Growth, Physicochemical, Nutritional, and Postharvest Qualities of Leaf Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) as Affected by Cultivar and Amount of Applied Nutrient Solution

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is focused on the growth parameters of lettuce after various concentrations of nutrition supply. The results and discussion section is very long; some details could be omitted. On the other hand, the conclusion is rather short. Also, some experimental data should be added to support the final statements.

• Row 116-117 – re-write the sentence about “living biomass of plant that existed above ground”.
• Table 1 – Standard deviations are missing. Add them.
• Table 1 - Why is the number of leaves with a decimal point?
• Figure 1 – A scale in microscopy images is missing. How much did the cell size differ?
• Line 214, 284 –“-1” values should be in upper index
• 3 – Total colour difference – Specify how… to which spectrum did the colour shift?
• Why weren’t more parameters (vitamin C and so on) measured after the last day of storage at 7°C and compared? It would be better to underpin the lettuce quality. The subjective visual quality is not enough for a strong statement in the conclusion (postharvest qualities). At least, explain the colour change and what it could mean.
• The manuscript (as well as Fig. 3 and 4) would benefit from plant images. I strongly recommend to add pictures of the experimental plants (at least to supplement).

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The manuscript is focused on the growth parameters of lettuce after various concentrations of nutrition supply. The results and discussion section is very long; some details could be omitted. On the other hand, the conclusion is rather short. Also, some experimental data should be added to support the final statements. 
Author response: Thank you! The manuscript has been revised to supplement your comments. The Results and Discussion sections were reduced in length and the Conclusion section was increased.

1.    Row 116-117 – re-write the sentence about “living biomass of plant that existed above ground”. 
Author response: We have changed the sentence as per your suggestions. (Page 3, lines 115–116)

2.    Table 1 – Standard deviations are missing. Add them. 
Author response: According to your suggestion, we have added the standard deviation values. (Page 6, lines 256–260)

3.    Table 1 - Why is the number of leaves with a decimal point? 
Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. To reflect your suggestion, we have listed the number of plant experiments in the Table 1 footnote as the mean of the four experimental samples. (Page 6, line 258)

4.    Figure 1 – A scale in microscopy images is missing. How much did the cell size differ?
Author response: We have added a scale bar to the plant picture in the revised manuscript. Additionally, data on the comparison of the cell sizes have been added to the revised text. (Page 7, line 282)

5.    Line 214, 284 –“-1” values should be in upper index
Author response: We have made this change. (Page 5, line 216; page 8, line 296)

6.    3 – Total colour difference – Specify how… to which spectrum did the colour shift?
Author response: The total color difference (ΔE*) was calculated using a formula, which has been stated as Equation 1 in the revised manuscript. (Page 4, line 152)

7.    Why weren’t more parameters (vitamin C and so on) measured after the last day of storage at 7°C and compared? It would be better to underpin the lettuce quality. The subjective visual quality is not enough for a strong statement in the conclusion (postharvest qualities). At least, explain the colour change and what it could mean.
Author response: Thank you for your suggestion. To avoid this, we have added the following sentence: " Relative fresh weight, total color difference, and overall visual quality score measurements were discontinued when they became worthless as products." (Page 12, line 455)

8.    The manuscript (as well as Fig. 3 and 4) would benefit from plant images. I strongly recommend to add pictures of the experimental plants (at least to supplement).
Author response: As per your suggestion, we have added photographs in Table 2. However, we could not obtain images over time. To reflect this, we have added the following sentence: "The overall visual quality evaluation began with 9 points based on Table 2 and was performed by three resources in the storage room." (Page 14, line 507)
 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is well written. Just minor comments as follows:

1. Add the impact of the study on industries/economy etc. at the end of the abstract
2. Lines 91-94: Please revise the sentence. Difficult to understand.
3. Please number the equations

Author Response

Reviewer 2

The manuscript is well written. Just minor comments as follows:
Author response: Thank you for your comment.

1.    Add the impact of the study on industries/economy etc. at the end of the abstract
Author response: As per your suggestion, we have added the following sentence: "The results of this study can be applied for distributing, storing, transporting, and marketing lettuce." (Page 1, line 26)

2.    Lines 91-94: Please revise the sentence. Difficult to understand.
Author response: We have revised this sentence to enhance its readability. (Page 2, line 90)

3.    Please number the equations]
Author response: Thank you for your comment. All the equations have been numbered in the revised manuscript. (Page 4, line 152; page 5, line 205; and line 216)
 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

This is an interesting and well written manuscript. I really enjoyed reading this research and the dataset is good.

• All key elements are present.
• The title clearly describes the article.
• The abstract content clearly reflects the entire content of the article.
• In the introduction paragraph the authors clearly estate the problem investigated. Also, the purpose of the study is specified.
• The authors accurately explain the field experiments.
• Data are well presented

Author Response

Reviewer 3

This is an interesting and well written manuscript. I really enjoyed reading this research and the dataset is good.
Author response: Thank you for your comment.

1.    All key elements are present.
Author response: Thank you for your comment.

2.    The title clearly describes the article.
Author response: Thank you for your comment.

3.    The abstract content clearly reflects the entire content of the article.
Author response: Thank you for your comment.

4.    In the introduction paragraph the authors clearly estate the problem investigated. Also, the purpose of the study is specified.
Author response: Thank you for your comment.

5.    The authors accurately explain the field experiments.
Author response: Thank you for your comment.

6.    Data are well presented
Author response: Thank you for your comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreaciate the changes. I think the manuscript is much better readable. 
Also, other issues were explained and the plant pictures improve the paper as well.

Author Response

Thank you for your acceptance.
Your opinion has made the manuscript better.
Thank you again.