Global Distribution of Three Parasitoids of Drosophila suzukii (Diptera, Drosophilidae): Present and Future Climate Change Scenarios

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 43 –Result for P. vindemmia is omitted (“and” is present so is it after?); the other studied species were mentioned

Line 48/49 – The last line is a bit out of context and too general/definitive a statement; it should be deleted or edited to maintain the focus of the paper on results of modelling

Line 62 – it is already a harmful pest so “potentially” can be deleted – potential is also repeated in the next sentence, making it repetitive.

Lines 86-94. Scientific names should always be in italics (A. japonica; L. japonica). This paragraph can be made more clear as the previous paragraph mentions the genera and in this paragraph only the genus first letter with the species name is used, making the reader go back to the previous paragraph to look up the genus name.

Line 103. Additional information linking ENM to climate change modelling should be mentioned here including impacts on the spread, distribution, direction and other relevant effects as cited in related studies to further justify the use of the approach

Line 115. Scientific name of L. japonica is not in italics

Line 148. Table 1 should be below the text discussing it (Lines 149-158)

Line 161. It is not clear what the variables ntree and mtry represent.

Line 165. Using the MTP as a threshold should be explained

Line 178. TSS values are not explained in contrast to AUC – some more elaboration and limits of these performance metrics would be good to include.

Line 203. Figure 1 show only 1 occurrence point for G. kimorum. Would be good to describe the distribution of each species.

Line 207. 15 of the 16 occurrences of G. kimorum is clustered in one location near the border of the US Canada. This results in several issues associated with spatial autocorrelation -specifically inflated model performance (AUC is 1 in the model – may be good in areas with the clustered data but poor in other areas), overfitting, misrepresentation of environmental variables as the environmental rasters will have similar values due to the proximity of the pixels and other common problems. Suggest removing the species altogether in the model outputs.

Line 210. Use of “projections” in this paragraph implies future projections however the model described is for current potential distribution. To avoid confusion, suggest changing this.

Line 224. Far East of Asia is too large an area, some countries can be identified and should mentioned. Specific countries in South America would also be good to identify

Line 234. Southeast Asian presence is not so obvious in the map. More specific areas of South America and Africa is better than just “certain parts”

Line 238. Explanation of suitability values not really needed as there is already a legend present

Line 240. The resulting future scenario maps should be shown in the main article rather than just the supplement. It is difficult to visualize the changes in the suitability of the different species just by looking at the maps. More importantly, the different outputs should be quantified by measuring the areas that are suitable by species, years and SSP scenarios. This can be done by producing a table of the count of pixels belonging to each category. Even just the counting of binary values (suitable or unsuitable) would be a useful quantification. Such quantification of areas will greatly enhance the discussion which is hard to follow as its present form. This will also show how much suitable areas have increased or decreased and provide significant results to discuss.

Lines 246-303. Generating lines representing the movement of the polygons from the current centroids of areas to centroids of suitability for future years with different SSP scenarios will greatly enhance this section.

Lines 303-346. Again, producing a calculation of areas is suggested to quantify statements on increase (or devreas) in overlap.

Lines 348-371. Quantification of the areas including changes in percentage would greatly enhance the discussion of this section.

Lines 372-390. The value range of the variables where the model shows the greatest response would be good to include in this section

Lines 391-400. Future conditions are referred to but Figure 4 shows only the model for current conditions

Line 401. It is not clear what the suite of traits refer to in this sentence.

Line 408. The overlap needs to be quantified.

Line 410. This paragraph can be in the introduction – where all the other parasitoids can be justified for inclusion.

Line 428. This tendency to expand needs to be supported be area measurements.

Line 433. The area expansion also needs to be measured.

Line 440-449. The species can be mentioned but should not be included as a reliable output

Author Response

Author’s Notes to Reviewer (Reviewer 1)

 

Comments 1: Line 43 –Result for P. vindemmia is omitted (“and” is present so is it after?); the other studied species were mentioned.

Response 1: We added the mention of the results for P. vindemmiae in the corresponding section.

 

Comments 2: Line 48/49 – The last line is a bit out of context and too general/definitive a statement; it should be deleted or edited to maintain the focus of the paper on results of modelling

Response 2: We agree. We removed the last sentence.

Comments 3: Line 62 – it is already a harmful pest so “potentially” can be deleted – potential is also repeated in the next sentence, making it repetitive.

Response 3: We agree. We removed the word “potentially.”

 

Comments 4: Lines 86-94. Scientific names should always be in italics (A. japonica; L. japonica). This paragraph can be made more clear as the previous paragraph mentions the genera and in this paragraph only the genus first letter with the species name is used, making the reader go back to the previous paragraph to look up the genus name.

Response 4: We corrected all scientific names and formatted them in italics. We also clarified the paragraph by presenting the full scientific names instead of abbreviations, preventing the reader from needing to refer back to the previous paragraph to identify the genus

 

Comments 5: Line 103. Additional information linking ENM to climate change modelling should be mentioned here including impacts on the spread, distribution, direction and other relevant effects as cited in related studies to further justify the use of the approach

Response 5: We added information linking ENM to climate change modeling from two different perspectives, also mentioning impacts described in related studies and other relevant effects.

 

Comments 6: Line 115. Scientific name of L. japonica is not in italics

Response 6: We agree and formatted the scientific name in italics.

 

Comments 7: Line 148. Table 1 should be below the text discussing it (Lines 149-158)

Response 7: We agree and repositioned Table 1 below its in-text citation.

 

Comments 8: Line 161. It is not clear what the variables ntree and mtry represent.

Response 8: We agree and added an explanation of the meaning of the ntree and mtry parameters in the Materials and Methods section.

 

Comments 9: Line 165. Using the MTP as a threshold should be explained

Response 9: We added a paragraph explaining the use of the MTP threshold.

 

Comments 10: Line 178. TSS values are not explained in contrast to AUC – some more elaboration and limits of these performance metrics would be good to include.

Response 10: We agree and added an explanation of the TSS performance metric.

 

Comments 11: Line 203. Figure 1 show only 1 occurrence point for G. kimorum. Would be good to describe the distribution of each species.

Response 11: We understand that the figure in question refers to Figure 2. Therefore, we agree and removed Ganaspis kimorum from the analysis as suggested. We adjusted the figure to include only the three remaining species.

 

Comments 12: Line 207. 15 of the 16 occurrences of G. kimorum is clustered in one location near the border of the US Canada. This results in several issues associated with spatial autocorrelation -specifically inflated model performance (AUC is 1 in the model – may be good in areas with the clustered data but poor in other areas), overfitting, misrepresentation of environmental variables as the environmental rasters will have similar values due to the proximity of the pixels and other common problems. Suggest removing the species altogether in the model outputs.

Response 12: We agree with the complete removal of G. kimorum, as the clustering of coordinates could generate methodological issues in the modeling process

 

Comments 13: potential distribution. To avoid confusion, suggest changing this.

Response 13: We agree and replaced the term with “distribution models,” making the sentence more coherent.

 

Comments 14: Line 224. Far East of Asia is too large an area, some countries can be identified and should mentioned. Specific countries in South America would also be good to identify

Response 14: The section in question refers to G. kimorum, which has been removed from the manuscript.

 

Comments 15: Line 234. Southeast Asian presence is not so obvious in the map. More specific areas of South America and Africa is better than just “certain parts”

Response 15: We added the specific countries in South America and Africa.

 

Comments 16: Line 238. Explanation of suitability values not really needed as there is already a legend present

Response 16: We consider the explanation of suitability values necessary to prevent the reader from having to search for this information in the main text. This makes the interpretation of the figure clearer.

 

Comments 17: Line 240. The resulting future scenario maps should be shown in the main article rather than just the supplement. It is difficult to visualize the changes in the suitability of the different species just by looking at the maps. More importantly, the different outputs should be quantified by measuring the areas that are suitable by species, years and SSP scenarios. This can be done by producing a table of the count of pixels belonging to each category. Even just the counting of binary values (suitable or unsuitable) would be a useful quantification. Such quantification of areas will greatly enhance the discussion which is hard to follow as its present form. This will also show how much suitable areas have increased or decreased and provide significant results to discuss.

Response 17: We agree and included the future scenario maps in the main article, as well as a binary quantification table to support the reader in interpreting increases and decreases in suitability areas for each species.

 

Comments 18: Lines 246-303. Generating lines representing the movement of the polygons from the current centroids of areas to centroids of suitability for future years with different SSP scenarios will greatly enhance this section.

Response 18: We understand that information about future suitability is already represented in the future suitability maps (Figure 4), which allow readers to visualize the potential distribution of each species across scenarios and time periods. Given our objectives—focused on identifying environmentally suitable areas for parasitoids and their biocontrol potential—we believe the suggested centroid-movement analysis does not align with our aims. However, we appreciate the suggestion as a valuable methodological insight and will consider it for future studies.

 

Comments 19: Lines 303-346. Again, producing a calculation of areas is suggested to quantify statements on increase (or devreas) in overlap.

Response 19: We added percentage-based area quantification tables for each species in the Supplementary Material. However, we emphasize that quantifying overlap does not align with our study’s objectives, as the analysis does not involve measuring biological control coverage.

Comments 20: Linhas 348-371. A quantificação das áreas, incluindo as alterações percentuais, enriqueceria bastante a discussão desta seção.
Response 20: We present the percentage-based quantification of suitable areas in tables for each species, included in the Supplementary Material.

 

Comments 21: Lines 372-390. The value range of the variables where the model shows the greatest response would be good to include in this section

Response 21: We added the values of the variables that contributed to the response of each species’ model.

 

Comments 22: Lines 391-400. Future conditions are referred to but Figure 4 shows only the model for current conditions

Response 22: After implementing the suggested revisions, the figure now includes the future conditions referenced in the text.

 

Comments 23: Line 401. It is not clear what the suite of traits refer to in this sentence.

Response 23: We added the set of traits referenced in that sentence.

 

Comments 24: Line 408. The overlap needs to be quantified.

Response 24: We understand the importance of quantifying parasitoid–pest overlap. However, our background data—collected from biodiversity databases and scientific literature—reflect parasitoid occurrence independently of D. suzukii. Our objective is to support future research by identifying environmentally suitable areas for each parasitoid species. We acknowledge the relevance of this suggestion and consider it appropriate for future studies focused specifically on pest–parasitoid co-occurrence and environmental conditions.

 

Comments 25: Line 410. This paragraph can be in the introduction – where all the other parasitoids can be justified for inclusion.

Response 25: We agree and moved this paragraph to the Introduction, where the justification for including each parasitoid is presented.

 

Comments 26: Line 428. This tendency to expand needs to be supported be area measurements.

Response 26: We acknowledge that quantitative measures of parasitoid–pest overlap are important for studies evaluating biological control coverage. However, our objective is limited to inferring areas where both species (parasitoid and pest) may occur globally, and to predicting climatically suitable areas using a robust modeling algorithm, without quantifying biocontrol coverage. As previously mentioned, we consider this a valuable suggestion for future studies linking parasitoid and pest distributions for pest-management programs.

 

Comments 27: Line 433. The area expansion also needs to be measured.

Response 27: We reinforce the previous response: quantifying expansion of biocontrol coverage is beyond the scope of this study.

 

Comments 28: Line 440-449. The species can be mentioned but should not be included as a reliable output

Response 28: After the adjustment to include only three species (excluding G. kimorum), we do not recommend any parasitoid as a “reliable” agent. We only comment on their potential as biological control agents.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article examines the consortium relationships of one important pest of fruit orchards, Drosophila suzukii. It provides an in-depth analysis of the pest's biology and briefly describes the biology of its enemies. A more detailed description of the biology of each species would likely be better provided in the introduction. The article is well-written, with a large literature review. The authors have carefully considered the correct modeling. The results provide insights into the future distribution patterns of D. suzukii's enemies. The article will be of interest to agronomists, professional entomologists, and general ecologists.

Disadvantages:

1. In the article title, after "Drosophila suzukii," the order name, followed by a comma, and the family name should be added in parentheses.
2. In the abstract (lines 34-36), after the species names, the order name, followed by a comma, and the family name should be added in parentheses. This will increase the likelihood that entomologists will find this article in the Scopus and Web of Science databases.
3. After the first mention of a species in the text of the article, the author's last name and year of description must be included, along with the order name, followed by a comma and the family name, in parentheses. This applies to the first mention of all species mentioned in this article.
4. Line 64 and others: it is not recommended to include more than 2-3 references in the same parentheses: leave the most relevant ones and delete the rest.
5. I think the article would benefit from adding a figure to the introduction showing the stages of phytophagous development, with arrows showing the effects of parasites and predators on them (not only the four species analyzed in depth in the article, but also other, less studied genera and families of parasites and predators).
6. Figure 1 is very simple and uninformative; I recommend removing it.
7. In the text of the article (e.g., lines 199–201), percentages should be rounded to the nearest tenth. For mathematical modeling, hundredths of a percent are speculative.
8. Table 3: Numbers should be rounded to the nearest tenth. If "%" applies to all numbers in the table, the % should be written in parentheses in the table title and removed from the column headings. What does "-" mean in table cells? This should be written in a note below the table.
9. Rows 233, 271, 276, 278, 283, and others: In the south of France, south is capitalized, but in southern France, all words are capitalized. This applies to "western Europe, southeastern Asia" and throughout the article.
10. Place the legend in the South Pacific, and increase the map size in Figure 3 by 25% in both width and height. The color of Antarctica raises questions. This is likely a modeling error. It is better to limit the map to 65–70 degrees north and south latitude.
11. Increase the size of Figure 4 by 25% in both height and width.
12. The Discussion section should be structured into 3-5 subsections, each with a separate title. Each subsection should analyze 4-7 references. By doing this, you will see that not all of your arguments are supported by references.
13. Many references are poorly formatted: lines 503, 524, 535, 623, 649, 626, 681, 685, 692, and others.

Author Response

Author’s Notes to Reviewer (Reviewer 2)

 

Comments 1: In the article title, after "Drosophila suzukii," the order name, followed by a comma, and the family name should be added in parentheses.

Response 1: We added the order and family names to the article title.

 

Comments 2: In the abstract (lines 34-36), after the species names, the order name, followed by a comma, and the family name should be added in parentheses. This will increase the likelihood that entomologists will find this article in the Scopus and Web of Science databases.

Response 2: We included the suggested information in the abstract.

 

Comments 3: After the first mention of a species in the text of the article, the author's last name and year of description must be included, along with the order name, followed by a comma and the family name, in parentheses. This applies to the first mention of all species mentioned in this article.

Response 3: We agree and added the taxonomic description (author and year), as well as order and family, after the first mention of each species in the article.

 

Comments 4: Line 64 and others: it is not recommended to include more than 2-3 references in the same parentheses: leave the most relevant ones and delete the rest.

Response 4: We understand the concern regarding multiple citations within the same parentheses. However, in this specific case—where the number of territories in which D. suzukii has been recorded is being reported—we consider it important to provide the reader with the full set of sources supporting this quantitative information, ensuring clarity and precision.

 

Comments 5: I think the article would benefit from adding a figure to the introduction showing the stages of phytophagous development, with arrows showing the effects of parasites and predators on them (not only the four species analyzed in depth in the article, but also other, less studied genera and families of parasites and predators).

Response 5: We acknowledge the importance of illustrating the developmental stages of phytophagous insects; however, we believe that adding such a figure, especially including lesser-studied groups of parasitoids and predators, would not guide the reader toward the objective of our study. We opted not to include the figure, given that the developmental stages of D. suzukii are well established in the literature and the parasitism modes of its parasitoids (larval or pupal) are also well recognized.

 

Comments 6: Figure 1 is very simple and uninformative; I recommend removing it.

Response 6: We understand that Figure 1 may appear simple. However, because we employed a methodological approach that differs from the one most commonly used in species distribution modeling—specifically through the application of the Random Forest algorithm—our intention with this illustration is to highlight the methodological framework and emphasize the use of this algorithm

 

Comments 7: In the text of the article (e.g., lines 199–201), percentages should be rounded to the nearest tenth. For mathematical modeling, hundredths of a percent are speculative.

Response 7: We adjusted all percentages by rounding them to the nearest tenth.

 

Comments 8: Table 3: Numbers should be rounded to the nearest tenth. If "%" applies to all numbers in the table, the % should be written in parentheses in the table title and removed from the column headings. What does "-" mean in table cells? This should be written in a note below the table.

Response 8: All percentages in Table 3 were rounded to the nearest tenth. The hyphen “–” was explained in a footnote as part of the table legend.

 

Comments 9: Rows 233, 271, 276, 278, 283, and others: In the south of France, south is capitalized, but in southern France, all words are capitalized. This applies to "western Europe, southeastern Asia" and throughout the article.

Response 9: We corrected all capitalization issues related to geographic descriptors (e.g., “South France,” “Western Europe,” “Southeastern Asia”) throughout the entire article.

 

Comments 10: Place the legend in the South Pacific, and increase the map size in Figure 3 by 25% in both width and height. The color of Antarctica raises questions. This is likely a modeling error. It is better to limit the map to 65–70 degrees north and south latitude.

Response 10: We understand that placing the legend within the figure may enhance the reader’s visual interpretation of the color scale. However, the legend in Figure 3 provides standardized information that applies to all species evaluated. Therefore, we consider its centered position below the last panel to be the most appropriate use of space and presentation format.
Regarding Antarctica, we included it in the environmental background because our aim was to conduct a complete global modeling approach, as done in Abeijon et al. (2025).

Abeijon, L.M.; Gómez Llano, J.H.; Robe, L.J.; Ovruski, S.M.; Garcia, F.R.M. Mapping the Potential Presence of the Spotted Wing Drosophila Under Current and Future Scenario: An Update of the Distribution Modeling and Ecological Perspectives. Agronomy 2025, 15, 838,https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15040838

 

Comments 11: Increase the size of Figure 4 by 25% in both height and width.

Response 11: Following Reviewer 1’s suggestions, we incorporated the supplementary figures into the main manuscript, which required adjustments to the figure layout, including Figure 4.

 

Comments 12: The Discussion section should be structured into 3-5 subsections, each with a separate title. Each subsection should analyze 4-7 references. By doing this, you will see that not all of your arguments are supported by references.

Response 12: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to restructure the Discussion into separate subsections. We carefully considered this recommendation; however, after evaluating the nature of our results and the integrative approach required to interpret the ecological, climatic, and biocontrol dimensions together, we believe that maintaining the Discussion as a single continuous section provides better coherence and enables a more fluid synthesis of the findings.

 

The current structure allows us to (i) contextualize the biological and climatic mechanisms, (ii) compare the three parasitoid species cohesively, and (iii) integrate present and future projections without fragmenting concepts that are interdependent. Subdividing the Discussion would, in this case, lead to artificial separation of themes that are closely related, and could disrupt the logical flow of interpretation.

 

Regarding the use of references, we have reviewed the entire section to ensure that all key arguments are properly supported by the relevant literature. We confirmed that each thematic block within the Discussion is grounded in citations and reflects established findings in the field.

 

We respectfully request to retain the current structure, as we believe it preserves clarity, coherence, and scientific integrity for this particular type of cross-species, cross-scenario ecological analysis.

 

Comments 13: Many references are poorly formatted: lines 503, 524, 535, 623, 649, 626, 681, 685, 692, and others.

Response 13: We reviewed and corrected all the references indicated by the reviewer.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript has been modified with substantial improvements

Author Response

Thanks.