Climatic Niche of an Invasive Mantid Species in Europe: Predicted New Areas for Species Expansion

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors has presented their research on Climatic niche of an invasive mantid species in Europe: predicted new areas for species expansion. With due respect, I generally find the paper very difficult to read and comprehend due to poor article structure. This is already evident from the title, which does not properly reflect the contents of the paper. I was not able to understand the research question hypothesis and rationale behind this study. Abstract and introduction represents just a general guidance species distribution. I humbly request the authors to properly organise the abstract and introduction in a way that gives a clear message to the audience such as general background - research gap - approach - findings - conclusion. In this condition, in my humble opinion, it cannot be published.

Can be improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

       Thank you for your recommendations. We integrate most of them during the present form of the manuscript.

 

Best regards,

Reviewer 2 Report

Please show the novelty in the abstract

please show the hypothesis at the end of introduction

update the old reference

Discussion need more citations  

Rewrite the conclusion again

 

the quality of English language (good)

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

       Thank you for your recommendations. We integrate most of them during the present form of the manuscript.

 

Best regards,

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is written well; authors used a number of variables in modeling procedure and predicted novel areas of a predatory species of insect. Its range change may affect the integrated pest management of different sucking insects in new areas. These studies may be helpful for IMP programmes and on the other side ecology and conservation of this species in novel areas. However, I have some suggestions for improvement.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Need revisions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

       Thank you for your recommendations. We integrate most of them during the present form of the manuscript.

Abstract:

1. Line 14 please add introductory line for Hierodula tenuidentata Saussure, 1869 as an invasive species.

- We reorganized the abstract so now it includes also information about this topic.

 

2. Numerical expressions of results like area calculations, AUC value, RM value of used model may be added in this part.

- This part was integrated in the abstract.

 

3. Line 26 you may add expected significance of Range expansion/reduction of studied species in terms of this insect as predatory species.

- This part was integrated in the abstract.

 

4. You must add suggestions based on results in the end of this part.

-  We reorganized the abstract so now it includes also information about this topic

 

5. Please add which variables were for finally selected for modeling the species.

- This part was integrated in the abstract.

 

Introduction:

This part has been written well; however, you may add my below given suggestions for more improvement.

1.line 43 -67 you must summarize these lines then add few examples explaining such models

used for modeling habitat of mantids or closely related species in different countries.

• In our opinion, we consider the paragraph to be well written, with general information regarding alien species and their impact on ecosystems, information that are relevant for insects in general and also for Mantodea, too. Therefore, we do not consider necessary relevant to include here the examples that you suggested. However, such studies are not available in the scientific literature.

 

Material and methods

1. Line 90-94, 100-104, 135-139 need citations of used methodology

• We consider there is no need of citation for the used methodology, since we clearly explained why and how we used the data of Hierodula tenuidentata distribution in our study. Actually, these steps are very important due to many errors which are integrated in the GBIF data.

Results:

1. 150-151 please use past tense.

- We modified the text in concordance with your request.

2. Please add relationship of selected environmental variables used for modeling the species with biology of species. How they affect the habitat of the species.

              -We explained this part in the discussion section

 

2. Area calculations may be added in the results and then in abstract too.

• The distribution area is important, but being a prediction SDM, we do not have a clear species range. Also, it seems that there are areas, far from his native grounds, in Western Europe, where it is not yet present. In this stage, when the species is still in expansion, is too early to speak about distribution area, because it can be changed in the near future.

 

Discussion

This part is also written well but

1. You must add few examples relating your discussions at lines 270-277. Please add examples these parameters previously as determining factors for species range change.

• There are very few studies on Mantis species ecology. We integrate here some examples on our target species and also on Hierodula petallifera, but there is no analysis on ecological niche preference to compare with.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript seems to have improved and the suggestions acquired. For me it could be published. However minor English checks (spelling mistake; scientific names: italics; use of more appropriate academic vocabs) are still required. For instance, please replace unfortunately (Line 92) with regrettably. 

The manuscript seems to have improved and the suggestions acquired. For me it could be published. However minor English checks (spelling mistake; scientific names: italics; use of more appropriate academic vocabs) are still required. For instance, please replace unfortunately (Line 92) with regrettably. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

       Thank you for your recommendations. We integrate them during the present form of the manuscript.

 

Best regards,