Mapping Impacts of Climate Change on the Distributions of Two Endemic Tree Species under Socioeconomic Pathway Scenarios (SSP)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
Manuscript ID: 2243035
Title: Mapping impacts of climate change on the distributions of two endemic tree species under socioeconomic path way scenarios (SSP)
Authors: Barham A. HamadAmin, Nabaz R, Khwarahm
The manuscript provides a significant contribution to our knowledge about the behaviour of Pistacia Genus in the mountainous regions in Iraq. The main aim was to modeling the current distribution and predicting suitable habitats of two endemic and threatened Pistacia species.
The aims, sampling procedure, methods of data analysis are clearly stated and introduced. The statistical analyses are appropriate. The results and facts are presented clearly and sufficiently fully and are separated from interpretations. The authors know well the literature of the subject, and fairly discuss the correspondence of results.
Further remarks:
I recommend entering new keywords, because the current ones (species distribution) can all be found in the title. Maxent is good keyword, but the model is missing. This way the new, changed keyword will help others find the article.
Minor mistakes:
In the affilation the name of autors are unnecessary.
In the section Abstarct in line 16: „Pistacia species respond” instead of „Pistacia respond”
In the section Introduction in line 41: „Sapindales order and Anacardiaceae family” instead of
„sapindales and Anacardiaceae family”
In the section Introduction in line 85: It is not clear what he means by the abbreviation H. pylori.
In the section Introduction in line 91: „previous” instead of „pervious”
In the section Model building in line 261: Fig. 3. Pistacia sp. instead of pistacia sp.
In the section Discussion in line 498: „Kozhoridze et al. (2015)” The citation should be numbered according to the order.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Useful piece of research that will help guide management and conservation of an important resource ( Pistacia) in the study area of northeastern Iraq.
Methods are appropriate and well implemented.
Based on recent publications of the last two years, it is recommended that the authors use more than one species distribution modelling (SDM) algorithm/approach (Norberg et al. 2019). Although Maxent is a well accepted SDM method, the use of an additional method, such as a machine learning algorithm (e.g. random forest which can be easily implemented with many available R packages and existing scripts), to confirm Maxent results, is best. (see comments around lines 21 and 247-8 in the manuscript)
In addition, the use of a single validation technique has been shown to be vulnerable to inflated results (Kopsco et al. 2022, Lobo et al. 2008) and the use of at least a second method from a different approach is recommended. Konowalik and Nosol 2021 recommend using Mean Absolute Error “MAE” (see comments around lines 267-8 in the manuscript).
A check of general language can be done, including editorial items, such as no spaces between words or Fig 8: missing a closing bracket. Some edits have been suggested in text. Ensure Pistacia is italicised throughout – currently it is done variably. Check formatting of references – there are some *’s in amongst the author names.
Figures with multiple panels need to be more clearly labelled to show which panel represents which time frame or model or SSP. E.g. Fig 8: label the maps a-d and say which ones represent which model and which climate scenario, e.g. I think a and c would be current, and b and d would be future.
Tables (e.g. Tables 2a). Consider highlighting largest changes or 'no changes' in bold text to guide the reader to specific cases. There are a lot of tables. Consider if a summary or just one or two tables can be presented in the manuscript and the rest in an appendix/online supplementary material.
Text in some of the figures is very small – consider if it is possible to make the smallest font size a little larger.
Line 181: Need to also cite the IPCC where these SSPs are defined, rather than a publication that uses these SSPs. See: IPCC (2021). Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pirani A, Connors SL, Péan C, Berger S, Caud N, Chen Y, Goldfarb L, Gomis MI, Huang M, Leitzell K, Lonnoy E, Matthews JB, Maycock TK, Waterfield T, Yelekçi O, Yu R, Zhou B (eds.). Summary for Policymakers (PDF). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. Archived from the original on Aug 19, 2021.
Line 415 and 523: rather list variables from the largest effect to the smallest, so list precipitation in the wettest month first. This really must be addressed as it lays the path for the reader following the argument of what is driving the species distribution currently and in the future.
Line 538: say what Bio13 is. Don't expect the reader to keep refering back to the definition of these variables. There is much more value in your text when a meaningful name is used instead of a variable code, and your text is interesting - just make it easier on the reader to follow. This comment applies throughout the manuscript.
Lines 546-548: This is somewhat confusing as higher elevations are alwyas cooler than lower elevations. So although the species may be tolerant to temperature and aridity, moving into the mountains can be interpreted as shifting into niches that are maintaining slightly lower temperatures than the current locations will be in future climates.
Lines 560-562: It sounds like the projected climate shift stays within the soils type that Pistacia thrives on. If I'm understanding this, just add words to clarify or emphasise this point.
Lines 601-3: This needs to be rephrased .. "drawn to" is not correct, perhaps "encouraged"
Lines 605-609: Good, sensible real world recommendations from this scientific research.
Lines 610-4. Very true. Buchanan et al. 2008 and others argue that these access limitations point to the need for using remote sensing and species spectral reflectance to extend knowledge from areas were field work is possible into areas where field work is not. Consider remote sensing classifications of sentinel 2A satellite imagery as a next step in a subsquent project.
Literature cited:
IPCC (2021). Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pirani A, Connors SL, Péan C, Berger S, Caud N, Chen Y, Goldfarb L, Gomis MI, Huang M, Leitzell K, Lonnoy E, Matthews JB, Maycock TK, Waterfield T, Yelekçi O, Yu R, Zhou B (eds.). Summary for Policymakers (PDF). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. Archived from the original on Aug 19, 2021.
Konowalik, K., Nosol, A. Evaluation metrics and validation of presence-only species distribution models based on distributional maps with varying coverage. Sci Rep 11, 1482 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-80062-1
Kopsco, H.L., Smith, R.L. & Halsey, S.J. 2022. A Scoping Review of Species Distribution Modeling Methods for Tick Vectors. Front. Ecol. Evol., Volume 10 - 2022 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.893016
Norberg A., N. Abrego, F. G. Blanchet, F. R. Adler, B. J. Anderson, J. Anttila, M. B. Araujo, T. Dallas, D. Dunson, J. Elith, S. D. Foster, R. Fox, J. Franklin, W. Godsoe, A. Guisan, B. O’Hara, N. A. Hill, R. D. Holt, F. K. C. Hui, M. Husby, J. A. K
al
as, A. Lehikoi[1]nen, M. Luoto, H. K. Mod, G. Newell, I. Renner, T. Roslin, J. Soininen, W. Thuiller, J. Vanhat[1]alo, D. Warton, M. White, N. E. Zimmermann, D. Gravel, and O. Ovaskainen. 2019. A comprehensive evaluation of predictive performance of 33 species distribution models at species and community levels. Ecological Monographs 89(3):e01370. 10.1002/ecm.1370
Qazi, A.W., Saqib, Z. & Zaman-ul-Haq, M. Trends in species distribution modelling in context of rare and endemic plants: a systematic review. Ecol Process 11, 40 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-022-00384-y.
Author Response
Please see attached our response to Reviewer 1.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript (MS) is, on the one hand, clearly a result of large effort done. The results presented may be of interest for nature conservation and management purposes in a problematic geographical area. On the other, some methodological and numerous minor shortcomings require attention before the MS may be recommended for publishing.
General comments:
1. The authors clearly manage to use a powerful software to translate the predicted climate change into habitat change for Pistacia sp. But, by doing only this, they delegate the real results to the models circulating around. But what if the models are wrong? Who will remember in 2080-2100 what people modelled in 2020s? Projecting our prognoses to these far reaches-isn't it a self-deception? It would be nice if the authors said about the probability of all the prognoses.
2. In presence-absence approach, there is a questionable point.
Suppose, we have recorded a presence of trees on a habitat. Should be state that this habitat is suitable for the trees? Maybe, the trees are dying but we just cannot see it from remote sensing data?
Suppose, we don't see trees in a habitat. Does it mean that the habitat is unsuitable? Maybe, the trees did not just have the chance to occupy it?
So, it would be pertinent to discuss these important methodological issues in Discussion section instead of retelling the results (e.g., l. 471-496). How these issues would influence the predictions?
3. What is the scientific sense in calculating centroids-besides a demonstration that the authors can do it with the help of the software?
Minor comments:
l. 11 -> It's a standard to provide authors' names for the Latin at the first appearance in the text.
l. 11-12 -> inhabiting?
l. 27, 294 -> Unnecessary brackets.
l. 41: -> order Sapindales?
l. 46: -> G. M.
l. 100 -> management
l. 136: inaccessible vary -> something lacks here.
l. 192: (iii), and (iv) the -> something is omitted here.
l. 197 -> citation format.
Table 1. -> It is not explained why Bio5 is absent in P. eurycarpa and Bio1 is absent in P. khinjuk.
l. 264 -> It's pertinent to explain briefly what AUC means.
l. 276 -> occupancy?
l. 285-287 -> Incomplete sentence.
l. 295: stronger power of discriminatory -> a strange use of adjective.
Fig. 4 - Fig. 7 -> For the readers' eye, such kind of pictures are difficult to analyse and they only make the MS heavy for reading. It's possible to leave only one figure in the MS, as a demonstration, and place others in a supplementary material.
Table 2a - Table 3b -> The tables require a good condensing, they occupy to much page space.
l. 412-435 -> On the same page, one time 'Soil carbon, Soil type', another 'soil carbon, soil type'.
l. 423: precipitation of annual -> a strange use of adjective.
l. 512-513: has the biggest impact on the two species distribution not the present and future circumstances -> a probable grammar problem.
l. 519-521, 566, 567, 606 -> a strange use of adjectives.
l. 528-530 -> Incomplete sentence.
l. 541: (especially in the KRI mountainous regions of the). -> grammar problem.
l. 550: Resemble -> Similar?
l. 569-570: Whereas the Xerosols have a temperate topsoil organic matter content and an aridic (but not cold) climate [76]. -> Xerosols have climate?
l. 627: soil type during the wettest month -> needs correction.
Author Response
Please see attached our response to Reviewer 2
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I believe, the MS has been sufficiently improved. There are some minor problems with punctuation but they can be fixed during technical/English editting.
Author Response
Once again thank you very much for your positive feedback.
We have proofread the manuscript once again.
Best regards,
The authors
