Prediction of Native Seed Habitat Distribution According to SSP Scenario and Seed Transfer Zones: A Focus on Acer pictum subsp. mono and Quercus acuta

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I'm quite attracted by the seed transfer zone in the title, however, I found that this manuscript is in fact a description of two kinds of model results: Maxent and STZ. If you want to publish this paper, it needs substantial improvement.

First of all, what is the motivation of this manuscript? The authors just describe their model simulation results. What's new and novel? The authors must highlight their key findings. In addition, there are dozens of tree species in South Korea, why are these two tree species were selected? It seems that one is widely useful and the other is important for conservation. So do you intend to get some conclusions about wood use or nature conservation in the future?

Second, what improvements they have made in the methods. Actually, Maxent has different algorithms. Such kind of predictions of different climatic scenarios are full of uncertainties. In particular, the methods of STZ is not clear. Do you just use two climatic indexes? Why are these two index appliable for seed transfer in South Korea? 

Third, the results are too lengthy. It is not necessary to describe the results of all simulations as in Table 5 and 6. Without solid methods, this kind of simulations does not make sense. In addition, the SDZ results are quite confusing to me. Where are the 34 SDZs in Fig. 5? The colors are quite similar. There are some errors. Actually, A. pictum is widely distributed in eastern China.

Finally, the English language also need extensive editing. I marked some in the attachment.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you very much for your review.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you very much for your review.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have carefully addressed all my concerns. Now, the manuscript is close to the publishing standard. Some minor editings are required:

a) Please add a space between number and unit through the whole text;

b) Redraw Figure 6 to make the texts in the figure visible.

Author Response

Thank you for your sincere feedback on the manuscript. 

Response a: Added spaces between numbers and units in the entire text.

Response b: I redrawn Figure 6 so that the text in the picture is visible.

Thank you again.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed the majority of my concerns. By doing so the quality of the manuscript is sufficiently improved.

 

Best wishes

Author Response

Thank you for your sincere feedback on the manuscript. 

There is no space between the number and the unit, so we added a space between the number and the unit as a whole.
Also, the text in Figure 6 was not displayed correctly, so it was corrected.

Thank you again.