Pre-Harvest UV-A Supplementation in Plant Factory with Artificial Lighting Improves Growth, Photosynthesis, and Phytonutrients in Kale

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The MS “UV-A Supplementation in Plant Factory with Artificial Lighting Improves Growth, Photosynthesis, and Phytonutrients in Kale” deals with the effects of supplemental UV-A radiation on yield and quality of kale grown in plant factories with artificial lighting.

Major concerns.

1.      The idea of the paper is clear, but the aim needs to be formulated more accurate (lines 75-78). It is not “the effect of … intensities”.

2.      It is impressive that after 6 weeks of growing under the same light conditions 5 days with supplemental UV-A resulted in fresh biomass increase by 35 and 48%. It sounds like a sensation. Therefore, the question arises whether literature was fully analyzed. It is surprising that such great effects with practical potential are underestimated by researchers and growers. There must be an explanation for end-r it.

3.      As it was pre-harvest or and-of-production treatment it is possibly make sense to add it to the title. Why the authors did not try to supplement light with UV-A during the whole growing period?

Minor concerns:

-        Chlorophyll a and b should be italicized throughout the text (lines 56-57, 116-117, 202, 310 etc.)

-        Lines 87, 94: µmol/(m² s) or µmol m^-2 s^-1

-        Lines 106-108: why the method of the leaf greenness index determination by chlorophyll meter is described in the section 2.3. Growth and Biomass Measurements, but not in 2.4. Photosynthetic Pigment Content Evaluation?

-        Line 118: Chl a/b or chl a/chl b

-        Lines 152-153: Nitrates are listed as phytonutrients

-        Line 180: round the figures. For example, 34 or 34.6% instead of 34.58%.

-        Lines 241-252. Section 3.4. Please, indicate what the indices mean.

-        Line 295-296: Stem height and canopy width are formally not the parameters of biomass.

-        Line 366: What is low stress? What classification is used?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some grammar and style errors. For example:

Line 59: increase the content

Lines 75-79: Seems that the main word is missing.

Line 292: by others WHAT?

Line 294: organisms?

Line 346: non-stressed instead of non-stress

Line 363: to calculate to the  - delete the second “to”

Line 373: glucosinolates CONTENT

et al.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections blue highlighted for responses to reviewer 1 in the re-submitted files. All responses can see in the attachment file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors performed an interesting study about the effect of different intensities of UV-A on several parameters of kale. Despite the lack of novelty, they bring nice results that can be applied in indoor cultivation. The manuscript needs several corrections before being accepted. All my suggestions can be found in the attached PDF. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is good in general.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections yellow highlighted for responses to reviewer 2 in the re-submitted files. All responses can see in the attachment file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf