Species Ecological Envelopes under Climate Change Scenarios: A Case Study for the Main Two Wood-Production Forest Species in Portugal

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a fascinating study of likely climate change impacts on the distribution and productivity of Eucalyptus globulus and Pinus pinaster in Portugal. The methods including workflows (Figure 4) and site index models (Table 5) are well described. Analysis methods are appropriate, and the results are well illustrated.

One problem was unnecessary duplication of analyses using climate data for both 1960-1990 and 1970-2000, which not surprisingly produced similar results. Another unfortunate decision was to use climate change data for around 2070 rather than data from around 2090, which are also available from WorldClim. Using data from around 2050 and 2070 produced results that were very similar (see Figure 5). Some space might be saved by only presenting the 2050 data and making the 2070 maps available as supplementary data.

The standard of English is reasonable and understandable but in places lacks some fluency. The manuscript would benefit from some minor editorial corrections e.g. L 112 delete ‘its’ and insert ‘their’, L. 126 delete ‘after’ and insert ‘later’, L. 421 delete ‘allowed to conclude’ and insert ‘indicated’, L. 472 delete ‘contributively’ and insert ‘effective’.

Title – Delete ‘main’ and insert ‘main two’

Abstract

1. 26 The difference between objective 1 and 2 isn’t obvious for someone reading just the abstract. The start of the discussion makes it clear that objective 1 is about assessing potentially suitable areas for plantations across all Portugal, while objective 2 is concerned with assessing existing plantation areas.

Introduction

1. 64 “Climate change will have a greater impact on plants”. I assume you mean ‘great’ not ‘greater’, though ‘important’ would probably be better here.
2. 65 Delete ‘These variables’
3. 95 onwards. Work in Portugal is well described, but are no climate change studies of plantations outside Portugal relevant?

It would be useful to indicate the typical rotation length (and to also provide some indication of the general range about that mean) for the two species. Table 2 provides some data for the age of existing stands, but not the likely final harvest ages.

Materials and methods

1996. 137 WorldClim was developed using climate interpolation methods originally used for BIOCLIM (the first species distribution modelling package) in 1984 and the set of 19 variables was developed for a revised version of BIOCLIM in 1996. The WorldClim website refers to ‘BIOCLIM’ variables, but unfortunately the WorldClim papers do not describe these origins. You do not need to go into this detail, but I suggest you write ‘We used the 19 BIOCLIM variables (Booth et al. 2014) available from the WorldClim website.’. The 2014 review is in Diversity and Distributions, 20, 1-9.
1997. 146 It’s good that some topographic and soil data are used, as well as climate data.
1998. 147-167 The development of site-specific plot data for the two species is well described and illustrated.
1999. 186-194 This general information about E. globulus should be in the introduction.
2000. 216 Table 3 – What is meant by ‘different of’?
2001. 219-222 The ecological envelopes for the two species were determined using current information and then used to identify suitable areas under the future scenario conditions. Suggest you add a full stop after 2000 and write “The resulting envelopes were then applied using….”.

Results

1. 363-365 The lack of difference between results using 1960-1990 and 1970-2000 data is hardly surprising. Why were both used?

Figure 5 Describing this as an illustration of ‘species ecological envelopes’ is confusing for the reader. The envelopes stay the same and it is areas of varying suitability that you are mapping.

Figure 5 The suitable areas for the various classes are very similar as the periods are so close. In retrospect it would have been good to have used data for 2081-2100 from WorldClim rather than 2061-2080.

1. 385-386 Same comment as for lines 363-365 - why were both used?

Figure 7 This is useful, though again the 2050 and 2070 differences are very small.

Figure 8 Delete ‘brakes’ and insert ‘breaks’.

Figure 9 These are interesting illustrations.

Discussion – adequate

Conclusions

1. 540 ..enlarging..the set of variables – see for example the SoilGrids250m data.

Author Response

Dear Rewiewer 1

We hereby send the revised manuscript of [Forests] Manuscript ID: forests-859137 - Major Revisions entitled “Species ecological envelopes under climate change scenarios: a case study for the main wood-production forest species in Portugal” submitted for publication to Forests International Journal.

We would like to thank you in advance for all the comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript.

Regarding the specific comments and suggestions we followed the main general suggestions and the manuscript was changed accordingly.

The main comments that were pointed out and the changes made on the manuscript are uploaded in attachment.

On the behalf of the authors

Cristina Alegria

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall the research is novel, relevant and the methodology is sound. The manuscript was well written and clear with only a few errors. However, the manuscript needs to be improved in several areas before it could be published:

1. The study analyses separately the changes to site suitability for Eucalyptus globoidea and Pinus pinaster with climate change scenarios and the current productivity of these two species under current climate conditions (well mid 1990’s climate conditions). Why didn’t the authors use Machine Learning, Bayesian Network Analysis or another analysis technique to estimate/predict potential changes in productivity with the climate change scenarios? If this is not possible, the authors need to link the essentially the two separate pieces of analysis in the discussion. Otherwise, why is the productivity analysis (Table 7 and Figure 9 in particular) under current climate in the manuscript at all? If they wish to include the site productivity analysis, they need to be explicit why this Machine Learning / Bayesian approach cannot be used to predict productivity with the climate change scenarios.
2. Although the study’s Machine Learning and Bayesian Analysis approach is certainly a valid approach in predicting the potential impact of climate change of these two species, it is not the only method. The authors need to recognise that one of the other major approaches to predict the impact of climate change on forest suitability and/or productivity is using process-based modelling. There is a large body of literature of this approach (e.g. Meason and Mason 2014) that should be acknowledged in the introduction as another approach and needs to be addressed in the discussion – specifically how does this approach compare/contrast with process-based modelling approach?
3. The introduction is poorly referenced. The authors have used the approach of including the relevant references at the end of paragraphs 1 -3, however, this reviewer cannot connect which sentences are from a citation and which sentences are what the authors think/hypothesize/speculate. This is a particular issue for paragraph 1 (lines 48-63) and paragraph two (lines 64-81) where there are a number of generalised statements that are treated as established fact. Paragraph 3 needs to be addressed as well. Please add the citation where a sentence/statement is referenced from.
4. Sections 3.3 and 4 – it is very unclear that the site productivity is only done under current climate it conditions. Please change the title of these sections to reflect this and also make it clear within the text of these sections, as well as Figure 8.
5. Table 4 is missing.

Minor issues

• The authors were inconsistent with their use of the full Latin name of each species as they were used several times in the manuscript. They only need to be used once. Please edit.
• After the full Latin name of Eucalyptus globoidea was used in the manuscript (well several times), the authors abbreviated to eucalyptus. However, this not correct, the need to either use “Eucalyptus” in italics with a capital E or “eucalypts”. The latter would be more preferable for this reviewer.
• Line 97 – Full Latin name for cork oak
• Line 138 – Define GCM
• Lines 143-144 – add relevant references
• Lines 144-145 – add relevant references
• Line 150 – define COS
• Line 199 – replace “sea distance” with “distance to the sea”
• Lines 186-206 – Why are there 3 paragraphs describing globoidea and 1 paragraph for P. pinaster? Is all that information for the former relevant? Either reduce E. glodoidea information or increase the information for P. pinaster.
• Lines 201-206 – what do the authors mean about “higher plant density”? To this reviewer, this means stocking density or number of trees per hectare. Is site productivity or site index the term they wish to use? If the authors do indeed mean the number of trees per hectare, what does this relate to areas with high site productivity? Please clarify.
• Line 263- change “specie” to “species”
• Lines 271-272 – what is the “one parameter related to climate” that Tomè et al. used?
• Line 265 and 271 – what do you mean by model? Empirical? Statistical?
• Line 269 – define STRM
• Lines 328-329 – Define “H” for Equation 2
• Lines 331-332 – define parameters for Equations 3 and 4
• Line 384 – Shouldn’t it be Figure 6b, not 5b?
• Line 387 – There is no Figure 6c. Which figure(s) should this sentence be referenced to? Please check entire manuscript that the text are referencing the correct figures and tables
• Line 396 and 398 – change “drown” to “down”

Author Response

Dear Rewiewer 2

We hereby send the revised manuscript of [Forests] Manuscript ID: forests-859137 - Major Revisions entitled “Species ecological envelopes under climate change scenarios: a case study for the main wood-production forest species in Portugal” submitted for publication to Forests International Journal.

We would like to thank you in advance for all the comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript.

Regarding the specific comments and suggestions we followed the main general suggestions and the manuscript was changed accordingly.

The main comments that were pointed out and the changes made on the manuscript are uploaded in attachment.

On the behalf of the authors
Cristina Alegria

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have sufficiently addressed this reviewer's major concerns. The explanation for Point 1 that it would be too big to include future productivity makes sense. I look forward to reading the second paper. I have two minor corrections that needs to be made:

1) Response 4: The authors have done the corrections asked, but need to change "current" for Section 3.4 header and Figure 8 Title to "current climate".

2) Point 5, Response to Lines 201-206: The authors have indeed clarified what "planting density". However, the sentence is not quite correct. Planting density itself it not a measure of productivity per se as different stands can be established and thinned to different planting densities. However, Catry has used it as a measure of E. globulus productivity as the maximum carrying capacity, and this site suitability and therefore productivity, for wildings. So it is an good indicator what climate and site conditions that E. globulus prefers. It is a minor, but important difference. Please rewrite the sentence to reflect this. 

Author Response

Dear Rewiewer 2

We hereby send the revised manuscript of [Forests] Manuscript ID: forests-859137 - Minor Revisions entitled “Species ecological envelopes under climate change scenarios: a case study for the main wood-production forest species in Portugal” submitted for publication to Forests International Journal.

We would like to thank you once more for the comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript.

Regarding the specific comments and suggestions the manuscript was changed accordingly.

The main comments that were pointed out and the changes made on the manuscript are uploaded in attachment.

On the behalf of the authors

Cristina Alegria

Author Response File: Author Response.docx