Predicting Phloeosinus cupressi (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Phloeosinus) Distribution for Management Planning Under Climate Change

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a relevant and methodologically sound assessment of the potential global distribution of Phloeosinus cupressi using an integrated Random Forest and CLIMEX modeling framework. The research design is appropriate, and the combination of correlative and mechanistic models adds value to the study. The results are generally clear and support the conclusions drawn. Only minor revisions are required, mainly to improve methodological clarity and transparency in model validation, parameterization, and spatial classification procedures. These issues can be addressed through textual clarification without additional analyses.

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

Comments and suggestions for Authors

The study concerns the highly invasive species Phloeosinus cupressi, which can cause serious damage to trees of the genus Cupressus, affecting the stability and health of forest ecosystems. This issue is topical and important because it concerns the impact of climate change on the ecological niches of insects of ecological and economic importance.

The original manuscript fits within the broad thematic scope of the journal. The study is based on precise data analyses using Climate Matching EXpert and Random Forest models, mainly used in species distribution modelling (SDM), particularly in the context of climate change and pest invasion risk assessment. The manuscript is well-written, precise, and reliable, and the cited literature is mostly relevant to the topic.

There are, however, some points for the Authors to consider:

 

Summary

Line 20: Instead of using the general name pine bark beetle, the correct English species name Phloeosinus cupressi (cypress bark beetle) should be used to ensure taxonomic accuracy and avoid ambiguity.

Line 23: When the name of the programme (Climate Matching EXpert) appears in the text for the first time, we give it in full, followed immediately by the abbreviation (CLIMEX) in brackets, which we will use throughout.

Abstract

Please adjust the length of the abstract to the editorial requirements of the journal so that it complies with the applicable length limits: „The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum”

Introduction

Lines 57–58: Is Phloeosinus cupressi considered a pest in the countries listed?

Lines 59–60: What are the causes of the decline of Cupressus trees and how does climate change affect them?

Lines 63–64: The abbreviation of the author's surname in the first description should not be written in italics.

Lines 65–68: When the species name first appears in the text, give the full genus and species name in italics and the abbreviation of the author's surname (without italics). In addition, please indicate the scale of the threat posed by this species in the countries mentioned — whether it is hundreds, thousands or millions of hectares of forest.

Lines 97–123: Overall, the passage is factually correct and logical. However, it could be presented in a more concise manner. Some information appears twice (e.g. about data requirements in mechanistic models).

Lines 124–126: Please summarise the advantages and disadvantages of the methods currently used to monitor and control population numbers Phloeosinus cupressi.

Lines 128–135: In addition to the research objectives presented, please formulate appropriate research hypotheses.

Material and Methods

The text of the methodology is factually correct, but it could be presented in a more concise manner.

Lines 151–153: and lines 157–159: Please reduce the number of repetitions of ‘Ecoclimatic Index (EI)’.

Lines 225–227: Please cite the relevant publications.

Lines 246–248: Are there already initial studies indicating an expansion in the range of Phloeosinus cupressi as a result of observed climate change?

Line 258, 259: Please remove the abbreviation of the author's surname in the first description of the genus Cupressus, retaining the changes made in the rest of the text.

Lines 261–262: Please describe the structure of forests containing species of the genus Cupressus — are they monocultures or mixed forests?

Line 285: Citations in the text do not comply with the requirements of the Insects journal.

Results:

Figures and Table are not fully self-explanatory. Captions should provide sufficient detail to allow the figures to stand alone. Labels, legends, and units should be revised for clarity and completeness. The full Latin name of the species should be provided in the captions of figures.

Discussion

The discussion provides a detailed description of global and regional changes in the relevant climate zones, and its strengths include references to precipitation, temperature, host plants and anthropogenic factors. The Authors also thoroughly discuss the limitations of the models used. However, the most serious drawback of the discussion is its overly descriptive, report-like nature. In several places, the text takes the form of a re-calculation of the results rather than an in-depth interpretation of them. In the reviewer's opinion, the discussion lacks:

1. a) clearly distinguished thematic sections;
2. b) consistent references to the literature for key conclusions;
3. c) a comparison of the results obtained with previous studies on P. cupressi and with works on similar pests — without this, the text loses its scientific discussion character and becomes merely a description of the results.

In addition, the discussion contains too many geographical details, which hinders smooth reading and weakens the focus on the interpretation of the results.

Conclussion

Line 648: Instead of the phrase ‘we speculate,’ please use a scientific term, preferably ‘probably’ or an expression based on probability.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.The manuscript title fully complies with the journal requirements and the topics covered in the Insects.

2.There are no comments on the "Abstract" or "Simple Summary." I present the general essence of the research and address specific issues in the biology and ecology of invasive insect species.

3.«Introduction» describes current research and the state of knowledge of the biology and distribution of Phloeosinus cupressi. The authors have competently presented the 6th Climate Assessment Report; it is important for readers to understand the climate modeling parameters used in the work.

I have a minor comment on the "Introduction." I would recommend moving the sentence (L 135-138) to the "Conclusion" section to avoid prejudging the research prospects in the "Introduction," after the stated objectives.

4.«Materials and Methods». Meets the requirements and contains important information about the research methods, statistical analyses, and the volume of input data for the modeling. 5. Results. Based on representative material. The Appendix to the manuscript contains comprehensive information on the encounter points of Phloeosinus cupressi and representatives of the genus Cupressus L., which was included in the modeling.

5.«Discussion». Written in a good scientific style, it includes references to existing studies on the biology of invasive species, and a comparative analysis with the authors' results is provided.

6.«Conclusion». Overall, it is recommended. However, I have a small comment. I would combine or rephrase sentences L135-138 and L647-649. I would also more clearly formulate the application of the obtained data for developing invasive species control measures, forecasts, etc.

Overall, the manuscript is interesting and contains new data on the distribution and modeling of the ecological and climatic range of Phloeosinus cupressi and representatives of the genus Cupressus L. The results of the study contribute new data to the understanding of general entomology and insect ecology and can also be used to solve problems in the field of plant protection and the biology of invasive insect species.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Following significant revisions by the Authors, the paper meets the requirements of the journal Insects, and I recommend its publication.