Priority Conservation Area of Quercus mongolica Under Climate Change: Application of an Ensemble Modeling

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The comments are attached to the attached pdf file. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The second paragraph of the introduction section, regarding the species distribution, appears somewhat thin It is recommended to further enrich the description of the mechanisms by which climate change affects species distribution, such as species' responses to hydrothermal conditions and competitive exclusion processes. In Section 2.1 on research methods, it is suggested to provide a more systematic description of the background information on the study area's climate, topography, vegetation, etc., to allow readers to gain a comprehensive understanding of the habitat of Mongolian oak. During the selection of species distribution data points in Section 2.2, it is recommended to detail the criteria for selection to enhance data credibility. For example, how are incorrect distribution points identified and eliminated from public data sources? In the selection of environmental variables in Section 2.3, relying solely on VIF and correlation coefficients might not be rigorous enough. It is suggested to use methods such as the jackknife test to assess the relative importance of each variable before making selections. In the model construction and testing section, it is advised to explain the method of pseudo-absence point extraction. How were the 500 points determined? Would different numbers affect model accuracy? For the environmental variable codes in Table A1, such as Bio5, Bio6, etc., it is recommended to provide their specific meanings in the main text or table notes for the reader's understanding. The abbreviations of model names in Figure 2 should be explained in the figure legend. Section 3.2 analyzes the contribution rates of various environmental factors to the distribution of Mongolian oak, but the analysis of key limiting factors is not deep enough. It is suggested to combine the response curves in Figure 3 to explain why Bio5, Bio6, and elevation are the most important influencing factors. In Figure 4, it is recommended to mark "highly suitable areas" with different colors to visually highlight the differences in habitat quality. The figure legend should also explain the thresholds used to classify suitability levels. Figure 5 predicts the dynamic changes in the distribution of Mongolian oak under different climate scenarios. It is recommended to label the net reduction area values in figures a-f to highlight future loss risks. Table 2 shows the quantitative changes in suitable area under different periods and scenarios, but lacks analysis and discussion. It is suggested to enrich the related statements. For example, which scenario has the highest reduction rate? What issue does this reflect? In the discussion section, it is recommended to strengthen the analysis of the impact mechanism of key environmental factor changes on species distribution under the backdrop of climate change. For instance, how might an increase in the minimum temperature of the coldest month affect the growth and regeneration of Mongolian oak? The analysis of niche shifts is still rather superficial, lacking quantitative overlap indices. It is advised to refer to previous research methods and calculate the differentiation degree of species' climatic niches across spatial and temporal dimensions. Some professional terms in the text, such as ecological niche and AUC, should be clearly defined upon their first mention to avoid ambiguity for readers. Although the study predicts the geographical distribution dynamics of Mongolian oak, it does not sufficiently explore its implications for future conservation. It is recommended to focus on analyzing key areas and measures for species conservation under the context of climate change in the discussion section. The base map colors in Figure 4 are too bright and clash with those of the Mongolian oak distribution area; it is suggested to choose a low saturation color scheme. Some sentences in the text are somewhat verbose, such as the first paragraph of the introduction, where it is recommended to refine the language and highlight the key points. The formatting of some figure and table titles in English is inconsistent, such as in Table 2; it is advised to standardize throughout the document. The format of the references is not standardized enough, lacking volume numbers, page numbers, etc. It is recommended to revise them according to journal requirements. There are minor grammatical errors in the English text, such as inconsistencies in singular and plural forms and tense confusion. It is advised to have a professional review and proofread the text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The manuscript entitled “Priority conservation area of Quercus mongolica Fisch.ex Ledeb. under climate change: application of an ensemble modeling” provides some good results. Therefore, the current manuscript could be accepted for publication, but after going through a major revision.      

1.     Keywords should be more eye-catching.

2.     What is the novelty of this study? It must be well articulated in the introduction.

3.     “Winter and summer temperatures vary significantly, with winter temperatures dipping to 40℃.” The authors must check the accuracy of this sentence.

4.     “Conversely, the Maximum Entropy (MaxEnt) model performs the worst, with a significantly lower AUC value of 0.776 and a TSS value of just 0.538” Why did the MaxEnt model show the worst performance?

5.     Quality of figure 3 should be improved.

6.     The figure caption of figure 3 must be more descriptive and including descriptions of all the labels (a, b, and c).

7.     The figure caption of figure 5 must be more descriptive and including descriptions of all the labels.

8.     The figure caption of figure 6 must be more descriptive and including descriptions of all the labels.

9.     The figure caption of figure A2 must be more informative.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments are attached to the pdf file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The quality of the manuscript has been improved, but the literature citations are somewhat, suggesting fewer citations for Ensemble modeling applications, example: 

• DOI: 
• 10.1016/j.jag.2022.102969

 The overall recommendation is to accept it for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Even though the manuscript has been improved, there some issues that still need to be resolved before the final acceptance of this manuscript. 

1. Comments 1 and 4 still need to be addressed by the authors.

2. The figure caption of figure 6 must be including all the labels (a-f) and they must be clearly defined. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf