Maximum Entropy Model Prediction of the Distributions of Two Sympatric Bean Weevil Species, Megabruchidius dorsalis (Fahraeus, 1839) and Bruchidius coreanus (Chûjô, 1937), under Various Climate Scenarios in Guizhou Province, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled " MaxEnt Model Prediction of the Distribution Two Sympatric  Bean Weevil Species, Megabruchidius dorsalis and Bruchidius coreanus, Under Various Climate Scenarios in Guizhou Province, China” used a distribution modeling approach together with relevant bioclimatic variables (both current and future scenarios) to predict current and potential future suitable areas of these two peat species. Although similar methodologies are common, results of the study could have useful implications for management actions. However, the work requires major changes before its ready for publication:

 Comments and suggestions:

 

 Abstract:

 Line 18-22: Please indicate how suitability areas would in the future against current suitable areas.

 Introduction:

Line 58-60: I suggest citing the mentioned models.

 Line 67-79: Introduction doesn't provide sufficient review of the target species in the context of this study particularly at regional or global scale. I suggest adding a new section highlighting the regional/ global distribution of the species. 

 

 Line 80-81: Outlining the objective of this study is important. For example, it maps the current spatial distribution of the target species, then predicts future spatial distributions under climate change scenarios, then assesses spatial distribution changes between current and future models?

 

 2. Materials and Methods

Line 88: "mobile GPS tool", for proper research work mobile GPS facility is not recommend.

Line 117: "(Folde)" is it meant "folder"?

Line 123: ""logistis" should be "Logistic" please.

Line 143: "Area under the ROC curve (AUC)" Sometimes AUC alone is not sufficient to evaluate the model performance. Why TSS was not considered alongside the AUC?

Line 139-164: (A) what "regularization multiplier (RM) (β) was used while constructing the model should be mentioned. (B) How many background points were generated against the presence records of the species should be mentioned.  (C) What threshold was used to delineate the suitability areas form unsuitable areas should be mentioned, Was the same threshold used for the current and future models?

 3. Results

 

- Fig.2; I suggest moving this to the Appendix.

 4. Discussion

Line 251-255: This is methodology, its already being mentioned in the method section please remove. Instead try to explain how the climatic variables contribute to the distribution of the species.

 Line 256- 261: Again, these sentences are already mentioned in the earlier section. Please remove them they are redundant. Instead try to draw parallels with similar studies, please.

 

 262-276: How climatic variables influence the spatial distribution of the target species both for current and the future is not sufficient from the discussion. More in depth description of the influences of the climate change related factors to the dispersal of the species is needed. Furthermore, the discussion should also highlight the benefit and limitations of the applied modeling techniques particularly when it comes to the implications of the current techniques in establishing early warning system.

 

 5. Conclusions

Line 299: "highly suitable habitat areas" Please indicate the area in km.

Best wishes,

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would also like to express our sincere gratitude to you for your time and efforts. Our manuscript ID: forests-2791949. With respect to the valuable comments and suggestions themselves (in bold), the detailed modifications to our manuscript and our responses are given below in non-bold type. Our line numbers refer to the revised manuscript submitted.

Please refer to the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of manuscript with title “MaxEnt Model Prediction of the Distribution Two Sympatric Bean Weevil Species, Megabruchidius dorsalis and Bruchidius coreanus, Under Various Climate Scenarios in Guizhou Province, China”, aimed at making prediction for the potential changes in distribution of these two sympatric pests under future climate conditions, to provide a reference for prediction of their occurrence and facilitate their prevention and control. Even though the sample size looks small at first, the authors succeeded in building models with good accuracy. Partly the good results might be connected to the specificity of the studied area – “with distinct changes in microclimate, colloquially referred to as four seasons in one mountain, different weather within 10km.”. Climatic variables are more often considered as appropriate predictors for models of bigger scale – global, continental scale, but in this case the mentioned characteristics of the studied area make such variables suitable predictors for the presented models. Although the manuscript has scientific merit, it requires substantial revisions to be done before further consideration. My comments are as follows:

Since in the materials and method section it is explained that “M. dorsalis and B. coreanus distribution point data were mainly collected by field survey…. Seeds were transported to the laboratory in sealed, breathable bags.” Where there some samples without the species? You might use such data for verification of the models - checking how the places where you have samples from but did not observe the species were rated (unsuitable/poorly unsuitable/…). You can do the same with the localities where only one of the species has been found – these are more or less, absence data for the missing species. Verification is important for understanding how realistic are the models, and could make the presentation of the results much more convincing.

Additionally, a short description of Highly suitable areas in respect to the values of the variables there (max and min of the most important variables) might be useful for the reader. And the same for the unsuitable areas.

 

Minor comments are in the attached pdf, please see them too.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would also like to express our sincere gratitude to you for your time and efforts. Our manuscript ID: forests-2791949. With respect to the valuable comments and suggestions themselves (in bold), the detailed modifications to our manuscript and our responses are given below in non-bold type. Our line numbers refer to the revised manuscript submitted.Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is sufficiently improved.

Best wishes,

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the manuscript in accordance with most of the suggestions provided by me.