Effects of Temperature and Photoperiod on the Flower Potential in Everbearing Strawberry as Evaluated by Meristem Dissection
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The author has done a study with strong applicability and high significance. The measured and analyzed data also fully prove the research conclusions. However, some details in the following are suggested to make minor modifications.
Line 91. Use abbreviations consistently after the full name appears once，Change ‘short and long day’ to ‘SD and LD’.
Line 116. Forgive my poor English，what is ‘greenhouse chamber’？A greenhouse that relies on natural light or a growth chamber that uses artificial light?
Line 115. If the photoperiod is recorded, it is recommended to give the average natural daylight time during the experimental period.
Line 119. HPS: ‘high powered sodium lamps’ or ‘high-pressure sodium (HPS) lamps’ ? and it is recommended to add the model, manufacturer and origin information for all equipment and reagents.
Line 120. 0900 to 1600 → 09:00 to 16:00. Is that the HPS supplementary lighting time is all between sunrise and sunset? Is the natural light period extended by HPS? Although it can be judged by common sense of geography, it is recommended to provide additional explanations.
Line 123-125. Whether watering method conforms to control variable method? Is the significant difference between treatments due to different water supply volume?
Table 2. The photo of floral developmental stages is good. However, it is recommended to adjust the photo size to the same.
Figure 1. The same abscissa title ‘Weeks after planting’ can appear only at the bottom like the abscissa scale.
Figure 3. Is ‘Weeks’ the same as ‘Weeks after planting’? Please express it in a unified manner.
Figure 5. Missing right side line. Pay attention to upper and lower case for all figs.
Figure 6. Image aspect ratio misalignment.
Table A1. What are the red highlights?
Conclusions. The conclusion should be more concise. Analytical descriptions are more likely to come in the discussion section.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Samad et al. provide a methodology for flowering prediction in strawberries using the examination of meristems. The article is within the scope of Horticulturae, however, a major revision, especially of the discussion part is required in order for the manuscript to be accepted.
Line 17 elaborate “flower mapping”, the use of unexplained terminology should be avoided for the abstract.
Line 25 revise “maximize yield potential”
Line 39 revise “weather damage”
Line 44 elaborate
Line 70 explain BBCH scale
Line 179 revise “stereo microscope”
Lines 179-185 please clarify the methodology, explain why only visual observations were used at the end of the experiment. Did S4, S5 stages exist at the end of the experiment?
2.3.3 Describe the methodology and the equipment used for the dry matter calculation.
Line 203 revise “grew taller faster”
Line 205 revise “gentle”
Figure 1 in my opinion the authors should include the dry matter in Fig 1. As it stands the manuscript listed these results as Figure A1 (is it supplementary data?). In any case, these results should be included in the main manuscript and the authors should format the figures/tables according to the Horticulturae instructions for authors.
Line 516 Revise, please choose a different way to underline the originality of the manuscript.
The discussion is weak, please enrich it with conclusions from other studies comparing them to the results, and avoid speculatory statements. The conclusion should be reached after the evaluation of the results under the prism of older findings and the prospects that they offer.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
After the revision, the article can be accepted for publication.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
