Intake of Radionuclides in the Trees of Fukushima Forests 5. Earthquake Could Have Caused an Increase in Xyloglucan in Trees^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript addresses tree acclimation to mechanical stimulus as shaking through xyloglucan deposition. Overall, the study is interesting and shed light in mechanisms played by trees to cope with earthquake related stimuli. Despite the limited sample size, the data remain commendable. My main concern is the results shown are rather descriptive and no claims have been backed with statistical analyses. Therefore, it is hardly possible to assess the true effects of stimuli on tree responses. Statistical analyses would have told us if the differences reported between Soma and Minamisoma sites compared to the control site in Tokyo are significant or not. I also found typos and the paper should thoroughly be edited. Please find more specific comments in the following.

L3 Please replace “Forests5.” with “Forests”

L3 Split “Earthquakecould” by adding a space between “Earthquake” and “could”.

L3 Split “causean”

L21-22 Please provide the date of the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident.

L56 How many trees per species were sampled in each of the three sites? I see it comes later in the paper, but here is the right place to provide this information before we go further (L132-134) in the paper.

L56 Add space between “standing” and “trees”

L57 Add space between “Quercus” and “aliena”

L57 Split “Cornuscontroversa” and add the author name as “Cornus controversa Hemsl.”

L59 Split “140°54ˊ20˝E.The”

L126 Please split “locationwere”.

L126 Please split “locationwere”.

L130 Please split “megathrustearthquake”.

L132-134 Based on what has been reported in L56, I assume that 9 oak trees (3 in each site) and 1 dogwood tree (in Soma) have been sampled. Aren’t they? In addition, this information should have been provided earlier in material and methods.

L134-136 In Fig. 1, Minamisoma rather seems to display different annual ring patterns compared to Soma and Tokyo, whereas xyloglucan in Soma and Minamisoma seems to differ from the control. Only a statistical analysis could tell if the differences are significant or not. I would suggest a variance analysis or t-tests comparing sites e.g. for specific dates (before, during, and after the earthquake), as the dates provided in Tab. 1 (2007, 2011 and 2015).

In addition, oak trees in Soma and Tokyo are 40-year-old whereas those of Minamisoma are about 14-year-old. May ages differences also played in the similar pattern observed for Soma and Tokyo contrasting with the patterns displayed for Minamisoma?

L138 Please split “2011annual”.

L149-156 & L171 Fig. 3 dogwood results seemed to have been appended to the study with no obvious reason. I found two problem with dogwood input. The first one is a lack of replication since only one tree has been sampled. As a second problem, dogwood measurement counterparts are missing for the two other sites including the control. I would omit dogwood input. To me, oak trees are enough to address the objective of the study.

L154 Add space before “Nevertheless”

L180 Split “fromthe”.

L183 Please split “treesas”

L183 Please split “eventdue”

L199 Please split “Takezawa&Somachiho”

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1:

 

Thank you for your review.

First of all, we are terribly sorry for our manuscript, in which many words did not have spaces between them, including some in the title.

 

Statistical analyses would have told us if the differences reported between Soma and Minamisoma sites compared to the control site in Tokyo are significant or not:

       We changed to show all the data at three locations from 2007 to 2015 in Table 1. It is clear to understand the differences between Soma and Minamisoma sites compared to the control site in Tokyo. Because it is hard to show the significances by their statistical analyses between the numbers of earthquakes, between mean wind forces, and between annual rainfalls in each year.

 

L3 Please replace “Forests5.” with “Forests”:

       As suggested, we add a space between “Forests” and “5.” by replacing to “Forests”.

 

L3 Split “Earthquakecould” by adding a space between “Earthquake” and “could”:

       As suggested, we added a space between “Earthquake” and “could”.

 

L3 Split “causean”:

       As suggested, we added a space between “cause” and “an”.

 

L21-22 Please provide the date of the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident:

       As suggested, we added the sentence, "The earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011 led to a meltdown followed by a hydrogen explosion at the Fukushima–Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan, causing the dispersal of abundant radionuclides into forests and local residences by gaseous or aerosol forms."

 

L56 How many trees per species were sampled in each of the three sites? I see it comes later in the paper, but here is the right place to provide this information before we go further (L132-134) in the paper:

       In the final manuscript, we show 9 oak trees, which are three trees in each of three sites, as shown in Figure 2.

 

L56 Add space between “standing” and “trees”:

       Although we added a space between “standing” and “trees”, the sentence was changed in the final manuscript.

 

L57 Add space between “Quercus” and “aliena”:

       As suggested, we added a space between “Quercus” and “aliena”.

 

L57 Split “Cornuscontroversa” and add the author name as “Cornus controversa Hemsl”:

       In the final manuscript, we deleted the results about dogwood (Cornus controversa) due to the suggestion.

 

L59 (L60) Split “140°54ˊ20˝E.The”:

       As suggested, we added a space between “140°54ˊ20˝E.” and “The”.

 

L126 (Table 1) Please split “locationwere”:

       As suggested, we added a space between "location" and "were".

 

L130 (L50) Please split “megathrustearthquake”:

       As suggested, we added a space between "megathrust" and "earthquake".

 

L132-134 (L57-60) Based on what has been reported in L56, I assume that 9 oak trees (3 in each site) and 1 dogwood tree (in Soma) have been sampled:

       As suggested, we changed the sentences to "A total of nine straight-standing oak (Quercus aliena L.) trees were cut in 2016 at the localities shown in Figure 1. Three trees sampled in Soma were obtained at 37°45ˊ50˝N/140°50ˊ26˝E and 37°45ˊ51˝N/140°50ˊ23˝E, respectively. Three trees sampled in Minamisoma were obtained at 37°38ˊ14˝N/140°54ˊ20˝E. Three trees sampled in Tokyo was obtained at 35°38ˊ26˝N/139°37ˊ53˝E." (We deleted the result of the dogwood, due to Reviewer's comment below).

 

L134-136 In Fig. 1, Minamisoma rather seems to display different annual ring patterns compared to Soma and Tokyo, whereas xyloglucan in Soma and Minamisoma seems to differ from the control. Only a statistical analysis could tell if the differences are significant or not. I would suggest a variance analysis or t-tests comparing sites e.g. for specific dates (before, during, and after the earthquake), as the dates provided in Tab. 1 (2007, 2011 and 2015).:

       We changed to show all the data at three locations from 2007 to 2015 in Table 1. And then, it is clear to understand the differences between Soma and Minamisoma sites compared to the control site in Tokyo. Because it is hard to show the significances by their statistical analyses between the numbers of earthquakes, between mean wind forces, and between annual rainfalls in each year.

 

In addition, oak trees in Soma and Tokyo are 40-year-old whereas those of Minamisoma are about 14-year-old. May ages differences also played in the similar pattern observed for Soma and Tokyo contrasting with the patterns displayed for Minamisoma?:

       As suggested, we added the sentences and reference 24 in line 131-135, "The latter trees showed some decreases in growth trends, compared with those from Soma and Tokyo [24]. Although annual ring patterns have not been similar between 14-year-old-tree trunks and 40-year-old-tree trunks, the increases in xyloglucan signals could be observed in the three trunks from Minamisoma as well as in those from Soma."

 

L138 (135) Please split “2011annual”:

       As suggested, we added a space between “2011” and “annual”.

 

L149-156 & L171 Fig. 3 dogwood results seemed to have been appended to the study with no obvious reason. I found two problem with dogwood input. The first one is a lack of replication since only one tree has been sampled. As a second problem, dogwood measurement counterparts are missing for the two other sites including the control. I would omit dogwood input.:

       As suggested, we deleted the result of the dogwood with Figure 3. 

 

L154 (L146) Add space before “Nevertheless”:

       As suggested, we added a space before “Nevertheless”.

 

L180 (L162) Split “fromthe”:

       As suggested, we added a space between “from” and “the”.     

 

L183 (L165) Please split “treesas”:

       As suggested, we added a space between “trees” and “as”.

 

L183 (L165) Please split “eventdue”:

       As suggested, we added a space between “event” and “due”.

 

L199 (L181) Please split “Takezawa&Somachiho”:

As suggested, we added spaces between “Takezawa”, "&", and “Somachiho”.

 

We have completely revised the manuscript, in which many words did not have spaces between them, including some in the title. 

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper provides some interesting results on the effects of earthquakes on tree on cell wall deposition. The discussion could be improved by relating these results to other studies of the effects of shaking on cell walls. 

Lines 41-43 are not really relevant.

Line 52 The paper does not have much relevance for evolution

Overall: Many words did not have spaces between them, including some in the title. I do not know whether this is the fault of the software used to convert the ms. to PDF or a problem in the original ms. It seems likely to be the former as the English overall is quite good. I have added the missing spaces in the attached Word file. 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Thank you for your review.

First of all, we are terribly sorry for our manuscript, in which many words did not have spaces between them, including some in the title.

 

Lines 41-43 are not really relevant:

       As suggested, we deleted the sentence in line 41 to 43.

 

Line 52 The paper does not have much relevance for evolution:

       As suggested, we deleted "evolution" in line 52. 

 

We have completely revised the manuscript, in which many words did not have spaces between them, including some in the title.