Light Intensity Modulates the Accumulation of Carbohydrates, Antioxidant Enzymes and Production of Iceberg Lettuce under Tropical Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

May be published after minor revision 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Firstly, we would like to thank you for your valuable contributions to this manuscript. 

We've made the correction to the abstract, hopefully it's been clearer.

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript number 1453634 entitled 'Light intensity modulates the accumulation of carbohydrates, antioxidant enzymes and production of iceberg lettuce under tropical conditions' aims to evaluate the biochemical responses and production of iceberg lettuce cultivars under environments with different shadings. I have some remarks that I would like to inform authors to consider.

1. The light quality maybe changed by the application of the screen (not only the amount of solar radiation). So the results maybe related with the light quality, thus the light quality should be added.
2. It is not easy for readers to understand the uppercase and lowercase letters in the Figures. All treatments can be compared at the same time.
3. The data of one cultivar (Fresh consumable part) was lost in figure 4.
4. The characteristic of the shade screens (e.g., the transmittance) was suggested to add.
5. the full name of “CV” should be added in table 1.
6. In the introduction section, the tropical conditions should be added. E.g., the solar radiation, the temperature.
7. More details should be added about the cultivation of lettuce seedlings and its subsequent growth. E.g., the light intensity, the relative humidity.
8. Line 247 (According to [25]), 290 ([11] observed that…). The expression is not suitable.
9. Line 292: 600 µmol.m^-2? Or 600 µmol.m^-2 s^-1? The light intensity?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Firstly, we would like to thank you for your valuable contributions to this manuscript. 

The answers are in the attached file.
Best Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This work was done to investigate the effects of four environments with different shadings (three types of shad- ing screens: red, chromatinet®, and black; and treatment under the full sun) on four cultivars of iceberg lettuce (Great Lakes, Winslow, Delicia, and Balsamo). The Authors observed that the Light intensity modulates the accumulation of carbohydrates, antioxidant enzymes and production of iceberg lettuce under tropical conditions.

My comments to the Authors:
Abstract section:

It has written very well.

Introduction section:

It has written very well.

Methods section:

P2 L82: From October to January 2019. You have mentioned that your experiment was 25 days for sowing+ 45 days after transplanting till harvest, do you have seasons?? Please indicate the exact date of planting and harvesting.

P2 L91: Please describe the components of commercial substrate.

P2 L95: The soil had the following chemical properties: pH (H₂O)= 6.42, that is mean for water not for soil, what about the pH of soil? If it is for soil please delete (H₂O).

P3 L99-104: (The four plants in the middle of plot were used for the evaluations. Planting fertilization was based on the recommendation of fertilization of the state of Bahia for lettuce cultivation by applying 6.3 kg ha-1 of N and 21.3 kg of P2O5 ha-1, using urea (44% of N) and simple superphosphate (18% of P2O5). Topdressing fertilization was performed 20 days after transplanting, adding 38.0 kg ha-1 of N and 26.0 kg ha-1 of Ca, using calcium nitrate (15% of N and 19% Ca) as source.)

This paragraph not clear please explain it by another way to be more clear for readers, How the recommendation of fertilization of the state of Bahia for lettuce cultivation by applying 6.3 kg ha-1 of N, but you added  38.0 kg ha-1 of N????

P3 L127-133: Please replace this paragraph with previous paragraph (P3 L123-126), when you explain something you should follow the same order as you mentioned (The supernatant was used to determine activities of the enzymes: superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), peroxidase (POD), and total protein, total soluble sugars (TSS), and reducing sugars (RS).

It should be like this:

The activity of the superoxide dismutase (SOD) enzyme was determined according to [18], taking into account the enzyme's ability to inhibit the photo-reduction of nitro- tetrazolium blue chloride (NBT), expressed in UE min-1 mgTP-1 (unit of enzyme per mi- nute per milligram of protein). For the catalase enzyme (CAT) activity, the methodology described by [19] was used. The results were expressed as μmolH2O2.min-1 .μgTP-1 . POD  activity was determined in a spectrophotometer by measuring the formation of purpuro-  gallin at 430 nm [20], and the activity was expressed in UE.min−1.g−1.

The total protein content (TP) was obtained using the method described by [14]. For 123 the total soluble sugar (TSS) content, the anthrone method describe in [15,16] was used. 124 The content of reducing sugars (RS) was quantified by the method described by [17], using 125 3,5-dinitrosalicylic (DNS).

OR keep the paragraphs and change this sentence { The supernatant was used to determine activities of the enzymes: superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), peroxidase (POD), and total protein, total soluble sugars (TSS), and reducing sugars (RS). } TO {The supernatant was used to determine total protein content (TP), total soluble sugars (TSS), and reducing sugars (RS), activities of the enzymes: superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), and peroxidase (POD).}

Statistical analysis:

I think the statistical analysis needs some improvement. You have two factors, the cultivars factor (Factor A) and the environments factor (Factor B), it would be better to use two way ANOVA to show the significance between the first factor and the second factor and the interaction between them. As I showed in results below

Results and discussion section:

P4 L150: DAT, I think it is mean (Days After Transplanting), please indicate in the caption of figure 1.

Where is the result of the total protein content (TP)???? I you will not add it, please delete it from the methods section.

In table 1: Authors indicated (²SV), what is it mean (²)??? And if it has meaning which one is right (²SV) or (SV²)???

P4 L166: Add (, respectively) before (Figure 2).

P5 L189: Please review this sentence carefully (Comparing the activity of CAT and POD enzymes, higher values of CAT enzyme activity were observed in plants grown under BS 190 and CS, while POD activity was higher in FS).

In table 1: the statistical analysis presented significant between (Environments, Cultivar, and Environments*Cultivar), but unfortunately all figures not appear the significance clearly. I strongly suggest to change the figures to tables to present all the significance between (Environments, Cultivar, and Environments*Cultivar). Like:

	Total soluble sugar content - TSS					d reducing sugar content - RS
	BS	CS	RS	FS	Mean (Factor A)	BS	CS	RS	FS	Mean (A)
GL
WLW
DEL
BAL
Mean (Factor B)

 

Yellow boxes are the interaction (Environments*Cultivars)

Red boxes are the interaction (Cultivars)= Average of (BS+CS+RS+FS under Cultivars).

Green boxes are the interaction (Environments)= Average of (GL+WLW+DEL+BAL under Environments).

Hopefully you understand me, please if it is possible change all figures to table following my table to be clear for readers.

P7 L205: Please add this sentence in caption of figure 4 (Lakes cultivar did not produce lettuce head in any environments studied and, as a result is not found in Figure 4) not separately.

In the legend of table 2: Authors added one star (*), please change it to (**) as in table.

 

P8L224: Please change (sinks) to a more appropriate and clear word.

P8 L267: I think this word (glutathione Sransferase (GST)) should be (glutathione S-transferase (GST)) please review it.

P8 L270: Be carefully, The NUMBERS of the figures in the discussion are incorrect. Review them carefully and then CHANGE them to tables as I showed ABOVE if it is possible.

P9 L290: This citation [11] in front of sentence must be like (Weiguo et al, [11] ). The author must be outside the parentheses. Please check all citations in whole manuscript.

The discussion need improving; plz make it more clear and easier to read.

Conclusion section:

You should add a future plan

I hope my comments improve the quality of your manuscript

Best regards

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Firstly, we would like to thank you for your valuable contributions to this manuscript. 

The answers are in the attached file.
Best Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

I don't think the graphs and tables shown in the paper support the results in detail overall.

I think the overall manuscript needs to be revised.

 

1. First, in the introduction part, there is no 'objective' for research on why this experiment is necessary.

- authors only described the contents of light intensity. There is no content about the difference in the light film (light quality).

- There is a lack of explanation for the relationship between enzyme activity, leaf sugar content, and iceberg lettuce production.

- Experiments were conducted with various iceberg lettuce cultivars. However, there is no sentence related to cultivar influence.

 

2. Lettuce was grown in four environments (FS. RS. CS. BS) with different light shading rates in the materials and methods of this experiment. However, there is no spectral information for each film.

- Without spectral information, it would be difficult to accurately check the plant's response.

 

3. Sugar, antioxidants enzymes, and fresh-consumable part analysis were performed, but it is difficult to determine plant growth and marketability with this analysis parameter. It is thought that results for other measurement parameters will be needed.

 

4. There are many mistakes.

- Line 270, (fig 4) (Figure 4)

- Line 289, 300: Figure 5 (there was no Figure 5 in this manuscript)

- Line 381: Horticultural Science 2012 (2012 bold style)

- Line 388: 1976 (, need)

etc

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Firstly, we would like to thank you for your valuable contributions to this manuscript. 

The answers are in the attached file.
Best Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

No comments

Author Response

We appreciate the feedback.

Reviewer 4 Report

This manuscript was well done described, including a discussion.

Author Response

We appreciate the feedback.