the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 18 Jul 2024
A climate suitability index for ecological habitats applied to terrestrial arthropods in the Mediterranean Region
Abstract. Climate change poses significant threats to global biodiversity, particularly impacting arthropods due to their sensitivity to shifts in temperature and precipitation, as well as other environmental conditions. These changes impact the suitability of their habitats, alter ecological interactions, and consequently affect the distribution and survival of species. Understanding how climate variability influences the ecological niches of arthropods is crucial for predicting future biodiversity patterns and implementing effective conservation strategies. This study introduces a simple index designed to assess the climate suitability of ecological habitats, with a specific focus on terrestrial Mediterranean arthropods. This approach leverages Regional Climate Model data to construct a climatology of a species' preferred habitat, based on historically observed locations. This index offers a straightforward and rapid means to assess the resilience and vulnerability of arthropod populations, aiming to shed light on how climate change could affect their fundamental niches. The analysis revealed that the method is most reliable for species with observations exceeding 1000 points, and climate datasets of high resolutions (although the latter had a smaller influence on the results). This study offers a proof-of-concept for the proposed index, demonstrating its potential utility in guiding conservation strategies and mitigating the adverse effects of climate change on arthropod habitats.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(2923 KB)
-
Supplement
(4306 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2923 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(4306 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1954', Stella Dafka, 08 Nov 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1954/egusphere-2024-1954-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', James Ciarlo, 11 Nov 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1954/egusphere-2024-1954-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', James Ciarlo, 11 Nov 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1954', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Jan 2025
GENERAL COMMENTS
This research presents a novel approach to habitat suitability modelling based on climatic parameters. The approach is based on the calculation of an index which is conceptually simple, theoretically well-founded, easy to understand and versatile.
The authors clearly explain the advantages and the limits of their approach. The new approach is described in a clear and detailed way, and then applied to arthropod data to show how it works.
The study is surely interesting and has a great potential, especially given the importance of modelling species’ climatic niches to forecast how species distributions will be affected by the ongoing climate change. Although the authors developed their approach for modelling arthropod distributions, it can be applied to a diversity of taxa, and hence has a general validity.
The results of the applications shown in the manuscript are clear and convincing.
The manuscript is well-organised and easy to follow.
In general, I do not have any major concern, but I can offer a few suggestions which might improve manuscript readability and appeal.SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Title
I think the title does not adequately explain the importance of the paper. Also, the expression “for ecological habitats” sounds me not very appropriate. I would suggest something like: “A new climate suitability index for species distribution modelling applied to terrestrial arthropods in the Mediterranean Region”.
Introduction
The Introduction is very well articulated. However, at lines 24-28, I suggest introducing some references supporting these sentences. In fact, they may appear obvious to any reader sufficiently familiar with arthropods, but not for people working on other subject. Thus, including a few, very basic references, may be useful for a broader readership.
69: I’m not convinced that the sentence “This study utilises RCM data to evaluate the effects of climate change on terrestrial arthropod habitats, introducing a novel” really describes the contents of this manuscript, as the authors do not use their approach to model future distributions, but current ones (although it can be actually used also for modelling future distributions). Thus, I would suggest writing: “This study utilises RCM data to evaluate the influence of climate parameters on terrestrial arthropod distribution patterns, introducing a novel”.
74: Similarly, I suggest changing “and demonstrate its applicability in assessing climate change impacts onarthropod habitats.” to “and demonstrate its applicability in modelling arthropod species distribution on the basis of their climatic niches.”
Methos
Methos are clearly illustrated. However, I think that the paper might more appealing, especially for a broader readership, if the use of the selected species is better justified. Why did you used these arthropods, and not others? For example, I would explain that these are representative of different sampling densities, trophic roles, dispersal capabilities, climatic preferences, and so on. This information might be presented in the main text and neatly summarised in Table 1 (where differences in sampling density is already apparent).
Also, it is not well explained what the percentage bias is. Please, introduce a clear definition.Typos/style/ miscellanea
Although is accepted to consider data as singular, it is actually the plural of datum. Thus, I suggest using it as plural. So, at line 52: “resolution; Karger et al., 2017) is preferred” -> “resolution; Karger et al., 2017) are preferred”
I’m aware that most people use species’ also to indicate possession when the noun species is treated as singular. However, in such a case, species’s should be used (see Chicago Manual of Style):
Species': Used to indicate possession when the noun species is treated as plural. Example: "The species' habitats were destroyed." (The habitats belonging to multiple species were destroyed.)
Species's: Used to indicate possession when the noun species is treated as singular. Example: "The species's survival is at risk." (The survival of a single species is at risk.)
Thus, line 99 climatological component of a species’ ecological niche-> climatological component of a species’s ecological niche
Fundamental niche and realised niche are well known terms in ecology, but to help readers not familiar with their meaning I suggest providing a definition. In particular, I suggesting clearly indicating that your use of fundamental niche refer to the climatic niche.15 This study introduces a simple index designed to assess the climate suitability of ecological habitats, with a specific focus on terrestrial Mediterranean arthropods -> This study introduces a simple index designed to model species’ distribution on the basis of their climatic nice, with a specific focus on terrestrial Mediterranean arthropods
62: Delete “small and”. I would not define the Mediterranean a small area.
65-66: I suggest including a few references supporting the association of arthropods with microclimates
75: “on certain terrestrial arthropod habitats, a critical analysis” -> ““on the distribution of certain terrestrial arthropod, a critical analysis”
80: I think that “necessary” is not the best choice here. I would say: “Hence, a collection of locations where the organism was observed can describe the range of climate parameters of its fundamental niche”
84: indices include, annual-> indices include annual
87: The ideal conditions for s would occur when -> The most appropriate conditions for s would occur when
89: the climate index becomes less ideal, -> the climate index identifies less favourable conditions,
109: I would avoid using “to test”, as this is not a statistical test.
117: add reference: Buzzetti, F.M., Fontana, P., Hochkirch, A., Kleukers, R., Massa, B. & Odé, B. 2016. Brachytrupes megacephalus (Europe assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T64550733A70738413. https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/64550733/70738413 Accessed on 10 January 2025.
118 is ns = starting sample size (i.e., number of occurrences)?
128: impacts -> influence
129: indices (Coppola, Nogherotto, et al., 2021 -> indices (Coppola et al., 2021
157-158: This part is not very clear to me.
221: Table 1, provide the opportunity -> Table 1 provide the opportunity
248: Figure 7 clearly reveals that instead, the -> Figure 7 clearly reveals that, instead, the
259: assessing the climate suitability of ecological habitats, with a -> assessing climate suitability for species’ occurrences
263: This sentence is not very appropriate, as you did not use the new approach to predict future changes. I would reformulate it to stress that the new approach allows a suitable representation of species distribution on the basis of their climatic niche and hence might represent an important tool to model future change in response to climate change.
386: Recognizing -> Recognising (British English)
290: of any given species' habitat -> of any given species's niche
293: customization -> customisation (British English)Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1954-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', James Ciarlo, 11 Feb 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1954/egusphere-2024-1954-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', James Ciarlo, 11 Feb 2025
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1954', Stella Dafka, 08 Nov 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1954/egusphere-2024-1954-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', James Ciarlo, 11 Nov 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1954/egusphere-2024-1954-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', James Ciarlo, 11 Nov 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1954', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Jan 2025
GENERAL COMMENTS
This research presents a novel approach to habitat suitability modelling based on climatic parameters. The approach is based on the calculation of an index which is conceptually simple, theoretically well-founded, easy to understand and versatile.
The authors clearly explain the advantages and the limits of their approach. The new approach is described in a clear and detailed way, and then applied to arthropod data to show how it works.
The study is surely interesting and has a great potential, especially given the importance of modelling species’ climatic niches to forecast how species distributions will be affected by the ongoing climate change. Although the authors developed their approach for modelling arthropod distributions, it can be applied to a diversity of taxa, and hence has a general validity.
The results of the applications shown in the manuscript are clear and convincing.
The manuscript is well-organised and easy to follow.
In general, I do not have any major concern, but I can offer a few suggestions which might improve manuscript readability and appeal.SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Title
I think the title does not adequately explain the importance of the paper. Also, the expression “for ecological habitats” sounds me not very appropriate. I would suggest something like: “A new climate suitability index for species distribution modelling applied to terrestrial arthropods in the Mediterranean Region”.
Introduction
The Introduction is very well articulated. However, at lines 24-28, I suggest introducing some references supporting these sentences. In fact, they may appear obvious to any reader sufficiently familiar with arthropods, but not for people working on other subject. Thus, including a few, very basic references, may be useful for a broader readership.
69: I’m not convinced that the sentence “This study utilises RCM data to evaluate the effects of climate change on terrestrial arthropod habitats, introducing a novel” really describes the contents of this manuscript, as the authors do not use their approach to model future distributions, but current ones (although it can be actually used also for modelling future distributions). Thus, I would suggest writing: “This study utilises RCM data to evaluate the influence of climate parameters on terrestrial arthropod distribution patterns, introducing a novel”.
74: Similarly, I suggest changing “and demonstrate its applicability in assessing climate change impacts onarthropod habitats.” to “and demonstrate its applicability in modelling arthropod species distribution on the basis of their climatic niches.”
Methos
Methos are clearly illustrated. However, I think that the paper might more appealing, especially for a broader readership, if the use of the selected species is better justified. Why did you used these arthropods, and not others? For example, I would explain that these are representative of different sampling densities, trophic roles, dispersal capabilities, climatic preferences, and so on. This information might be presented in the main text and neatly summarised in Table 1 (where differences in sampling density is already apparent).
Also, it is not well explained what the percentage bias is. Please, introduce a clear definition.Typos/style/ miscellanea
Although is accepted to consider data as singular, it is actually the plural of datum. Thus, I suggest using it as plural. So, at line 52: “resolution; Karger et al., 2017) is preferred” -> “resolution; Karger et al., 2017) are preferred”
I’m aware that most people use species’ also to indicate possession when the noun species is treated as singular. However, in such a case, species’s should be used (see Chicago Manual of Style):
Species': Used to indicate possession when the noun species is treated as plural. Example: "The species' habitats were destroyed." (The habitats belonging to multiple species were destroyed.)
Species's: Used to indicate possession when the noun species is treated as singular. Example: "The species's survival is at risk." (The survival of a single species is at risk.)
Thus, line 99 climatological component of a species’ ecological niche-> climatological component of a species’s ecological niche
Fundamental niche and realised niche are well known terms in ecology, but to help readers not familiar with their meaning I suggest providing a definition. In particular, I suggesting clearly indicating that your use of fundamental niche refer to the climatic niche.15 This study introduces a simple index designed to assess the climate suitability of ecological habitats, with a specific focus on terrestrial Mediterranean arthropods -> This study introduces a simple index designed to model species’ distribution on the basis of their climatic nice, with a specific focus on terrestrial Mediterranean arthropods
62: Delete “small and”. I would not define the Mediterranean a small area.
65-66: I suggest including a few references supporting the association of arthropods with microclimates
75: “on certain terrestrial arthropod habitats, a critical analysis” -> ““on the distribution of certain terrestrial arthropod, a critical analysis”
80: I think that “necessary” is not the best choice here. I would say: “Hence, a collection of locations where the organism was observed can describe the range of climate parameters of its fundamental niche”
84: indices include, annual-> indices include annual
87: The ideal conditions for s would occur when -> The most appropriate conditions for s would occur when
89: the climate index becomes less ideal, -> the climate index identifies less favourable conditions,
109: I would avoid using “to test”, as this is not a statistical test.
117: add reference: Buzzetti, F.M., Fontana, P., Hochkirch, A., Kleukers, R., Massa, B. & Odé, B. 2016. Brachytrupes megacephalus (Europe assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T64550733A70738413. https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/64550733/70738413 Accessed on 10 January 2025.
118 is ns = starting sample size (i.e., number of occurrences)?
128: impacts -> influence
129: indices (Coppola, Nogherotto, et al., 2021 -> indices (Coppola et al., 2021
157-158: This part is not very clear to me.
221: Table 1, provide the opportunity -> Table 1 provide the opportunity
248: Figure 7 clearly reveals that instead, the -> Figure 7 clearly reveals that, instead, the
259: assessing the climate suitability of ecological habitats, with a -> assessing climate suitability for species’ occurrences
263: This sentence is not very appropriate, as you did not use the new approach to predict future changes. I would reformulate it to stress that the new approach allows a suitable representation of species distribution on the basis of their climatic niche and hence might represent an important tool to model future change in response to climate change.
386: Recognizing -> Recognising (British English)
290: of any given species' habitat -> of any given species's niche
293: customization -> customisation (British English)Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1954-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', James Ciarlo, 11 Feb 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1954/egusphere-2024-1954-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', James Ciarlo, 11 Feb 2025
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Model code and software
PALEOSIM James M. Ciarlò https://github.com/ciarloj/PALEOSIM
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 429 | 121 | 137 | 687 | 52 | 30 | 54 |
- HTML: 429
- PDF: 121
- XML: 137
- Total: 687
- Supplement: 52
- BibTeX: 30
- EndNote: 54
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
James M. Ciarlò
Monique Borg Inguanez
Erika Coppola
Aaron Micallef
David Mifsud
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2923 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(4306 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper