The Influence of Blue and Red Light on Seed Development and Dormancy in Nicotiana tabacum L.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article deals with the analysis of the influence of blue and red light on seeds dormancy. This topics is a contribution of studying the photomorphogenesis process regulating plant development. In this case study, the plant species is Nicotiana tabacum L. and the plant stage is the seeds. This study is very relevant with the Seeds journal and can give significant information and knowledge to the scientific community. However, although the study has the data of quality, there still are some modifications to be published. Moreover, I have serious doubt concerning the fact that the experiment was done at the same level of light but with different spectra. So the authors have to demonstrate that the effects they observed is not due to the difference of photosynthetic efficiency.

General comments

The article quality can be improved by avoiding some repetitions that are not necessary. The structure of the introduction can be modified in order to avoid to give some results at the end of the introduction and make clearly appear the problematic and the objective. The presentation of  some figures is in the inverse according to the text. Some parts of the results deal with the discussion and the discussion part can be improved by giving some ecological implication. The list of references has to be harmonized because the year of publication is not at the same place for all the references.

Specific comments

L55-57 : this paragraph is not clear. Maybe the sentence is too long.

L57-58 : “Following the same line…” this kind of expression is encountered several times in the article. It is too vague and can be avoided.

L59 : what is the difference between “dynamics” and “kinetics” in this case ?

L64 : please describe the “cross-comparative approach”.

L71 : isn’t it “photomorphogenetic-like behaviour” instead of “stoko-photomorphogenetic-like behaviour” ?

L86-87 : in all tested conditions the level of light was the same. It is necessary to give the photosynthetic efficiency to be sure that there were similar because if it si not, the observed results could be attributed to a difference of photosynthetic efficiency due to the difference of LED spectrum. Moreover, it could be interesting to give the spectra of the light sources.

L176 : it is not clear for me the interest to dark and light according to the objective of the study and also according to the title of the article. Moreover, there are no question of dark in the introduction. So this point should be introduced in the introduction and should be coherent with the title.

L214-215: this sentence should be in the discussion section after the subject be presented in the introduction.

L232 : it is referred to the Figure 3 and it is the inverse because it is the figure 4.

L243-245 : this paragraph is a point of discussion so it is not in the right place.

L254 : wrong figure is referenced

L276 : the graph of the figure 5 deals with % of germination for Y-axis and the legend referred to the dormancy. Maybe the Y-axis could be deal with the dormancy even if we know that both are linked.

L287 : what do you mean about “less represented”

L287-288 : avoid expression “on the same line…”

L288 : “minimal contribution” , in M&M section there are no elements concerning the methods used to obtain this result which is interesting.

L293 : make a new paragraph from “In order to…”

L297-300 : no elements of the results can help to understand this sentence especially from the table 2.I mean that there no values in the text that can help the reader to understand.

L307-310 : please rephrase because there is a repetition of the idea that environment influences the germination : “affect germination” and “conditions that allow germination to occur”

L312-313 : “Here…maternal plants”. It is not clear how you studied that.

L315 : “they” is for what ?

L323 : no results about this proportionality has been presented.

L327 : “negligible red” : no results have been presented in this way.

L329-331 : could you please discuss the fact the leaves are performed in the capsules so that light perception can occur.

L338-339 : please discuss this part with the active form of the phytochrome.

L357 : “On the same lines”…

L364-365 : connection between red light, phytochrome, absisic and giberellins has been already established in previous studies. No results were presented for abscisic and giberellins in this study. So discuss it.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript touches upon the actual problem of the effect of the optical flow of the visible region (and more specifically blue and red) on the dormant state of Nicotiana tabacum L. seeds.

For a more complete demonstration of all the advantages of the manuscript, it is desirable to supplement the Introduction section with information on the practical application of the research results, for example, to increase the efficiency of the process of obtaining an improved tobacco harvest, at the end of the Discussion section – to justify and outline future research.

Major comments:

Abstract

1. Specify the numerical values of the wavelength in nanometers for the blue and red regions used in the study.
2. It is appropriate to add two sentences at the end of the abstract that answer the questions: "What do the results mean in practice? and what remains unresolved?".
3. L18. I believe that not only stimuli, but also environmental stressors lead to physiological reactions in the seed. Therefore, it is advisable to write through slash stimuli /stressors.
4. L 21 The phrase "environmental influence on this relationship remains largely unstudied" is too global regarding the title of the manuscript, where it is supposed to study the effects of blue and red light on the rest of tobacco seeds. Narrow the horizon for the term "environment" to "the influence of the red and blue regions".
5. L 22 By analogy with point 4, narrow down the term "light quality" to a specific photometric value that was measured and controlled during the influence (light energy, luminous flux, luminous intensity, brightness, light temperature, etc.). If light was considered only from the point of view of perception by the human eye, then this is a purely individual process and the term "light quality" has no physical meaning. How was the light viewed? If light was considered as an electromagnetic wave, then at least it is necessary to specify the wavelength in nm and the luminous flux in watts.

Keywords

6. It is desirable to include the breed of the plant in the keywords, as well as specific parameters measured in the manuscript. The term "Light quality" should be excluded as having no physical meaning.

Introduction

7. The text from L55 to L79 has nothing to do with the introduction, but very closely resembles a mixture of M&M and Discussion. To increase the reader's interest, the introduction should contain at least four paragraphs: 1) the current state of the problem when the visible optical flow of the red and blue region affects the rest of the seeds; 2) what is the least studied, or what needs to be checked again? 3) where can the results of this study be applied in practice what is the practical effect? 4) a clear purpose of the study.
8. The most up-to-date research on this subject, given in the manuscript, dates back to 2020. Only 13 are listed in the introduction. However, the topic of the effect of light on seeds is very popular and controversial, which entails a huge amount of research. Are there more recent studies? Please explain the search procedure. It is advisable to specify the query that you enter into the search bar (Scopus or WoS), as well as the procedure for filtering and selecting the significance of the references found.
9. Clearly and clearly indicate the purpose of the study. It must be consistent with the title of the manuscript.

M&M

10. Since we are talking about seeds, especially about their dormant state, the first number of the section must indicate the species of the plant, the place of collection (latitude, longitude, altitude above sea level), processing before storage, storage conditions before the experiment (temperature, humidity, tightness and other criteria of rest).
11. However, the following text (L84-90) completely rejects the title and abstract, and can also confuse a potential reader. Firstly, the authors claim that the optical flow of the blue and red region affected the plants two weeks before flowering (L89), and not the dormant seeds. Secondly, the plants were exposed to white light for 6-8 weeks, which calls into question the purity of the experiment.
12. L87. Specifying the intensity of the lamp light in μmol photons/(s·m²) involves considering light as a stream of photons, and specifying the wavelength (i.e. blue and red) as an electromagnetic wave. It is advisable to stick to one position for the possibility of a correct comparison. According to the name – to consider light as an electromagnetic wave.

 

I consider further reviewing appropriate after answering the previous questions and correcting the text or title.

Author Response

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This research article focuses on N. tabacum seed germination in seeds produced by plants subjected toto exposition to different kinds of light (white, blue and red). Authors compare germination among light treatments and control, and they conclude that there is direct dose-related effect of the red light on seed dormancy.

My main concern is about germination experiments and the assessment of viability dormancy.

1)The germination conditions are not expressed: photoperiod, temperature, days/hours of observation, when germination was scored (once a day, twice, etc). How were these conditions selected? Based on preliminary analyses (must be shown in supplementary) or an already published protocol?

2) How was viability assessed in order to adjust germination percentage on total viable seeds? (E.g. tetrazolium, cut tests). How was dormancy assessed? Did the authors use GA₃ or scarification to determine physiological/physical dormancy?

3) Lack of statistical analyses.

Considering that the whole paper is based on the difference in seed dormancy, I suggest to better analyse germination and dormancy at all stages of the experiments.

Discussion also includes some associations with phytochromes and hormones (lines 354-374), and I strongly recommend revising this part as it was not included in the experimental design and it is only reported as references from other studies.

Author Response

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

In the manuscript entitled “The influence of blue and red light on seeds dormancy in Nicotiana tabacum L.”, the authors investigated the effects of the light quality on seed development and maturation. This work could be an interesting contribution to the knowledge of the different light qualities in seed dormancy. It is rich in experimental data and easy to read. The manuscript is suitable for publication in the Seeds with minor revision on language.

Author Response

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I invite you to calculate the photosynthetic efficiency. Because I think there is a misunderstanding when you are writing that you have monitored it during several days and no effects. So, you should give more informations and results about that.

Moreover, it is not a good thing to use "lux" unit for plants.

Please check the typo. For instance L52 replace "blu" instead by "blue"

Author Response

Please, see attached file.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for addressing comments, a very interesting work. I am satisfied with the modifications you carried out and I will recommend the paper for publication. I suggest a minor spell check when proofing the document (e.g., spotted 'blu' instead of 'blue' at p2 l52). Best regards

Author Response

Please, see attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf