Inhibitory Effects of Blue Light-Emitting Diode Irradiation on Podosphaera xanthii Conidial Release and Infection of Melon Seedlings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work entitled "Inhibitory effects of blue light-emitting diode irradiation on Podosphaera xanthii conidial release and infection of melon seedlings" presents research aimed at the study of the effects of red and blue LED light on the morphology of conidia forming chains on conidiophores, melon seedling growth, and the spread of fungal diseases via secondary infection. The experiment is not complicated, it is a further work on previous study and has a certain degree of innovation, and got an interesting result, there are some major and minor revisions that need to be addressed or be done.

Point 1: In introduction line 65-71 highlighted in yellow, “In particular, KMP-6N colonies on melon leaves appeared flat under red light-emitting diode (LED) irradiation but not blue LED irradiation. ….” Maybe this was your previous conclusion, why this was the same with the result again?

Point 2: Line 65-71 highlighted in yellow, the “mechanisms” is not very relevant to this study and discussion (line 422-428…). in my opinion, the present study just examined the influence of red and blue LED irradiation on cotyle-don-stage seedling development, there was no further work with photoreceptors.

Point 3: Line 149 and 195-196 highlighted in yellow, why light intensity was different? According to what is the light intensity set?

Point 4: Line 155 highlighted in yellow, conidiophores were artificial attachment of conidiophores onto host leaves. Please write more detailed how to attach the conidiophores.

Point5: Line 344-345 and 348 highlighted in yellow, under growth chamber conditions, the disease did not surround the healthy melon seedlings (Fig.5 D).

Point 6: Line 210 highlighted in yellow, we all know both the wind speed and wind direction influence the liberation and dispersal of pathogenic spores, the differences of wind speed or direction probably promote or inhibit the dispersal of pathogenic spores, please explain why you set the speed 1.0 m·s ^–1? and both at the same speed, why only seedlings near the infected seedling showed symptoms under blue irradiation, but under chamber conditions, the disease did not surround the healthy melon seedlings (Fig.5 B and D).

Point 7: Line 218-227 highlighted in yellow, please show the picture or data relevant with the results in the manuscript.

Point 8: Line 271 highlighted in yellow, ‘Distribution’ is not appropriate, and please explain the meaning of different letters (line 274), especially from 8 to 15 in the axis.

Point 9: Line 299 highlighted in yellow, why the initial time of conidia liberated from the colonies was 6 h, even if so, why not between 4 and 6 h? And table 1 showed that at 2 h and 4 h, progeny conidia were appeared already, even though only partially.

Point 10: In table 1 and 2, “The number of conidia remained on conidiophores” change to “the irradiation time” will be much better.

Point 11: Line 318 highlighted in yellow, can’t understand both red and blue LED treatments inhibited fungal development.

Point 12: Line 350-353 highlighted in yellow, not the result of this section.

Point 13: Line 361 highlighted in yellow, please explain more detailed how to deal with the repeated five times experiments.

Point 12: In table 1, 2, 3 and fig. 4, 5, we could see, the results under blue LED irradiation conditions were similar with the results under growth chamber conditions, and at some point, under growth chamber conditions showed better inhibition effect, that needs to be comparatively discussed.

Point 13: I think parts of discussion needs to be rediscussed followed with the revised results.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer #1: The work entitled "Inhibitory effects of blue light-emitting diode irradiation on Podosphaera xanthii conidial release and infection of melon seedlings" presents research aimed at the study of the effects of red and blue LED light on the morphology of conidia forming chains on conidiophores, melon seedling growth, and the spread of fungal diseases via secondary infection. The experiment is not complicated, it is a further work on previous study and has a certain degree of innovation, and got an interesting result, there are some major and minor revisions that need to be addressed or be done.

 

Point 1: In introduction line 65-71 highlighted in yellow, “In particular, KMP-6N colonies on melon leaves appeared flat under red light-emitting diode (LED) irradiation but not blue LED irradiation. ….” Maybe this was your previous conclusion, why this was the same with the result again?

►Response to Point 1

As pointed out by Reviewer #1, this is our previous conclusion described by Suzuki et al. (2018). We described for having the readers understand the morphological changes of KMP-6M colonies under red and blue LED light irradiation in ‘Introduction’ section, again. Thus, we defined our purpose of study. In response to the result, we considered that we want to describe the clear differences of conidial releases between red and blue LED light irradiation. We rewrote the sentences indicated by Reviewer #1.

 

Point 2: Line 65-71 highlighted in yellow, the “mechanisms” is not very relevant to this study and discussion (line 422-428…). In my opinion, the present study just examined the influence of red and blue LED irradiation on cotyledon-stage seedling development, there was no further work with photoreceptors.

►Response to Point 2

As pointed out by Reviewer #1, we just described the influence of red and blue LED irradiation on melon cotyledon-stage seedling development in the present study. There is no further work with photoreceptors. Therefore, we deleted ‘mechanisms’ (line 72 in original manuscript) and the indicated parts (lines 422-428 in original manuscript) in “Discussion” section.  

 

Point 3: Line 149 and 195-196 highlighted in yellow, why light intensity was different? According to what is the light intensity set?

►Response to Point 3

The melon cotyledon-stage seedlings were positioned at a distance of 30 cm from the LEDs installed in the growth chamber. The light intensity was measured using an LI-250A light meter and recorded facing the light source, at the top of seedlings. However, it is very difficult to regulate similarly the intensity of a light between different LEDs. The differences of the values of light intensity are within the margin of error.

 

Point 4: Line 155 highlighted in yellow, conidiophores were artificial attachment of conidiophores onto host leaves. Please write more detailed how to attach the conidiophores.

►Response to Point 4

We wrote more detailed about how to attach the conidiophores as follows.

‘The single conidiophores were cut and collected with a tiny glass needle installed in a micromanipulator under the KH-2700, and inoculated artificially onto host leaves.’ (lines 171-173 in RM)

 

Point 5: Line 344-345 and 348 highlighted in yellow, under growth chamber conditions, the disease did not surround the healthy melon seedlings (Fig.5 D).

►Response to Point 5

Thank you for Reviewer’s indication.

We rewrote the sentence for misleading to the readers as follows.

‘… under blue light, with very little expansion of disease to the surrounding healthy melon seedlings, and growth chamber conditions, with little expansion of disease to the healthy melon seedlings.’ (lines 385-387 in RM)

In addition, we deleted the words ‘and growth chamber conditions’ (line 348 in original manuscript).

 

Point 6: Line 210 highlighted in yellow, we all know both the wind speed and wind direction influence the liberation and dispersal of pathogenic spores, the differences of wind speed or direction probably promote or inhibit the dispersal of pathogenic spores, please explain why you set the speed 1.0 m·s ^–1? and both at the same speed, why only seedlings near the infected seedling showed symptoms under blue irradiation, but under chamber conditions, the disease did not surround the healthy melon seedlings (Fig.5 B and D).

►Response

Of conidial release from powdery mildew colonies, we have already reported that the conidial cells of tomato powdery mildew pathogen (Pseudoidium neolycopersisi L. Kiss) were easily wind dispersed without forming pseudochains when conidiophores were exposed to winds (1.0 m s^-1), as described by Oichi et al. (2006). Therefore, in the present study, we set the same wind speed 1.0 m s^-1 for examining the infection spread of powdery mildew fungi. We added the reference ‘[39]’ (Oich et al. 2006) after ‘1.0 m s^-1’ (line 229).

 

KMP-6N colonies were initially observed on the leaves of healthy melon seedlings at ~12 days under blue light, with very little expansion of disease to the surrounding healthy melon seedlings, and growth chamber conditions, with little expansion of disease to the healthy melon seedlings.  Thus, in actual experiment, the spread of powdery mildew to healthy melon seedlings differed between blue LED irradiation and growth chamber condition. In my opinion, white light (380 to 700 nm) used in growth chambers includes red spectra (620–750 nm; peak, 660 nm) as well as blue spectra (450–495 nm; peak, 450 nm). Therefore, the red spectra may be involved in the conidial scattering. In addition, progeny conidia may be easy to remove from the top of conidiophores under white light, compared to blue LED light only, and to spread around the healthy melon seedlings. However, at the present stage, we do not know detailedly about the differences of the infection spread between both conditions. In addition, we want to avoid the self claimed description or descriptive nature in text, as indicated by other Reviewers #2 and #3. In next experiment, we will analyse the differences of the infection spread of melon powdery mildew KMP-6N between white and blue light irradiations. Please understand our suggestion.

 

Point 7: Line 218-227 highlighted in yellow, please show the picture or data relevant with the results in the manuscript.

►Response to Point 7

The data relevant with the results (fungal developments under irradiation by red and blue LED lights), pointed out by Reviewer #1, were already reported by Suzuki et al. (2018) [29]. We reconfirmed the fungal developments under both LED light irradiations in the present study and then described the processes in the text for readers to understand the fungal developmental processes. Therefore, we judged that the picture data do not need because the data will be duplicated. Please understand our suggestion and refer the data described by Suzuki et al. (2018).   

 

Point 8: Line 271 highlighted in yellow, ‘Distribution’ is not appropriate, and please explain the meaning of different letters (line 274), especially from 8 to 15 in the axis.

►Response to Point 8

We replaced ‘Distribution’ to ‘Frequency distribution’ in RM. (line 307)

We added the sentences (lines 310-312) and words (line 313) to explain the meaning of different letters and ‘from 8 to 15 in the axis’ in RM as follows.

‘The numbers in the axis mean number of conidia piled in chains on conidiophores. KMP-6N did not pile more than eight conidia in chains on conidiophores under red LED light irradiation while piled under blue LED light irradiation.’

‘Different letters (a and b) indicate significant differences (p<0.05, Tukey’s test).’

 

Point 9: Line 299 highlighted in yellow, why the initial time of conidia liberated from the colonies was 6 h, even if so, why not between 4 and 6 h? And table 1 showed that at 2 h and 4 h, progeny conidia were appeared already, even though only partially.

►Response

Thank you for your advice. We corrected ‘6 h’ to ‘between 2 and 4 h’ in RM.

 

Point 10: In table 1 and 2, “The number of conidia remained on conidiophores” change to “the irradiation time” will be much better.

►Response to Point 10

Thank you for your advice. I changed “The number of conidia collected from single colonies” in Table 1 and “The number of conidia remained on conidiophores” in Table 2 to “The irradiation time”, respectively.

 

Point 11: Line 318 highlighted in yellow, can’t understand both red and blue LED treatments inhibited fungal development.

►Response to Point 11

We deleted ‘, both of which inhibited fungal development,’ (lines 317-318 in original manuscript). 

 

Point 12: Line 350-353 highlighted in yellow, not the result of this section.

►Response to Point 12

We deleted the sentences (lines 350-353 in original manuscript), because the sentences are not the result of this section.

 

Point 13: Line 361 highlighted in yellow, please explain more detailed how to deal with the repeated five times experiments.

►Response to Point 13

We added the explanation more detail as follows about the parts pointed out by Reviewer #1.

‘The fungal colonies appeared on leaves of cotyledon-stage seedlings at 21 days after treatments were checked with photographs and eyes. Each experiment was replicated five times, and the distribution of the infection spread included all data of five times at 21 days after treatments.’ (lines 400-403 in RM)

 

Point 14: In table 1, 2, 3 and fig. 4, 5, we could see, the results under blue LED irradiation conditions were similar with the results under growth chamber conditions, and at some point, under growth chamber conditions showed better inhibition effect, that needs to be comparatively discussed.

►Response to Point 14

We described comparatively the differences of inhibition effects between under blue LED irradiation conditions and growth chamber conditions in ‘Discussion’ section (i.e. lines 488-491). The results under blue LED irradiation were close to those under growth chamber conditions in Table 1 and 2. However, the results under blue LED irradiation were different from those under growth chamber conditions in Table 3, and Figs 4 and 5. Especially, we discussed about the differences between both conditions in Table 3, and Figs 4 and 5. Please see the parts in ‘Discussion’ section in RM.   

 

Point 15: I think parts of discussion needs to be rediscussed followed with the revised results. ►Response to Point 15

We rediscussed with the revised results and rewrote the parts in the ‘Discussion’ section in RM as pointed out by Reviewer #1. Please see the parts in ‘Discussion’ section in RM.

Reviewer 2 Report

The MS is well written. The topic is interesting but has a descriptive nature. Furthermore, I miss a future plan from the end of the conclusions on how the authors want to improve/supplement the plant nursery systems with blue light that could be effective against powdery mildew infections. 

Author Response

Reviewer #2: The MS is well written. The topic is interesting but has a descriptive nature. Furthermore, I miss a future plan from the end of the conclusions on how the authors want to improve/supplement the plant nursery systems with blue light that could be effective against powdery mildew infections.

►Response

Thank you for your comments.

We rewrote original manuscript without having the descriptive nature, similarly pointed out by Reviewer #3.

In the present study, we examined the infection spreads of melon powdery mildew isolate KMP-6N to healthy host seedlings under greenhouse and growth chamber conditions, and red and blue LED light irradiations. Consequently, we clarified the inhibition effect of blue LED light irradiation on conidial releases from conidiophores and infection spreads from powdery mildew-infected melon seedlings. Of course, still more, we need to improve/supplement the melon nursery systems with blue LED light for controlling effectively and eco-friendly the melon powdery mildews. On the basis of the results obtained in the present study, in the future, we need to examine more detailed how to shine blue LED light, light intensity and time irradiated to healthy host seedlings.

In RM, we rewrote the sentences of the end of the conclusions in ‘Conclusions’ section, because  readers including Reviewers #2 seem to miss our future plan for eco-friendly controlling melon powdery mildews with blue LED light.

‘Future studies will analyse the expression of genes related to non-constriction between conidial cells at the tops of conidiophores, caused by blue light irradiation. ’ (lines 537-539 in RM)

Reviewer 3 Report

The current manuscript need few revisions. The reviewer suggested few comments in attached file. 

Here one point should revise in whole manuscript - author and team mentioned about white light irradiation but in manuscript only discussed about red or blue light while lacking the data about control and its pictures of control treatment 

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Reviewer #3: The current manuscript need few revisions. The reviewer suggested few comments in attached file.

Here one point should revise in whole manuscript - author and team mentioned about white light irradiation but in manuscript only discussed about red or blue light while lacking the data about control and its pictures of control treatment

►Response

Thank you for your comments.

At first, we already reported about the treatments (under greenhouse and growth chamber conditions) as control by Suzuki et al. (2018) [29]. In the present study, we mainly described the effects of red and blue LED lights on the fungal developments and growths of cotyledonal seedlings. Suzuki et al. (2018) showed the data and pictures of the control treatments, as well as those of red and blue LED light irradiations to KMP-6N; pictures of mycelia and conidiophores, data of germination rates, hyphal length, colony area and colony lengths. Please see the reference. In addition, please understand our suggestion.

In addition, we described comparatively the differences of effects between under blue LED irradiation conditions and growth chamber conditions in ‘Discussion’ section, similarly pointed out by Reviewer #1.

 

A1: Please rewrite this line here author and team should the urgency of the current research work – what was main reason to start this study

►Response to A1

We rewrote the lines (lines 20-22 in original manuscript) indicated by Reviewer #3 in ‘Abstract’ section in revised manuscript (RM).  

‘Powdery mildew fungi infect plant leaves, reducing the yield of infected melon plants. Therefore, an eco-friendly method of controlling powdery mildew in melon plants needs to be developed.’ (lines 20-22 in RM)

 

A2: The current study

Please replace the word ‘we’ with ‘The current study/ The present study’.

(Ethically, consider readers as prime customers of manuscript and write sentences in a third person manner. Please don’t use the term ‘I’, ‘we’, ‘my’ or ‘our’ in manuscript.)

►Response to A2

Thank you for your advice. I replaced the terms ‘I’, ‘we’, ‘my’ or ‘our’ etc. in original manuscript with ‘The current study/ The present study’ etc. in the RM.

 

A3: Abstract should contain follows points

1. What was the urgency of current research work – 2 to 3 lines only?
2. What was the test of hypothesis and methodology – 3-4 lines only?
3. What was the main outcome of the result – 2-3 lines only where quantify the values in brackets, write only positive events?
4. Finally what was the way forward for future research in continuation of current research work – 2-3 lines only?

►Response to A3

Thank you for your kind comments.

We rewrote the ‘Abstract’ section in the RM, as indicated by Reviewer #3.  

‘Powdery mildew fungi infect plant leaves, reducing the yield of infected melon plants. Therefore, an eco-friendly method of controlling powdery mildew in melon plants needs to be developed. A previous study described that morphological characteristics of conidiophores of the melon powdery mildew fungus Podosphaera xanthii Pollacci (designated KMP-6N) grown under greenhouse (natural) conditions and red light-emitting diode (LED) irradiation differed from those grown under growth chamber condition and blue LED irradiation. In the present study, conidio-phores with the unconstricted conidia under blue light were collected and inoculated onto host leaves through micromanipulation; the unconstricted conidia germinated and infected the leaves, producing vigorously elongated hyphae. The numbers of conidia collected and the initial times of conidial release from single colonies, and the number of conidia remaining in chains on conidio-phores were examined with electrostatic techniques. Under red light, the number of collected co-nidia gradually increased with the light irradiation period; initial conidial release occurred at between 2 to 4 h; the number of conidia remaining on conidiophores gradually decreased and eventually conidiophore lengths became shorter. In contrast, under blue light, few conidia were collected at any given time; the number of conidia on conidiophores gradually increased and eventually conidiophore lengths became longer. Next, the effects of red and blue light on the spread of powdery mildew infection by placing a KMP-6N-infected melon seedling at the centre of a tray containing healthy melon seedlings were examined. Almost all of healthy seedlings caused powdery mildew symptoms at ca. 21 days after red light irradiation, whereas only healthy seedlings near the infected seedlings caused the symptoms after blue light irradiation. Thus, the spread of melon powdery mildew infection clearly differed between red and blue light irradiation. This is the first report describing the effects of red and blue light on the spread of P. xanthii infection from a single infected seedling to healthy host seedlings; their results provide insight into the ecological mechanisms of powdery mildew conidial scatter from conidiophores.’ (lines 20-43 in RM)

 

A4: Please use reference of previous work – avoid self claimed work in manuscript

►Response to A4

I avoided self claimed work in the RM, followed by indication of Reviewer #3.

 

A5: Please revise the introduction section with following points

1. What was the urgency of current research work? – Quantify what is economical loss due to Powdery Mildew in Melon in Japan and other part of world. Then what is significance in future controlled polyhouse farming, etc
2. What did previous work done which current hypothesis was constructed? – quantify in brief what was happened in previous research.
3. What was the test of hypothesis which need to analysed in this study and main strategy of current research experimentation? – what was theory behind the blue light irradiation and what are expectation from the current study
4. What were the main research objectives on which the current manuscript was based on?

►Response to A5

1. What was the urgency of current research work? – We described at lines 48-60 in the RM.
2. What did previous work done which current hypothesis was constructed? – We described at lines 67-87 and lines 100-104 in the RM.
3. What was the test of hypothesis which need to analysed in this study and main strategy of current research experimentation? – We described at lines 87-100 in RM.
4. What were the main research objectives on which the current manuscript was based on? – We described at lines 104-118 in the RM.

 

A6: Please add the experimental duration in month and year

►Response to A6

We added the experimental duration in month and year in ‘2.1. Plant materials’, pointed out by Reviewer #3.

‘The present study was conducted at experimental duration from April in 2020 to November in 2021.’ (lines 140-141)

 

A7: Please mention these seeds were from private company or Public sector released varieties or hybrid and suitable for which type agroclimatic conditions.

►Response to A7

Melon seeds used in this study are F1 hybrid plants derived from a cross between Natsukei-1 gou and Natsukei-4 gou. Therefore, the seeds are not purchased from private company or Public sector. The melon seeds were obtained by mating between melon strains from Experimental Farm, private University (Kindai University, Wakayama). I added ‘F1 hybrid plants derived from a cross between Natsukei-1 gou and Natsukei-4 gou’ in the RM. (lines 121-122)    

 

A8: Please add the geographical coordinates of experimental site (latitude, longitude and altitude)

►Response to A8

As pointed out by Reviewer #3, I added latitude, longitude and altitude of Experimental farm in the RM (lines 123-124).

 

A9: The current study

►Response to A9

Done

 

A10: Please add the source of this fungal strain and accession number – so that if any researcher wish to obtain then can contact respective institute

►Response to A10

We added ‘the source of strain’ in the RM (line 143). The fungal strain was isolated from powdery mildew-infected melon plants in our greenhouse as described previously by Takikawa et al. (2015) [23]. Also, the strain does not have a specific accession number. Please contact to me, if any researchers wish to obtain the fungal strain. Voucher material of the KMP-6N fungus is preserved in the Herbarium Preservation Section of Kindai University (Nara, Japan). (lines 153-154 in RM)

 

A11: Delete these words – not needed

►Response to A11

We deleted these words ‘as previously described’ in the RM.

 

A12: The current study

►Response to A12

Done

 

A13: Please add a paragraph about statistical analysis used this study

Also what was statistical software used for the analysis of this pictorial data and other analysis with valid reference

►Response to A13

We added a paragraph about statistical analysis used in the present study.

‘2.7. Statistical analysis

All experimental data are presented as means ± standard deviations. Using EZR software version 1.54 (Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan), Tukey’s test was performed to identify significant differences among conditions, as indicated in the figure and table legends.’ (lines 235-239)

 

At parts (lines 212-214 in original manuscript) indicated by Reviewer #3, we do not use statistical software for analysis of the pictorial data and other analysis with valid reference. Therefore, we added the explanation more detail about the same parts pointed out by Reviewer #1.

‘Finally, the fungal colonies appeared on leaves of cotyledon-stage seedlings at 21 days after treatments were checked with photographs and eyes.’ (lines 233-234)

 

In addition, we added the sentence in legends of Fig. 5 as follows, the same to question indicated by Reviewer #1.

‘Each experiment was replicated five times, and the distribution of the infection spread included all data of five times at 21 days after treatments. ’ (lines 402-403)

 

A14: Please revise this section – here author and team not included the result data of control (white light) and no picture of fungal growth under control treatment

►Response to A14

The result data of control (white light) and picture of fungal growth under control treatments, pointed out by Reviewer #3, had already reported by Suzuki et al. (2018) [29]. In the present study, we mainly focused on the data of morphological changes of KMP-6N conidiophores under red and blue LED irradiation. Therefore, we judged that the picture data (taken at the same conditions as controls) do not need because the data will be duplicated. Please understand our suggestion and refer the data described by Suzuki et al. (2018).

 

Author and team should mark on each picture of respective treatment – either write red LED/ Blue LED/ Control LED or any abbreviation so that reader can easily understand

►Response

We marked with abbreviation (red LED or blue LED) in each picture of respective treatment, so that reader can easily understand.

 

There was one data missing – author and team should make one more treatment where use both blue and red LED simultaneously which may give more significant data

►Response

Thank you for your comments.

As indicated by Reviewer #3, the result data of treatment where use simultaneously both red and blue LEDs may give more significant data for elucidating the mechanisms of conidial release. However, in the present study, as the preliminary work, we needed to understand detailedly morphological changes of KMP-6N treated individually with red LED or blue LED. In future, we will try to compare the differences of conidial release from conidiophores between individual and simultaneous LED irradiations with red LED and blue LEDs. Therefore, at present, we want to compare the morphological changes of KNP-6N conidiophores under each LED irradiation. We will show the data under simultaneous LED irradiations in the next research work. Please understand our suggestion.

 

A15: Please add the bar diagram of control light also in this picture 2 diagram

►Response to A15

The bar diagram of control light (under greenhouse and growth chamber conditions) and also in this picture 2 diagram were already reported by Suzuki et al. (2018) [29]. Therefore, we judged that the data do not need to be put because the data will be duplicated. Please refer the control data, described with the same data style and scale (bar diagram and pictures) by Suzuki et al. (2018) [29].   

 

A16: Here picture under control light missing – please add if available or justify why control pictures are not here

►Response to A16

The pictures of control light (under greenhouse and growth chamber conditions) were already reported by Suzuki et al. (2018) [29]. Therefore, we judged that the data do not need to be put because the data will be duplicated. Please refer the pictures of control light, put with the same picture style by Suzuki et al. (2018) [29]. Here, especially, we compared conidial germination, hyphal elongation, and fungal developments between KMP-6N conidiophores under red and blue LED irradiation, and clarified the characteristics of conidia in chains on conidiophores irradiated with blue LED. Please understand our suggestion.

 

A17: Please add the data of control LED treatment

►Response to A17

We added the description of the data of control LED treatment in ‘3.2. Conidia collection from colonies and conidiophores under red or blue LED irradiation’ in ‘Results’ section, pointed out by Reviewer #3. In addition, please see the Table 1 and 2 about value data of control LED treatment (under greenhouse and growth chamber conditions). 

 

A18: The current study

►Response to A18

Done

 

A19: the

►Response to A19

Done

 

A20: The current study

►Response to A20

Done

 

A21: The present study

►Response to A21

Done

 

A22: The previous study

►Response to A22

Done

 

A23: The current study

►Response to A23

Done

 

A24: The present study also

►Response to A24

Done

 

A25: The previous study

►Response to A25

Done

 

A26: The current study

►Response to A26

Done

 

A27: The current study

►Response to A27

Done

 

A28: The current study

►Response to A28

Done

 

A29: The current study

►Response to A29

Done

 

A30: The current study

►Response to A30

Done

 

A31: Please revise which next experiment????

►Response to A31

We replaced ‘In the next experiment, we …’ with ‘From this knowledge, next, the efforts of …’ in RM. (lines 461-462)

 

A32: Previous

►Response to A32

Done

 

A33: The current study

►Response to A33

Done

 

A34: The current study

►Response to A34

Done

 

A35: Concluded

►Response to A35

Done

 

A36, A37: The current study

►Response to A36 and A37

Done

 

A38: Altogether the current study

►Response to A38

Done

 

A39: Indicated

►Response to A39

Done

 

A40: Please write this line at the end of discussion section as the way forward for the future research in continuation of current research work

►Response to A40

We transferred this line (lines 455-457 in original manuscript) to the end of ‘Discussion’ section and rewrote as the way forward for the future research. (lines 515-519)

 

A41: The previous study reported

►Response to A41

Done

 

A42: Please rewrite these lines as inference is misleading

►Response to A42

We rewrote these lines (lines 466-471 in original manuscript) by following the instructions of Reviewer #3. (lines 506-509)

 

A43: Please rewrite these lines

First of all avoid self claimed statements – whatever write it must be with valid reference

Author and team can suggest the future research in continuation of current research outcome

►Response to A43

Thank you for your advice. I avoided self claimed statements in the RM. In addition, we rewrote these lines (lines 472-480 in original manuscript) by following Reviewer’s instructions. (lines 510-519)

 

A44: Please don’t repeat inference as discussed in result and discussion section.

Here please revise conclusion with following points

1. What was the key research outcome in 2-3 lines only?
2. What was the take home message of the result outcome to readers?
3. What is the way forward for future research in continuation of current research findings?

►Response

Thank you for your kindness. We rewrote these lines (lines 482-502 in original manuscript) by following Reviewer’s instructions. (lines 521-539) 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Consider receiving this article if there are no other problems with the language and grammar