PREreview of Wilting Wildflowers and Bummed-Out Bees: Climate Change Threatens U.S. State Symbols

Summary and Strengths 

This study attempts to determine the impact of climate change on habitat suitability of culturally significant U.S. state symbols, mainly flowers and insects. To this aim, the authors use multiple correlative SDM algorithms to predict potential habitats of these species under historical (1981-2010) and future (2071-2100) climate scenarios. One of their main findings is that over half of the state flowers and insects will face negative overall effects, potentially leading to local extinction or reduced suitability, thus threatening cultural heritage. 

This study distinguishes itself from existing literature - which has primarily focused on climate impacts on ecologically and economically significant species - by introducing the concept of “cultural loss”. This adds a new layer of complexity to land and resource management for which the authors offer valuable guidance. 

The reviewers found the authors’ argument to be well constructed and would like to highlight the following strengths: 

• There was sufficient background information (e.g., historical context) to understand the reasoning and purpose of study. 

• The research question was clearly stated. 

• The SDM algorithms were appropriate for addressing the proposed research question. 

• The graphics were well constructed – they were clean, easy to interpret, displayed an appropriate amount of information, and were clearly referenced in text. 

• Interpretations of the study were matched with relevant examples and practical solutions/approaches. 

• Limitations of their study design were discussed. 

• The presentation of ideas flowed well, and the text had high readability. 

Our critiques of the preprint are listed below, categorized as Major Issues or Minor Issues. In short, we recommend further clarification, context, and consistency within the manuscript. 

Major Issues 

• The reviewers would like clarity on what data were used to generate their models. For example, the authors state (lines 918-919) that historical models were made with both temperature and precipitation; yet they pulled the most intense warming scenarios for their future species distribution models (lines 923-925). Other studies have shown that temperature and precipitation interact to change SDMs (Harsch and HilleRisLambers, 2016). Please clarify whether precipitation data were used, and if not, how that might impact the validity of the SDMs. 

Minor Issues 

Introduction 

• Please provide an example of how nations use funds to conserve their cultural heritage (lines 52-53), such as institutional partnerships or grants to ensure proper curation of museum or library collections. 

• The Introduction places a lot of emphasis on flora – please provide some additional context related to culturally significant insects and how they’re impacted by climate change OR shift the focus to only state flowers. 

• The argument would be more substantiated with current, tangible examples of how individuals are culturally/historically connected with their state symbols. 

Methods 

• Due to some state flowers not actually being true flowers (i.e., one is a gymnosperm), we recommend including a disclaimer within the “Species List” section that states something along the lines of, “Although not all state flowers are true flowers, for this paper, we will use the term ‘state flower’.” 

Results 

• The reviewers would find it helpful if the authors would maintain consistency in presentation of the results, specifically in providing subheadings for “Climate change impacts on state insects”. 

Discussion 

• The Discussion places a lot of emphasis on interpreting results related to the state flowers – please provide some additional information on the insects, including management strategies OR, like our comment above, consider shifting the focus to only state flowers. 

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.