of the reviewer.
Query # 3 – The methodology needs to be seriously revised. “In vitro, grown plants were used….
Answer: Materials and methods section has been thoroughly revised and presented in the revised manuscript.
Query # 4 – Methods under 2.1 is not clear, especially in paragraph 3 (Line 95-99), how does it fit with those above?
Answer: Materials and methods section has been thoroughly revised and presented in the revised manuscript.
Query # 5 – Authors should clearly describe how and when fresh weights/dry weights were measured.
Answer: The measurements of fresh weights/dry weights of shoots/plants have been presented clearly in the revised section of materials and methods.
Query # 6 – Check thoroughly, section 2.3 as some paragraphs were repeated. I don’t believe “harvested” is the proper term, including “cultured cultivation” in Line 341.
Answer: The above mistakes have been corrected in the revised manuscript.
Query # 7 – What was the logic for collecting data indicated under section 2.3 and then again 2.4? This gives a wrong impression in terms of methods structure unless 2.3 was misplaced. Furthermore, estimation of chlorophylls, not data? Generally, what is the difference between section 2.3 and 2.4 parameters?
Answer: The above mistakes have been corrected in the revised manuscript.
Query # 8 – Line 132, it is important to provide equations and indicate how chlorophyll amounts were worked out.
Answer: Equations of chlorophyll estimation have been presented in the revised manuscript.
Query # 9 - Observe the grammar rules when constructing Figure legends.
Answer: The figure legends have been revised suitably.
Query # 10 - If different letters indicate significance, what is ‘y”?
Answer: In the Table footnotes ‘z’ represents different light treatments and ‘y’ represents significant differences in the values as per DMRT.
Query # 11 – The discussion should not repeat the objectives/methodology of the study. The authors failed to discuss their results. Instead, just mention the increase/decrease of parameters tested without explaining what that implies.
Answer: The discussion section has been revised thoroughly with proper interpretations in the revised manuscript.
Query # 12 – Wherever common names of plants are used, scientific names should be given, at least once followed by the consistent use of such common names.
Answer: The scientific names of the plants have been used throughout the text with the revised manuscript.
Query # 13 - The conclusion section should be revised. Avoid repeating results but explain the implications of the findings in this study and how they chart a way forward.
Answer: The conclusion section has been revised as per the suggestions.
Query # 14 – Check typos: Line 29, 87……
Answer: All the typographical and grammatical errors were corrected with the revised manuscript.
Query # 15 – References are not consistent, check even how DOIs are written.
Answer: References have been presented as per the journal’s style and DOIs are presented consistently.
Query # 16. Grammar needs serious improvement.
Answer: All the grammatical errors have been corrected and the revised manuscript has been reviewed/corrected for grammatical mistakes by a native English speaker.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper is a study to observe the change in growth by varying the light wavelength conditions in the tissue culture of gerbera.
I wonder what is the reason for the design of light wavelength conditions (monochromatic light, RB mixed light). I think that monochromatic light treatment, white light, and red-blue light mixed 1 treatment of this level is very insufficient for examining the growth of plants in tissue culture and the response to light quality.
In the light treatment experiment, the CO2 concentration condition in the culture vessel is very important. It is necessary to explain how air was circulated through the culture vessel.
When culturing plants using MS medium, stomatal opening and photosynthetic rate according to light conditions are very different from the response of soil conditions. There is no discussion on this part at all. In addition, the results of MS medium and soil according to light conditions are different. More discussion is needed on this
The discussion part is at the level of repeating the existing similar reports on the results. Discussion is needed in-depth.
There is a lack of new information or results for the reader.
Author Response
Response to reviewer comments
Manuscript ID: agronomy-2549603
Type of manuscript: Article
Title: Influence of white, red, blue, and combination of LED lights on in vitro multiplication of shoots, rooting, and acclimatization of Gerbera jamesonii cv. Shy Pink plants
The authors are thankful to anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on the manuscript and we have revised the manuscript in the light of the reviewer’s comments and incorporated all the corrections suggested by them. Corrections have been included in the revised manuscript in track change format. Following are the specific changes carried out in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer #2
Query # 1 – I wonder what is the reason for the design of the light wavelength conditions (monochromatic light, RB, mixed light). I think that monochromatic light treatment, white light, and red-blue light mixed 1 treatment and this level is very insufficient for examining the growth of the plants in tissue culture and the response to the light quality.
Answer: Earlier some experiments have been carried out on the effect of LED lights on Gerbera jamesonii cultivars. Based literature survey we have decided on the design of light wavelength conditions in our experiments.
Query # 2 – In the light treatment, the CO2 concentration condition in the culture vessel is very important. It is necessary to explain air circulated through the culture vessel.
Answer: We agree that aeration in a plant tissue culture vessel is an important issue, however, we have not carried out experiments in CO2-enriched conditions.
Query # 3 – When culturing plants using MS medium, stomatal opening, and photosynthetic rate according to light conditions are very different from the response of soil conditions. There is no discussion on this part at all. In addition, the results of MS medium and soil according to light conditions are different. More discussion is needed on this.
Answer: We revised the entire discussion sections and a discussion has been made on the above-mentioned subject.
Query # 4 – The discussion part is at the level of repeating similar reports on the results. Discussion is needed in depth.
Query # 5 – There is a lack of new information or results for the reader.
Answer: The discussion section has been revised thoroughly with proper interpretations in the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript still does not answer the issues raised previously on the Methodology.
Authors still failed to answer the following questions that I have put to them previously. Remember this part is very critical, and if left too flawed then it means that the results provided are not to be relied upon. Unfortunately, I would not recommend for publication a manuscript without clear description on the methodology, a very important part of the report.
For their benefit:
1. The MM failed to indicate how explants were sterilized/ decontaminated? No attempts or whatsoever were made to describe this and the conditions of the donor plant.
2. Authors said, ''The second set of experiments was conducted on root induction from shoot explants'' For starters, explants proliferate shoots and then the formed shoots are rooted. The statement is very wrong.
3. Immediately when one read that ''shoot regeneration/proliferation was calculated'' you expect to see the formula or the details of how this was determined.
4. How dry weights were determined still remains a mystery. Furthermore, Authors talk about ''dry weights of shoot regeneration cycle and rooted shoots'' again, what is the difference between regenerated shoots (plantlets with roots) and rooted shoots (regenerated plantlets with roots), or this refers to shoot and root system of regenerated individual plants separately???
The methodology is too summarized and in that case, the section has lost meaning. Remember you are not just reporting, but other researchers wherever they are should be able to reproduce this and still get similar findings. MM must be properly and accurately presented. Other sections of the manuscript are fine, but can be improved.
Can still be improved.
Author Response
Response to reviewer comments
Manuscript ID: agronomy-2549603-R1
Type of manuscript: Article
Title: Influence of white, red, blue, and combination of LED lights on in vitro multiplication of shoots, rooting, and acclimatization of Gerbera jamesonii cv. Shy Pink plants
The authors are thankful to anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on the manuscript and we have revised the manuscript in the light of the reviewer’s comments and incorporated all the corrections suggested by them. Corrections have been included in the revised manuscript in track change format. Following are the specific changes carried out in the revised manuscript.
Query #1 – The MM failed to indicate how explants were sterilized/decontaminated. No attempts or whatsoever were made to describe this and the conditions of the donor plants.
Answer: As mentioned in the introduction Gerbera jemesonii cv. Shy Pink which are propagated from seed has a high level of heterozygosity and possesses issues for the cut flower industry. Therefore, the National Institute of Horticultural and Herbal Research (NIHHS), Korea is supplying the plant material or base cultures which are tissue culture-generated plants.
The donor cultures (in vitro regenerated shoots) of Gerbera jemesonii cv. Shy Pink was procured from the National Institute of Horticultural and Herbal Research (NIHHS), Korea, and hence the process of sterilization of explants does not exist. This information is included in the materials and method section of the revised manuscript.
Query #2 – The second set of experiments was conducted on root induction from shoot explants. For starters, explants proliferate shoots, and then formed shoots are rooted. The statement is very wrong.
Answer: During micropropagation of Gerbera jemesonii cv. Shy Pink simultaneous shoot regeneration and rooting of shoots was not achieved. We regenerated shoots first on shoot induction medium (MS + 0.1 mg L-1 BA, 30 g L-1 sucrose) from shoot tip explants (shoot regeneration was achieved after 4 weeks of culture), and then shoots were individually sub-cultured on root induction medium (MS + 0.1 mg L-1 IBA, 30 g L-1 sucrose) for rooting of shoots (root regeneration was achieved after 4 weeks of culture). This information is presented distinctly in the protocol.
Query # 3. Immediately when one read that “shoot regeneration/proliferation was calculated” you expect to see a formula or details of how this was determined.
Answer: To avoid confusion the sentence is rephrased suitably.
Query # 4. How dry weights were determined still remains a mystery. Furthermore, the authors talk about “dry weights of shoot regeneration cycle and rooted shoots” again. What is the difference between regenerated shoots (plantlets with roots) and rooted shoots (regenerated plantlets with roots), or this refers to the shoot and root system of regenerated individual plants separately?
Answer: In our experiments, we measured the dry weight of shoots (after shoot regeneration on shoot induction medium – after shoot induction) and dry weight of plantlets (after root regeneration from shoots on rooting medium or regenerated plantlets with roots) separately. The data on the dry weight of shoots and/or the dry weight of the plantlets have been presented separately. The shoot or plantlet samples were dried in an oven (Sanyo, MoV-112V, Japan) at 65 oC until a constant weight was attained. Information on this has been represented in the materials and methods section.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I think the correction to the request has been reflected to some extent. However, You need to explain the environmental parameters other than temperature and humidity among the conditions for measuring photosynthetic factors (chamber temperature, flow rate, accurate CO2 concentration, etc.) using Li-6400. And, it is thought that the LI-6400 was not measured only once. Please express data as a continuous curve value. This is to see the tendency according to each treatment.
Author Response
Response to reviewer comments
Manuscript ID: agronomy-2549603-R1
Type of manuscript: Article
Title: Influence of white, red, blue, and combination of LED lights on in vitro multiplication of shoots, rooting, and acclimatization of Gerbera jamesonii cv. Shy Pink plants
The authors are thankful to anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on the manuscript and we have revised the manuscript in the light of the reviewer’s comments and incorporated all the corrections suggested by them. Corrections have been included in the revised manuscript in track change format. Following are the specific changes carried out in the revised manuscript.
Query – I think the correction to the request has been reflected to some extent. However, you need to explain the environmental parameters other than temperature and humidity among the conditions for measuring photosynthetic factors (Chamber temperature, flow rate, accurate CO2 concentration, etc.) using Li-6400. And, it was thought that the Li-6400 was not measured only once. Please express the data as a continuous curve value. This is to see the tendency according to each treatment.
Answer: The conditions within the leaf chamber of the portable photosynthesis measurement system were as follows: temperature 25 oC, 200 µmol m-2 s-1 PPFD, CO2 1,000 µmol m-2 s-1, and airflow rate 700 µmol s-1. However, we do not perform continuous curve value analysis.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have sufficiently improved the Manuscript. I have no further comments.
Thanks. Regards
