Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

PONE-D-19-27369

Is the lady's-slipper orchid (Cypripedium calceolus) likely to shortly become extinct in Europe? - insights based on ecological niche modelling

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kolanowska,

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.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jan 24 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jana Müllerová, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/162021/43316125

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

3. Thank you for including your competing interests statement; "no"

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

4. 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.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Author, your manuscript is interesting and worth publishing but needs more work, make sure in your re-submission to adequately address all issues raised by the reviewer, especially trying to enlarge the data collection following the suggestions.

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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.

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: General comments

An interesting Ms that, in my opinion, is it worth to be published after major revision.

I would strongly suggest to address more carefully the distribution of Cypripedium calceolus and all the references and data-bases that could be used. I had the impression the total the number of presence records could be increased after a more careful verification of all the available sources (for a number of Countries). A number of additional potential databases and refences is provided as an example. I think it is worth to improve the data collection and re-run the model.

I think it is very important to start with the better available distribution dataset, if not the level of uncertainly in the model rises too much. In fact, there are already a number of uncertainties areas due to, e.g.: (1) using a single model and not, for example, ensemble modelling techniques; (2) excluding from the model the future changes in land use and the future distribution of beech forest. A number of studies consider the Fagus sylvatica s.l. as a species sensitive to climatic extremes, especially drought and water deficit, which reduces its competitive advantage over less drought-sensitive species, and this will ultimately result in forest vegetation transformation, (3) including in the model the areas that are not and will not be suitable in the future (this could be achieved with masking le land use such as the urban areas that are not of interest).

In the discussion session I would suggest to discuss the results of the present research also in comparison with the modelling of Cypripedium fasciculatum in US done by ThomasN.Kaye (Population extinctions driven by climate change, population size, and time since observation may make rare species databases inaccurate, - PLoSONE 14(10):e0210378.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210378).

Minor comments

LL 63-64: “Appendix I of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and 64 Natural Habitats of Bern Convention” – please rephrase: Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention);

L 67: “forms” – types;

L 161: “Figure 1. Localities of C. calceolus georeferenced in this study” -. This map seems not to take into account the distribution of the species in Italy, in particular in the NW, probably due to the fact that Italy is not enough included in GBIF. I would suggest to have a look at: http://dryades.units.it/floritaly/index.php?procedure=taxon_page&tipo=all&id=8099 and http://www.naturachevale.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Cypripedium-calceolus-L_new.pdf

http://fll-italia.it/UploadDocs/6103_G_Perazza___M__Decarli_Perazza_p_129.pdf

http://www.storianaturale.org/anp/PDF%20ANP/24_2003_Isaja%20Dotti_Le%20Orchidee%20spontanee%20della%20Val%20di%20Susa%20Primi%20dati%20sulla%20distribuzione%20di%20tre.pdf

https://www.naturamediterraneo.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=118207

http://www.fondazionemcr.it/UploadDocs/15_art08.pdf

http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/public_files/direttiva-habitat/Manuale-140-2016.pdf (page 128)

I also would strongly suggest to take into consideration the distribution and the reference in the EuroMed PlantBase at:

http://ww2.bgbm.org/euroPlusMed/PTaxonDetailOccurrence.asp?NameId=48350&PTRefFk=8000000

In addition, detailed distribution records are included in the “Action plan for Cypripedium Calceolus in Europe (Nature and Environment No. 100) (1999), Council of Europe” and in TIIU KULL, Journal of Ecology, 1999, 87, 913-924 (BIOLOGICAL FLORA OF THE BRITISH ISLES) and: http://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:320700-2#distribution-map

- LAZARE, J.-J., J. MIRAIXES & L. VILLAR (1987). Cypripedium calceolus (Orchidaceae) en el Pirineo. Anales Jard. Bol. Madrid43(2): 375-382.;

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.602.3796&rep=rep1&type=pdf

https://www.conservacionvegetal.org/wp-content/uploads/publicaciones/Catalogo%20de%20especies%20amenazadas%20en%20Aragon.pdf

L 368: “suitable habitat” – The modelling do not consider habitats but climate, so I would not use the word “habitat” here; in fact in L 333 the term “niches suitable” is used.

**********

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: Yes: Giuseppe Brundu

[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 be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Is the lady's-slipper orchid (Cypripedium calceolus) likely to shortly become extinct in Europe? - insights based on ecological niche modelling

PONE-D-19-27369R1

Dear Dr. Kolanowska,

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

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, 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 enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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.

With kind regards,

Jana Müllerová, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

All issues of previous version were addressed and by my opinion, the manuscript is now ready for publication. I have no further comments.

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 #1: 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 #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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 #1: 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 #1: 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 #1: I am not native English speaker, so I do not feel enough qualified to evaluate point 5 above. However, I had no problems in reading and understanding the Ms and I have not found any major mistake.

**********

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 #1: Yes: Giuseppe Brundu