Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jul 15;16(7):e0243954. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243954

Effects of light spectra and 15N pulses on growth, leaf morphology, physiology, and internal nitrogen cycling in Quercus variabilis Blume seedlings

Jun Gao 1,2, Jinsong Zhang 1,2, Chunxia He 1,2,*, Qirui Wang 3
Editor: Xiao Guo4
PMCID: PMC8282041  PMID: 34264949

Abstract

Light spectra of sunlight transmittance can generate an interactive effect with deposited nitrogen (N) on regenerated plants across varied shading conditions. Total N content in understory plants can be accounted for by both exogeneous and endogenous sources of derived N, but knowledge about the response of inner N cycling to interactive light and N input effects is unclear. We conducted a bioassay on Chinese cork oak (Quercus variabilis Blume) seedlings subjected to five-month N pulsing with 15NH4Cl (10.39 atom %) at 120 mg 15N plant-1 under the blue (48.5% blue, 33.7% green, and 17.8% red), red (14.6% blue, 71.7% red, 13.7% green), and green (17.4% blue, 26.2% red, 56.4% green) lighting-spectra. Half of the seedlings were fed twice a week using a 250 ppm N solution with micro-nutrients, while the other half just received distilled water. Two factors showed no interaction and neither affected growth and morphology. Compared to the red-light spectrum, that in blue light increased chlorophyll and soluble protein contents and glutamine synthetase (GS) activity, root N concentration, and N derived from the pulses. The green-light spectrum induced more biomass allocation to roots and a higher percentage of N derived from internal reserves compared to the red-light spectrum. The 15N pulses reduced the reliance on N remobilization from acorns but strengthened shoot biomass, chlorophyll content, GS activity, and N concentration. In conclusion, light spectrum imposed an independent force from external N pulse to modify the proportion of N derived from internal sources in total N content in juvenile Q. variabilis.

Introduction

Anthropogenic activities have caused an increase in atmospheric nitrogen (N) deposition to forest ecosystems under climate change [13]. Intensive N input has altered the pattern of N cycling in tree populations [4], where sunlight spectra generated a combined influence with N deposition on understory regeneration. Empirical practices suggest a frequent photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) that was perceived by tree plants ranging within 60–80 μmol m-2 s-1 [5, 6]. This level of illumination was also found to fall in the range of understory sunlight transmittance [7]. Therefore, regenerated plants can come across the interactive influences of sunlight and N deposition at the understory layer. Along with the size of forest gaps, the interaction can vary by changing light-spectra and N pulsing levels. A knowledge gap still exists about combined light and N effects on understory forest regeneration.

Light is the most important environmental factor for plant growth and is a determinant of photosynthesis. The various responses of woody plants to different light spectra result from varied acclimations to lighting conditions of the understory layer [7]. Light from light-emitting diodes (LEDs) sources has been established as a solid and flexible tool for current tests on the response of juvenile trees to different spectra [5, 6, 815]. Responsive variables of tree seedlings are usually employed about growth and biomass parameters [5, 8, 14, 15], photosynthesis and stomatal conductance [5, 8, 15], and transplant performance [8, 14]. The change of lighting condition may result in dilution of nutrient concentration [8, 9, 12, 16]. This is caused by accelerated biomass accumulation in some given spectra while nutrients were not supplied to a required level [17]. Nutrient dilution greatly impairs seedling quality and negatively influences field performance [18, 19]. Therefore, the formation of nutrient dilution is one of the fatal factors that limit the success of forest regeneration.

A spectrum with high red light (600–700 nm) would induce a severer nutrition dilution symptom [6, 13]. The high blue-light LED spectrum (400–500 nm) could further accelerate biomass accumulation and stimulated the occurrence of nutrient dilution [14, 15]. The spectrum with high green light (500–600 nm) could not alleviate nutrient dilution for slowly growing species [11, 20]. Supplemental supply of exogeneous nutrient input can cope with nutrient dilution in juvenile trees subjected to some given lighting spectra [9, 12]. Detectable nutrient content, however, can also be derived from endogenous sources of nutrient reserves [2124]. To our knowledge, current understanding about the light and N interaction on nutritional status of trees usually neglects inner source of derived N.

Oak spp. has a general episodic growth pattern with multiple flushes and new budbursts in a growing season. Their response to light spectra is full of uncertainties. For example, a spectrum enriched with red and far-red wavelengths promoted shoot growth in Quercus ilex in early growing stage, but the promotion shifted to be effective on roots in later stage [25]. Spectra that were high in green-light wavelength can benefit whole-plant quality of Q. ithaburensis var. macrolepis [8], but growth and biomass were unchanged in Q. mongolica Fisch. ex Ledeb no matter whether the green-light spectrum was involved [20]. Chinese cork oak (Quercus variabilis Blume) is a widely distributed deciduous broadleaf tree species in East Asia throughout temperate and subtropical regions (24° to 42° N and 96° to 140° E) [26, 27]. This oak is a valued hardwood species that can be used as a raw material for construction, furniture, and nortriterpenoid extraction [28]. Because of high N resorption but low growing speed [26], Chinese cork oak usually needs a long time as regenerated saplings in the understory layer. It has a high frequency to receive both transmitted sunlight and N deposition than other oak species [29]. Besides the external source of nitrogen supply, N demand by oak can also be met by remobilization from inner reserves and acorns, which can together decrease the reliance on exogeneous-source N to feed current growth. The natural trait of N remobilization also increases the complexity to distinguish external vs internal sources of derived N in the total content [30]. Uncertainties will continuously increase when exposed to the interaction of lighting spectra and exogeneous N pulse for Chinese cork oak.

In this study, Chinese cork oak seedlings was raised under controlled conditions, where different characteristics of light spectra were imposed with simulated N deposition. The exogenous N input was labeled by 15N-isotope to facilitate distinguishing inner or outside sources of derived N. The object was to quantify the amount and percent of N derived from the pulse (NDFP) vs N derived from reserves (NDFR) in response to combined N input and lighting spectra. We hypothesized that: (1) the blue-light spectrum would induce more N dilution than the red- and green-light spectra, and (2) N concentration would be diluted to decline unless meeting N pulse of deposition.

Materials and methods

Plant material and growing condition

Pre-germinated Chinese cork oak acorns were collected from a seed source in Southern Taihang Mountains (34°58’-35°4’N, 112°24’-112°32’E) in central China. Authors stated that the name of the authority who issued the permission for field acorn collection was Nanshan Forest Farm, Jiyuan City, Henan Province, China. Acorns were sterilized in K permanganate solution (0.5%, w/w) for 30 min and sown into 212 cm3 (7 × 4 × 13 cm, top diameter × bottom diameter × height) volume trayed-cavities (4 × 8 individuals embedded in a tray) filled with N-poor substrates (Mashiro-Dust, Zhiluntuowei A&F S&T Inc., Changchun, China). This growing medium was comprised of 70% peat, 10% spent mushroom residue (SMR), and 20% perlite. Chemical analysis revealed that this media contained 9.8 mg kg-1 NH4–N, 5.6 mg kg-1 NO3-N, 870.3 mg kg-1 PO4-P, pH of 5.3, with an electrical conductance (EC) of 0.86 dS m-1. In mid-March, trayed acorns were incubated in the Laboratory of Combined Manipulations of Illumination and Fertility on Plant Growth (Zhilunpudao Agric. S&T Inc., Changchun, China) for 51 days until 80% germination. During germination, the indoor environment was controlled to 29/21°C (day/night) and relative humidity to 58/61% (max/min). In early May, germinated seedlings with fine roots attached to the acorn were transplanted to pots (11.5 × 7.5 × 9.5 cm, top diameter × bottom diameter × height) with one individual in each pot. All seedlings for transplant were screened to a similar size to eliminate possible impact of initial variation. Pots were filled with the same growing medium as described above. Four pots were placed in one tank (40 × 60 cm, width × length). A total of 216 potted seedlings were placed in 54 tanks.

LED lighting treatment

The tanked pots of seedlings were placed on iron shelves (2.0 × 0.5 ×1.5 m, height × width × length). Each shelf had three floors functioning as growing chambers (0.5 × 0.5 × 1.5 m, height × width × length). Two tanks were placed in each chamber so that each shelf contained six tanks with 24 seedlings. An LED panel (0.5 × 1.2 m, width × length; Pudao Photoelectricity, Zhiluntuowei A&F S&T., Inc., Changchun, China) was attached to the ceiling of each chamber. The LED panel provided lighting in a n18 h photoperiod, which has been proven to benefit the growth of slowly growing species [8, 31]. One hundred diodes were embedded in the downward surface of each panel at a spacing of 2 × 2 cm. Every diode was designed to emit blue, red, or green-light. The electric flow for diodes emitting the same type of light was controlled by one electrical administration transformer. Electric power for the array of red-light diodes was administrated by a 200 W transformer, while power for arrays of either green- or blue-lights diodes was administrated by a 135 W transformer. Changing the electric flow for one array of diodes could modify the photosynthetic photon flux rate (PPFD) intensity of the lights. Therefore, the spectrum of light that was emitted by one LED-panel was obtained by adjusting the electric flow for the other three diodes. The visual color of light from an LED panel is a mixture of wavelengths for blue, red, and green light at various PPFD intensities controlled by the electric flow.

Visually blue, red, and green lights were employed as mixed-wavelengths as visible lights from 400 to 700 nm (EVERFINE PLA-20, Yuanfang Elect. S&T Inc., Hangzhou, China) [32]. As our aim was to test the effect of different spectra, the intensity of PPFD was controlled to a similar level that produces ordinary growth [5, 14, 15] to eliminate unexpected error from the interaction between changes in lighting spectra and intensity [6, 9, 1113]. The spectra for three visual colors of lights fulfilling the requirements above were generated as follows:

  1. Blue-light spectrum: Electric flow was adjusted to 70%, 10%, and 10% of full power for arrayed diodes emitting blue, red, and green lights, respectively.

  2. Red-light spectrum: Electric flow was adjusted to 10%, 30%, and 20% of full power for arrayed diodes emitting blue, red, and green-light, respectively.

  3. Green-light spectrum: Electric flow was adjusted to 30%, 20%, and 100% of full power for arrayed diodes emitting blue, red, and green-light, respectively.

The outcome of the three spectra is shown in Fig 1 and the specific optical characteristics for the three spectra are provided in Table 1.

Fig 1. Typical performance of Chinese cork oak (Quercus variabilis Blume) seedlings exposed to blue (48.5% blue, 33.7% green, and 17.8% red), red (14.6% blue, 71.7% red, and 13.7% green), and green (17.4% blue, 26.2% red, 56.4% green) colors of light-emitting diode (LED) spectra.

Fig 1

Tanks for potted seedlings were 40 × 60 cm. Green tanks contained seedlings subjected to 15N pulses and black tanks contained seedlings subjected to water addition of the same volume.

Table 1. Optical characteristics (40cm beneath the lighting source) of light-emitting diode (LED) lighting in blue, green, and red visible light colors of combined wavelengths in a wide bandwidth from 400 nm to 700 nm.

Optical characteristics Visible light color
Blue Red Green
PPFD 1 (μmol m-2 s-1) 95.18 97.86 96.46
Proportional percent Blue 17.8% 14.6% 17.4%
Red 33.7% 71.7% 26.2%
Green 48.5% 13.7% 56.4%

Note:

1 PPFD, photosynthetic photon flux density.

15N pulsing treatment

In this study, N was delivered to Chinese cork oak seedlings through pulsing at a rate of 19.6 kg N ha-1 (~120 mg N plant-1), which is the annual amount of wet N deposition for the natural population in the region of warm temperate forests [33]. This amount is equal to 117 mg N plant-1. Four individuals were arranged in a 0.24 m2 area using the N consumption of mature trees to pulse our seedlings. It was reported that 125 mg N plant-1 can maximize dry mass production at a sufficient level of N input for oak (Quercus ilex) seedlings [34]. N was pulsed according to methods in previous studies [35, 36]. Seedlings were fed twice a week using a balanced nutrient solution [22] with 250 ppm N delivered through ammonium chloride (NH4Cl). In short, the solution contained 60 ppm P and 100 ppm K with micro-nutrients added [22]. Exogenous N was labeled 15N as 10.39 atom % 15NH4Cl (Shanghai Research Institute of Chemical Industry, Yunling Road, Shanghai, China). A 10 mL nutrient solution was applied to the soil surface of each pot using a 5 mL pipettor and only soils were pulsed to avoid 15N contamination of shoots [35, 36]. N was pulsed over 40 applications in five months. Out of the random pair of tanked seedlings, only one tank of four potted seedlings received 15N pulsing, while the other tank of four seedlings received distilled water at the same volume as the control.

Experiment design

This study was conducted as a split-block design with the main block being three LED spectra, each of which harbored two 15N pulse treatments. Three iron shelves with LED panels emitting blue, red, and green lights were assigned to one block, three randomly placed blocks of shelves were assigned as three replicates. Four seedlings in one tank (either with or without 15N pulse) per shelf floor were assigned as the basic unit of sampling and measurement. Three floors of tanked pots of seedlings were grouped to average the observations for combined spectrum and N treatment.

Sampling and measurement

All four seedlings per tank were sampled and measured for height and root collar diameter (RCD) in mid-October. Four seedlings were assigned to two groups, with two randomly chosen seedlings per group. One group of seedlings were separated into shoots (leaves and woody stems), roots, and acorn. Roots were washed three times, by tap water once and distilled water twice, to carefully remove substrates without causing damage to fine roots. All three parts of the seedlings for each group were dried in oven at 65°C to constant mass then weighed, ground, and measured for total N concentration and 15N enrichment using a stable isotope ratio mass spectrometer (Finnigan DELTAplus XP, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Grand Island, NY, USA) [37]. N content was calculated by the product of N concentration and biomass. Leaves of the other group of seedlings were directly used for determination or excised and stored in tinfoil-folded liquid N until measured for physiological parameters.

Four leaves were randomly chosen from two seedlings and scanned to obtain a 300 dots per inch (dpi) image (HP Deskjet 1510 scanner, HP Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA) whose background was stratified and removed in Photoshop CS V. 8.0 (Adobe, San Jose, CA, USA). The front layer of leaves was opened as a histogram. The leaf green index (GI) can be directly read from the background data of the histogram [10, 38, 39]. Leaf area can be calculated as the total pixels of the histogram divided by the square of the dpi [10, 39, 40]. Scanned leaves were oven-dried at 65°C to constant weight and measured for the biomass of a single leaf. Thereafter, the specific leaf area (SLA) was calculated as the product of leaf area and single leaf biomass.

Chlorophyll and protein concentrations were analyzed from fresh leaves using the method adapted from Zhao et al. [9]. In short, chlorophyll was determined using a 0.05 g sample, which was placed in a hydraulic bath at 65°C for 1 h and used to determine concentrations of chlorophyll-a, chlorophyll-b, and carotenoid at wavelengths of 663, 645, and 470 nm, respectively. Protein concentration was measured from a 0.1 g sample that was ground in 1 mL of phosphate buffer at7.5 pH, centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 10 min, treated with 0.1 mL of Folin’s reagent, and determined at 650 nm.

Foliar glutamine synthetase (GS) activity was assessed using the method reported by Wei et al. [40]. A 0.5 g leaf sample was homogenized in 5 mL extraction buffer (3.059 g Tris, 0.249 g MgSO4·7H2O, 0.309 g dithiothreitol, and 68.5 g sucrose dissolved in 500 mL deionized water brought to 8.0 pH using 0.05 mM HCl) at 6000 rpm for 20 min. We added 0.7 mL supernatant to 6 mL reaction B (6.118 g Tris, 9.959 g MgSO4·7H2O, 1.726 g monosodium glutamate, 1.211 g cysteine, 0.192 g Triethylene glycol diamine tetraacetic acid (EGTA), pH 7.4, 500 mL) using the solution of 0.7 mL ATP (40 mM). The mixture was incubated at 37°C for 30 min and the reaction was stopped by adding 1.0 mL of ferric chloride reagent (3.317 g trichloroacetic acid, 10.102 g FeCl3·6H2O, 5 mL sulfuric acid, 100 mL). The absorbance of the product, glutamyl-γ-hydroxamate, was measured as 540 nm. Protein content was determined using the Folin’s method as described above.

Calculations

We calculated the isotopic abundance for N in atom % (AN%) as [36, 41]:

AN%=15N14N+15N×100. (1)

The NDFP percentage was calculated as the relative specific allocation of pulse N (RSAN%) as [24, 36, 42]:

RSAN%=APulseAControlALabelAStandard×100, (2)

where APulse is the 15N abundance in pulsed seedling organs (shoots, roots, and acorns), AControl is the 15N abundance in organs of controlled seedlings without pulsing, ALabel is the 15N abundance in (15NH4)2Cl solution, and AStandard is the ambient standard of 0.366% [24, 42]. The NDFP amount can be calculated by:

NDFP=RSAN%×DM×NMass, (3)

where DM is the dry mass of the seedling organ and NMass is the N concentration in this organ. Therefore, the NDFR percentage can be calculated as 100% minus RSAN% [36]. The NDFR amount can be calculated as [36]:

NDFR=(1RSAN%)×DM×NMass. (4)

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed using SAS (ver. 9.4 64-bit, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). A Shapiro–Wilk test was conducted on data using the univariate procedure, logarithm transformation plus 1.0 was used for data with abnormal distribution to meet the normality requirement [43]. The effects of LED spectra (blue, red, and green) and 15N pulse (pulse vs control) were tested using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) employing a split-block model with the placement of three replicated blocks (n = 3) as the random factor in the mixed procedure. When a significant effect was indicated to be over-95% probability with degrees of freedom for the model and error of 5 and 12, respectively, means were arranged and compared according to Tukey’s test at the 0.05 level.

Results

Leaf morphology and physiological indexes

The two treatments had no effect on LA or GI (Table 2), which ranged from 83.36 ± 7.03 to 107.55 ± 11.20 cm2 and 86.49 ± 1.25 to 100.29 ± 16.92, respectively. The LED spectra treatment showed a significant effect on SLA (Table 2), which was higher in the red-light spectrum (512.84 ± 38.27 cm2 g-1) than in the blue (440.29 ± 45.50 cm2 g-1) and green (395.40 ± 21.83 cm2 g-1) light spectra.

Table 2. P-values from analysis of variance (ANOVA) of lighting spectrum (LS), 15N pulse (NP), and their interaction (LS × NP) on growth and foliar physiology in Chinese cork oak (Quercus variabilis Blume) seedlings.

Seedling parameter Source of variation
LS NP LS × NP
df = 2 df = 1 df = 2
LA 0.6174 0.5320 0.5283
GI 0.0938 0.6977 0.8854
SLA 0.0004** 0.0730 0.2901
Chlorophyll-a content 0.0241* 0.0101* 0.4547
Chlorophyll-b content 0.0144* 0.0270* 0.2196
Carotenoid content 0.1575 0.9566 0.5071
Protein content 0.0035** 0.1346 0.2783
Glutamine synthetase <0.0001*** 0.0228 0.7518
Seedling height 0.6139 0.6165 0.3341
RCD 0.2535 0.0824 0.1827
Shoot biomass 0.0067** 0.0013** 0.8486
Root biomass 0.0085** 0.0037** 0.9492
Acorn biomass 0.6218 0.0225* 0.2192
Shoot N concentration 0.0164* 0.0023** 0.6068
Root N concentration 0.0023** 0.0312* 0.2200
Acorn N concentration 0.2118 0.0046** 0.5194
Shoot N content 0.4390 0.0004** 0.8771
Root N content 0.0020** 0.8409 0.4896
Acorn N content 0.0134* 0.0247* 0.1168

Note: df, degree of freedom; LA, leaf area; GI, green index; SLA, specific leaf area; RCD, root-collar diameter; N, nitrogen; asterisks indicate levels of significant effects:

*, P<0.05;

**, P<0.01;

***, P<0.001.

Either lighting spectra or 15N pulse had a significant effect on chlorophyll-a and chlorophyll-b contents (Table 2). Both chlorophyll-a and chlorophyll-b contents were higher in the blue-light spectrum than in the red-light spectrum (Fig 2A and 2B). The 15N pulse increased the contents of both chlorophyll-a and chlorophyll-b relative to the control (Fig 2D and 2E). No effect was found on carotenoid content, which ranged between 0.15 and 0.25 mg g-1 (Fig 2C and 2F).

Fig 2. Contents of chlorophyll-a (A,D), chlorophyll-b (B,E), and carotenoid (C,F) in leaves of Chinese cork oak (Quercus variabilis Blume) seedlings subjected to blue, red, and green LED spectra (n = 24 seedlings per replicate) or subjected to N pulse at 120 mg 15N plant-1 (+15N) or zero (-15N) (n = 36).

Fig 2

Data that failed to follow a normal distribution were transformed by logarithm plus 1.0. Columns and bars represent means and standard errors, respectively. Different letters denote a significant difference according to Tukey’s test at the 0.05 level.

The LED spectra had a significant effect on leaf protein content (Table 2), which was higher in the blue-light spectrum than spectra from red and green-light (Fig 3A). The 15N pulse did not have any impact on leaf protein content (Fig 3C). Both LED spectra and 15N pulses had a significant effect on GS activity (Table 2). Again, the blue-light spectrum resulted in higher GS activity than red and green spectra (Fig 3B). The 15N pulse also produced a significant increase in GS activity compared to the control (Fig 3D).

Fig 3. Soluble protein content (A,C) and glutamine synthetase (GS) activity (B,D) in leaves of Chinese cork oak (Quercus variabilis Blume) seedlings subjected to blue, red, and green LED spectra lighting (n = 24) or subjected to N pulse at 120 mg 15N plant-1 (+15N) or zero (-15N) (n = 36).

Fig 3

Data that failed to follow a normal distribution were transformed by logarithm plus 1.0. Columns and bars represent means and standard errors, respectively. Different letters mark significant difference according to Tukey’s test at the 0.05 level.

Plant growth and biomass distribution

Neither LED spectra nor 15N pulse produced a significant effect on height or RCD (Table 2). Seedling height ranged between 16.70 ± 2.93 and 19.13 ± 1.91 cm, and RCD ranged from 0.35 ± 0.02 to 0.42 ± 0.05 cm. Both LED spectra and 15N pulse had a significant effect on biomass in shoot and root parts (Table 2). The green-light spectrum led to lower shoot biomass than the blue and red spectra (Fig 4A). In contrast, root biomass in the green-light spectrum was higher than in the other two spectra (Fig 4B). Compared with the control, the 15N pulse treatment resulted in larger shoot biomass (Fig 4D), but root biomass was lower (Fig 4E). The 15N pulse also lowered acorn biomass relative to the control (Fig 4F).

Fig 4. Biomass in shoot (A,D), root (B,E), and acorn (C,F) of Chinese cork oak (Quercus variabilis Blume) seedlings subjected to blue, red, and green colors of LED spectra (n = 24) or subjected to N pulse at 120 mg 15N plant-1 (+15N) or zero (-15N) (n = 36).

Fig 4

Data that failed to follow a normal distribution were transformed by logarithm plus 1.0. Columns and bars represent means and standard errors, respectively. Different letters denote a significant difference according to Tukey’s test at the 0.05 level.

Both LED spectra and 15N pulse treatments had a significant effect on root to shoot biomass ratio (R/S) (F5,12 = 21.51; P < 0.0001). R/S was higher in the green-light spectrum (5.62 ± 1.66) than in the blue (3.25 ± 0.73) and red (3.06 ± 1.07) spectra. The 15N pulse lowered R/S by 41% relative to the control (R/S values: 2.97 ± 0.89 and 4.99 ± 1.57, respectively).

Plant nitrogen content and distribution

Factors of LED spectra and 15N pulse treatments had a significant effect on N concentration in shoot and root parts (Table 2). Shoot N concentration was higher in the green-light spectrum than in the red-light spectrum (Fig 5A). However, root N concentration was higher in the blue-light spectrum than in the red-light spectrum (Fig 5B). The 15N pulse resulted in higher N concentration in both shoots (Fig 5E) and roots (Fig 5F) compared to the control. In contrast, the 15N pulse lowered acorn N concentration relative to the control (Fig 5F).

Fig 5. Nitrogen (N) concentration in shoot (A,D), root (B,E), and acorn (C,F) of Chinese cork oak (Quercus variabilis Blume) seedlings subjected to blue, red, and green colors of LED spectra (n = 24) or subjected to N pulse at 120 mg 15N plant-1 (+15N) or zero (-15N) (n = 36).

Fig 5

Columns and bars represent means and standard errors, respectively. Different letters denote a significant difference according to Tukey’s test at the 0.05 level.

Although the LED spectra had no effect on shoot N content, the 15N pulse treatment showed a significant effect (Table 2). Compared to the control, the 15N pulse increased shoot N content by 74% (Fig 6D). The effect of LED spectra on root N content was significant (Table 2). The red-light spectrum resulted in lower root N content than the blue and green spectra (Fig 6B). Acorn N content was higher in the green-light spectrum than in the blue-light spectrum by 34% (Fig 6C). The 15N pulse resulted in a decline in acorn N content by 17% (Fig 6F).

Fig 6. Nitrogen (N) content in shoots (A,D), roots (B,E), and acorns (C,F) of Chinese cork oak (Quercus variabilis Blume) seedlings subjected to blue, red, and green LED spectra (n = 24) or subjected to N pulse at 120 mg 15N plant-1 (+15N) or zero (-15N) (n = 36).

Fig 6

Columns and bars represent means and standard errors, respectively. Different letters denote a significant difference according to Tukey’s test at the 0.05 level.

Derived-nitrogen from internal and external sources

The LED spectra had no effect on the amounts of NDFP (F2,6 = 1.60, P = 0.2774) and NDFR (F2,6 = 0.47, P = 0.6482) in shoots (Fig 7A). The derived-N percentage in shoots was significant for both NDFP (F2,6 = 7.75, P = 0.0217) and NDFR (F2,6 = 7.75, P = 0.0217). Both NDFP and NDFR percentages in shoots were higher in the blue-light spectrum than in the red-light spectrum (Fig 7D).

Fig 7. Amount and percent of nitrogen (N) derived from pulses (NDFP) and plant reserves (NDFR) in shoots (A,D), roots (B,E), and acorns (C,F) of Chinese cork oak (Quercus variabilis Blume) seedlings subjected to blue, red, and green LED spectra (n = 24).

Fig 7

Columns and bars represent means and standard errors, respectively. Different letters denote a significant difference according to Tukey’s test at the 0.05 level.

The NDFP amount in roots was significantly affected by the LED spectra (F2,6 = 49.41, P = 0.0002). The red-light spectrum resulted in a lower NDFP amount than the other two spectra (Fig 7B). In contrast, the percent of NDFR in roots was highest in the red-light spectrum (F2,6 = 10.93, P = 0.0100), but the NDFP percentage was the lowest (F2,6 = 10.93, P = 0.0100; Fig 7E).

The NDFP amount in acorns was higher with the red-light spectrum treatment than under green-light (F2,6 = 10.93, P = 0.0100; Fig 7C). The percent of NDPF in acorns was also higher in the red-light spectrum treatment (F2,6 = 11.54, P = 0.0088; Fig 7F). In contrast, the acorn NDFR percentage was lower under the red-light spectrum than under green-light (F2,6 = 11.54, P = 0.0088; Fig 7F).

Discussion

The higher levels of chlorophyll and protein contents in leaves of Chinese cork oak seedlings in blue-light compared to the red-light treatment concur with findings in Gerbera jamesonii plantlets [44]. The synergetic increases of chlorophyll and protein appear to be a common response to up-regulating drivers that promote photosynthesis. For example, Li et al. [45] indicated that, in grape (Vitis vinifera L.), higher chlorophyll and protein contents resulted from the up-regulated genes in relation to microtubules, serine carboxypeptidase, and chlorophyll synthesis. These up-regulations also resulted in the down regulation of genes repressing protein. The blue-light spectrum was also found to up-regulated N assimilation and syntheses of photosynthetic pigments and ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase oxygenase (Rubisco) protein in Mesembryanthemum crystallinum [46]. The GS activity was also enhanced, both in our study and in P. koraiensis seedlings [13]. Therefore, the blue light benefitted both syntheses of chlorophyll and protein by promoting N assimilation in Chinese cork oak. Above-mentioned results were accompanied by a high photosynthetic efficiency which were indicated by lower SLA in the blue light [47]. Overall, the blue- and red-lights resulted in contrasting responses of photosynthetic pigment and protein syntheses in Chinese cork oak seedlings. This can be explained by a summary that blue- and red-light generated a trade-off between the efficiencies of N-utilization and photosynthesis [48].

We failed to find any significant responses of seedling and leaf growth to either light spectra or 15N pulses for Chinese cork oak seedlings. LED spectra were also found to fail in imposing significant effect on LA in holm oak (Q. ilex) seedlings [25]. One study even reported a negative effect of LED spectrum on holm oak seedlings [49]. In our study, Chinese cork oak seedlings may have suffered a significant difference of ontogeny among individuals that covered the effect from light or N pulse. The ontogeny may even generate a larger impact on seedling physiology than genotypic variation [50]. The episodic growth pattern of hardwood seedlings may be another factor that generates unexpected influence to hinder significant impacts [51]. Given that foliar physiology has been modified by different light spectra, it may need a longer term to reveal significant growth response.

Spectra from blue and red lights had a similar impact on biomass accumulation in all tissues. The lack of significant response of biomass production under different LED spectra in our study was also reported in former ones on Q. ilex [8, 52] and spruce [5, 15]. In contrast, the green-light spectrum induced greater biomass allocated to the root than the other two spectra. These results disagree with the common belief that green light may be not useful for plant growth because photons from green lights are reflected by green-color organs [53]. However, the green light has some physiological contributions to biomass production. A series of physiological activities are responsible for biomass response to the green-light spectrum, including but not limited to stomatal closure, plastid down-regulation, and restrictive P uptake [10, 53]. The green light also brought promotion on biomass accumulation in Chrysanthemum morifolium plants [54] and Plectranthus scutellarioides cultivars [55].

Neither N content nor N concentration were not different in shoots subjected to blue vs red lights. However, red light induced high percent of derived N from internal source than blue light and inverse results for external N. These suggest that the red-light spectrum benefitted using internal N source while the blue-light spectrum benefitted the external N, although gross N allocation and accumulation were not differentiated. Interestingly, both N content and NDFP amount in roots were lower in the red-light spectrum than in the other two spectra but shoot N content was unchanged among the three spectra. As mentioned above, root biomass was not differentiated between the red- and blue-light treatments, but it was higher N concentration in roots in the blue light that resulted in another higher level of N content compared to the red-light treatment. These findings about root N content between blue- and red-lights concur with those on rice (Oryza sativa L.) seedlings [56], but do not agree with others on horticultural plants [10, 57]. Thus, low root N concentration in the red-light spectrum was also the result of restricted N uptake and assimilation [9, 11, 13]. Therefore, the red-light spectrum generated a restriction of external N uptake in roots without any driving impact on N allocation to aboveground organs. Higher levels of chlorophyl and protein contents and GS activities in leaves of seedlings subjected to the blue-light treatment was the result of promoting synthesis by the blue light instead of N allocation. Overall, we cannot accept our first hypothesis because shoot N concentration was not lower in blue light than either red or green lights. The red light resulted in the most severe symptom of N dilution relative to green light due to lower N concentration with unchanged biomass in shoots.

Acorns did not show any responses in biomass or N concentration to LED spectra, indicating that lighting the above-ground organs has rare direct impact on belowground acorns. However, acorns subjected to green light presented higher NDFR percent but lower NDFP than those under red light. This is an acclimation to the green-light spectrum by acorns that derived more N from internal reserve when the external N adoption was limited compared to the red-light spectrum. We did not find similar reports that can be referred to for detecting the difference of acorns subjected to contrasting spectra. However, if green light can be taken as a kind of abiotic driver that can modify the source of derived N, our results can concur with those found in upland-forests where abiotic factors also imposed similar effect on acorns [58, 59]. The promotion to derive internal N by green light was accompanied by higher acorn N content in green light than in blue light. Neither biomass nor N concentration in acorns were different between the blue and green spectra, higher N content was the result of accumulative effect on errors in the ANOVA model of the product between biomass and concentration. As N content, both from internal and external sources, was all unchanged between the green- and blue-light spectra in shoot and root parts, lower N content in acorns in the blue light treatment cannot be explained by a stronger reliance on N remobilization from acorns.

We can accept our second hypothesis because N pulse did increase not only N concentration but also chlorophyll production, protein synthesis, and N assimilation. All of these are the result of accumulated N utilization under N deposition, which was also reported on red pine (P. resinosa Ait.) [60]. Declines in both N concentration and N content in acorns subjected to N pulse reflected reduced reliance on remobilization from acorns to feed other tissues when N availability is promoted [23]. This may also be related to the form of inorganic N input. We fed oak seedlings with NH4-N as its assimilation with GS was sensitive to different spectra in Fagus sylvatica [49] and P. koraiensis seedlings [13]. Generally, oak prefers to uptake NO3-N over NH4-N from forest soils [61]. Our findings about the change in GS activities may also be the result of the associated response of nitrate reductase (NR) for NO3-N assimilation since GS and NR showed a positive relationship with each other [13]. The plant component uses of SMR and peat may have involved some microbiomes that affected the NH4-N and NO3-N balance relative to the pure substrates in sands. However, N assimilation was affected by the N amount trumping the mineral form, our results regarding N uptake and assimilation were not likely affected by these basic conditions.

Conclusions

In this study, we tested internal N recycling in oak seedlings subjected to different lighting spectra. A bioassay simulating N deposition in Quercus variabilis Blume under blue, red, and green spectra and lights were provided by LED while seedlings were also subjected to 15N pulses. Different type of lighting spectra had varied functions on nutritional physiology of Chinese cork oak seedlings although no significant change can be seen by seedling morphology. The blue-light spectrum can benefit uptake and use of external N supply for photosynthesis and assimilation in leaves compared to the red-light spectrum. Also relative to the red-light spectrum, the green-light one promoted biomass allocation to belowground organs and benefitted the remobilization of internal N to the reserve. N deposition did not show any interaction with light spectra but benefitted N remobilization from acorns. Although we did not test far-red-light in our study, further work is suggested to detect the response of internal N recycling of oak or other tree seedlings exposed to the far-red spectrum. Future works are suggested to test the potential interaction between N deposition with lighting spectrum in a larger range of bandwidth.

Supporting information

S1 Raw data. Raw data have been supplied as supporting information file that can be disclosure from the link to this manuscript.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

Editors and reviewers who contribute to the improvement of this study.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

This research was funded by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Non-profit Research Institution of CAF (grant number CAFYBB2018ZB001).

References

  • 1.Du EZ, Terrer C, Pellegrini AFA, Ahlstrom A, van Lissa CJ, Zhao X, et al. Global patterns of terrestrial nitrogen and phosphorus limitation. Nat Geosci. 2020; 13: 221-+. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kanakidou M, Myriokefalitakis S, Tsagkaraki M. Atmospheric inputs of nutrients to the Mediterranean Sea. Deep-Sea Res Part II-Top Stud Oceanogr. 2020; 171: 13. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Gao Y, Zhou F, Ciais P, Miao CY, Yang T, Jia YL, et al. Human activities aggravate nitrogen-deposition pollution to inland water over China. Natl Sci Rev. 2020; 7: 430–440. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Wei H, He X. Foliar C/N stoichiometry in urban forest trees on a global scale. J For Res. 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Apostol KG, Dumroese RK, Pinto JR, Davis AS. Response of conifer species from three latitudinal populations to light spectra generated by light-emitting diodes and high-pressure sodium lamps. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 2015; 45: 1711–1719. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Li XW, Chen QX, Lei HQ, Wang JW, Yang S, Wei HX. Nutrient uptake and utilization by fragrant rosewood (Dalbergia odorifera) seedlings cultured with oligosaccharide addition under different lighting spectra. Forests. 2018; 9: 15. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Wei HX, Chen X, Chen GS, Zhao HT. Foliar nutrient and carbohydrate in Aralia elata can be modified by understory light quality in forests with different structures at Northeast China. Ann For Res. 2019; 62: 125–137. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Smirnakou S, Ouzounis T, Radoglou KM. Continuous spectrum LEDs promote seedling quality traits and performance of Quercus ithaburensis var. macrolepis. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2017; 8. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00188 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Zhao J, Chen X, Wei HX, Lv J, Chen C, Liu XY, et al. Nutrient uptake and utilization in Prince Rupprecht’s larch (Larix principis-rupprechtii Mayr.) seedlings exposed to a combination of light-emitting diode spectra and exponential fertilization. Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2019; 65: 358–368. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Guo SL, Zhang S, Jia LW, Xu MY, Wang ZY. Root growth of Eleuthero (Eleutherococcus senticosus Rupr. & Maxim. Maxim.) seedlings cultured with chitosan oligosaccharide addition under different light spectra. Not Bot Horti Agrobot Cluj-Na. 2020; 48: 626–635. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Luo YQ, Zhao SJ, Tang JY, Zhu H, Wei HX, Cui W, et al. White-light emitting diodes’ spectrum effect on photosynthesis and nutrient use efficiency in Podocarpus macrophyllus seedlings. J Plant Nutr. 2020: 9. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Wei HX, Chen GS, Chen X, Zhao HT. Growth and nutrient uptake in Aralia elata seedlings exposed to exponential fertilization under different illumination spectra. Int J Agric Biol. 2020; 23: 644–652. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Wei HX, Hauer RJ, Chen GS, Chen X, He XY. Growth, nutrient assimilation, and carbohydrate metabolism in Korean pine (Pinus koraiensis) seedlings in response to light spectra. Forests. 2020; 11: 18. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Riikonen J. Pre-cultivation of Scots pine and Norway spruce transplant seedlings under four different light spectra did not affect their field performance. New For. 2016; 47: 607–619. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Riikonen J, Kettunen N, Gritsevich M, Hakala T, Sarkka L, Tahvonen R. Growth and development of Norway spruce and Scots pine seedlings under different light spectra. Environ Exp Bot. 2016; 121: 112–120. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Wei HX, Ren J, Zhou JH. Effect of exponential fertilization on growth and nutritional status in Buddhist pine (Podocarpus macrophyllus Thunb. D. Don) seedlings cultured in natural and prolonged photoperiods. Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2013; 59: 933–941. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Timmer VR. Exponential nutrient loading: A new fertilization technique to improve seedling performance on competitive sites. New For. 1997; 13: 279–299. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Oliet JA, Puertolas J, Planelles R, Jacobs DF. Nutrient loading of forest tree seedlings to promote stress resistance and field performance: a Mediterranean perspective. New For. 2013; 44: 649–669. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Boivin JR, Salifu KF, Timmer VR. Late-season fertilization of Picea mariana seedlings: intensive loading and outplanting response on greenhouse bioassays. Ann For Sci. 2004; 61: 737–745. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Liu P, Cao B, Wang Y, Wei Z, Ye J, Wei H. Spectral effect of streetlamps on urban trees: A simulated study on tissue water, nitrogen, and carbohydrate contents in maple and oak. PLoS One. 2021; 16: e0248463. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248463 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Warren CR, Livingston NJ, Turpin DH. Response of douglas-fir seedlings to a brief pulse of N-15-labeled nutrients. Tree Physiol. 2003; 23: 1193–1200. doi: 10.1093/treephys/23.17.1193 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Warren CR, Livingston NJ, Turpin DH. Photosynthetic responses and N allocation in Douglas-fir needles following a brief pulse of nutrients. Tree Physiol. 2004; 24: 601–608. doi: 10.1093/treephys/24.6.601 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Villar-Salvador P, Heredia N, Millard P. Remobilization of acorn nitrogen for seedling growth in holm oak (Quercus ilex), cultivated with contrasting nutrient availability. Tree Physiol. 2010; 30: 257–263. doi: 10.1093/treephys/tpp115 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Salifu KF, Islam MA, Jacobs DF. Retranslocation, plant, and soil recovery of nitrogen-15 applied to bareroot black walnut seedlings. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. 2009; 40: 1408–1417. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Montagnoli A, Dumroese RK, Terzaghi M, Pinto JR, Fulgaro N, Scippa GS, et al. Tree seedling response to LED spectra: implications for forest restoration. Plant Biosyst. 2018; 152: 515–523. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Sun X, Kang H, Chen HYH, Bjorn B, Samuel BF, Liu C. Biogeographic patterns of nutrient resorption from Quercus variabilis Blume leaves across China. Plant Biol. 2016; 18: 505–513. doi: 10.1111/plb.12420 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ma C, Zhang WH, Wu M, Xue YQ, Ma LW, Zhou JY. Effect of aboveground intervention on fine root mass, production, and turnover rate in a Chinese cork oak (Quercus variabilis Blume) forest. Plant Soil. 2013; 368: 201–214. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Xin Y, Jia LY, Yuan JZ, Sun QS. A new cycloartane nortriterpenoid from Quercus variabilis Blume. Chin Chem Lett. 2009; 20: 817–819. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Xu NN, Guo WH, Liu J, Du N, Wang RQ. Increased nitrogen deposition alleviated the adverse effects of drought stress on Quercus variabilis and Quercus mongolica seedlings. Acta Physiol Plant. 2015; 37: 11. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Shi WH, Villar-Salvador P, Jacobs DF, Li GL, Jiang XX. Simulated predation of Quercus variabilis acorns impairs nutrient remobilization and seedling performance irrespective of soil fertility. Plant Soil. 2018; 423: 295–306. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Wei HX, Zhao HT, Chen X, He XY. Secondary metabolites, carbohydrate accumulation, and nutrient uptake in Aralia elata (Miq.) Seem seedlings exposed to shoot cutting and different LED spectra. Acta Physiol Plant. 2020; 42: 15. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Wei HX, Ma BQ, Hauer RJ, Liu CY, Chen X, He XY. Relationship between environmental factors and facial expressions of visitors during the urban forest experience. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2020; 53: 10. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Yu BY, Huang JG, Ma QQ, Guo XL, Liang HX, Zhang SK, et al. Comparison of the effects of canopy and understory nitrogen addition on xylem growth of two dominant species in a warm temperate forest, China. Dendrochronologia. 2019; 56: 8. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Uscola M, Salifu KF, Oliet JA, Jacobs DF. An exponential fertilization dose-response model to promote restoration of the Mediterranean oak Quercus ilex. New For. 2015; 46: 795–812. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Christian N, Herre EA, Clay K. Foliar endophytic fungi alter patterns of nitrogen uptake and distribution in Theobroma cacao. New Phytol. 2019; 222: 1573–1583. doi: 10.1111/nph.15693 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Warren CR, Livingston NJ, Turpin DH. Response of Douglas-fir seedlings to a brief pulse of 15N-labeled nutrients. Tree Physiol. 2003; 23: 1193–1200. doi: 10.1093/treephys/23.17.1193 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.James JJ, Richards JH. Plant nitrogen capture in pulse-driven systems: interactions between root responses and soil processes. J Ecol. 2006; 94: 765–777. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Xu L, Zhang X, Zhang DH, Wei HX, Guo J. Using morphological attributes for the fast assessment of nutritional responses of Buddhist pine (Podocarpus macrophyllus Thunb. D. Don) seedlings to exponential fertilization. PLoS One. 2019; 14: 14. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225708 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Zhu H, Zhao SJ, Yang JM, Meng LQ, Luo YQ, Hong B, et al. Growth, nutrient uptake, and foliar gas exchange in pepper cultured with un-composted fresh spent mushroom residue. Not Bot Horti Agrobot Cluj-Na. 2019; 47: 227–236. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Wei HX, Zhao HT, Chen X. Foliar N:P stoichiometry in Aralia elata distributed on different slope degrees. Not Bot Horti Agrobot Cluj-Na. 2019; 47: 887–895. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.El Zein R, Bréda N, Gérant D, Zeller B, Maillard P. Nitrogen sources for current-year shoot growth in 50-year-old sessile oak trees: an in situ 15N labeling approach. Tree Physiol. 2011; 31: 1390–1400. doi: 10.1093/treephys/tpr118 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Wei HX, Xu CY, Ma LY, Wang WJ, Duan J, Jiang LN. Short-term nitrogen (N)-retranslocation within Larix olgensis seedlings is driven to increase by N-deposition: Evidence from a simulated N-15 experiment in Northeast China. Int J Agric Biol. 2014; 16: 1031–1040. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Liu ZL, Hikosaka K, Li FR, Jin GZ. Variations in leaf economics spectrum traits for an evergreen coniferous species: Tree size dominates over environment factors. Funct Ecol. 2020; 34: 458–467. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Meng XY, Wang Z, He SL, Shi LY, Song YL, Lou XY, et al. LED-supplied red and blue light alters the growth, antioxidant status, and photochemical potential of in vitro-grown Gerbera jamesonii plantlets. Hortic Sci Technol. 2019; 37: 473–489. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Li CX, Xu ZG, Dong RQ, Chang SX, Wang LZ, Khalil-Ur-Rehman M, et al. An RNA-seq analysis of grape plantlets grown in vitro reveals different responses to blue, green, red LED light, and white fluorescent light. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2017; 8: 16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.He J, Qin L, Chong ELC, Choong TW, Lee SK. Plant growth and photosynthetic characteristics of Mesembryanthemum crystallinum grown aeroponically under different blue-and red-LEDs. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2017; 8: 13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.El-Serafy RS. Phenotypic plasticity, biomass allocation, and biochemical analysis of cordyline seedlings in response to oligo-chitosan foliar spray. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2020; 20: 1503–1514. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Figueroa FL, Aguilera J, Jimenez C, Vergara JJ, Robles MD, Niell FX. Growth, pigment synthesis and nitrogen assimilation in the red alga Porphyra sp (Bangiales, Rhodophyta) under blue and red light. Sci Mar. 1995; 59: 9–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Astolfi S, Marianello C, Grego S, Bellarosa R. Preliminary investigation of LED lighting as growth light for seedlings from different tree species in growth chambers. Not Bot Horti Agrobot Cluj-Na. 2012; 40: 31–38. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Sloan JL, Jacobs DF. Ontogeny influences developmental physiology of post-transplant Quercus rubra seedlings more than genotype. Ann For Sci. 2016; 73: 987–993. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Dickson RE, Tomlinson PT, Isebrands JG. Allocation of current photosynthate and changes in tissue dry weight within northern red oak seedlings: individual leaf and flush carbon contribution during episodic growth. Can J For Res-Rev Can Rech For. 2000; 30: 1296–1307. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Zhang T, Shi YY, Piao FZ, Sun ZQ. Effects of different LED sources on the growth and nitrogen metabolism of lettuce. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2018; 134: 231–240. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Folta KM, Maruhnich SA. Green light: a signal to slow down or stop. J Exp Bot. 2007; 58: 3099–3111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Jeong SW, Park S, Jin JS, Seo ON, Kim GS, Kim YH, et al. Influences of four different light-emitting diode lights on flowering and polyphenol variations in the Leaves of Chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum morifolium). J Agric Food Chem. 2012; 60: 9793–9800. doi: 10.1021/jf302272x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Cho KH, Laux VY, Wallace-Springer N, Clark DG, Folta KM, Colquhoun TA. Effects of light quality on vegetative cutting and in-vitro propagation of Coleus (Plectranthus scutellarioides). Hortscience. 2019; 54: 926–935. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Deng JM, Bin JH, Pan RC. Effects of light quality on the primary nitrogen assimination of rice (Oryza sativa L.) seedlings. Acta Bot Sin. 2000; 42: 234–238. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Heo JW, Lee YB, Kim DE, Chang YS, Chun C. Effects of supplementary LED Lighting on growth and biochemical parametets in Dieffenbachia amoena ’Camella’ and Ficus elastica ’Melany’. Korean J Hortic Sci Technol. 2010; 28: 51–58. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Bogdziewicz M, Crone EE, Steele MA, Zwolak R. Effects of nitrogen deposition on reproduction in a masting tree: benefits of higher seed production are trumped by negative biotic interactions. J Ecol. 2017; 105: 310–320. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Brooke JM, Basinger PS, Birckhead JL, Lashley MA, McCord JM, Nanney JS, et al. Effects of fertilization and crown release on white oak (Quercus alba) masting and acorn quality. For Ecol Manage. 2019; 433: 305–312. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Bauer GA, Bazzaz FA, Minocha R, Long S, Magill A, Aber J, et al. Effects of chronic N additions on tissue chemistry, photosynthetic capacity, and carbon sequestration potential of a red pine (Pinus resinosa Ait.) stand in the NE United States. For Ecol Manage. 2004; 196: 173–186. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Truax B, Lambert F, Gagnon D, Chevrier N. Nitrate reductase and glutamine synthetase activities in relation to growth and nitrogen assimilation in red oak and red ash seedlings: effects of N-forms, N concentration and light intensity. Trees-Struct Funct. 1994; 9: 12–18. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Xiao Guo

29 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-37547

Light spectra modify nitrogen assimilation and nitrogen content in Quercus variabilis Blume seedling components: A bioassay with 15N pulses

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. He,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 15 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Xiao Guo, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

As can be seen, both reviewers recommended major revisions. Therefore the manuscript cannot be accepted in its current condition and further revision is needed. The two reviewers gave excellent suggestions that will certainly improve your work (see below). Please response to each point of the comments one by one. Reviewer #2 mentioned that the language should be polished. I suggest the authors that the English language should be polished by a native English speaker or a professional company. A certificate of English editing by a professional company to guarantee the quality of the edit will be greatly appreciated.

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

  • The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

  • A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

  • A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript has a novel title and rich indicators, which has a certain guiding significance for nitrogen efficient utilization of Quercus variables. However, there are some problems in writing:

75-77 The results of the above-mentioned studies demonstrate a knowledge gap that can be easily filled by new observations with studies using LED and N pulse to mimic natural conditions. What new observations?

86-90 What are the hypotheses based on before the experiment? It seems not mentioned in the introduction.

92 What is the test time (year, month)?

136 It can be seen from Figure 1 that the seedling growth (number of leaves, plant height) under the three visible light colors are not consistent, whether it will affect the test results? In the process of the experiment, should we choose the seedlings with the same growth status as far as possible?

218 There are many indicators in the result, but the writing is confusing. It is suggested to clarify the levels of the indexes from three aspects: 1. Leaf morphology and physiological indexes; 2. Plant growth and biomass distribution; 3. Plant nitrogen content and distribution. Meanwhile, it is suggested to use appropriate statistical methods to explain the relationship between indicators (such as correlation analysis).

138 What is the basis for such distribution from table 1?

267 What is the significance of analyzing N concentration and N content separately? If there is no specific significance, it is suggested to delete one section of the analysis.

250 It is suggested to combine table 2 and table 3 at the beginning of result.

290-316 Poor writing. Since there is no difference in the experiment, there is no need to spend a lot of time on it. The obvious experiment is meaningless. It is suggested that the discussion should be shortened. Moreover, the experimental data seems to be only one year, without repeated results for many years, which seems to be too hasty.

317-381 For the difference of seedling growth caused by different light color, the depth of discussion is not enough, and no more novel content is obtained. I think this is the place that needs to be improved. These discussions are not enough to explain the hypothetical problems. Previous studies should be cited from multiple perspectives (physiological, molecular) to explain the differences.

Reviewer #2: The authors studied the effects of light spectra (blue, red, and green spectra) and 15N pulses on Quercus variabilis Blume seeds. The idea is clear and the work is relative rich, but it is still far from publication and needs a major revision:

1. Please polish the language carefully.

2. The title of this manuscript may need to be changed, because you have also spent a lot of space describing the effects of light spectra and 15N pulses on other indicators of plants, such as Growth and Leaf Morphology, Leaf Physiology, Biomass Accumulation and Allocation.

3. The contents of Table 2 and Table 3 were basically expressed in the following figures. Do not express the same contents both in figures and tables, please delete or modify.

4. line 220-223: Here, these treatments have no significant effect on plant indexes, but the changes of indexes are mentioned later. Please rewrite to make it clear.

5. line 224: Maybe it should be "higher" instead of "lower"?

6. line 260: The "most" here is not rigorous, there are only two seedling tissue parts except for acorn. Please describe clearly.

7. line 276-279: This paragraph is obscure, please rewrite it.

8. line 282-284 and line 286-288: The sum of the percent of NDFP and the percent of NDFR is 100%, so if one is high, the other must be low. There is no need to repeat this known fact.

9. The Discussion section of this manuscript is very poorly written, please take the time to revise the discussion section carefully. The discussion section is used to discuss the important results of the study and their significance. I really don’t understand why the authors spent several paragraphs to write about the effects that they failed to find. You listed a bunch of insignificant examples (such as line 293-296) and made many unimportant literature comparisons, however, you did not discuss the important findings of this study in depth. This made the topic of this paper and the main scientific questions of the study were not clear.

10. line 323-325: please rewrite this sentense.

11. line 330: Should it be "not significantly" instead of "significantly"?

12. line 346-347: You said "another study" but didn't cite the literature.

13. line 356: Missing citation after "other studies".

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 15;16(7):e0243954. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243954.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


15 Mar 2021

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript has a novel title and rich indicators, which has a certain guiding significance for nitrogen efficient utilization of Quercus variables. However, there are some problems in writing:

75-77 The results of the above-mentioned studies demonstrate a knowledge gap that can be easily filled by new observations with studies using LED and N pulse to mimic natural conditions. What new observations?

[Response] New observation refers to studies concerning the interaction between light spectra and N deposition in the understory condition. This term is not necessary and needs to be removed.

86-90 What are the hypotheses based on before the experiment? It seems not mentioned in the introduction.

[Response] Generally the hypotheses should be put forward on the basis of current findings. It is naturally to expect to see the link between hypotheses to synthesized studies. However, the topic in this study that lighting spectra impact on inherent nutrient retranslocation has no basis that can be referred to. Please see the end of the paragraph that summarized the LED lighting on plant nutrition, it has been indicated that “… further explanation of the percent and amount of inner-derived nutrients by exposure to LED spectra is lacking” on Line 67 and 68.

92 What is the test time (year, month)?

[Response] The study was commenced at early May and ended up in mid-October. All time courses have been added.

136 It can be seen from Figure 1 that the seedling growth (number of leaves, plant height) under the three visible light colors are not consistent, whether it will affect the test results? In the process of the experiment, should we choose the seedlings with the same growth status as far as possible?

[Response] Yes, it is natural that hard wood seedlings have significant individual differences. This is due to the genetic difference from ontogeny for seedling variation. The episodic growth pattern will also contribute to the difference among individuals. This influence can be even more effective on physiology than genotype. All these natures have been well detected and established by the study group on hardwood regeneration in Purdue University. Please refer to one of their successional studies, Sloan and Jacobs (2016). The individual difference will generate some impact on results, not only in our study, but also for all studies if seedlings were taken as the materials. However, this type of impact belongs to the systematic error that can be avoided or reduced by statistics, replicates and means comparison. This is why some results fail to follow the expectation and show no difference. We cannot choose seedlings with uniform size or we will ruin the rule of statistics of random sampling. The screening for the even size has been done on the stage of transplant. Anyway, we have found some significant results that can support our hypotheses. This means that our statistics are fine to cope with systematic errors. However, we add something about this error to discussion.

Reference:

Sloan, JL; Jacobs, DF. Ontogeny influences developmental physiology of post-transplant Quercus rubra seedlings more than genotype. Annals of Forest Science, 73(4): 987-993.

218 There are many indicators in the result, but the writing is confusing. It is suggested to clarify the levels of the indexes from three aspects: 1. Leaf morphology and physiological indexes; 2. Plant growth and biomass distribution; 3. Plant nitrogen content and distribution. Meanwhile, it is suggested to use appropriate statistical methods to explain the relationship between indicators (such as correlation analysis).

[Response] Thanks the parameters have been re-classified again according to the suggested orders and sequences. We added a last section of ‘Derived-Nitrogen from Internal and External Sources’. We wished to use Pearson correlation to explain inter-relationship between variables at the initial stage of this article composition. However, we found we cannot achieve this analysis. This is because the core and most valuable meaning of this study was that we revealed internal and external N sources in oak seedlings subjected to different N and Light effects. Leaf, growth, biomass, and generally total N content variables were calculated for both controlled and N-deposited seedlings. However, derived N sources were calculated as the difference between deposition and control. This means that it is important to match N-source data to any other variables.

138 What is the basis for such distribution from table 1?

[Response] As we explained in lines 123 to 126. These spectra were setting according to aims to enable ordinary growth for tree plants with uniform light photons, intensity, flux density, but just different spectra. We have listed eight citations that together support the basis of data in Table 1.

267 What is the significance of analyzing N concentration and N content separately? If there is no specific significance, it is suggested to delete one section of the analysis.

[Response] N concentration, as it is shown in Figure 5, is the percentage of N amount on the unit weight of biomass. N content, shown in Figure 6, is the product of N concentration and biomass. Therefore, technically they are two different things and derived different sources of variables due to the involvement of biomass product. We cannot remove either of them because N concentration is the precondition to read results about N-derived percentage and N content about N-derived amount.

250 It is suggested to combine table 2 and table 3 at the beginning of result.

[Response] These two tables have been combined together.

290-316 Poor writing. Since there is no difference in the experiment, there is no need to spend a lot of time on it. The obvious experiment is meaningless. It is suggested that the discussion should be shortened. Moreover, the experimental data seems to be only one year, without repeated results for many years, which seems to be too hasty.

[Response] The first two paragraphs have been largely shortened. We did conduct a specific experiment with all environmental conditions controlled in the laboratory. We did not have to repeat our experiment in another as it is the necessary task for field studies. The necessity of cross-year experiment is needed for field investigation that would be largely impacted by unexpected episodes, such as extreme weather, unforeseen pest or bacterial infection, anthropogenic damage, and natural fires. Our study employed the classical methodology for a fully controlled experiment to detect the specific response of internal nitrogen cycling although sometimes nothing has been changed from outside. At least 20 studies have been published and obtained excellent citation records including those we refer to, such as Warren et al. [1], Salifu et al. [2], Wei et al. [3], Li et al. [4], He et al. [5].

References:

[1] Warren CR, Livingston NJ, Turpin DH. Response of Douglas-fir seedlings to a brief pulse of 15N-labeled nutrients. Tree Physiol. 2003; 23: 1193-1200.

[2] Salifu KF, Islam MA, Jacobs DF. Retranslocation, plant, and soil recovery of nitrogen-15 applied to bareroot black walnut seedlings. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. 2009; 40: 1408-1417.

[3] Wei HX, Xu CY, Ma LY, Wang WJ, Duan J, Jiang LN. Short-term nitrogen (N)-retranslocation within Larix olgensis seedlings is driven to increase by N-deposition: Evidence from a simulated N-15 experiment in Northeast China. Int J Agric Biol. 2014; 16: 1031-1040.

[4] Li XW, Chen QX, Lei HQ, Wang JW, Yang S, Wei HX. Nutrient uptake and utilization by fragrant rosewood (Dalbergia odorifera) seedlings cultured with oligosaccharide addition under different lighting spectra. Forests. 2018; 9: 15.

[5] He CX, Zhao Y, Zhang JS, Gao J. Chitosan oligosaccharide addition to Buddhist Pine (Podocarpus macrophyllus (Thunb) Sweet) under drought: Reponses in ecophysiology and delta C-13 abundance. Forests. 2020; 11: 13.

317-381 For the difference of seedling growth caused by different light color, the depth of discussion is not enough, and no more novel content is obtained. I think this is the place that needs to be improved. These discussions are not enough to explain the hypothetical problems. Previous studies should be cited from multiple perspectives (physiological, molecular) to explain the differences.

[Response] We have revised the discussion part. The novelty of our study is that we are the first to reveal derived-N sources in response to the combination of N deposition and light spectra.

Reviewer #2: The authors studied the effects of light spectra (blue, red, and green spectra) and 15N pulses on Quercus variabilis Blume seeds. The idea is clear and the work is relative rich, but it is still far from publication and needs a major revision:

1. Please polish the language carefully.

[Response] After the revision of this round we will sent our manuscript to some professional agency to modify the language.

2. The title of this manuscript may need to be changed, because you have also spent a lot of space describing the effects of light spectra and 15N pulses on other indicators of plants, such as Growth and Leaf Morphology, Leaf Physiology, Biomass Accumulation and Allocation.

[Response] We modified our title according to this suggestion.

3. The contents of Table 2 and Table 3 were basically expressed in the following figures. Do not express the same contents both in figures and tables, please delete or modify.

[Response] I am sorry but data in Table 2 and 3 are P-values from ANOVA and according figures are results of difference which was preconditioned and ruled by Tables 2 and 3. However, we combined the two tables.

4. line 220-223: Here, these treatments have no significant effect on plant indexes, but the changes of indexes are mentioned later. Please rewrite to make it clear.

[Response] This is an error. Amended.

5. line 224: Maybe it should be "higher" instead of "lower"?

[Response] Yes it should be. Amended. Thanks.

6. line 260: The "most" here is not rigorous, there are only two seedling tissue parts except for acorn. Please describe clearly.

[Response] Thanks for correcting. Amended.

7. line 276-279: This paragraph is obscure, please rewrite it.

[Response] It has been rewritten.

8. line 282-284 and line 286-288: The sum of the percent of NDFP and the percent of NDFR is 100%, so if one is high, the other must be low. There is no need to repeat this known fact.

[Response] Thanks. The latter part has been removed.

9. The Discussion section of this manuscript is very poorly written, please take the time to revise the discussion section carefully. The discussion section is used to discuss the important results of the study and their significance. I really don’t understand why the authors spent several paragraphs to write about the effects that they failed to find. You listed a bunch of insignificant examples (such as line 293-296) and made many unimportant literature comparisons, however, you did not discuss the important findings of this study in depth. This made the topic of this paper and the main scientific questions of the study were not clear.

[Response] The first two paragraphs have been largely shortened to avoid over too much discussion about unchanged results. We transferred the main attention in discussion to findings as the important part.

10. line 323-325: please rewrite this sentense.

[Response] Rewritten.

11. line 330: Should it be "not significantly" instead of "significantly"?

[Response] Thanks. This sentence has been revised.

12. line 346-347: You said "another study" but didn't cite the literature.

[Response] Citation added.

13. line 356: Missing citation after "other studies".

[Response] Other studies have been removed.

Attachment

Submitted filename: 2021.3.15 Rebattal letter(1).docx

Decision Letter 1

Xiao Guo

5 May 2021

PONE-D-20-37547R1

Effects of light spectra and 15N pulses on growth, leaf morphology, physiology, and internal nitrogen cycling in Quercus variabilis Blume seedlings

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. He,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Dear authors, based on the revisions provided by three referees, I should inform that your manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in this current form and “major revisions” is needed.

Although reviewer 1 think that all comments have been fully addresses, reviewer 2 argued that the authors did not fully address his/her comments. As can be seen below, reviewer 2 pointed out the necessity to reorganize the introduction (to get the three hypotheses) and discussion. Reviewer 2 also complained about the language usage.

I kindly invite you to provide a revised version of your manuscript including the suggestions and comments of all reviewers, particularly the comments of reviewer 2. Together with your resubmission, please provide a point by point account of your revisions specifying how and where you addressed each suggestion. It is important not only to give answers in your response letter, but also to make the appropriate changes in the manuscript, wherever they are appropriate. Thus, my final decision will be taken after your revised manuscript has been reviewed by reviewers again.

In the previous response letter, the authors replied that “After the revision of this round we will sent our manuscript to some professional agency to modify the language”. I would strongly suggest that the authors polish the language before they submit the revised manuscript.

Best regards,

Xiao Guo

Academic Editor

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 19 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Xiao Guo, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is still poorly written: the language is still irregular, and the statement is still unacademic.

The significance of this study needs to be summarized again. If the significance of this study only showed that red-light spectrum should be avoided for Q. variabilis regenerations, this study is too limited to be publish in this journal.

How did you get the hypotheses of this study? The three hypotheses were gotten without any reasoning.

The discussion section has not be improved. It is still not highlighting the significance of this study, no focus, no main line, logical confusion.

Reviewer #3: In this study, the authors examined the effects of different light spectra and 14 N pulses on morphology, physiology, and nitrogen (N) uptake performance of Quercus variabilis Blume seedlings. I think this manuscript was generally well designed and analyzed. But still there are some incorrect and awkward sentences that need to be double checked.

L54 Which classic model of the relationship?

L65 Is the effect of this mixed spectrum consistent with the single spectrum?

L71 Maybe the research background can be put in the first paragraph

L89, 90 What are the experimental hypotheses based on? It's not completely consistent with the results of others research (line 62-66). Maybe you can change it to questions.

L149 Only one tanked pot of seedlings received 15N pulsing? One in four? What is the number of total replications of seedlings received 15N pulsing?

L210-210 Paragraph spacing is different from before

L231 Please hang the first line

L270 Describe results that are significantly different firstly, rather than no significant

L310 But there was a significant influence of light on aboveground biomass in table 2

L 276-297: I suggest modifying these phrases. First describe what you found and then the possible explanation with citations, rather than a lot of citations. You can check that along all discussion.

Table 2 I suggest marking the P-values less than 0.05 with asterisks or letters

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 15;16(7):e0243954. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243954.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


24 May 2021

Responses to the reviewers:

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

[Response] Thanks for giving the revision decision. We will process of manuscript with suggested changes accordingly.

==============================

Dear authors, based on the revisions provided by three referees, I should inform that your manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in this current form and “major revisions” is needed.

Although reviewer 1 think that all comments have been fully addresses, reviewer 2 argued that the authors did not fully address his/her comments. As can be seen below, reviewer 2 pointed out the necessity to reorganize the introduction (to get the three hypotheses) and discussion. Reviewer 2 also complained about the language usage.

[Response] We will specially pay attention to concerns and marks of reviewer 2 and revise the manuscript to the best extent to meet his/her requirements.

I kindly invite you to provide a revised version of your manuscript including the suggestions and comments of all reviewers, particularly the comments of reviewer 2. Together with your resubmission, please provide a point by point account of your revisions specifying how and where you addressed each suggestion. It is important not only to give answers in your response letter, but also to make the appropriate changes in the manuscript, wherever they are appropriate. Thus, my final decision will be taken after your revised manuscript has been reviewed by reviewers again.

[Response] We will revise the manuscript according to comments and suggestions.

In the previous response letter, the authors replied that “After the revision of this round we will sent our manuscript to some professional agency to modify the language”. I would strongly suggest that the authors polish the language before they submit the revised manuscript.

[Response] Thanks for remaindering. We will polish the language before revising the manuscript.

Best regards,

Xiao Guo

Academic Editor

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 19 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

�A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

�A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

�An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Xiao Guo, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is still poorly written: the language is still irregular, and the statement is still unacademic.

[Response] We will polish our English language before revisions were made and promoted again after revision.

The significance of this study needs to be summarized again. If the significance of this study only showed that red-light spectrum should be avoided for Q. variabilis regenerations, this study is too limited to be publish in this journal.

[Response] Significance has been reconsidered and revised with a new expression in Abstract and Introduction parts. Current significance in scientific contribution reads limited because it concerns the results on species in Abstract. Therefore, Abstract will be revised to reveal results about deep mechanism for scientific contributions. Introduction and Discussion will be revised accordingly. The scientific contribution of this study was to test the modification of internal vs outside sources of derived N that was conducted on Q. variabilis seedlings.

How did you get the hypotheses of this study? The three hypotheses were gotten without any reasoning.

[Response] Hypotheses have all been replaced by new ones that are supported by cited studies.

The discussion section has not been improved. It is still not highlighting the significance of this study, no focus, no main line, logical confusion.

[Response] The whole discussion part has been totally revised.

Reviewer #3: In this study, the authors examined the effects of different light spectra and 14 N pulses on morphology, physiology, and nitrogen (N) uptake performance of Quercus variabilis Blume seedlings. I think this manuscript was generally well designed and analyzed. But still there are some incorrect and awkward sentences that need to be double checked.

[Response] Thanks for indicating flaws of our manuscript. We will revise the sentences and double checked them accordingly with the revision by marks of other reviewers and editors.

L54 Which classic model of the relationship?

[Response] The classic model is the exponential fertilization model that was formally put forward by Timmer in 1997. Here one explanation was lacked to indicate that, in this model, dilution status of nutrients in seedlings was caused by accelerated biomass accumulation without fertilizer supply. The biomass accumulation can be promoted by a prolonged photoperiod, but fertilizer regime was not changed, which together resulted in the dilution. We revised this part.

L65 Is the effect of this mixed spectrum consistent with the single spectrum?

[Response] In the range of cited studies, we can say yes.

L71 Maybe the research background can be put in the first paragraph

[Response] Yes it should be. Changes made with proper modifications.

L89, 90 What are the experimental hypotheses based on? It's not completely consistent with the results of others research (line 62-66). Maybe you can change it to questions.

[Response] No, it meets results of studies in 62-66. Dilution induced by blue light results from promoted biomass accumulation without enough nutrient supply, but that by green light was the result of insufficient nutrient supply. However, we know that we did not reveal enough background to link current hypotheses to core meanings of background. We revised the hypotheses to meet the meaning on paper.

L149 Only one tanked pot of seedlings received 15N pulsing? One in four? What is the number of total replications of seedlings received 15N pulsing?

[Response] Only the four potted seedlings in one tank of a growing floor received 15N pulse leaving the other four receiving just water. This part is unclear. So, it is revised. Totally, 108 seedlings received pulse and the other 108 ones received water. Either pulsed or controlled seedlings were arranged in 3 replicates as three shelves for one spectrum.

L210-210 Paragraph spacing is different from before

[Response] Changes made.

L231 Please hang the first line

[Response] Changes made.

L270 Describe results that are significantly different firstly, rather than no significant

[Response] Changes made.

L310 But there was a significant influence of light on aboveground biomass in table 2

[Response] acorns grew underground which was not affected by the aboveground biomass.

L 276-297: I suggest modifying these phrases. First describe what you found and then the possible explanation with citations, rather than a lot of citations. You can check that along all discussion.

[Response] Number of citations will be reduced with additions of more explanations that will help further diluting the density of citations. This will be made throughout the discussion.

Table 2 I suggest marking the P-values less than 0.05 with asterisks or letters

[Response] Thanks and asterisks will be used.

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Attachment

Submitted filename: 2021.5.24 Rebattal letter.docx

Decision Letter 2

Xiao Guo

22 Jun 2021

PONE-D-20-37547R2

Effects of light spectra and 15N pulses on growth, leaf morphology, physiology, and internal nitrogen cycling in Quercus variabilis Blume seedlings

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. He,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 06 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Xiao Guo, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: I find the paper significantly improved. The paper is an interesting contribution to the ecology of coastal wetlands. I still pointed out some other minor corrections:

L64-72 More references about the response of Quercus to different spectra are needed.

L77 Please make “the other two spectra” more clear.

L277-278 Does this sentence mean that individual ontogeny differences are not caused by genetics but phenotypic plasticity?

Table 2 You did not revise at all.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 15;16(7):e0243954. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243954.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


22 Jun 2021

PONE-D-20-37547R2

Effects of light spectra and 15N pulses on growth, leaf morphology, physiology, and internal nitrogen cycling in Quercus variabilis Blume seedlings

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. He,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 06 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Xiao Guo, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Response] About the bibliography, please believe that none of our citations will be missed either in the text or in reference list. This is because we cite studies by EndNote and all citations will match records in the list accordingly if any changes occurred.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

________________________________________

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

________________________________________

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

________________________________________

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

________________________________________

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

________________________________________

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: I find the paper significantly improved. The paper is an interesting contribution to the ecology of coastal wetlands. I still pointed out some other minor corrections:

L64-72 More references about the response of Quercus to different spectra are needed.

[Response] We added relevant studies in the early body of this part that introduced the light spectra on oak seedlings.

L77 Please make “the other two spectra” more clear.

[Response] They are red- and green-lights. Revised.

L277-278 Does this sentence mean that individual ontogeny differences are not caused by genetics but phenotypic plasticity?

[Response] Although this sentence cannot be understood by extreme meaning, we are afraid, at least for oak seedlings, yes. However, according to the study on ontogeny of oak seedlings by Joshua Sloan and Douglas Jacobs, it was the ontogeny difference that impacted the phenotypic plasticity that imposed a greater impact than just genetic distinction.

Table 2 You did not revise at all.

[Response] As suggested, we added asterisks for significant level P values in Table 2. Sorry for late revision.

________________________________________

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: 2021.6.22 Rebattal letter.docx

Decision Letter 3

Xiao Guo

1 Jul 2021

Effects of light spectra and 15N pulses on growth, leaf morphology, physiology, and internal nitrogen cycling in Quercus variabilis Blume seedlings

PONE-D-20-37547R3

Dear Dr. He,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Xiao Guo, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

All comments have been addressed.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Xiao Guo

5 Jul 2021

PONE-D-20-37547R3

Effects of light spectra and 15N pulses on growth, leaf morphology, physiology, and internal nitrogen cycling in Quercus variabilis Blume seedlings

Dear Dr. He:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Xiao Guo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Raw data. Raw data have been supplied as supporting information file that can be disclosure from the link to this manuscript.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 2021.3.15 Rebattal letter(1).docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 2021.5.24 Rebattal letter.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 2021.6.22 Rebattal letter.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES