Impact of Climate Change on the Habitat Suitability of Monochamus saltuarius Gebler (Coleoptera; Cerambycidae) and Its Natural Enemies in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn general, it is known that members of the genus Monochamus Dejean, 1821 are important pests, and therefore, I must state that evaluations on this subject will make important contributions both on a national and global basis. As a taxonomist, I think I will contribute to the study by evaluating the article from a taxonomic perspective. From this perspective;
Primarily an Asiatic-European species, Monochamus saltuarius (Gebler, 1830) currently includes 2 subspecies, the nominative subspecies Monochamus saltuarius saltuarius (Gebler, 1830) and the western subspecies Monochamus saltuarius occidentalis Sláma, 2017. The nominative subspecies Monochamus saltuarius saltuarius (Gebler, 1830) is mainly distributed in East Siberia, Far East Russia, Kazakhstan, China, Japan, Mongolia, Korea. Its distribution area probably extends to European Russia in the western part. The western subspecies, Monochamus saltuarius occidentalis Sláma, 2017, is distributed mainly in Europe (from Ukraine to Germany). Therefore, in China, which is the subject of the study, this species is represented by the nominative subspecies Monochamus saltuarius saltuarius (Gebler, 1830).
On the other hand, it is known that the host plants for the nominative subspecies Monochamus saltuarius saltuarius (Gebler, 1830) are members of the Abies, Larix, Picea and Pinus genera belonging to the Pinaceae family. It should be clearly stated on which hosts the study was performed or not (for those present in China).
It would be appropriate to include all this information in the introduction part along with appropriate literature.
In addition, presenting the current distribution of the nominative subspecies Monochamus saltuarius saltuarius (Gebler, 1830) in China, based on the literatures, in the appropriate section within the study is important for understanding the scope of the study and subsequent evaluations.
The final decision is yours.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript describes ecological niche modelling for a forest pest and two auxiliary insects in China in current and future climatic scenarios using Maxent. It also reports overlap between niches of the studied species to recommend use of determined auxiliar in different areas of China. It is generally well written and it seems research has been correctly performed. However, I have a main concern related to a manuscript recently published, which reports also ecological niche modelling of one of the studies species, Dastarcus helophoroides, in China using Maxent:
Zhang, Q.-C., Wang, J.-G., Lei, Y.-H., 2022. Predicting Distribution of the Asian Longhorned Beetle, Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) and Its Natural Enemies in China. Insects 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13080687.
This means on one hand that part of the work of the submitted manuscript has been already published, which reduces novelty of the research. On the other hand, I understand that being the area of study the same (China) and the method used also the same (Maxent) results should be quite similar. However, the published work reports that with climate change, the suitable areas of D. helophoroides migrate northward, while in the submitted manuscript the expansion of D. helophoroides is northward and southward.
Authors cite the work by Zhang et al, indicating that “the main differences between the distribution of D. helophoroides predicted by Zhang et al. and our prediction were the presence of the species in Guang- dong and Fujian provinces. These differences may be explained by a difference in the threshold for the identification of suitable areas.” The intention when carrying out scientific work is to obtain results that are as general as possible. The work submitted finally gives recommendations on which areas to use this organism, based on the results obtained. It is not acceptable for these recommendations to be different depending on the threshold used. This strongly reduces the robustness of these recommendations.
It is also possible that the sampling points are different in the two works and that southern China is poorly represented in the submitted work. However, it is not possible to know if this is the case as no map of the sampling points is provided. Please check that the study area is correct for the purposes of the study. It is recommended that the study area for an analysis be guided by the design of the points of presence collected. It is also possible that the different variables used are responsible of the different results. Zhang et al include not only climatic variables, but also Aspect, Elevation, Slope, LandCover and Vegetation.
Apart from a map of the sampling points, I also miss information on the bioclimatic variables used and especially on those used for the models for the different species. Lines 208-210 states that “Model parameters for M. saltuarius included Bio1, Bio5, Bio7, Bio8, Bio18, and Bio19. Parameters for D. helophoroides were Bio1, Bio2, Bio4, Bio5, Bio16, Bio18, and Bio19. Parameters for S. guani included Bio2, Bio4, Bio8, Bio10, Bio13, Bio15, Bio17, Bio18, and Bio19.” Please, provide the description at least of the variables used for the models. In addition, I also miss information on the relative importance (contribution) of each variable in these models.
Related to the previous, it is possible that the models could be improved reducing the number of variables. Did not you have problems with correlations amongst these variables? Can you provide some parameter showing these were not correlated, for example VIF? Using highly correlated variables can have undesired effects, and in this respect, for Maxent models, using five variables often provides reasonable results (Sillero, N., Barbosa, A., 2021. Common mistakes in ecological niche models. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SCIENCE 35, 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2020.1798968). Simplifying the model can help overfitting, taking into account also that the number of sampling points is not very high.
Other:
Introduction:
Please, provide more complete information on the history of entrance of B. xylophilus in China, and the economic importance of the disease.
L 44 Please, indicate the area in China were this Province is (south, north…..)
L 47-57 Please, provide information on these species: complete taxonomic information, whether are they introduced in China or autochthonous, etc.
L55-57 Please rewrite, it is not clear the sense of this sentence.
L 83 Please provide more information on this index and describe its importance of the context of the work
L88 “natural enemies of pests” or “pest natural enemies”
Materials and methods:
At some points the methodology is confusing, and the citations are not the most appropriate. For example, the maps in Figures 1, 2 and 3 have been prepared using SDMtoobox. However, for the description of this tool a web page is provided and below it is described that this tool (L190-L192) estimates the proportion of suitable area in the national area (N), proportion of total suitable area in the national area (N1), percentage of increased area in the national area (N2), and percentage of reduced area (N3), and a reference is given that is in Chinese [37]. What is the difference between N and N1? Why it is not referred the paper by Brown, which describes the tool that has been used?: Brown, J., 2014. SDMtoolbox: a python-based GIS toolkit for landscape genetic, biogeographic and species distribution model analyses. METHODS IN ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION 5, 694–700. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12200.
L97 As data have been not obtained in field surveys I do not think dates are needed here. If you wish, specify later on the time period you used to access the data bases described.
L98-99 Please provide URLs of thee databases.
L99 Remove “Latin”, it is redundant; scientific names are always latin.
L101-102. Please provide details of this field survey: sampling methods, dates, sampling points, etc.. Shenyang and Fushun are two cities in the Liaoning Province. Did you sample the insects in cities?
L114-118 Please rewrite, I think I do understand what you mean: no more than one sampling point should be per 10x10 km2 area, but it is not clearly written. In addition, I do not see the relevance of the references here; please explain if this methodology was obtained from them.
L 165 I do not quite understand predicting multiple species in the same model. Did not you built different models for the different species?
L 198-199 According to Warren et al (2008) pX,i (or pY,i) denotes the probability assigned by the ENM for species X (or Y) to cell i. Please, explain what do you mean by community i. I f it is explained in the following lines (L199-202), please, rewrite, it is difficult to understand.
Results:
Table 2. The title seems to be incomplete. Future climatic change scenarios?
Discussion:
Discussion is quite poor in general, in particular about the main climatic factors affecting each species. It is not explained how the variable affect the insect, if they have a positive or negative effect and the intensity of this effect.
Results show preditions that are quite similar for the different climatic change scenarios, especially in the case of Scleroderma guani. Please, include in the discussion hypothesis that could explain this.
L 268-271 This is introduction
L 271-274 This is results
L281 The reference is missing
L285-286 Please, describe the different thresholds used and how they modify the results
L289-290 Please, indicate in results the strength and direction of the effect of these different factors.
L 292-294 Please, provide a reference
L 343 parasitoids instead of predators
L 344-346 Please rewrite this sentence. What is “the symbiotic interaction between M. saltuarius alone with D. helophoroides” The reference provided is in Chinese.
L 351-359 Which data did you use to build this map (Figure 4)?
References: Please try to avoid too many references in chinese.
I hope my suggestions can help improving the manuscript and I apologize for any misunderstanding.
Author Response
For review article
|
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
|
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments and professional advice. These opinions help to improve academic rigor of our article. Based on your suggestion and request, we have made corrected modifications on the revised manuscript. Meanwhile, the manuscript has also been highlighted according to your comments. We hope that our work can be improved again. Furthermore, we would like to show the details as follows:
â… Modified optimization section
Comments 1# No sampling point map provided
On page 4, we add the filtered distribution of sampling points by M. saltuarius, D. helophoroides and S. guani.
(Figure 1. Geographical distribution of Monochamus saltuarius, Scleroderma guani and Dastarcus helophoroides in China after collection and screening)
Comments 2# Miss out information on the bioclimatic variables used and especially on those used for the models for the different species
We have added a table describing the meaning of the bioclimatic variables used on page 5.
(Table 1. Description of the environmental variables that were considered in the Maxent models of species in this study)
Comments 3# Miss out information on the relative importance (contribution) of each variable in these models
We added three attached data in Supplementary Materials, which are tables of the importance of bioclimatic variables selected by the three species. (Please refer to the revised manuscript.)
Comments 4# Introduction part
Please, provide more complete information on the history of entrance of B. xylophilus in China, and the economic importance of the disease.
We have added relevant descriptions and cited relevant literature:
“Pinewood nematode disease (PWD) was first introduced into China in 1983 and has since caused 742 county-level PWD epidemic areas by 2023. The impact of PWD is significant as the import and export restrictions it causes result in the United States losing approximately 150 million US dollars and Canada losing 700 million US dollars annually.”
L 44 Please, indicate the area in China where this Province is (south, north…...)
After modification, we added a description in L43, “The current literature records of this subspecies in China are mainly distributed in northeast China (Liaoning, Jilin, Heilongjiang, and Inner Mongolia).”
L 47-57 Please, provide information on these species: complete taxonomic information, whether are they introduced in China or autochthonous, etc.
We added the taxonomic information after the first scientific name and rewrote the background description of the natural enemy insect.
“Dastarcus helophoroides Fairmaire, a species of beetle belonging to the Bothrideridae family Coleoptera genus, is widely used as a natural parasitic enemy in China for biological control of longicorn beetles. Another native Chinese insect, Scleroderma guani Xiao & Wu from the Bethylidae family Hymenoptera genus, has also shown significant progress in parasitizing and controlling M. saltuarius.”
L55-57 Please rewrite, it is not clear the sense of this sentence.
We reorganized the language and rewrote it as follows:
“In northeast China, the initial control effects of D. helophoroides and S. guani on M. saltuarius have been confirmed. However, it is currently unclear whether the two natural enemies mentioned are effective in all regions. It is important to evaluate which natural enemy insect is best suited based on the harmful characteristics of pests and the climatic conditions present in various regions.”
L 83 Please provide more information on this index and describe its importance of the context of the work
The "fitness overlap index" has been deleted and the explanation and first mention of the index has been placed in Section 2.5.
L88 “natural enemies of pests” or “pest natural enemies”
The corresponding location has been modified.
Comments 5# Materials and methods part
At some points the methodology is confusing, and the citations are not the most appropriate. For example, the maps in Figures 1, 2 and 3 have been prepared using SDMtoobox. However, for the description of this tool a web page is provided and below it is described that this tool (L190-L192) estimates the proportion of suitable area in the national area (N), proportion of total suitable area in the national area (N1), percentage of increased area in the national area (N2), and percentage of reduced area (N3), and a reference is given that is in Chinese [37]. What is the difference between N and N1? Why it is not referred the paper by Brown, which describes the tool that has been used?: Brown, J., 2014. SDMtoolbox: a python-based GIS toolkit for landscape genetic, biogeographic and species distribution model analyses. METHODS IN ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION 5, 694–700. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12200.
The literature mentioned above has been cited and the relevant description has been changed:
“Use the "Distribution changes between binary SDMs" function in the ArcGIS toolbox SDMtoolbox (http://www.sdmtoolbox.org/) to plot the distribution changes of a species from the present to the future.”
Regarding the difference between N and N1, I added the formula for calculating these ratios to clarify the relevant differences.
L97 As data have been not obtained in field surveys, I do not think dates are needed here. If you wish, specify later on the time period you used to access the data bases described.
The excess date records have been deleted.
L98-99 Please provide URLs of the databases.
The database website link has been added.
L99 Remove “Latin”, it is redundant; scientific names are always Latin.
Already removed.
L101-102. Please provide details of this field survey: sampling methods, dates, sampling points, etc. Shenyang and Fushun are two cities in the Liaoning Province. Did you sample the insects in cities?
The methods we use to identify pests include collecting longicorn within wood sections and using trapping nets. In the original article L118-L121 we have added a description of the details of the investigation：
“Longhorn beetles were sampled from wood in Fushun Dahuofang Forest Farm during the PWN epidemic in November 2021. Trapping observations were conducted in Shenyang Dongling Park from March to April 2023.”
L114-118 Please rewrite, I think I do understand what you mean: no more than one sampling point should be per 10x10 km2 area, but it is not clearly written. In addition, I do not see the relevance of the references here; please explain if this methodology was obtained from them.
Here we replace a Chinese literature and add a source literature related to test methods:
- Kwon, H. S.; Kim, B. J.; Jang, G. S. Modelling the spatial distribution of wildlife animals using presence and absence data. Contemporary Problems of Ecology. 2016, 9, 515-528.
According to the sampling point filtering methods in references 22 and 23, the analysis is carried out according to the circular quadrat and the overlapping area between quadrats, as well as the average nearest neighbor method. In ArcGIS, the function that conforms to such screening principle is “buffer zone”.
Rewrite：“To mitigate the impact of spatial autocorrelation and sampling deviation on the final prediction results, and ensure that there is only one distribution point in every 10×10km grid. In ArcGIS (version 10.6), all samples were thinned by using average nearest neighbor analyses.”
L 165 I do not quite understand predicting multiple species in the same model. Did not you build different models for the different species?
The original expression is wrong, has been changed:
“Consequently, when multiple species use the same model method for modeling and prediction, it is necessary to separately optimize the specific parameters of each target species model to reduce omission errors and overfitting.”
L 198-199 According to Warren et al (2008) pX,i (or pY,i) denotes the probability assigned by the ENM for species X (or Y) to cell i. Please, explain what do you mean by community i. I f it is explained in the following lines (L199-202), please, rewrite, it is difficult to understand.
Community refers to the smallest geographical unit in the geographic space, because we use ArcGIS for calculation, so in fact, the cell is the smallest unit in the geographic data set - raster (pixel). Since the distribution probability of species is not necessarily uniformly dispersed and equal in a certain place, we assume a premise that the distribution probability of species is evenly equal in this minimum unit.（about raster data: https://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/latest/manage-data/raster-and-images/what-is-raster-data.htm）
Therefore, we have modified the sentence of the original text:
“px,i (py,i) represents the fitness probability value assigned by the ecological niche model to a particular raster i in the ArcGIS potential distribution dataset under the assumption of a uniform distribution based on the probability of existence of the species X (or Y) defined in geospatial terms.”
In addition, perhaps my expression is incorrect, the "community" in this paper is not the "province" in the result, and i does not represent a province. There is no relationship between the two. Then why do we have to break it down by province? Here's why:
If we look at China as a whole, and there is a summation calculation in the calculation formula, the resulting value represents the adaptive difference between the two species in China. This is too vague and does not apply to the complex situation in China.
We know that the number of our grids (pixels) is constant, so as long as we limit a certain region, we can get the AOI value of that region, so we choose to divide into provinces and get some specific data for each province.
Comments 6# Results part
Table 2. The title seems to be incomplete. Future climatic change scenarios?
Modified, title changed to “Table 3. Potential distribution changes of research species in China under current and future climate scenarios (2021-2040)”
Comments 7# Discussion part
Discussion is quite poor in general, in particular about the main climatic factors affecting each species. It is not explained how the variable affect the insect, if they have a positive or negative effect and the intensity of this effect.
Results show preditions that are quite similar for the different climatic change scenarios, especially in the case of Scleroderma guani. Please, include in the discussion hypothesis that could explain this.
L 268-271 This is introduction
Has moved to the 1.Introduction section and modified it specifically.
L 271-274 This is results
Moved to 3.1 Results section and modified it.
L281 The reference is missing
Relevant references have been added.
L285-286 Please, describe the different thresholds used and how they modify the results
The description of the threshold and the way of dividing the threshold are listed in section 2.4(L211-L214), and the partitioning results are shown in Section 3.2.
L 292-294 Please, provide a reference
Relevant references have been added.
L 343 parasitoids instead of predators
The corresponding location has been modified.
L 344-346 Please rewrite this sentence. What is “the symbiotic interaction between M. saltuarius alone with D. helophoroides” The reference provided is in Chinese.
The original expression is wrong, has been changed to:
“In a previous study, the symbiotic period between M. saltuarius alone with D. helophoroides lasted from April to August (approximately 5 months).”
L 351-359 Which data did you use to build this map (Figure 4)?
Lack of charting description, add a supplementary paragraph at L390-394:
“By comparing the AOI values of "M. saltuarius+D. heliophoroides" and "M. saltuarius+S. guani" in each province. We prioritize natural enemy insects based on the combination with the highest value. When the two quantities are equal, they are used together, as depicted in Figure 4.”
â…¡ Incompletely resolved section
Comments 1# Innovation of the paper
Response 1:
We also considered similar problems at the beginning of the experiment, which is an inevitable problem, but the objective facts are now: D. heliophoroides and S. guani are widely used as natural enemies of insects in China and have begun to be commercially scaled. Many research teams are engaged in the research at the same time, so it is inevitable that there will be overlapping research fields.
In addition, the effective control of M. saltuarius' natural enemy insects has not yet reached the commercial stage in China, so it is impossible to achieve "one-to-one" correspondence between pests and natural enemies for prediction. We can only resort to using natural enemy insects that can breed on a large scale for research.
I think the biggest progress of this experiment lies in the use of a quantitative index to try to give reasonable suggestions on the utilization of natural enemy resources with the data. From the perspective of expanding the role of SDMs, this experimental idea is feasible, and it is also generalized and repeatable.
Comments 2# Deviation from the research conclusions of others
Response 2:
“These differences may be due to the difference in the measurement standard of "whether a species can survive in a certain place" between us and Zhang. In this study, we believe that the local climate is not suitable for the survival of the organism based on the biological climate conditions. However, the actual situation changes due to various factors, and different combinations of variables may lead to different prediction results. Zhang et al. include not only climate variables, but also non biological factors such as Aspect, Elevation, Slope, Landcover and Vegetation. Therefore, the climate may not be suitable in the future, but the D. helophoroides still exist in some places under the effect of microclimate based on terrain and vegetation.”
Thus, as we have said in pointing out the inadequacy of our own experiments, we can only draw some conclusions from the ideal conditions which we presuppose, and according to these ideal conditions guide the present conditions.
In fact, in the original design of the experiment, we even assumed that the distribution of M. saltuarius was likely to be determined by climate, human activities (wood transport), and host plant distribution, but we also encountered some difficulties, including the extent of human activities (wood transport) cannot be quantified data. The correlation between the distribution of host plants and the distribution of longicorn beetles.
Comments 3# Provide some parameter showing these were not correlated, for example VIF
Response 3:
We have already cited L175 in appropriate places for the reference you mentioned.
We are sorry that we did not use the VIF calculation method when screening environmental variables. We calculated Pearson correlation coefficient through random collection of distribution samples of target species, then established the initial model results under all variables, and obtained the importance and contribution rate of all variables to screen variables.
Original text in L181-L185:
“The jackknife method was selected to screen the variables and determine the contribution and importance of the current climate variables to the distribution data. Based on the results obtained of jackknife and Pearson correlation analyses as well as ecological characteristics, a particular combination of climate variables was selected for each species.”
Comments 4# References: Please try to avoid too many references in Chinese.
Response 4:
There are approximately 73 citations in the entire text, of which 23 have been adjusted and modified based on Chinese as the mother tongue.
I'm sorry, reviewer. This is the result of my careful consideration and cannot be further reduced or changed to the original English literature. The main reasons are as follows:
Firstly, after conducting a thorough search and review, I was unable to locate any literature regarding similar experiments and their corresponding results that have been published in foreign countries. Moreover, the literature I have included from other countries in the relevant field is indispensable and cannot be substituted with any other literature.
The 20 documents are important theoretical support for my research paper, including the study of natural enemies and the research conclusions of Monochamus saltuarius, and cannot be further simplified.
The Chinese literature included in Chinese core journals or classic Chinese literature was strictly reviewed and selected.
Thank you for your suggestion. I will continue to monitor the latest research in the field, read the latest literature, and supplement subsequent experiments.
I was lucky to receive your review comments. During the process of constantly revising based on your feedback, I learned a lot of crucial small details about the paper. Looking forward to your reply.
Yours sincerely,
Xuemei Zhang
8 Dec,2023
Corresponding author: Shixiang Zong
Email: [email protected]
Beijing Key Laboratory for Forest Pest Control, Beijing Forestry University
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsInteresting paper, well written and organized with data analyzed properly. Some notes are reported on the attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Interesting paper, well written and organized with data analyzed properly. Some notes are reported on the attached file
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has improved. However, there are some points where there is still room for improvement. From my point of view the manuscript needs professional language revision. English is not my first language, but on many occasions throughout the manuscript I think there are better ways to communicate what it is wanted to say using other expressions, and in some occasions, this use of language can be misleading. For example (and this is only an example), it is explained “the symbiotic interaction between M. saltuarius alone with D. helophoroides”. Being M. saltuarius a phytophagous insect and D. helophoroides a parasitoid, their relationship cannot be described as symbiosis, but as parasitism.
Information on the climatic variables has been included, but I suggest including Table 1 as suplementary information and the Tables on the relative importance of each climatic variable on the species studied as Tables in the text. You could also try to merge these three tables into one and include the description of the variables here, if possible. In this way the reader would read all the information in the table without having to move to other parts of the manuscript.
In the response to my comments, it is said:
“I think the biggest progress of this experiment lies in the use of a quantitative index to try to give reasonable suggestions on the utilization of natural enemy resources with the data.
From the perspective of expanding the role of SDMs, this experimental idea is feasible, and it is also generalized and repeatable.”
Please, if this is the strength of the work, it would be interesting including this information in the discussion.
Finally, I have not found response to my previous comment: “Results show preditions that are quite similar for the different climatic change scenarios, especially in the case of Scleroderma guani. Please, include in the discussion hypothesis that could explain this.”
I hope my suggestions can help improving the manuscript and I apologize for any misunderstanding.
Author Response
For research article
|
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
|
||
|
1. Summary |
|
|
|
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted changes in the re-submitted files.
|
||
|
2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions |
||
|
Comments 1: Information on the climatic variables has been included, but I suggest including Table 1 as suplementary information and the Tables on the relative importance of each climatic variable on the species studied as Tables in the text. You could also try to merge these three tables into one and include the description of the variables here, if possible. In this way the reader would read all the information in the table without having to move to other parts of the manuscript.
|
||
|
Response 1: Thanks for your advice. We combine Table 1 with Table S1, S2, and S3 to form a new Table 1, which describes the selected variables and their importance. A new Table 1 is placed in the 3.1 Model Optimization Results section. (The new Table1 is marked red in the manuscript) “Table 1. Description of the environmental variables selected for the Maxent models of species in this study and the percentage of importance of these variables” |
||
|
Comments 2: ……if this is the strength of the work, it would be interesting including this information in the discussion.
|
||
|
Response 2: We have modified the discussion section of this article is innovative (4.3. Future Control Strategy for M. saltuarius based on Model Predictions) to emphasize this point. Replace it at L412-L415 with the following statement: “The biggest progress of this experiment lies in the use of a quantitative index to try to give reasonable suggestions on the utilization of natural enemy resources with the data. From the perspective of expanding the role of ENMs, this experimental idea is feasible, and it is also generalized and repeatable.” |
||
|
Comments 3: Results show preditions that are quite similar for the different climatic change scenarios, especially in the case of Scleroderma guani. Please, include in the discussion hypothesis that could explain this. |
||
|
Response 3: We explained this by inserting the prediction results of S. guani in Section 4.1. The insert statement (L320-L323) is as follows: “The predicted results of this experiment indicate that under different future climate emission scenarios, the outcomes are similar for S. guani. We believe that the short-term climate change trend caused by greenhouse gas emissions is insufficient to cause a significant migration of insects from their native habitat.” |
||
|
3. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language |
||
|
Response : We are very sorry for the problem with English language expression. According to this question, we have polished the English language in bioedit. Here is our professional language polishing proof: https://bioedit.com/digital-certificate/?jobId=3C0DCDB1-86E5-46B2-A731-BE00FA9B629B&secret=abc
I hope this modification will satisfy you and look forward to your reply.
Yours sincerely, Xuemei Zhang 13 Dec,2023 Corresponding author: Shixiang Zong Email: [email protected] Beijing Key Laboratory for Forest Pest Control, Beijing Forestry University |
||
