The Effect of Light Availability on Photosynthetic Responses of Four Aglaonema commutatum Cultivars with Contrasting Leaf Pigment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the current manuscript Hui et al. investigate the effect of light intensity in four Aglaonema cultivars, finding correlation between photosynthetic pigments and net photosynthesis.

Manuscript could be improved with the data of light intensity, in both, light and shade at which plants were kept.

Also, a more detail explanation of protein and reducing sugar relation with stress could be done.

Quality of all figures must be enhanced. Caption of figure 4 needs a detailed explanation. In this figure also, it seems that correlations with carotenoids, anthocyanins and total chlorophyll was done with L, a and b parameters of the colorimetric assay, but not with the obtained concentration of this pigments. If so, it is necessary to explain why not to use pigment concentrations for correlations. In addition, correlations analysis showing specific results for shade and sun treatments could be more informative.

 

Discussion and conclusion could be improved with relevant information in the same or other species particularly attending the biological significance of the results. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

The manuscript has been revised carefully according to constructive comments and suggestions of you. We hope this revised manuscript can fit with the acceptable standard for Applied Sciences. We would like to express our hearted gratitude to you for your constructive comments and suggestions that really improved the manuscript greatly. Please see the following point-to-point answers with the marked-up manuscript version. 

Reviewer #1:

Comments to the author

1. In the current manuscript Hui et al. investigate the effect of light intensity in four Aglaonema cultivars, finding correlation between photosynthetic pigments and net photosynthesis.Manuscript could be improved with the data of light intensity, in both, light and shade at which plants were kept.

Response: Thanks for your comments. We added the light intensity as suggested (please refer to Materials and methods L106-107)

2. Also, a more detail explanation of protein and reducing sugar relation with stress could be done.

Response: Thanks for your comments. We detailed a bit more these two indices (please refer to L193to L198)

3. Quality of all figures must be enhanced.

Response: Thanks for your comments. We improved all figures as suggested and uploaded individually with high resolution.

4. Caption of figure 4 needs a detailed explanation. In this figure also, it seems that correlations with carotenoids, anthocyanins and total chlorophyll was done with L, a and b parameters of the colorimetric assay, but not with the obtained concentration of this pigments. If so, it is necessary to explain why not to use pigment concentrations for correlations. In addition, correlations analysis showing specific results for shade and sun treatments could be more informative.

Response: Thanks for your comments. In fact, what we conduct in correlation as shown in Figure 4 are the content of pigments (carotenoids, anthocyanins and total chlorophylls), of course, they well correlated to L, a and b parameters. To avoid such misunderstanding, we revised these items. Besides, all parameters were specified by shade and sun treatments as your suggestion. (Please refer to Figure 4)

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

The manuscript has been revised carefully according to constructive comments and suggestions of you. We hope this revised manuscript can fit with the acceptable standard for Applied Sciences. We would like to express our hearted gratitude to you for your constructive comments and suggestions that really improved the manuscript greatly. Please see the following point-to-point answers with the marked-up manuscript version. 

Reviewer # 2:

The present article, entitled "The effect of light availability on photosynthetic responses of four Aglaonema commutatum cultivars with contrasting leaf pigment," is well written and within the scope of this journal. I will recommend this article for publication in this journal, but not in its present form. This paper needs minor revisions, after which it can be accepted for publication. The concerns are as follows:

1. The author should revise the abstract. Abstract is very complex.

Response: Thanks for your comments. We have revised the abstract. (Please refer to L15 to L30)

2. Introduction is too short and needs to be provided more details mainlyeffects of light on photosynthesis.

Response: Thanks for your comments. We have revised the introduction to provide a bit more details, mainly on the effect of light on photosynthesis. (Please refer to L48 to L62)

3. Materials should provide in Materials and Methods section.

Response: Thanks for your comments. We have added ‘materials’ section as your suggestion. (Please refer to L88 to L94)

4. Recheck the unit of each parameter in graph.

Response: Thanks for your comments. We have rechecked the units of each parameter for all figures.

5. The conclusion should be revised to show the outstanding point of thiswork and also add future recommendation

Response: Thanks for your comments. We have modified the conclusions to show the salient points of this work.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The work sought to show the effect of leaf shape and color on photosynthetic activity, promoted by light curves and other interesting measures such as concentration of photosynthetic pigments, proteins and reducing sugars. The work is very poor, the results probably misinterpreted, the discussion very short and the quality of the images very poor, not making up the 300 DPIs that are minimum requirements to be published in Appl Sci MDPI. Photosynthesis values are certainly wrong or expressed on a different basis than shown in the graphs. The methodology is not clear. In other words, the manuscript should not be accepted before a strong review of the suggestions made in the body of the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

The manuscript has been revised carefully according to constructive comments and suggestions of you. We hope this revised manuscript can fit with the acceptable standard for Applied Sciences. We would like to express our hearted gratitude to you for your constructive comments and suggestions that really improved the manuscript greatly. Please see the following point-to-point answers with the marked-up manuscript version. All figures are above 400 dpi and uploaded individually. The line numbers are abbreviated by L followed by the line number and always placed after the comment.

Reviewer # 3:

Comments to the author

1 Applsci-2152036-review-3Line 18 change by composition

Response:  Thanks for your comments. We have revised this.

2 Applsci-2152036-review-3L 73 As the shape of the leaf seems to be one of the ornamental attractions of the species, it would be interesting to show a photo comparing the different types of leaf, especially if the leaves are variegated. Pl, add this photo with scale.

Response:  Thanks for your comments. As suggestion, we added two scale bars in Figure 1A.

3 Applsci-2152036-review-3 L 77-78 now I think I understand, there are 10plants, why were 5 in full sun and 5 in shade? If so, this information must come before informing that there are 10 repetitions per cultivar.

Response:  Thanks for your comments. The cultivars were arranged in a randomized complete block design with five replicates for each treatment. (Please refer to L93-94)

4 Applsci-2152036-review-3L 88 pl, verify the reference list, This reference was incorrectly cited. See Appl Sci templates

Response:  Thanks for your comments. We rectified this reference. (Please refer to L113)

5 Applsci-2152036-review-3 L 95 change by absorbance

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it.

6 Applsci-2152036-review-3 L 99 A. commutatum

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in italic A. commutatum.

7 Applsci-2152036-review-3 L105-107 In the first appearance, write the full name of each abbreviation

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised them all. 

8 Applsci-2152036-review-3 L110 in itatic

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it in italic A. commutatum.

9 Applsci-2152036-review-3 L 115-116 please check these units, they seem wrong to me

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised them: Gas flow rate into the leaf chamber 500µmolŸs⁻¹, sample chamber CO₂ concentration 400 µmolŸmol⁻¹. (Please refer to L141)

10 Applsci-2152036-review-3 L116 180 sec; and the maximum wait time was 300

Response:  Thanks for your comments. When measuring the value of the optical response curve, the instrument automatically keeps counting, and the minimum waiting time of the instrument is 180 sec and the maximum waiting time is 300 sec for each value measurement. This parameter is set by the instrument vendor so that the numerical error can be reduced. (Please refer to L141-144)

11 Applsci-2152036-review-3 L117-118 in decrescent or crescent order?

Response: Thanks for your comments.It is in decrescent order. 

12 Applsci-2152036-review-3 L212-122 please describe better the software. The company, city, country, free of download or to purchase Photosynthesis Model Simulation Software (PMSS)

Response: Thanks for your comments. YE, Zi-Piao. Jinggangshan University, Ji’an, Jiangxi, China, free of charge. (Please refer to L148-149)

Cf. Ye ZP, Yu Q (2008). A coupled model of stomatal conductance and photosynthesis for winter wheat. Photosynthetica, 46, 637–640.

13 Applsci-2152036-review-3 L124-126 There are many models to explain light curves. Recently several articles were published in s special issue of Plant, Cell & Environment. I suggest the use of one of this spreasheet.

-‘http://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12641” ttps://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12641

-https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12560

Response: Thanks for your comments. The PMSS model is also a classical model, which we think is better fit into our data.

14 Applsci-2152036-review-3 L133- 142 This is not results instead material and methods.

Response: Thanks for your comments. It is a bit ‘methodish’, but serving a connecting link to the following result to avoid an abruptness.

15 Applsci-2152036-review-3 L143  What would be expected, in the view of the authors, that was not confirmed?

Response: Thanks for your comments. Before we approached this experiment, we expected a light induced pigments accumulation as other studies reported, however the reverse is true.

16 Applsci-2152036-review-3 L 154 I suggest change mg g^-1 to b kg^-1 as recommended the international rules. Please enlarge this picture, the print quality is very poor.

Response:  Thanks for your comments. The corresponding changes have been made, thanks for the suggestion. We had no clue why you got a poor quality in figures as we checked the resolution of all figures and they are above 400 dpi. Anyway, we improved them again.

17Applsci-2152036-review-3 L165-166 • All abbreviations must be presented followed by the full name the first time. Even though a list of abbreviations was presented at the end of the manuscript, it has to be inserted at the beginning of the manuscript or immediately next to the first citation. This way of writing violates the Appl Sci Instructions for Authors Acronyms/Abbreviations/Initialisms should be defined the first time they appear in each of three sections: the abstract; the main text; the first figure or table. When defined for the first time, the acronym/abbreviation/initialism should be added in parentheses after the written-out form

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised them.

18 Applsci-2152036-review-3 L 170 soluble protein and reducing sugars are stress markers? Please add a reference

Response: Thanks for your comments. We added references as suggested. (Please refer to L198)

Inoue T，Inanaga S，Sugimoto Y，et al． Contribution of pre-anthesis assimilates and current photosynthesis to grain yield，and their relationships to drought resistance in wheat cultivars grownunder different soil moisture［J］Photosynthetica, 2004, 42( 1): 99-104．

19 Applsci-2152036-review-3 L171-175 Please describe values too (Figure 2B).

Response: Thanks for your comments. As suggested, we extended content for Figure 2B. (Please refer to L198-203)

20 Applsci-2152036-review-3 L177 Figure 2 As recommended by SI, change the units cm^-2g^-1 to m^-2kg^-1; gcm² to kgm². The use of mgg^-1 bring a very low values. Pl use the SI recommendation

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised them as suggested. (Please refer to Figure 2)

21 Applsci-2152036-review-3 L186 μmol‧m ^-2 ‧s ^-1 This unit is wrong; the correct is micromoles photons m^-2s^-1

Response: Thanks for your comments. The manual of the instrument used PPFD is also expressed in this unit, and there is no mistake. Photosynthetic Photon Flux Density (PPFD) corresponds to the number of micromoles per square meter per second radiated by the light source in μmol‧m -2 ‧s -1, which is the concept of density.

Please see the following paper where the units of PPFD are also used μmol‧m -2 ‧s -1

https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12560

http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/347461 

Gao S, Liu X, Liu Y, et al. Response of growth, photosynthetic electron transfer, and chloroplast ultrastructure to different LED light combination in green onion (Allium fistulosum L.)[J]. Physiologia plantarum, 2021, 172(3): 1662-1672

Jiang Z, Liao K, Niu Y, et al. Differences in Light Response Curve and CO2 Response Curve of Korla Fragrant Pear Trees in Different Training Systems[J]. Agricultural Science & Technology, 2016, 17(8): 1762.

Kitao M, Harayama H, Yazaki K, et al. Photosynthetic and growth responses in a pioneer tree (Japanese white birch) and competitive perennial weeds (Eupatorium sp.) grown under different regimes with limited water supply to waterlogging[J]. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2022, 13: 835068.

22 Applsci-2152036-review-3 L200 Figure 3.Revise this values. In my long experience with plant physiology, I can guarantee that these plants, with this photosynthetic capacity, are on the threshold between life and death due to stress. These values are certainly wrong or expressed in units different from what appears in the graph. Double check please

Response: Thanks for your comments. The photosynthesis-related values of this plant do look like this in the figure, and we have written the measured values truthfully. This plant is often placed indoors for ornamental purposes, and from its cultivation environment, the stronger the light intensity, the better the leaves show color. In addition, previous researches also gain similar data in A. commutatum.

(Cf. Di Benedetto A H, Cogliatti D H. Effects of light intensity and light quality on the obligate shade plant Aglaonema commutatum. II. Photosynthesis and dry-matter partitioning [J]. Journal of Horticultural Science, 1990, 65(6): 699-705

Luo Niangshui. Study on Leaf Photosynthetic Characteristic and Cold Resistance of Some Cultivars of Aglaonema commutatun [D]. Zhongkai University of Agriculture and Engineering, 2014)

23 Table 1. Ф Describe this features

Response: Thanks for your comments. Ф is Apparent quantum yield

24 Applsci-2152036-review-3 L232-233 This figure is very different from the figures usually presented for correlations, so it should be better described. I couldn’t understand what these gray and orange arrows are. Furthermore, with probably wrong values of the units described above, the correlations will also be wrong. Please double check

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised the figure legend. The values of the units did not influence the correlation output. (Please refer to Figure 4 )

25 Applsci-2152036-review-3 L239 The values presented by [23] is very different from this presented in this manuscript.

Response: Thanks for your comments.This literature is cited to illustrate the effects of high irradiance on growth and physiology in plants grown under low light conditions.

26 Applsci-2152036-review-3 L243-245 Expeculative, This manuscript did not study the grama stacking. Please remove

Response: Thanks for your comments. This is simply an illustration of a study that found that shade-tolerant plants have evolved shade-tolerant chloroplasts with higher and wider granular chloroplast accumulations to maintain moderate photosynthetic rates at low irradiance, which proved the association between Chl and photosynthetic rates. Therefore, we still think it make sense.

27 Applsci-2152036-review-3 L247 The authors did not show any measurements to infer photoinhibition or photodamage

Response: Thanks for your comments. Here we aimed to elicit the putative logic how come the ACNs highly correlated with photosynthesis rate when shade tolerant plants is under high irradiance: extra ACNs protects them from photodamage thereby stabilizing a modest photosynthetic rate even though shade-tolerant plants have more severe photodamage limiting photosynthesis. It has nothing to do with the study of photoinhibition at all.

28 Applsci-2152036-review-3 L264 vacuoles

Response: Thanks for your comments. We revised it.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

There are some scientific names without italic. Pl, double check in entire document

I insist that the first part of the first paragraph of the results be translocated to material and methods because this is not a research result

I didn't find this correction as suggested in V1 version: “Response: Thanks for your comments. We added references as suggested. (Please refer to L198)”

In figure 2, please change kg . 1000 kg-1 to g kg-1.

“Response: Thanks for your comments. The manual of the instrument used PPFD is also expressed in this unit, and there is no mistake. Photosynthetic Photon Flux Density (PPFD) corresponds to the number of micromoles per square meter per second radiated by the light source in μmol‧m -2 ‧s -1, which is the concept of density.” This is wrong because micromoles of what? it could be micromoles of sugar, or micromoles of water, but the correct is micromoles photons m-2 s-1. Pl, change it

Why is fi so low? Can this value not be transformed to a slightly lower unit of measurement to increase these values? Remember that this is the standard accepted by the SI and the one presented differs from the standard

I insist that the text between lines 243-245 must be deleted. This topic was not addressed in the article and, as it is just an example or even speculative data, it should be removed.

As recommended in Instruction for authors in the Appl Sci: “Acronyms / Abbreviations / Initialisms should be defined the first time they appear in each of three sections: the abstract; the main text; the first figure or table. When defined for the first time, the acronym/abbreviation/initialism should be added in parentheses after the written-out form.” So, I insist that abbreviations be inserted throughout the text, always the first time they appear in the text, a list of abbreviations does not seem adequate to Appl Sci, Instruction for authors nor to me.

 

As suggested in version R1. The values presented by [23, now 29] are very different from this shown in this manuscript. Please revise. The authors simply ignored my revision