Uncertainties in Plant Species Niche Modeling under Climate Change Scenarios

Comments 1: Pay attention to the percentages you mention in the text. It would be good to examine them carefully

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have, accordingly, revised and checked all the percentages included in the text.

Comments 2: Using 2 decimal places in the percentages in table 1 would be a good choice

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and have introduced 2 decimals in all the values in Table 1. You can find the revised table in line 332 of the re-submitted file.

Comments 3: Also, the use of additional diagrams would be quite helpful for the presentation of the results, even though they are quite detailed in the text.

Response 3: Thank you very much for the suggestion, but since it was a general one, we failed to comply with it, since we find that all the important results are in a form of graphic or diagram. Moreover, we wanted to avoid excess of figures and paired repetition of results/figures or diagrams.

Comments 4: Please also pay attention to the comments I have on the pdf

Response 4: Thank you very much for your detailed comments. We responded to them in comments 6 to 19.

Comments 5: The quality of the English language is quite good. A few points in the text need some rephrasing in order to make it clearer to the reader

Response 5: Thank you for your suggestions. We agree and the text was revised to increase readability.

Comments 6: restricted/protected areas

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and clarified the text by stressing that we are referring to small areas. You can find the revised text in line 99 onwards of the re-submitted file.

Comments 7: vulnerability to fire

Response 7: We have used the word fire as a disturbance factor for vegetation development. So, to clarify the word meaning in this context, the text was revised to emphasize this point. You can find the revised text in line 110 of the re-submitted file.

Comments 8: 32

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We have, accordingly, revised the text. You can find the revised text in line 136 of the re-submitted file.

Comments 9: Perhaps at this point it would be a good idea to mention the start of your research as well

Response 9: Thank you for your comment. The search/identification of articles in two databases was conducted only in November 2022. The next steps of screening were conducted between December and January 2023. We have, hence, revised the text. You can find the revised text in lines 190 to 191 and 203 of the re-submitted file. 

Comments 10: In which way?

Response 10: We have modified the text to comply with your query. You can find the revised text in lines 203 to 212 of the re-submitted file.

Comments 11: Check percentages

Response 11: Thank you for pointing this out. We have, thus, revised all the percentages in the text.

Comments 12: Populations of individual of the under investigation species? 

Response 12: Thank you for pointing this out. We have clarified in the text that we are referring to human populations. You can find the revised text in line 273 of the re-submitted file.

Comments 13: Distance from wetlands

Response 13: We have reworded the text to accommodate your comment. You can find the revised text in line 273 of the re-submitted file.

Comments 14: Refrase it. It is not very clear. In some paper you give percentages and in others not. One (2%) but in two articles no percentages is given. Without percentages or everything with percentages. Refrase it.

Response 14: We have modified the text to accommodate your suggestion. You can find the revised text in the last paragraph of session 3.2.3. of the re-submitted file.

Comments 15: It confuse me. I do not understand

Response 15: Thank you for pointing this out. We have rephrased the sentence to make it clear. You can find the revised text in line 291 of the re-submitted file.

Comments 16: vertically for better visual representation

Response 16: We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have modified the figure. You can find the revised figure in line 327 of the re-submitted file.

Comments 17: The rest 12.5% used 3 to 5 intervals?

Response 17: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and the information it was inserted in the text. You can find the revised text in line 335 of the re-submitted file.

Comments 18: Maybe is better to use 2 decimals in order to have correct numbers

Response 18: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and have introduced 2 decimals in all the values in Table 1. You can find the revised table in line 353 of the re-submitted file.

Comments 19: Delete

Response 19: We agree with all the suggested changes, which were included in the text.

Comments 1: Line 177: The search was conducted in November 2022 in two databases: Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus. It is necessary to explain why you chose these two databases. Additionally, describe the impact on the results of selecting only these two databases

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. These DBs may have some results overlap but are considered the two most comprehensive sources of bibliographic resources. We clarified this issue in the ms. and made reference to two articles about this subject (see references bellow). You can find the revised text in lines 190 and 191 of the re-submitted file.

J. Zhu and W. Liu, “A tale of two databases: the use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers,” Scientometrics, vol. 123, no. 1, pp. 321–335, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11192-020-03387-8.

R. Pranckutė, “Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: the titans of bibliographic information in today’s academic world,” Mar. 01, 2021, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI). doi: 10.3390/publications9010012.

1.      Comments 2: Line 184: Since modelling methodologies are constantly changing, a time limit was imposed on the research, considering only scientific papers published from 2018 to 2022. Given the limited time period of just 5 years, there may be some bias or errors in this study. How can you demonstrate that this 5-year period is sufficient?

Response 2: Thank you for your question. Initially, the bibliographic research was carried out considering 10 years: 2012 to 2022. We realized that the cumulated number of articles increased exponentially in this period. Nevertheless, papers between 2012 and 2017, summed, only, 29% of the initial number of papers’ search. Since we were interested in more recent methods, we decided to focus on the 5 most recent years (2018 to 2022), which included increasing variability in the analyzed material. The time availability was also taken into account, since high methods’ variability resulting from the high volume of papers, if a longer period of time was considered, would also make the analysis increasingly scattered, e. g., one or very few number of paper for each analyzed item (modelling, validation and so on), and thus difficult to draw conclusions. We had to make balance between enough variability and soundness of the results.

Comments 3: Line 201: The screening of the databases found 240 documents complying the selection criteria, and afterwards, a representative sample was randomly selected (20%). Why did you choose only 20% of the documents as representative samples? This sampling method is interesting. Why not choose 10% or 30%?

Response 3: Thank you for your question. Review articles present comprehensive overview of relevant literature on specific themes and synthesise the studies related to these themes, with the aim of strengthening the foundation of knowledge and facilitating theory development. The significance of review articles in science is immeasurable, as quoted by Amobonye et al 2024. However, in general, there is no comprehensive instructional framework to guide scientists on how to analyse and synthesise the literature in their niches into publishable review articles. There are different type of reviews, one of them being a systematic review (Amobonye et al 2024). A systematic review makes use of precise and rigorous criteria to identify, evaluate, and subsequently synthesise relevant literature on a particular topic. As a result, systematic reviews are more likely to inspire research ideas by identifying knowledge gaps or inconsistencies, thus helping the researcher to clarify the research hypotheses, questions and flaws, which is the case of our study. However, the amount of data to be analysed in this kind of analysis is quite massive, running to hundreds and tens of thousands in some cases. Therefore, pruning of the obtained information is needed in order to make the review manageable and comprehensible.

The decision to select a random sample of 20% of the 240 eligible papers, was a commitment between ensuring sufficient data for analysis and managing the time and resources required for performing the work. The team considered that 10% was not enough to represent the diversity of the data but while analyzing the data tendencies of the 20% sample, observed clear tendencies, and that new articles being analyzed were not adding new information. Therefore, it was considered that it would not be necessary to make the extra effort of analyzing a larger number of articles, such as 30%.

Amobonye A, Lalung J, Mheta G, Pillai S. Writing a Scientific Review Article: Comprehensive Insights for Beginners. ScientificWorldJournal. 2024, 17:2024:7822269. doi: 10.1155/2024/7822269

Comments 4: Line 275: In Figure 4, the most used method was the AUC of ROC, mentioned in 93.8% of the articles, the TSS was used in 31.3%, the AICc in 10.4%, and the Cohen's kappa coefficient in 4.2%. Could you explain why the AUC of ROC is the most popular metric in these 48 articles?

Response 4: Thank you for your question. This issue is referred to in the last paragraph of the discussion, in line 495 of the re-submitted file.

Comments 5: Line 297: The most popular scenario was the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP8.5) with 70.8% of the documents. It is necessary to explain the most important reason for selecting RCP8.5.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the text in accordance. You can find the revised text in line 463 of the re-submitted file.

Comments 6: Line 437: “Many species may not yet be able to be established in places that will only be suitable in a few decades.” Could you provide some species as examples in these 48 articles? Additionally, is not-so-distant periods enough?

Response 6: Thank you for your suggestions. We agree and Several examples are now mentioned in the text, line 474 of the re-submitted file.

Most data from climatic scenarios are in three different time windows: 2050 (average for 2041–2060), 2070 (average for 2061–2080), and 2090 (average for 2081–2100). For now, there is no data available for more distant periods, so the not-so-distant periods to work with are 2050 and 2070.  Time windows are quite large (20 years in each period) and smaller windows (5 or 10 years) would help to specify models even more, making information more specific for managers, biologists, foresters, and policy makers.