Current and Future Distribution of the Cataglyphis nodus (Brullé, 1833) in the Middle East and North Africa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors and Editor,

I have carefully read the paper, and it presents interesting results regarding the climatic factors affecting the potential distribution range of the thermophilic ant Cataglyphis nodus in the Middle East and North Africa. Furthermore, the results demonstrate the potential impact of climate change on the habitat suitability of this species in both current and future projections. This is particularly relevant given the current context of climate change and its potential effects on existing biodiversity.

The study is technically well done. The text is generally well-structured and concise.

I believe that the manuscript can be accepted after minor revisions, as highlighted in the attached file.

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The recommended changes have been carefully implemented throughout the entire manuscript, ensuring that all aspects have been thoroughly addressed and revised. Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have read the manuscript entitled “Current and future distribution of the Cataglyphis ant genus in the Middle East and North Africa” by Remya Kottarathu Kalarikkal, submitted to the Diversity magazine. The manuscript presents results on modeling on potential suitable habitats in the Middle East and North Africa region, for the ant Cataglyphis nodus, under future global climate change. Such data are valuable; however, I think that this manuscript could be improved. I hope that the following comments can be used to improve it. 

General comments:
Conclusions of this study are limited, as they are based on modelling of distribution of one species only. I am not sure, why this species was selected for this study – it should be better explained and substantiated.
Better discussion is strongly recommended. Similarly, tables and figures could be considerably improved, I believe. Additionally, better captions of figures and tables would be useful for readers. 

Several more specific comments:
The title should be corrected. “The study focused only on one species and did not consider a group of related species” (see: 5. Limitations of the study, in the manuscript); however, in the title “the Cataglyphis ant genus” is mentioned – it could be misleading for potential readers.

If addresses of Authors are complete? Check it, please, as in some there is no the country name. 

The Abstract section could be improved. Now, the most important results are difficult to understand. Additionally, all used abbreviations should be explained (see: AUS, TSS, SSP) [on the other hand, I am not sure, if – for example ­– such results as “(mean AUC=0.975, mean TSS=0.8)” is necessary in the Abstract section], and the scientific name of the ant species should be written in italics.

The Result and discussion section:
“The present AMT varies from -14.1ºC in the cooler areas to 34.8ºC in the warmer regions (Figure 2).” Please forgive me for my possible misunderstanding, but if the value “from -14.1ºC” is correct? (i.e. ‘-14.1’ or ‘+14.1’) [the same comment to the Figure 2].
Additionally: the symbol or notation of the Celsius degree is not correct in several sentences (neither on the Figure 2.), see e.g. “0.8 to 1.4 C° for SSP3.7.0 and 0.9 to 1.6 C° for SSP5.8.5”. 

Generally, in scientific papers, captions of figures and tables should be ‘self-explaining’, i.e., should provide sufficient information to the readers without looking for information in the text. Thus, the legends should be improved, I believe.
Several specific comments to tables and figures:
Tables could be better formatted.
Figure 1. What is presented, i.e. “Study area in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Region.” or location of the MENA region?
Figure 3. is difficult to read; I have problem to understand the figure.
Figure 4. Check the scale, please – I think it is not correct. Additionally: in the legend “C.Nodus occurrence” should be corrected (to: “C. nodus occurrence”).
Figure 6. I think, that it is not good to not use three-dimensional graphs for two-dimensional data – in such version the results are difficult to compare.
Not all figures (i.e. figures 5 and 7) are cited in the text – it should be corrected. 

I am not sure, if I properly understand the part of Conclusion section concerning “several species of lizards, including the Tarentola mauritanica”. Why just the lizards are mentioned in the discussion? It should be better explained, I think.

 

To sum up: presentation of results could be improved, and reasons why this species was selected for this study should be better explained, I think. Additionally, better discussion of results of the study is recommended.

Author Response

General comments: Conclusions of this study are limited, as they are based on modelling of distribution of one species only. I am not sure, why this species was selected for this study – it should be better explained and substantiated. Better discussion is strongly recommended. Similarly, tables and figures could be considerably improved, I believe. Additionally, better captions of figures and tables would be useful for readers.

Response : All of the suggested revisions, including those pertaining to each mentioned section,  have been carefully reviewed and meticulously incorporated throughout the manuscript.

Several more specific comments:

The title should be corrected. “The study focused only on one species and did not consider a group of related species” (see: 5. Limitations of the study, in the manuscript); however, in the title “the Cataglyphis ant genus” is mentioned – it could be misleading for potential readers.

Response: modified (Line no: 1 to 2)

If addresses of Authors are complete? Check it, please, as in some there is no the country name.

Response:  modified (Line no: 5 to 14)

The Abstract section could be improved. Now, the most important results are difficult to understand. Additionally, all used abbreviations should be explained (see: AUS, TSS, SSP) [on the other hand, I am not sure, if – for example – such results as “(mean AUC=0.975, mean TSS=0.8)” is necessary in the Abstract section],

Response: Modified (Line no: 21, 22, 25 & 26)

The scientific name of the ant species should be written in italics.

Response: modified (entire manuscript)

The Result and discussion section: “The present AMT varies from -14.1ºC in the cooler areas to 34.8ºC in the warmer regions (Figure 2).” Please forgive me for my possible misunderstanding, but if the value “from -14.1ºC” is correct? (i.e. ‘-14.1’ or ‘+14.1’) [the same comment to the Figure 2].

Response: Modified the figure 2

Additionally: the symbol or notation of the Celsius degree is not correct in several sentences (neither on the Figure 2.), see e.g. “0.8 to 1.4 C° for SSP3.7.0 and 0.9 to 1.6 C° for SSP5.8.5”.

Response: modified (Line no: 234 to 247)

Generally, in scientific papers, captions of figures and tables should be ‘self-explaining’, i.e., should provide sufficient information to the readers without looking for information in the text. Thus, the legends should be improved, I believe.

Response: modified all the figures

Several specific comments to tables and figures: Tables could be better formatted.

 Figure 1. What is presented, i.e. “Study area in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Region.” or location of the MENA region?

Response: modified in the Figure 1

Figure 3. is difficult to read; I have problem to understand the figure.

Response: modified Figure 3

Figure 4. Check the scale, please – I think it is not correct. Additionally: in the legend “C.Nodus occurrence” should be corrected (to: “C. nodus occurrence”).

Response: scale modified and corrected the species name in Figure 4

Figure 6. I think, that it is not good to not use three-dimensional graphs for two-dimensional data – in such version the results are difficult to compare. Not all figures (i.e. figures 5 and 7) are cited in the text – it should be corrected.

Response: modified Figure 6 and  Figure 5 cited in Line no: 302 and Figure 7 cited in Line no: 331

I am not sure, if I properly understand the part of Conclusion section concerning “several species of lizards, including the Tarentola mauritanica”. Why just the lizards are mentioned in the discussion? It should be better explained, I think. To sum up: presentation of results could be improved, and reasons why this species was selected for this study should be better explained, I think. Additionally, better discussion of results of the study is recommended.

Response: modified the discussion and included other species also Line no:356 to 361

Why C.nodus: Cataglyphis ants have a unique approach to dealing with desert heat. Instead of trying to escape it, they use their remarkable heat tolerance to outcompete other animals and avoid predators. This specialized niche has led to various adaptations at both the individual and colony levels. The fast-running thermophilous Cataglyphis ants have developed behavioral (such as foraging patterns), morphological, and physiological (like body size and polymorphism) adaptations that enable them to thrive in extreme arid conditions. Their ability to forage at high temperatures gives them an advantage in areas with rich ant communities, where they can outcompete others and access food resources. Additionally, their high thermal tolerance allows them to thrive in low elevation areas with low ecosystem productivity and species richness, as they can evade predation by less heat-tolerant species. While occurrence records were collected for several species of Cataglyphis ants (Cataglyphis abyssinica (Forel, 1904), Cataglyphis adenensis (Forel, 1904) Cataglyphis nigra (Andre, 1881) Cataglyphis rubra (Forel, 1903), etc), the sample size was sufficient for C. nodus, so this species was chosen as the target for the study.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Still, I feel that the manuscript could be improved. For example, the Abstract section could be improved – in the present form (for me) it is not easy to understand. The notation of the Celsius degree is corrected in the version of the manuscript; however, see line 258: “2 °C” (notation with space) and line 259: “2°C” (without space) – it should be standardized.

In the scientific names of species, the name of genus and name the species should be in italics; however, when you add name of author(s), the name of author(s) should be not in italics. In the title of the manuscript, lines 1-2 “Cataglyphis nodus (Brullé, 1833)”: “Cataglyphis nodus” should be in italics, but “(Brullé, 1833)” – not in italics. [in the abstract, it is written in a correct way]. Line 64: “Forster, 1850” should be not in italics.

Nevertheless, I am satisfied with revisions and responses by the authors.

 

Author Response

Comment1: Still, I feel that the manuscript could be improved. For example, the Abstract section could be improved – in the present form (for me) it is not easy to understand. The notation of the Celsius degree is corrected in the version of the manuscript; however, see line 258: “2 °C” (notation with space) and line 259: “2°C” (without space) – it should be standardized.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. The abstract has been modified and the text has been highlighted accordingly. 

Comment2: In the scientific names of species, the name of genus and name the species should be in italics; however, when you add name of author(s), the name of author(s) should be not in italics. In the title of the manuscript, lines 1-2 “Cataglyphis nodus (Brullé, 1833)”: “Cataglyphis nodus” should be in italics, but “(Brullé, 1833)” – not in italics. [in the abstract, it is written in a correct way]. Line 64: “Forster, 1850” should be not in italics.

Response: The scientific names of the species have been updated and the relevant text has been highlighted for further reference. Kindly review the attached MS for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf