Biochemical response of Sonneratia alba Sm. branches infested by a wood boring moth (Gazi Bay, Kenya).

Infestation by a moth woodborer species is causing mortality of Sonneratia alba Sm. mangrove by tunneling through the inner bark, cambium and conductive tissue. Infestation leads to death of some infested branches, whereas in other cases infested branches have been observed to recover from infestation. We have used Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) to investigate the differences in macromolecule (polysaccharide and lignin) content present in branches that died (D) of the infestation, those that recovered (R) from the infestation and control branches (C) that were not subject to any infestation. Wood samples were taken from four sampling plots (A, B, C and D) in Gazi Bay (Kenya). From each of the four plots, 15 S. alba branches were taken from five trees, from which 1 cm thick discs were cut from each of these branches to be used as samples. To identify the most characteristic FTIR bands for the three groups of samples, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was applied on the transposed data matrix. Furthermore, canonical discriminant analysis was applied on the data considering the main FTIR band that would be identified through the PCA factors. Finally, One-way ANOVA and post hoc test were used to verify the significance of the observed trends. Branches that recovered from infestation had higher relative abundance of lignified cells. We conclude that insect-infested S. alba undergo changes related to the lignocellulosic contents. The infestation induces a decrease of the proportion of the polysaccharide content and an increase of the proportion of the lignin contents.

Introduction

The infestation by a lepidopteran moth woodborer species is causing mortality of Sonneratia alba Sm., which is an ubiquitous and pioneer mangrove specie in the family Lythraceae. This mangrove tree occurs along the waterfront in a variety of mangrove ecosystem settings of the Indo-Pacific region [1, 2]. An unknown wood boring larvae of a moth has been found to be responsible for the infestation of this species in Gazi Bay (Kenya). However, ongoing work of scrutinizing and typification has placed the moth to an undescribed genus named “Gen. Nov. ZA” that represents its type species named “sp. nov. za” [3]. The description of this new genus with its detailed presentation and names of all currently known species from the Afrotropical Region is currently being dealt with in a publication by Lehmann, Jenoh, Kioko and Koedam (in prep.). The insect infests the mangrove by tunnelling through the inner bark, cambium and conductive tissue; if the branch is completely girdled, the branch dies at above the damaged site [1, 2, 4]. Indeed, many species of Lepidoptera spend most of their larval development tunnelling and feeding in the stems and branches of trees and shrubs [2, 4, 5]. Partial girdling reduces tree growth and vigour above the site of attack. Infestation can lead to the death of the infested branches and in some severe cases where other factors (e.g. nutrient limitation, salinity increase, and associated stressors) enhance the damage, thus entire trees die [2, 6]. In some cases, infested S. alba branches have been observed to recover from infestation whereas other branches are unable to survive the infestation [2, 4].

Mangrove ecosystems are of great ecological and economic importance in the Western Indian Ocean (WIO) region, degradation of S. alba may lead to the loss of diversity [7]. And also its degradation could contribute to an increase in coastal erosion since it is the waterfront pioneer species, hence it assists the other more socio-economically important species to establish by buffering the mangrove formation from the open sea [8]. Furthermore, since the mangrove at the margin of water have been found to have high carbon sequestration ability, the infestation of S. alba is a danger to the entire mangrove forest and may lead to highly reduce its ability of carbon sequestration [9, 10]. Owing to these vital ecological roles, it is paramount that information to enhance conservation of this species against insect infestation be availed for a sustainable management of the entire forest and eventual providence of quality goods and services of the mangrove to the coastal community.

After an infestation, the dying or recovery process of a branch is dependent on factors that are related to the strength and the timeliness of the primary and secondary plant defences against the infesting agent. Primary defences include structural traits such as an intact and impenetrable barrier composed of bark and a waxy cuticle, trichomes, and cell wall thickness and lignification [11, 12]. Lignin is a natural aromatic polymer, it enhances plant cell wall rigidity, hydrophobic properties and promotes minerals transport through the vascular bundles in plants. Also, lignin compounds are indicated as important barrier that protects plants against pests and pathogens [13, 14]. During infestation, plants increase deposition of lignin as a response to a variety of biotic and abiotic stresses, even though lignin deposition in plant cell walls is also a normal developmental process [13, 15, 16]. The success of an infesting woodborer is therefore pegged on its ability to overcome the rigidity of deposited lignin and other defence chemicals in the plant wood structure.

Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy is a useful analytical technique for wood structural chemistry characterization with just a minimum sample preparation required. This technique has been widely used in studies on characterization of lignocellulosic materials [17-21]. The application of FTIR on wood samples allow to get details on functional groups, molecular bonds and specific structural features of wood chemical contents [21-24]. Also, the use of the FTIR permitted to identify differences in wood parts (sapwood and heartwood), wood type (softwood and hardwood) and also assessment of wood quality [25-27]. FTIR has been successfully used to assess variations in the relative proportions of carbohydrates and lignin in eucalyptus wood [28, 29] and to identify different tree species such as hardwood and softwood by considering the relative proportions of polysaccharides and lignin compounds [23, 29, 30].

The main aim of this work is to get understanding about the influence of moth infestation on S. alba wood lignocellulosic contents. In this regard, we have used FTIR to investigate the differences in chemical contents present in three different groups of S. alba wood samples. The first group (D) consists of branches that died from the moth infestation, the second group (R) represents branches that were infested by the moth and recovered from the infestation, and the third group (C) refers to the control branches that were not subject of any infestation by the moth. Then we discussed the determinant role of polysaccharide and lignin compounds in the death/recovery processes of the infested branches.

Material and methods

Sampling sites and samples

Wood samples were taken from Gazi Bay, located at about 55 km south of Mombasa in Kwale County (Fig 1, Table 1), where all mangrove tree species that occur in Kenya are present [31]. Four sampling plots (A, B, C and D; see Table 1) were chosen by considering the availability of a relatively dense S. alba forest. It is important to note that in the study site, and Kenya in general, S. alba forms only narrow fringing areas in the mangrove [31, 32]. However, it is often dominant at the mangrove’s water edge and on mudflats. Plot A was composed of two sections, the first with large old S. alba trees (natural occurring) and the second with S. alba forest which was replanted on an originally forested site, thirteen and ten years at the time of sampling, respectively. Plot B was mainly composed of old S. alba naturally grown trees. In addition to insect infestation, this plot has been affected by sedimentation and hence lost several trees. Plot C was a 20-year-old S. alba plantation. Plot D was composed of a mature, naturally grown S. alba forest located alongside the main creek in Gazi Bay.

Fig 1

A map of Kenya (inset) and the sampling sites (in Gazi Bay).

The yellow circles at the sampling sites represent the sampling plots where the study was conducted.

Table 1

Sampling plots and details of the sampling plots in Gazi Bay.

Sampling plots	Geographic location	Comments on the selected samples
		(as per at the time of sampling)
A	04°25’901’’S 039°30’676’’E	Old naturally grown trees and two replanted forest (13 years and 10 years)
B	04°25’589’’S 039°30’789’’E	Old naturally grown trees
C	03°21’100’’S 039°58’124’’E	Replanted forest (20 years old)
D	03°21’100’’S 039°58’124’’E	Mature naturally grown trees

From each of the four plots, 15 S. alba branches were taken from five trees at low tides during the month of February 2019. From each of these trees, dead (D), recovered (R) and control (C) branches were cut. Efforts were made to ensure the branches were of equal size and were situated in the same canopy position. One (1) cm thick discs were then cut from each of these branches to be used as samples (Fig 2). The discs were oven dried at 30°C for two weeks before being used for FTIR measurement.

Fig 2

Pictures of wood discs used for the measurement of spectra.

C stands for a sample from the control branch; R stands for a sample from the recovered branch; and D stands for a sample for dead branch.

FTIR measurement

Wood spectral measurements were conducted using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR-ATR) analyses, an Agilent Cary 630 FTIR Spectrometer equipped with a single-reflection diamond crystal. The spectra were collected in the absorbance range from 4000 to 400 cm-1 over 100 scans per sample, at a resolution of 4 cm-1. The angle of incidence for the infrared beam through the diamond crystal was 45°. For each wood disc, FTIR Spectra were recorded directly on the surface of the wood fragments, at 1 mm interval in consecutive positions from the outer region (near the cambium) to the inner part (toward the pith) of the wood discs.

Data analysis

Average and standard deviation of the fingerprint region spectra were calculated for general description of the FTIR spectra. This aimed to visualize the wood FTIR data and to observe the most general patterns and changes for these three types of wood samples. The average spectra show the most common vibrations in the samples whereas the standard deviation spectra warn about variations in the samples. To get better insight about the results, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) has been applied on the transposed data matrix (samples as variables, bands as observations). This approach is being common practice in wood analysis, and has been successfully applied to wood molecular studies [26]. And, the extraction of PCA factors was carried out using the varimax rotation. PCA enabled the identification of the most characteristic FTIR bands of the analyzed samples. Thereafter, linear discriminant analysis (LDA) was applied on the data considering the main FTIR bands identified through the PCA factors. This aimed at supporting the PCA results and also to get better understanding on the molecular characteristics of the studied wood samples. Furthermore, to assess the significance of the differences between samples, the One-way ANOVA test was used; and the use of the post hoc test of Student–Newman–Keuls (with alpha = 0.05) permitted the classification by homogenous subsets. All statistical tests were done using SPSS 23.

Results

FTIR data

In Fig 3, the average spectra indicate that all the three samples present similarities according to the absorption bands. Also, at some region (for example between 1580 and 1360 cm-1), the values of the relative absorbance appeared very much alike. However, around the regions between 1730 and 1580 cm-1 and 1240 and 1180 cm-1 the value of the relative absorbance related to the control samples was lower, whereas it was higher around the region between 1115 and 880 cm-1. As for the standard deviation spectra, they highlighted the FTIR bands with the highest variability for the samples. Actually, standard deviation spectra for the recovered samples indicated to present the highest variability, as indicated in many of the bands. Separate peaks at bands near 1610, 1191 and 1020 cm-1 were well distinguished by the standard deviation spectra, and they were detected within the above mentioned spectral region.

Fig 3

Average and standard deviation spectra for the fingerprint regions of Sonneratia alba wood samples.

(C for control samples; R for recovered samples; and D for died samples).

Principal component analysis

The two first factors of PCA on the transpose data matrix accounted for 99% of the total variance. The score plots for these principal components are shown in Fig 4. PC1 with 54% of the total variance characterized by the FTIR bands near 1020 and 1053 cm-1 with positive scores; and FTIR bands near 1193, 1348, 1445, 1521, 1610 and 1698 cm-1 with negative scores. Besides, PC2 with 45% of the total variance was characterized by bands near 1035, 1103, 1220, 1325, 1451 and 1606 cm-1 with positive scores; bands near 1408, 1480 and 1542 cm-1 with negative scores. All the related FTIR bands and their molecular assignment are provided in Table 2.

Fig 4

Component score plot of PC1 and PC2 loadings.

Table 2

Infrared bands and related molecular bond assignments according to the literature.

Wn (cm-1)	Band assignment	References	PCA factor
1020	Polysaccharides	Popescu et al., 2007	PC1
1035	Polysaccharides	Popescu et al., 2007	PC1
1053	Polyssaccharides	Faix, 1991	PC1
1103	Polyssaccharides	McCann et al., 1992; Zhang et al., 2010	PC2
1193	Polysaccharides	Zhou et al., 2015	PC1
1220	Lignin	Chen et al., 2010; Zhou et al., 2015	PC2
1325	Polysaccharides	Colom and Carrillo 2005; Popescu et al. 2007	PC2
1348	Polysaccharides	Evans et al., 1992; Mohebby, 2008	PC1
1408	Polysaccharides	Zhang et al., 2010	PC2
1445	Lignin	Faix, 1991; Zhang et al., 2010	PC1
1451	Lignin	Popescu et al., 2007; Chen et al., 2010	PC2
1480	Lignin	Popescu et al., 2007; Chen et al., 2010	PC2
1521	Polysaccharides	Popescu et al., 2007; Zhou et al., 2015	PC1
1542	Polysaccharides	Popescu et al., 2007; Zhou et al., 2015	PC2
1606	Lignin	Zhao et al., 2014	PC1
1610	Lignin	Zhao et al., 2014	PC1
1698	Polysaccharides	Mizzoni and Cessaro, 2007; Vahur et al., 2011	PC1

The bar-plot of the loadings of the samples for the two first components (Fig 5) shows significant differences (P < 0.01; see Table 3) between the control samples and the other two types of sample (recovered and dead wood samples). Control samples were associated to the higher loadings for the first factor (PC1), whereas, they were associated to the lower loadings for the second factor (PC2). Here also the high standard deviation bars indicated variability associated to the recovered samples.

Fig 5

The bar-plot of PC1 and PC2 loadings of the transposed data matrix PCA.

C for control samples; R for recovered samples; and D for died samples.

Table 3

One-way ANOVA test between wood test of PC1 and PC2 loadings; and post hoc test of Student–Newman–Keuls between samples (groups are classed in ascending order with the label a, b, c,….).

	F value	Pr (>F)	C	R	D
PC1	9.89	2.93 × 10−4	0.79b	0.70a	0.73a
PC2	12.73	4.54 × 10−5	0.60 a	0.70 b	0.68 b

Discriminant analysis

Discriminant analysis applied on specific FTIR bands associated to the two first PCA factors permitted to separate the three groups of samples (Fig 6). The first discriminant function (DF1) accounted for about 60% of the total variance and the second discriminant function (DF2) accounted for about 40% of the total variance. According to DF1, the recovered wood samples (with positive scores) were significantly different (P < 0.01; again see Table 3) from the control and dead wood samples (with negative scores). And from DF2, all the wood samples appeared to be significantly different (P < 0.01; see Table 4). For the latter, the control wood samples were associated to the highest positive scores and the other two types of samples were associated to negative scores.

Fig 6

Plot of the canonical functions obtained by the discriminant analysis with specific FTIR bands of PC1 and PC2.

Table 4

One-way ANOVA test between wood test of the two discriminant functions (DF1 and DF2); and post hoc test of Student–Newman–Keuls between samples (groups are classed in ascending order with the label a, b, c).

	F value	Pr (>F)	C	R	D
DF1	68.84	3.94 × 10−14	-1.08a	1.95b	-1.76a
DF2	46.57	1.73 × 10−11	2.55c	-0.23b	-1.30a

In Table 5, the higher standardized discriminant coefficients are indicative of FTIR bands that are most determinants of the discriminant functions, which permitted to differentiate between the three types of samples. DF1 was characterised by bands near 1053, 1193, 1480 and 1521 cm-1 with positive coefficients; and bands near 1103, 1348 and 1542 cm-1 with negative coefficients. And DF2 was characterised by bands near 1035, 1325, 1451, and 1606 cm-1 with positive coefficients; and bands near 1020, 1220 and 1610 cm-1 with negative coefficients. The highest absolute value of the standardised coefficients pointed out DF1 is dominated by the coefficient related to the bands near 1053, 1103, 1348 and 1542 cm-1; whereas it indicated that DF2 is dominated by the coefficient related to the bands near 1035, 1020, 1606 and 1610 cm-1. Considering these bands with the highest absolute value of the standardized coefficient, the two spectral region mostly susceptible to provide explanation about the differences between these samples are between 1730 and 1580 cm-1; and between 1115 and 880 cm-1.

Table 5

Standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients for DF1 and DF2 (S).

wn	DF1	DF2
1020	-2.81	-11.01
1035	3.18	14.76
1053	4.13	-0.52
1103	-3.34	-2.97
1193	1.64	1.43
1220	-1.02	-1.71
1325	0.65	1.02
1348	-2.61	-1.43
1408	-0.80	0.81
1445	0.77	0.01
1451	0.33	1.43
1480	1.03	0.38
1521	1.58	-0.74
1542	-2.16	-0.27
1606	-1.38	2.71
1610	2.37	-3.59

Discussion

The average FTIR spectra at the fingerprint region (1800–800 cm-1) show similarity of the molecular contents between the three groups of samples (D, R and C). This resemblance is mainly related to the infrared bands that refer to the main molecular structures of lignocellulosic biomass [33]. Overall, the control wood samples indicated lower intensity for lignin assigned bands, whereas, they indicated higher peaks intensities for polysaccharide assigned bands [33, 34]. In the case of the standard deviation spectra, the spectra on the other hand indicated isolated differences marked by higher peak intensities variation around specific FTIR bands for the recovered branch samples. This variation is probably indicative of a possible modification in the chemical composition of the recovered wood samples. This may suggest the occurrence of biochemical process to resist the influence of woodborer infestation. Previous studies in the literature reported the effect of wood degradation by the variation in peak intensities of bands associated with lignin and polysaccharide compounds [35-37].

The PCA results indicate that the FTIR data related to polysaccharide and lignin contents can be consider to explain the influence of woodborer infestation. For instance, PC1 showed that the control wood samples present higher relative polysaccharide contents. Whereas PC2 showed that the control wood present lower relative lignin contents. This indicates that the impact of woodborer moth on this mangrove species results in inducing changes in the relative proportions of its wood molecular contents. In fact, this molecular disturbance putting accent on lignin contents can be interpreted by a possible selective change on the polysaccharide contents. As a matter of fact, polysaccharide compounds are known to be more susceptible to structural transformation than lignin molecules [38]. Also, the observed changes that affect the polysaccharide relative proportion can be a result of a direct influence of wood-boring moth; and also of the biosynthesis of lignin through carbohydrates [39, 40].

Using the infrared bands identified by the PCA factors the discriminant analysis was able to separate the three groups of samples with bands associated to polysaccharide and lignin compounds according to two discriminant factors (DF1 and DF2). For this section, discussion is focused on the FTIR bands that belong to the two spectral regions identified as potential for this study (Fig 3). Results in the present paper suggest that infestation by wood-boring moth could induce more impact on the polysaccharide compounds than the lignin compounds because of its molecular structures [41]. However, it is also possible that during disturbance like the case of insect infestation, biosynthesis of further molecules occurs for a physiological adaptation of the plants [42]. Additionally, polysaccharide compounds constitute larval food resources in many lepidopterans [43, 44]. For instance, research on Lepidoptera gut fluids revealed the occurrence of hydrolytic activities towards cellulose as the main digestion process [45]. Also, Grehan (1988) [46] indicated the potential of larvae to digest α-(1, 4) glucans, through a study on gut activity to starch. Important parts of the accessible elements from the nutritional requirement of these insects are contained in the phloem tissues [37].

About 65% of the organic carbon in mangrove wood is offered by carbohydrate compounds. In most of the mangrove species, glucose is presented as the most abundant sugar monomer within carbohydrate compounds [40, 47]. Lepidopteran species were shown as major consumers of mangrove wood polysaccharide compounds in xylem and phloem [48]. In addition to the damage caused on tree stems, it has been shown that wood-boring insects also indirectly cause the mortality of leaves. This phenomenon contributes to increase the infestations and then possibly leading to killing the tree [49, 50].

Conclusion

Our findings highlighted polysaccharide compounds as the main compounds that undergo changes due to this woodborer infestation. This impact on the polysaccharide compounds has been related to its consumption by this phloem feeding insect. Also our attention was taken to carbohydrates as an important substrate of lignin biosynthesis, during wood formation process. We can therefore conclude that during infestation, S. alba reacts by increasing the biosynthesis of Lignin as a way to discourage and stop further infestation. Hence the lignin content in the recovered branches were higher than in the control and the dead.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

19 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-20278

Biochemical response of Sonneratia alba Sm. branches infested by a wood boring moth (Gazi Bay, Kenya)

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jenoh,

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 Sep 30 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,

Mohammad Shahid, Ph.D.

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. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This research was funded by the Flemish Interuniversity Council—University Development Cooperation (VLIR-UOS; http://www.vliruos.be/) ICP Ph. D Scholarship 2011. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript”

We note that you have provided funding information within the Acknowledgements Section. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“This research was funded by the Flemish Interuniversity Council—University Development Cooperation (VLIR-UOS; http://www.vliruos.be/)ICP Ph. D Scholarship 2011. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

4. 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.

5. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map 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/

6. We note that Figure 2 in your submission contain copyrighted images. 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 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 2 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.

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: No

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: Sonneratia alba (S. alba) is an important mangrove plant grown in low intertidal zones of downstream estuarine systems of East Africa, Southeast Asia, northern Australia, Borneo and Pacific Islands, etc. The optimal growth of this plant reaches 5 to 50% seawater, indicating its capacity to tolerate high salinity and hypoxia. In this way, S. alba is ecologically significantly important. The infestation by a lepidopteran moth wood borer species is causing mortality of S. alba and create a huge ecological and economic loss. In this aspect, the topic of the present manuscript is very important and is a need of the current situation. Hence, I think the authors bring up some important issues that will spark considerable debate.

However, the manuscript needs some changes and justification, which should be addressed to improve the quality of the paper. I do recommend this manuscript to be published in "Plos One" with major revision and the author/s need to address below comments/suggestions:

1. The work of the present manuscript is focused on the mangrove tree Sonneratia alba, having huge ecological importance. At the beginning of the introduction, the authors mentioned the name of the plant; however, the name of the family is missing. Here, authors need to mention it at an appropriate place because with the plant's name, giving its family name is essential.

2. In the section “Sampling sites and samples,” the authors collected samples from different ages of plants. In certain groups (i.e., A and C), the age of the plants is mentioned, while in the group B and D age of the plants is not given. Here, the authors need to mention the age of all plants.

3. In the material and method section, the author did not mention the time (month and year) of the sampling. The authors need to mention it.

4. It is a well-established fact that in plants, the lignin content varies with the age of the plants. In this manuscript, authors mentioned that lignin content plays a significant role in recovery and damaging from infestation. Hence, authors need to justify the results as they collected samples from different age plants.

5. In Fig. 3, i.e., FTIR spectrum, the authors need to mention the functional groups corresponding to each of the FTIR ranges.

6. The language of the manuscript is poor, and lots of grammatical and typo errors have been seen throughout the manuscript. Authors need to check and reframe the sentences critically.

Reviewer #2: The article entitled "Biochemical response of Sonneratia alba Sm. branches infested by a wood boring

moth (Gazi Bay, Kenya)" should be revised well upon the follwoing:

1- English Editing should be peformed

2- Statistical analysis should be more clear that represents the data collected

3- Refrances should be arranged as PLOS ONE style

**********

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: Mantasha I.

Department of Bio-Molecular Sciences, University of Mississippi, MS, USA

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.

1 Oct 2021

Dear Editor,

I wish to resubmit our manuscript titled biochemical response of Sonneratia alba Sm. branches infested by a wood boring moth (Gazi Bay, Kenya). We have considered all the required changes suggested by the two reviews as much as it is possible. Below is the list the reviewers asked (in blue fonts) and our reaction towards the raised concerns (in Red fonts).

A bout Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, The map layer has been well referenced to Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRI). This is a governmental research institute where I am an employee. Being an employee I have full rights to use the map layers as long as I acknowledge it on the map. Which I have done.

AS for Fig. 2, I wish to say that this is my figure and thus no permission is needed for me to use it.

Reviewer Comments

Reviewer #1:

Sonneratia alba (S. alba) is an important mangrove plant grown in low intertidal zones of downstream estuarine systems of East Africa, Southeast Asia, northern Australia, Borneo and Pacific Islands, etc. The optimal growth of this plant reaches 5 to 50% seawater, indicating its capacity to tolerate high salinity and hypoxia. In this way, S. alba is ecologically significantly important. The infestation by a lepidopteran moth wood borer species is causing mortality of S. alba and create a huge ecological and economic loss. In this aspect, the topic of the present manuscript is very important and is a need of the current situation. Hence, I think the authors bring up some important issues that will spark considerable debate.

****However, the manuscript needs some changes and justification, which should be addressed to improve the quality of the paper. I do recommend this manuscript to be published in "Plos One" with major revision and the author/s need to address below comments/suggestions:

1. The work of the present manuscript is focused on the mangrove tree Sonneratia alba, having huge ecological importance. At the beginning of the introduction, the authors mentioned the name of the plant; however, the name of the family is missing. Here, authors need to mention it at an appropriate place because with the plant's name, giving its family name is essential.

Response: This has been done (see line 43)

2. In the section “Sampling sites and samples,” the authors collected samples from different ages of plants. In certain groups (i.e., A and C), the age of the plants is mentioned, while in the group B and D age of the plants is not given. Here, the authors need to mention the age of all plants.

Response: It is true that the age of the trees at some of the plots have been given in the materials and methods section whereas other plots (B and D) have not been given. The reason for this is actually given in the materials and method section where the description of the sampling plots was given. Plot B and D are natural forest that have been since time immemorial whereas plot A and C are plantation. Thus information about these two plots is available. On the other hand, in this research, as indicated in the manuscript, all efforts were done to ensure the samples were taken from the same canopy height and the branches were of similar size as much as possible.

Also it is difficult to give the general age of mangrove trees using readily available tools in plant science. This is because methods of age estimation in mangrove have not been fully developed as is the case in other trees in terrestrial forest. It is our belief that even providing the DBH does not add any scientific relevance since a fully grown mangrove may stagnant at some stage.

3. In the material and method section, the author did not mention the time (month and year) of the sampling. The authors need to mention it.

Response: This has been done as requested (see lines 115-116)

4. It is a well-established fact that in plants, the lignin content varies with the age of the plants. In this manuscript, authors mentioned that lignin content plays a significant role in recovery and damaging from infestation. Hence, authors need to justify the results as they collected samples from different age plants.

Response: As much as the samples were collected from trees of various ages, the number of cumulative samples was made large enough and equal between the three categories i.e. (Dead, recovered and control). To ensure lack of bias, it has been mentioned in the manuscript that all effort was put to ensure that sampled branches were taken from same canopy position and of similar size in every sampled tree. Thus the sampled branches were assumed to be of similar physiological and developmental processes in each sampled tree. The concluded results were therefore out of the influence of age and size due to the replication effect.

5. In Fig. 3, i.e., FTIR spectrum, the authors need to mention the functional groups corresponding to each of the FTIR ranges.

Response: This suggestion has been considered. See new version of Fig 3.

6. The language of the manuscript is poor, and lots of grammatical and typo errors have been seen throughout the manuscript. Authors need to check and reframe the sentences critically.

Response: We have thoroughly revised the manuscript and made many corrections, as can be observed in the Changes marked version of the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2:

The article entitled "Biochemical response of Sonneratia alba Sm. branches infested by a wood boring moth (Gazi Bay, Kenya)" should be revised well upon the follwoing:

1- English Editing should be performed

Response: We have thoroughly revised the manuscript and made many corrections, as can be observed in the Changes marked version of the revised manuscript.

2- Statistical analysis should be more clear that represents the data collected

Response: this comment from the reviewer seems not clear from our opinion. However, we would like to mention that the statistical methods applied in this paper (PCA and LDA) are very commonly used methods for such research work. Furthermore, the coherence in the results is reflected by the fact that the results of PCA and LDA support each other. In addition, we applied the One-way ANOVA test to assess the statistical significance of the results.

3- Refrances should be arranged as PLOS ONE style

Response: This suggestion has also been considered according to the journal requirements.

We re-submit this work after carefully considering all the comments of the reviewers and having done the necessary changes. We once again submit that this work has not been prior submitted to any other journal for publication consideration.

On behalf of all authors,

*Elisha Mrabu Jenoh

Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute

P. O. Box 81651 (80100)

Mombasa Kenya

E-mail: elishamrabu@gmail.com or emrabu@kmfri.co.ke

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

18 Oct 2021

Biochemical response of Sonneratia alba Sm. branches infested by a wood boring moth (Gazi Bay, Kenya)

PONE-D-21-20278R1

Dear Dr. Jenoh,

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,

Mohammad Shahid, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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

**********

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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: 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

**********

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: Journal- PLOS ONE

Manuscript ID- PONE-D-21-20278

Title- Biochemical response of Sonneratia alba Sm. branches infested by a wood boring

moth (Gazi Bay, Kenya)

Dear Editor,

Authors have fulfilled all the queries/comments as it was asked by reviewers previously. Hence, now the manuscript is well written. I believe that it is a nice piece of work for being published in the PLOS ONE. Finally, I recommend that the paper should be accepted for the publication in the present form.

Decision- Accept

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

22 Oct 2021

PONE-D-21-20278R1

Biochemical response of Sonneratia alba Sm. branches infested by a wood boring moth (Gazi Bay, Kenya)

Dear Dr. Jenoh:

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. Mohammad Shahid

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE