Short-Term Pre-Harvest Supplemental Lighting with Different Light Emitting Diodes Improves Greenhouse Lettuce Quality
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
All commens and suggestions are inserted in text.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
General response
We re-examined our data analysis and found that there was some mistake in the data arrangement in the JMP data sheet which did not match our experimental design. This was confirmed by consulting a statistical expert. Because of this mistake, we re-ran all the results, and the current results are slightly different from those in the old version. Therefore, we have replaced all the graphs of results and revised all the relevant sections as well.
Specific response to Reviewer 1
Line 111-114: delete “for each replicate (Rep.)”. “The experimental periods … respectively” should be inserted in text, not into Figure title.
Response: Agree. Revised
Line 141: The trial replications should be conducted at the same time, not one after another. Even your experiment has been conducted in the greenhouse, plant grown in different replications (actually growing periods) didn't have the same growing conditions (DLI) before SL treatments, which could significantly affect the results!
Response: Thanks for your comment. Due to greenhouse space limitation, we could not accommodate 21 hydroponic systems in the same greenhouse. Therefore, we conducted three trials from January to May. In each trial, we had 7 treatments, 12 plants (subsamples) per treatment. We adopted randomized complete block design and the three trials as three blocks. We confirmed this design with a statistical expert.
Line 227-229: treated with pre-harvest supplemental lighting
All treatments are mentioned in text so there is no need to be explained in Figure title.
Response: Agree. Revised
Line 231-233: This text should stay under Figure marked with * as explanation
Response: Agree. Revised
Line 273-280: Please correct the Figure title as title of Figure 3.
Response: Thanks for your suggestion. Revised
Line 285-286: Insert space between paragraph and subtitle
Response: Inserted
Line 314-321: Please correct the Figure title as title of Figure 3.
Response: Revised.
Line 342-418: Please, use both sides justification for text in this and next paragraphs.
Response: Adjusted
Line 437: Include the digital object identifier (DOI) for all references where available.
Response: Added
Line 448: Acta Horticulturae?
Response: Yes. Revised
Line 503: Hortic.
Response: Revised.
Reviewer 2 Report
Hooks et al. researched the short-term effect of different kinds of LEDs on the quality of red lettuce. The article is appropriate for Horticulturae but should undergo a substantial revision, especially in the discussion part in order to be accepted. Specific points for improvement follow below.
Line 27, revise “LED spectra”
Major: Line 167 provide reasoning for the different growth periods for replicates 1,2,3. Do the results concern one or all three replicates?
Line 182: provide a short explanation for the extraction process.
Major: Discussion: This is the part that requires a major improvement. The authors should discuss the physiological events behind their observations and correlate their findings to aspects of the product quality. As it is, the discussion is mostly descriptive.
Author Response
General response
We re-examined our data analysis and found that there was some mistake in the data arrangement in the JMP datasheet which did not match our experimental design. This was confirmed by consulting a statistical expert. Because of this mistake, we re-ran all the results, and the current results are slightly different from those in the old version. Therefore, we have replaced all the graphs of results and revised all the relevant sections as well.
Specific responses to Reviewer 2
Hooks et al. researched the short-term effect of different kinds of LEDs on the quality of red lettuce. The article is appropriate for Horticulturae but should undergo a substantial revision, especially in the discussion part in order to be accepted. Specific points for improvement follow below.
Response: Thanks for your comment and suggestions.
Line 27, revise “LED spectra”
Response: revised.
Major: Line 167 provide reasoning for the different growth periods for replicates 1,2,3. Do the results concern one or all three replicates?
Response: The difference in growth periods to reach harvest among the three replicates was due to different environmental factors. The reasoning was added to the revised manuscript. The results concern all three replicates.
Line 182: provide a short explanation for the extraction process.
Response: A short explanation was provided following your suggestion.
Major: Discussion: This is the part that requires a major improvement. The authors should discuss the physiological events behind their observations and correlate their findings to aspects of the product quality. As it is, the discussion is mostly descriptive.
Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised this section to add the physiological explanation and correlated it to product quality.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The article can be accepted.
