Modelling Distribution of an Endangered Longhorn Beetle, Callipogon relictus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), in Northeast Asia
Jongok Lim
Battal Ciplak
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe relict longhorn beetle, C. relictus is one of the most important species for understanding evolution and systematic studies. Thus, I think this MS includes valuable information. I could not find major things needed to be modified. But please check carefully one more time. In addition, I recommend describe the situation of discovery of C. relictus in North and South Korea.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear colleague, thank you for your recommendations. We agree with them and have included them in the text of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Review for “Modelling Spatial Distribution of an Endangered Longhorn Beetle, Callipogon relictus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), in Northeast Asia” by Kuprin et al. (forests-2843464) submitted to the journal Forests to be considered for publication
The manuscript by Kim et al. (forests-2843464) presents data related to long-horn beetle Callipogon (Eoxenus) relictus, an endangered species has special role in forest ecosystems in Northeast Asia. The author team blended the distribution records of the species from Russia, China and Korea and modelled present and future distribution of the species using Maxent modelling algorithms under different climate envelops proposed for the future. Based on the modelling results it is estimate that the size of suitable habitats of the species will seriously reduce by 2070. The data and statements in the manuscript are sound and my get interest from scientists working ecology/conservation biology. Also, the design and presentation of the manuscript is adequate and easily understandable. However, it requires some minor corrections.
Title: The title well represents the content of the manuscript.
Abstract: The abstract is well designed and contains data from each section/model of the study.
Introduction: The literature related to the study is adequately analysed and the aim of the study is clearly stated. However, I think it is not necessary to mention the version of the Maxent software here (line 42-43), as it is a methodological information.
Material and Methods: All methodological aspects used in the study are adequately and clearly mentioned. The only unsuitable case is repetition of the name of the countries (Russia and South Korea) in first paragraph (line 58-74). The collections can be arranged according to countries, in a way avoiding repetition.
Results. Results obtained from modelling analyses are presented in a coincide and adequate style and supported by necessary tables and illustrations.
Discussion: Results of the study well correlated with the aims of the study and all statements are logical. The only small flaw may be the presence of some introduction like sentences. Especially the two sentences in the beginning of the section should be removed. There are also some minor points requiring corrections.
Line 217 – C. relictus should be italic
Line 226 – ….(references)… needs to be filled with the number of the reference
Line 230-231 - … less significant (appendix, 230 table 1), likely … There is no appendix in the manuscript
References: Have not been checked.
Tables and Figures: The quality of the figures is adequate. The supplementary WORD and PDF files contain the same information. The supplementary files are not adequately self-explanatory.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear colleague, thank you for your recommendations. We agree with them and have included them in the text of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors of the manuscript, using modeling of modern potential ranges (in the MaxEnt program), have made an assessment of the spatial distribution of a rare beetle species in Northeast Asia (based on 220 geographic locations). The object of the manuscript has great conservation significance, and the authors have succeeded in producing models with high accuracy. The manuscript is well written and the results could help in the conservation of this beetle species. Nevertheless, I encountered the following issues with the presented manuscript: 1) the authors did not carry out correlation analysis to evaluate the correlation between the predictors used in the modelling, and I strongly recommend including the results of such analysis in the paper; 2) I also recommend them to include the response curves of the main bioclimatic variables; 3) Since the altitude and precipitation in the driest month are the predictors with the largest contribution, the author, according to me should include in the text statement with the range of these predictors’ values (min:….m a.s.l., max: m a.s.l……min:….mm, max:….mm) for the localities where the species has been actually found, with comment in what range of these values the species has been found most often.; 4) In the Results section, there are also comments on how the results agree with the published information about the species, such comments would fit better in the Discussion, some examples - lines: 118-121 and 156-161.
Kind regards
Author Response
Dear colleague, thank you for your recommendations. We agree with them and have included them in the text of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Thank you for following the my advises connected to the manuscript. Nevertheless, I have two more recomendations:
1) check carefuly the figures' numbering, becouse at the revised version there are two figers nubered: "Figure 3"; and check all the places where you are citing the figures - I noticed in the text: "Based on four climate change scenarios RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5, RCP 6.0, and RCP 8.5, maps 203 of potential distribution of C. relictus in Northeast Asia from the present to 2070 have been 204 compiled (Figure 3, 4)". While it is close to mind which figres were cited, it should be corrected.
2) I strongly reccomend you to upload (as supplement data, best would be choosing tsv format) about the species' distribution data which you used for the models - the coordinateed, name of the locality, nearby settlement, county, altitude. The statemnt in the present version of the manuscript: "Data are available upon request to the corresponding author", could not be considered a permanent solution to the problem with the availability of the data. If you daes not want to upload the data as supplement, please find an open public data repository and shere the data there.
Kind regards
Author Response
Dear colleague,
Thank you for your valuable comments on our manuscript. All of them have been fixed:
1) check carefuly the figures' numbering, becouse at the revised version there are two figers nubered: "Figure 3"; and check all the places where you are citing the figures - I noticed in the text: "Based on four climate change scenarios RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5, RCP 6.0, and RCP 8.5, maps 203 of potential distribution of C. relictus in Northeast Asia from the present to 2070 have been 204 compiled (Figure 3, 4)". While it is close to mind which figres were cited, it should be corrected.
Line 191-194 Based on four climate change scenarios RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5, RCP 6.0, and RCP 8.5, maps of potential distribution of C. relictus in Northeast Asia from the present to 2070 have been compiled (Figure 3). The AUC values, indicating the model's reliability level, are high, with values of 0.994 and 0.5, respectively (Figure 4).
2) I strongly reccomend you to upload (as supplement data, best would be choosing tsv format) about the species' distribution data which you used for the models - the coordinateed, name of the locality, nearby settlement, county, altitude. The statemnt in the present version of the manuscript: "Data are available upon request to the corresponding author", could not be considered a permanent solution to the problem with the availability of the data. If you daes not want to upload the data as supplement, please find an open public data repository and shere the data there.
Line 80-81 All localities are listed in the Supplementary File.
Line 333-334 Supplementary Materials: The following is available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/Table S1. Geographic coordinates of known records of Callipogon relictus in its range.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
