The Growth and Tuber Yield of Potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) under Varying LED Light Spectrums in Controlled Greenhouse Conditions
, Md. Jahirul Islam 2, Umma Habiba Mumu 1, Byeong-Ryeol Ryu 1, Jung-Dae Lim 1, Md Obyedul Kalam Azad 3, Eun Ju Cheong 4,* and Young-Seok Lim 1,5,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Review of the manuscript entitled: "Evaluation of growth characteristics and tuber yield of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) grown in a controlled greenhouse under different artificial LED light spectra" by Md Hafizur Rahman, Md. Jahirul Islam, Umma Habiba Mumu, Byeong-Ryeol Ryu, Jung Dae Lim, Md Obyedul Kalam Azad, Eun ju Cheong and Young-Seok Lim.
The manuscript by Md Hafizur Rahman and colleagues explores the impact of various LED light spectra on the growth characteristics and tuber yield of potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) cultivated in a controlled greenhouse environment. The study investigates the innovative concept of employing artificial LED light in a plant factory system, providing insights into the effects of different light compositions on potato tuberization.
The researchers conducted a thorough analysis using six different LED light spectra, each with an irradiance of 300 mol m-2 s-1, while natural light served as the control treatment. The findings revealed noteworthy outcomes, particularly in the context of plant growth characteristics, plant height, photosynthetic pigments, photosynthetic activity, and GA3 content.
One notable result was the observation that the light spectrum treatment L2 (red70 + blue20 + white10) significantly enhanced plant growth characteristics and height. However, photosynthetic pigments did not exhibit a similar response. On the other hand, photosynthetic activity saw a significant increase in L5 (red60 + blue20 + green10 + white10), emphasizing the influence of specific light compositions on physiological processes.
Interestingly, GA3 content reached its peak in treatment L1 (red70 + blue30), while treatment L3 (red70 + blue20 + green10) recorded the highest tuber numbers. Furthermore, L3 exhibited the lowest GA3 content and demonstrated less morphological and photosynthetic response compared to other treatments. This finding underscores the complexity of the relationship between light spectra and potato tuberization.
Undoubtedly, the research presented in this manuscript deserves publication. However, this manuscript still requires a lot of work to meet the requirements set by the Horticulturae.
My suggested changes are below:
1) Title - it is necessary to shorten the title of the manuscript. My proposed title: Growth and Tuber Yield of Potatoes Under Varied LED Light Spectrum in Controlled Greenhouse.
2) Abstract - requires thorough editing. It lacks a hypothesis, the results are discussed in too much detail, but there are no conclusions or references to the application of the research results.
3) Keywords - arrange the keywords alphabetically, and ensure they do not repeat words included in the manuscript title.
4) Introduction - line 102 - I don't understand what the author meant?
5) Materials and Methods - line 113 - the scientific name of the potato should be written in italics (this also applies to other places in the text). It's better to use the word "cultivar" instead of "variety".
6) Table 2 - please explain under the table what the values after the +/- sign mean. Please also indicate below the table what statistical test was used.
7) Figure 2 - under the figure, explain what the letters A, B, C, D and E in the figure mean? Apply superscript in the unit m-2 s-1. Write what the different letters above the bars mean. Please also specify what statistical test was used. The figures are sloppily made and distorted.
8) Figures 3 and 4 - write what the different letters above the bars mean. Please also specify what statistical test was used.
9) Figure 5 - On the Y axis, please remove "(weight < 1 g, > 1 g, > 3 g)". Write what the different letters above the bars mean. Please also specify what statistical test was used.
10) Figure 6 - On the Y axis, please remove "(GA3) content" and replace "dry sample" with "dm". Write what the different letters above the bars mean. Please also specify what statistical test was used. Why are this figure and the previous one so huge?
11) Figure 7 - please explain all abbreviations under the figure.
12) All figures should be formatted so that they are consistent, i.e. in a similar style and size.
13) Conclusion - should be thoroughly reworded. The results are given in too much detail. This is the place for conclusions. Please answer the hypothesis, write whether the goals were achieved, determine the application nature of the results obtained and outline the further direction of research.
14) Please adapt the entire manuscript better to the requirements set out in the template required by the Horticulturae magazine.
In conclusion, the study highlights treatment L3 (red70 + blue20 + green10) as the most effective in promoting tuberization performance. The manuscript contributes valuable insights into the application of artificial LED light spectra for optimizing potato cultivation in controlled environments. The comprehensive analysis of different light compositions provides a foundation for further research in the field of plant growth and tuber yield enhancement.
I believe that the editorial board of the Horticulturae should consider publishing this manuscript.
Author Response
Review of the manuscript entitled: "Evaluation of growth characteristics and tuber yield of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) grown in a controlled greenhouse under different artificial LED light spectra" by Md Hafizur Rahman, Md. Jahirul Islam, Umma Habiba Mumu, Byeong-Ryeol Ryu, Jung Dae Lim, Md Obyedul Kalam Azad, Eun ju Cheong and Young-Seok Lim.
The manuscript by Md Hafizur Rahman and colleagues explores the impact of various LED light spectra on the growth characteristics and tuber yield of potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) cultivated in a controlled greenhouse environment. The study investigates the innovative concept of employing artificial LED light in a plant factory system, providing insights into the effects of different light compositions on potato tuberization.
The researchers conducted a thorough analysis using six different LED light spectra, each with an irradiance of 300 mol m-2 s-1, while natural light served as the control treatment. The findings revealed noteworthy outcomes, particularly in the context of plant growth characteristics, plant height, photosynthetic pigments, photosynthetic activity, and GA3 content.
One notable result was the observation that the light spectrum treatment L2 (red70 + blue20 + white10) significantly enhanced plant growth characteristics and height. However, photosynthetic pigments did not exhibit a similar response. On the other hand, photosynthetic activity saw a significant increase in L5 (red60 + blue20 + green10 + white10), emphasizing the influence of specific light compositions on physiological processes.
Interestingly, GA3 content reached its peak in treatment L1 (red70 + blue30), while treatment L3 (red70 + blue20 + green10) recorded the highest tuber numbers. Furthermore, L3 exhibited the lowest GA3 content and demonstrated less morphological and photosynthetic response compared to other treatments. This finding underscores the complexity of the relationship between light spectra and potato tuberization.
Undoubtedly, the research presented in this manuscript deserves publication. However, this manuscript still requires a lot of work to meet the requirements set by the Horticulturae.
Author Response: Thank you for your profound observation and encouraging comments on the manuscript. Your valuable comments and suggestions helped us a lot to improve the manuscript.
My suggested changes are below:
- Title - it is necessary to shorten the title of the manuscript. My proposed title: Growth and Tuber Yield of Potatoes Under Varied LED Light Spectrum in Controlled Greenhouse.
Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion, we revised the title of the experiment according to your suggestion.
- Abstract - requires thorough editing. It lacks a hypothesis, the results are discussed in too much detail, but there are no conclusions or references to the application of the research results.
Response: Abstract is revised and improved accordingly.
- Keywords - arrange the keywords alphabetically, and ensure they do not repeat words included in the manuscript title.
Response: Keywords have been rearranged accordingly.
- Introduction - line 102 - I don't understand what the author meant?
Response: This information has been revised as “In light of the factors mentioned above, we aimed to optimize the LED light spectrum in our experiment. The objective was to investigate the impact of light spectrum variations on potato leaf photosynthesis, chlorophyll pigment levels, stomatal density, and tuber yield, including both tuber number and grading.”
- Materials and Methods - line 113 - the scientific name of the potato should be written in italics (this also applies to other places in the text). It's better to use the word "cultivar" instead of "variety".
Response: Thank you for your suggestion, we revised the manuscript accordingly.
- Table 2 - please explain under the table what the values after the +/- sign mean. Please also indicate below the table what statistical test was used.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have provided a comprehensive explanation of the statistical analysis in the dedicated statistical section. Following your recommendation, we have incorporated the following information below the table: 'Different letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) among the genotypes within each parameter. Values are expressed as mean ± SD (n = 3).'
- Figure 2 - under the figure, explain what the letters A, B, C, D and E in the figure mean? Apply superscript in the unit m-2s-1. Write what the different letters above the bars mean. Please also specify what statistical test was used. The figures are sloppily made and distorted.
Response: Thank you for your informative suggestion. We revised the figure 2 and legends accordingly.
- Figures 3 and 4 - write what the different letters above the bars mean. Please also specify what statistical test was used.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We revised the figures accordingly.
- Figure 5 - On the Y axis, please remove "(weight < 1 g, > 1 g, > 3 g)". Write what the different letters above the bars mean. Please also specify what statistical test was used.
Response: The figure has been revised accordingly.
- Figure 6 - On the Y axis, please remove "(GA3) content" and replace "dry sample" with "dm". Write what the different letters above the bars mean. Please also specify what statistical test was used. Why are this figure and the previous one so huge?
Response: Figure 6 has been revised accordingly.
- Figure 7 - please explain all abbreviations under the figure.
Response: All abbreviation has been explained under the figure.
- All figures should be formatted so that they are consistent, i.e. in a similar style and size.
Response: Thank you for your suggestions, the manuscript has been revised according to your suggestions including figures.
- Conclusion - should be thoroughly reworded. The results are given in too much detail. This is the place for conclusions. Please answer the hypothesis, write whether the goals were achieved, determine the application nature of the results obtained and outline the further direction of research.
Response: The conclusion has been revised and improved accordingly.
- Please adapt the entire manuscript better to the requirements set out in the template required by the Horticulturae magazine.
Response: The Horticulturae template was used to prepare the manuscript.
In conclusion, the study highlights treatment L3 (red70 + blue20 + green10) as the most effective in promoting tuberization performance. The manuscript contributes valuable insights into the application of artificial LED light spectra for optimizing potato cultivation in controlled environments. The comprehensive analysis of different light compositions provides a foundation for further research in the field of plant growth and tuber yield enhancement.
I believe that the editorial board of the Horticulturae should consider publishing this manuscript.
Response: Thank you for your valuable and encouraging comment again. Your valuable suggestions made the manuscript more effective and readers friendly.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI carefully analyzed the manuscript: "Evaluation of growth characteristics and tuber yield of potato (Solanum tuberosume L.) grown in controlled greenhouse under different artificial LED light spectrum" by Md Hafizur Rahman and colleagues. Below I have formulated some proposals for its improvement. I ask the authors to consider in particular the concerns formulated at the end, related to the Conclusions chapter.
line 3: tuberosume - to be corrected.
line 20: the abbreviation for LED - Light Emitting Diode must be correctly explained.
line 23: "in(plant-factory)" I think the brackets should be removed.
line 28: L2 the abbreviation must be explained, it is the first time it appears in the text. The same observation is valid for GA3, L1, L3.
line 30: "blue20 + green 10" - please check throughout the manuscript, whether or not you leave space between blue and 20, green and 10, etc.
lines 41, 43: Solanum tuberosum - in italics. Check the entire manuscript in this sense.
lines 139-142: please review the explanation of the figure - there are only two images, one front and one side of the growth chambers. Not all experimental variants are visible. The explanations of Figure 1 should contain A-... and B-...
line 163: carotenoid - please add the abbreviation CAR.
line 176: Plant Analysis Development (SPAD) - the abbreviation must be specified.
line 225: 3. Results - the chapter cannot start with a table.
line 233: (Table 2) - I don't think the brackets are necessary.
line 244: "There are a lot of studies" - these studies need to be cited.
NOTE: starting from line 267 (page 7) the numbering of the lines stops; resumes on page 9 from 1. I will continue to use the line number followed by (II).
3.2 - first paragraph: "chlorophyll content" is repeated twice, please rephrase.
3.2 - second paragraph: "significant deformity in the chloroplast was observed" - who observed, in which study? This manuscript does not investigate the ultrastructure of chloroplasts. Is it the paper from number 25, quoted after the next sentence? It is not very clear.
line 27 (II): "Support our study, L5" - the meaning is not clear.
line 42 (II) for the axis related to TFW, the grams are not visible on the graph.
lines 30-34 (II): the phrase must be reformulated, it is not clear, and the source must also be specified (who carried out the study).
line 48 (II): "(Figure 4)" - I don't think brackets are necessary, it can be reformulated.
Line 125 (II): please correct the word "Principal" on both axes of the chart.
lines 134-135 (II): ”Stolon L, stolon length” - I don't see this abbreviation on the chart.
The text in Figures should be written more uniformly, with similar fonts (type and size).
Line 148 (II): The conclusions do not present clearly enough the reason for choosing the L3 variant as the most productive. It may also be a mistake in the conception of the design of the experiment - considering that the determination of the most productive variant is pursued, perhaps a determination of the total weight of the tubers/plant was necessary. Their number and average weight do not seem to be so relevant. Another problem is the small size of the tubers, from what we understand from the paper (below 1g, 1-3g, over 3g). Or I assume that these tubers will grow a lot more so that the production can be used for food. Are the studies done on this size of the tubers significant? It is necessary to clarify these issues before I propose the manuscript for publication.
References must be reviewed - they are not written according to the requirements of the journal.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSmall corrections are needed.
Author Response
I carefully analyzed the manuscript: "Evaluation of growth characteristics and tuber yield of potato (Solanum tuberosume L.) grown in controlled greenhouse under different artificial LED light spectrum" by Md Hafizur Rahman and colleagues. Below I have formulated some proposals for its improvement. I ask the authors to consider in particular the concerns formulated at the end, related to the Conclusions chapter.
Response: Thank you for your positive response and suggestions. Your suggestions helped us to improve the manuscript.
line 3: tuberosume - to be corrected.
Response: We apologize for the mistake. The word tuberosume has been replaced with tuberosum.
line 20: the abbreviation for LED - Light Emitting Diode must be correctly explained.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion, the elaboration of LED has been included accordingly.
line 23: "in(plant-factory)" I think the brackets should be removed.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion, the sentence has been revised as “Growing plants, especially potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.), in an LED-based plant factory system is a relatively innovative concept.”
line 28: L2 the abbreviation must be explained, it is the first time it appears in the text. The same observation is valid for GA3, L1, L3.
Response: Thank you for your observation. We revised the abstract part accordingly.
line 30: "blue20 + green 10" - please check throughout the manuscript, whether or not you leave space between blue and 20, green and 10, etc.
Response: Thank you for your advice, there should not be any space in the mentioned area. We carefully checked and confirmed.
lines 41, 43: Solanum tuberosum - in italics. Check the entire manuscript in this sense.
Response: Checked and confirmed.
lines 139-142: please review the explanation of the figure - there are only two images, one front and one side of the growth chambers. Not all experimental variants are visible. The explanations of Figure 1 should contain A-... and B-...
Response: Thank you for your advice. We revised the figure according to your suggestion.
line 163: carotenoid - please add the abbreviation CAR.
Response: Revised accordingly.
line 176: Plant Analysis Development (SPAD) - the abbreviation must be specified.
Response: Revised accordingly.
line 225: 3. Results - the chapter cannot start with a table.
Response: Revised accordingly.
Line 233 (Table 2): I don’t think the brackets are necessary.
Response: The paragraph is reformed.
Line 244: “There are a lot of studies”-these studies need to be cited.
Response: The paragraph has been revised and the line “There are a lot of studies” has been removed from the paragraph.
3.2: First paragraph: “Chlorophyll content” is repeated twice, please rephrase.
Response: The paragraph is revised and written newly.
3.2: Second paragraph: “Significant deformity in the chloroplast was observed”- who observed, in which study? This manuscript does not investigate the ultrastructure of chloroplasts. Is it the paper from number 25, quoted after the next sentence? It is not very clear.
Response: Thank you for your query. You are absolutely right, This two sentence are cited from the paper number 25.
Line 27 (II): “Support our study, L5- The meaning is not clear.
Response: This information has been revised carefully.
line 42 (II) for the axis related to TFW, the grams are not visible on the graph.
Response: Revised accordingly.
lines 30-34 (II): the phrase must be reformulated, it is not clear, and the source must also be specified (who carried out the study).
Response: Thank you for your suggestion, we revised the paragraph.
line 48 (II): "(Figure 4)" - I don't think brackets are necessary, it can be reformulated.
Response: This information has been reformulated accordingly.
Line 125 (II): please correct the word "Principal" on both axes of the chart.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion, we added a new figure and revised the information accordingly.
lines 134-135 (II): ”Stolon L, stolon length” - I don't see this abbreviation on the chart.
The text in Figures should be written more uniformly, with similar fonts (type and size).
Response: Thank you for your profound observation, this abbreviation has been removed from the manuscript.
Line 148 (II): The conclusions do not present clearly enough the reason for choosing the L3 variant as the most productive. It may also be a mistake in the conception of the design of the experiment - considering that the determination of the most productive variant is pursued, perhaps a determination of the total weight of the tubers/plant was necessary. Their number and average weight do not seem to be so relevant. Another problem is the small size of the tubers, from what we understand from the paper (below 1g, 1-3g, over 3g). Or I assume that these tubers will grow a lot more so that the production can be used for food. Are the studies done on this size of the tubers significant? It is necessary to clarify these issues before I propose the manuscript for publication.
Response: Thank you for your suggestions. The main purpose of the study was to evaluate seed tuber production, that is why tuber size (below 1g, 1-3g, over 3g) was considered. In light of the issue and your suggestions we revised the conclusion of the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Here in the manuscript named ‘Evaluation of growth characteristics and tuber yield of potato (Solanum tuberosume L.) grown in controlled greenhouse under different artificial LED light spectrum’, the authors described the works related to the effects of different LED light spectral combinations on potato leaf photosynthesis, chlorophyll pigment, stomatal density, and tuber yield. It is worth to get the materials with excellent roles of the light spectrum on plant growth and yield. But this manuscript is not well organized and this version is just like an experimental report and need to be revised to only show the key finding in right way.
The Abstract section: (1) the last sentence “This LED’s spectral composition treatment performed best compared to all treatments” should be revised. I think a conclusion should be included here. (2) Line 26, “mol m-2 s-1”, please note superscripts.
The keywords should avoid duplication with the title.
It is suggested that the authors supplement the phenotypic photos of potato seedlings and tuber under various treatments, which is more convincing than the existing data of indicators (like leaf photosynthesis, chlorophyll pigment, stomatal density, and tuber yield) in the manuscript.
Figure/Table legends: some key information should be included, for example, the meaning of letters and bar.
The conclusion section should state the results from the experiment, but the current formulation is more of a bold inference.
Line 41 and 43, the Latin name of tomato should be italic, and I think here the Latin name should be given only when it first appears.
Line 116, “ µmol·m−2·s−1”, “ g/L”, these are two unit formats, please unify them.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English is good.
Author Response
Here in the manuscript named ‘Evaluation of growth characteristics and tuber yield of potato (Solanum tuberosume L.) grown in controlled greenhouse under different artificial LED light spectrum’, the authors described the works related to the effects of different LED light spectral combinations on potato leaf photosynthesis, chlorophyll pigment, stomatal density, and tuber yield. It is worth to get the materials with excellent roles of the light spectrum on plant growth and yield. But this manuscript is not well organized and this version is just like an experimental report and need to be revised to only show the key finding in right way.
Response: Thank you for your positive and encouraging response. Your suggestions helped us to improve the manuscript.
The Abstract section: (1) the last sentence “This LED’s spectral composition treatment performed best compared to all treatments” should be revised. I think a conclusion should be included here. (2) Line 26, “mol m-2 s-1”, please note superscripts.
Response: The abstract has been revised accordingly.
The keywords should avoid duplication with the title.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The keywords have been revised.
It is suggested that the authors supplement the phenotypic photos of potato seedlings and tuber under various treatments, which is more convincing than the existing data of indicators (like leaf photosynthesis, chlorophyll pigment, stomatal density, and tuber yield) in the manuscript.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We revised all figures and table according to your suggestion. We believe that the existing data thoroughly supports our findings and conclusions, and the inclusion of additional photos may not significantly contribute to the overall scientific rigor of the study.
Figure/Table legends: some key information should be included, for example, the meaning of letters and bar.
Response: Legends has been added to each figure and table accordingly.
The conclusion section should state the results from the experiment, but the current formulation is more of a bold inference.
Response: The conclusion has been revised accordingly.
Line 41 and 43, the Latin name of tomato should be italic, and I think here the Latin name should be given only when it first appears.
Response: Revised accordingly
Line 116, “ µmol·m−2·s−1”, “ g/L”, these are two unit formats, please unify them.
Response: Revised accordingly.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI see that the authors of this manuscript horticulturae-2871548 carefully responded to the reviewers' comments, including my comments. In terms of content, I believe that the manuscript has been properly revised. When it comes to the graphic side, I still see some imperfections, but I am sure that the technical department of the Horticulturae will take care of the proper visual side of the Figures. I maintain my earlier opinion that the journal Horticulturae should consider publishing this manuscript.
Author Response
Thank you sincerely for your positive feedback on the manuscript. Your valuable suggestions played a crucial role in significantly enhancing the quality of our manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have read the answers of the authors and I consider them mostly satisfactory.
I have reviewed the Conclusions, and in my opinion, they require improvement. They appear overly simplistic, providing a descriptive presentation of some results without establishing correlations between the investigations. For instance, each variant induces increases in the analyzed parameters: L2 results in maximum vegetative growth, L5 exhibits the highest amount of assimilatory pigments, and L3 and L4 favor tuberization. The lack of explanations for these results is notable. Normally, a more vigorous plant, with a larger quantity of assimilatory pigments (which is associated with an increased rate of photosynthesis and implicitly with the existence of larger amounts of reserve materials, likely to be deposited in the tubers) would be expected to produce a greater quantity of tubers. Furthermore, Figure 7 is insufficiently interpreted in the text. Chapter 3 should be titled 'Results and Discussions' considering the absence of a separate Discussions chapter. Throughout the manuscript, discussions are rather brief, lacking the interpretations of the results in correlation with observations made by other authors.Author Response
I have reviewed the Conclusions, and in my opinion, they require improvement. They appear overly simplistic, providing a descriptive presentation of some results without establishing correlations between the investigations. For instance, each variant induces increases in the analyzed parameters: L2 results in maximum vegetative growth, L5 exhibits the highest amount of assimilatory pigments, and L3 and L4 favor tuberization. The lack of explanations for these results is notable. Normally, a more vigorous plant, with a larger quantity of assimilatory pigments (which is associated with an increased rate of photosynthesis and implicitly with the existence of larger amounts of reserve materials, likely to be deposited in the tubers) would be expected to produce a greater quantity of tubers. Furthermore, Figure 7 is insufficiently interpreted in the text. Chapter 3 should be titled 'Results and Discussions' considering the absence of a separate Discussions chapter. Throughout the manuscript, discussions are rather brief, lacking the interpretations of the results in correlation with observations made by other authors.
Response:
Thank you very much for your suggestions once again. We revised the abstract according to your suggestion and hope that it will be more reader’s friendly.
We revised the chapter 3 as ‘Results and discussion’.
We checked and revised the manuscript carefully.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have revised carefully. I don't know why, but in the revised manuscript, starting from page 14, I can only see the content on the left half. So I can only read the content on pages 1-13. I think the revised manuscript has been improved effectively. But I have some minor comments for the manuscript:
I still think the abstract section should be improved again as the conclusion is still insufficient. The description of the results can be more focused, and what happen for potato growth and tuber yield under LED light spectrum should be included.
In the Figure 1, the authors have already shown the photograph of potato plant grown under different LED spectrums. But the plants are in the incubator, and the growth differences under different treatments cannot be seen. I really miss the plant photos that can reflect the differences in different treatments, so that readers can have a clear understanding of the effects of different treatments at a glance.
Author Response
The authors have revised carefully. I don't know why, but in the revised manuscript, starting from page 14, I can only see the content on the left half. So I can only read the content on pages 1-13. I think the revised manuscript has been improved effectively. But I have some minor comments for the manuscript:
Response:
Thank you for your observation. I think it’s a system error. But still I can see the page number starting from 1 to 18.
I still think the abstract section should be improved again as the conclusion is still insufficient. The description of the results can be more focused, and what happen for potato growth and tuber yield under LED light spectrum should be included.
Response: The abstract section has been revised accordingly.
In the Figure 1, the authors have already shown the photograph of potato plant grown under different LED spectrums. But the plants are in the incubator, and the growth differences under different treatments cannot be seen. I really miss the plant photos that can reflect the differences in different treatments, so that readers can have a clear understanding of the effects of different treatments at a glance.
Response:
Thank you for your insightful observation. We currently have these figures in place, and your suggestion will undoubtedly guide our future research endeavors.
