-->PONE-D-26-04565-->-->Radiocesium Uptake in Two Fungal Bed-cultivated Edible Mushroom Species in Forests in Fukushima, Japan-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Sakai,

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 May 15 2026 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 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.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only  the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot  verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mohamad Syazwan Mohd Sanusi

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 PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

“Part of this study was financially supported by the commissioned research fund by F-REI (JPFR23050301) and ERAN (P-25-45).”

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“Part of this study was financially supported by the commissioned research fund by F-REI (JPFR23050301) and ERAN (P-25-45).”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that Table S1 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 Table S1 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/

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript (PONE-D-26-04565) to PLOS ONE.

After peer review, both reviewers find the study valuable but recommend major revision. Key issues relate to clarification of radiocesium analysis (particularly Cs-137 vs. combined metrics), methodological transparency, statistical reporting, and interpretation.

Please revise your manuscript accordingly and provide a detailed point-by-point response to all comments.

I look forward to your revised submission.

Sincerely,

Dr. Syazwan Mohd Sanusi

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. 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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

-->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: General Comments

This study investigates the uptake process of radiocesium derived from the Fukushima nuclear accident by mushrooms. Cultivation experiments for two types of mushrooms were conducted across several forest sites in Fukushima with varying contamination levels, and the factors controlling radiocesium concentrations were statistically analyzed. The experiments are well-designed, and the results are appropriately analyzed. The findings provide valuable insights into the behavior of radiocesium in mushroom production within this region. However, some revisions regarding data description and analysis should be addressed before the manuscript is suitable for publication.

Major Points

1. Although Cs-134 was not detected in the mushroom samples, the authors used the sum of Cs-134 and Cs-137 concentrations as an index for radiocesium levels. Given the results, focusing solely on Cs-137 would be more appropriate for robust data analysis and discussion. While the authors may wish to emphasize comparisons with Japan’s food safety limits, the analytical data for Cs-137 should be clearly described, and the specific contribution (or lack thereof) of Cs-134 to the total radiocesium concentration should be explicitly explained.

2. The aggregated transfer factors were calculated using the sum of Cs-134 and Cs-137 concentrations in mushrooms against the Cs-137 inventory in the soil. To ensure consistency and scientific rigor, these calculations should be based on Cs-137 only.

Specific Points

• Lines 45 and 283: The term “Safe cultivation” is ambiguous and lacks scientific precision. Please use more specific or technical terminology.

• Figure 1: The size of the cultivation beds should be better explained in the figure legend.

• Lines 233–235: The aggregated transfer factor should be clearly defined using an equation. As noted above, this parameter should focus exclusively on Cs-137.

• Figures 2–6: Please provide a legend or an explanation in the figure captions to clarify which symbol corresponds to each study site.

• Table S1: The analytical data for Cs-137 should be listed individually, alongside the total (Cs-134 + Cs-137). Furthermore, as the aggregated transfer factors obtained in this study are significant, the value for each site should be included in this table.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript presents valuable applied research with clear relevance to environmental safety and agricultural practices in contaminated regions. However, significant revisions are required to improve methodological transparency, strengthen interpretation, and ensure that conclusions are appropriately supported by the data.

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-26-04565

Title: Radiocesium Uptake in Two Fungal Bed-cultivated Edible Mushroom Species in Forests in Fukushima, Japan

This manuscript investigates radiocesium (¹³⁷Cs + ¹³⁴Cs) uptake in two fungal bed-cultivated edible mushroom species (Lyophyllum decastes and Lepista nuda) across 14 forest sites in Fukushima, Japan. The authors aim to identify environmental drivers of radiocesium accumulation and propose mitigation strategies for safer outdoor cultivation.

The study addresses an important and applied problem related to food safety and post-nuclear agricultural recovery. The multi-site experimental design and species comparison are valuable. However, several aspects of the methodology, statistical analysis, and interpretation require clarification and strengthening before the manuscript is suitable for publication.

Overall Recommendation

Major Revision

The manuscript would benefit from a clearer articulation of its novelty relative to prior studies on radiocesium transfer in mushrooms (particularly post-Fukushima and Chernobyl research).

• The distinction between litter-driven and soil-driven uptake pathways is potentially important but insufficiently developed.

• The manuscript should explicitly define:

• The specific knowledge gap addressed

• How the findings advance current understanding (mechanistic vs. empirical vs. applied)

Recommendation: Strengthen the Introduction and Discussion to clearly position the study within existing literature.

Experimental Design

A key limitation concerns the sampling design:

• Soil data collected from Ly. decastes plots were used for Le. nuda analyses.

• This assumption may introduce bias in species comparisons, particularly given differing ecological strategies.

• Replication is limited at the site level, while many predictors are site-level variables, which constrains inference.

Recommendation:

• Provide explicit justification for this approach

• Discuss its potential impact on results and interpretation

Radiocesium Estimation Methodology

The estimation of ¹³⁴Cs concentrations is based on assumptions:

• Equal initial release of ¹³⁷Cs and ¹³⁴Cs

• All ¹³⁷Cs originates from the Fukushima accident

These assumptions may introduce systematic uncertainty.

3.4 Statistical Analysis

While linear mixed models (LMMs) are appropriate, reporting lacks sufficient detail:

• Model equations are not fully specified

• Diagnostic evaluation (residuals, normality, heteroscedasticity) is not presented

• Variable selection is based on cAIC without ecological justification

Overall:

The manuscript estimates air dose rate thresholds (~6 µSv/h) for exceeding food safety limits.

• These values are well beyond the observed range (0.04–0.89 µSv/h)

• This constitutes extrapolation beyond the data

Recommendation:

• Clearly state this limitation

• Avoid strong conclusions based on extrapolated values

The discussion of species-specific uptake patterns is largely descriptive.

Limited integration with fungal ecology (e.g., nutrient acquisition strategies, mycelial distribution). Mechanistic explanations remain underdeveloped strengthen interpretation by linking findings to:

• Saprotrophic fungal ecology

• Substrate utilization strategies

• Mycelial structure and depth

The manuscript proposes mitigation strategies (clean soil vs. clean litter), but these are inferred rather than experimentally tested, reframe these as hypotheses or suggested management implications avoid presenting them as validated interventions.

Ensure consistent reporting of:

• Bq/kg (fresh vs. dry weight clearly indicated)

• Soil inventory units (check consistency across sections)

Figures and Tables

• Improve clarity of figure captions

• Ensure all axes include units and are interpretable independently

Clarity and Style

Writing is generally clear, but some sentences are overly long the manuscript will benefit from professional English editing.

**********

-->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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

-->PONE-D-26-04565R1-->-->Radiocesium Uptake in Two Fungal Bed-cultivated Edible Mushroom Species in Forests in Fukushima, Japan-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Sakai,

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 01 2026 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 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.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only  the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot  verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mohamad Syazwan Mohd Sanusi

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

2. 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 #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

**********

-->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

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: 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 has improved substantially following revision, particularly in terms of statistical rigor and clarity of presentation. The inclusion of detailed model descriptions, model selection procedures, and diagnostic checks has strengthened the transparency and reliability of the analysis.

The study addresses an important topic, and the results provide useful insights into radiocesium uptake in cultivated mushrooms under field conditions. The comparison between the two species and the identification of environmental drivers are valuable contributions, especially for applied management and food safety considerations.

However, a few points could still be further clarified to enhance the manuscript:

1- The limitations related to the experimental design, particularly the use of soil data from one species to represent another, should be more explicitly justified or discussed in terms of potential bias and its implications for interpretation.

2- The assumptions used in estimating radiocesium concentrations would benefit from a clearer discussion of associated uncertainties and their possible effects on the results.

3- The discussion could be strengthened by further elaborating on the ecological and physiological mechanisms underlying the observed patterns of radiocesium uptake.

4- The management implications are useful, but it would be helpful to clearly emphasize that these recommendations are not yet experimentally validated and should be interpreted as preliminary.

Overall, the manuscript is well improved and, after minor revisions addressing the points above, should be suitable for publication.

Reviewer #3: The research is cutting edge that written well but the English is substandard and need to be improved thoroughly.

Reviewer #4: Overall, this is a strong and meaningful contribution that provides novel evidence supporting the feasibility of outdoor fungal bed cultivation under low-to-moderate contamination conditions in Fukushima forests. The work combines practical relevance with ecological insight and will likely be of interest to researchers in environmental radioactivity, forest ecology, food safety, and post-disaster land management.

Reviewer #5: REVIEWER’S COMMENTS

Radiocesium Uptake in Two Fungal Bed-cultivated Edible Mushroom Species in

Forests in Fukushima, Japan

The authors have conducted a unique and interesting study using clear methodology. This study is positive and contributes to the field of food security. However, there are minor corrections that need to be corrected throughout the manuscript. Some sections also lack details.

Abstract

Start with a global context before narrowing down to Japan.

The problem that the authors are approaching is really not a problem or it may not have been stated well. The authors should consider reconstructing the problem for clarity.

Line 45: authors should consider comparing the results to international standards like WHO and or FAO.

Introduction

Autors should provide brief information on mushroom.

Start with a global context before narrowing down to Japan

Material and methods

The author failed to explicitly explain the choice of the study area

The authors should consider including map of the study area, as well as coordinates for the purpose of duplications.

It will be appropriate if pictures of the set ups are included in the manuscript

Line 197: Please which data system? Indicate the manufacturer, serial number, country of origin etc

Results

Line 242: is this method veried, can you please reference it?

Discussion

Line 270-272: please why are you concluding at the discussion section? You are to discuss the results by comparing it it standards and current publications. Same applies to line 331-333.

Separate the conclusion from the discussion section. Create a new sub-section and name it Conclusion

References

I guess the author used APA 7th edition but failed to italised the journals.

Some of the references are too old, for instance line 383 (1987). The author should consider citing current papers (at least from 2016)

The references should be arranged in alphabetical order of easier identification

**********

-->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

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes:  Isaac Ayew Aidoo

**********

[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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

-->

-->PONE-D-26-04565R2-->-->Radiocesium Uptake in Two Fungal Bed-cultivated Edible Mushroom Species in Forests in Fukushima, Japan-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr.  Sakai,

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 22 2026 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 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.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only  the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot  verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mohamad Syazwan Mohd Sanusi

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Dr. Sakai,

Thank you for your careful revision of the manuscript. I appreciate the substantial improvements made in response to the reviewers' comments, and I note that the reviewers have recommended the manuscript for publication.

During my final editorial assessment prior to acceptance, I identified several methodological and reporting issues that were unfortunately overlooked during the previous review rounds. I apologize for not raising these points earlier. Although they do not affect the overall scientific conclusions, I believe they should be clarified before the manuscript can be accepted.

Please address the following comments:

1. Missing measurement uncertainty (Major issue)

The manuscript reports only activity concentrations (Bq/kg), but almost nowhere are the counting uncertainties reported. However, you have reported:

"Mean measurement accuracy was 5% for litter, leaf mold, and soil samples, and 8% for mushrooms (error counts/net area counts)."

This statement is unclear as it confuses between three different quantities : 1) detector accuracy, 2) counting uncertainty and 3) measurement uncertainty. These are not equivalent.

"Error counts/net area counts" is merely the counting statistical uncertainty from the gamma peak. It is not the uncertainty of the reported activity. A proper uncertainty should include at least eg. counting statistics, efficiency calibration uncertainty, reference source uncertainty or at least state expanded uncertainty (k=2) or combined standard uncertainty (k=1) according to ISO / IAEA recommendations.

2. Decay correction

Since Cs-137 changes only ~0.08% over one month, the correction is tiny. However, this also deserves clarification. The manuscript stated "activities were corrected for radioactive decay to the collection date." That sentence is actually acceptable. I would like to advise author tp explicitly state:

"All reported activities were decay corrected to the sampling date."

Because "collection" may refer to soil collection, mushroom harvest, laboratory processing and readers may wonder which reference time was used.

3. Need to explicitly state the importance of 134Cs estimation in total Cs137 contamination ?

By 2024, 134Cs has undergone about 6.3 half-lives. Remaining fraction ≈ 1/80 ≈ 1.2% of original activity. Thus 134Cs contributes only about 1% of total radiocesium in general cobntamination. It is for food regulation requirement?

p/s: In the abstract this info (Cs134 % contribution) is missing.

4. No Minimum Detectable Activity (MDA): - A gamma spectrometry paper should always report MDA or MDC or detection criterion, and confidence level

5. No efficiency calibration details : - Line 215-218 only state detector calibrated using standards. Missing calibration energy range, efficiency curve, coincidence correction (if any), the details of reference material used (matrix, size in 100 mL plastic container?).

[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 #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: 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 #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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 #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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 #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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 #4: The manuscript is well organized and addresses an important topic related to radiocesium contamination in edible mushrooms following the Fukushima nuclear accident. The study design is generally sound, the statistical analyses are appropriate, and the findings provide useful practical implications for outdoor fungal bed cultivation and food safety management. The inclusion of supporting information containing the underlying dataset is appreciated and aligns with the journal’s data availability requirements.

Reviewer #5: This work is very interesting. I will recommend the authors to expand it to other countries during future studies.

**********

-->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 #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes:  Isaac Ayew Aidoo

**********

[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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

-->

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Editor comments PONE-D-26-04565_R2.docx

Radiocesium Uptake in Two Fungal Bed-cultivated Edible Mushroom Species in Forests in Fukushima, Japan

PONE-D-26-04565R3

Dear Dr. Sakai,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

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,

Mohamad Syazwan Mohd Sanusi

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: