Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript applies ensemble SDM (biomod2) to predict current and future habitat suitability for Q. mongolica on Mt. Gariwang, under SSP scenarios. While the topic is relevant—linking SDM projections to restoration planning, the study has some methodological issues. 1) Very small and spatially restricted occurrence (n = 89). 2) Absence of spatial cross-validation. Random 70:30 train-test split were used, which is standard but insufficient when you have occurrence points spatially clustered (as they cover single mountain). This hase impact on ROC and TSS values inflation. 3) Correlated environmental predictors. Temperature variables (Tavg, Tmax, Tmin)  are highly correlated, and elevation colinear with all temperature metrics, so the variable importance analysis is unreliable. At least, a VIF analysis or correlation matrix should be presented and correlated variables removed or combined

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Can be improed.

Author Response

I submitted the response as a PDF file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Your manuscript addresses a highly relevant and timely topic, namely the use of species distribution modeling to inform forest restoration planning under climate change scenarios. The integration of SDM projections with restoration strategies and ecological connectivity considerations is both scientifically meaningful and practically important. The study has clear applied value, especially in regions characterized by climatic heterogeneity and complex topography. The effort to incorporate climate projections into restoration planning demonstrates forward-looking thinking, and the manuscript shows a solid awareness of uncertainty in predictive modeling. Overall, the work has strong potential to contribute to climate-adaptive forest management.

That said, several aspects of the manuscript require clarification and strengthening before it can be considered for publication. The most critical improvements concern methodological transparency, the presentation of results, and the internal coherence between research questions and conclusions.

In the methodology section, greater detail is necessary to ensure reproducibility. The manuscript does not clearly state in which software or modeling platform the species distribution models were developed. It is essential to specify whether the models were implemented in R, MaxEnt, Biomod2, or another platform, and to indicate the exact version used. If scripts were employed, this should be explicitly stated, along with information about key packages and modeling workflows. Transparency in computational procedures is fundamental for SDM-based research. Additionally, the criteria for model evaluation require further justification. The manuscript adopts a ROC threshold above 60%, but in ecological niche modeling, a threshold of 70% or higher is more commonly used to indicate acceptable discriminatory performance. The authors should clearly explain why 60% was selected and provide justification based on literature or data characteristics. Without this explanation, the reliability of the projections may be questioned.

The results section would benefit from more quantitative clarity. I strongly recommend including a summary table that presents projected area changes under each climate scenario, expressed both in absolute area and relative percentage compared to the current predicted distribution. Presenting changes in area in relation to the current baseline would greatly improve interpretability and allow readers to better understand the magnitude of expansion or contraction across scenarios. This addition would significantly strengthen the practical relevance of the study.

The discussion would also benefit from deeper ecological interpretation. While the manuscript appropriately acknowledges uncertainty in SDM projections, it could more clearly articulate the ecological implications of the projected range shifts. For example, what do these changes mean for long-term restoration viability? Are there implications for assisted migration, genetic diversity, or management prioritization? Strengthening this ecological dimension would elevate the manuscript beyond a technical modeling exercise.

The manuscript addresses the themes of the research questions, but it does not explicitly close the narrative loop. The connection remains implicit rather than clearly articulated. To strengthen the logical coherence of the paper, the authors should revise the discussion and conclusion to explicitly revisit the questions posed in the introduction and clearly state how the results respond to each one. A short paragraph synthesizing the answers in a structured and direct manner would significantly improve clarity and argumentative consistency.

Finally, some refinement of the English language would improve clarity and flow. While the manuscript is understandable, several sections would benefit from careful editing to enhance readability and precision.

In summary, this is a relevant and promising study with strong applied significance. However, substantial revisions are necessary to improve methodological transparency, quantitative presentation of results, and alignment between research questions and conclusions. Addressing these points will greatly enhance the scientific rigor and practical impact of your work.

I hope these comments are helpful in strengthening your manuscript.

Author Response

I submitted the response as a PDF file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I went through documents.

Authors provided sufficient responses to my comments.

Thank you very much.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Can be improed.

Author Response

I submitted the answer as a PDF file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript shows clear improvement compared to the previous version. The authors have adequately addressed several important points raised during the review process, particularly by improving the description of the modeling platform and by expanding the ecological interpretation of the results. The inclusion of additional discussion regarding restoration implications is especially valuable and strengthens the applied relevance of the study.

However, some issues remain only partially addressed and should be clarified before the manuscript can be considered for acceptance:

Model evaluation threshold inconsistency
The authors state in the response letter that a threshold ≥70% was adopted; however, the manuscript still reports model selection criteria based on ROC ≥0.6 and threshold optimization using sensitivity and specificity. This inconsistency should be clarified, and the methodological description should accurately reflect the criteria used.

Summary of projected changes
Although a summary table (Table 2) has been added, it primarily presents relative percentages of suitability classes. To improve interpretability—especially for restoration planning—the authors are encouraged to include explicit metrics of habitat gain/loss (e.g., area in km² or net change).

Link between research questions and conclusions
The conclusion section has been improved, but it still lacks a clear and structured connection between the research questions and the results. The authors should explicitly indicate how each research question is answered by the findings.

Multicollinearity among predictors
The manuscript states that multicollinearity was not removed. This decision should be better justified, as it may affect model robustness and interpretation of variable importance.

Model validation approach
The validation strategy relies on data derived from the same dataset used for calibration. This limitation is acknowledged but should be more critically discussed in terms of its implications for model reliability.

Figures and tables clarity
Some figures remain small and difficult to interpret (figure 6). Improving resolution and readability would enhance the overall quality of presentation.

Language and style
While the English has improved, further refinement is recommended to enhance clarity and flow, particularly by reducing long sentences and improving conciseness.

Overall, the manuscript has progressed significantly, but these remaining issues should be addressed to ensure methodological consistency and clarity of interpretation.

Author Response

I submitted the answer as a PDF file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf