Analysis of Suitable Cultivation Sites for Gastrodia elata Using GIS: A Comparison of Various Classification Methods

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article "Analysis of Suitable Cultivation Sites for Gastrodia elata Using GIS: A Comparison of Various Classification Methods" presents a comparison of various methods for the choice of approprate places, for cultivation of Gastroida elata in mounainous region. The methodology described in the article is feasible and suitable for cultivation the plant cultivation places. There are given sufficient details to replicate the proposed experimental procedures and analyses in other countries and mountaineous regions. The Gastroida elata can be grown in some specific places in mountains. The article gives in clear manner the description of the methodology how to determine such places. There are given sufficient outcome-neutral tests of the hypothesis as the Neutral Brakes (Jenks) classification method, the Quantile method, the Equal Interval method and the Geometric Interval method.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors analysed the cultivation suitability in mountainous areas of a saprophytic perennial herb of the family Orchidaceae. The method used to calculate the habitat suitability is very simple, based on a weighted sum of a series of environmental variables. The method used by the Authors is a modification of the overlap analyses (Brito et al 1999). Currently, there are better statistical methods to estimate the habitat suitability of a species, namely the ecological niche models. Nowadays, the overlap analysis is a method that is not used, because of its limitations and dependence on expert opinion. Ecological niche models are very robust and can estimate accurately the species' habitat suitability. I recommend using correlative algorithms such as Maxent, Random Forest, or ENFA. I recommend reading some of the reviews on this field (Sillero  2011; Sillero & Barbosa 2021; Sillero et al 2021; Sillero et al 2023), as these reviews are the most pedagogical currently. Even if there are no locations for the species in the study area, it is possible to model the species distribution in the native area and project the model to the study area.
In addition, why were the variables included in the model, how are the variables related and how the weights are determined should be better justified. For example, in the weight equation, it is necessary to explain what is the criteria and how the factors are defined. There is no information about the original spatial resolutions of each variable. Was the geo temperature index created by interpolating eight points? The sample size is very low, so their results might be not very reliable. What is the spatial resolution of the resulting interpolation? WorldClim (Hijmans et al 2005, Fick et al 2017) or CHELSA (Karger et al 2017) datasets can be better solutions. The classification analysis based on reclassification algorithms such as the Natural Breaks, Quantile, Equal Interval, and Geometric Interval is not very interesting as they are reclassification methods for the histogram of the variable. The result is purely visual, although reclassification maps were not shown. Also, I recommend using discrimination metrics such as AUC or TSS (check them in Sillero et al 2021) are proven to provide better results than Kappa.
In addition, the manuscript lacks a discussion. The Results and Discussion section does not explain the results, and I did not see any references in that section.
In summary, a proper ecological niche model should be calculated for the species and validated with AUC/TSS metrics and null models. The selection of the variables should be better justified. A discussion should be added to the manuscript. Therefore, I cannot recommend the publication of the manuscript in the current state.

References
Brito, J C, E G Crespo, and O S Paulo. ‘Modelling Wildlife Distributions: Logistic Multiple Regression vs Overlap Analysis’. Ecography 3, no. 22 (1999): 251–60.
Fick, Stephen E., and Robert J. Hijmans. ‘WorldClim 2: New 1-Km Spatial Resolution Climate Surfaces for Global Land Areas’. International Journal of Climatology 37, no. 12 (October 2017): 4302–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5086.
Hijmans, R J, E Cameron, J L Parra, P G Jones, and A Jarvis. ‘Very High Resolution Interpolated Climate Surfaces for Global Land Areas’. International Journal of Climatology 25, no. 15 (2005): 1965–78.
Karger, Dirk Nikolaus, Olaf Conrad, Jürgen Böhner, Tobias Kawohl, Holger Kreft, Rodrigo Wilber Soria-Auza, Niklaus E. Zimmermann, H. Peter Linder, and Michael Kessler. ‘Climatologies at High Resolution for the Earth’s Land Surface Areas’. Scientific Data 4 (2017): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.122.
Sillero, Neftalí. ‘What Does Ecological Modelling Model? A Proposed Classification of Ecological Niche Models Based on Their Underlying Methods’. Ecological Modelling 222, no. 8 (April 2011): 1343–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.01.018.
Sillero, Neftalí, Salvador Arenas-Castro, Urtzi Enriquez‐Urzelai, Cândida Gomes Vale, Diana Sousa-Guedes, Fernando Martínez-Freiría, Raimundo Real, and A.Márcia Barbosa. ‘Want to Model a Species Niche? A Step-by-Step Guideline on Correlative Ecological Niche Modelling’. Ecological Modelling 456, no. April (September 2021): 109671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2021.109671.
Sillero, Neftalí, and A Márcia Barbosa. ‘Common Mistakes in Ecological Niche Models’. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 35, no. 2 (February 2021): 213–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2020.1798968.
Sillero, Neftalí, João Carlos Campos, Salvador Arenas-Castro, and A.Márcia Barbosa. ‘A Curated List of R Packages for Ecological Niche Modelling’. Ecological Modelling 476 (February 2023): 110242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2022.110242.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript submitted for review concerns the issue of analysis of suitable cultivation sites for Gastrodia elata using GIS: a comparison of various classification methods. The topic itself is interesting and applicable. I had high expectations, but the manuscript disappointed me. The authors start correctly, with a preface of information and an outline of the topic. Later it is much worse. The authors describe obvious things. They focus on methods that have been known for a long time. There is a lack of emphasis on applicability and novelty. The results also leave much to be desired. I would have expected specific maps, indicating places suitable for cultivation. In return, the reader receives a series of tables that are much less legible than maps. I also did not find a solution to the problem reported in the title of the manuscript. There is no map indicating suitable cultivation sites for Gastrodia elata. I expect a graphical presentation of individual analyses and the final result. The manuscript has potential. However, it must be thoroughly reworked and supplemented with missing elements - especially with specific results. The applicability of the conducted research should also be more emphasized and highlighted.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled “Analysis of Suitable Cultivation Sites for Gastrodia elata Using GIS: A Comparison of Various Classification Methods” presents a comprehensive study on identifying optimal cultivation areas for Gastrodia elata (GE) in mountainous regions, specifically Muju County, South Korea.The manuscript is well structured and easy to read it. Nevertheless some points should be addressed. In particularQ

1. Consider defining the acronyms directly under the tables or in a table legend, especially for less familiar terms like "Qu," "EI," and "GI."

2. If possible, condense the tables or add visual indicators (like shading) to highlight key metrics such as highest overall accuracy and kappa values.

3. In your descriptions of the tables, ensure terminology remains consistent (e.g., "reclassification accuracy for the same grade between different methods" and "reclassification accuracy for similar grades among classification methods") to improve clarity.

4. Given that the SS category shows high reclassification accuracy across methods, it might be useful to add a brief interpretation or hypothesis as to why SS consistently performs well, contrasting with other categories like PSS and PUS.

5. Since the percentages add substantial context, consider placing them within the column headings or closer to relevant values to make them more immediately apparent.

6. Enlarge figure 1 to be more readable.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Check again the English language.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The current manuscript compares the classification methods and analyzes what the differences mean in GE cultivation site selection. The writing is generally acceptable, and the reviewer has the following comments:

1) The abstract: What does “cropping damage” mean, and how is it related to cultivation sites? (line 14) Is “soil degradation” a better term?

2) Line 30: What is a “higher plant”? Did you mean alpine plant?

3) Figure 1:

It is hard to see the relationship between the three inserts. Please consider inserting arrows or equivalents to guide the logic flow in this figure.

Only one insert has a proper scale.

If the legend is for only one of the inserts, it should be put inside that insert. The current arrangement means that the legend is shared by all three inserts, which is not true.

4) Equation 1: Please provide the rationale behind the equation, or literature to support it.

 

5) Section 3.3: What is the purpose of checking the similarity between different methods? What should be checked is the similarity between “actual site rating” and the classification results, right? Do you have actual site ratings available?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors' revision is clearly unsatisfactory. Basically, all my comments have been ignored. Even if the authors are not familiar with ecological niche models, that does not justify not using these methods. Contrary to what the authors state, I am familiar with the local scale, and three meteorological stations are clearly insufficient. Therefore, the manuscript has not been improved, and consequently, I cannot recommend publishing this work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised their manuscript in accordance with the reviewer's recommendations. The maps presented are, however, difficult to read and require improvement - changing the colors or using a larger format.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf