Predicting Range Shifts in the Distribution of Arctic/Boreal Plant Species Under Climate Change Scenarios
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
The manuscript has potential for publication. However, the pasted and annotated figures need to be redone!
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment for the rivision.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a comprehensive and technically study that employs strong modeling techniques (MaxEnt with SSPs and GCMs) to project range shifts of Arctic and Boreal plant species.
Comments:
1) While the authors acknowledge bias in species selection, this is a significant limitation. Please explain further on how this bias may influence generalizability.
2) Although standard errors are reported, the study would benefit from a deeper discussion of model uncertainty related to GCM variability.
3) The paper identifies potential refugia like Greenland and Svalbard, yet does not validate these areas with empirical biodiversity surveys or other conservation assessments.
4) The distinction between “A_Spps” and “B_Spps” is introduced early, but readers might benefit from a clearer reminder of these terms in the Results and Discussion sections.
------------
Please also see these comments:
1) Please clearly explain which gap this study is going to address.
2) Please clearly emfacize the objectives.
3) While the authors acknowledge bias in species selection, this is a significant limitation. Please explain further on how this bias may influence generalizability.
4) Please give more explanations about studied area.
5) Please clearly explain the statistical analysis you did in this study.
6) Why is there a need to compare these types of models? How about others?
7) Although standard errors are reported, the study would benefit from a deeper discussion of model uncertainty related to GCM variability.
8) The paper identifies potential refugia like Greenland and Svalbard, yet does not validate these areas with empirical biodiversity surveys or other conservation assessments.
9) The distinction between “A_Spps” and “B_Spps” is introduced early, but readers might benefit from a clearer reminder of these terms in the Results and Discussion sections.
9) Please give a guideline for future works in the end of conclusion section.
11) some of the references look is not references in the text please recheck.
Author Response
Please see the attachement for responses and the revised version of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
All suggestions and criticisms have been addressed and duly incorporated into the manuscript. The manuscript is now ready for acceptance.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNone.
