Light Spectrum Variably Affects the Acclimatization of Grafted Watermelon Seedlings While Maintaining Fruit Quality
, Christodoulos Dangitsis 2, Anastasios S. Siomos 1 and Athanasios Koukounaras 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript must be improved, you find all necessary comments in attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The manuscript must be improved, you find all necessary comments in attached file
Response: The authors would like to express their gratitude to the reviewers for the time they invested for assessing our manuscript and their useful comments and suggestions.
ADD WHICH COUNTRIES IN THE SOUTH OF AMERICA
Response, L34: Brazil is one of the main watermelon producers in the world. It is now mentioned in the text.
WHY 2018 AND NOT 2020 FOR EXAMPLE
Response, L35-36: Data for 2020 were included in the text as suggested. Greece remains 7th in the export value worldwide.
I THINK THAT THE INTRODUCTION IS TOO SHORT, IT IS BETTER TO PUT MORE DETAILS
Response: More details were added in the introduction as suggested, in L47-52 and L68-71.
please cite the abreviation of HM
Response, L80: This is the name of the company, HM. Clause SA. It cannot be abbreviated.
add the used rates of NPK
Response, L115: NPK was applied in the rate 7:3:7. It is now mentioned in the manuscript.
add reference
Response, L142: A reference was added as suggested.
you mean "upon field"
Response, L149: The term was changed to “field cultivation” throughout the text.
there is no details about the light treatment applied upon field
please specify how you used and established it
Response: It is probably a misunderstanding but no supplemental light treatments were applied in the field cultivation. Plants were only subjected to natural light.
add stage of development
Response, L172: Fruits were fully developed during harvest. It is now specified in L172.
you can change the place of this sentence in statistical analysis
Response: This sentence was moved to the Materials and Methods, in L130-132.
to compare figures you need to put the same scale
Response, L263: We agree that shoot and root dry weight subfigures should have the same scale but the absolute values are very much apart, thus the bars in the root subfigure would be very small and very difficult to read.
the discussion of this part is very power
Response, L353: Thank you very much for your comment.
no clear conclusions
Response, L386-388: The conclusions were amended as suggested.
Reviewer 2 Report
You conducted a very thorough study and I found it very interesting to read about the effects of light quality on grafted seedlings.
The writing was very precise and easy to understand - thanks for that. I've marked up the document with minor edits.
Several photos showing some of the more notable effects on the seedlings would be helpful.
I wasn't accustomed to the format of omission of a standard literature review. Instead, you mostly covered the citations in the Introduction and Results and Discussion. I'm actually ok with this, but not sure how other reviewers may respond.
I think you need to dig deeper as to why the effects of light treatments did not carry over to the final product.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
You conducted a very thorough study and I found it very interesting to read about the effects of light quality on grafted seedlings.
The writing was very precise and easy to understand - thanks for that. I've marked up the document with minor edits.
Several photos showing some of the more notable effects on the seedlings would be helpful.
I wasn't accustomed to the format of omission of a standard literature review. Instead, you mostly covered the citations in the Introduction and Results and Discussion. I'm actually ok with this, but not sure how other reviewers may respond.
I think you need to dig deeper as to why the effects of light treatments did not carry over to the final product.
Response: The authors would like to express their gratitude to the reviewers for the time they invested for assessing our manuscript and their useful comments and suggestions. The minor amendments they suggested are highlighted with yellow colour. A set of photos depicting grafted watermelon seedlings after healing in a chamber under six different light treatments, and after acclimatization was included (Figure 1, L258). Moreover, a possible explanation was included in the conclusions about the effects of light which did not carry over to the fruits (L386-388).
Please add a final, summary statement here - final recommendation.
Response, L24-26: A final statement was included in the abstract as suggested.
These last two sentences should be moved to right after the second sentence.
Response, L161-167: This paragraph was amended as suggested.
this statement should be in methods
Response: This sentence was moved to the Materials and Methods, in L130-132.
Previous statements should be under Methods
Response: This part was moved to the Materials and Methods, in L150-151 and L169-171.
Can you explain this more? After seeing all those effects on the grafted seedlings, why didn't they show up in the final product?
Response, L386-388: A possible explanation was included.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is written well and interesting. I also find it interesting to note that the wavelength with which the seedlings were later treated had no effect on the quality of the fruit.
Author Response
The paper is written well and interesting. I also find it interesting to note that the wavelength with which the seedlings were later treated had no effect on the quality of the fruit.
Response: The authors would like to express their gratitude to the reviewers for the time they invested for assessing our manuscript.
Reviewer 4 Report
very well written article and a pleasure to read. I made various editorial suggestions in the attached file.
my only question is that you presented the 2019 data only when you mentioned that both years were similar. in this case, you should indicate that the statistical analysis for 'years' is not significant and you should present the averages of the two years.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Very well written article and a pleasure to read. I made various editorial suggestions in the attached file.
my only question is that you presented the 2019 data only when you mentioned that both years were similar. in this case, you should indicate that the statistical analysis for 'years' is not significant and you should present the averages of the two years.
Response: The authors would like to express their gratitude to the reviewers for the time they invested for assessing our manuscript and their useful comments and suggestions. The minor amendments they suggested are highlighted with cyan colour. The question regarding 2018 and 2019 field cultivations is answered below, in the respective point.
not a true statement. in the US, this is absolutely wrong. please specify what region or country
Response, L9: This mainly applies to some countries of Europe and Eastern Asia. We amended this statement, as suggested.
did you confirm that the two years were similar by statistical analysis? if so, then, i suggest you present the combined years data,
Response, L153-154: By this statement we mean that no statistically significant differences were observed between light treatments in the measured parameters, in both years. This observation leads to the conclusion that the fruit quality remains unchanged regardless of light treatments during the healing stage, and it was shown in two consecutive years. In any case, some parameters (but not all) were similar by statistical analysis between the two years. Data from 2018 cultivation were included in Supplementary Table S1.
why not add the soil classification name?
Response, L157-158: The soil classification name was added, as suggested.
disease symptoms?
Response, L172: No major diseases occurred during our experiments. A few fruits had bite marks from rodents but we omitted such fruits from the analyzes.
oBrix, not Brixo
Response, L177: Brixo was corrected to oBrix, as suggested.
change to alpha symbol
Response, L202: a was changed to α, as suggested.
do you have a reference confirming this idea? or is this your opinion?
Response, L229: A reference was added to support this statement.
can you get a reference for this statement? it would be very helpful
Response, L238: A reference was added, as suggested.
at the first mention of any of these minerals, use the abbreviation, for example Calcium (Ca).
this way, you don't need to explain them in Table 3.
Response, L318-327: Indeed, this way it is easier to omit abbreviations in a table. Thank you for your comment. The text was amended, as suggested.
