Forest Site and Stand Structure Affecting the Distribution of Emerald Ash Borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, 1888 (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), in Eastern Ukraine

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study is interesting. However, a few major constraints need to be rectified.

Abstract:The abstract need to be reorganized. The results and conclusions are fuzzy.

Introduction：The abstract need to be reorganized. What is significance of this research? There information is not clearly showed in section of introduction.

Discussion: Discussion needs to explain your findings by comparing with previous studies, hence, it needs to be described in more detail.

Author Response

Comments of Reviewer #1:

– This study is interesting. However, a few major constraints need to be rectified. The abstract needs to be reorganized. The results and conclusions are fuzzy. The abstract needs to be reorganized. What is the significance of this research? There information is not clearly showed in section of introduction. The discussion needs to explain your findings by comparing with previous studies, hence, it needs to be described in more detail.

Answer to Reviewer #1

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for your very useful comments and advice.

The manuscript "Forest site and stand structure affecting the distribution of Emerald Ash Borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, 1888 (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) in Eastern Ukraine" is corrected according to them. All corrections are shown in Edit mode.

We tried to improve all parts of the manuscript. We added field data, figures, and their analysis and compared them to MaxEnt data. We explained that the results are necessary for the Forest Protection Service to choose the parts of the stand with parameters most preferable for emerald ash borer for the primary ground survey. All parameters of forest site conditions and stand are in the forest management database for each forest subcompartment. Before the field survey, it is possible to filter the database by forest hygrotope (humidity level), Fraxinus presence in the stand composition, its age, subcompartment area, the presence of non-forested lands around subcompartment, etc. It will allow wasting minimum time to search the EAB-susceptible forest stands.

We wrote in the Introduction and Conclusions that EAB continues expanding its range in Ukraine, therefore, we consider our data preliminary. However, we hope that the data obtained will help the Forest Protection Service in time detect new outbreaks of EAB.

We added figures to methods and results, references to the reference list, and compared our findings with studies in other regions and on other phytophagous insects.

Thanks once more

correspondence author

Valentyna Meshkova

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Predicting the spread of pests, especially those that occupy new territories, is an ongoing concern for scientists.

The topic of the paper "Forest site and stand structure affecting the distribution of Emerald Ash Borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, 1888 (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) in Eastern Ukraine" is well chosen and of interest for the health of ash forests in Ukraine.

For a better accuracy of the forecast I recommend extending the period of field observations so that the database obtained is as relevant as possible for further interpretation and modelling.

I appreciate that only two years of observations are not enough to obtain sufficient data to allow the elaboration of the forecast, however the results obtained can be considered as a start.

I would suggest that you consider the possibility of stating in the title of the paper that we are dealing with preliminary results.

Also, a very important aspect when establishing a spread model is to check in the field whether the calculations made match the future spread of the pest in next years.

Often there are significant differences between the two components (model versus reality), which lead to adjustments in the modelling method.

I recommend considering the possibility of adding to the conclusions that the model is to be verified in the field if this is planed to take place.

I propose that in the future it is good to go through this step before publishing the results.

I recommend to go through the paper carefully and correct spelling errors (example: in line 315 Fraxinus excelsior should be written in Italic format).

Finally a question: for the development of the model you used, did you also take into account the main abiotic factors (represented by temperature and precipitation values in the field) during the two experimental years? I suggest clearer explanations.

Best regards,

Author Response

Comments of Reviewer #2

Dear Authors,

Predicting the spread of pests, especially those that occupy new territories, is an ongoing concern for scientists.

The topic of the paper "Forest site and stand structure affecting the distribution of Emerald Ash Borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, 1888 (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) in Eastern Ukraine" is well chosen and of interest for the health of ash forests in Ukraine.

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for your very useful comments and advice.

The manuscript "Forest site and stand structure affecting the distribution of Emerald Ash Borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, 1888 (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) in Eastern Ukraine" is corrected according to them. All corrections are shown in Edit mode.

We tried to improve all parts of the manuscript. We added field data, figures, and their analysis and compared them to MaxEnt data. We explained that the results are necessary for the Forest Protection Service to choose the parts of the stand with parameters most preferable for emerald ash borer for the primary ground survey. All parameters of forest site conditions and stand are in the forest management database for each forest subcompartment. Before the field survey, it is possible to filter the database by forest hygrotope (humidity level), Fraxinus presence in the stand composition, its age, subcompartment area, the presence of non-forested lands around subcompartment, etc. It will allow wasting minimum time to search the EAB-susceptible forest stands.

We wrote in the Introduction and Conclusions that EAB continues expanding its range in Ukraine, therefore, we consider our data preliminary. However, we hope that the data obtained will help the Forest Protection Service in time detect new outbreaks of EAB.

We added figures to methods and results, references to the reference list, and compared our findings with studies in other regions and on other phytophagous insects.

Reviewer. For a better accuracy of the forecast I recommend extending the period of field observations so that the database obtained is as relevant as possible for further interpretation and modelling.

Answer:

– Many species distribution models are developed for areas where these species are not yet present. This is indicated in our previous article (Meshkova, V.; Borysenko, O.; Kucheryavenko, T.; Skrylnyk, Y.; Davydenko, K.; Holusa, J. Potential westward spread of emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, 1888 (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) from Eastern Ukraine. Forests 2023, 14, 736. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14040736)

For example, Webb et al. [Webb, C.R.; Mona, T.; Gilligan, C.A. Predicting the potential for spread of emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) in Great Britain: What can we learn from other affected areas? Plants People Planet 2021, 3, 402–413.], when studying the potential rapidity of EAB spread in Great Britain, used two approaches: the observed rate of EAB spread in North American and Russian regions; and the relationship between the accumulated degree days and pest emergence that could determine environmental suitability and the EAB life cycle.

Flø et al. (2015) [Flø, D.; Krokene, P.; Økland, B. Invasion potential of Agrilus planipennis and other Agrilus beetles in Europe: Import pathways of deciduous wood chips and MaxEnt analyses of potential distribution areas. EPPO Bull. 2015, 45, 259–268] analyzed the pathways of deciduous wood chips to predict the invasion potential of EAB in Europe.

Valenta et al. (2015) [Valenta, V.; Moser, D.; Kuttner, M.; Peterseil, J.; Essl, F. A high-resolution map of emerald ash borer invasion risk for southern central Europe. Forests 2015, 6, 3075–3086] predicted EAB invasion risk for southern central Europe.

However, not all forecasts had been realized as was mentioned in our previous paper “Therefore, the complex prognosis of EAB spread in North America that considered forest types, the number of ash trees, the distance between the trees, and the location of roads [Iverson, L.R.; Prasad, A.; Bossenbroek, J.; Sydnor, D.; Schwartz, M.W. Modeling potential movements of the emerald ash borer: The model framework. In Advances in Threat Assessment and Their Application to Forest and Rangeland Management; Pye, J., Rauscher, H., Sands, Y., Lee, D., Beatty, J., Eds.; Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-802; Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest and Southern Research Stations: Portland, OR, USA, 2010; pp. 581–597] had not been realized [Orlova-Bienkowskaja, M.J.; Bienkowski, A.O. Modeling long-distance dispersal of emerald ash borer in European Russia and prognosis of spread of this pest to neighboring countries within next 5 years. Ecol. Evol. 2018, 8, 9295–9304]. Orlova-Bienkowskaja and Bienkowski in above mentioned paper predicted that by 2022, EAB could be detected in the eastern parts of Belarus, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. As of 2022, within European Russia, EAB had spread to the north, south, and east, but had not yet been found in Baltic countries and Belarus, which were closer to the distribution points of EAB in Russia. This prognosis had not been realized too”.

Reviewer: I appreciate that only two years of observations are not enough to obtain sufficient data to allow the elaboration of the forecast, however, the results obtained can be considered as a start.

Answer: Of course, our results are preliminary but for these years EAB moved from the entry point to Kyiv (more than 800 km). Foresters must know how to organize the survey to reveal the infested stands as soon as possible.

It is possible to optimize the survey efforts considering the ecological conditions the most favorable for the pest. Ecological conditions in each forest plot depend on forest site conditions and stand structure, particularly the proportion of host trees for a given pest, the age of such trees, stand density, or relative density of stocking. The combination of such parameters favorable for certain pests may be estimated for each forest plot using a forest management database, and it will be possible to optimize the survey efforts and to know the potential area of pest focus. Such approaches have been developed for some foliage-browsing insects and bark beetles, for example:

Meshkova, V.L. Seasonal Development of Foliage Browsing Insects; Novoe Slovo: Kharkov, Ukraine, 2009; pp. 1–396. ISBN 978-966-2046-69-4.

Borysenko O. I., Meshkova V.L. Prediction of fires and insect pests foci spread in the pine stands by means of GIS. Planeta-Print, Kharkiv, 1–150

Methodical guidelines for a survey, assessment and forecasting of the spread of forest pests and diseases for the lowland part of Ukraine (2020)/ V.L. Meshkova ed. Kh., Planeta-print. 90 p.]

Reviewer: I would suggest that you consider the possibility of stating in the title of the paper that we are dealing with preliminary results.

Forest site and stand structure affecting the distribution of Emerald Ash Borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, 1888 (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) in Eastern Ukraine.

Answer:  we added this phrase to the Abstract, Introduction and Conclusions.

Title of the paper is not “Prediction...” but “Forest site and stand structure affecting the distribution....””.

It seems to me, that the title

 “Preliminary results of Forest site and stand structure affecting the distribution of Emerald Ash Borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, 1888 (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) in Eastern Ukraine” or “Forest site and stand structure affecting the distribution of Emerald Ash Borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, 1888 (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) in Eastern Ukraine (preliminary results)” is very long.

Reviewer:

Also, a very important aspect when establishing a spread model is to check in the field whether the calculations made match the future spread of the pest in next years.

Answer: The modeling is based on our primary data from the ground survey of 300 forest subcompartments. We added respective figures and comparison observed and predicted results. Of course, we’ll check the realization of the prognosis when can get to the mined and bombed forest. A considerable part of the western regions of our country is occupied, and the shelling and bombing fall into different regions. Most of the authors of this paper are now abroad and hope to return home after the end of the war. Hoping it will be soon.

about whether

In the Introduction to this paper we mentioned, that we began our research with weather analysis «Consequently, during these years, investigations focused on the seasonal development of EAB and climate variables influencing its successful survival. The wide range of bioclimatic variables in EAB regions indicates this pest's high ecological adaptability [9]. The westward spread of EAB from the Luhansk region to the west was predicted using the MaxEnt model, and a comparative analysis of the most significant bioclimatic indicators was conducted between its natural and invasive ranges. Climate favorableness for EAB in Luhansk and neighboring regions further underscores the urgency of addressing this invasive threat [9]».

Meshkova, V.; Borysenko, O.; Kucheryavenko, T.; Skrylnyk, Y.; Davydenko, K.; Holusa, J. Potential westward spread of emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, 1888 (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) from Eastern Ukraine. Forests 2023, 14, 736. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14040736

In the mentioned paper, it was concluded that “(i) in all ranges, EAB has adapted to the seasonal temperature variations; (ii) the MaxEnt model predicted the potential distribution of EAB with high accuracy (AUC = 0.988); the predicted area of EAB invasion covered 87%, 48%, and 32% in Luhansk, Kharkiv, and Donetsk regions, respectively; and (iii) the ranges of climatic variables in EAB-inhabited regions demonstrated the high ecological plasticity of this pest. However, the predictions could be improved by considering forest structure, as well as the localization of roads.”

Reviewer: Often there are significant differences between the two components (model versus reality), which lead to adjustments in the modelling method.

Answer: We added field data and comparison with MaxEnt results.

Reviewer: I recommend considering the possibility of adding to the conclusions that the model is to be verified in the field if this is planed to take place.

Answer: It is added and, of course, it is planned/

Reviewer: I propose that in the future it is good to go through this step before publishing the results.

Answer: Of course, we continue our fieldwork but EAB spreads faster than we can get to the infested area. We analyzed the survey data here and in several previous works. This paper is a logical continuation of the previous paper. Our previous paper analyzed climatic parameters, and this one deals with forest structure which affects microclimate and population parameters of phytophagous insects as well as forest resistance.

Reviewer: I recommend to go through the paper carefully and correct spelling errors (example: in line 315 Fraxinus excelsior should be written in Italic format). corrected

Answer: corrected

Reviewer: Finally a question: for the development of the model you used, did you also take into account the main abiotic factors (represented by temperature and precipitation values in the field) during the two experimental years? I suggest clearer explanations.

Answer: We have analyzed the weather conditions not only in Ukraine but also in other parts of the world with EAB presence in our previous paper (Meshkova, V.; Borysenko, O.; Kucheryavenko, T.; Skrylnyk, Y.; Davydenko, K.; Holusa, J. Potential westward spread of emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, 1888 (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) from Eastern Ukraine. Forests 2023, 14, 736. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14040736).

We have data on temperature and precipitation for over 30 years. One of our coauthors, Kucheryavenko T.V. studied the dynamics of EAB emergence in the forest and measured also relative humidity of infested stems and branches. We have publications on the seasonal development of EAB, but they are in Ukrainian. Some points of them are shown in our previous paper in MDPI Forests.

Thanks once more

correspondence author

Valentyna Meshkova

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Figure 1: State in the legend what a red pixel represents.

line 130: dehyphenate "ar-eas"

Lines 133-137: % computed how - by area? volume? stem count?

Lines 142-143: "forest inspection" is too vague a method. Either provide details or cite report where details may be found. Ground surveys? How much survey effort? What's the detection efficacy of the method?

Lines 189-191 The jack knife test and the suite of models tested is not described in sufficient detail to replicate the work. The reader is left guessing what exactly was done.

Lies 195-196: The authors state "consistently high AUC values" - but the AUC values for wo of the variables is 0.5, which we are told earlier is "performance equivalent to a random model". Meanwhile the range of AUC across variables is 0.5-0.7. This is described as "consistent". But what is the metric of consistency? At what threshold would the metric indicate lack of consistency?

Figure 2: First, the distinction between (a) and (b) in the caption is unclear. I don't recall seeing this contrasting exercise prescribed in the Methods. Second, the two panels look nearly identical, yet we are presumably expecting to see some difference?

Lines 215-216:  The relative similarity of graphs 3a and 3b is interpreted as "almost independent". So, this is also how we interpret Fig 2? Why are we comparing 3 a vs 3b before discussing the main effect, which is the nonlinear shape of the response curve of POP on area? When the authors write "Pest foci are found more often in the subcompartments, ..." ... is there an adjective missing here? What subcompartments?

Line 228: Why start a new paragraph?

Figure 4: As with Figs 2 and 3, the differences between a and b are so miniscule as to distract from the main feature, which is the shape of the response curve. Why wouldn't you therefore show just 2a, 3a, 4a, and put the paired contrast in an SI, particularly as there's no contrast to discuss. This is a major distraction from the primary result. Why not Put 2a, 3a, 4a into a single figure?

Figs 5&6: see previous comment. This time panel (a) does differ from panel (b); but is this difference so significant that it justifies all the space devoted to it in graphical form? It seems like "filler". Why not combine 2a-6a into just one graph?

Lines 268-270: This is unclear; poor grammatical style.That

The unlabellled Table with 6 Lat/Lons that is tacked on to the caption of Fig 7 is unnecessary

Line 292: why is "Biocliamtic" captialized?

Line 293: This is the first use of the word "penetrations". The authors might mean "incursions"? Either way, technical language needs to be introduced in the Methods.

Line 295. The comma after "confirmed" is unnecessary.

Line 297: The way it's written makes it sound like the border was affected by military operations. Change the sentence structure to indicate that survey effort was impeded by military operations. i.e., Despite the fact that survey effort was hampered by military operations,  the borer was nonetheless found ... etc

Lines 300-302: the authors are being too loose in their use of language here, and it results in a misdirected statement about the effect of host on spread rate, when the point being made is about the widespread availability of host across the country, and the effect this will have on the expected range of expansion.

Line 311: Why start a new paragraph?

Line 313: "provided 82.9% to the model," This is imprecise writing. Tighten it up.

Lines 319-320: "Hence, colonization in the upper trunks and crowns of trees 319 over 60 years old is often impossible to see from the ground." This true statement does not follow logically as a deduction from the previously described result. The connection, if there is one, needs to be clarified.

Line 321: Why start a new paragraph?

Lines 324-326: "The more frequent EAB spread in forest subcompartments of smaller areas can be explained by the fact that the study region belongs to the steppe zone, and the size of forest subcompartments is often quite small."  This is not logical. The fact that there are many small compartments has nothing to do with their outsized contribution to spread (unless the authors are tacitly suggesting there is s scaling effect not captured in the analysis). Figure it out. The subsequent sentence is logical, in contrast.

Line 327: "better lit and heated, which benefits EAB" - needs a reference

Line 344: anther orphaned sentence serving as paragraph. Bad form.

Line 346: Be consistent on the caps/spelling of MaxEnt.

Fairly good use of English, except as noted in review comments. Phrasing becomes a little stiff and awkward through the Discussion, as noted.

Author Response

Reviewer #3

Answer to Reviewer #3

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for your very useful comments and advice.

The manuscript "Forest site and stand structure affecting the distribution of Emerald Ash Borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, 1888 (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) in Eastern Ukraine" is corrected according to them. All corrections are shown in Edit mode.

We tried to improve all parts of the manuscript. We added field data, figures, and their analysis and compared them to MaxEnt data. We explained that the results are necessary for the Forest Protection Service to choose the parts of the stand with parameters most preferable for emerald ash borer for the primary ground survey. All parameters of forest site conditions and stand are in the forest management database for each forest subcompartment. Before the field survey, it is possible to filter the database by forest hygrotope (humidity level), Fraxinus presence in the stand composition, its age, subcompartment area, the presence of non-forested lands around subcompartment, etc. It will allow wasting minimum time to search the EAB-susceptible forest stands.

We wrote in the Introduction and Conclusions that EAB continues expanding its range in Ukraine, therefore, we consider our data preliminary. However, we hope that the data obtained will help the Forest Protection Service in time detect new outbreaks of EAB.

We added figures to methods and results, references to the reference list, and compared our findings with studies in other regions and on other phytophagous insects.

Separate questions

Figure 1: State in the legend what a red pixel represents.

Answer: red pixels represent forest subcompartments.

In the forest management of Ukraine, the territory of each forest unit is divided into compartments (mainly predominantly square or rectangular), delimited by natural (roads, rivers) or man-made boundaries. Within each compartment, subcompart ments are identified in which the stands have similar tree species composition, age, relative density of stocking, and other mensuration parameters. Following this, in the forest management database, all characteristics of the stands are presented by subcompartments, and all measures on forest management, including forest protection are also planned and executed by subcompartments.

line 130: dehyphenate "ar-eas" corrected

Lines 133-137: % computed how - by area? volume? stem count? corrected

The proportion of the area of forests with F. excelsior and F. pennsylvanica is 5.4% and 3.0%, respectively [40], and in forest shelter belts 8.0% and 14.7%, respectively [41]

Lines 142-143: "forest inspection" is too vague нечеткий a method. Either provide details or cite report where details may be found. Ground surveys? How much survey effort? What's the detection efficacy of the method?

2.1. Field data methods are added with respective figures. In results, also 3.1. Field data are added.

300 subcompartments were surveyed, 20–100 trees per each.

Lines 189-191 The jackknife test and the suite of models tested is not described in sufficient detail to replicate the work. The reader is left guessing what exactly was done.

MaxEnt program executes all calculations and output files cover over 100Mb. It includes many parameters which are described in respective manuals and papers, for example

Phillips, S.J. 2014 A Brief Tutorial on Maxent [Internet]. Available online: http:// www.cs.princeton.edu/~schapire/maxent/ (accessed on 23 June 2022).

Phillips, S.J.; Dudik, M.; Schapire, R.E. Maxent Software for Modeling Species Niches and Distributions. Available online: http: //biodiversityinformatocs.amnh.org/open_source/maxent/ MaxEnt version 3.4.4 (accessed on 1 December 2023).

We added some explanation to the manuscript and compared some predicted values with field data.

In the discussion, we compare our data with research in other continents. Nobody else researched EAB in Ukraine.

Lines 195-196: The authors state "consistently high AUC values" - but the AUC values for two of the variables is 0.5, which we are told earlier is "performance equivalent to a random model".

Meanwhile the range of AUC across variables is 0.5-0.7. This is described as "consistent". But what is the metric of consistency? At what threshold would the metric indicate lack of consistency?

Answer: AUC of the model is not the sum or average of the AUC for each variable. The program carries out 50 iterations and calculates the output data. Of course, performance is not high but average. We corrected it in the text. We added to methods: “AUC reflects the probability of accurately predicting the existence of emerald ash borer in forest subcompartments. If the AUC value approached 0.5 for the experimental data, the model demonstrated performance equivalent to a random model; 0.5 ≤ AUC < 0.7 denotes poor performance, 0.7 ≤ AUC < 0.9 denotes average results, and 0.9 ≤ AUC < 1 denotes high performance  [Phillips, S.J.; Anderson, R.P.; Schapire, R.E. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Model. 2006, 190, 231–259; Phillips, S.J.; Dudik, M.; Schapire, R.E. Maxent Software for Modeling Species Niches and Distributions. Available online: http: //biodiversityinformatocs.amnh.org/open_source/maxent/ MaxEnt version 3.4.4 (accessed on 1 December 2023); Van Erkel, A.R.; Peter, M. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis: Basic principles and applications in radiology. Eur. J. Radiol. 1998, 27, 88–94].

We removed Figures 2– 6, constructed by MaxEnt (they are in the output directory) and added the Figures, based on field and modeled data on a comparable scale. We joined 2 series of Figures on 6 variables as Figure 3. abcdef and Figure 7 abcdef. We added several Figures from Max-Ent output which confirm the performance of the model. Also, we added the Figure 9. Distribution of area with Fraxinus sp. and the number of respective subcompartments predicted by MaxEnt modeling: 1 – subcompartments where EAB was absent at the ground survey; 2 – subcompartments where EAB was present at the ground survey; 3 – subcompartments which were not surveyed.

Description of results is changed. The text is corrected.

Line 228: Why start a new paragraph? corrected

Lines 268-270: This is unclear; poor grammatical style.  All this part is rewrited.

The unlabellled Table with 6 Lat/Lons that is tacked on to the caption of Fig 7 is unnecessary – corrected

Line 292: why is "Biocliamtic" captialized? corrected

Line 293: This is the first use of the word "penetrations". The authors might mean "incursions" вторжения? Either way, technical language needs to be introduced in the Methods. – changed to invasion

Line 295. The comma after "confirmed" is unnecessary. corrected

Line 297: The way it's written makes it sound like the border was affected by military operations. Change the sentence structure to indicate that survey effort was impeded by military operations. i.e., Despite the fact that survey effort was hampered by military operations,  the borer was nonetheless found ... etc – corrected

Lines 300-302: the authors are being too loose in their use of language here, and it results in a misdirected statement about the effect of host on spread rate, when the point being made is about the widespread availability of host across the country, and the effect this will have on the expected range of expansion. corrected

Line 311: Why start a new paragraph? corrected

Line 313: "provided 82.9% to the model," This is imprecise writing. Tighten it up. changed to “explain” corrected

Lines 319-320: "Hence, colonization in the upper trunks and crowns of trees over 60 years old is often impossible to see from the ground." This true statement does not follow logically as a deduction from the previously described result. The connection, if there is one, needs to be clarified. corrected

Line 321: Why start a new paragraph? corrected

Lines 324-326: "The more frequent EAB spread in forest subcompartments of smaller areas can be explained by the fact that the study region belongs to the steppe zone, and the size of forest subcompartments is often quite small."  This is not logical. The fact that there are many small compartments has nothing to do with their outsized contribution to spread (unless the authors are tacitly suggesting there is s scaling effect not captured in the analysis). Figure it out. The subsequent sentence is logical, in contrast. corrected

Line 327: "better lit and heated, which benefits EAB" - needs a reference corrected

Line 344: another orphaned sentence serving as paragraph. Bad form. corrected

Line 346: Be consistent on the caps/spelling of MaxEnt. corrected

Fairly good use of English, except as noted in review comments. Phrasing becomes a little stiff and awkward through the Discussion, as noted. – we tried to rewrite the text.

Thanks once more

correspondence author

Valentyna Meshkova

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Author revised the manuscript following comments.