Meteorological Impacts on Rubber Tree Powdery Mildew and Projections of Its Future Spatiotemporal Pattern

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, this sems to be an impressive piece of work, as the model shows a very strong correlation between predicted and observed values.  One aspect that might strengthen the paper would be a little additional information on economic impacts, as this would help place in context the potential benefits of management practices, as well as the risks associated with future climate change.  A few editorial suggestions are offered:

Line 1. This is not critical, but the wording of the title is awkward.  I suggest revising the title to read "Meteorological impacts on rubber tree powdery mildew and projections of its future spatiotemporal pattern".  This would be a little clearer from a grammatical standpoint.

Line 19.  Replace "expands" with "is expanding".

Line 20.  Change "insufficient climate resources increase" to "changing climate increases".

Lines 41-42, line 105, etc..  Italicize or underline Latin names (e.g., Oidium heveae).

Line 71.  Replace "like" with "such as".  

Line 130.  The word "data" is plural, replace "was" with "were".

Line 132-133. The historical climate data used were from 1961-2009.  However, the bias correction methods used data from 1979-2014 (lines 203-204).  Given that anthropogenic climate change was likely well underway by the 1980s, please explain the rationale for those time periods, and why different years were used for each.

Line 151.  Change "perform" to the past tense "performed".

Lines 245-252.  Spell out all acronyms used in the figure in the caption (DI, SEM, MT, etc.)  The figure and caption should stand alone.

Line 245-249.  These sentences appear to be duplicated.  Please clarify, omit redundant wording.  Does "The width of the arrow..." indicate any information that would not be explained more precisely by the correlation coefficient numbers?  If not, omit redundant information.

Lines 262-265. It is not clear from Figure 2 (a) that the trajectory is decreasing since 2001, as there seems to be a peak around 2005.  Alternatively, if one ignores the 2005 peak, the decreasing amplitude starts around 1995 or earlier.  I recommend that the basis for the conclusion be stated explicitly, or omit the final phrase in that paragraph, and let the reader draw their own conclusion.

Line 336.  Clarify.  How does light rain "make the water film on rubber tree leaves disappear"?

Line 353.  The assertion that decreasing DLR "has a positive impact on the DI" is confusing, as the impact is negative (from a Disease Incidence standpoint).  Re-word to indicate reduced Disease Incidence.  The same clarification is needed on lines 355-356 and line 358.

Line 386-87.  Would this sentence fit better at the end of the previous paragraph, rather than starting this one?

References

# 3, 19, 33, 37, 38, and others.  The ACS Style Guide recommends that key words in book titles and tiles of journals are capitalized, but key words in titles of journal articles are NOT capitalized.  It is confusing, but capitalize the key words in "stand alone" references, not journal articles.

# 8.  Incomplete citation.  Please include the publisher or source of the report in the citation.  Is this the correct citation? "Fernando, T. M. 1971. Oidium leaf disease; the effect of environment and control measures on incidence of disease and atmospheric spore concentration. [Hevea brasiliensis]. Q. J. Rubber Res. Inst. Ceylon 48:100-111."

See above.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The research manuscript “Meteorological attribution on rubber tree powdery mildew and its future projection on spatiotemporal pattern” is interesting and has worthy information. However, several issues need to be addressed before accepting this manuscript.

# The Bayesian-optimized least squares boosted trees ensemble model is reported to accurately predict interannual variability in historical RTPM disease index (R2=0.79);

- How was the model validated, and what measures were taken to assess its robustness and generalizability to new data?

# The manuscript mentions a decreasing trend in future RTPM outbreaks attributed to projected warming and drying trends. It's important to acknowledge the uncertainty inherent in climate change projections.

#Discussing the limitations and potential variability in different climate change models and scenarios would enhance the manuscript's credibility.

#The manuscript mentions a higher risk of RTPM in the central region of Hainan due to increased rubber plantations. A more in-depth analysis of the spatial and temporal dynamics, considering factors such as microclimates, land-use changes, and regional variations in rubber cultivation practices, would provide a more comprehensive understanding of RTPM risk factors.

#The study highlights the significance of climate-aware production and management of rubber. It would be beneficial to discuss specific adaptation and mitigation strategies that could be implemented based on the findings. How can the information from the study inform practical strategies for rubber plantation management under changing climatic conditions?

#It would be valuable to include a sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of variations in key parameters on the model's predictions. This could help identify which variables most influence the model outcomes and provide insights into the robustness of the findings.

#To enhance transparency and reproducibility, consider providing information on data sources, model code availability, and any specific details about the dataset used in the study. This ensures that the scientific community can replicate and validate the results independently.

# It would be helpful to discuss alternative explanations for the observed trends in RTPM outbreaks. Are there other factors, aside from climate, that could be influencing the disease dynamics? Addressing potential confounding variables strengthens the overall scientific interpretation.

By addressing these points, the manuscript can further strengthen its scientific rigor and provide a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between meteorological conditions, climate change, and rubber tree powdery mildew outbreaks.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The case study aims to contribute to a better understanding and prediction of RTPM outbreaks under current conditions and under projected climate change. The authors illustrate that while meteorological factors are key to the occurrence of RTPM, it is essential to consider climatic extremes and other negative influences leading to rubber tree leaf drop. The LSBoost-RTE model provides a valuable tool for predicting potential outbreaks and implementing protective measures. It provides new information on conservation strategies for the ecologically and economically important plantation ecosystem. However, it should be considered that the results are relative and relevant to RTPM outbreaks in Hainan. It would be useful to complement the study by considering conditions that would allow the model to be used in other rubber growing areas. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper brings valuable results, applicable for the future management of powdery mildew on rubber tree in China. The used methodology seems valid and conducted properly. However, there are some major flows in the presentation of the study (mainly results and discussion).

The introduction section is very well prepared, and the relevant recent literature cited. I would recommend adding a few short sentences on the basic facts about the biological cycle/infection patterns of the powdery mildew and the harmful impact on trees (lower photosynthesis, growth, etc.). Other minor changes which are needed are highlighted in the text of attached pdf file.

In data subsection, the figure with examples of different levels of the disease (on one leaf or on one tree) should be added.

Overall, the Results section could be written more clearly and could be organized better. There should be more figures and tables and less text, that is, the data written in the text should be presented graphically (as much as possible). This way, the obtained results and associations between them would be clearer to readers. There are some terms in the section which should be explained better (please see comments in the attached file). Also, there are some sentences which should be in the Discussion section.

Since the paper presents very complex, results, it was a very good idea to divide the section Discussion into subsections. However, I strongly recommend major changes to these subsections to make them clearer. There are a lot of unclear sentences about the association of the fungus, host, and climate. Also, sometimes it is very difficult to distinguish between the results obtained in this study and the results which are reported from other, previous research. Also, discussion contains some parts of the text which should be written in the Results section.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The English language needs to be revised, as many sentences are unclear.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

General comments: The objective of the study is clear. The summary needs improvement. The introduction is good. Much of the methodology needs to be reviewed. The results are well presented. The discussion could be improved. The conclusion is perfect.

Abstract: Please improve the summary by clearly respecting the different parts of an article summary

Material and Methods: This part of the article needs to be revised. In particular, please review the presentation of the historical part, which presents results in the methodology. Delete the tables from this section altogether and find other methods of presentation.

Discussion: Please expand on your discussion

References: Handle according to the instructions in the logbook

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made wonderful efforts and revised the manuscript to a great extent. I would like to accept the manuscript in its current form.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors, I congratulate you on the efforts to improve the manuscript. Now it is more clear to the wider audience. 

Still, I recommend expanding the Conclusions section, in the manner of writing a one short paragraph (a sentence or two) for each paragraph of Discussion. Since the Discussion section is very long and complex, this would improve highlighting the main points of your study. I also recommend not using the abbreviations in the Conclusions to make the section self-explanatory.

I recommend revision of English language (moderate revision needed).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf