PONE-D-24-23287Species Distribution of Cannabis sativa: Past, Present and futurePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kantar,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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 Sep 15 2024 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 plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ 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 academic 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'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Andrea Mastinu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: "LeafWorks Inc. is a for profit company."

We note that you received funding from a commercial source: LeafWorks Inc.

Please provide an amended Competing Interests Statement that explicitly states this commercial funder, along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, marketed products, etc. 

Within this Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: ""This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. 

Please include your amended Competing Interests Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that Figures 1,2,3,4, S1,S2,S5,S7,S8,S9,S10 and S11 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1,2,3,4, S1,S2,S5,S7,S8,S9,S10 and S11 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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

**********

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

PLOS ONE 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

**********

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 article attempts to depict the past, present, and future distribution of hemp species using available global data. Although the paper is well-structured, I found the results and discussion sections difficult to follow due to the numerous figures and tables. I suggest adding a separate section focused directly on the discussion. The methodology is straightforward, but there is a significant gap in training data from other continents, which the authors did not address or discuss the implications of. While the authors used freely available global data, the accuracy of this data, especially soil information, is questionable and should be properly discussed in the paper.

Introduction

- "Cannabis now considered a monotypic genus". This is still a matter of debate, particularly when we consider Cannabis ruderalis. Please add more context here.

- "Identifying the best climatic and soil conditions for growth informs nutrient and water management and approaches such as species distribution modeling (SDM) providing a means for more informed land selection that may facilitate minimizing negative environmental externalities (Mehrabi et al., 2019)" This sentence contaisn many ideas and the reference seems to be for sunflower. Please re-write it and provide a more relavant reference.

- Instead of just pasting the link, provide a proper citation for the Economist article about Cannabis market in California.

- Whilst the introduction section is well organised, it lacks depth and proper linkage to the 'knowledge gap' the article is trying to fill. More importantly, the focus of the article seems to be a study of status and shift of cultivation at the global level. Bud the authors suddenly add information about the cultivation center in California. I suggest the authors expand the introduction section and provide a better linkage to the aim and objectives of the study.

Methodology

- Please provide a proper citation for the GBIF occurrence data.

- Were there other occurrence data for C. Sative on GBIF?

- "Of these, 302 were deemed as wild or escapees and growing without human intervention " how they were deemed wild? what was the method?

- Table Table S3 137 in Supplementary Materials is empty!

- The ISRIC soil data were old. Can you use OpenLandMap or https://soil.copernicus.org/articles/7/217/2021/?

- Please create proper citations for URLs in the methodology section.

- Why different sources was used for admin boundaries shapefiles? Was GADM database not comprehensive enough?

- Please add a better description of how historical SDMs were created. How they were validated?

Results and discussion

- Although both "suitability" and "species occurrrence" have been used interchangeably, suitability encompasses a much bigger area and in this context, I advice authors to avoid use of the word 'suitablity', particularly when they are referring to the past coditions.

Other comments:

- References are not ordered. That makes it difficult for the people to find

- There is no record in bibliography linked to Clare and Merlin, 2013: Do you mean Clarke, R. C., & Merlin?

**********

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.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: 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.

PONE-D-24-23287R1Species Distribution of  Cannabis sativa : Past, Present and futurePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kantar,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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 Dec 20 2024 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 plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ 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 academic 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'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Andrea Mastinu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Comments from PLOS Editorial Office:We note that one or more reviewers has recommended that you cite specific previously published works. As always, we recommend that you please review and evaluate the requested works to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. It is not a requirement to cite these works. We appreciate your attention to this request.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

6. 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 #2: The manuscript entitled “Species Distribution of Cannabis sativa: Past, Present and future" used species distribution modeling approach together with relevant climate variables to construct the past and predict the current and future distribution patterns of Cannabis sativa. The manuscript is well written, and the drawn conclusions are coherent with the obtained results. Although similar methodologies are common, the results of the study could have useful implications for management actions. The manuscript requires some changes before it's ready for publication.

Abstract:

I suggest reporting the habitat areas (changes) in Kilometers for the past, current, and the future.

Introduction

- “(12)(Zhang et al., 2018).” Please either use ‘numbered’ reference style or ‘authors, date’ style.

Material and Methods

- “species distribution models (SDM)” should be “species distribution models (SDMs)”

- I suggest restructuring the methodology section into the following subsection:

1- Occurrence points

2- Environmental variables

3- Model building

4- Model evaluation (Area Under the Receiver Operating Curve (AUC)).

In this section, it's important to clarify what threshold was used to delineate the suitability and unsuitability areas.

Discussion

Implications for Future Cultivation : A small section highlighting the benefits of the applied modeling techniques in establishing priority zones for management actions is necessary. In addition, a couple of sentences on the limitations of the modeling technique is required. For this, I suggest:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2022.101930

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-024-12438-z

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-024-12438-z

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14621

Reviewer #3: Species Distribution of Cannabis sativa: Past, Present, and Future (PONE-D-24-23287R1)

This manuscript presents a novel exploration of the historical, current, and projected future distributions of Cannabis sativa. By employing species distribution modeling (SDM) based on bioclimatic and soil variables, it offers insights into how changing climate conditions could impact the range and suitability of Cannabis habitats. The modeling under paleoclimatic scenarios, coupled with present and future climate projections, adds significant value to understanding both the ecological and practical dimensions of Cannabis cultivation and conservation.

The revised manuscript addressed many initial comments, particularly in methodology justification, result interpretation, and improvements to data selection rationale. The addition of comments on data limitations, particularly regarding soil information and gaps in training data, enhances the transparency of the methodology. However, some amendments remain necessary for clarity and accuracy.

I recommend that this revised manuscript be accepted for publication in PLOS ONE after addressing some remaining amendments for clarity and scientific rigor. The authors have responded well to previous comments, but additional refinements would further strengthen the manuscript.

• The manuscript currently includes both numerical citations and author-based in-text citations (e.g., “Zhang et al., 2018”), which creates inconsistency. Please unify the reference style, choosing either numerical or author-date citation for all references in accordance with PLOS ONE formatting guidelines.

• The manuscript would benefit from a clearer distinction between Cannabis species growing in the wild and those cultivated under controlled conditions. This differentiation is crucial, as cultivation practices allow for precise management of variables, whereas wild populations are subject to natural selection pressures and environmental variability. Expanding this discussion could clarify the ecological impacts and distinctions in Cannabis adaptation strategies.

• The authors used 137 occurrence points to model habitat suitability globally, which may be a limited representation, especially given the scale of the analysis. A discussion addressing whether this sample size sufficiently captures global suitability would be valuable, perhaps mentioning potential limitations and the implications of using Eurasian data exclusively for a global SDM.

• Although the paper explores past and present distribution shifts, it lacks a focused discussion on historical changes in the distribution of Cannabis. Integrating an analysis or discussion of historical fluctuations in its range, especially in response to past climatic shifts, could provide a more comprehensive context.

• While the authors effectively discuss how climate variables have influenced Cannabis distribution, soil properties such as organic carbon content and pH also vary over millennia. A brief discussion on how soil characteristics have changed historically could help contextualize the model’s results, as climate and soil variability are interrelated in shaping Cannabis habitats.

Reviewer #4: The manuscript, titled "Species Distribution of Cannabis sativa: Past, Present and Future," offers valuable insights into how this species’ distribution responds to climate change. By modeling the historical, current, and projected future ranges of Cannabis sativa, the study highlights key environmental factors that shape its distribution under different climate scenarios. This research adds meaningfully to our understanding of the expansion-contraction model, especially for species affected by environmental shifts.

In terms of modeling, the use of AUC as a performance measure is helpful; however, including AICc and ROC values would make the model evaluation even more robust. AICc would allow for a clearer comparison of model fit across alternatives, while the ROC curve would provide a more complete view of predictive performance. These additions could be especially useful for readers with an interest in model selection and accuracy.

Additionally, the discussion on expansion and contraction might benefit from referencing the study by Ülker, Tavşanoğlu, and Perktaş (2018) on Quercus robur ("Ecological niche modeling of Pedunculate Oak supports the ‘Expansion-Contraction’ model of Pleistocene biogeography"). Including this work may offer a useful comparison and add depth to the discussion of species distribution changes over time.

Finally, it’s clear that the authors have made considerable improvements based on previous feedback, especially in addressing the limitations of soil data, explaining data selection, and refining methodological details. These thoughtful updates have successfully resolved earlier concerns and have strengthened the manuscript overall.

Reviewer #5: In this study, authors have used various multi-source spatial and non-spatial data to investigate species Distribution of Cannabis sativa for Past, Present and future. It is an impressive compilation of information related with the documentation of Cannabis sativa. However, I suggest authors to include/correct following details in the revised manuscript.

1. Authors have used CMIP5 GCM dataset for future period. Cannabis are sensitive to temperature and humidity. Previous CMIP5 models have higher uncertainty in temperature and rainfall than CMIP6 GCMs. I suggest to apply dataset of CMIP6 GCMs, otherwise provide uncertainty in estimated suitability areas due to the use of CMIP5 GCMs.

**********

7. 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.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes:  Hossein Bashari

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: 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.

Species Distribution of  Cannabis sativa : Past, Present and future

PONE-D-24-23287R2

Dear Dr. Kantar,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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 onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Andrea Mastinu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. 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 #2: The authors have sufficiently addressed my concerns. The manuscript now has improved in comparison to the previous version

Best wishes,

Reviewer #4: Thank you for addressing my comments effectively. I extend my congratulations on the nice execution of this work.

**********

7. 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.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********