Predicting Climate Change Impacts on Sub-Tropical Fruit Suitability Using MaxEnt: A Regional Study from Southern Türkiye

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study provides scientific evidence for adaptive planning of subtropical fruits in the Mersin region through the integration of multi-source data and MaxEnt modeling, demonstrating significant practical value. However, further refinement is required regarding methodological details and uncertainty discussions.

1.The article fails to specify whether model parameter optimization was performed and whether cross-validation was implemented.

2.Significant resolution discrepancies exist between climate data (30 arc-seconds) and soil data (partially 1:100,000). A detailed description of data standardization to 25m resolution (as shown in Table 2) is necessary, along with discussion on potential impacts of interpolation methods.

3.In Table 3, the unit for soil salinity (SS) is listed as "EC" without clarification of measurement units (dS/m or mS/cm). Standardization of units and specification of measurement standards (e.g., saturated paste extract or 1:5 soil-water ratio) are required.

4.Reliance solely on AUC values may insufficiently assess model performance. Supplementary threshold analyses of True Positive Rate (TPR) and False Positive Rate (FPR), or validation using independent datasets (e.g., distribution points excluded from training), should be considered to examine model generalizability.

5.While employing three CMIP6 climate models, the article lacks explicit discussion of model uncertainty. No analysis is provided regarding outcome variations caused by discrepancies between different climate models.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is devoted to the prediction of possibilities (based on the climatic changings perspectives) of avocado and pitaya cultivation in the sub-tropical climate zone and in the Mediterranean basin in conditions of climate warming during the 21 century. The most suitable zones for both fruits cultivation in different periods of this century were predicted. Obtained results are important for planning both areas for planting and marketing.

 

At the same time I have several remarks.

1). Line 39 (and many other places)

“[5] found that climate change hurts avocado output in the Mediterranean region.”

Sentence must not start with that number.

It must be like this: “Rodriguez, et.al. [5] found that...“

Line 42 (and many other places) “In another study conducted on coffee (arabica coffee) by [7], it was stated that...”

It must be like this: In another study conducted on coffee (arabica coffee) by Ovalle-Rivera, et.al. [7], it was stated that...”

 

2). Article contains a lot of untraditional abbreviations. It will be better to include the list of abbreviations at the beginning of the article, not at the end.

3). Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6’ 7, 8, 9, 10. Tables must be self-sufficient for understanding. There is enough space to put full names of the options.

4).Line 106. Avocado belongs to the Lauraceae family.

5). Line 181. Figure 1. Please, put full name of the figure.

6). Figure 3, page 11. What are the parameters? Why authors discuss 12 parameters? In the table they are 14.

7). Figure 5, page 12 and many others. Graphics are too small and unreadable.

8). Line 313. “... the highest contributions are made 313 by 10 (49.3%), 1 (32.4%), and 6 (6.4%), respectively (Table 4).” Please, decipher this.

9). Line 316. “...Therefore, it would not be wrong to say that it provides the most useful 316 and abundant information.” Information about what?

10). Line 353. “3.2.1. Avocado (SSP2-4.5).” Please, put full name of the chapter.

11). There must be no abbreviations in the abstract and conclusion chapters.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some incorrect expressions:

Line 29. “... Moreover, successfully reaching these goals will drive the development of the country's economy.”

Line 45-46 “...Climate change, as indicated in the literature, has an impact on agricultural products and it is expected to worsen over time.”

Line 85-86 “...Relying solely on climate data cannot definitively determine if a region is ideal for a particular agricultural product”

Line 172-180 “...This climate zone, which is under the influence of, has a semi-arid climate characteristic, and it is highly probable that global climate change, whose effect is increasing all over the world, will negatively affect Mersin as well. Therefore, to reach the sustainable agriculture aim appropriate for the conditions, it is required to establish the product to be produced, the location where the production will take place, and how and how much will be produced. Mersin, given its climate zone and the potential consequences of climate change, provides favorable circumstances for sub-tropical fruits (avocado and pitaya). Mersin was chosen as the study area due to all of the mentioned characteristics.”

Line 259-261 “...70% of the asset data for 3 species whose agricultural product patterns were to be determined were used as training and 30% as test data.”

Line 397-398 “...This 397 value is reached in the (2061-2080) period.”

And others.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study, by combining climate and soil data through the MaxEnt model, evaluated the potential distribution of two subtropical fruits (avocado and pitaya) in the Mersin region of Türkiye under current and future climate change, providing a scientific basis for regional agricultural adaptation strategies. The research has reference value for the sustainable development of subtropical agriculture in the Mediterranean Basin. However, some methodological details, result interpretations, and practical application suggestions need to be further deepened. The specific comments are as follows:

 

Methodology and Data

The paper mentions that the resolution of the climate data is approximately 900 meters, which may affect the accuracy of the local suitability analysis. It is recommended to supplement a sensitivity analysis with high-resolution data (such as 30 meters), or discuss the impact of the resolution on the results.

Although highly correlated parameters (such as the minimum winter temperature and altitude) were removed through principal component analysis, it is not clearly stated whether there may be residual collinearity in the independent contributions of each parameter to the model. It is recommended to supplement the VIF (Variance Inflation Factor) test.

The study assumes that the soil characteristics will remain unchanged in the future, but climate change may indirectly change soil properties (such as salinization and organic matter content). It is recommended to supplement this limitation in the discussion section.

Results and Discussion

The explanation of the differences between models is insufficient. There are significant differences in the predictions of suitable areas by different climate models (such as GFDL-ESM4 and MPI-ESM1-2-HR) (for example, in the SSP5-8.5 scenario of avocado, the "S1" category shows inconsistent trends of increase and decrease). It is necessary to deeply explore the sources of model differences (such as differences in precipitation predictions) and their impacts on policy formulation.

The guidance for practical application is weak. The conclusion mentions "adjusting the planting area", but no specific spatial planning suggestions are put forward (such as priority expansion areas or risk avoidance areas). It is recommended to combine map overlay analysis to clearly define the recommended planting belts.

The lack of socio-economic factors: The study does not consider socio-economic factors such as irrigation facilities, market demand, and farmers' acceptance, which may limit the practical application value of the results. It is recommended to supplement this limitation in the discussion section.

Writing and Structure

The charts need to be optimized. For the distribution maps in Figures 6-10, a scale and legend should be added, and some sub-graph labels (such as a, b, c) are not clear; the numerical units (such as km²/% ) in Tables 7-10 need to be uniformly marked to avoid confusion for readers. Further standardize the language. There are some grammatical errors in some sentences (such as "the study area will be extremely unsatisfactory"). It is recommended to polish the whole text.

 

This study reveals the potential impacts of climate change on the cultivation of subtropical fruits in the Mersin region through rigorous methods, providing an important reference for regional agricultural planning. If it can be further improved in terms of methodological details, result interpretations, and practical application suggestions, the scientific value and application potential of the article will be further enhanced.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments

The manuscript investigates the suitability of sub-tropical fruit cultivation under current and future climate conditions in Southern Türkiye using the MaxEnt model, which is a relevant and timely topic. However, the manuscript has significant shortcomings in its structure, clarity, methodological rigor, and presentation of results. The following issues need to be addressed to improve the manuscript's scientific quality and readability.

Specific Comments

1. Abstract

The abstract lacks a clear and comprehensive structure, which is essential for summarizing the study effectively. Typically, an abstract should cover the research objectives, data sources, methods, key findings, and implications or future directions. However, the current abstract only briefly describes the research process without presenting the study's conclusions or key findings. This omission limits the reader's ability to grasp the study's significance and outcomes.

Recommendation: Revise the abstract to include a concise statement of the research objectives, data and methods used, key results (both qualitative and quantitative), and a brief outlook or implication of the findings.

2. Introduction

The introduction suffers from poor logical flow and insufficient literature review. The discussion of existing studies on climate change impacts on sub-tropical fruit suitability is inadequate, failing to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of research. Moreover, the problem statement is not clearly articulated, and the rationale for the study is weakly justified. The narrative is disorganized, with abrupt transitions between topics, which hinders readability.

Recommendation: Restructure the introduction to improve logical flow. Provide a thorough review of relevant literature, clearly identify research gaps, and articulate the specific problems this study aims to address. Ensure smooth transitions between sections to enhance coherence.

3. Data Description and Processing

The study relies heavily on location data for two crops (avocado and dragon fruit), which is foundational to the analysis. The manuscript states that data were obtained from satellite imagery, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), and other literature sources, with 299 records for avocado and 57 for dragon fruit. However, critical details are missing, including:

• The methodology for analyzing location data (e.g., how suitability was assessed based on climate and soil data).

• The number of records contributed by GBIF versus other literature sources.

• Whether data cleaning or quality control was performed to ensure data reliability.

Recommendation: Provide a detailed description of the location data analysis process, including the specific methods used to derive suitability. Clarify the breakdown of data sources (e.g., number of records from GBIF and literature) and describe any data cleaning or validation procedures applied to ensure data quality.

4. Data Upscaling and Resolution

The manuscript describes upscaling temperature and soil data from a 1 km resolution to 25 m, which is a significant methodological concern. The rationale provided for this upscaling is vague, stating only that high-resolution parameters (25 m) were prioritized due to the importance of agricultural suitability analysis and the impact of parameter resolution on detection accuracy. However, the following issues are not addressed:

• The specific method used for upscaling (e.g., interpolation techniques).

• The potential errors or uncertainties introduced by upscaling, which could significantly affect the reliability of the results.

• The justification for choosing such a high resolution (25 m) given the study area's characteristics and the original data resolution.

This approach raises concerns about the validity of the results, as upscaling without robust justification or error analysis undermines the study's credibility.

Recommendation: Clearly describe the upscaling method and provide a rigorous justification for choosing a 25 m resolution. Quantify the potential errors or uncertainties introduced by upscaling and discuss their impact on the results. If upscaling is not essential, consider using the original 1 km resolution or justifying why finer resolution is critical.

5. Conclusions

The conclusions section is overly simplistic and primarily reiterates general consensus from existing studies rather than presenting novel findings specific to this research. Both quantitative and qualitative results are inadequately discussed, leaving readers unclear about the study's contributions. The conclusions do not sufficiently reflect the study's objectives or the significance of the results.

Recommendation: Revise the conclusions to clearly articulate the study's specific findings, both quantitatively (e.g., predicted changes in suitability) and qualitatively (e.g., implications for agriculture in Southern Türkiye). Highlight the novelty of the results and their relevance to the research objectives. Avoid restating general knowledge and focus on the study's unique contributions.

Additional Suggestions

• Clarity and Structure: The manuscript would benefit from improved organization and clearer writing throughout. Consider restructuring sections to follow a logical progression (e.g., Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions).

• Figures and Tables: Ensure that all figures and tables are clearly labeled, referenced in the text, and provide sufficient information to stand alone. If upscaling or location data analysis is visualized, include relevant figures to support the methodology.

• Methodological Transparency: Provide more details on the MaxEnt model setup, including parameter settings, validation methods, and performance metrics, to enhance reproducibility.

• Literature Citations: Ensure that all cited references, such as GBIF [64], are correctly formatted and relevant to the context. Expand the literature review to include recent studies on MaxEnt applications in agricultural suitability.

Conclusion

The manuscript addresses an important topic but requires substantial revisions to meet the standards of scientific publication. The abstract needs to be more comprehensive, the introduction should be restructured for clarity and depth, and the methodological sections must provide greater transparency regarding data processing and upscaling. The conclusions should focus on the study's specific findings rather than general statements. Addressing these issues through a major revision will significantly improve the manuscript's quality and contribution to the field.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article was greatly improved, but references in the text are presented in incorrect form. Check the rules of the journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf