Current ionising radiation doses in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone do not directly impact on soil biological activity

Nicholas A. Beresford; Michael D. Wood; Sergey Gashchak; Catherine L. Barnett

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0263600

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 30, 2021
1 Nov 2021 Decision Letter - Nathalie A. Wall, Editor PONE-D-21-24695 Current ionising radiation doses in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone do not directly impact on soil biological activity PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Beresford, 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 Dec 16 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: https://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, Nathalie A. Wall, Dr. Academic Editor PLOS ONE 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. Please note that in order to use the direct billing option the corresponding author must be affiliated with the chosen institute. Please either amend your manuscript to change the affiliation or corresponding author, or email us at plosone@plos.org with a request to remove this option. 3. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ 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. 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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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 authors undertook a radiobiological study of the soil fauna in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. At many sites with different radiation levels they collected radioecological data and interpreted them in terms of external and internal dose rates of three species of soil organisms. At the same sites, bait lamina soil organism biological activity detectors were installed and exposed for 18 days. Comparison of dose and biological indicators using a variety of statistical methods revealed no effect of radiation. Since the biological effect under study depends not only on the radiation level but also on a number of environmental factors, the detection of the effect of relatively small doses of radiation is a non-trivial task. The article is of considerable interest to a wide PONE audience interested both in scientific aspects of radiobiology and in practical issues of radiation protection of biota. The experimental field study is carefully performed, and the methods of analysis are adequate to the task at hand. The article is well written and can be published in PONE after the authors have taken into account the reviewer's comments. Page 5, lines 109-111. For dead trees outside the Red Forest, is there evidence that this death was caused by radiation shortly after the Chernobyl accident? Pages 7-8. For instruments used to measure dose rates and to analyze soil samples, references to their descriptions or Web sites should be provided. Page 8, line 186. The assumption that the absorption of the 32-37 keV emission was similar to that of U-isotope emissions should be proved either by measurements or by calculation. In this energy range (13-23 keV and 32-37 keV) the photon absorption strongly depends on the energy. Page 9, line 205. Which kind of weighting was applied for estimating absorbed dose rates in this study? Page 9, line 220. Was internal dose rate from alpha emitters multiplied by any radiation weighted factor? That should be explicitly mentioned. Page 12, Table 2. For better understanding of dose rate pattern in this study it would be useful to present relative contribution of external and internal dose rates (or their ratio), at least for mean values. Page 15, line 328 and below. Median feeding rates are discussed that are not presented in the paper. I suggest to include them in Table 3 as a separate column. Page 17, Table 4. In the table heading or as footnote the superscripted letters a and be should be defined. Page 18, line 403-404. The first sentence of Conclusions reads as ”Our study indicates no effect of current radiation exposure on soil biological activity as determined by bait lamina strips.” In reviewer’s view that conclusion might be too strong taking into account multi-factorial feature of the considered biological endpoint. Authors might consider the following formulation as more appropriate: “Our study did not find any effect of current radiation exposure on soil biological activity as determined by bait lamina strips.” Reviewer #2: The study is of high quality. Methods and results are clearly stated; results are adequately interpreted and discussed. Conclusions are supported by data. I have no major comments, and I recommend acceptance of the paper. I found a few typos - please correct: Line 72: Mousseau et al.. (delete one period) Line 409: Mousseau et al.. (delete one period) Line 490: Andrea - should be Andrey I also have a question about sites 17 and 18 in Buriakivka: was this area affected by fires in April 2015? Reviewer #3: In this work, the impact of radiation doses on soil biological activity was evaluated using bait lamina as an indicator of in situ microbial activity in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. The strength of this work is to have taken into account a large area with 53 study plots allowing to explore a wide range of radiation doses. The other strength is the consideration of absorbed dose rather than dose rate to estimate the effects. The different results obtained as well as the comparison with the data, sometimes divergent, of the literature are discussed in a clear, rigorous and convincing way. This paper represents a very welcome contribution to the field of radioecology, especially in understanding the consequences of the Chernobyl accident which is still under debate. I have no additional comments and only one suggestion: line 317: please give values for temperatures (in situ and lower bound). ****** 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: Yes:** Prof. Mikhail Balonov 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-24695_reviewer-MB.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263600.r001
Revision 1
9 Dec 2021 Author Response We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). RESPONSE>>The figure was produced by Chornobyl Center and has no previous copyright. Dr Gashchak (co-author and Deputy Director of the Chornobyl Center) has signed the Content Permission Form which we have uploaded). Note we have reviewed formatting requirements etc. and the paper has been amended where required to meet these. Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: The authors undertook a radiobiological study of the soil fauna in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. At many sites with different radiation levels they collected radioecological data and interpreted them in terms of external and internal dose rates of three species of soil organisms. At the same sites, bait lamina soil organism biological activity detectors were installed and exposed for 18 days. Comparison of dose and biological indicators using a variety of statistical methods revealed no effect of radiation. Since the biological effect under study depends not only on the radiation level but also on a number of environmental factors, the detection of the effect of relatively small doses of radiation is a non-trivial task. The article is of considerable interest to a wide PONE audience interested both in scientific aspects of radiobiology and in practical issues of radiation protection of biota. The experimental field study is carefully performed, and the methods of analysis are adequate to the task at hand. The article is well written and can be published in PONE after the authors have taken into account the reviewer's comments. RESPONSE>>We thank the reviewer for their positive comments. Page 5, lines 109-111. For dead trees outside the Red Forest, is there evidence that this death was caused by radiation shortly after the Chernobyl accident? RESPONSE>>We have amended the wording as suggested by the reviewer on the marked manuscript and also put a note into the text that dose rates at these sites were higher that at some Red Forest sites. Pages 7-8. For instruments used to measure dose rates and to analyze soil samples, references to their descriptions or Web sites should be provided. RESPONSE>> Supplier details have been added for all instruments etc.. Page 8, line 186. The assumption that the absorption of the 32-37 keV emission was similar to that of U-isotope emissions should be proved either by measurements or by calculation. In this energy range (13-23 keV and 32-37 keV) the photon absorption strongly depends on the energy. RESPONSE>> The text has been amended to clarify this aspect of the methods for readers. Page 9, line 205. Which kind of weighting was applied for estimating absorbed dose rates in this study? RESPONSE>> The ERICA Tool default radiation weighting factors of 10 for alpha radiation, 3 for low energy beta and 1 for high energy beta and gamma radiation were used. We have now clarified this in the text. Page 9, line 220. Was internal dose rate from alpha emitters multiplied by any radiation weighted factor? That should be explicitly mentioned. RESPONSE>>As noted above we have clarified how weighted dose rates were calculated. Page 12, Table 2. For better understanding of dose rate pattern in this study it would be useful to present relative contribution of external and internal dose rates (or their ratio), at least for mean values. RESPONSE>>The percentage contributions of internal exposure are now presented in text. Page 15, line 328 and below. Median feeding rates are discussed that are not presented in the paper. I suggest to include them in Table 3 as a separate column. RESPONSE>>Median values have been added in text. Page 17, Table 4. In the table heading or as footnote the superscripted letters a and be should be defined. RESPONSE>>These are explained in the Table title: For a given parameter significant differences (p<0.05; generalised linear model) between habitats are identified by different superscripted letter. Page 18, line 403-404. The first sentence of Conclusions reads as ”Our study indicates no effect of current radiation exposure on soil biological activity as determined by bait lamina strips.” In reviewer’s view that conclusion might be too strong taking into account multi-factorial feature of the considered biological endpoint. Authors might consider the following formulation as more appropriate: “Our study did not find any effect of current radiation exposure on soil biological activity as determined by bait lamina strips.” RESPONSE>>Amended as suggested. NOTE – we have reviewed and additional comments on the marked manuscript from this reviewer and edited our paper accordingly. Reviewer #2: The study is of high quality. Methods and results are clearly stated; results are adequately interpreted and discussed. Conclusions are supported by data. I have no major comments, and I recommend acceptance of the paper. RESPONSE>>We thank the reviewer for their positive comments. I found a few typos - please correct: Line 72: Mousseau et al.. (delete one period) Line 409: Mousseau et al.. (delete one period) RESPONSE>>As these appear at the end of a sentence they should have two periods. Line 490: Andrea - should be Andrey RESPONSE>> Corrected. I also have a question about sites 17 and 18 in Buriakivka: was this area affected by fires in April 2015? RESPONSE>>These sites had not been impact by wildfires. We have clarified that no study site had been impacted by wildfires in the text. Reviewer #3: In this work, the impact of radiation doses on soil biological activity was evaluated using bait lamina as an indicator of in situ microbial activity in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. The strength of this work is to have taken into account a large area with 53 study plots allowing to explore a wide range of radiation doses. The other strength is the consideration of absorbed dose rather than dose rate to estimate the effects. The different results obtained as well as the comparison with the data, sometimes divergent, of the literature are discussed in a clear, rigorous and convincing way. This paper represents a very welcome contribution to the field of radioecology, especially in understanding the consequences of the Chernobyl accident which is still under debate. RESPONSE>>We thank the reviewer for their very positive comments. I have no additional comments and only one suggestion: line 317: please give values for temperatures (in situ and lower bound). RESPONSE>>Soil temperatures are presented in Table 4. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263600.r002
24 Jan 2022 Decision Letter - Nathalie A. Wall, Editor Current ionising radiation doses in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone do not directly impact on soil biological activity PONE-D-21-24695R1 Dear Dr. Beresford, 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, Nathalie A. Wall, Dr. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263600.r003
Formally Accepted
28 Jan 2022 Acceptance Letter - Nathalie A. Wall, Editor PONE-D-21-24695R1 Current ionising radiation doses in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone do not directly impact on soil biological activity Dear Dr. Beresford: 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 Prof. Nathalie A. Wall Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263600.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .