Climate-Change-Driven Shifts in Aegilops tauschii Species Distribution: Implications for Food Security and Ecological Conservation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. It is recommended to supplement the mathematical formulas of the four models used in the "Materials and Methods" section.
2. The conclusions drawn lack important quantitative results and contain more discussion-oriented content rather than summarizing and synthesizing the significant research findings. It is suggested to rewrite the "Conclusion" section.
3. It is suggested to supplement geographical data in the Results and Analysis section to describe the geographical characteristics of areas with significant decreases in large-scale Ae. tauschii growth and areas where Ae. tauschii growth can continue in 2050 and 2070, thereby enhancing the universality of the research results.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Response to Reviewers Comments
We are very much thankful to the reviewers and editor for their deep and thorough review. We have revised the present research paper in the light of their useful suggestions and comments. We hope our revision has improved the manuscript to a level of their satisfaction. Number wise answers to their specific comments/suggestions/queries are as follows. Our response follows and reply is shown by red highlights.
Comment: It is recommended to supplement the mathematical formulas of the four models used in the "Materials and Methods" section.
Author response: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for the useful comment. Formulas were added to the Materials and Methods section.
Comment: The conclusions drawn lack important quantitative results and contain more discussion-oriented content rather than summarizing and synthesizing the significant research findings. It is suggested to rewrite the "Conclusion" section.
Author response: Thank you very much for the useful comment. The conclusion was modified based of the reviewer’s comment.
Comment: It is suggested to supplement geographical data in the Results and Analysis section to describe the geographical characteristics of areas with significant decreases in large-scale Ae. tauschii growth and areas where Ae. tauschii growth can continue in 2050 and 2070, thereby enhancing the universality of the research results.
Author response: Dear reviewer, in figures 5,6,and 7 we have showed the areas that not suitable for the species in 2050 and 2070 and we also calculated gain, loss, and stable areas.
#Reviewer2
Dear authors,
Thank you for writing this comprehensive manuscript entitled, ‘Climate Change-Driven Shifts in Aegilops tauschii Species Distribution: Implications for Food Security and Ecological Conservation.’ This is an exciting paper and has a significant contribution to the field of plant breeding and agronomy, particularly in the context of climate change and its impact on the ecological distribution of different crop species and how they contribute to overall food security. The paper is written well overall; however, I have critical suggestions or concerns that help improve the manuscript's overall quality.
Comment: Line 55-58, the authors mentioned wheat scenarios, but what about other major crops, including rice and corn? Please refer to a recent review on how climate change impacts the yield of three major cereal crops and food security in the world, at https://doi.org/10.3390/earth3010004.
Author response: Thank you very much for suggesting this great paper. It was cited in the text.
Comment: The authors describe global climate change scenarios in 1st paragraph in introduction, and Iranian scenarios at last paragraph, better to describe that scenario just after global case.
Author response: The text about climate change in Iran moved to the first section of introduction about global climate change. Thanks for the suggestion.
Comment: How did you use only VIF to select models? Did the authors normalize/scale up the data? If not, the variables with higher values will influence the results, and omitting those variables only based on VIF might not provide good results.
Author response: Dear reviewer, we identified important variables affecting the species based on literature review. Then to checking the multicollinearity, we use Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) to reducing model overfitting.
Comment: Why did not the authors use R2, mean squared error, root mean squared error, mean absolute error, and relative root mean squared error as evaluation metrics in the study?
Author response: Dear Reviewer, the modelling approach that we used in this paper is classification and criteria for classification are AUC, ROC, TSS and KAPPA.
Comment: Figure 2 (line 154); use contrasting color, yellow color was difficult to notice.
Author response: Thanks for the comment. It was modified.
Comment: Figures and tables need to stand alone. Add a synapsis of what has been demonstrated in Figures 1, 2, 3, and 7.
Author response: We already have explained results for figures. Figure 1 shows the study area and occurrences of species in the study area.
Comment: Line 155-160, RF ………….average TSS value of 0.55, which is different from figure 2. Revise the paragraph.
Author response: Thanks for the useful comment. The paragraph was modified.
Comment: Line 266-273 is redundant to the results.
Author response: Text was redundant and removed from discussion.
Comment: Line 275: change from studies to a study has …………….or add different studies in the citation.
Author response: It was modified.
Comment: Line 277-281: need citation.
Author response: Citation was added.
Comment: Some of the sentences especially in the discussion parts are confusing and complex. It is worth to break down into simple sentence which improves the readability of the manuscript.
Author response: Whole parts od discussion were carefully checked and improved.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Thank you for writing this comprehensive manuscript entitled, ‘Climate Change-Driven Shifts in Aegilops tauschii Species Distribution: Implications for Food Security and Ecological Conservation.’ This is an exciting paper and has a significant contribution to the field of plant breeding and agronomy, particularly in the context of climate change and its impact on the ecological distribution of different crop species and how they contribute to overall food security. The paper is written well overall; however, I have critical suggestions or concerns that help improve the manuscript's overall quality.
Line 55-58, the authors mentioned wheat scenarios, but what about other major crops, including rice and corn? Please refer to a recent review on how climate change impacts the yield of three major cereal crops and food security in the world, at https://doi.org/10.3390/earth3010004.
The authors describe global climate change scenarios in 1st paragraph in introduction, and Iranian scenarios at last paragraph, better to describe that scenario just after global case.
How did you use only VIF to select models? Did the authors normalize/scale up the data? If not, the variables with higher values will influence the results, and omitting those variables only based on VIF might not provide good results.
Why did not the authors use R2, mean squared error, root mean squared error, mean absolute error, and relative root mean squared error as evaluation metrics in the study?
Figure 2 (line 154); use contrasting color, yellow color was difficult to notice.
Figures and tables need to stand alone. Add a synapsis of what has been demonstrated in Figures 1, 2, 3, and 7.
Line 155-160, RF ………….average TSS value of 0.55, which is different from figure 2. Revise the paragraph.
Line 266-273 is redundant to the results.
Line 275: change from studies to a study has …………….or add different studies in the citation.
Line 277-281: need citation.
Some of the sentences especially in the discussion parts are confusing and complex. It is worth to break down into simple sentence which improves the readability of the manuscript.
Author Response
Response to Reviewers Comments
We are very much thankful to the reviewers and editor for their deep and thorough review. We have revised the present research paper in the light of their useful suggestions and comments. We hope our revision has improved the manuscript to a level of their satisfaction. Number wise answers to their specific comments/suggestions/queries are as follows. Our response follows and reply is shown by red highlights.
Comment: It is recommended to supplement the mathematical formulas of the four models used in the "Materials and Methods" section.
Author response: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for the useful comment. Formulas were added to the Materials and Methods section.
Comment: The conclusions drawn lack important quantitative results and contain more discussion-oriented content rather than summarizing and synthesizing the significant research findings. It is suggested to rewrite the "Conclusion" section.
Author response: Thank you very much for the useful comment. The conclusion was modified based of the reviewer’s comment.
Comment: It is suggested to supplement geographical data in the Results and Analysis section to describe the geographical characteristics of areas with significant decreases in large-scale Ae. tauschii growth and areas where Ae. tauschii growth can continue in 2050 and 2070, thereby enhancing the universality of the research results.
Author response: Dear reviewer, in figures 5,6,and 7 we have showed the areas that not suitable for the species in 2050 and 2070 and we also calculated gain, loss, and stable areas.
#Reviewer2
Dear authors,
Thank you for writing this comprehensive manuscript entitled, ‘Climate Change-Driven Shifts in Aegilops tauschii Species Distribution: Implications for Food Security and Ecological Conservation.’ This is an exciting paper and has a significant contribution to the field of plant breeding and agronomy, particularly in the context of climate change and its impact on the ecological distribution of different crop species and how they contribute to overall food security. The paper is written well overall; however, I have critical suggestions or concerns that help improve the manuscript's overall quality.
Comment: Line 55-58, the authors mentioned wheat scenarios, but what about other major crops, including rice and corn? Please refer to a recent review on how climate change impacts the yield of three major cereal crops and food security in the world, at https://doi.org/10.3390/earth3010004.
Author response: Thank you very much for suggesting this great paper. It was cited in the text.
Comment: The authors describe global climate change scenarios in 1st paragraph in introduction, and Iranian scenarios at last paragraph, better to describe that scenario just after global case.
Author response: The text about climate change in Iran moved to the first section of introduction about global climate change. Thanks for the suggestion.
Comment: How did you use only VIF to select models? Did the authors normalize/scale up the data? If not, the variables with higher values will influence the results, and omitting those variables only based on VIF might not provide good results.
Author response: Dear reviewer, we identified important variables affecting the species based on literature review. Then to checking the multicollinearity, we use Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) to reducing model overfitting.
Comment: Why did not the authors use R2, mean squared error, root mean squared error, mean absolute error, and relative root mean squared error as evaluation metrics in the study?
Author response: Dear Reviewer, the modelling approach that we used in this paper is classification and criteria for classification are AUC, ROC, TSS and KAPPA.
Comment: Figure 2 (line 154); use contrasting color, yellow color was difficult to notice.
Author response: Thanks for the comment. It was modified.
Comment: Figures and tables need to stand alone. Add a synapsis of what has been demonstrated in Figures 1, 2, 3, and 7.
Author response: We already have explained results for figures. Figure 1 shows the study area and occurrences of species in the study area.
Comment: Line 155-160, RF ………….average TSS value of 0.55, which is different from figure 2. Revise the paragraph.
Author response: Thanks for the useful comment. The paragraph was modified.
Comment: Line 266-273 is redundant to the results.
Author response: Text was redundant and removed from discussion.
Comment: Line 275: change from studies to a study has …………….or add different studies in the citation.
Author response: It was modified.
Comment: Line 277-281: need citation.
Author response: Citation was added.
Comment: Some of the sentences especially in the discussion parts are confusing and complex. It is worth to break down into simple sentence which improves the readability of the manuscript.
Author response: Whole parts od discussion were carefully checked and improved.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy comments and suggestions have been addressed.
Thank you.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your useful comments. Your comments improved the quality of the manuscript and we all authors are thankful.
Best regards,
