PCLM-D-26-00132

Mapping Climate-Related Forest Risks: an Index-based Approach

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Martes,

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 May 13 2026 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 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.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only  the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot  verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Oleg Askeyev, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

1. Please note that PLOS Climate has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

2. Please amend your detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article. It must therefore be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.

i. Please clarify all sources of financial support for your study. List the grants, grant numbers, and organizations that funded your study, including funding received from your institution. Please note that suppliers of material support, including research materials, should be recognized in the Acknowledgements section rather than in the Financial Disclosure.

ii. State the initials, alongside each funding source, of each author to receive each grant. For example: "This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (####### to AM; ###### to CJ) and the National Science Foundation (###### to AM)."

iii. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

iv. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

3. We ask that a manuscript source file is provided at Revision. Please upload your manuscript file as a .doc, .docx, .rtf or .tex.

4. Please upload separate figure files in .tif or .eps format. Also, remove the figures from your manuscript file but keep the legends.

For more information about figure files please see our guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/figures

https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/figures#loc-file-requirements

5. Thank you for uploading your study's underlying data set. Unfortunately, the repository you have noted in your Data Availability statement does not qualify as an acceptable data repository according to PLOS's standards.

At this time, please upload the minimal data set necessary to replicate your study's findings to a stable, public repository (such as figshare or Dryad) and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a list of recommended repositories and additional information on PLOS standards for data deposition, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

6. Some material included in your submission may be copyrighted. According to PLOS’s copyright policy, authors who use figures or other material (e.g., graphics, clipart, maps) from another author or copyright holder must demonstrate or obtain permission to publish this material under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License used by PLOS journals. Please closely review the details of PLOS’s copyright requirements here: PLOS Licenses and Copyright. If you need to request permissions from a copyright holder, you may use PLOS's Copyright Content Permission form.

Please respond directly to this email or email the journal office and provide any known details concerning your material's license terms and permissions required for reuse, even if you have not yet obtained copyright permissions or are unsure of your material's copyright compatibility.

Potential Copyright Issues:

a. Figures 2, 3, 4, 5: please (a) provide a direct link to the base layer of the map (i.e., the country or region border shape) and ensure this is also included in the figure legend; and (b) provide a link to the terms of use / license information for the base layer image or shapefile. We cannot publish proprietary or copyrighted maps (e.g. Google Maps, Mapquest) and the terms of use for your map base layer must be compatible with our CC-BY 4.0 license.

Note: if you created the map in a software program like R or ArcGIS, please locate and indicate the source of the basemap shapefile onto which data has been plotted.

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. Alternatively, please provide explicit written permission from the copyright holder granting you the right to publish the material under our CC-BY 4.0 license.

Please note that the following CC BY licenses are compatible with PLOS license: CC BY 4.0, CC BY 2.0 and CC BY 3.0, meanwhile such licenses 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/)

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Authors !

At first, I was optimistic, but as I read the text, I became somewhat confused. The text is quite readable in English, but much needs to be revised with the help of a native speaker. It's also confusing that the citations don't comply with the journal's guidelines.

As a biologist, I find it difficult to understand the lack of explicit reference to the species you studied.

Much of the literature is missing from the citation list. Please pay close attention to this. The conclusions, which I consider good, should be re-examined and compared with as much of Eurasia as possible.

Please respond to all reviewers' comments on all difficult questions, maintaining correctness.

With best regard

Oleg Askeyev

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I don't know

**********

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: No

**********

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 manuscript «Mapping Climate-Related Forest Risks: an Index-Based Approach» is devoted to a topic that is extremely relevant in current times and is of significant interest to a wide range of readers. The authors comprehensively examine the impact of negative factors of climate warming on forest in spatial and temporal contexts and construct risk-based predictive models. Overall, the manuscript is written in good English, and employs adequate and accurate statistical analysis. The MS is informatively illustrated. Overall, the manuscript may be accepted for publication, subject to the correction of the deficiencies discussed below.

In general, the manuscript needs to be checked for accuracy and the principle of citation in the text. I absolutely do not understand what the order of citations in the text is based on.

f.e. L28. There is no alphabetical or chronological order here.

Further, there's also no order in the rest of the text. Please keep it consistent throughout in manuscript.

ABSTRACT

The Abstract section is quite short and can include more information from the results or discussion.

INTRODUCTION

The introduction section is brief and to the point, citing numerous relevant citations. However, it lacks some alternative views suggesting that warming promotes better forest growth and overall increase forest cover in Europe. For example, an interesting paper is missing:

Leskinen P, Lindner M, Verkerk P, Nabuuers GJ, Van Brusselen J, Kulikova E, Hassegawa M, Lerink B (2020) (eds.) Russian Forests and Climate Change. What Science Can Tell Us 11. European Forest Institute, Joensuu, Finland

Or paper that talks about the impact of warming of climate on certain tree species.

Enderle, L., Gribbe, S., Coners, H., Leuschner, C., & Hertel, D. (2025). Impact of a 2° C Warmer Climate on the Fine Root System of European Beech, Sessile Oak, Scots Pine, and Douglas Fir in Central European Lowland Forests: L. Enderle and others. Ecosystems, 28(5), 49.

In general, I would like to see, in addition to the negative aspects of warming for trees, what the authors would highlight objectively positive aspects as well. For example, in my region of Europe, the productivity of the main tree species has improved, and trees grow faster and have significantly greater annual growth in years with higher temperatures. There is also a view that forests will rise higher along the altitudinal gradient, which is particularly relevant for Germany, a country with numerous mountain ranges.

In addition to physical-chemical factors such as pollutants and fires, the introduction also needs to description biological risks, including the likelihood of xylophagous insect infestations that can occur in dead wood. Such insect infestations may also be linked to global warming and can cause additional damage to trees.

METHODOLOGY

The Methodology section. It would be nice to provide some references to the geographical description.

L 127. You should provide specific names of trees, with Latin for reader understanding. There is more than one species of these trees in Europe. This issue requires exceptional precision.

L 128. I don't fully understand the rationale for this choice. Some tree species are more sensitive to climate change. Some may be so severely affected that they may be at risk of extinction in the study area. Others, on the contrary, may be resistant to warming and can be used for future plantings. In my humble opinion, the article would have benefited significantly if a much larger number of species had been included than just the most numerous trees. As an example, in the discussion, yours consider very serious risks for all four species studied, but not others. In our region, some of the most drought- and heat-tolerant species were found to be small-leaved linden (Tilia cordata). The death of spruce or oak trees doesn't mean the death of the forests in the area. Replacement with more drought-resistant species is possible.

DISCUSSION

The discussion is unusually brief and, in my opinion, needs to be significantly expanded. At the very least, it would be possible to compare how forest conditions are changing in other European countries and how the tree species selected for the study are faring in other regions. Describe specific risks, challenges, and potential positive moments for the ecosystem. In particular, a large amount of dead wood can cause a large increase in the number of woodpeckers, including very rare ones. Your recommendations for possible risk reduction. What are the potential consequences for biota in general and animals in particular? What are the possible changes in the composition of woody plants in the region after global warming?

Reviewer #2:  My initial enthusiasm for this paper waned as I read it. The English needs to be tidied up by a native speaker (for example L123 should be “weighted” rather than “weighed”), and the colour scales need to be improved for those, such as myself, that are colour blind.

I found the Methods difficult to follow (maybe the more complex aspects can be placed elsewhere?) and I would have appreciated being guided into what the results translate into in terms of risk to species. This journal has a broad readership. Am I correct in understanding that risk for a species was also calculated for areas in which it currently does not grow? And also that other key climate-related risks, such as fire, have not been considered?

The format is at times unconventional, for example section 2.2 has a table and no explanatory text. The description of German federal states will be difficult for those without a knowledge of such, so a map would help, and even I know that NRW is not north of the Harz (L255).

There is no description of the species in Methods; for example which oak species is referred to, and maps of their current distribution in Germany would help the reader.

The European markers for thousands (e.g. “1.000”) need to use the more accepted comma separator.

L245 refers to Figure 9; if its not in error its at least out of sequence.

Some inconsistencies are present e.g. use of both SSP245 and SSP2-4.5 (L270).

In section 3.3 I had expected that greater risk would have been associated with greater change. That is clearly not the case. I would have expected e.g. correlation rather than ANOVA and the d.f. seem excessive and would almost inevitably lead to statistical significance

**********

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.]

Figure Resubmissions: While revising your submission, we strongly recommend that you use PLOS’s NAAS tool (https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis) to test your figure files. NAAS can convert your figure files to the TIFF file type and meet basic requirements (such as print size, resolution), or provide you with a report on issues that do not meet our requirements and that NAAS cannot fix.

After uploading your figures to PLOS’s NAAS tool - https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis, NAAS will process the files provided and display the results in the "Uploaded Files" section of the page as the processing is complete. If the uploaded figures meet our requirements (or NAAS is able to fix the files to meet our requirements), the figure will be marked as "fixed" above. If NAAS is unable to fix the files, a red "failed" label will appear above. When NAAS has confirmed that the figure files meet our requirements, please download the file via the download option, and include these NAAS processed figure files when submitting your revised manuscript.

Mapping Climate-Related Forest Risks: an Index-based Approach

PCLM-D-26-00132R1

Dear Dr. Martes,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Mapping Climate-Related Forest Risks: an Index-based Approach' 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,

Oleg Askeyev, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

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

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Authors !

You've done a great job of editing your text and answered the reviewers' questions well.

In this form, your article may be accepted by the journal.

With best regard

Doctor of science

Oleg Askeyev

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):