Supplemental Lighting Quality Influences Time to Flower and Finished Quality of Three Long-Day Specialty Cut Flowers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The researchers studied the influence of the quality of supplementary lighting (SL) in different growing seasons on the quality of three cut flowers. The work addresses a subject that has been little studied, although it has simple variables, but it efficiently contributes to improving the understanding of lighting in cut flowers. The reasoning is adequate and it is written in a clear and objective way. Therefore, the manuscript can be published given a significant contribution to the topic studied. There are some points that need to be elucidated and better described in the manuscript. The authors indicated that the average temperature of the greenhouse was 16oC. However, it is important to make clear the maximum and minimum temperature and their variation. This is what biologically affects the plant and needs to be very clear in the text. Figures 4 and 5 indicate polynomial regression studies based on the relationship of two independent variables. This study using polynomial regression instead of Pearson correlation (r) is quite controversial. Another problem is the use of regression models with values of coefficient of determination with very low values, although it has given significance but little explains the studied phenomenon. Another statistical question would be in figures 2 and 3 that the figures do not show the "minimum significant difference" referring to the mean comparison test (Tukey). Therefore, the main concern of the research is the statistics and we recommend to the authors a review of this analysis with an expert.
Author Response
There are some points that need to be elucidated and better described in the manuscript. The authors indicated that the average temperature of the greenhouse was 16C. However, it is important to make clear the maximum and minimum temperature and their variation. This is what biologically affects the plant and needs to be very clear in the text.
The temperature was a constant 16 C day and night. Please refer to tables 1 and 2.
Figures 4 and 5 indicate polynomial regression studies based on the relationship of two independent variables. This study using polynomial regression instead of Pearson correlation (r) is quite controversial. Another problem is the use of regression models with values of coefficient of determination with very low values, although it has given significance but little explains the studied phenomenon. Another statistical question would be in figures 2 and 3 that the figures do not show the "minimum significant difference" referring to the mean comparison test (Tukey). Therefore, the main concern of the research is the statistics and we recommend to the authors a review of this analysis with an expert.
We consulted two statisticians and both have indicated that the statistical analysis we conducted is appropriate for figures 2, 3, 4 and 5. There are standard error bars that show the minimum significant difference between the treatments.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is very well written and consults a lot of materials to support the content and data of the research. The TVB, TTH, TOF, petal coloration and other indicators of different varieties of flowers were analyzed under six different lamp sources, and the optimal model was recommended after considering CFI and economic factors.
However, I have some reservations regarding the methods used and the data recorded thereafter:
L8, L40:Streamline the language of Abstract and Introduction;
L299, L249: Make a table in a standard way of Table1, Table 2 (three-line table, line thickness, length, etc; check for full-paper similar errors);
L340: Make a verbal expression in a standard way, replace the symbol of “≈”(check for full-paper similar errors);
L398: Add the date unreported in 3.4;
L425: The results of the significance analysis were supplemented to support the conclusion in 3.5;
L452: Complete the significance analysis of Table 4 and letter the table to support the results;
L455: Condense the words, appeared in the conclusion by citing papers.
The paper is very well written and consults a lot of materials to support the content and data of the research. The TVB, TTH, TOF, petal coloration and other indicators of different varieties of flowers were analyzed under six different lamp sources, and the optimal model was recommended after considering CFI and economic factors.
L299, L249: Make a table in a standard way of Table1, Table 2 (three-line table, line thickness, length, etc; check for full-paper similar errors);
L340: Make a verbal expression in a standard way, replace the symbol of “≈”(check for full-paper similar errors);
L398：添加 3.4 中未报告的日期;
L425 补充了显著性分析的结果以支持3.5中的结论;
L452：完成表4的显著性分析，并用字母对表进行支持结果;
L455： 浓缩词，出现在结论中 通过引用论文。
Author Response
The paper is very well written and consults a lot of materials to support the content and data of the research. The TVB, TTH, TOF, petal coloration and other indicators of different varieties of flowers were analyzed under six different lamp sources, and the optimal model was recommended after considering CFI and economic factors.
Thank you!
However, I have some reservations regarding the methods used and the data recorded thereafter:
L8, L40: Streamline the language of Abstract and Introduction;
These sections have been streamlined.
L299, L249: Make a table in a standard way of Table1, Table 2 (three-line table, line thickness, length, etc; check for full-paper similar errors);
Table 1 and 2 were changed to look like all the other tables.
L340: Make a verbal expression in a standard way, replace the symbol of “≈”(check for full-paper similar errors);
The symbol “≈” has been replaced in certain sections.
L398: Add the date unreported in 3.4;
This data was not included because it was not significant.
L425: The results of the significance analysis were supplemented to support the conclusion in 3.5;
This was clarified.
L452: Complete the significance analysis of Table 4 and letter the table to support the results;
The following was added to table 4 "NSindicates non-significance between treatments according to the Tukey-Kramer honestly significant difference (hsd) test at P ≤0.05."
L455: Condense the words, appeared in the conclusion by citing papers.
The discussion was condensed.
