The Potential Distribution Prediction of the Forestry Pest Cyrtotrachelus buqueti (Guer) Based on the MaxEnt Model across China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study presents an interesting approach for predicting the potential suitable habitat for C. buqueti in China, considering future changes under climate change scenarios. The subject seems fitting for this journal. However, since the focus of the special issue is biological control, it would be beneficial to include more details on how the results relate to biological control perspectives.

 

Additionally, assuming high host specificity of this pest, it would be insightful to link the distribution of bamboo with the habitats, potentially assessing the risk in areas where bamboo is prevalent. Alternatively, a careful review of whether the pest distribution overlaps with that of the host plants is crucial. Ensemble approaches are common in species distribution models. Even if a single model algorithm was used, research on hyperparameters for model optimization is necessary. Furthermore, an interpretation of the ecological significance of key variables is required, along with a thorough review of known biological responses to environmental variables. Models without adequate ecological interpretation may react unstably to future environmental variations. In my opinion, a comprehensive introduction to the concept of species distribution models is needed, along with a thorough review of the optimization and interpretation of results from the MaxEnt model.

 

Please provide detailed information about the damage caused by this pest, such as symptoms on affected bamboos. This would be valuable to readers who are not familiar with this insect.

The biological information of C. buqueti is well described and very interesting. However, I am concerned about the relatively limited information on species distribution modeling (SDM). I recommend that the authors balance the biological information about the target insect with methodological background on their analysis.

I suggest the following structure for the introduction: the importance of bamboo, C. buqueti as a major pest, the impact of C. buqueti on bamboo and the need for its management, species distribution models, and the research objectives.

The description of the MaxEnt model seems biased. The authors should focus more on the purpose and application of SDMs in general, not just the MaxEnt algorithm. Recent research favors integrating multiple algorithms into ensemble models, not just relying on a single algorithm. While MaxEnt's usefulness is well-documented due to available free software, there is insufficient evidence to suggest it is superior. Please provide evidence to the contrary if available.

Line 37: The term "ecological barriers" is unclear in this context. Please clarify.

Line 87: What exactly is clum** bamboo? How does it differ from typical bamboo?

Line 111: I disagree with this statement. Based on my experience, I think MaxEnt is also significantly affected by sample size in terms of model performance. Please include supporting articles with comprehensive analytical evidence.

Lines 113-114: This issue is not unique to MaxEnt. All correlative SDMs use the same data set. It seems the author intended to highlight the user-friendly GUI of MaxEnt software.

 

Line 147: It would be helpful to provide a numerical range for the variables. A summary table of other variables besides Bioclim would be beneficial.

Line 166: A VIF of 100 seems too lenient. Is there a rationale behind this threshold?

Lines 178-179: The authors mention features, but there is no discussion on the optimal combination of features for model optimization. Referencing Namgung et al. 2020, which studied Lycorma delicatula, could be useful.

Lines 193-194: Is there a defined standard for this category?

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 2.3 add (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)

Line 29 add Guérin-Méneville, 1844, you don’t need (C. buqueti), you mention a species for the first time, it is assumed that the next mention will be shortened

Line 38 especially to the genus Bambusa….

Line 40, 41 add full species name with the authors Phyllostachys edulis (Carrière) J.Houz., 1906….

Line 51, Repeats belongs to Coleoptera...you emphasize that in line 29

Line 56 citation 16 elytra of diabolical ironclad beetle has nothing to do with C. buqueti

Line 52-64- too long and out of the topic needs to be shorter

comprehensive, the introduction needs to be shorter and more specific, and the part about bamboo is also too long. what should be added in the introduction is more information on the ecology of Cyrtotrachelus buqueti and optimal development

 

line 146-147 21 variables or 22? you are saying 3 terrain factors and 19 bioclimatic variables-explain

Line 250 two dots in the end

References

 

Check and correct the Latin name Cyrtotrachelus buqueti in italics throughout the reference

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper provides with a basic approach to study the distribution of the Giant Bamboo Weevil in China, that is, it uses maxEnt, and a single set of future climate layers to estimate current and future distribution. While the results are interesting, some changes need to be addresses to publish the paper. First, it is suggested tht the authors use past tense when writing M&M, results, given the research has been done already. The materials and methods need to include some steps in the process of model selection and are highlighted in the manuscript.

Because the authors use a single model for future estimate, they should discuss the limitation of the work in relation to this shortcoming because it is recommended to more than one climate projection model to obtain an estimate of the variability (Sanderson, et al. 2015. J. Clim. 28 (13), 5171–5194. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00362.1 ). Also, the discussion needs to focus on contrasting the results with published literature, as presented, is very short and speculates on control measures, which the paper did not explore.

 

Introduction

Correct taxonomic status of the species, both the weevil and the bamboo host. Does not need to describe the order Coleoptera, is too general.

 

Materials and Methods

Describe how coverage was estimated. 

 

Results

Describe how your analysis yield the selected variables. Show the centroids in the maps.

Figures

Need to include more information. see manuscript.

Discussion

Compare results with previous research, include limitations of the research, given that a single model was used for future projections.

Additional comments are presented in the manuscript.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Change to past tense in M&M, results. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The manuscript has been significantly improved thanks to the efforts of the authors. I appreciate your consideration of my comments. Most of my queries have been adequately addressed in their response.

There are only two more points to consider:

 As far as I know, a VIF exceeding 100 typically indicates correlation among variables. A VIF of 100 suggests that the remaining variables can explain 99% of the variance ((1/1-ri)=100)). Wasn't this analysis done to avoid multicollinearity? If I am mistaken, please provide the appropriate references in the text. From my experience, the MaxEnt model is quite not sensitive to multicollinearity. Removing correlated variables might be sufficient.

The authors have explicitly stated the optimal parameter combination, but it would be beneficial to provide this information as supplementary material if possible. Additionally, the inclusion of appropriate standards (e.g., difference in AUC between model training and testing, AICc, etc.) along with relevant references is necessary.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Though the paper corrected some errors, important ones still persist. For example, correction of the taxonomic status of the pest still is wrong (family name Cyrtotrachelus is wrong) [Line 31].

The redaction is still deficient mixing plural and singular: models (MaxEnt) [Line 113]

present tense is still used in M&M [Line 197 and others]

Inset map in Figures 4, 5 still not described.

subheader 3.4 has redaction errors

Discussion still speculating on control measures not related to the research [lines 371-385]

Limitations of using a single Global Circulation Model is considered implicitly in line [Line 352] but is not know if its refers to using only MaxEnt or a single GCM. Other papers which include several GCM show that there is variability in the predictions (e.g. Rodriguez-Aguilar et al. 2024. Trop. & SubTrop. Agroecosyst., 27 Art. No. 033).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

D not mix past and present tense in M&M, Results. Manuscript still need revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf