PCLM-D-21-00056

Potential of breadfruit cultivation to contribute to climate-resilient low latitude food systems

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Yang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Climate. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 11 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at climate@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Terence Epule Epule

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

1. We noticed that you used “data not shown”/"unpublished data" in the manuscript. We do not allow these references, as the PLOS data access policy requires that all data be either published with the manuscript or made available in a publicly accessible database. Please either remove these references, or amend the supplementary material to include the referenced data.

2. Please provide us with a direct link to the base layer of the map used in Fig 1 to 4 and ensure this location is also included in the figure legend. 

Please note that, because all PLOS articles are published under a CC BY license (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), we cannot publish proprietary maps such as Google Maps, Mapquest or other copyrighted maps. If your map was obtained from a copyrighted source please amend the figure so that the base map used is from an openly available source.

Please note that only the following CC BY licences are compatible with PLOS licence: CC BY 4.0, CC BY 2.0  and CC BY 3.0, meanwhile such licences as CC BY-ND 3.0 and others are not compatible due to additional restrictions. If you are unsure whether you can use a map or not, please do reach out and we will be able to help you. 

The following websites are good examples of where you can source open access or public domain maps:

* U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) - All maps are in the public domain. (http://www.usgs.gov)

* PlaniGlobe - All maps are published under a Creative Commons license so please cite “PlaniGlobe, http://www.planiglobe.com, CC BY 2.0” in the image credit after the caption. (http://www.planiglobe.com/?lang=enl)

* Natural Earth - All maps are public domain. (http://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/)

3. In the online submission form, you indicated that "All model codes are available upon request. Data layer files (GBIF, WorldClim) are public domain". All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons by return email and your exemption request will be escalated to the editor for approval. Your exemption request will be handled independently and will not hold up the peer review process, but will need to be resolved should your manuscript be accepted for publication. One of the Editorial team will then be in touch if there are any issues.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Following the comments from the two reviewers, I do recommend minor corrections. In addition to the comments from the reviewer, the authors should consider the following additional aspects:

1. Edit the paper for English language. The objective needs to be stated clearly and this should be after the research gap to be filled has been made evident. by reviewing other studies.

2. Provide more depth in the methodological section of the abstract and especially on the data collection aspects in both abstract and text.

3. Authors should also consider introducing more recent works in the discussion and should tilt towards the broader perspectives of the work.

4. The conclusion needs to be strengthened to clarify the key results, their implications, weaknesses of this work and the way forward.

5. The authors need to optimise the results by providing better figures and to avoid discussing the results in the results section.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Climate does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The current paper has an interesting analysis of the future impacts impacts of climate change on food security under the 2 model scenarios usually discussed nowadays. The paper proposes the use of the Breadfruit plant as a replacement for other foods which currently anchor our food security systems based solely on the climatic outlook of the planet due to climate change outcomes. The authors identify the suitability range to grow the plant post impact and identify regions of the world that could benefit from this plant.

A couple of important considerations for the authors:

1 - The expansion of a crop/plant and its successful establishment into new habitat is a very complex process that really should be explained with more affecting parameters than just three (3) climate related parameters. Soil factors (including soil climatic factors) play a fundamental role in this process. It would have been nice to see these factors incorporated before making a case for suitability range of breadfruit. The paper identifies this aspect as a limitation to the study, but it is a significant limitation that if addressed can significantly increase the value of the message the authors want to put out there.

2 - A NUS is a food source with potential. its increased use or introduction into mainstream food systems to supplement current foods is one thing. However, its use an anchor in global food security systems is a whole other issue entirely. It is the reviewers perspective and opinion that the paper will better address the NUS objective from the first option (supplementary) rather than the second option listed. Plus, despite the dip in production of current foods which anchor our food systems, future range suitability outlooks are still better for these in most scenarios of climate change, than replacing them with NUS. T

3 - In the manuscript the authors on line 371-372 indicate a balance between "winners" and "losers" at the global scale for breadfruit suitability. That sentence needs to be explained/clarified because it can be interpreted as meaning there are no changes in global suitability and production of breadfruit despite expansion in suitable range.

4 -There might be a need for the authors to clarify what they mean by "quality" in line 404 and other parts of the paper. This terminology has to be specifically used within the context of the paper. What causes the increase or decrease of quality?

5 - The models as explained in lines 363-413 could benefit tremendously if actual production and yield numbers are incorporated in the forecast. The reviewer feels the concept of suitability or suitable by itself is qualitative. But using production numbers to show increased breadfruit yield adds more quantitative value to the suitability model.

6 - The model characterization of uncertainty is interesting. uncertainty at the margins or areas where we experience suitability gains or loss will possibility be different from uncertainty at the center of established production ranges. it will be interesting know if the authors considered separating these.

7 - Explaining crop growth and success using a limited number of parameters is a strong limitation of the paper. The FAO EcoCrop parameters will most certainly have been a benefit to the models of the paper in this instance.

8 - Overall, the paper is informative for the data analyses it provides and the inferences drawn upon the results of the analyses. It does directly tie climate change to food security and provides reasonable options that can be used address the issue from a climate perspective. It adds to the body of research literature that continue to advocate for adaptation planning in a climate change world with many uncertainties.

Reviewer #2: The authors attempt at examining the potential of breadfruit as a reliable staple food alternative under different future projected climate is credible. A few minor concerns regarding the present work are mentioned in the following sections.

1. Material and methods: A weighted ensemble of SDMs is used to estimate the breadfruit niche suitability. However, the information on how weights are assigned to individual SDMs to compute a weighted mean of ensemble is missing. Also, an estimate of uncertainty in suitability computation from to use of an ensemble of SDMs would of much interest to the policy makers. It is encouraged to provide an estimate of uncertainty in computed suitability emerging from the use of different models.

2. A clearer description on final selected spatial resolution of SDMs may be added in this section.

3. Line 164: Cite here the reference #30 appropriately. Also, mention that the used software is available as R package.

4. Line 209: 10 arcminute resolution should be ~18.5 km, please see.

5. A justification for using the selected GCMs for the present study may be provided in the manuscript.

6. In the study, an average of the ensemble of 8 GCMs is used to assess the effect of climate change on breadfruit suitability. However, an ensemble average only partially addresses the uncertainty associated with GCM realizations. A more reliable practice is to provide an estimate of uncertainty in realization from an ensemble of GCMs. For better confidence in the reported results, the authors are suggested to attempt for providing an estimate of uncertainty in breadfruit suitability values emerging from the use of an ensemble of GCMs.

7. Discussion: In addition to global average temperature, the episodes of extreme weather events such as heatwaves are projected to increase in the future. Also, prolonged and more intense episodes of drought are anticipated in the future, especially in the subtropical and tropical regions (e.g., current droughts in South America). Keeping this in view, it will be interesting to see the suitability of breadfruit under such extreme climate events. A brief discussion on the same may be added to the discussion section.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Potential of breadfruit cultivation to contribute to climate-resilient low latitude food systems

PCLM-D-21-00056R1

Dear %TITLE% Yang,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Potential of breadfruit cultivation to contribute to climate-resilient low latitude food systems' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Climate.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team. 

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact climate@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Climate.

Best regards,

Terence Epule Epule

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

***********************************************************

After going through the manuscript, the comments from the reviewers and the responses from the authors, I think the paper can now be accepted for publication with only minor English editing which can be handled during the proofreading phase.

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):