Differential Responses to Climate and Land-Use Changes in Threatened Chinese Taxus Species
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The ms is very useful for the recent environmental problems such as global warming, PM2.5, and so on. So the ms should be accepted as it is.
Author Response
Thanks very much for your review reports, we have improved our MS accroding to three review reports.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors and Editor,
Thanks for your kind invitation to review the manuscript entitled “Differential responses to climate and land-use changes in Chinese threatened plants: a case study for Taxus plants” by Jianming et al..
The article within the scopes and subject areas of the journal, namely: a) climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation in forests, b) forest inventory, quantitative methods, and remote sensing.
The objectives are stated clearly, the methods are appropriate, the data are of good quality, the assumptions and analyses are valid. The presentation is well organized, concise and written clearly. The topic is very interesting considering actual and imminent climate/land use changes; the novelty of the research is assured by the cumulative and synergetic estimation of influences of climate changes, land use changes and topographic factor on endangered species.
An aspect that in my opinion must be improved is a description of what the RCP scenarios are (in the text it is not even indicated what the acronym stands for); moreover, in what they differ between them? why one of the four was rejected? It would also be desirable that the results of the research, at least in a synthetic way, are investigated according to the differences between the three RCP scenarios. As shown in Figure 2, the results of the binary distribution for the endangered species may deeply vary. Is it possible to give some explanation?
Minor issues
Line 5 | Correct affiliation formatting (apex) |
Line 24 | What is RCP8.5? |
Line 43 | Correct “etal.” to “et al.” |
Line 54 | Correct “Rugged” to “rugged” |
Line 81 | Change “elucidated” to “investigated” |
Line 94 | It seems to me that “Flora of China” is not present in the references section |
Figure 1 | What does the box in the right-bottom area of the figure showing represent? The Chinese islands area? Consider removing it due to the fact that there are not records in this area, otherwise add coordinates |
Line 126 | The indicated link http://data.ess.tsinghua.edu.cn/data/Simulation/ does not work, is it wright? |
Line 127 | What does “RCP” stand for? It seems to me you did not indicate the mean of this acronym before in the text. Moreover, differences in RCP scenarios should at least briefly indicated. |
Line 134 | Remove “which is” |
Line 140 | Reference for “Hmisc package”? |
Line 174 | Richardg et al., 2006 is not present in the references section |
Line 190-192 | The two distributions you compare appear to me the same (distribution range of five Taxus species in SDMs with the constraints of topography) |
Line 206-207 | I don’t recognize in the table values in bold, consider another solution to highlight these values |
Line 231-233 | Caption of figure 5 should be in the same page of the figure |
Line 276 | I would change “had a more powerful influence” with “had more influence” |
Line 288 | Change “33.51” to ”33.5” |
Line 320 | Correct “etal.” to “et al.” |
Line 325 | Change “Prietotorres” to “Prieto-Torres” |
Line 412 | Change “Carrilloangeles” to “Carrillo-Angeles” |
Line 447 | Change “2010” to “2006” |
Line 453 | Change “Koste” to “Koster” |
Line 508 | Phillips et al. is not in the right alphabetic position |
Author Response
Thanks very much for your review report, we have improved our MS.
An aspect that in my opinion must be improved is a description of what the RCP scenarios are (in the text it is not even indicated what the acronym stands for)：
We have add related description of the RCP scenarios: The FROM-GLC Model provided the global land-use datasets of 2010-2100, including four Representative Concentration Pathway scenarios (RCP2.6, RCP 4.5, RCP 6.0, and RCP 8.5) with eight general land-use and land-cover types. In our study, we explored the possible conservation effects of climate and land-use changes on species distributions under three emission scenarios (RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5, and RCP 8.5). RCP 2.6 represents the most “benign” scenario, RCP 4.5 is an relatively optimistic scenario, whereas RCP 8.5 represents pessimistic scenario.
; moreover, in what they differ between them? why one of the four was rejected? It would also be desirable that the results of the research, at least in a synthetic way, are investigated according to the differences between the three RCP scenarios. As shown in Figure 2, the results of the binary distribution for the endangered species may deeply vary. Is it possible to give some explanation?
Response: We have added related content and explanation. We added “It is also notable that same Taxus species showed different spatial changes of distributions under different concentration scenarios. The distribution range of T. fauna only has a slight change under RCP 2.6, whereas its distribution areas will loss more than 70% under RCP 4.5, in contrast with the prominent range expansion under RCP 8.5 (Table 2). In addition, the ranges of other four species shift further and more sharply under higher emission scenario (RCP 8.5) relative to lower emission (RCP2.6). In fact, we observed different climate and land-use changes between three concentration scenarios(Figure S7 and S8), this may largely account for the difference in the distribution range changes of each species. Therefore, these findings suggest that the selection of concentration scenarios will significantly influence the response of species to future global changes. “ in new MS
Line 5: Correct affiliation formatting (apex).
Response: We have corrected it in new MS.
Line 24: What is RCP8.5?
Response: We have added related explanation.
Line 43: Correct “etal.” to “et al.”
Response: We have corrected it in new MS.
Line 54: Correct “Rugged” to “rugged”
Response: We have corrected it in new MS.
Line 81: Change “elucidated” to “investigated”
Response: We have changed it in new MS.
Line 94: It seems to me that “Flora of China” is not present in the references section
Response: We have added related references.
Line 126：The indicated link http://data.ess.tsinghua.edu.cn/data/Simulation/ does not work, is it wright?
Response: Indeed, we also do not know the reason for the website does not work. However, all land-use date can be obtained through contact the corresponding author of Li X, Yu L, Sohl T L, et al. A cellular automata downscaling based 1 km global land use datasets (2010–2100)[J]. Chinese Science Bulletin, 2016, 61(21): 1651-1661.
Line 127：What does “RCP” stand for? It seems to me you did not indicate the mean of this acronym before in the text. Moreover, differences in RCP scenarios should at least briefly indicated.
Response: We have add related description of the RCP scenarios: The FROM-GLC Model provided the global land-use datasets of 2010-2100, including four Representative Concentration Pathway scenarios (RCP2.6, RCP 4.5, RCP 6.0, and RCP 8.5) with eight general land-use and land-cover types. In our study, we explored the possible conservation effects of climate and land-use changes on species distributions under three emission scenarios (RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5, and RCP 8.5). RCP 2.6 represents the most “benign” scenario, RCP 4.5 is an relatively optimistic scenario, whereas RCP 8.5 represents pessimistic scenario.
Line 134：Remove “which is”
Response: We have removed it.
Line 140：Reference for “Hmisc package”?
Response: We have added related references.
Line 174：Richardg et al., 2006 is not present in the references section
Response: We have added related references.
Line 190-192：The two distributions you compare appear to me the same (distribution range of five Taxus species in SDMs with the constraints of topography).
Response: We have correct this error.
Line 206-207：I don’t recognize in the table values in bold, consider another solution to highlight these values
Response: We have re-highlight these values
Line 231-233：Caption of figure 5 should be in the same page of the figure
Response: We have correct it.
Line 276：I would change “had a more powerful influence” with “had more influence”
Response: We have correct it.
Line 288：Change “33.51” to ”33.5”
Response: We have correct it.
Line 320：Correct “etal.” to “et al.”
Response: We have correct it.
Line 325：Change “Prietotorres” to “Prieto-Torres”
Response: We have correct it.
Line 412：Change “Carrilloangeles” to “Carrillo-Angeles”
Response: We have correct it.
Line 447：Change “2010” to “2006”
Response: We have corrected it.
Line 453：Change “Koste” to “Koster”
Response: We have correct it.
Line 508：Phillips et al. is not in the right alphabetic position
Response: We have corrected it.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript entitled “differential responses to climate and land-use changes in Chinese threatened plants: a case study for Taxus plants” is a well-written manuscript with clear goals and objectives. The introduction makes a good case for the importance of the research. Methods and results are clearly explained and the discussion highlights the importance of this study. There are some minor editorial recommendations for improving the manuscript:
Abstract: make sure scientific names are in italic Minimize the use of acronyms. They make difficult to read the manuscript. Page 2 line 51: Landscape scale is not an adequate term as landscape is vague. Suggest changing it to local scales. Page 2 lines 63-64: Sentence is awkward. Please reword. Page 4 Line 124 and line 130: Briefly explain what each one of the scenarios (i.e. acronyms) mean. Page 4 Line 126: Add “the” at the beginning of the sentence. Page 4 line 140: What software was used for the Hmisc package? R? What is the Max SSS threshold? How are these values obtained? Is a constant value that is applied to all models? Does this value change with different models? If so, what is the ecological value of this threshold? Figure2, figure 4, and figure 5 are not informative. These need to be expanded and added as supplemental material. The maps are so small that they do not provide any useful information as is. Move funding from acknowledgements to funding.Author Response
Thanks very much for your review report, we have improved our MS.
Abstract: make sure scientific names are in italic Minimize the use of acronyms. They make difficult to read the manuscript.
Response: We have corrected it.
Page 2 line 51: Landscape scale is not an adequate term as landscape is vague. Suggest changing it to local scales.
Response: We have corrected it.
Page 2 lines 63-64: Sentence is awkward. Please reword.
Response: We have reword.
Page 4 Line 124 and line 130: Briefly explain what each one of the scenarios (i.e. acronyms) mean.
Response: We have added related description of the RCP scenarios: The FROM-GLC Model provided the global land-use datasets of 2010-2100, including four Representative Concentration Pathway scenarios (RCP2.6, RCP 4.5, RCP 6.0, and RCP 8.5) with eight general land-use and land-cover types. In our study, we explored the possible conservation effects of climate and land-use changes on species distributions under three emission scenarios (RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5, and RCP 8.5). RCP 2.6 represents the most “benign” scenario, RCP 4.5 is an relatively optimistic scenario, whereas RCP 8.5 represents pessimistic scenario.
Page 4 Line 126: Add “the” at the beginning of the sentence.
Response: We have added it.
Page 4 line 140: What software was used for the Hmisc package? R?
Response: We have added “To avoid strong collinearity among environmental variables, the varclus procedure was conducted to evaluate the redundancy of the variables using the function “varclus” within Hmisc R package(Frank &Harrell, 2019).”
What is the Max SSS threshold? How are these values obtained? Is a constant value that is applied to all models? Does this value change with different models? If so, what is the ecological value of this threshold?
Response: Max SSS threshold is the threshold maximizing the sum of sensitivity and specificity. The Max SSS threshold can minimize the mean of the error rate and has been widely used in species distribution models (Liu et al., 2013; Guisan et al., 2017). It is a constant value that is applied to all models.
Figure2, figure 4, and figure 5 are not informative. These need to be expanded and added as supplemental material. The maps are so small that they do not provide any useful information as is.
Response: We have expanded these figures and added them in supplemental material
9. Move funding from acknowledgements to funding.
Response: We have moved.
