Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic is important since the issue is a current issue, and it is important to carry out control measures and follow-up of invasive species.

1. Determination of the distribution of the invasive species A. palmeri over time, and estimation of possible distribution areas in 2060 were determined with the influence of the conditions affecting the distribution (temperature, wind, human impact, biological, soil properties, etc.).  

2. In terms of the content of the subject, I think that A. palmeri will be a good example in the scientific field, which is open to tracking and predicting the distribution of the invasive species.  

3. The research is different in that it determines possible distribution areas thanks to factors in the distribution of the invasive species in a different country.  

4. Different invasive species, A. palmeri, should be studied and estimated areas should be mapped, and this issue should be addressed in quarantine and prevention systems.  

5. The results, objectives and findings are compatible with each other.  

6. References are compatible with the study.  

7. Tables and figures of the study are appropriate

Thank you.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments

Dear Sir or Madam:

First of all, thank you for your advice and Comments to improve the manuscript (agronomy-2626773) entitled: "Reconstructing invasive history and potential distribution prediction of Amaranthus palmeri in China".We have studied the comments carefully and have revised our manuscript according to the comments. And we now give a point-by-point response to your Comments:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is important since the issue is a current issue, and it is important to carry out control measures and follow-up of invasive species.

1. Determination of the distribution of the invasive species A. palmeri over time, and estimation of possible distribution areas in 2060 were determined with the influence of the conditions affecting the distribution (temperature, wind, human impact, biological, soil properties, etc.).

Response 1: Thank you for your encouragement and concern.

2. In terms of the content of the subject, I think that A. palmeri will be a good example in the scientific field, which is open to tracking and predicting the distribution of the invasive species.

Response 2: Thank you for your encouragement and concern.

3. The research is different in that it determines possible distribution areas thanks to factors in the distribution of the invasive species in a different country.

Response 3: Thank you for your encouragement and concern.

4. Different invasive species, A. palmeri, should be studied and estimated areas should be mapped, and this issue should be addressed in quarantine and prevention systems.

Response 4: Thank you for your encouragement and concern.

5. The results, objectives and findings are compatible with each other.

Response 5: Thank you for your encouragement and concern.

6. References are compatible with the study.

Response 6: Thank you for your encouragement and concern.

7. Tables and figures of the study are appropriate

Response 7: Thank you for your encouragement and concern.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Invasive alien plants will be more important problems in near future. This paper report distribution and future status of noxious weed Amaranthus palmeri and worth to be appeared in this agronomy journal. I add some technical comments directly in the manuscript. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments

Dear Sir or Madam:

First of all, thank you for your advice and Comments to improve the manuscript (agronomy-2626773) entitled: "Reconstructing invasive history and potential distribution prediction of Amaranthus palmeri in China".We have studied the comments carefully and have revised our manuscript according to the comments. And we now give a point-by-point response to your Comments:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Invasive alien plants will be more important problems in near future. This paper report distribution and future status of noxious weed Amaranthus palmeri and worth to be appeared in this agronomy journal. I add some technical comments directly in the manuscript.

Response Thank you for your advice and comments to improve the manuscript. We have already corrected them according to your suggestion in revised manuscript. All the editing were highlighted by using red text in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript (agronomy-2626773) tries to reconstruct the invasive history and distribution patterns of A. palmeri from 1985 to 2022 in China, and then the potential geographical distribution of A. palmeri was predicted under current and future climate scenarios (SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, SSP5-8.5) using the optimal MAXENT model and ArcGIS. Under the future scenarios, the high suitable habitats were mainly distributed in Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei. Although the study fits the aim and scope of this journal and the amount of the work is enough, its novelty and contribution to agronomy research needs to be highlighted throughout the manuscript. Another serious concern is that some related latest studies have been neglected. Therefore, a “Major Revision” is required. My detailed suggestions and comments are presented as follows:

- 1. I have mixed feelings about this manuscript. One can see from my comments, that I am not convincing how innovative this is, perhaps the authors need to do a better job in describing it, or perhaps the authors really need to perform all the additional analyses I request below. Otherwise this might be a very uncritical application of MAXENT.

- 2. The scientific question or research gap is missing in the Abstract. The novelty / originality should be clearly justified that the manuscript contains sufficient contributions to the new body of knowledge from the international perspective. Similarly, the introduction section is weak because the authors failed to raise a fundamental scientific question or gap. Therefore, potential readers can hardly identify the need that the authors should have to provide a new solution from an international perspective.

- 3. Some previous studies have also used the species distribution modeling methods to analyze the spatial distribution of the Palmer amaranth. Please see below for examples, what are the differences except for the study areas or study periods?

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-38054-9

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/wre.12520

- 4. The Figure 1. Technology Roadmap can be reorganized into a more hierarchical structure.

- 5. I wonder the number of valid data records (423) were enough for the purpose of this manuscript in this entire big country.

- 6. The Figure 2. Distribution map of Amaranthus palmeri: since this manuscript focused on China, please display the spatial distribution of data records in China more clearly.

- 7. I suggest all the datasets used in this study should be summarized in a new table, including the years, spatial resolution, data sources, and website links.

- 8. I suggest some important data should be displayed in GIS spatial maps in the supplementary materials.

- 9. The authors should also explain why those 53 environmental variables were considered for the analysis in the MAXENT. In addition, what are the years/dates of these datasets? Are they consistent with each other?

- 10. Line 132-136: the authors should provide the VIF values of these variables.

- 11. In Section 2.3. Construction, optimization, and evaluation of models: some detailed information on the MAXENT parameters are not mentioned. For example, the maximum iterations, convergence threshold, repeat times, and prevalence (please refer to the following reference).

Estimating potential illegal land development in conservation areas based on a presence-only model. Journal of Environmental Management, 2022, 321: 115994.

- 12. Please explain why the Maximum Training Sensitivity plus Specificity Logistic Threshold (MTSPS) has been selected since there are many other options.

- 13. The MAXENT model has at least three methods for assessing the importance of the environmental variables, such as Percent contribution, Permutation importance, and Jackknife tests. What about the Jackknife tests?

- 14. The authors also need to improve the Discussion and Conclusion Sections by mentioning the main shortages of your work.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments

Dear Sir or Madam:

First of all, thank you for your advice and Comments to improve the manuscript (agronomy-2626773) entitled: "Reconstructing invasive history and potential distribution prediction of Amaranthus palmeri in China".We have studied the comments carefully and have revised our manuscript according to the comments. And we now give a point-by-point response to your Comments:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript (agronomy-2626773) tries to reconstruct the invasive history and distribution patterns of A. palmeri from 1985 to 2022 in China, and then the potential geographical distribution of A. palmeri was predicted under current and future climate scenarios (SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, SSP5-8.5) using the optimal MAXENT model and ArcGIS. Under the future scenarios, the high suitable habitats were mainly distributed in Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei. Although the study fits the aim and scope of this journal and the amount of the work is enough, its novelty and contribution to agronomy research needs to be highlighted throughout the manuscript. Another serious concern is that some related latest studies have been neglected. Therefore, a “Major Revision” is required. My detailed suggestions and comments are presented as follows:

1. 1. I have mixed feelings about this manuscript. One can see from my comments, that I am not convincing how innovative this is, perhaps the authors need to do a better job in describing it, or perhaps the authors really need to perform all the additional analyses I request below. Otherwise this might be a very uncritical application of MAXENT.

Response 1: Thank you for your concern and time to improve the manuscript. We have presented our innovative in the revised manuscript (See Response 3).

2. 2. The scientific question or research gap is missing in the Abstract. The novelty / originality should be clearly justified that the manuscript contains sufficient contributions to the new body of knowledge from the international perspective. Similarly, the introduction section is weak because the authors failed to raise a fundamental scientific question or gap. Therefore, potential readers can hardly identify the need that the authors should have to provide a new solution from an international perspective.

Response 2: Thank you for your advice and comments to improve the manuscript. We have rewritten the introduction section according to your suggestion, and highlighted the editing by use red text in the revised the manuscript.

3. 3. Some previous studies have also used the species distribution modeling methods to analyze the spatial distribution of the Palmer amaranth. Please see below for examples, what are the differences except for the study areas or study periods?

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-38054-9

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/wre.12520

Response 3: Thank you for your advice and comments to improve the manuscript. Moreover, We appreciate your attention to previous studies (Kistner and Hatield., 2018 Arg Env Lett, 3: 170044; Briscoe et al., 2019 Sci. Rep., 9: 2426). We have referred them in the revised manuscript. Now, we present our novelty to you. And we also highlighted the editing in revised manuscript (see introduction section). Several important distinctions are as follow:

• Methodological Differences: Our study incorporates methodological refinements and improvements, such as feature combinations (FCs) and regularization multipliers (RMs) were adjust using ENMeval to select the best performance model. These methodological advancements of our study decreased the challenge of balancing goodness-of-fit with model complexity because of their over-reliance on default settings.
• Environmental Variables Difference: The accuracy of the suitable habitat prediction depends on the selection of factors (Rathore et al. 2023 Biodivers. Conserv, 10: 1-35). Previous study only examined the effects of climate and land cover on palmeri. They (Kistner and Hatield., 2018 Arg Env Lett, 3: 170044; Zhang et al., 2022 Ecol. Evol, 12: e9505) suggest that future research should examine the effects of soil properties, human activities such as transportation construction, trade activities. We considered the effects of climate, soil properties, human activities and wind speed in our study. These multiple abiotic and biotic factors contribute to enhance the reliability and robustness of our models.
• Model’s Performance Difference: In our study, the model achieved a higher mean accuracy (AUC=0.967, TSS=0.897) than previous study. It also can predict over longer times scales.
• Climate mode Difference: In our study, we choose the CMIP6 (BCC-CSM2-MR) model as the climate model to predict the future potential habitat of palmeri. The CMIP6 climate projections will differ from previous climate mode not only because they are produced with updated versions of climate models, but also because they are driven with SSP-based scenarios produced with updated versions of IAMs and based on updated data on recent emissions trends (O'Neill et al., 2016 Geosci Model Dev, 9: 3461-3482; Wu et al., 2019 Geosci Model Dev, 12: 1573-1600). Furthermore, the multi-model approach will allow for a better characterization of uncertainty in climate outcomes than would otherwise be possible (O'Neill et al., 2016 Geosci Model Dev, 9: 3461-3482).

4. 4. The Figure 1. Technology Roadmap can be reorganized into a more hierarchical structure.

Response 4: Thank you for your advice and comments to improve the manuscript.we have redrawn the Figure 1 according to your suggestion in the revised manuscript.

5. 5. I wonder the number of valid data records (423) were enough for the purpose of this manuscript in this entire big country.

Response 5: Thank you for your advice and comments to improve the manuscript. Previous experiments in this area suggested that MaxEnt model has much less sensitive to sample size and no limit to the minimal sample size, producing useful results with sample sizes as small as 5 occurrences (Hernandez et al., 2006 Ecography, 29: 773-785; Bouasria et al., 2023 Ecol Inform, 102294). Given that occurrence data are sparse for most species, small datasets (generally considered<100 occurrence points) are increasingly being used in suitability modeling. (Bean et al. 2012 Ecography, 35: 250-258.) Therefore, we maintain that valid data records (423) were enough for the purpose of this manuscript.

6. 6. The Figure 2. Distribution map of Amaranthus palmeri: since this manuscript focused on China, please display the spatial distribution of data records in China more clearly.

Response 6: Thank you for your advice and comments to improve the manuscript. It's a good suggestion to display the spatial distribution of data records in China more clearly. We have redrawn the Figure 2 according to your suggestion and added an enlarged partial view of distribution data records in China and highlighted by using red text.

7. 7. I suggest all the datasets used in this study should be summarized in a new table, including the years, spatial resolution, data sources, and website links.

Response 7: Thank you for your advice and comments to improve the manuscript. We have summarized all the datasets according to your suggestion in the revised manuscript (see Supplementary Table S1).

8. 8. I suggest some important data should be displayed in GIS spatial maps in the supplementary materials.

Response 8: Thank you for your advice and comments to improve the manuscript. All the import data displayed in GIS spatial maps in the text instead of supplementary materials.in our study.

9. 9. The authors should also explain why those 53 environmental variables were considered for the analysis in the MAXENT. In addition, what are the years/dates of these datasets? Are they consistent with each other?

Response 9: Thank you for your advice and comments to improve the manuscript. We choose 53 environmental variables because the climate, soil condition and human activities play an important role in the distribution of invasive plants (Adhikari et al., 2021 Biology, 10: 1169). Furthermore, A. palmeri seeds and fragments are commonly dispersed via wind (Norsworthy et al., 2008 Weed Technol, 28: 108-113). In addition, we choose 19 bioclimatic variables, elevation data, soil data, the Global Human Influence Index and wind speed according to Yang et al., 2023 Front. Plant Sci, 14: 1113567; Dakhil et al., 2021 Biology, 10: 203; Bradie and Leung, 2016 J. Biogeogr, 44: 344-1361.We have added this part according to your suggestion. All these datasets can be found in Supplementary Table S1. Although the years/dates of 53 environmental variables are not consistent with each other, the resolution is consistent with each other. Previous studies also showed that the discordant years/dates of environmental variable can be used in model building. (Wang et al., 2020 Glob. Ecol. Conserv, 23: e01142; Duque et al., 2018 For. Ecol. Manag, 417: 122-136.).

10. 10. Line 132-136: the authors should provide the VIF values of these variables.

Response 10: Thank you for your advice and comments to improve the manuscript. We used another effective method (Pearson correlation) to evaluate multicollinearity in our manuscript. Some similarity methods described by(Kumar et al., 2014 Comput Electron Agric, 103: 55-62; Zhang et al., 2023 Sci. Total Environ, 842: 156867.) . We referred to it and highlighted by using red text. Furthermore, we have added the Pearson correlation Coefficient values between 53 variables (see Supplementary Table S3). In addition, we have carried out the experiment according to your suggestion, the VIF of 25 variables (VIF<10) also proved our optimize model has no multicollinearity. But this part of the results will not be shown in our manuscripts.

11. 11. In Section 2.3. Construction, optimization, and evaluation of models: some detailed information on the MAXENT parameters are not mentioned. For example, the maximum iterations, convergence threshold, repeat times, and prevalence (please refer to the following reference). Estimating potential illegal land development in conservation areas based on a presence-only model. Journal of Environmental Management, 2022, 321: 115994.

Response 11: Thank you for your advice and comments to improve the manuscript. we have added more detailed information according to your suggestion and highlighted by using red text in the section 2.3. And we have added the similarity methods described by Lin in the revised manuscript. (Lin et al., 2022 J. Environ. Manage, 321: 115994).

12. 12. Please explain why the Maximum Training Sensitivity plus Specificity Logistic Threshold (MTSPS) has been selected since there are many other options.

Response 12:Thank you for your advice and comments to improve the manuscript. Previous study showed that MTSPS produced higher sensitivity in most cases and higher true skill statistic and kappa in many cases than the other methods (training data prevalence (trainPrev), Max Kappa, meanPred et al.) (Liu et al., 2013 J. Biogeogr, 40: 778-789). Moreover, recent studies suggested that the MTSPS was considered simple and effective to separate the final model's suitable and unsuitable areas (Aidoo et al., 2023 Sci. Total Environ, 864: 160962; Zahoor et al., 2022 Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res, 29: 54330-54347; Lin et al., 2022 J. Environ. Manage, 321: 115994). We have already explained why chose the MTSPS in the submitted manuscript. In addition, we added several references to support our view and highlighted by using red text in the section 2.3.

13. 13. The MAXENT model has at least three methods for assessing the importance of the environmental variables, such as Percent contribution, Permutation importance, and Jackknife tests. What about the Jackknife tests?

Response 13: Thank you for your advice and comments to improve the manuscript. We used jackknife, percent contribution and permutation to measure the importance of each variables in the model in our submitted manuscript. However,.The jackknife method is a popular resampling method that provides estimates of the bias and a standard error of an estimate by recomputing the estimate from sub-samples of the available sample (Miller et al., 1974 Biometrika, 64: 1-15). Some similarity methods in previous studies (Xu et al., 2023 Ecol. Process, 12: 1-14; Kumar et al., 2014 Comput Electron Agric, 103: 55-62) are referred in the revised manuscript. The result of Jackknife can be found in Supplementary Figure S2.

14. 14. The authors also need to improve the Discussion and Conclusion Sections by mentioning the main shortages of your work.

Response 14: Thank you for your advice and comments to improve the manuscript. we have mentioned the shortages of our work in revised manuscript and highlighted by using red text in discussion and conclusion parts.

15. Moderate editing of English language required

Response 15: Thank you for your advice and comments to improve the manuscript. we have gone through the revised manuscript, checked the grammar, punctuation, spelling, and overall style carefully in the revised manuscript, The editing was highlighted by using red text in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript entitled "Reconstructing Invasive History and Potential distribution prediction of Amaranthus palmeri in China” used a distribution modeling approach (i.e., Maxent) together with relevant environmental variables to predict the current and future distribution patterns of Bubalus mindorensis. Although similar methodologies are common, the results of the study could have useful implications for management actions. The manuscript requires some changes before it’s ready for publication:

Comments and suggestions:

Abstract:

Introduction

- Line 47: “Palmer amaranth” please use abbreviated binomial scientific names as you have already mentioned it in the earlier paragraph.

- Introduction lacks proper review of available studies of this species at the country or regional level, if available.

2. Materials and Methods

(1)  Occurrence records

Line 92: “Amaranthus palmeri” please use “A. palmeri” instead. Please check the entire manuscript for similar cases.

Line 93: Provide the full link for the GBIF please.

     (2) Environmental variables

- Line 121: “CC-CSM2-MR” should be cited appropriately, please.

- Line 166: "AUC" Sometimes AUC alone is not sufficient to evaluate the model's performance. Why was TSS not considered alongside the AUC?

- Line 151-169: In this section, it's important to clarify what threshold was used to delineate the suitability and unsuitability areas. Was the same threshold used for the current and future climate models ?

- In addition, in model building section, it's not clear how many background points were used against the presence records while creating the models.

 Results

- Table 3 Table 4, and Table 5, the units of the areas should be written please.

Discussion

The discussion should highlight the benefits and limitations of the applied modeling techniques particularly when it comes to their implications for establishing an early warning system for controlling the spread of invasive species.

Conclusions

Please revisit the conclusions, instead of repeating the results, mentions the benefits and limitations of the applied technique in controlling invasive species.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments

Dear Sir or Madam:

First of all, thank you for your advice and Comments to improve the manuscript (agronomy-2626773) entitled: "Reconstructing invasive history and potential distribution prediction of Amaranthus palmeri in China".We have studied the comments carefully and have revised our manuscript according to the comments. And we now give a point-by-point response to your Comments:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled "Reconstructing Invasive History and Potential distribution prediction of Amaranthus palmeri in China” used a distribution modeling approach (i.e., Maxent) together with relevant environmental variables to predict the current and future distribution patterns of Bubalus mindorensis. Although similar methodologies are common, the results of the study could have useful implications for management actions. The manuscript requires some changes before it’s ready for publication:

Comments and suggestions:

Introduction

- Line 47: “Palmer amaranth” please use abbreviated binomial scientific names as you have already mentioned it in the earlier paragraph.

Response 1: Thank you for your advice and comments to improve the manuscript. We have gone through the revised manuscript, checked and corrected “Palmer amaranth”, and replaced it with “A. palmeri” in the revised manuscript. In addition, all the editing were highlighted by using red text in the revised manuscript.

- Introduction lacks proper review of available studies of this species at the country or regional level, if available.

Response 2: Thank you for your advice and comments to improve the manuscript. We have rewritten this section and highlighted the edition by using red text in the introduction section of the revised manuscript.

2. Materials and Methods

(1) Occurrence records

Line 92: “Amaranthus palmeri” please use “A. palmeri” instead. Please check the entire manuscript for similar cases.

Response 3: Thank you for your advice and comments to improve the manuscript. We have gone through the revised manuscript, checked the latin name of “Amaranthus palmeri”, and replaced it with “A. palmeri” in the revised manuscript. All the editing was highlighted by using red text.

Line 93: Provide the full link for the GBIF please.

Response 4: Thank you for your advice and comments to improve the manuscript. We have corrected “https://www.gbif.org/”, and replaced it with “https://www.gbif.org/, accessed April 2023” in revised manuscript and highlighted by using red text in “Occurrence records” section.

 (2) Environmental variables

Line 121: “CC-CSM2-MR” should be cited appropriately, please.

Response 5: Thank you for your advice and comments to improve the manuscript. We have added related references (Eyring et al., 2016 Geosci Model Dev, 9: 1937-1958) in the revised manuscript and highlighted by using red text in “Environmental variables” section.

Line 166: "AUC" Sometimes AUC alone is not sufficient to evaluate the model's performance. Why was TSS not considered alongside the AUC?

Response 6: Thank you for your advice and comments to improve the manuscript. We did not consider TSS due to previous studies only used AUC to evaluate the model's performance（Li et al. 2023 Entomol. Gen, 315-323; Yang et al., 2023 Frontiers in Plant Science, 14: 1113567). But we think it’s a good suggestion to consider TSS to evaluate the model’s performance. We have added the judgement criteria of TSS in “Section 2.3” and added the TSS value(0.897) in “Section 3.1 Model performance” according to your suggestion. all the editing were highlighted by using red text in the revised manuscript.

Line 151-169: In this section, it's important to clarify what threshold was used to delineate the suitability and unsuitability areas. Was the same threshold used for the current and future climate models ?

Response 7: Thank you for your advice and comments to improve the manuscript. In fact, in our manuscript, we have already chosen the maximum training sensitivity plus specificity (MTSPS) as the threshold in section “2.4 Visualization of distribution trends”. But we think it’s a good suggestion to clarify what threshold was used in section “2.3. Construction, optimization, and evaluation of models”. Therefore, we have rewritten this section according to your suggestion and highlighted them by using red text in “Section 2.3”. In addition, it was the same threshold used for the current and future climate models.

In addition, in model building section, it's not clear how many background points were used against the presence records while creating the models.

Response 8: Thank you for your advice and comments to improve the manuscript. The number of background points is 10000. And we have added more detailed information and more reference in model building section, all the editing were highlighted by using red text in the revised manuscript.

 Results

Table 3 Table 4, and Table 5, the units of the areas should be written please.

Response 9: Thank you for your advice and comments to improve the manuscript. We feel sorry for our careless mistakes. We have already added the units of the areas in Table3, Table 4, Table 5 according to your suggestion in the revised manuscript and highlighted by using red text.

Discussion

The discussion should highlight the benefits and limitations of the applied modeling techniques particularly when it comes to their implications for establishing an early warning system for controlling the spread of invasive species.

Response 10: Thank you for your advice and comments to improve the manuscript. we have explain the benefits and limitation of our work according to your suggestion in the revised manuscript, and highlighted by using red text in discussion and conclusion sections.

Conclusions

Please revisit the conclusions, instead of repeating the results, mentions the benefits and limitations of the applied technique in controlling invasive species.

Response 11: Thank you for your advice and comments to improve the manuscript. we have rewritten the conclusion according to your suggestion in our revised manuscript and highlighted by using red text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for incorporating my previous comments and suggestions. This manuscript can be accepted in present form.

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript is sufficiently improved.