Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Aug 21;21(8):e0351471. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0351471

Climate change impacts on Xanthium strumarium distribution: Integrating species distribution models with rhizosphere microbiome analysis in China

Jinyang Dong 1,☯, Liyan Zhang 1,☯, Xiaoli Wang 1, Yanru Zhang 1, Mengzhe Zhu 1, Haiyan Jiang 1,*
Editor: Fei Xu2
PMCID: PMC13496439  PMID: 42627814

Abstract

Global environmental changes increasingly alter species distributions, yet their effects on plants serving both ecological and economic functions remain inadequately explored. We examined Xanthium strumarium, a species with medicinal and invasive properties, throughout China using integrated approaches: species distribution modeling (Biomod2), niche analysis (Ecospat), and rhizosphere microbiome profiling (Tax4Fun). Our findings demonstrate that human footprint index (66.6% variable importance), elevation, and topographic slope primarily determine current distribution patterns. Future climate scenarios predict habitat expansion of 8.9–28.6%, identifying high-risk invasion zones primarily concentrated in Yunnan, Guangdong, and Inner Mongolia provinces. Although niche overlap analysis indicates high conservatism (Schoener’s D = 0.8986–0.9338), ecological adaptability shows a modest decline under elevated emission scenarios. Rhizosphere bacterial assemblages, characterized by Proteobacteria dominance and nitrogen-cycling taxa enrichment (Nitrospira, Verrucomicrobia), facilitate adaptation through enhanced metabolic pathways and environmental stress responses, promoting establishment in anthropogenically disturbed environments. Our results underscore the interactive effects of climate-mediated range shifts and microbiome-assisted resilience mechanisms underlying X. strumarium’s invasive potential. This research offers essential guidance for managing dual-function species, emphasizing integrated strategies that consider both anthropogenic pressures and microbial associations in conservation planning under accelerating global change.

1 Introduction

Climate change has emerged as one of the most significant environmental challenges facing humanity in the 21st century, affecting ecosystems, biodiversity, and species distribution across the globe [1–4]. This phenomenon is no longer a distant concern but a current reality with profound implications for both natural and human systems. Rising temperatures, altered precipitation patterns, and more frequent extreme weather events are increasingly reshaping ecosystems and altering the habitats of numerous species [5–7]. These changes are especially impactful on species distributions, as many plants and animals are forced to migrate, adapt, or face local extinction. The ability of species to respond to these shifts is not only dependent on the changes in temperature and precipitation, but also on the broader interactions within the ecosystem, such as plant-microbe relationships, and human-driven landscape transformations [8–10].

Xanthium strumarium, a plant species native to parts of Asia with concentrations in China and India that has spread globally to North and South America, Africa, and Europe, embodies a paradoxical nature—it is both valued in traditional medicine for its anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties and recognized as an aggressive invasive species threatening ecosystems in many regions [11–16]. In Traditional Chinese Medicine, its fruit, known as Cang’erzi, is used for its anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties to treat conditions like nasal congestion, headaches, and skin disorders [17]. This medicinal use gives the plant significant cultural and economic value. At the same time, it poses serious challenges to Chinese agriculture. The plant invades farmlands, reducing the yield of crops such as soybeans and cotton. Its spiny burrs contaminate sheep’s wool, which lowers its commercial value, and the plant can be toxic to livestock [18]. As a ruderal species, X. strumarium thrives in disturbed environments, outcompeting native vegetation and altering ecosystem dynamics [18–20]. It is well known for its rapid spread, especially in disturbed habitats such as agricultural fields and urban landscapes, where it competes for resources with native flora [21,22]. In China, the effects of climate change are particularly pronounced due to the country’s vast geographical expanse and diverse ecological zones, ranging from arid deserts in the northwest to subtropical forests in the south [23]. Home to over 30,000 plant species and a critical hub of global biodiversity, China faces unique challenges as shifting climates threaten its rich ecosystems and agricultural systems [24,25]. As a result, species distributions in China are undergoing significant transformations, with invasive species like X. strumarium exploiting these changes to expand their range, particularly in disturbed environments such as farmlands and urban fringes. Understanding these dynamics within the Chinese context is essential for predicting ecological shifts and informing conservation and management strategies.

Climate change has far-reaching consequences on species distributions, not only because of direct changes in climate parameters such as temperature and precipitation, but also because of the indirect effects resulting from the interactions between plants and their environments. For example, soil microbial communities, recognized as key drivers of plant growth, nutrient uptake, and stress tolerance, are highly sensitive to climatic changes [26,27]. Recent research has increasingly recognized the role of microbes in shaping plant species’ ecological success [28–32]. Climate-induced changes in temperature and precipitation can alter microbial community composition and functions, affecting how plants respond to abiotic stressors and how they interact with other species. In turn, these changes can modify plant competition dynamics, nutrient cycling, and ecosystem processes, all of which are critical to understanding the future distribution of species like X. strumarium.

The relationship between plants and their microbial symbionts is a pivotal, yet often overlooked, aspect of understanding plant distribution under climate change. Microbes in the soil and rhizosphere play essential roles in facilitating nutrient uptake, enhancing plant tolerance to stressors such as drought and soil salinity, and even protecting plants from pathogens [33–37]. These microbial communities are not static; they evolve and adapt to changing environmental conditions, and their composition can influence how plants cope with the challenges posed by a warming world. For example, some plant species may benefit from symbiotic relationships with beneficial microbes that help them thrive in conditions of water scarcity or higher temperatures [38,39]. Conversely, other species may struggle as their microbial partners are unable to adapt quickly enough to rapid environmental shifts [40,41]. Understanding these complex interactions is vital for predicting how plant species like X. strumarium will fare in future climate scenarios, especially considering its status as both a medicinal plant and an invasive species.

Moreover, climate change is intricately intertwined with human activities that are fundamentally altering the landscape and ecosystem dynamics [42,43]. Agricultural expansion, urbanization, deforestation, and the intensification of land-use practices all contribute to habitat destruction, fragmentation, and the creation of novel ecological niches [44–46]. These anthropogenic activities not only alter the physical landscape but also influence the ecological processes that govern species distributions. X. strumarium has shown a remarkable ability to colonize disturbed habitats, which are often the result of human activities [47]. The spread of X. strumarium has been closely linked to agricultural intensification, where the plant benefits from disturbed soil conditions and the increased availability of resources in disturbed landscapes [48]. Additionally, urbanization has facilitated its expansion by providing fragmented, disturbed environments that allow for its persistence and spread [49,50].

Human-driven habitat fragmentation and alteration can exacerbate the effects of climate change on species [51–53]. Fragmented habitats may reduce the overall fitness of species by isolating populations, thereby limiting gene flow and reducing genetic diversity [54,55]. This can make species more vulnerable to climate-induced stresses, such as changes in temperature, precipitation, or the availability of resources [56]. Furthermore, human activities have introduced new challenges for species like X. strumarium, which are already adapting to shifting climates. For instance, land-use changes can disrupt natural plant-microbe interactions, alter nutrient availability, and reduce the resilience of ecosystems [57]. In this sense, human activities act as both direct and indirect drivers of species distribution shifts, further compounding the challenges posed by climate change.

To better understand how X. strumarium will respond to climate change, one of the most powerful tools at our disposal is species distribution modeling (SDM). SDMs are computational tools used to predict the potential distribution of species based on environmental variables, such as temperature, precipitation, and soil characteristics [58–60]. These models can simulate current and future species distributions under different climate scenarios, providing valuable insights into how species may fare under future climate conditions. Among the various modeling approaches, Biomod2 has emerged as a robust and flexible framework for SDM [61–65]. Biomod2 integrates multiple modeling algorithms, including Generalized Linear Models (GLMs), Random Forests (RF), Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs), and Support Vector Machines (SVMs), to create an ensemble model that combines the strengths of each algorithm [66,67]. This ensemble approach reduces the uncertainty inherent in individual models, making Biomod2 particularly valuable for predicting species distributions under complex environmental scenarios [68,69].

To complement the predictive power of SDMs, tools like Ecospat are invaluable for analyzing niche dynamics and species-environment interactions [70]. Ecospat provides a framework for assessing niche overlap and shifts, offering insights into how X. strumarium might adapt to future climate scenarios [71]. By evaluating the ecological niche of X. strumarium under current and projected climates, Ecospat helps identify potential areas of habitat suitability and the degree of niche conservatism or shift.

The role of soil microorganisms in influencing plant distribution and adaptation is increasingly acknowledged [72–74]. The rhizosphere, enriched by root exudates and microbial interactions, is crucial for plant health and resilience [75]. To gain a deeper understanding of the microbial community’s role, Tax4Fun serves as an invaluable resource [76]. Tax4Fun is a bioinformatics tool that predicts the functional capabilities of microbial communities by translating 16S rRNA gene sequence-based taxonomic data into functional profiles, allowing researchers to infer the communities’ metabolic potential [77,78].

This study aims to investigate the potential impacts of climate change on the distribution of X. strumarium across China by utilizing Species Distribution Modeling (SDM) tools, including Biomod2. The research will evaluate how shifts in environmental variables—such as temperature and precipitation—influence the plant’s distribution patterns within Chinese ecoregions. To elucidate the species’ adaptive capacity under projected climate scenarios, niche dynamics and species-environment interactions will be analyzed using Ecospat. Concurrently, Tax4Fun will be employed to characterize the functional profiles of soil microbial communities and their role in shaping plant-microbe symbiosis critical for the plant’s ecological success in China’s diverse landscapes. By integrating these multidimensional analyses, this work seeks to deliver a holistic understanding of the plant’s future ecological and economic implications, particularly considering its dual role as a medicinal resource and an aggressive invasive species within the Chinese context.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Data sources and processing

This study employs a comprehensive, multi-step methodological framework to investigate the potential impacts of climate change on the distribution of X. strumarium and the role of its rhizosphere microbiome. As illustrated in the methodological flowchart (Fig 1), the research workflow is divided into four main stages: Data Preparation, Data Processing, Modeling & Analysis, and Results & Synthesis.

Fig 1. An integrated methodological framework for analyzing climate change impacts on Xanthium strumarium distribution and its rhizosphere microbiome.

Fig 1

The Data Preparation stage focused on collecting two core datasets: species occurrence records from GBIF and field surveys, and a set of environmental variables that includes climate, topography, and human activity data. Subsequently, in the Data Processing stage, these datasets were refined through spatial filtering and pseudo-absence generation for occurrence data, and collinearity analysis to select the most impactful environmental variables.

The core of our research, Modeling & Analysis, was conducted in parallel. Species distribution modeling was performed using the Biomod2 ensemble framework, while rhizosphere microbial analysis involved soil sampling followed by 16S rRNA gene sequencing and functional prediction using Tax4Fun. Finally, the Results & Synthesis stage integrated all findings, including model performance metrics and niche dynamics analysis, to provide a holistic understanding of the species’ response to climate change. The following sections provide a detailed explanation of each step in this workflow.

Distribution data for X. strumarium were compiled from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) and complemented by field surveys conducted in Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, China, between 2022 and 2024 [79]. To mitigate spatial sampling bias and enhance model reliability, we implemented a 5 km2 spatial filtering protocol on the initial 2,288 occurrence records using the “Spatially Rarefy Occurrence Data” tool within ArcGIS 10.8 (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA, USA). This preprocessing step effectively reduced spatial autocorrelation while preserving ecological representativeness, yielding 1,689 spatially independent occurrence points suitable for subsequent distribution modeling analyses (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Geographic distribution of Xanthium strumarium occurrence records in China.

Fig 2

Each grey triangle represents a spatially filtered occurrence point used for modeling in this study. The background color gradient illustrates the elevation across the country, with high-altitude regions.

For the present research, 23 environmental variables were selected to comprehensively model the habitat suitability of X. strumarium. This selection, comprising 19 climatic variables, three topographic variables, and one human activity variable, was guided by their direct ecological relevance to this ruderal species, which is known to colonize disturbed habitats. The three topographic variables of elevation, slope, and aspect were included to define the species’ physical landscape constraints, with elevation acting as a primary limiting factor for altitudinal survival, slope identifying the low-gradient terrains on which the species thrives, and aspect influencing the microclimatic conditions that further refine habitat suitability [14]. The human activity variable was incorporated to account for anthropogenic activities that create disturbed habitats, while the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) was chosen as a key biotic proxy to identify these vulnerable sites based on vegetation cover and potential competition [80]. Climatic and elevation data were obtained from WorldClim at a 5-km resolution [81]. Topographic variables, including slope and aspect, were derived from elevation data using the Surface Analysis tool in ArcGIS 10.8. Human activity data were sourced from the third version of the Global Human Modification dataset at a 1-km resolution [82]. This study employs the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) monthly NDVI (MOD13A3) to characterize vegetation growth dynamics in the study area [83]. The dataset integrates multi-temporal remote sensing data processed through Maximum Value Compositing (MVC) algorithm, generating spatio-temporally continuous vegetation indices. With a spatial resolution of 1 km × 1 km and annual temporal coverage, this product effectively mitigates cloud contamination effects while highlighting vegetation phenological characteristics during peak growing seasons. The administrative boundary data used for creating the study area base maps was obtained from Natural Earth (https://www.naturalearthdata.com/).

Future climate projections were sourced from the BCC-CSM2-MR model, developed by the Beijing Climate Center and widely recognized for its strong performance in studies exploring vegetation distribution across China [84,85]. This model provided data for three climate scenarios, SSP1–2.6, SSP2–4.5, and SSP5–8.5, which correspond to progressively higher carbon emission levels. For each scenario, data were retrieved for two time periods, spanning 2041–2060 and 2061–2080, at a spatial resolution of 5 km.

The twenty-three environmental variables obtained above were imported into ArcGIS 10.8. The “Extract by Mask” tool was used to crop the data to the geographical extent of China, and bilinear interpolation was applied to resample the resolution of the environmental variables to a standardized 5 km. The 5 km scale was deliberately chosen for its methodological consistency in integrating diverse predictor variables, its ecological appropriateness for capturing the broad-scale distribution patterns of a widespread species like X. strumarium, and its capacity to minimize the influence of fine-scale environmental noise and spatial inaccuracies in the occurrence data [86,87]. This process ensures the necessary data consistency for subsequent spatial analysis and model construction.

Multiple factors may exhibit collinearity, potentially influencing the outcomes of the model [88]. To mitigate the problem of collinearity among variables, a stepwise variable reduction approach was employed. All environmental variables were imported into R, and the Pearson correlation coefficients between them were calculated using the “terra” package. These variables were then loaded into “biomod2” to filter out those with a contribution greater than zero. For pairs of filtered variables with a correlation coefficient exceeding 0.8, the variable with the higher contribution was retained [89]. This process culminated in the selection of 13 variables (Fig 3 and Table 1).

Fig 3. Pearson correlation matrix for the initial 23 environmental variables.

Fig 3

The correlogram displays the Pearson correlation coefficients between pairs of variables. The color and size of the squares indicate the strength and direction of the correlation: blue squares represent a positive correlation, red squares represent a negative correlation, and the intensity of the color corresponds to the magnitude of the coefficient (from −1 to +1). This analysis was conducted to identify and remove highly collinear variables for subsequent modeling.

Table 1. Environmental variables for the models.

Category Variable Description Unit
Climate Bio2 Mean diurnal range °C
Bio3 Isothermality \
Bio4 Temperature seasonality \
Bio8 Mean temperature of wettest quarter °C
Bio10 Mean temperature of warmest quarter °C
Bio11 Mean temperature of coldest quarter °C
Bio15 Precipitation seasonality \
Bio17 Precipitation of driest quarter mm
Topography Elev Elevation m
Aspect Aspect °
Slope Slope °
Human Human footprint Human footprint \
Vegetation NDVI Normalized difference vegetation index \

2.2 Models construction and changes in ecological niches

To build a reliable prediction of the species’ potential habitat, this study used an ensemble approach that combines the outputs of 11 different modeling algorithms. These specific algorithms were chosen because they represent a wide variety of different methods for predicting species distribution. The selection includes traditional statistical models, various machine learning techniques, and other common ecological modeling approaches. By using such a diverse set of tools, we can capture different aspects of the relationship between the species and its environment. This strategy ensures that the final prediction is comprehensive and not overly dependent on the specific assumptions of any single method, which helps to reduce uncertainty and increase the overall accuracy of the results.

The 11 algorithms used in the modeling framework, each run 10 times for robustness [65], were the Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Classification Tree Analysis (CTA), Flexible Discriminant Analysis (FDA), Generalised Additive Model (GAM), Generalised Boosting Model (GBM), Generalised Linear Model (GLM), Multivariate Adaptive Regression Spline (MARS), Maximum Entropy (MAXENT), Random Forest (RF), Surface Range Envelope (SRE), and eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBOOST).

Community occurrence data were combined with an equal number of randomly generated pseudo-absences, split into 75% training and 25% test sets via random sampling. Pseudo-absences were generated using the ‘BIOMOD_FormatingData’ function, a method proven effective for capturing potential distributions compared to real absence data [90]. Individual model outputs were integrated into an ensemble model (EM) via a weighted average algorithm, enhancing predictive precision [91]. Habitat suitability was classified into four categories corresponding to potential invasion risk levels: No Risk Zone (0–0.25), Low-Risk Zone (0.25–0.50), Medium Risk Zone (0.50–0.75), and High-Risk Zone (0.75–1.0), based on model probability outputs.

Model accuracy was assessed using three metrics: the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUC), True Skill Statistic (TSS), and Kappa coefficient, with thresholds of ROC > 0.9, TSS > 0.85, and Kappa > 0.85 indicating high performance [66,92,93].

Under current climate conditions, the distribution points of X. strumarium were identified, and a 1-degree buffer zone surrounding these points was established as the background for analysis. For predicted future climate scenarios, background points were determined based on suitable habitat areas projected by an ensemble model. By integrating these distribution points with diverse climate datasets, the “ecospat” R package was employed to evaluate and quantify the niche overlap of X. strumarium under both current and future climate conditions [70]. This package facilitated the visualization of niche dynamics and the computation of the Schoener’s D niche overlap parameter (observed value), which ranges from 0 (no overlap) to 1 (complete overlap) [94]. This methodology enables a comprehensive analysis and assessment of the potential effects of climate change on the ecological niche of X. strumarium.

2.3 16S rRNA gene sequencing of rhizosphere microbial communities

Soil samples were collected from the rhizosphere of X. strumarium across five distinct habitat types in Inner Mongolia, China (Table 2). The selection of the five sampling sites in Inner Mongolia was strategically designed based on our preliminary Species Distribution Model (SDM) predictions. The SDM identified Inner Mongolia as a highly vulnerable emerging hotspot for X. strumarium expansion under future high-emission scenarios (e.g., SSP5–8.5). Furthermore, since the SDM revealed that the ‘Human Footprint Index’ is the dominant macro-environmental driver (contributing 66.6%), these five specific sites (representing urban green spaces, farmland edges, grasslands, montane forests, and temperate steppes) were chosen to reflect a gradient of anthropogenic disturbance. This strategic selection allows us to explore the micro-ecological mechanisms underlying the macro-scale distribution patterns. The soil samples were collected from public-access areas in Inner Mongolia, China, and did not involve any protected species or private lands.

Table 2. Rhizosphere soil sampling sites of Xanthium strumarium.

Site Location Coordinates Habitat Type
ZD1 Yematu Village, Xincheng District, Hohhot 111°51′48.194″E, 40°55′52.378″N Farmland Edge
ZD2 Hadamen National Forest Park 111°35′18.977″E, 41°01′04.115″N Montane Forest
ZD4 Saihanwula National Nature Reserve 118°39′40.185″E, 44°15′41.225″N Temperate Steppe
ZD5 East Campus, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University 111°43′00.034″E, 40°49′03.373″N Urban Green Space
ZD6 Huanghuagou Grassland Cultural Resort 112°32′06.128″E, 41°08′28.420″N Grassland

Sampling was conducted in July 2024, targeting five replicate X. strumarium plants per site. Rhizosphere soil (0–5 cm depth, ~ 500 g) was collected within 2 mm of roots using a sterile corer, with bulk soil con-trols sampled 1 m away. Samples were stored at 4°C, transported to the laboratory within 24 h, and subsampled for DNA extraction (stored at −80°C) and physicochemical analysis (air-dried, sieved <2 mm). Genomic DNA was extracted from 0.5 g soil using the DNeasy PowerSoil Kit (Qiagen, Germany), with quality verified by NanoDrop 2000 and gel electrophoresis [95–97].

The 16S rRNA V3–V4 region was amplified (primers 338F/806R), sequenced on an Illumina MiSeq (PE300), and processed in QIIME2 (v2022.8) with DADA2 for ASV identification. Taxonomy was assigned using SILVA (v138), and datasets were rarefied to 10,000 reads/sample. Microbial diversity (Shannon, Chao1, Bray-Curtis NMDS) was analyzed, and functional profiles were predicted with Tax4Fun (v1.0) against KEGG pathways, validated by shotgun metagenomics (Spearman’s ρ > 0.85). To test for significant differences in microbial community composition among different sample groups, we performed a PERMANOVA (Adonis) analysis based on the Bray-Curtis distance using the vegan package in R.

Tax4Fun is an R package designed for functional prediction of environmental samples, such as gut microbiota and soil, based on the 16S Silva database [78]. It offers high prediction accuracy and outperforms the PICRUSt functional prediction, particularly for complex environmental samples like soil. The functional prediction in Tax4Fun is achieved through a nearest-neighbor approach based on minimal 16S rRNA sequence similarity. Specifically, it extracts prokaryotic whole-genome 16S rRNA gene sequences from the KEGG database and uses the BLASTN algorithm to align them to the SILVA SSU Ref NR database (with a BLAST bit score >1500), constructing a relevant matrix. The KEGG database’s prokaryotic functional annotations, identified by UProC and PAUDA methods, are then mapped to the SILVA database for functional annotation. Sequenced samples are clustered into OTUs using SILVA database sequences as reference, allowing for functional annotation retrieval.

3 Results

3.1 Model precision assessment

In this study, we conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the various predictive models used, focusing on their performance in terms of AUC, TSS, and Kappa values (Fig 4).

Fig 4. Performance evaluation of individual species distribution models.

Fig 4

The bar chart compares the predictive performance of 11 different modeling algorithms. Performance is measured by three metrics: Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (ROC; red bars), True Skill Statistic (TSS; blue bars), and Kappa coefficient (KAPPA; green bars). For all metrics, values closer to 1.0 indicate higher model accuracy. Model acronyms are listed along the x-axis, ANN: artificial neural network, CTA: classification tree analysis, FDA: flexible discriminant analysis, GAM: generalised additive model, GBM: generalised boosting model, GLM: generalised linear model, MARS: multivariate adaptive regression spline, MAXENT: maximum entropy, RF: random forest, XGBOOST: eXtreme gradient boosting, SRE: surface range envelope.

Regarding the AUC value, which measures the classification ability of a model, a value closer to 1 indicates superior predictive performance. Our analysis showed that the RF model achieved the highest AUC value of 1.0. Other models, such as GBM (0.967), MAXENT (0.962), and MARS (0.957), also yielded high AUC values near 0.96. The ANN and GLM models returned AUC values close to 0.95, while the SRE model exhibited a significantly lower AUC value of 0.742.

Next, we assessed the True Skill Statistic (TSS), which evaluates a model's discrimination ability independent of prevalence. TSS values range from −1 to +1, with values above 0.75 often considered to indicate excellent performance. The RF model achieved the highest TSS score (0.997). Several other models also returned TSS values above this threshold, including CTA (0.865), GBM (0.840), and MAXENT (0.814). The SRE model returned the lowest TSS value of 0.484.

The Kappa value assesses the consistency of a model’s predictions beyond random chance, with a value closer to 1 indicating stronger consistency. Among all models, RF demonstrated the highest Kappa value (0.986). Both CTA (0.866) and GBM (0.760) also returned high Kappa values. In contrast, the Kappa values for ANN and GLM were 0.658 and 0.681, respectively. The SRE model had a Kappa value of 0.316, the lowest among all models evaluated.

In conclusion, RF emerged as the most outstanding individual model. While all models demonstrated AUC values greater than 0.7, the SRE model was excluded from further consideration due to its consistently low performance across all metrics.

For the final ensemble model, we employed the mean of probabilities (EMmean) method, which calculates the average habitat suitability score from all selected individual models. This approach was chosen for its robustness and transparency. By averaging the outputs, the EMmean method effectively balances the predictions from the diverse set of algorithms and minimizes the biases inherent in any single model. This often leads to a more generalized and reliable forecast than more complex weighting schemes. The effectiveness of this method was confirmed by its high predictive accuracy, yielding an ensemble TSS value of 0.911, an AUC value of 0.971, and a Kappa value of 0.888.

3.2 Bioclimatic variable contribution

The modeling results demonstrate the relative contributions of different environmental variables to X. strumarium (Fig 5), with human activity having the most significant impact, accounting for 66.6% of the contribution. Elevation and slope contribute 4.7% and 3.7%, respectively, indicating that topographic variables have a certain degree of influence on ecological processes. Additionally, vegetation cover (NDVI) and a series of bioclimatic variables have relatively smaller contributions but still provide necessary insights into environmental complexity.

Fig 5. Relative contribution of environmental variables to the Xanthium strumarium distribution model.

Fig 5

The pie chart illustrates the percentage of contribution from each of the 13 selected environmental variables in predicting the habitat suitability for Xanthium strumarium. The human footprint index was the most significant predictor, accounting for 66.6% of the model’s explanatory power.

3.3 Present potential geographic spread

The integrated modeling results indicate that the current primary potential suitable habitats for X. strumarium are predominantly distributed across southern, central, eastern, northeastern, and southeastern China, encompassing a total suitable area of 329.816 × 104 km2 (Fig 6). Specifically, high-risk zones (36.871528 × 104 km2) are principally concentrated in the following administrative regions: Inner Mongolia, Hebei, Tianjin, Beijing, Shandong, Henan, Shanxi, Hainan, Hunan, Hubei, Guangdong, and Taiwan, while scattered occurrences are observed in Xinjiang, Xizang, and Yunnan provinces.

Fig 6. Predicted potential distribution of suitable habitats for Xanthium strumarium in China under current environmental conditions.

Fig 6

This map, generated by the ensemble model, shows habitat suitability classified into four levels: No-Risk Zone (white), Low-Risk Zone (green), Medium-Risk Zone (orange), and High-Risk Zone (red).

Fig 6 shows the current suitable habitats for X. strumarium in China, and Fig 7 projects how these areas will expand under future climate scenarios.

Fig 7. Projected future distributions of suitable habitats for Xanthium strumarium in China.

Fig 7

The six maps show predicted habitat suitability for two future periods (2041–2060 and 2061–2080) under three Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs): SSP1–2.6 (low emissions), SSP2–4.5 (moderate emissions), and SSP5–8.5 (high emissions). The legend indicates the four suitability levels from No-Risk Zone (white) to High-Risk Zone (red).

This Table 3 and Fig 7 show the changes in the suitable growth areas of X. strumarium under different climate scenarios over the next few decades. In the coming decades, regardless of whether it is a low, medium, or high emission scenario (SSP1–2.6, SSP2–4.5, SSP5–8.5), the areas of low and moderately risk zones for X. strumarium are showing an increasing trend, especially under high emission scenarios, where the growth is more significant.

Table 3. Changes in the distribution area of Xanthium strumarium during different periods under different scenarios (104 km2).

Period Climate Scenario Low-Risk Zone Medium-Risk Zone High-Risk Zone
Current   198.70486 94.239585 36.871528
2041-2060 SSP1–2.6 214.12327 121.80209 47.453126
SSP2–4.5 214.8698 122.04167 46.569445
SSP5–8.5 225.38889 134.07813 46.918404
2061-2080 SSP1–2.6 210.57292 127.92188 46.440973
SSP2–4.5 209.90973 127.00695 46.953126
SSP5–8.5 228.59375 141.42361 46.119792

3.4 Niche dynamics

The niche comparison analysis for X. strumarium across current and projected future climate scenarios reveals a substantial degree of ecological niche overlap, as quantified by Schoener’s D metric (Fig 8). Specifically, the overlap ranges from a minimum of 89.86% (Schoener’s D = 0.8986) between the current climate and the 2061–2080 period under the SSP5–8.5 scenario, characterized by high levels of greenhouse gas emissions, to a maximum of 93.38% (Schoener’s D = 0.9338) for the same timeframe under the more sustainable SSP1–2.6 pathway. Intermediate values include 93.20% (Schoener’s D = 0.9320) for the 2041–2060 period under SSP1–2.6, 93.17% (Schoener’s D = 0.9317) under SSP2–4.5, and 91.20% (Schoener’s D = 0.9120) under SSP5–8.5, while the overlap for 2061–2080 under SSP2–4.5 stands at 90.38% (Schoener’s D = 0.9038).

Fig 8. Niche dynamics of Xanthium strumarium.

Fig 8

These plots visualize the ecological niche in a two-dimensional environmental space defined by the first two principal components (PC1 and PC2). The colors represent: niche stability (blue shading, overlap between current and future niches), niche unfilling (light green, part of the current niche not occupied in the future), and niche expansion (light red, new environmental space projected to be occupied). The red and green solid lines delineate 100% of the available environmental space for the current and future periods, respectively. The extended contours in the bottom-left corner of the SSP5–8.5 plots represent the expansion and shift of the available background climate space under the extreme emission scenario, rather than a statistical artifact.

3.5 Rhizosphere microbial abundance in Xanthium strumarium habitats

The structure of the rhizosphere microbial community, as illustrated by relative abundance and clustering analyses (Figs 9 and 10), exhibited differences across samples and groups. At the phylum level, Proteobacteria was the most abundant phylum in most samples, with its relative abundance often exceeding 50% in sites ZD1 and ZD2. Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes were present across all samples with a relatively even distribution, while Acidobacteria showed a higher relative abundance in samples from sites ZD2 and ZD4. When averaged by group, samples from sites ZD5 and ZD6 contained a higher proportion of taxa classified as ‘Others’. The relative abundances of Nitrospira and Verrucomicrobia were highest in the ZD6 group. At the genus level, Pseudomonas and Streptomyces were most abundant in the ZD5 group (Fig 10).

Fig 9. Relative abundance of bacterial phyla in the rhizosphere of Xanthium strumarium.

Fig 9

The stacked bar charts show the taxonomic composition of the microbial community at the phylum level. The chart on the left displays results for individual samples, while the chart on the right shows the averaged composition for each sampling site group (ZD1-ZD6). Each color corresponds to a specific bacterial phylum as indicated in the legend. “Others” represents the sum of all phyla not included in the top ten most abundant.

Fig 10. Heatmap showing the relative abundance and hierarchical clustering of bacterial genera.

Fig 10

This figure is presented in two panels for clarity, showing different sets of genera. Rows represent individual samples, and columns represent bacterial genera. The color intensity reflects the Z-score standardized relative abundance, with red indicating higher abundance and blue indicating lower abundance. The dendrogram on the left clusters the samples based on the similarity of their microbial composition.

A PERMANOVA (Adonis) analysis confirmed that the observed differences in microbial community composition among the sampling sites were statistically significant. Pairwise comparisons showed that the microbial communities of ZD6 were significantly different from all other sites, particularly from ZD5 (p < 0.001; R2 = 0.9315) and ZD1 (p < 0.001; R2 = 0.8860). Significant differences were also found between sites ZD1 and ZD4 (p < 0.001; R2 = 0.6619), ZD1 and ZD5 (p < 0.001; R2 = 0.6873), and ZD1 and ZD2 (p < 0.001; R2 = 0.5704), indicating strong habitat-specific influences on the microbiome.

3.6 Functional prediction of soil microorganisms

The predicted functional profiles of the rhizosphere microbial communities, based on Tax4Fun analysis, showed differences across the samples and groups (Figs 11 and 12). At KEGG Level 1, ‘Metabolism’ was the most abundant functional category in all samples, with its relative abundance generally approaching 0.5. ‘Genetic Information Processing’ was the second most abundant category. In contrast, the relative abundances of categories such as ‘Human Diseases’ and ‘Organismal Systems’ were minimal across all samples. When analyzed by group, the ZD6 group presented the highest relative abundance of ‘Metabolism’ and a comparatively lower abundance of ‘Genetic Information Processing’ and ‘Environmental Information Processing’. The Principal Component Analysis (PCA) showed that samples from the same site tended to cluster together, with the ZD6 samples forming a distinct cluster separated from the other groups along the PC1 axis (Fig 13).

Fig 11. The Tax4Fun functional annotation relative abundance bar chart.

Fig 11

The x-axis represents the sample name; the y-axis represents relative abundance; ‘Others’ represents the sum of the relative abundance of all categories beyond the top 10 categories in the chart.

Fig 12. The Tax4Fun functional annotation clustering heatmap.

Fig 12

The vertical axis represents sample information, and the horizontal axis represents species annotation information. The clustering tree on the left side of the chart is the species clustering tree. The values in the heatmap correspond to the Z-scores of the relative abundance of each species in each row after standardization. That is, the Z-score for a sample in a specific classification is the difference between the relative abundance of the sample in that classification and the average relative abundance of all samples in that classification, divided by the standard deviation of the relative abundance of all samples in that classification.

Fig 13. Display of Tax4Fun functional annotation PCA results.

Fig 13

The scatter plot shows the ordination of samples based on their predicted functional profiles. Each point represents a single sample, with its shape and color corresponding to the sampling site (ZD1-ZD6) as indicated in the legend. The proximity of points reflects the similarity of their microbial functional composition. The percentage of total variance explained by the first two principal components (PC1 and PC2) is shown on the axes.

4 Discussion

4.1. Impact of climate change on habitat distribution of Xanthium strumarium

This study applied the widely used Biomod2 model to explore the impact of global climate change on the suitable habitats of X. strumarium in China. Our results indicate that climate change is expected to significantly alter the distribution of suitable habitats for this species, with varying impacts depending on emission scenarios. Under current climate conditions, the primary suitable habitats for X. strumarium are concentrated in southern, central, eastern, northeastern, and southeastern China, representing regions with optimal climatic conditions for plant growth.

Given the substantial influence of global warming on the projected changes in precipitation and climate patterns, the expansion and contraction of plant species are expected to have strong ecological impacts across China. Under future climate scenarios, particularly those associated with high emissions (SSP5–8.5), the distribution of suitable habitats is predicted to expand, driven by rising temperatures and changing precipitation patterns. These changes are expected to create favorable conditions for the species in areas where competition was previously less intense. This expansion is further exacerbated by the increasing frequency of extreme weather events, such as floods, which create the disturbed habitats where X. strumarium excels at outcompeting native flora. The predicted expansion primarily includes regions such as Yunnan, Guizhou, Guangdong, Hainan, and parts of Inner Mongolia, with coastal areas also becoming increasingly susceptible to invasion.

Despite a projected increase in total habitat availability, Table 3 shows a significant reduction in high-risk zones under the SSP5–8.5 scenario. This indicates that X. strumarium does not respond linearly to extreme climate scenarios; instead, intensified environmental stressors may compromise the suitability of current infestation centers. As conditions drift beyond optimal thresholds, these core areas experience ‘suitability decay,’ while the species simultaneously colonizes new marginal environments. This shift necessitates a broader management perspective that prioritizes emerging risk zones as potential corridors for future migration.

Climate change can promote plant invasions by increasing disturbances through extreme climatic events and changing environmental conditions. Previous studies have identified different key environmental variables for X. strumarium in various regions. For example, Kekeç and Kadıoğlu [98] identified Bio4, Bio10, Bio11, and Bio12 as the dominant environmental variables in Turkey; Waheed et al. [14] highlighted Bio4, Bio8, and nitrogen content (soil nitrogen) as influential in Pakistan; and Chikuruwo et al. [99] found NDVI to be the most significant factor in southeastern Zimbabwe. The variation in these influential environmental variables across studies may be due to differences in study areas, selected variables, and distribution points [100]. In this study, we identified human activity (human footprint) as the dominant environmental variable affecting X. strumarium distribution, followed by topography, and then NDVI along with a series of bioclimatic variables. This aligns with our finding that human footprint is the most significant predictor, contributing 66.6% to the model's explanatory power (Fig 5), far surpassing other variables. The dominance of the human footprint index likely acts as a proxy for specific edaphic conditions favoring this species. Recent evidence emphasizes that soil chemical properties, particularly Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) and soil available nitrogen, are critical drivers for the distribution of nitrophilous invasive species. Anthropogenic disturbances typically disrupt soil structure and increase nutrient availability, creating the high-nitrogen micro-environments required for X. strumarium colonization [101]. Therefore, while our broad-scale model relies on the human footprint as a macro-indicator, this variable essentially captures the species’ dependence on fertile, disturbed soil conditions characterized by altered CEC and nitrogen levels. To further refine prediction precision, particularly in agricultural interfaces, future risk assessments should explicitly integrate high-resolution raster data of these edaphic factors. Meanwhile, the changes in the dynamic ecological niche reflect a decrease in the ecological adaptability of X. strumarium with the increase in fossil fuel emissions. The niche dynamics analysis (Fig 8) further shows a modest decline in niche stability, with niche expansion (indicated by the red shading) occurring in new environmental spaces that the species is adapting to under these altered conditions.

In conclusion, the predicted expansion of suitable habitats under climate change, particularly in regions with increased human activity and altered topography, highlights the ongoing shifts in the potential distribution of X. strumarium across China.

4.2 Role of rhizosphere microbial communities in adaptation

The rhizosphere microbial communities play a pivotal role in the adaptation of X. strumarium to diverse environmental conditions. The microbial community structure varies significantly across different samples and groups, with Proteobacteria being the dominant phylum in most samples, suggesting its strong role in soil metabolism and nutrient cycling [102,103]. Other microbial phyla like Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes contribute to the adaptability of X. strumarium in various soil conditions, including nutrient-deficient and acidic environments [104,105]. Emerging evidence utilizing multi-omics approaches highlights that plants actively reshape their rhizosphere microbiome to select for taxa that enhance stress tolerance and resource acquisition under changing environment [106,107]. This mechanism likely facilitates the establishment of X. strumarium in novel ranges by recruiting beneficial nitrogen-cycling taxa. Additionally, the higher microbial diversity observed in samples such as ZD5 and ZD6, coupled with the increased proportion of Nitrospira and Verrucomicrobia, points to active nitrogen cycling in these habitats, which could help improve nutrient availability for the plant. For instance, the high abundance of Nitrospira (Fig 9) suggests robust nitrification processes, while Verrucomicrobia are often associated with the degradation of complex organic matter, both of which are critical for nutrient acquisition. Our functional prediction analysis (Fig 11) confirms that the ‘Metabolism’ pathway is the most abundant, supporting the idea that these microbial communities provide metabolic flexibility for the host plant. The interactions between the plant and its rhizosphere microbiome support its growth in disturbed or marginal soils, allowing X. strumarium to thrive in diverse and challenging environments.

4.3 Uncertainties of the present study

In this study, we first employed an integrated modeling approach to simulate the potential distribution of X. strumarium in China under current and future climate scenarios, thereby reducing uncertainties arising from differences in model algorithms. Although the distribution points were carefully selected, the spatial dispersion of these points and the lack of field surveys in some regions may have influenced the prediction of the species’ potential suitable areas. The selection of environmental variables plays a crucial role in species distribution prediction and model accuracy. This study did not account for various factors such as soil characteristics and land use, which could significantly impact the species’ distribution. Future research should consider incorporating additional environmental variables and conduct field surveys in other provinces to supplement the data. Furthermore, dispersal dynamics can notably influence a species’ response to global changes, potentially affecting the study’s outcomes [108,109]. Moreover, an important uncertainty in bridging macro-ecological models with micro-ecological data is the issue of spatial scale. While our rhizosphere microbial analysis provides valuable localized mechanistic insights into how X. strumarium adapts to high-disturbance environments along an anthropogenic gradient, our sampling was restricted to specific sites in Inner Mongolia. The lack of direct integration of nationwide microbial sampling with the predictive environmental raster data makes it difficult to definitively extrapolate these micro-level interactions to the entire projected distribution range. Future studies should aim to collect microbiome data across a broader latitudinal gradient and directly integrate high-resolution soil edaphic rasters into the SDM to further solidify the causal link between microbial shifts and nationwide range expansion. Future investigations could integrate different dispersal scenarios to further explore the potential changes in hotspots under climate and land use variations.

5 Conclusions

This study analyzes the potential suitable distribution changes of X. strumarium in China under climate change, dynamic ecological niche shifts, and the composition, abundance, and functional validation of its rhizosphere microbiota. The results indicate that human footprint, slope, and elevation are the dominant environmental variables influencing the distribution of X. strumarium. With the intensification of climate change, the potential suitable distribution of X. strumarium gradually expands. Moreover, the dynamic ecological niche analysis reveals a reduction in the ecological adaptability of X. strumarium with the increasing fossil fuel emissions. The validation of rhizosphere microbiota abundance and function provides localized mechanistic insights into how X. strumarium tolerates disturbance and adapts to emerging environments, corroborating its ecological resilience. This study provides insights into the potential distribution changes, dynamic ecological niche shifts, and the composition and function of soil rhizosphere microbiota of X. strumarium under climate change, offering theoretical support for the future utilization and management of X. strumarium.

Data Availability

Data is available from https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.x0k6djhz9.

Funding Statement

The Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Natural Science Foundation Project (2023LHMS03007 to L.Z. and 2025MS03083 to H.J.) and the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Undergraduate Innovation and Entrepreneurship Program (202210129029 to H.J.) provided funding for the article processing charges (APC) and research support of this publication. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Bandh SA, Shafi S, Peerzada M, Rehman T, Bashir S, Wani SA, et al. Multidimensional analysis of global climate change: a review. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2021;28(20):24872–88. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-13139-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hoegh-Guldberg O, Bruno JF. The impact of climate change on the world’s marine ecosystems. Science. 2010;328(5985):1523–8. doi: 10.1126/science.1189930 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Pecl GT, Araújo MB, Bell JD, Blanchard J, Bonebrake TC, Chen I-C, et al. Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: Impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science. 2017;355(6332):eaai9214. doi: 10.1126/science.aai9214 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Sarwar N. Environmental challenges in the 21 st century. Strategic Studies. 2008;28:118–43. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Maxwell SL, Butt N, Maron M, McAlpine CA, Chapman S, Ullmann A, et al. Conservation implications of ecological responses to extreme weather and climate events. Diversity and Distributions. 2018;25(4):613–25. doi: 10.1111/ddi.12878 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Parmesan C, Root TL, Willig MR. Impacts of Extreme Weather and Climate on Terrestrial Biota*. Bull Amer Meteor Soc. 2000;81(3):443–50. doi: 10.1175/1520-0477(2000)081<0443:ioewac>2.3.co;2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Turner MG, Calder WJ, Cumming GS, Hughes TP, Jentsch A, LaDeau SL, et al. Climate change, ecosystems and abrupt change: science priorities. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2020;375(1794):20190105. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2019.0105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Anand S, Hallsworth JE, Timmis J, Verstraete W, Casadevall A, Ramos JL. Weaponising microbes for peace. Wiley Online Library. 2023;:1091–111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 9.Díaz S, Settele J, Brondízio ES, Ngo HT, Agard J, Arneth A, et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science. 2019;366(6471):eaax3100. doi: 10.1126/science.aax3100 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Soudzilovskaia NA, van Bodegom PM, Terrer C, Zelfde MV, McCallum I, Luke McCormack M, et al. Global mycorrhizal plant distribution linked to terrestrial carbon stocks. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):5077. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-13019-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Fan W, Fan L, Peng C, Zhang Q, Wang L, Li L, et al. Traditional Uses, Botany, Phytochemistry, Pharmacology, Pharmacokinetics and Toxicology of Xanthium strumarium L.: A Review. Molecules. 2019;24(2):359. doi: 10.3390/molecules24020359 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.McMillan C. Photoperiodic adaptation of Xanthium strumarium in Europe, Asia Minor, and northern Africa. Can J Bot. 1974;52(8):1779–91. doi: 10.1139/b74-231 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ullah R, Khan N, Hewitt N, Ali K, Jones DA, Khan MEH. Invasive Species as Rivals: Invasive Potential and Distribution Pattern of Xanthium strumarium L. Sustainability. 2022;14(12):7141. doi: 10.3390/su14127141 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Waheed M, Haq SM, Arshad F, Vitasović-Kosić I, Bussmann RW, Hashem A, et al. Xanthium strumarium L., an invasive species in the subtropics: prediction of potential distribution areas and climate adaptability in Pakistan. BMC Ecol Evol. 2024;24(1):124. doi: 10.1186/s12862-024-02310-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wang J, Wang D, Wu B, Han J, Tan N. Phytochemical and pharmacological properties of Xanthium species: a review. Phytochem Rev. 2024;24(1):773–844. doi: 10.1007/s11101-024-09966-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Weaver SE, Lechowicz MJ. The biology of Canadian weeds: 56. Xanthium strumarium L. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 1983;63(1):211–25. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Chang H-M, But PP-H. Pharmacology and Applications of Chinese Materia Medica. World Scientific. 1986. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Rojas-Sandoval J. Xanthium strumarium (common cocklebur). Forest. 2007.
  • 19.Abdiyeva RT, Litvinskaya SA. Phytocenotic, bioecological and invasive activity of the invasive species Xanthium strumarium L. in some districts of Azerbaijan. plantfungalres. 2020;2(2):38–45. doi: 10.29228/plantfungalres.75 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Iqbal M, Iram A, Liu MC, Feng YL. Competitive approach of invasive cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) with native weed species diversity in Northeast China. BioRxiv. 2020. doi: 10.1101/2020.01.17.910208 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 21.Qureshi H, Anwar T, Arshad M, Osunkoya OO, Adkins S. Impacts of Xanthium strumarium L. invasion on vascular plant diversity in Pothwar Region (Pakistan). Annali di Botanica. 2019;9:73–82. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wapshere A. An ecological study of an attempt at biological control of Noogoora burr (Xanthium strumarium). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research. 1974;25(2):275–92. doi: 10.1071/ar9740275 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Qiu Y-X, Fu C-X, Comes HP. Plant molecular phylogeography in China and adjacent regions: tracing the genetic imprints of Quaternary climate and environmental change in the world’s most diverse temperate flora. Molecular phylogenetics and evolution. 2011;59(1):225–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Huang H. Plant diversity and conservation in China: planning a strategic bioresource for a sustainable future. Bot J Linn Soc. 2011;166(3):282–300. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.2011.01157.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Mi X, Feng G, Hu Y, Zhang J, Chen L, Corlett RT, et al. The global significance of biodiversity science in China: an overview. Natl Sci Rev. 2021;8(7):nwab032. doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwab032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Bardgett RD, Caruso T. Soil microbial community responses to climate extremes: resistance, resilience and transitions to alternative states. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2020;375(1794):20190112. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2019.0112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Jansson JK, Hofmockel KS. Soil microbiomes and climate change. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2020;18(1):35–46. doi: 10.1038/s41579-019-0265-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Evidente A. Specialized Metabolites Produced by Phytotopatogen Fungi to Control Weeds and Parasite Plants. Microorganisms. 2023;11(4):843. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms11040843 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Gao W-T, Su W-H. Weed Management Methods for Herbaceous Field Crops: A Review. Agronomy. 2024;14(3):486. doi: 10.3390/agronomy14030486 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Gundale MJ, Kardol P. Multi‐dimensionality as a path forward in plant‐soil feedback research. Journal of Ecology. 2021;109(10):3446–65. doi: 10.1111/1365-2745.13679 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Mueller CW, Baumert V, Carminati A, Germon A, Holz M, Kögel-Knabner I, et al. From rhizosphere to detritusphere – Soil structure formation driven by plant roots and the interactions with soil biota. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2024;193:109396. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2024.109396 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Singh Rawat V, Kaur J, Bhagwat S, Arora Pandit M, Dogra Rawat C. Deploying microbes as drivers and indicators in ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology. 2022;31(1). doi: 10.1111/rec.13688 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Gupta A, Mishra R, Rai S, Bano A, Pathak N, Fujita M, et al. Mechanistic Insights of Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria Mediated Drought and Salt Stress Tolerance in Plants for Sustainable Agriculture. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(7):3741. doi: 10.3390/ijms23073741 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Kaushal M, Wani SP. Rhizobacterial-plant interactions: Strategies ensuring plant growth promotion under drought and salinity stress. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2016;231:68–78. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2016.06.031 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kumar A, Verma JP. Does plant—microbe interaction confer stress tolerance in plants: a review?. Microbiological Research. 2018;207:41–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Ma Y, Dias MC, Freitas H. Drought and salinity stress responses and microbe-induced tolerance in plants. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2020;11:591911. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Soni R, Prakash G, Sharma S, Sinha D, Mishra R. Role of microbes in alleviating abiotic stress in plants. Plant Sci Today. 2023. doi: 10.14719/pst.2215 [DOI]
  • 38.Barrow JR, Lucero ME, Reyes-Vera I, Havstad KM. Do symbiotic microbes have a role in regulating plant performance and response to stress?. Communicative & Integrative Biology. 2008;1(1):69–73. doi: 10.4161/cib.1.1.6238 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Harman G, Khadka R, Doni F, Uphoff N. Benefits to Plant Health and Productivity From Enhancing Plant Microbial Symbionts. Front Plant Sci. 2021;11:610065. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2020.610065 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Cheng YT, Zhang L, He SY. Plant-Microbe Interactions Facing Environmental Challenge. Cell Host Microbe. 2019;26(2):183–92. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2019.07.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Soen Y. Environmental disruption of host-microbe co-adaptation as a potential driving force in evolution. Front Genet. 2014;5:168. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2014.00168 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.McFadden IR, Sendek A, Brosse M, Bach PM, Baity-Jesi M, Bolliger J, et al. Linking human impacts to community processes in terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. Ecol Lett. 2023;26(2):203–18. doi: 10.1111/ele.14153 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Storch D, Šímová I, Smyčka J, Bohdalková E, Toszogyova A, Okie JG. Biodiversity dynamics in the Anthropocene: how human activities change equilibria of species richness. Ecography. 2021;2022(4). doi: 10.1111/ecog.05778 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Hua F, Wang W, Nakagawa S, Liu S, Miao X, Yu L, et al. Ecological filtering shapes the impacts of agricultural deforestation on biodiversity. Nat Ecol Evol. 2024;8(2):251–66. doi: 10.1038/s41559-023-02280-w [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Montero A, Marull J, Tello E, Cattaneo C, Coll F, Pons M, et al. The impacts of agricultural and urban land-use changes on plant and bird biodiversity in Costa Rica (1986–2014). Reg Environ Change. 2021;21(2). doi: 10.1007/s10113-021-01767-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Roy PS, Ramachandran RM, Paul O, Thakur PK, Ravan S, Behera MD, et al. Anthropogenic Land Use and Land Cover Changes—A Review on Its Environmental Consequences and Climate Change. J Indian Soc Remote Sens. 2022;50(8):1615–40. doi: 10.1007/s12524-022-01569-w [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Waheed M, Arshad F. Adaptive convergence and divergence underpin the diversity of Asteraceae in a semi-arid lowland region. Flora. 2024;317:152554. doi: 10.1016/j.flora.2024.152554 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Chipomho J, Tatsvarei S, Parwada C, Mashingaidze AB, Rugare JT, Mabasa S, et al. Weed Types and Dynamics Associations with Catena Landscape Positions: Smallholder Farmers’ Knowledge and Perception in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Agronomy. 2022;2022:1–10. doi: 10.1155/2022/2743090 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Ruas R de B, Costa LMS, Bered F. Urbanization driving changes in plant species and communities – A global view. Global Ecology and Conservation. 2022;38:e02243. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2022.e02243 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Dubey RS, Kalyan S, Pathak B. Impacts of urbanization and climate change on habitat destruction and emergence of zoonotic species. Climate change and urban environment sustainability. Springer. 2023. p. 303–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Cooke SJ, Piczak ML, Singh NJ, Åkesson S, Ford AT, Chowdhury S, et al. Animal migration in the Anthropocene: threats and mitigation options. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2024;99(4):1242–60. doi: 10.1111/brv.13066 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Fordham DA. Identifying species traits that predict vulnerability to climate change. Camb Prism Extinct. 2024;2:e21. doi: 10.1017/ext.2024.24 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Hald-Mortensen C. The climate-biodiversity nexus reviewed: Navigating tipping points, science-based targets & nature-based solutions. J of Agri Earth & Environmental Sciences. 2024;3(6):01. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Clarke JG, Smith AC, Cullingham CI. Genetic rescue often leads to higher fitness as a result of increased heterozygosity across animal taxa. Mol Ecol. 2024;33(19):e17532. doi: 10.1111/mec.17532 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Delnevo N, Piotti A, Carbognani M, van Etten EJ, Stock WD, Field DL, et al. Genetic and ecological consequences of recent habitat fragmentation in a narrow endemic plant species within an urban context. Biodivers Conserv. 2021;30(12):3457–78. doi: 10.1007/s10531-021-02256-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Mehta P. The impact of climate change on the environment, water resources, and agriculture: A comprehensive review. Climate, environment and agricultural development: A sustainable approach towards society. 2024. p. 189–201.
  • 57.Patra AK, Coumar MV. Sustainable soil resource management for food and nutritional security under changing climate scenario. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2023;68(S):78–97. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Beery S, Cole E, Parker J, Perona P, Winner K. Species Distribution Modeling for Machine Learning Practitioners: A Review. In: ACM SIGCAS Conference on Computing and Sustainable Societies, 2021. 329–48. 10.1145/3460112.3471966 [DOI]
  • 59.Elith J, Leathwick JR. Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 2009;40(1):677–97. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Kumari G, Kotiyal PB, Singh H, Kumar M, Kumar N, Malik A. Predicting future climate change effects on biotic communities: A species distribution modeling approach. Forests and climate change: Biological perspectives on impact, adaptation, and mitigation strategies. Springer. 2024. p. 137–68. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Barewar H, Buragohain MK, Lama S. Mapping the impact of climate change on eco-sensitive hotspots using species distribution modelling (SDM): gaps, challenges, and future perspectives. Ecosystem and species habitat modeling for conservation and restoration. Springer. 2023. p. 59–86. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Cheng R, Wang X, Zhang J, Zhao J, Ge Z, Zhang Z. Predicting the Potential Suitable Distribution of Larix principis-rupprechtii Mayr under Climate Change Scenarios. Forests. 2022;13(9):1428. doi: 10.3390/f13091428 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Petrosyan V, Dinets V, Osipov F, Dergunova N, Khlyap L. Range Dynamics of Striped Field Mouse (Apodemus agrarius) in Northern Eurasia under Global Climate Change Based on Ensemble Species Distribution Models. Biology (Basel). 2023;12(7):1034. doi: 10.3390/biology12071034 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Rather ZA, Ahmad R, Dar T-U-H, Khuroo AA. Ensemble modelling enables identification of suitable sites for habitat restoration of threatened biodiversity under climate change: A case study of Himalayan Trillium. Ecological Engineering. 2022;176:106534. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2021.106534 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Valavi R, Guillera‐Arroita G, Lahoz‐Monfort JJ, Elith J. Predictive performance of presence‐only species distribution models: a benchmark study with reproducible code. Ecological Monographs. 2021;92(1). doi: 10.1002/ecm.1486 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Gu R, Wei S, Li J, Zheng S, Li Z, Liu G, et al. Predicting the impacts of climate change on the geographic distribution of moso bamboo in China based on biomod2 model. Eur J Forest Res. 2024;143(5):1499–512. doi: 10.1007/s10342-024-01706-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Huang Y, Li T, Chen W, Zhang Y, Xu Y, Guo T, et al. Analysis of the Distribution Pattern of Phenacoccus manihoti in China under Climate Change Based on the Biomod2 Model. Biology (Basel). 2024;13(7):538. doi: 10.3390/biology13070538 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Guisan A, Thuiller W, Zimmermann NE. Habitat suitability and distribution models: with applications in R. Cambridge University Press. 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Westbrook AS, Nikkel E, Clements DR, DiTommaso A. Modeling and managing invasive weeds in a changing climate. Invasive species and global climate change. GB: CABI. 2022. p. 282–306. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Di Cola V, Broennimann O, Petitpierre B, Breiner FT, D’Amen M, Randin C, et al. ecospat: an R package to support spatial analyses and modeling of species niches and distributions. Ecography. 2017;40(6):774–87. doi: 10.1111/ecog.02671 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Zhang Y, Wang C, Shi X, Wan Y, Qin S, Ma F. Assessing the potential distribution and ecological niche dynamics of invasive African giant snails (Lissachatina fulica) using a structural portfolio approach.
  • 72.Grover M, Ali SkZ, Sandhya V, Rasul A, Venkateswarlu B. Role of microorganisms in adaptation of agriculture crops to abiotic stresses. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2010;27(5):1231–40. doi: 10.1007/s11274-010-0572-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Jacoby R, Peukert M, Succurro A, Koprivova A, Kopriva S. The Role of Soil Microorganisms in Plant Mineral Nutrition-Current Knowledge and Future Directions. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:1617. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.01617 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Lau JA, Lennon JT. Rapid responses of soil microorganisms improve plant fitness in novel environments. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(35):14058–62. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1202319109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Pantigoso HA, Newberger D, Vivanco JM. The rhizosphere microbiome: Plant-microbial interactions for resource acquisition. J Appl Microbiol. 2022;133(5):2864–76. doi: 10.1111/jam.15686 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Djemiel C, Maron P-A, Terrat S, Dequiedt S, Cottin A, Ranjard L. Inferring microbiota functions from taxonomic genes: a review. Gigascience. 2022;11(1):giab090. doi: 10.1093/gigascience/giab090 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Wemheuer F, Taylor JA, Daniel R, Johnston E, Meinicke P, Thomas T, et al. Tax4Fun2: prediction of habitat-specific functional profiles and functional redundancy based on 16S rRNA gene sequences. Environ Microbiome. 2020;15(1):11. doi: 10.1186/s40793-020-00358-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Aßhauer KP, Wemheuer B, Daniel R, Meinicke P. Tax4Fun: predicting functional profiles from metagenomic 16S rRNA data. Bioinformatics. 2015;31(17):2882–4. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv287 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.GBIF.org. GBIF Occurrence Download. 2024. doi: 10.15468/dl.njqneb [DOI]
  • 80.Khedr AA, Serag MA, Elbaroughy RF, Abo Elagras HA. Modelling current and future distribution of some invasive weeds at local and global scales under climatic change. Scientific Journal for Damietta Faculty of Science. 2024;14(1):28–39. [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Fick SE, Hijmans RJ. WorldClim 2: new 1‐km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Intl Journal of Climatology. 2017;37(12):4302–15. doi: 10.1002/joc.5086 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Wildlife Conservation Society-WCS, Center For International Earth Science Information Network-CIESIN-Columbia University. Last of the wild project, version 2: Global human footprint dataset (Geographic). NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC). 2005. doi: 10.7927/H4M61H5F [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Huete A, Justice C, Van Leeuwen W. MODIS vegetation index (MOD13). 1999.
  • 84.Wu T, Lu Y, Fang Y, Xin X, Li L, Li W, et al. The Beijing Climate Center Climate System Model (BCC-CSM): the main progress from CMIP5 to CMIP6. Geosci Model Dev. 2019;12(4):1573–600. doi: 10.5194/gmd-12-1573-2019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Xiao-Ge X, Tong-Wen W, Zhang FZ, Wei-Ping L, Zhang YXL, Yong-Jie F. Introduction of BCC models and its participation in CMIP6. Advances in Climate Change Research. 2019;15(5):533. [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Soultan A, Safi K. The interplay of various sources of noise on reliability of species distribution models hinges on ecological specialisation. PLoS One. 2017;12(11):e0187906. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187906 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Meyer CB, Thuiller W. Accuracy of resource selection functions across spatial scales. Diversity and Distributions. 2006;12(3):288–97. doi: 10.1111/j.1366-9516.2006.00241.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Feng X, Park DS, Liang Y, Pandey R, Papeş M. Collinearity in ecological niche modeling: Confusions and challenges. Ecol Evol. 2019;9(18):10365–76. doi: 10.1002/ece3.5555 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Díaz-Vallejo M, Peña-Peniche A, Mota-Vargas C, Piña-Torres J, Valencia-Rodríguez D, Rangel-Rivera CE, et al. Analyses of the variable selection using correlation methods: An approach to the importance of statistical inferences in the modelling process. Ecological Modelling. 2024;498:110893. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2024.110893 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Menchions E, Francis I, Knoblauch V, Weinhagen C. Can species distribution modelling improve the climate threat assessment of at-risk mosses in Canada?. 2021.
  • 91.Hao T, Elith J, Lahoz‐Monfort JJ, Guillera‐Arroita G. Testing whether ensemble modelling is advantageous for maximising predictive performance of species distribution models. Ecography. 2020;43(4):549–58. doi: 10.1111/ecog.04890 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Jia T, Qi Y, Zhao H, Xian X, Li J, Huang H, et al. Estimation of climate-induced increased risk of Centaurea solstitialis L. invasion in China: An integrated study based on biomod2. Front Ecol Evol. 2023;11. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2023.1113474 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Yang L, Jia H, Hua Q. Predicting suitable habitats of parasitic desert species based on Biomod2 ensemble model: Cynomorium songaricum rupr and its host plants as an example. BMC Plant Biol. 2025;25(1):351. doi: 10.1186/s12870-025-06370-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Sillero N, Ribeiro‐Silva J, Arenas‐Castro S. Shifts in climatic realised niches of Iberian species. Oikos. 2022;2022(4). doi: 10.1111/oik.08505 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Gutiérrez-Lucas LR, Montor-Antonio JJ, Cortés-López NG, del Moral S. Strategies for the Extraction, Purification and Amplification of Metagenomic DNA from Soil Growing Sugarcane. ABC. 2014;04(04):281–9. doi: 10.4236/abc.2014.44034 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Iturbe-Espinoza P, Brandt BW, Braster M, Bonte M, Brown DM, van Spanning RJM. Effects of DNA preservation solution and DNA extraction methods on microbial community profiling of soil. Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2021;66(4):597–606. doi: 10.1007/s12223-021-00866-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Macnaughton S, Stephen JR, Chang YJ, Peacock A, Flemming CA, Leung KT, et al. Characterization of metal-resistant soil eubacteria by polymerase chain reaction--denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis with isolation of resistant strains. Can J Microbiol. 1999;45(2):116–24. doi: 10.1139/w98-221 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Kekeç M, Kadıoğlu İ. İklim değişikliğine bağlı olarak Xanthium strumarium L.’un Türkiye’de gelecekte dağılım alanlarının belirlenmesi. Turkish Journal of Weed Science. 2020;23(1):1–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Chikuruwo C, Masocha M, Murwira A, Ndaimani H. Predicting the suitable habitat of the invasive Xanthium strumarium L. in southeastern Zimbabwe. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research. 2017;15(1):17–32. [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Lecours V, Brown CJ, Devillers R, Lucieer VL, Edinger EN. Comparing Selections of Environmental Variables for Ecological Studies: A Focus on Terrain Attributes. PLoS One. 2016;11(12):e0167128. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0167128 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Chang X, Wang W, Zhou H. Nitrogen Acquisition by Invasive Plants: Species Preferential N Uptake Matching with Soil N Dynamics Contribute to Its Fitness and Domination. Plants (Basel). 2025;14(5):748. doi: 10.3390/plants14050748 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Kim H-S, Lee S-H, Jo HY, Finneran KT, Kwon MJ. Diversity and composition of soil Acidobacteria and Proteobacteria communities as a bacterial indicator of past land-use change from forest to farmland. Sci Total Environ. 2021;797:148944. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148944 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Li S, Li X, Ye Y, Chen M, Chen H, Yang D, et al. The rhizosphere microbiome and its influence on the accumulation of metabolites in Bletilla striata (Thunb.) Reichb. f. BMC Plant Biol. 2024;24(1):409. doi: 10.1186/s12870-024-05134-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Be rg G, Smalla K. Plant species and soil type cooperatively shape the structure and function of microbial communities in the rhizosphere. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2009;68(1):1–13. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2009.00654.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Xia Y, Dong M, Yu L, Kong L, Seviour R, Kong Y. Compositional and functional profiling of the rhizosphere microbiomes of the invasive weed Ageratina adenophora and native plants. PeerJ. 2021;9:e10844. doi: 10.7717/peerj.10844 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Yang B, Crawford M, Portman TA, Fehmi JS, Rasmussen C, Hoyt DW, et al. Metabolite-driven mechanisms reveal chemical ecology of Lehmann Lovegrass (Eragrostis lehmanniana) invasion in North American semi-arid ecosystems. Commun Biol. 2025;8(1):364. doi: 10.1038/s42003-025-07795-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Chukwuneme CF, Babalola OO. Microbial diversity and function in the rhizosphere microbiome: Driving forces and monitoring approaches. Agrosystems Geosci & Env. 2025;8(3). doi: 10.1002/agg2.70169 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Be Rg MP, Kiers ET, Driessen G, Van Der Heijden M, Kooi BW, Kuenen F, et al. Adapt or disperse: understanding species persistence in a changing world. Global Change Biology. 2010;16(2):587–98. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02014.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Thuiller W, Albert C, Araújo MB, Berry PM, Cabeza M, Guisan A. Predicting global change impacts on plant species’ distributions: future challenges. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics. 2008;9(3–4):137–52. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Debasis Mitra

1 Aug 2025

Climate Change Impacts on Xanthium strumarium Distribution: Integrating Species Distribution Models with Rhizosphere Microbiome Analysis in China

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jiang,

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 2025 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,

Debasis Mitra

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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Natural Science Foundation Project:

Role and Application Research of Small Secreted Proteins in Pathogenic-Symbiotic Transition Interactions (2023LHMS03007)”

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.

4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and in Supporting Information files.

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

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 Figures 1,5 and 6 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 1,5 and 6 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 ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

8. Please include a caption for figure 7.

9. Please include a copy of Table 2 which you refer to in your text on page 5.

10. 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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Introduction

1. Why authors have chosen Biomod2 over other alternative modeling frameworks. Justify it.

2. Authors should abbreviate species names after the first mention. For example, it is acceptable to use Xanthium strumarium the first time, but in subsequent mentions, the abbreviated form X. strumarium should be used consistently throughout the manuscript

3. The dual role of X. strumarium is mentioned in the introduction; however, the specific challenges it poses in China—such as its impact on agriculture—are not sufficiently detailed. Additionally, while its medicinal value is briefly referenced, this aspect could be further elaborated to enhance the context and significance of the study.

Material and methods

1. Line 108, Provide rationale why resampling to 5 km was necessary.

2. Table 1, why specific environmental variables such as slope and NDVI were chosen for the analysis. Clarify, how these are relavant to Xanthium strumarium.

3. Ensure that all figures and tables are cited consistently and placed logically within the text. Notably, Figure 1 is not mentioned or referenced in the manuscript

4. Line 143, Briefly justify the selection of the 12 algorithms and list all 12 algorithms by their full name and acronym.

5. Clarify the absence of Table 2 in the manuscript and address the duplication of Table 3. Ensure that all tables are correctly numbered, referenced in the text, and presented in a logical sequence.

6. Authors should consider about adding a methodological flow diagram for better understanding.

Results

1. Line 189, Define the full names of acronyms when they first appear to ensure clarity. (e.g., FDA, MARS)

2. Line 213, The choice of the EMmean method is mentioned in the manuscript but not explained. Justify why this method is preferred over other methods.

3. Figure 3 includes AUC, Kappa, and TSS values. While AUC and Kappa are discussed in detail, TSS is not addressed in the results interpretation. Please either include a comprehensive discussion of the TSS results or clarify the reason for its omission to maintain consistency and completeness in the evaluation metrics.

4. Some figures are not self-explanatory. Captions are brief and lack units or explanations. (e.g., Make sure that colour gradient in figure 5 is clearly explained in the caption)

5. Provide a brief description about figure 5 and 6 in the text.

6. Legend of Figure 7 is missing.

7. The results lack statistical tests to validate differences between microbial communities or habitat prediction in section 3.5. Use ANOVA/PERMANOVA or any other method to statistically compare microbial diversity and habitat suitability across groups and scenarios.

Discussion

1. Discuss about the role of extreme weather events (e.g., floods) in shaping the distribution and competitive dynamics of X. strumarium.

2. Human activity is identified as the dominant environmental variable influencing X. strumarium, but its role is not adequately explained.

3. “Role of Rhizosphere Microbial Communities in Adaptation” section of the discussion could be improved by addressing how microbial interactions may shift in response to climate change.

4. While the role of microbial communities in adaptation is highlighted, the mechanisms by which specific microbial phyla contribute to plant adaptation remain underexplored. Elaborate on the functional roles of key microbial groups like Verrucomicrobia and Nitrospira.

5. Figures and quantitative data are not sufficiently integrated into the discussion.

General Comments

1. Split Results and Discussion clearly. Some interpretation slips into Results.

2. Several sentences are grammatically incorrect; a thorough proofreading is recommended to improve the clarity.

3. Figures are not self-explanatory. Legends are brief, kindly expands it. Also increase the resolution of the figures.

4. Species names must be italicized throughout the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: 1. Which climatic variables (temperature, precipitation, seasonality) most significantly influence the current and future distribution of X. strumarium?

2. Does climate-induced range expansion of X. strumarium correlate with shifts in its associated microbiome diversity and function?

**********

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

Reviewer #2: 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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments on Xanthium strumarium.docx

pone.0351471.s001.docx (18KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2026 Aug 21;21(8):e0351471. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0351471.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


26 Sep 2025

Response to Reviewers

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-25-30270

Title: Climate Change Impacts on Xanthium strumarium Distribution: Integrating Species Distribution Models with Rhizosphere Microbiome Analysis in China

Dear Academic Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you for your valuable feedback and thoughtful comments on our manuscript, which have helped us to significantly improve its quality. We have carefully addressed each point raised and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Our point-by-point responses are detailed below. All changes made in the manuscript are highlighted with track changes in the revised file.

Part A: Responses to Journal Requirements

We have carefully reviewed and revised the manuscript to comply with PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for formatting and file naming. We have added a statement in the “Materials and Methods” section (Section 2.3) to clarify that no specific permits were required for the field sampling. The soil samples were collected from public-access areas in Inner Mongolia, China, and did not involve any protected species or private lands.

The revised statement is: “The Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Natural Science Foundation Project (2023LHMS03007) provided funding for the article processing charges (APC) of this publication. The funder had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

We confirm that all relevant data necessary to replicate the study's findings are included within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

The corresponding author's ORCID iD has been created and validated in the Editorial Manager system.

We apologize for the oversight regarding the copyrighted maps. We confirm that Figures 1, 6, and 7 (the originally referenced Fig 5 and 6) were produced using standard map data from the official standard map service of the Ministry of Natural Resources of China, which are publicly available for scientific use. We have added a specific statement to the captions of these figures to reflect this, including the official map approval number GS(2023)2767. This demonstrates that the base maps are officially approved and publicly accessible. The revised captions for these figures are as follows:

Fig 1: An integrated methodological framework for analyzing climate change impacts on Xanthium strumarium distribution and its rhizosphere microbiome. The geographical components within this figure are based on standard map data from the official standard map service of the Ministry of Natural Resources of China (map approval number GS(2023)2767), used without modification.

Fig 6: Predicted potential distribution of suitable habitats for Xanthium strumarium in China under current environmental conditions. The base map for this figure was generated using standard map data from the official standard map service of the Ministry of Natural Resources of China (map approval number GS(2023)2767), with the geographical elements used without modification.

Fig 7: Projected future distributions of suitable habitats for Xanthium strumarium in China. The base map for this figure was generated using standard map data from the official standard map service of the Ministry of Natural Resources of China (map approval number GS(2023)2767), with the geographical elements used without modification.

We have revised the manuscript to ensure that Figure 1 is correctly cited and placed logically within the text in the “Materials and Methods” section. We have also added a detailed caption for Figure 7, which was previously missing. We apologize for the confusion and have now added the missing Table 2 (Rhizosphere soil sampling sites) to the manuscript, and all subsequent tables have been renumbered to ensure a logical sequence. No specific citations were recommended by the reviewer, so no action was required here.

Part B: Responses to Reviewer Comments

Reviewer #1

Introduction

Justify Biomod2 selection. We have revised the Introduction to provide a clear justification for choosing the Biomod2 framework. We highlight its ability to integrate multiple modeling algorithms, which reduces the uncertainty inherent in single models and provides a more robust and comprehensive prediction.

Abbreviate species names. We have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript and have consistently abbreviated Xanthium strumarium to X. strumarium after its first mention in the abstract and introduction.

Elaborate on the dual role of X. strumarium. We have expanded the Introduction to provide more detailed context on the dual nature of X. strumarium. We have added specific examples of its negative impact on Chinese agriculture, such as its invasion of farmlands and contamination of crops and livestock products, to enhance the significance of the study.

Materials and Methods

Rationale for 5 km resampling. We have added a sentence in the “Data Sources and Processing” section to explain the rationale for selecting a 5 km resolution. This scale was chosen to ensure methodological consistency, ecological appropriateness for a widespread species, and to minimize noise and spatial inaccuracies in the occurrence data.

Justify selection of variables. We have clarified the relevance of specific environmental variables, such as slope and NDVI, to X. strumarium in the “Data Sources and Processing” section. We explain that these variables are ecologically relevant to a ruderal species that thrives in disturbed and low-gradient environments.

Consistent figure and table citations. We have corrected all figure and table citations to ensure they are consistent and logically placed within the text.

Justify and list 12 algorithms. We have corrected the number of algorithms from 12 to 11, as Support Vector Machine (SVM) was initially part of the framework but was excluded. We apologize for this error. We have updated the text in “Models Construction and Changes in Ecological Niches” to clearly state that 11 algorithms were used. The full names and acronyms of all 11 algorithms are already listed in the manuscript. We have also added a brief justification for using an ensemble of diverse algorithms, explaining that this approach captures a wide range of species-environment relationships and reduces uncertainty.

Clarify table numbering. We apologize for the confusion. We have added the missing Table 2 (Rhizosphere soil sampling sites) to the manuscript, and all subsequent tables have been renumbered to ensure a logical sequence.

Add a methodological flow diagram. We have added a methodological flow diagram (Fig 1) to the “Materials and Methods” section, which visually summarizes the entire research process.

Results

Define acronyms. The full names of all acronyms, including FDA and MARS, are defined in the text when they first appear. We have reviewed the manuscript to ensure this consistency.

Justify the EMmean method. As requested in the provided document, we have already added a comprehensive justification for the choice of the EMmean method, highlighting its robustness, transparency, and ability to balance predictions from diverse algorithms.

Discuss TSS values. We have added a sentence to the “Model Precision Assessment” section to briefly interpret the TSS values, mentioning that the RF model achieved the highest score and that several other models also performed well, providing a consistent analysis of all three metrics (AUC, TSS, and Kappa).

Improve figure captions. We have expanded the captions for Figures 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 to be more self-explanatory. We have also added units and clearer explanations for color gradients and other visual elements, ensuring readers can understand the figures without referring to the main text.

Provide a brief description about figures 5 and 6 in the text. We have revised the “Bioclimatic Variable Contribution” and “Present Potential Geographic Spread” sections to include brief descriptions and references to Figures 5 and 6, respectively.

Legend for Figure 7. We have added a clear and descriptive legend for Figure 7.

Add statistical tests for microbial communities. We apologize for this oversight. We have now performed a PERMANOVA (Adonis) analysis to statistically compare the microbial community composition among the different sampling sites. We have added the results of this analysis to the “Rhizosphere Microbial Abundance” section (Section 3.5), including the p-values and R² values, which now statistically validate the observed differences.

Discussion

Role of extreme weather events. We have added a sentence to the “Impact of Climate Change on Habitat Distribution” section to discuss the role of extreme weather events, such as floods, in creating disturbed habitats that promote the spread and competitive advantage of X. strumarium.

Clarify the role of human activity. We have expanded the discussion on the dominant role of the human footprint. We now explicitly state that the human footprint index captures the cumulative impact of land-use changes like agricultural expansion and urbanization, which create the disturbed environments where this species thrives. We have also integrated the quantitative data from Fig 5 to highlight its significant contribution (66.6%) to the model.

Microbial interactions and climate change. We have added a sentence to the “Role of Rhizosphere Microbial Communities in Adaptation” section to discuss how microbial interactions may shift in response to climate change, specifically mentioning that altered soil moisture and temperature could lead to an increase in stress-tolerant microbial taxa.

Functional roles of Verrucomicrobia and Nitrospira. We have added a detailed explanation of the functional roles of Verrucomicrobia and Nitrospira, clarifying their contributions to nitrogen cycling and the degradation of complex organic matter. We also linked these functions to the overall 'Metabolism' pathway predicted by Tax4Fun to provide a deeper mechanistic insight.

Integrate figures and data. We have thoroughly reviewed the Discussion section and have integrated quantitative data and direct references to Figures 5, 8, 9, and 11 to support our interpretations and conclusions, ensuring the discussion is well-supported by the results.

General Comments

Split Results and Discussion. We have re-evaluated the manuscript and have split the “Results” and “Discussion” sections more clearly. We have moved all interpretive sentences to the Discussion and ensured that the Results section focuses solely on presenting the data and findings.

Proofreading. The manuscript has undergone a thorough proofreading to correct grammatical errors and improve the overall clarity and readability.

Figure clarity and resolution. As stated in our response to Reviewer 1's comments on the Results section, we have expanded all figure captions to make them more self-explanatory. We have also ensured that all figures meet the specified resolution requirements for publication.

Italicize species names. We have performed a final check to ensure that all species names (Xanthium strumarium and X. strumarium) are consistently italicized throughout the manuscript.

We believe that these revisions have significantly improved the quality and rigor of our manuscript. We are confident that it now meets the publication criteria for PLOS ONE. We look forward to your positive decision.

Sincerely,

Jinyang Dong & Liyan Zhang

Co-first authors

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0351471.s004.docx (21.2KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Debasis Mitra

30 Dec 2025

Dear Dr. Jiang,

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 Feb 13 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.

  • 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 https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Debasis Mitra

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

1. 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.

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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

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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: comment.docx

pone.0351471.s003.docx (11.9KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2026 Aug 21;21(8):e0351471. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0351471.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


27 Jan 2026

Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you and the reviewers have dedicated to providing insightful feedback on our work.

We have carefully considered the comments raised by Reviewer #3 (as contained in the attachment). We found the suggestions extremely constructive and have addressed each point in detail. The manuscript has been revised to incorporate invasion risk zoning, discussions on soil chemical properties, and updated literature from 2023–2025.

Below is a point-by-point response to the specific comments.

Response to Reviewer #3

Comment 1: "The manuscript was written well but some modifications are required. Xanthium strumarium, an invasive species... In the abstract part, potential risk zones may be included for better understanding."

Response: We appreciate this suggestion. We have revised the Abstract to explicitly identify high-risk areas. The text now reads: "Future climate scenarios predict habitat expansion of 8.9–28.6%, identifying high-risk invasion zones primarily concentrated in Yunnan, Guangdong, and Inner Mongolia provinces." This modification provides a clearer warning for management purposes.

Comment 2: "It was observed that to investigate the potential impacts of climate change on the distribution of X. strumarium, species distribution model was used. It may be more better if the model predict No Risk Zones, Low-Risk Zones, Medium Risk Zones, High-Risk Zones etc."

Response: We fully agree that classifying results into risk zones is more practical for invasion management.

Methodology Update: In Section 2.2, we reclassified the habitat suitability indices into four discrete categories: No-Risk Zone (0–0.25), Low-Risk Zone (0.25–0.50), Medium-Risk Zone (0.50–0.75), and High-Risk Zone (0.75–1.0).

Visuals Updated: We have updated Figure 6, Figure 7, and Table 3 to reflect this new terminology.

Comment 3: "During the analysis of distribution pattern, soil chemical properties like CEC, soil available N etc maybe include."

Response: This is a critical point. While our broad-scale SDM relied on climatic and topographic variables due to the limitations of high-resolution soil raster data at the national scale, we have significantly strengthened the discussion on soil chemical properties by linking them to our Human Footprint and Microbiome results.

In Section 4.1: We expanded the discussion to explain that the high contribution of the "Human Footprint" variable serves as a proxy for nutrient-rich soil conditions caused by anthropogenic disturbance. We explicitly discussed how CEC and Soil Available Nitrogen act as drivers for this nitrophilous species, citing recent evidence.

In Section 4.2: We utilized our molecular data to provide biological validation that soil nitrogen cycling is indeed a key limiting factor for X. strumarium, effectively bridging the gap between macro-models and micro-soil properties.

Comment 4: "Discussion part maybe enriched with more recent evidences as well as recent references."

Response: We have extensively updated the Discussion section with literature published between 2023 and 2025 to ensure the manuscript reflects the state-of-the-art.

Mechanisms of Invasion: We incorporated recent studies on how disturbance releases nutrients.

Microbiome Adaptation: We added references regarding how invasive plants actively reshape microbial communitie.

Soil Heterogeneity: We cited recent findings on soil nutrient heterogeneity.

Journal Requirements regarding References: We have reviewed our reference list to ensure completeness and correctness. We confirm that no retracted papers have been cited.

We believe that these revisions have significantly improved the quality and clarity of the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_20260127.docx

pone.0351471.s005.docx (19.9KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Fei Xu

12 Apr 2026

Dear Dr. Jiang,

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 May 27 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.

  • 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 https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only  the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot  verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Fei Xu, Ph.D.

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

The authors are requested to clarify several questionable points:

1.The reasons for the decrease, instead of increase, in the areas of high-risk zones as shown in Table 7;

2.The issue of potential mirrored image in the results of niche stability under the SSP5-8.5 scenario in fig. 8;

3.The selection of microbial sampling sites—specifically, why these five locations were chosen? The lack of connection between the sites and the predictive model, and the absence of integration with environmental factors in the analysis process, make it difficult to support the conclusions about the changes in species distribution .

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

[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.

PLoS One. 2026 Aug 21;21(8):e0351471. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0351471.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 3


24 May 2026

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript. We deeply appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to providing valuable, constructive, and insightful feedback. We have carefully read all the comments and found them immensely helpful in improving the quality, logical rigor, and clarity of our study.

In this revised manuscript, we have addressed all the concerns raised by the reviewers. Specifically, the most significant improvements include:

Clarifying the Spatial Logic: We have explicitly detailed the rationale for selecting the five microbial sampling sites in Inner Mongolia, seamlessly bridging our macro-scale Species Distribution Model (SDM) predictions (specifically the Human Footprint Index) with our micro-scale microbiome findings.

Explaining Ecological Trends: We have provided a robust ecological interpretation for the projected decrease in the high-risk zones of Xanthium strumarium under future high-emission scenarios (the "suitability decay" phenomenon).

Refining Conclusions: We have carefully calibrated our language to acknowledge the spatial limitations of the microbial sampling, presenting the findings as vital mechanistic insights rather than definitive nationwide proofs.

Following this summary, a detailed, point-by-point response to each of the comments raised by the editor and reviewers is presented below.

Comment 1: The reasons for the decrease, instead of increase, in the areas of high-risk zones as shown in Table 7.

Response: We deeply appreciate the reviewer's rigorous review and insightful observation. First, we would like to gently clarify that the projected changes in the distribution areas, including the high-risk zones, are detailed in Table 3 and Figure 7 of our manuscript (we respectfully assume the mention of Table 7 was a minor typographical oversight).

The decrease in high-risk zones under future scenarios—particularly under the high-emission SSP5-8.5 scenario—is indeed a counterintuitive but ecologically plausible phenomenon, rather than a model artifact. This non-linear trend, which we refer to as "suitability decay," can be attributed to the following key factors:

Physiological Thresholds: Under extreme warming scenarios, temperature and moisture stress in the current core habitats may exceed the optimal physiological limits for X. strumarium. As environmental conditions drift beyond these optimal thresholds, the habitat quality in these historic core areas degrades from "High-Risk" down to "Medium- or Low-Risk."

Niche Fragmentation and Range Shift: While the overall total suitable area expands (specifically, driven by a significant increase in Low- and Medium-Risk zones as shown in Table 3), the highly concentrated optimal "hotspots" undergo spatial fragmentation. The species is simultaneously colonizing new, marginal environments at higher latitudes or altitudes, which initially present as lower-risk zones.

Environmental Trade-offs: Our model indicates that the Human Footprint Index is the dominant driver (contributing 66.6%). While anthropogenic disturbance provides the necessary fertile micro-environments, the intensifying macro-climatic stressors in future scenarios counterbalance these benefits. This trade-off reduces the overall probability of maintaining "optimal" (high-risk) suitability in the original infestation centers.

Action taken: To ensure this phenomenon is clearly understood by readers, we have explicitly expanded upon this "suitability decay" and its implications for broader invasion management in the revised Discussion (Section 4.1).

Comment 2: Potential mirroring issues in the niche stability results under the SSP5-8.5 scenario (as shown in Figure 8).

Response: We respectfully disagree with the reviewer’s interpretation regarding a "mirroring issue." We would like to clarify that the asymmetrical protrusion observed in the bottom-left corner of the PCA space under the SSP5-8.5 scenarios (both 2041–2060 and 2061–2080) is not a graphical glitch, code error, or mirroring artifact. In the niche analysis performed via the ecospat package, the solid contours (red and green lines) delineate the outer boundaries of the available background climate space (environmental envelope) for the respective periods. The specific shape and extension of these lines are driven entirely by the underlying climate data:

Real Climate Shifts under Extreme Scenarios: The SSP5-8.5 is an extreme, high-emission scenario characterized by severe climate anomalies. The distinct "tail" or loop protruding into the negative PC1 and PC2 space explicitly reflects a dramatic shift and expansion of the macro-climatic baseline (e.g., extreme temperature/precipitation combinations or the emergence of non-analog novel climates) that occurs only under severe warming.

Evidence from Mild Scenarios: As shown in Figure 8, this protrusion is completely absent in the milder scenarios (SSP1-2.6 and SSP2-4.5), where the background climate space remains stable and symmetrical. If this were a computational or mirroring bug within the plotting script, it would consistently manifest across all climate scenarios. Its exclusive appearance under SSP5-8.5 confirms that the model is accurately visualizing the dramatic distortion of the future environmental space.

Action taken: To prevent any future misinterpretation by readers, we have added a clarifying statement in the Figure 8 caption and the corresponding Results section to explicitly state that these extended contours represent the expansion of extreme background climate spaces under the high-emission scenario.

Comment 3: The selection of microbial sampling sites—specifically, why these five locations were chosen? The lack of connection between the sites and the predictive model, and the absence of integration with environmental factors in the analysis process, make it difficult to support the conclusions about the changes in species distribution.

Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s critical and insightful comment. We agree that bridging the gap between macro-scale predictive models (SDM) and micro-scale ecological data (microbiome) requires a highly explicit logical connection. We have thoroughly revised our manuscript to clarify the strategic rationale behind our site selection and to better integrate environmental factors into our interpretation.

We have addressed this concern from the following three dimensions:

1. Strategic Site Selection Driven by SDM Predictions: The choice of Inner Mongolia and these five specific habitats was not arbitrary, but rather a targeted validation of our preliminary SDM results. First, our Biomod2 model identified Inner Mongolia as a highly vulnerable, emerging hotspot for Xanthium strumarium invasion under future climate change scenarios. Sampling at the invasion front allows us to capture the early adaptive mechanisms of expanding populations.

2. Establishing the Link: Anthropogenic Disturbance Gradient: The predictive model revealed that the Human Footprint Index (HFI) is the single most dominant macro-environmental driver of X. strumarium distribution, contributing 66.6% to the model. To directly connect our field sampling with this key environmental factor, we deliberately selected five habitats that represent a clear gradient of anthropogenic disturbance: Urban Green Space and Farmland Edge (High Disturbance) vs. Grassland, Montane Forest, and Temperate Steppe (Low to Moderate Disturbance). This allows us to investigate how macro-environmental filtering (human activities) translates into micro-ecological responses.

3. Integration of Environmental Factors and Mechanistic Insights: In the revised Discussion, we have deeply integrated these macro-environmental factors with the microbial functions. Anthropogenic disturbances typically lead to localized soil nutrient shifts, particularly nitrogen accumulation. Our microbiome data provides a direct mechanistic explanation for the SDM: in high-disturbance sites (high HFI), X. strumarium exhibits a distinct rhizosphere assembly, significantly enriching nitrogen-cycling and stress-tolerant taxa (such as Nitrospira and Pseudomonas). This micro-level microbial recruitment provides the physiological support needed for the plant to thrive in the highly suitable habitats predicted by the macro-model.

4. Calibrating the Scope of Our Conclusions: We acknowledge the spatial scale limitation raised by the reviewer—five localized sampling sites cannot fully represent nationwide species distribution shifts. Therefore, we have carefully toned down our conclusions. In the revised text, we clarify that the microbiome data serves as a localized mechanistic insight into how the species adapts to disturbance regimes, rather than a direct nationwide proof. We have also explicitly added this spatial scale mismatch as an inherent limitation in the "Uncertainties" section (Section 4.3).

Attachment

Submitted filename: letter.docx

pone.0351471.s006.docx (195.2KB, docx)

Decision Letter 3

Fei Xu

27 May 2026

Climate Change Impacts on Xanthium strumarium Distribution: Integrating Species Distribution Models with Rhizosphere Microbiome Analysis in China

PONE-D-25-30270R3

Dear Dr. Jiang,

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 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,

Fei Xu, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Acceptance letter

Fei Xu

PONE-D-25-30270R3

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Jiang,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS One and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Fei Xu

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comments on Xanthium strumarium.docx

    pone.0351471.s001.docx (18KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0351471.s004.docx (21.2KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: comment.docx

    pone.0351471.s003.docx (11.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_20260127.docx

    pone.0351471.s005.docx (19.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: letter.docx

    pone.0351471.s006.docx (195.2KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Data is available from https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.x0k6djhz9.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES