Dear Dr. Qin,

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 Jan 31 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 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.. 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.. 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.. 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.

• A 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 . 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 . 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 . 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,

Umesh Sharma

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

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

1. 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. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. Please note that PLOS One 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/plosone/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.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This research was funded by the 2024 Scientific Research Foundation of Guiyang Institute of Humanities and Technology (Grant No. 2024rwscjs03).”

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

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

6. We note that Figure 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ,13, 14, 15 and 16 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 Figure 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ,13, 14, 15 and 16 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/

7. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex.

8. 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.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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.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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Reviewer #1: A primary concern is the insufficient optimization of the MaxEnt model parameters. The use of default parameters may lead to excessive model complexity and overfitting. It is strongly recommended to employ R packages like ENMeval to optimize key parameters such as the regularization multiplier and feature classes. The goal should be to select the most parsimonious model, for instance, the one with the lowest delta AICc, and this optimization process should be clearly described in the manuscript. On the topic of environmental variable selection, the current approach is oversimplified. Relying solely on Pearson correlation for variable screening may overlook ecological significance and fails to effectively address multicollinearity. It is suggested to supplement the correlation analysis with techniques like Principal Component Analysis or Variance Inflation Factor analysis. Furthermore, consulting existing literature will help ensure the selected variables have a clear ecological explanation for the species' distributions.

Other minor comments:

1) For model evaluation and validation, the manuscript currently overrelies on a single evaluation metric, the AUC value. While AUC is useful for measuring discriminatory ability, it is not sensitive to the calibration and reliability of predictions. To provide a more robust assessment, it is advisable to include additional metrics like the continuous Boyce index, which measures the consistency between prediction probabilities and observed distributions. Additionally, conducting spatial cross-validation would better test the model's transferability.

2)In the results analysis and discussion section, there is an insufficient interpretation of the key environmental factor bio6, which is the Min Temperature of Coldest Month. The paper identifies it as a core factor but does not deeply explain its specific biological impact. The discussion should be enhanced by integrating the biological characteristics of both species, such as the low-temperature vernalization requirement for R. roxburghii and the overwintering survival rate of G. molesta, to elucidate the critical role of bio6 and add significant depth to the analysis.

3)Concerning the presentation of results, the use of a single future climate change scenario, SSP5-8.5, limits the generalizability of the conclusions. If feasible, it is recommended to incorporate simulations for one to two different emission pathways, such as SSP1-2.6 or SSP2-4.5. Analyzing the uncertainty of distribution changes across different scenarios would make the study more comprehensive and its findings more robust.

4) For language and formatting, some minor errors were noted, such as repeated periods in the abstract and main text. A thorough round of language polishing is recommended before submission to ensure professionalism and fluency. Simultaneously, please strictly check and adhere to the PLoS ONE journal's specific formatting requirements for submissions.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript addresses an applied and relevant topic by using MaxEnt to predict the current and future potentially suitable areas for Rosa roxburghii and its major pest Grapholita molesta, as well as their spatial overlap. The study has clear implications for industrial planning and pest‐risk early warning. The paper follows a conventional structure, and the overall analytical workflow is generally coherent. Nevertheless, several issues require further revision before the manuscript can be considered for publication. They are as follows:

1. Insufficient clarity on the literature data.

The manuscript does not specify the temporal scope of the literature survey (i.e., which years were covered). In addition, the number of valid/eligible publications included after screening should be explicitly reported. This information is essential for evaluating data completeness and potential bias.

2. Paragraph duplication in “Species Distribution Data.”

In the Materials and Methods section (Species Distribution Data), the second and third paragraphs are nearly identical. Both repeat the same six filtering criteria for occurrence records with only minor wording differences. This appears to be a clear editing or copy–paste error. Please remove one of the duplicated paragraphs and carefully check the manuscript to ensure no similar repetitions remain elsewhere.

3. Unclear map-related statement.

Please clarify whether the manuscript should report a map survey number or a map approval number for China map.

4. Overly generic protection strategies.

The section on Protection Strategies remains too broad and descriptive. The authors should provide more concrete, feasible, and actionable recommendations (e.g., targeted monitoring in projected overlap hotspots, region-specific management timelines, or practical cultivation/pest-control adjustments under future climate scenarios). Strengthening this part would improve the applied value of the study.

Overall, the study is promising, but addressing the above points will substantially enhance its rigor, transparency, and practical relevance.

Reviewer #3: This paper predicts the current and future potential distribution of Rosa roxburghii and its pest Grapholita molesta under climate change, and identifies their overlapping high-suitability areas to assess potential pest risk and guide regional management. Overall, the study is methodologically sound. The manuscript has merit and can make a useful contribution after revision. The main issues that need to be addressed relate to (1) imprecise use of ecological terminology, (2) an underdeveloped introduction that lacks sufficient background and references to previous studies, and (3) insufficient justification for environmental variable selection. Clarifying these points will significantly improve the scientific rigor and readability of the manuscript.

Specific Comments

1. Terminology: The term “predation” is used to describe the feeding behavior of G. molesta on R. roxburghii. In ecological terminology, predation refers specifically to animals killing and consuming other animals. In this case, the correct term is “herbivory.” The terminology should be corrected throughout the manuscript to avoid conceptual confusion.

2. Background on Grapholita molesta: The introduction lacks sufficient background on G. molesta, a pest that has been extensively studied, particularly in China. The authors are encouraged to expand the introduction to include: Known distribution patterns of G. molesta；Typical dispersal pathways (including the role of trade and human-mediated movement)； Differences between infested and non-infested regions；Its host range, as G. molesta attacks multiple fruit crops and is not restricted to R. roxburghii. Providing this context is important for interpreting the ecological and management implications of the distribution overlap results.

3. The selection criteria for environmental variables for both the pest and the host plant appear nearly identical and could be presented together to reduce redundancy.

4. The manuscript states that variables with correlation coefficients greater than 0.9 were excluded. This threshold is relatively permissive, and highly correlated variables may still enter the model. The authors should: 1) provide references supporting this threshold, or 2) further justify their choice of variables based on ecological knowledge and previous modeling studies. 3) relevant literature on variable selection in distribution modeling for R. roxburghii and G. molesta should be cited.

5. The phrase “The survey map number” appears to be incorrect and should be revised to “Map Review Number.”

6. Under current climate conditions, the overlap between high suitability areas (HSA) of R. roxburghii and G. molesta is very limited. This suggests that G. molesta may not pose a widespread threat across the entire suitable range of R. roxburghii.

7. Figures 12 and 13 appear redundant; Figure 13 alone would be sufficient.

8. The authors may consider merging distribution maps into composite panels (e.g., current vs. future scenarios) to reduce repetition and improve visual clarity.

9. Discussion Clarity: Some statements in the discussion are potentially confusing. For example, the manuscript states that the “HSA of R. roxburghii is similar in size to that of G. molesta,” while earlier results indicate large differences in total suitable area. If this comparison refers specifically to high suitability areas, this should be stated explicitly to avoid misunderstanding.

10. The discussion of limited HSA overlap could be strengthened by emphasizing its ecological and management implications. Given that the overlapping HSA represents only 0.33% of China’s land area, these regions may represent priority hotspots for monitoring and targeted pest management.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Dear Dr. Qin,

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 07 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 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.. 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.. 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.. 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.

• A 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 . 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 . 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 . 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,

Umesh Sharma

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

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.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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.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 #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #3: I appreciate the efforts of the authors in improving the quality of the manuscript; however, several issues still need to be addressed. I appreciate the efforts of the authors in improving the quality of the manuscript; however, several issues still need to be addressed. I appreciate the efforts of the authors in improving the quality of the manuscript; however, several issues still need to be addressed. I appreciate the efforts of the authors in improving the quality of the manuscript; however, several issues still need to be addressed.

Line 24: Expressing the distribution as “0.3% of the country” is not very informative. If the intention is to emphasize the limited distribution of this species, it would be clearer to report the absolute area. Given that this species is mainly restricted to regions of southwest China, providing exact area values would improve clarity.

Line 43-45: The meaning is somewhat unclear. The term “overlapping ecological niches” is not appropriate here and could be replaced with “co-occurrence”. The statement also conflates climatic effects with niche overlap, as pest–crop interactions already imply spatial co-occurrence; climate primarily modulates their distribution and interaction intensity rather than determining overlap per se.

Line 52: The use of “globally” is inappropriate here; “worldwide” or “across the world” would be more appropriate

Line 134-139: Please clarify the source of the data. If a website was used, the full URL and access date should be provided.

Line 204-207: "areas above the threshold were further divided into Low Suitability Areas (LSA), Moderate Suitability Areas (MSA), and High Suitability Areas (HSA). " Please clarify how this classification was performed. Were these categories defined using equal intervals or another thresholding method?

Line 214-247: The description of the current potential distribution is overly detailed and somewhat difficult to follow. Listing numerous province names does not necessarily improve clarity, especially for an international readership unfamiliar with China’s administrative regions. I suggest simplifying the presentation by focusing on key patterns rather than exhaustive geographic enumeration. For example, the authors could (1) report the total suitable area, (2) summarize the spatial pattern using broader geographic descriptors (e.g., southwestern, central, or eastern China), and (3) highlight where high-suitability areas are concentrated along with their corresponding area values. This more structured and synthetic description would make the results clearer and more informative.

Line 296-310: The use of “percentage of China’s land area” is not very informative for assessing ecological or agricultural significance. It would be more meaningful to report absolute area values and/or the proportion of overlap relative to the total suitable area of the host plant. In addition, the comparison based on high-suitability overlap (HSA) is potentially misleading. Pest damage can occur wherever the pest and host co-occur, regardless of suitability class, and areas with moderate suitability may still support populations capable of causing substantial yield loss. I suggest simplifying the analysis by focusing first on the overall spatial overlap between pest and host suitable areas, and then evaluating how this overlap is distributed across the host’s suitability gradient. This would provide a clearer and more ecologically meaningful assessment of potential risk.

Line367-371, 411: The interpretation appears to assume that spatial overlap directly reflects pest impact, which is not necessarily valid. As noted above, overlap does not equal impact strength, and this distinction should be more clearly addressed.

The conclusion is overly long and reads more like a condensed repetition of the Results and Discussion sections. It would benefit from a more concise and focused synthesis of the key findings. I suggest restructuring this section to clearly highlight (1) the main objective, (2) two to three key findings, and (3) the primary implication of the study.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #3: 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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Predicting the Potential Suitable Habitats of Rosa roxburghii and Its Key Pest Grapholita molesta in China Using the MaxEnt Model

PONE-D-25-57528R2

Dear Dr. Hongling Qin,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support....

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,

Umesh Sharma

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Kindly ensure that all minor grammatical errors, equations, and spellings are carefully checked during the proof stage.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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.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 #3: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #3: No

**********