Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

The Global Potential Distribution of Invasive Plants: Anredera cordifolia under Climate Change and Human Activity Based on Random Forest Models

Sustainability 2020, 12(4), 1491; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041491

by Xuhui Zhang^1,2, Haiyan Wei^1,*, Zefang Zhao^1,2,3, Jing Liu^1,3, Quanzhong Zhang^1,2,3, Xiaoyan Zhang^1,2 and Wei Gu^2,3,4,*

Reviewer 1:

Rajchandar Padmanaban

Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Sustainability 2020, 12(4), 1491; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041491

Submission received: 30 December 2019 / Revised: 12 February 2020 / Accepted: 13 February 2020 / Published: 17 February 2020

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Climate Change and Global Food Security)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have not seen any error in the paper expect some grammar mistake. Novelty of the paper is high since I agree to publish this paper after considering other reviewers suggestion.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

Thank you for your letter and comments concerning our manuscript entitled "The potential distribution of invasive plants Anredera cordigolia in global under climate change and human activities data " (ID: sustainability-695827). The comments were valuable for revising and improving our manuscript and had important guiding significance for our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made revisions accordingly, which we hope the revisions meet with approval. The major revised portions and new references were marked with red in the revision, and the modification of individual words or phrases were not marked. Detailed descriptions of the revisions are listed below point by point.

Responses to the reviewer’s comments:

Reviewer 1

I have not seen any error in the paper expect some grammar mistake. Novelty of the paper is high since I agree to publish this paper after considering other reviewers suggestion.

Response: Thank you very much for your modification and suggestions on this paper. The grammar mistakes in the article have been corrected. The modified part has been marked in red, and the modification of individual words or phrases were not marked.

We greatly appreciate the efforts of the editor and reviewer, and we hope that the revised manuscript will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

With kindest regards!

Yours Sincerely

Xuhui Zhang, Haiyan Wei, and Wei Gu

Reviewer 2 Report

The Title must be improved considering modelling; it is not clear do the authors mean the global distribution of the species?

Ln31, - English must be improved

Ln32- unclear sentence must have completed in clear form

Ln37- species name must have given as Anredera cordifolia in Keywords

Ln42-42- these two sentences must be combined into one sentence in order to avoid tautology

Ln69- please use the common explanation of the IAPS abbreviation

Introduction must be rewritten in such way that deals with problems of assessed species Anredera cordifolia

Ln131- here vine is used incorrect, please indicate the correct morphologic type of the A. cordifolia in line with common classification, please add the reference. Here submitted biological characteristic of the species must be improved in terms of subject terminology:

Ln137- ‘clonal’ propagation is incorrect term here

Ln138- please correctly define the economy type of the species

Ln139-what do you mean saying ‘transmission spread’

Ln140- there are some classifications of Antropophytes, please use correct terminology and cite the chosen classification; weed is term of everyday vocabulary

Ln142-what do you mean using ‘biological activity’?

Ln146-151- please clarify which the relationship of IAPS A. cordifolia do you mean; the aim is lacking and needing to be stated in clear way instead of presentation of applied methods

Methods:

Ln 163-177- there is has not mentioned how you evaluated are of A. cordifolia habitats, which you indicated in ln 295-299

Ln165- please give more specified address of GBIF, https://www.gbif.org/

Please indicate the used software programme for calculation of 19 bioclimatic variables

Ln 185- Please specify denomination of ‘correlation less than 0.8’

Ln195-196- please explain why 13 factors were selected to participate in the modelling if there 19 items presented in Table 1

Divisions 2.2. Environmental data and 2.3. Human activity data might combined to one division as their content presented in the same Table 1; please specify 1) the page address of human footprint data and 2) which human activity data was chosen for analysis

Please explain abbreviations

Please indicate the method and indices of accuracy of the models

Ln236-please add the explanations of applied abbreviations in fig 2. What means brighter area in TSS columns?

Ln258-259- please explain what the proportions are mentioned here

Ln 262-please indicate the source or improve the title of fig 3. Has here presented the evaluated global habitats of A. cordifolia for current climate conditions?

Ln266-267- it is incorrect to say ‘they must be naturalized and adapted before’ if you use IAPS in terms of its right common explanation

Ln277- please improve the title of ordinate axis; explain the sample points and sampling volumes used in fig 4

Ln280- please apply right title of abscissas and ordinate axis. Do RCP means climate models, see fig. 2, or greenhouse gas emission scenarios? Please keep the same terminology along paper

Ln304-305- please justify by the data or indicate the reference for this statement: When the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions is too high, it will affect the growth rate of A. cordifolia and inhibit its spread.

Ln365-369- this paragraph explain method, and thus must be moved to Methods

Ln426-431- some information is repetitive or contradictory to ln 243-248, because different temperature regime revealed as suitable, e.g. negative (-8.7)^oC temperature which occurrence is precarious in previous specified habitats (ln 243-248), therefore this part and ln 434-435 sentences need improvement;

Ln492- 496- this part needs been rewritten

Conclusions must been rewritten concerning assessed data. Authors did not investigated allelopathic effect of A. cordifolia

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

Responses to the reviewer’s comments:

Reviewer 2

The Title must be improved considering modelling; it is not clear do the authors mean the global distribution of the species?

Response: This is a constructive suggestion. The main content of this paper is the global potential distribution of invasive species Anredera cordigolia (including the current and future periods), the model used in this paper is Random Forest model. The original title is “The potential distribution of invasive plants Anredera cordigolia in global under climate change and human activities data”，now it is changed to “The global potential distribution of invasive plants Anredera cordifolia under climate change and human activity based on Random Forest models”.

Ln31, - English must be improved

Response: This is a constructive suggestion. I have modified and marked it in red at Ln30-31.

Ln32- unclear sentence must have completed in clear form

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. I have rewritten and highlighted it in red at Ln31-33.

Ln37- species name must have given as Anredera cordifolia in Keywords

Response: We think that the full name of species should be added with the name of the nominees, which is more complete. We keep the original species name in the Keywords, but use your suggestion in the text to change its name to Anredera cordifolia. I hope you can agree with me.

Ln42-42- these two sentences must be combined into one sentence in order to avoid tautology

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. The two sentences in the original are repeated. Now, the two sentences have been merged and shown in red in the text at Ln41-43.

Ln69- please use the common explanation of the IAPS abbreviation

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. I have modified the abbreviation of invasive species in the full text to IPs.

Introduction must be rewritten in such way that deals with problems of assessed species Anredera cordifolia; Ln131- here vine is used incorrect, please indicate the correct morphologic type of the cordifolia in line with common classification, please add the reference. Here submitted biological characteristic of the species must be improved in terms of subject terminology:

Response: This is a constructive suggestion. In the original text, the professional biological name of the species studied is not correctly, and there is little description of the problems caused by A. cordifolia. Now, it has been modified by referring to the research of other scholars and shown in red at Ln125-140.

Ln138- please correctly define the economy type of the species

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. This sentence indicates that the A. cordifolia was introduced into other countries as an ornamental plant because of decoration and greening, rather than introducing the economic value of A. cordifolia.

Ln139-what do you mean saying ‘transmission spread’

Response: This is a constructive suggestion. This sentence has been revised to “It was originally used to beautify the environment, and humans have intentionally spread it to all continents except Antarctica”, and shown in red at Ln132-133.

Ln142-what do you mean using ‘biological activity’?

Response: This is a constructive suggestion. Because of my mistake, I have replaced it with the professional term "biological property", which is shown in red in the text at Ln136.

Ln146-151- please clarify which the relationship of IAPS cordifolia do you mean; the aim is lacking and needing to be stated in clear way instead of presentation of applied methods

Response: This is a constructive suggestion. We modify the problem and point out that the research content of this paper is to study the impact of climate change and human activities on the global potential distribution of invasive species of A. cordifolia. Specific research objects have been added in this section. The research species and methods are described in combination and shown in red in the text at Ln141-144.

Ln 163-177- there is has not mentioned how you evaluated are of cordifolia habitats, which you indicated in ln 295-299

Response: This is a constructive suggestion. Ln 163-177 in the original paper explains the source of the species distribution point data, the screening process, and how to generate pseudo-existence points to participate in modeling. The evaluation method of suitable habitats for A. cordifolia is in “2.4. Classification of predictive distribution” (Ln 201-215). This part is about the basis and criteria for the classification of suitable habitats for A. cordifolia.

Ln165- please give more specified address of GBIF, https://www.gbif.org/

Response: This site has free and open access to biodiversity data. Since this article studies the potential distribution of A. cordifolia worldwide, the data, including China, are basically from this website.

Please indicate the used software programme for calculation of 19 bioclimatic variables

Response: Software for processing 19 biological variables has been added and shown in red. First, 19 bioclimatic variables (Bio1–Bio19) were downloaded from WORLDCLIM (http://www.worldclim.org) (at Ln 169-171); second, convert the format with DIVA-GIS software (at Ln 179-180); third, input climate data and species distribution point data into R software for model prediction (at Ln 190-191); fourth, use ArcGIS to process the prediction results (at Ln 202-215); finally get the potential distribution of A. cordifolia in each period and the results of area changes in different suitable habitats.

Ln 185- Please specify denomination of ‘correlation less than 0.8 Ln195-196- please explain why 13 factors were selected to participate in the modelling if there 19 items presented in Table 1

Response: This is a constructive suggestion. In order to avoid the strong correlation between climate factors, during the selection of 19 climate factors, we chose one of the two factors with Pearson correlation coefficient less than 0.8, which is related to the biological characteristics of A. cordifolia. Then we chose 13 climate factors: Bio1, Bio3, Bio4, Bio5, Bio6, Bio7, Bio10, Bio11, Bio14, Bio16, Bio17, Bio18, and Bio19, and the Pearson correlation coefficient between them is less than 0.8. That is, the factors selected in Table 1.

Response: This is a constructive suggestion. I've combined climate data with human activity data to one section (at Ln 164-185). The human activity data comes from the SocioEconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC, http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/). The dataset is created by nine global data layers. It can reflect the distribution form and state of the range and intensity of human activities in geographical space. So instead of using a single layer, we used all the human data contained in the dataset.

Please explain abbreviations; Please indicate the method and indices of accuracy of the models

Response: The explanation of the abbreviation of model evaluation index is at Ln 192-194. The methods and indicators for evaluating the accuracy of the model are shown in “2.3. Random Forest model” and Table 2 respectively (at Ln 188-200).

Ln236-please add the explanations of applied abbreviations in fig 2. What means brighter area in TSS columns?

Response: This is a constructive suggestion. I have added descriptions of the application in fig 2 (at Ln224-225). The bright area of TSS column may be the edge part of the picture, which is not specially marked. The colors of TSS and Kappa has been changed.

Ln258-259- please explain what the proportions are mentioned here

Response: The proportion here refers to that the distribution of high suitable habitat of A. cordifolia in China is mainly concentrated in Yunnan, Sichuan, Guangdong, Guangxi and other southern cities. Although there are high suitable distribution in Anhui and Fujian, the overall area is small. Since most of this paragraph is repeated with the previous section, it is deleted in this modification.

Ln 262-please indicate the source or improve the title of fig 3. Has here presented the evaluated global habitats of cordifolia for current climate conditions?

Response: Thank you for your comments in such details. According to your suggestion, the title of fig.3 has been changed to “Potential global distribution of A. cordifolia under current climate scenario”, and displayed in red at Ln240.

Ln277- please improve the title of ordinate axis; explain the sample points and sampling volumes used in fig 4

Response: Thank you for your comments in such details. The ordinate of fig.4 has been modified to “Number of sample points”. Sample points and sampling volumes refer to the number of sampling points of A. cordifolia. Now the title has been changed to “The curve of A. cordifolia global sampling sites over time.”

Ln280- please apply right title of abscissas and ordinate axis. Do RCP means climate models, see fig. 2, or greenhouse gas emission scenarios? Please keep the same terminology along paper

Response: Thank you for your comments in such details. I am very sorry for such a mistake. The ordinate name of fig.5 has been consistent with the full paper.

Response: Thank you for your comments in such details. Table 3 shows the change of suitable habitat area of A. cordifolia in each climate scenario in the future, but it is not analyzed in detail in this section. I have added the corresponding data in this paragraph, and rewritten this section, which is shown in red at Ln278-286.

Ln365-369- this paragraph explain method, and thus must be moved to Methods

Response: This is a constructive suggestion. I have adjusted the order of this paragraph, adjusted it to the Methods (at Ln206-215) and rewritten the section change to 3.6, and it is shown in red in the text at Ln336-349.

Ln492- 496- this part needs been rewritten; Conclusions must been rewritten concerning assessed data. Authors did not investigated allelopathic effect of cordifolia

Response: This is a constructive suggestion. Regarding the section of “4.3 The dispersal of A. cordifolia and human activities”, I have rewritten it in the revised draft (at Ln406-441), and amended the part on the assessed data in the conclusion; for allelopathy, the recommendations of reviewer 3 are adopted. Since the focus of this article is not on the allelopathic effect of A. cordifolia, so the part on allelopathy is deleted.

We greatly appreciate the efforts of the editor and reviewer, and we hope that the revised manuscript will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

With kindest regards!

Yours Sincerely

Xuhui Zhang, Haiyan Wei, and Wei Gu

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript may be of interest to readers of Sustainability, but there is room for considerable improvement. I have done my best to improve the quality of the writing, highlighting areas needing attention on the attached file. I tried to highlight all edited sections in yellow, but Adobe Acrobat did not always function well. My apologies for any confusion this may cause.

There are many sections that are too long or repetitive. I noticed at least 70 lines that could be eliminated from the text, including all of Section 4.1. Section 4.3 should be moved from the Discussion to the Results. Section 4.4 is an inadequate discussion of a serious topic. Please delve more deeply into (1) the specific human activities that would foster spread of this plant and (2) those that would likely deter its spread. The second part would be a good lead-in to a unified discussion of recommendations about monitoring and control.

Allelopathy is mentioned in your Conclusions, but is only noted in passing on line 144. Either expand your treatment of this topic or remove it from the Conclusions.

Your climatic variables do not examine the frequency or severity of extreme low-temperature events. In the temperate world, these are important determinants of plant adaptation. Nor do your climatic variables include an index of moisture balance. Worldwide, this is also an important determinant of both the distributions of plant species and plant communities.

For a thorough discussion of extreme low-temperature events, see Widrlechner et al. (2012) HortTechnol. 22:6-19. For treatments of the key roles of moisture balance, see Mather & Yoshioka (1968) Ann. Assn. Amer. Geographers 58: 29-41; Stephenson (1990) Amer. Naturalist 135: 649-670; Stephenson (1998) J. Biogeogr. 25: 855-870.

If you are not in a good position to incorporate extreme low-temp events and/or the index of moisture balance into your model, you should, at the very least, expand your discussion to note that these factors may shed additional light on the current and future distribution of A. cordifolia.

There is also the matter of soils and how they might influence the distribution of this species. You have treated the topic in a very superficial manner. I modified lines 428-430 to point out this shortcoming, but you should consider delving into this subject in greater detail.

I did not check all your numbered references for proper correspondence to the citations in the text, but did notice some reference numbers that did not seem to lead to the correct paper. Please take a careful look at that during the course of your revisions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

Responses to the reviewer’s comments:

Reviewer 3

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions for this article. In the newly submitted version, the paper has been revised according to your suggestions. Here is the reply to your comments. Please refer to the revised version for details.

Response: This is a constructive suggestion. Thank you for your suggestions on the structure of the article. The paragraphs that need to be improved have been modified. Section 4.3 of the original has been moved from the “Discussion” to the “Results” (at Line 287-317). With regard to discussion 4.3, in this section, I have added human activities that would foster spread of this plant and human behaviors to prevent its spread. See revised 4.3(at Line 406-429) for details, which have been shown in red.

Allelopathy is mentioned in your Conclusions, but is only noted in passing on line 144. Either expand your treatment of this topic or remove it from the Conclusions.

Response: This is a constructive suggestion. The main content of this paper is the potential distribution of A. cordifolia in the world. The allelopathy is only introduced as the biological characteristics of the studied species, but because the introduction of the allelopathy of A. cordifolia is not deep enough and this part is not the main content of this paper. So take your advice and remove this part from the text.

Line 185 please provide citations

Response: This is a constructive suggestion. Corresponding references have been added to the text (at Line 168).

Line 228 How can one have suitable habitats in the unsuitable grade?

Response: Thank you very much for your comment. After classifying the prediction results of the A. cordifolia, we obtain three levels of suitable habitats and unsuitable habitats, and then calculate the area of each level of habitats. Each suitable habitat is divided based on the prediction results of the R software according to the classification criteria, and it is not artificial, so there may be unsuitable habitats around suitable habitats. The focus of this study is to find the areas that are at risk of invasion of A. cordifolia. In future studies, this factor will be taken into consideration to find a more detailed classification standard and a more detailed classification of suitable habitats.

Can you test for statistical significance among the differences seen in Table 3

Response: Thank you very much for your comment. In the process of data processing, I have tested the significance of the difference, but the result shows that the p-value is greater than 0.05, which may also be caused by the error of the experiment itself or the small difference of itself. In this study, the results show that the differences between these groups of data are not significant, and they are not shown in the table because of their low value.

Line 483 Is this within its native range

Response: Thank you very much for your comment. It can be known from the reference [54] that these two beetles come from Brazil and Argentina, and they are from the same region as A. cordifolia.

[54] Elizabeth, L. S.; William, A. P.; Wilmot, S. K. A. D. The release of Plectonycha correntina, a leaf feeding beetle for the biological control of Madeira vine. Developing Solutions to Evolving Weed Problems Australasian Weeds Conference 2012.

Line527 But which actvities promote its spread and which deter it

Response: This is a constructive suggestion. Based on your suggestions, I have added factors that promote the spread of A. cordifolia and some measures to prevent the spread of this species, which have been shown in red at Line 463-470.

We greatly appreciate the efforts of the editor and reviewer, and we hope that the revised manuscript will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

With kindest regards!

Yours Sincerely

Xuhui Zhang, Haiyan Wei, and Wei Gu

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

biochemical interaction has used for explanation invasive speces spread therefore the following references must be cited and added;

Sirgedaite-Šežiene V. Baležentiene L., Varnagiryte-Kabašinskiene I., Stakenas V., Baliuckas V. Allelopathic effects of dominant ground vegetation species on initial growth of Pinus sylvestris L. seedlings in response to different temperature scenarios. iForest: Biogeosciences and Forestry, 2019, 12, 132-140. http://sci-hub.tw/10.3832/ifor2904-012

Baležentienė L. Allelopathic activity of two invasive Impatiens species in temperate climate of Lithuania. Allelopathy J, 2018, 45 (1): 45-54. http://sci-hub.tw/26651/allelo.j/2018-45-1-1174

Šėžienė V., Baležentienė L., Maruška A. Identification and Biological Activity of Phenolic Compounds in Dominant’ Extracts of Pine Forest Clear-Cuts. iForestry-Biogeosciences and Forestry, 2017, 10, 309-314. http://sci-hub.tw/10.3832/ifor1791-009

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

Responses to the reviewer’s comments:

Reviewer 2

biochemical interaction has used for explanation invasive speces spread therefore the following references must be cited and added;

Baležentienė L. Allelopathic activity of two invasive Impatiens species in temperate climate of Lithuania. Allelopathy J, 2018, 45 (1): 45-54. http://sci-hub.tw/26651/allelo.j/2018-45-1-1174

Response: This is a very constructive special opinion. Thank you very much for your careful review of the article and many valuable comments. The description of biochemical interaction is added in this paper, and three references (69-71) suggested have been added to the corresponding paragraphs. Thank you again for your help in revising the paper.

We greatly appreciate the efforts of the editor and reviewer, and we hope that the revised manuscript will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

With kindest regards!

Yours Sincerely

Xuhui Zhang, Haiyan Wei, and Wei Gu

Reviewer 3 Report

Although the manuscript now reads much better than it did upon initial submission, three major shortcomings to the Discussion remain unresolved. First, no new information has been presented about soil / drainage preferences or limitations. I realize that it is possible that such information has not been collected (or at least not published). If so, please inform the editor regarding the extent of your efforts to locate such information. Second, the discussion of specific human activities that could hinder the spread of this plant is inadequate. For example, what are the known (or potential) roles of burning, mowing, clearing, conversion of wild lands for grazing or field crops, and the installation of artificial drainage in hindering (or conversely promoting) the spread of this species? Section 4.3 needs to incorporate a more thoughtful and complete treatment of these factors. Third, the roles of moisture balance (annual or seasonal) and of extreme temperature events were not included in your model, even though there is substantial evidence for these climatic factors serving as key determinants for plant distribution. That is understandable, given the climatic data set that you worked from, but the limitations of not employing them in your modelling should be thoroughly discussed in section 4.2

New edits are included in the attached copy. Most are highlighted in yellow; however, minor changes on lines 9, 10, 21, 23, 30, 112, 113, 116, 159, 163, 205, 206, 210, 475, 476, 495, 502, 508, 521, 554, and 597 were not.

Your references need to be rechecked and renumbered. References 30 and 31 are out of order. References 44 and 45 do not correspond with the information being presented on lines 122-124. Reference 70 duplicates #46 and must be deleted, leading to the renumbering of references 71-74. There may be other errors in numbering that I did not notice.

Two final points: (1) Check with the editor to see if it is permissible to begin sentences with an abbreviation (see lines 31, 126, and 133); (2) It is best to select keywords that do not duplicate words used in the title (see lines 36-37).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

Responses to the reviewer’s comments:

Reviewer 3

First of all, thank you for your careful review of the article, as well as many valuable suggestions. Your rigorous and careful review of the paper and professional responsible attitude will certainly spur my future study. Secondly, in the newly submitted version, the document has been revised according to your suggestions. This is a response to your comments. Please refer to the revision for details.

Response: About soil / drainage preferences or limitations, this paper tried to collect this kind of information during the writing process. However, because other scholars focused on the distribution and harm of A. cordifolia, the research on the TOC (Topsoil organic carbon), T_PH (Topsoil pH), and S_PH (Subsoil pH), etc. of the growth of A. cordifolia are less. Because of the lack of prior knowledge, the large amount of global soil data, and a large number of documents show that the requirements of the soil are not high, even on the rocks, so this paper decided to take climate and human activity data as environmental factors. Although it may cause errors to some extent, we can find from the research of other scholars that climate and human activities are the main factors affecting the distribution of A. cordifolia, so the errors are within the acceptable range.

Second, the discussion of specific human activities that could hinder the spread of this plant is inadequate. For example, what are the known (or potential) roles of burning, mowing, clearing, conversion of wild lands for grazing or field crops, and the installation of artificial drainage in hindering (or conversely promoting) the spread of this species? Section 4.3 needs to incorporate a more thoughtful and complete treatment of these factors.

Response: Discussion on specific human activities that hinder the spread of A. cordifolia has added in ‘4.3. The dispersal of A. cordifolia and human activities’ (Ln 408-456).

Third, the roles of moisture balance (annual or seasonal) and of extreme temperature events were not included in your model, even though there is substantial evidence for these climatic factors serving as key determinants for plant distribution. That is understandable, given the climatic data set that you worked from, but the limitations of not employing them in your modelling should be thoroughly discussed in section 4.2.

Response: Thank you very much for your proposal of the influence of moisture balance (annual or seasonal) and of extreme temperature events on A. cordifolia. In ‘4.2. The response of major variables to adaptability’, the reason for not using these factors in modeling has been added (Ln 373-407).

Response: These details have been modified according to your suggestions. For details, please refer to the revision (shown in red).

Response: I have checked and revised all references, and the new references are shown in red.

Response: First, the sentences beginning with abbreviations have been modified and the full text has been checked and revised; second, the keywords have been changed to words that do not repeat the title.

Supplement：In ‘2.4. Classification of predictive distribution’, we refer to the classification method of reference [60], for example, (0-0.3] represents that the value of suitable habitat grade is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 0.3, so we decided to keep the original format；We hope that the scientific name of species can be in italics, because the scientific name of species is composed of genus name and species name, and some specie names add the namers. And the standard format is genus name and species name, which are expressed in italics, and the namer is in regular form. Therefore, in the title section of the revision, our species names remain italicized.

We greatly appreciate the efforts of the editor and reviewer, and we hope that the revised manuscript will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

With kindest regards!

Yours Sincerely

Xuhui Zhang, Haiyan Wei, and Wei Gu

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper is now much improved. Sections 1 through 4.1 now only need very minor editing. I do wonder what exactly the "next four periods" are that your refer to on line 281 (please clarify). Sections 4.2 and 4.3 still need some revision. See attached file for suggestions. Also, I would point out on lines 355 and 408 that there is a custom to put Latin names in Roman font when included in a heading that is written in Italics. On lines 378 and 440, you should include appropriate citations. On line 378, I could suggest the following three (the first covers both extreme temperature events and moisture balance, the other two focus more on moisture balance):

Widrlechner, MP, Daly C, Keller M, Kaplan, K. Horticultural applications of a newly revised USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map. HortTechnology 2012, 22, 6-19

Mather, JR, Yoshioka, GA. The role of climate in the distribution of vegetation. Ann. Assn. Amer. Geographers 1968, 58, 29-41

Stephenson, NL. Climatic control of vegetation distribution: The role of water balance. Amer. Nat. 1990, 135, 649-670

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

Thank you for your letter and comments concerning our manuscript entitled "The potential distribution of invasive plants Anredera cordigolia in global under climate change and human activities data " (ID: sustainability-695827). The comments were valuable for revising and improving our manuscript and had important guiding significance for our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made revisions accordingly, which we hope the revisions meet with approval. The major revised portions and new references were marked with red in the revision. Detailed descriptions of the revisions are listed below point by point.

Responses to the reviewer’s comments:

Reviewer 3

First of all, I would like to thank you again for your efforts in the revision of this paper. At the same time, I have learned a lot from you.

This paper is now much improved. Sections 1 through 4.1 now only need very minor editing. I do wonder what exactly the "next four periods" are that your refer to on line 281 (please clarify).

Response: This is a constructive suggestion. I am very sorry for the error in this statement due to my carelessness. The “next four periods” refer to four representative concentration pathways (RCPs) in the future (2050s and 2070s). In order to avoid misunderstanding, we have changed to “future climate scenarios” in the revised version and displayed in red. Other details (Sections 1 through 4.1) have modified according to the suggestions. See the red display of the revision for details.

Sections 4.2 and 4.3 still need some revision. See attached file for suggestions. Also, I would point out on lines 355 and 408 that there is a custom to put Latin names in Roman font when included in a heading that is written in Italics.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. Sections 4.2 and 4.3 has been revised in accordance with your recommendations. And they are shown in red. The Latin name in the title (lines355 and 408) has been modified with reference to your suggestions (lines 355 and 409).

On lines 378 and 440, you should include appropriate citations. On line 378, I could suggest the following three (the first covers both extreme temperature events and moisture balance, the other two focus more on moisture balance):

Widrlechner, MP, Daly C, Keller M, Kaplan, K. Horticultural applications of a newly revised USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map. HortTechnology 2012, 22, 6-19

Mather, JR, Yoshioka, GA. The role of climate in the distribution of vegetation. Ann. Assn. Amer. Geographers 1968, 58, 29-41

Stephenson, NL. Climatic control of vegetation distribution: The role of water balance. Amer. Nat. 1990, 135, 649-670

Response: This is a constructive suggestion. On line 378, I have cited three references [67-69] you suggested. On line 440, reference [52] has been added.

We greatly appreciate the efforts of the editor and reviewer, and we hope that the revised manuscript will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

With kindest regards!

Yours Sincerely

Xuhui Zhang, Haiyan Wei, and Wei Gu

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Article Menu

The Global Potential Distribution of Invasive Plants: Anredera cordifolia under Climate Change and Human Activity Based on Random Forest Models

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI