Comparison of Different Temperature Control Systems in Tropical-Adapted Greenhouses for Green Romaine Lettuce Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper reports on the «Comparison of different temperature control systems in smart 2 greenhouses for green romaine lettuce production». Although the topic of the study is interesting and in general it is a well-structured study, there were some paragraphs - points - sentences in which I could not see the coherence and I think it needs to be improved. The experiments are described well, in detailed methods and materials, the description of the results is generally comprehensible, and the discussion structure is equally good. Moreover, in most parts of the work there were bibliographic references. The following are the observations I have made.

Introduction, Lines 38-61: In the two first paragraphs, although supported by bibliography, I believe that there is no coherence between the sentences. It is as if the authors have taken sentences based on the literature and put them into the text without any continuity.

Introduction, Lines 96-98: Same comment as above.

Materials and methods, Line 117: I don't think that “or” fits the sentence.

Results, Lines 250-252: Authors write “More specifically, the relative humidity inside the greenhouse was increased throughout the moment of fogging operation in all treatments, which was higher than outside conditions (Table 1, Figure 1).” That happens only in the 2^nd and 3^rd harvesting period and not in the 1st. I believe that authors must clarify it.

Results, Line 302: I believe the figures are blurry.

Results, Line 308: In what harvest period is Figure 2 referring to?

Results, Lines 315-317: Authors write “Under all the operating patterns of temperature control systems, the highest leaf number and leaf area tended to occur when fogging and ventilation fan systems were operating”.  Concerning the leaf number and according to Table 2 the highest measure is not when fogging and ventilation fun system were operating, but when fogging + shading + and ventilation and fun system were operating.

Results, Lines 374-375: Authors write “In contrast, 374 the lowest total potassium content was observed in lettuce grown under fogging and shading”. According to Table 5, the lowest is in T1 not in T3.

Discussion, Line 429: Authors write “As shown in the current study, the indoor temperature under the control treatment with non-operating temperature control systems was higher than 35 °C, which Chen et al. [35] demonstrated that bolting (producing a flowering stem prematurely) was prone to accelerate under the high-temperature conditions”. In the part that it is underlined, the connection is unclear.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English use needs some editing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research is interesting. However, I didn’t find much novelty in this paper. Can the results be reproduced in other places or even other greenhouses?

There is a “smart” in the title. But I don’t think this paper has anything to do with “smart greenhouse”. Through this research, we can only reach the conclusions on a relatively good regime for a certain lettuce cultivar in a certain greenhouse of a certain place.

As to “control system” in the title, I think the authors want to refer to different combinations of control actions. This has nothing to do with the control system which usually operates with “smart” algorithms.

I hope the authors can view these comments from a constructive way.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled "Comparison of different temperature control systems in smart greenhouses for green romaine lettuce production" addresses a novel and relevant topic within the field. It explores uncharted territory, making a valuable contribution to the existing body of knowledge.

·        The manuscript is well-structured, presenting results that meet the expected standards.

·        The tables and figures provided are clear, enhancing the comprehension of key points in the text.

·        The references used appear to be appropriate and support the content.

With some minor revisions, the manuscript can be considered for publication:

·        The abstract should concisely state the research problem and emphasize the most significant conclusions.

·        I recommend incorporating a section on future work in your conclusion to outline potential directions for further research.

·        Enhance the description of the results, particularly in the phytochemicals section, by including percentage changes compared to the control group.

 

·        Please include a discussion regarding antioxidant activity (DPPH) and its potential correlation with phytochemical contents and the various treatments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf