Regeneration of African Violet in Response to Light Quality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1 The title should be revised to the effect of light quality on  leaf-cutting of African violet; 

2 The experimental design was too simple;

3 The experimental design has no highlights;

4 The selection of light intensity has no basis, and the experimental results are descriptive.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

need improve

Author Response

Dear Ms. Gunthawan Apinanthanuwong, Assistant Editor of Horticulturae,

According to the suggestions of the Reviewer 1 (R1), we have revised the manuscript horticulturae-2797182 entitled “Regeneration of African violet in response to light quality” incorporating the proposed revisions indicating these revisions IN YELLOW.

Regarding reviewer's one comments (R1):

R1: The title should be revised to the effect of light quality on leaf-cutting of African violet.

Authors: We thank the Reviewer 1 for the comment concerning changing the title. In this regard, we should say that the main purpose of this work was to explore the effects of light quality on root and shoot regeneration, not leaf. Here, regeneration is an important terminology for us in this research. That is to say, leaf-cutting was just our method for propagating the plant materials. Therefore, if this detailed description is agreeable, we tend to utilize the structure of “sth of the plant in response to sth” with the main emphasis on REGENERATION rather than the structure of “Effect of sth on sth in the plant”. We hope you would agree with us.

R1: The experimental design was too simple.

Authors: We agree and thank Reviewer 1 for their comments. As the present experimental design has been done and the experiment finished, we will strive to advance our methods on the topic of light quality in our upcoming research works. We are anyhow convinced that our design was fit for the purpose as we achieved the goal planned.

R1: The experimental design has no highlights.

Authors: We agree and thank Reviewer 1 for their comments. Therefore, we have added the highlights related to Experimental Design in 2.3 title.

R1: The selection of light intensity has no basis, and the experimental results are descriptive.

Authors: We note the Reviewer 1 for the comment. We have added the basis of selected light intensity in the subsection of ‘2.1.2. Lighting treatments’. In addition, we agree, according to your valuable comment, that the experimental results are a little descriptive. However, we should here say that as the number of measured parameters is a lot (around 20), we had to describe them in a comprehensible way for the readers.

We deeply appreciate the efforts of the reviewer in the improvement of the manuscript for its potential acceptance for publication. We are available should further enhancement be necessary.

Yours faithfully,

Silvana Nicola, on behalf of all the authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the manuscript is well prepared. However, there are a few notes:

1. When describing the African violet in the introduction, the economic importance of its cultivation should also be discussed.

2. It should be discussed why the light intensity of 80 μmol m-2 s-1, was chosen.

3.The lines 315-324 in the discussion section repeat the results, so this section is not necessary.

Author Response

Dear Ms. Gunthawan Apinanthanuwong, Assistant Editor of Horticulturae,

According to the suggestions of the Reviewer 2 (R2), we have revised the manuscript horticulturae-2797182 entitled “Regeneration of African violet in response to light quality” incorporating the proposed revisions indicating these revisions IN BLUE.

Regarding reviewer's two comments (R2):

R2: When describing the African violet in the introduction, the economic importance of its cultivation should also be discussed.

Authors: We agree and thank Reviewer 2 for their comments. Therefore, we have added two sentences in the Introduction section in order to describe the economic importance of AV cultivation more precisely.

R2: It should be discussed why the light intensity of 80 μmol m-2 s-1, was chosen.

Authors: We agree and thank Reviewer 2 for their comments. We have added the basis of selected light intensity in the subsection of ‘2.1.2. Lighting treatments’ (in yellow).

R2: The lines 315-324 in the discussion section repeat the results, so this section is not necessary.

Authors: We agree and thank Reviewer 2 for their comments. Therefore, we have omitted this paragraph from the Discussion section.

We deeply appreciate the efforts of the reviewer in the improvement of the manuscript for its potential acceptance for publication. We are available should further enhancement be necessary.

Yours faithfully,

Silvana Nicola, on behalf of all the authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editors,

 Manuscript entitled "Regeneration of African violet in response to light quality" by Zohreh Aslami et al. is within the aim and scope of Horticulturae and its Special Issue “Seed Germination and Micropropagation of Ornamental Plants”. The authors presented the effect of LED light spectra on root and bud regeneration as well as on some growth and photosynthetic pigments traits in African violet leaf cuttings.

 The study is attractive with interesting subject and good experimental work, offering intriguing results. However, there are a few points of concern, and I would recommend reconsideration of this manuscript after supplementations and corrections (attached file).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Ms. Gunthawan Apinanthanuwong, Assistant Editor of Horticulturae,

According to the suggestions of the Reviewer 3 (R3), we have revised the manuscript horticulturae-2797182 entitled “Regeneration of African violet in response to light quality” incorporating the proposed revisions indicating these revisions IN GREEN.

Regarding reviewer's two comments (R3):

R3: Manuscript entitled "Regeneration of African violet in response to light quality" by Zohreh Aslami et al. is within the aim and scope of Horticulturae and its Special Issue “Seed Germination and Micropropagation of Ornamental Plants”. The authors presented the effect of LED light spectra on root and bud regeneration as well as on some growth and photosynthetic pigments traits in African violet leaf cuttings. The study is attractive with interesting subject and good experimental work, offering intriguing results. However, there are a few points of concern, and I would recommend reconsideration of this manuscript after supplementations and corrections (attached file).

 

Authors: We are thankful to the reviewer for the positive comments on our paper. All the suggestions and revisions of the reviewer have been incorporated, indicating these revisions with the “Track Changes” of the WORD document. In addition, we have answered them point by point in the following sentences.

 

R3: Redundant. Please rephrase in order to connect to the next sentence. 

Authors: We thank Reviewer 3 for their comments. Therefore, we have recast and revised these two sentences to be more understandable.

 

R3: Any reference?

Authors: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added the relevant reference [13].

 

R3: Add the substrate, & R3: Add composition please.

Authors: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added the substrate of both the growing medium of pots and in the growth chambers accordingly.

 

R3: Add the treatment please.

Authors: Thank you for the comment. We previously wrote the kind of treatment in Section 2.1.1. However, we have added it in Section 2.1.2 as well for more clarification.

 

R3: Is this the control?

Authors: Thanks to the reviewer for pointing this out. We have edited this treatment as the considered control.

 

R3: How many liters of water per day?

Authors: Thank you very much for this precise comment. To be honest, we did not measure how many liters were watered daily. However, our irrigation system was regulated to watered the substrate to the field capacity (FC). Therefore, we have added this sentence ‘The growing media was watered up to field capacity (FC).’ In Section 2.1.2.

 

R3: Do you mean that were no differences among the LED light treatments?

Authors: Yes. There were no differences among the LED light treatments. Therefore, according to your valuable comment, we have revised this sentence to be clearer.

 

R3: Very good analysis.

Authors: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and support.

 

We deeply appreciate the efforts of the reviewer in the improvement of the manuscript for its potential acceptance for publication. We are available should further enhancement be necessary.

Yours faithfully,

Silvana Nicola, on behalf of all the authors.