Effect of Temperature Variation and Blue and Red LEDs on the Elongation of Arugula and Mustard Microgreens
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article titled “High temperature may reduce rather than reverse plant elongation mediated by blue versus red LED light” the effects of two lights (blue and red) at two temperatures (18 °C and 28 °C) on plant elongation in arugula and mustard. The text is written well. The figures are of high quality. The results and conclusions are clear. The topic fits the scope of the journal. Overall, I suggest that this article can be accepted after minor revision.
My concern:
Line 156: why did the authors choose an illumination density of 110 µmol m -2 s -1? The relevant information should be added to the text.
Reference: Several citations are old. I suggest the authors update and try to cite the newest references.
Author Response
Please attached file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The study is relevant and has potential for publication, after corrections.
- In the title, put the name of the species that were studied. The authors used the term
“plant” which is not recommended in this case.
- Quote the elongation rate reference.
- The design was not in a factorial scheme, why there are two factors (temperature and light)? Correct this information about the delineation. The experiment was a 2 x 2 double factorial.
- It is not necessary to describe the results citing the subtopics (plant elongation, etc). I suggest removing them all.
- Put all the letters in black color.
- Why did they use 110 PPFD?
Those are my suggestions.
Regards,
Author Response
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript is devoted to issue of effect of temperature variation to plant elongation and other traits relevant to shade avoidance response mediated by blue vs. red light for the two microgreen species grown indoor at a modest intensity. Studying plant elongation response to light under different environmental conditions will provide useful information for microgreen growers. Thus, the study has a fundamental and applied value.
I want to note that the manuscript is well designed, "Materials and Methods" are described in detail. In the "Introduction" section, the current state of the topic under study is described in detail, the goals and objectives of the study are well formulated. In the "Discussion" section, the obtained data are substantiated, a comparison with previously obtained results is given.
But I reckon that the current title of the manuscript does not fully reflect the content of the work. I think the title should be changed.
Also take into account the following notes:
Lines 99-105 I advise you to remove the numbering when listing the objectives of the study.
Line 119 The materials from Table 1 should be presented more clearly - not in the form of dates, but in the form of the sum of days for each phase (germination, growth).
205,207 One reference to Table 1 is enough.
Line 219 Figure 2. “Plant elongation growth under different light and temperature treatments…” Please provide a description of all figures under the symbols A-H (possible in groups). Group E-H is better to highlight in a separate figure.
Lines 408-419 In the "Conclusions" section, give brief recommendations for the production of microgreens, taking into account the data obtained.
Author Response
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
