Predicting the potential distributions of the cycad aulacaspis scale Aulacaspis yasumatsui (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) under climate change scenarios and the implications for management


Abstract

Cycads, an ancient group of gymnosperms, that are almost all threatened or endangered an are now popular landscape plants. The Cycad aulacaspis scale (CAS), Aulacaspis yasumatsui Takagi (Hemiptera: Diaspididae), has been one of the most serious pests of cycads in recent years; however, the potential distribution range and the management policy of this pest are unclear. A potential risk map of CAS was created by MaxEnt and using occurrence data under changing climatic conditions. Moreover, this research provide a theoretical reference framework for developing policy for the management and control of this invasive pest. The model suggested the current invasive risk was mainly constrained by the annual temperature range (Bio07), mean temperature of coldest quarter (Bio11) and mean temperature of driest quarter (Bio09). Meanwhile, the niche models showed high environmental suitability for the continents of Asia and North America, where the species has already been recorded. The potential expansions or reductions of distribution ranges were also predicted under different climate change conditions. Although biotic factor and spread factors were not considered in the current analysis, using climatic factors to achieve a better understanding of the invasion patterns of this species can help improve the management of this invasive species and develop policies for its control.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. That said, if the manuscript is accepted for publication then the reviewer reports can be optionally signed and made public (see below).
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).
  • If the article is accepted, then the authors are given the option to reproduce the reviewer reports, and their full revision history, alongside their finally published article. In those instances, the comments of the reviewers will be made public (although reviewers' names will never be revealed unless the reviewer opted to sign their review, as noted above).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at peer.review@peerj.com.