Predicting the Impact of Climate Change on the Distribution of Rhipicephalus sanguineus in the Americas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this study, the authors evaluated the potential effects of climate change on the distribution of Rhipicephalus sanguineus in America (years 2050 and 2070) using the general circulation model BCC-CSM1-1 and two climate change scenarios (RCP 4.5 and 8.5). Overall, the topic is interesting and the manuscript is well written scientifically. However, there are some major points which must need to be addressed by authors before possible publication.

- The abstract is too simple. It must be expanded by adding some detailed results and some striking concluding sentences.

- I strongly suggest authors to revise the introduction section completely. They need to start the Intro section with Climate Change topic which is the mainstream topic (just like authors did in abstract). Besides, there are several models used for potential distribution, why authors select this model? What are the significance of this model over the other models? All these important points should be addressed.

- The most important and major drawback in this paper is the figures quality. I wonder how someone can submit these kind of figures to a scientific journal. I strongly suggest authors to reconstruct all figures more scientifically. Authors need to search and check related literature to get idea how to create these kind of figures correctly. Ideally, authors need to remove the background color. I suggest to keep background of all figures white.

- It would be very interesting, if authors combine the CLIMAX model to MaxEnt, and construct the bivarieable figures. Because just like Maxent, the use of CLIMEX model to predict species distribution patterns has become very common across the academic field.

- AUC is a classical approach, but it is not without criticism. There are several other metrics that can be used for the model performance evaluation of the statistics-based SDMs, such as TSS, OR, and AIC. I suggest authors should use multiple measures.

- I strongly suggest authors to use PCA to statistically select model variables to prevent multicollinearity among them. Authors should add PCA table in main text file.

- The conclusion section should be rewritten completely. It should be concise and to the point. Just conclude important findings, don’t repeat results and other details.

- Update literature: Some references are too old, that means their statements are also old. I strongly suggest authors to update all old references by recently published articles in reputable journals. Besides, currently this study have 88 references in total which are too many for a research articles. Keep it minimum as much as possible. Ideally it should be between 30-40.

- The manuscript needs careful proofreading and revision. Grammar mistakes are undermining the significance of this study.

Author Response

Letter to reviewer

 Climate changes strongly impact the distribution of Rhipicephalus sanguineus in America.

Marcos Sánchez Pérez¹, Teresa Patricia Feria Arroyo², Crystian Sadiel Venegas Barrera³, Carolina Sosa-Gutiérrez⁴, Javier Torres¹, Katherine A. Brown⁵ and Guadalupe Gordillo Pérez.

Corresponding Authors: Gordillo-Pérez Guadalupe.

 

The authors have analyzed the comments and suggestions of the reviewers to our document. We agree with all of your observations and have changed our manuscript accordingly. These observations have been a better report.

 

The changes are highlighted in yellow on the included copy of our manuscript.

 We offer our deep thanks to the editor and the reviewers for the relevance of their comments. These interesting observations allowed us to improve our report. 

Reviewer 1

In this study, the authors evaluated the potential effects of climate change on the distribution of Rhipicephalus sanguineus in America (years 2050 and 2070) using the general circulation model BCC-CSM1-1 and two climate change scenarios (RCP 4.5 and 8.5). Overall, the topic is interesting and the manuscript is well-written scientifically. However, there are some major points which must need to be addressed by authors before possible publication.

- The abstract is too simple. It must be expanded by adding some detailed results and some striking concluding sentences.

Reply: The abstract was modified and the results and conclusions section was expanded as suggested.

- I strongly suggest authors revise the introduction section completely. They need to start the Intro section with the Climate Change topic which is the mainstream topic (just like the authors did in the abstract). Besides, there are several models used for potential distribution, why did authors select this model? What is the significance of this model over the other models? All these important points should be addressed.

Reply: The introduction was modified by expanding the information on climate change (paragraph/line).

We used this model because similar results were reported in other articles. Also, we included CIMP 6 version with Can ESM5 with better resolution for the latest version, as suggested by another reviewer.

Thank you for your kind suggestion.

- The most important and major drawback in this paper is the figures quality. I wonder how someone can submit these kind of figures to a scientific journal. I strongly suggest authors to reconstruct all figures more scientifically. Authors need to search and check related literature to get idea how to create these kind of figures correctly. Ideally, authors need to remove the background color. I suggest to keep background of all figures white.

Reply: The figures were modified as suggested.

Thank you for your valuable comment.

- It would be very interesting, if authors combine the CLIMAX model with MaxEnt, and construct the bivariable figures. Because just like Maxent, the use of the CLIMEX model to predict species distribution patterns has become very common across the academic field. 

Reply: Thank you for the kind suggestion. We will consider using CLIMAX for future forecasting

We are aware that other methods exist. MaxEnt has outperformed other methods. Thus, we decide to use it. However, we are considering using CLIMAX and other methods for future forecasting.

Thank you for your kind suggestion.

- AUC is a classical approach, but it is not without criticism. There are several other metrics that can be used for the model performance evaluation of the statistics-based SDMs, such as TSS, OR, and AIC. I suggest authors should use multiple measures.

Reply:  We completely agree with the referee that multiple metrics should be used. To make this clear in the paper we included this sentence in the methods section 2.5 Model Evaluation page 8.

“Since the sole use of the AUC has been criticized, we used another pROC, and delta AIC to assess model performance”.

- I strongly suggest authors use PCA to statistically select model variables to prevent multicollinearity among them. Authors should add a PCA table in a main text file.

Reply:  The PCA was included in section 2.3 climatic predictor variables.

- The conclusion section should be rewritten completely. It should be concise and to the point. Just conclude significant findings, don’t repeat results and other details.

Reply: The conclusions were modified.

- Update literature: Some references are too old, that means their statements are also old. I strongly suggest authors to update all old references by recently published articles in reputable journals. Besides, currently this study has 88 references in total which are too many for a research articles. Keep it minimum as much as possible. Ideally it should be between 30-40.

Reply: Thank you very much for your comment. We removed old literature and updated the references to list only 39, as recommended.

- The manuscript needs careful proofreading and revision. Grammar mistakes are undermining the significance of this study.

Reply: The grammar revision was carried out according to the suggestions.

We appreciate your valuable comments to improve the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors:

I can see that the paper tried to present interesting and useful research, and I like it. By MaxEnt SDMs you predicted the distribution of the tick under current and further climates (Figure 3), analyzed areas with changes (Figure 2) in distribution, and associated the changes with biomes (Figure 4).

However, I believe there is much you can do to improve the structure of the manuscript. In the introduction, I strongly suggest working on explaining the workflow and the concept of each step. Readers would enjoy reading such a manuscript if they were able to draw a clear workflow diagram (what you did) based on L64-88. The details (how you did it) such as specific SDM (BCC-CSM1.1), specific RCP scenarios, CMIP5, etc, can be elaborated in M&M where appropriate. You mentioned those details again and again in different parts, and I don’t think it is a good idea.

The second thing is to improve the M&M. I found that the sub-captions and contents cannot match well. For example, you mentioned data calibration and validation in “2.2 presence records”, and BCC-CSM1.1 based climate prediction in both “2.1 study area” and “2.3 climate predictor variables”.

The third point is to re-number your figures. For example, the consensus maps in Figure 3 certainly comes before binary maps in Figure 2 based on the workflow.

Please find the attached PDF with other comments and corrections. I sincerely hope these can be helpful for your next submission here or to a different journal.

 

Best wishes.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Climate changes strongly impact the distribution of Rhipicephalus sanguineus in America.

Marcos Sánchez Pérez¹, Teresa Patricia Feria Arroyo², Crystian Sadiel Venegas Barrera³, Carolina Sosa-Gutiérrez⁴, Javier Torres¹, Katherine A. Brown⁵ and Guadalupe Gordillo Pérez.

 

Corresponding Authors: Gordillo-Pérez Guadalupe.

The authors have analyzed the comments and suggestions of the reviewer to our document. We agree with all of your observations and have changed our manuscript accordingly. These observations have been a better report.

The changes are highlighted in yellow on the included copy of our manuscript.

Reviewer 2

I can see that the paper tried to present interesting and useful research, and I like it. By MaxEnt SDMs you predicted the distribution of the tick under current and further climates (Figure 3), analyzed areas with changes (Figure 2) in distribution, and associated the changes with biomes (Figure 4).

Reply: We appreciated your positive feedback.

However, I believe there is much you can do to improve the structure of the manuscript. In the introduction, I strongly suggest working on explaining the workflow and the concept of each step. Readers would enjoy reading such a manuscript if they were able to draw a clear workflow diagram (what you did) based on L64-88. The details (how you did it) such as specific SDM (BCC-CSM1.1), specific RCP scenarios, CMIP5, etc, can be elaborated in M&M where appropriate. You mentioned those details again and again in different parts, and I don’t think it is a good idea.

Reply: To improve the understanding of the article's objective, we modified the introduction and developed an algorithm with the methods used, (Figure 1).

Thank you for your kind suggestion.

The second thing is to improve the M&M. I found that the sub-captions and contents cannot match well. For example, you mentioned data calibration and validation in “2.2 presence records”, and BCC-CSM1.1 based climate prediction in both “2.1 study area” and “2.3 climate predictor variables”.

Reply: The number of subtitles was changed according to the sequence of the methods.

Thank you for your kind suggestion.

The third point is to re-number your figures. For example, the consensus maps in Figure 3 certainly comes before binary maps in Figure 2 based on the workflow.

Reply: The figures were numbered according to the correct sequence.

Please find the attached PDF with other comments and corrections. I sincerely hope these can be helpful for your next submission here or to a different journal.

Reply: We appreciate your valuable comments to improve the article.

"Please see the attachment"

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript entitled "Climate change impacts on the distribution of Rhipicephalus sanguineus in America” used MaxEnt distribution modeling approach together with relevant bioclimatic variables to predict current and potential future spatial distribution of Rhipicephalus sanguineus. Although similar methodologies are common, results of the study could have useful implications for establishing early warning system and management. This manuscript is well organized and written. However, the work requires some changes before its ready for publication:

 Comments and suggestions:

Abstract:

- Line 19: “Rh. Sanguineus”should be “R. sanguineus” please change accordingly throughoiut the rest of the manuscript.

Introduction:

- Line 61: “(SDM)” should be “(SDMs)”

- Line 65: “BCC-CSM”Please cite accordingly.

- Introduction lacks proper reviewing of the target species in the context of this study. Please add a new paragraph in which some of the previous studies on the target species should be acknowledged.

2. Materials and Methods

- Line 109: Why Phase 5 (CMIP 5) was used in this study?  According to the “worldclim” website, the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) are now obsolete and they recommend the use of the new version (CMIP6 data; i.e., the Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs) in similar studies.

Discussion

-Line 332-346: -The discussion section here in this paragraph is superficial and requires more work. Particularly when it comes to the in depth explanation of the key factors influencing the distribution of the target species. In other words, how environmental variables influence the spatial distribution of the target species is required. In addition, the discussion section requires drawing parallels with similar studies.

Author Response

Climate changes strongly impact the distribution of Rhipicephalus sanguineus in America.

Marcos Sánchez Pérez¹, Teresa Patricia Feria Arroyo², Crystian Sadiel Venegas Barrera³, Carolina Sosa-Gutiérrez⁴, Javier Torres¹, Katherine A. Brown⁵ and Guadalupe Gordillo Pérez.

Corresponding Authors: Gordillo-Pérez Guadalupe.

The authors have analyzed the comments and suggestions of the reviewers to our document. We agree with all of your observations and have changed our manuscript accordingly. These observations have been a better report.

The changes are highlighted in yellow on the included copy of our manuscript.

 

Reviewer 3

The manuscript entitled "Climate change impacts on the distribution of Rhipicephalus sanguineus in America” used MaxEnt distribution modeling approach together with relevant bioclimatic variables to predict current and potential future spatial distribution of Rhipicephalus sanguineus. Although similar methodologies are common, results of the study could have useful implications for establishing early warning system and management. This manuscript is well organized and written. However, the work requires some changes before its ready for publication:

Reply: We appreciated your positive feedback.

 Comments and suggestions:

Abstract:

- Line 19: “Rh. Sanguineus” should be “R. sanguineus” please change accordingly throughout the rest of the manuscript.

Reply: We change this word in all the manuscript according to the suggestions.

Introduction:

- Line 61: “(SDM)” should be “(SDMs)”

Reply: We change the word.

- Line 65: “BCC-CSM” Please cite accordingly.

Reply: This acronym was change.

- Introduction lacks proper reviewing of the target species in the context of this study. Please add a new paragraph in which some of the previous studies on the target species should be acknowledged.

Reply: Two lineages of R. sanguineus have been described in America, the tropical lineage and R. sanguineus temperate lineage, however the objective of this study was to include all reports of R. sanguineus in America before and after this classification, since there are still other groups who propose another taxonomy as Rhipicephalus linae. We included a paragraph in the discussion.

2. Materials and Methods

- Line 109: Why Phase 5 (CMIP 5) was used in this study?  According to the “worldclim” website, the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) are now obsolete and they recommend the use of the new version (CMIP6 data; i.e., the Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs) in similar studies.

Reply: The CMIP6 version is very recent and is validated for 40 models. We are changed to the most recent CIMP6 version, which is included in methods and new maps (Figures 2 and 3) and table 3.

We appreciate your valuable comments to improve the article. 

Discussion

-Line 332-346: -The discussion section here in this paragraph is superficial and requires more work. Particularly when it comes to the in depth explanation of the key factors influencing the distribution of the target species. In other words, how environmental variables influence the spatial distribution of the target species is required. In addition, the discussion section requires drawing parallels with similar studies.

Reply. The discussion was modified according the each factors.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed all comments with full justification. Therefore, I recommend this manuscript for publication.

Author Response

Predicting the impact of climate change on the distribution of Rhipicephalus sanguineus in the Americas.

Marcos Sánchez Pérez1, Teresa Patricia Feria Arroyo2, Crystian Sadiel Venegas Barrera3, Carolina Sosa-Gutiérrez4, Javier Torres1, Katherine A. Brown5 and Guadalupe Gordillo Pérez1.

 

Corresponding Authors: Gordillo-Pérez Guadalupe.

 

The authors have analyzed the comments and suggestions of the reviewers to our document. We agree with all of your observations and have changed our manuscript accordingly. These observations have been a better report.

 

 

Reviewer 1.  The authors have addressed all comments with full justification. Therefore, I recommended this manuscript for publication.

 

Reply: We offer our deep thanks to the reviewer for the relevance of their comments. These interesting observations allowed us to improve our report.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Just a few corrections and sentence suggestions. They are highlighted in red in the attached file.

Best wishes. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Predicting the impact of climate change on the distribution of Rhipicephalus sanguineus in the Americas.

Marcos Sánchez Pérez1, Teresa Patricia Feria Arroyo2, Crystian Sadiel Venegas Barrera3, Carolina Sosa-Gutiérrez4, Javier Torres1, Katherine A. Brown5 and Guadalupe Gordillo Pérez1.

 

Corresponding Authors: Gordillo-Pérez Guadalupe.

 

The authors have analyzed the comments and suggestions of the reviewers to our document. We agree with all of your observations and have changed our manuscript accordingly. These observations have been a better report.

Reviewer 2.  Just a few corrections and sentence suggestions. They are highlighted in red in the attached file.

Reply: The sentences were changed and the corrections were completed. Additionally,

the grammar revision was carried out according to the suggestions.

We appreciate your valuable comments to improve the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is sufficiently improved.

Best wishes,

Author Response

Predicting the impact of climate change on the distribution of Rhipicephalus sanguineus in the Americas.

Marcos Sánchez Pérez1, Teresa Patricia Feria Arroyo2, Crystian Sadiel Venegas Barrera3, Carolina Sosa-Gutiérrez4, Javier Torres1, Katherine A. Brown5 and Guadalupe Gordillo Pérez1.

 

Corresponding Authors: Gordillo-Pérez Guadalupe.

 

The authors have analyzed the comments and suggestions of the reviewers to our document. We agree with all of your observations and have changed our manuscript accordingly. These observations have been a better report.

 

Reviewer 3. The manuscript is sufficiently improved.

Reply:  We offer our deep thanks to the reviewer for the relevance of their comments. These interesting observations allowed us to improve our report.