Cultivation potential projections of breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis) under climate change scenarios using an empirically validated suitability model calibrated in Hawai'i.

Humanity faces significant challenges to agriculture and human nutrition, and changes in climate are predicted to make such challenges greater in the future. Neglected and underutilized crops may play a role in mitigating and addressing such challenges. Breadfruit is a long-lived tree crop that is a nutritious, carbohydrate-rich staple, which is a priority crop in this regard. A fuzzy-set modeling approach was applied, refined, and validated for breadfruit to determine its current and future potential productivity. Hawai'i was used as a model system, with over 1,200 naturalized trees utilized to calibrate a habitat suitability model and 56 producer sites used to validate the model. The parameters were then applied globally on 17 global climate models at the RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 global climate projections for 2070. Overall, breadfruit suitability increases in area and in quality, with larger increases occurring in the RCP 8.5 projection. Current producing regions largely remain unchanged in both projections, indicating relative stability of production potential in current growing regions. Breadfruit, and other tropical indigenous food crops present strong opportunities for cultivation and food security risk management strategies moving forward.

Introduction

Humanity faces multiple challenges for the future of food production. By mid-21st century, the world population is expected to reach nine billion people with associated pressure on resources [1], increasing demands on food and nutrition while rates of hunger and malnutrition are on the rise [2]. Changes in global weather are expected to negatively impact food yields, especially the major commodity crops that provide much of the global food supply [3,4], and nutrient quality and density of crops [5,6]. Global hunger and malnourishment, largely correlated to poverty and insufficient access to enough nutritious food is increasing [2,7]. Some 2 billion people are suffering from micronutrient malnutrition [8,9]. At the other end of the spectrum, obesity—which is often attributed to global commodities that lack essential micro and macro-nutrients—is also on the rise [2].

Increased pressure on food markets is expected to exacerbate existing issues of food security, nutrition, social equity, and economies [1,3]. In order to achieve the goals of eliminating hunger, improving food security and nutrition and promoting sustainable agriculture, many advocates for transforming and developing food systems that respond to or anticipate climate change [10]. With existing problems in our current food supply and compounding factors on the horizon, developing food production systems that emphasize resilience and nutrition is an essential strategy for mitigating these issues.

Of the approximately 250–300,000 flowering plant species, at least 50,000 are edible [11,12]. Of these, about 3,000 species are regularly exploited for food [13]. Yet only three crops provide 60% of the world’s calories [14] and 103 crops provide some 90% of the world’s food production [15]. This gap between the 3,000 species regularly utilized for food and the 103 dominant crops of the planet make up a vast, relatively untapped resource of crops commonly referred to as neglected and underutilized species (NUS). Such crops are often ignored by researchers, policy makers and breeders [13,16]. NUS offer opportunities for adaptation because they have a wide range of genetic diversity that can enhance resilience to stressors related to climate change [17].

Although emphasis on NUS will undoubtedly help to mitigate climate impacts to current food systems and positively impact food and nutrition security, multiple barriers exist to their widespread adoption. These barriers include loss of genetic diversity and traditional knowledge, undervaluation through lack of knowledge and research, poor competitiveness, and lack of infrastructure, policy support and investments [16]. Therefore, more attention must be given to NUS on all levels—from cultivation to gastronomic uses—if they are to be useful in creating sustainable food systems for the future.

Breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis) is an underutilized tree crop that grows in the tropics and sub-tropics, originally cultivated from the wild species ancestor bread nut (Artocarpus camansi) in Papua New Guinea [18,19]. The crop is listed as one of the thirty-five priority crops in the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for its potential to target food security and interdependence [20]. The trees are a high yielding starchy staple crop, producing up to 10 t/ha of fruit that is rich in carbohydrates, essential amino acids, fiber, vitamins, minerals including micronutrients such as iron and potassium [21-24]. Although exact fruit yield estimations are variable (see [25] for a summary of yield), it is evident that breadfruit has the potential to target issues surrounding food and nutrition security if specific cultivar and growing conditions are optimized.

Recent advances in propagation methods, scientific research and promotion of breadfruit have made breadfruit trees widespread throughout the tropics however, they are still underutilized due to the range of factors identified for NUS in general [18, 25]. As a perennial tree, breadfruit has significant potential to contribute to building climate resilient food systems [26,27] in addition to their ability to sequester carbon, provide shade, stabilize the soil, benefit watersheds, and provide a multitude of invaluable environmental benefits [28,29].

GIS-based land-use suitability analysis attempts to identify the most appropriate spatial pattern for land uses according to specific requirements, preferences, or predictors of some activity [30], including suitability of land for agricultural activities [31]. A considerable amount of research has been conducted on assessing the relationship between crop response/productivity and climate using simulation models [32,33]. Recently this approach has also been utilized as a method with which to assess crop response to climate change [34-37]. However, most of these models are fine-tuned towards predicting crop yields for global commodity crops (e.g. corn, wheat, soybean, rice), for which widespread cultivation offer ample opportunities for model calibration and validation. The methods are quite adaptable to different crop types as long as basic information about the crop’s environmental range is known.

GIS-based suitability analysis can address multiple-criteria decision-making problems and can incorporate fuzzy logic techniques [31]. Fuzzy logic [38] involves the concept of membership function in which a given element is numerically represented by the degree to which it belongs to a set. In this way, a measurement within a criterion can have degrees of membership between unsuitable (0) and perfectly suitable (1). Because geographical phenomena tend to exhibit continuous spatial variability, Burrough and McDonnell [39] suggest that fuzzy membership more accurately captures boundaries between land suitability classes than binary or categorical approaches. Such application in crop modeling has been demonstrated more recently [37].

Different approaches to modeling have been established, demonstrating methodologies that can be applied to a wide range of crops. For instance, AquaCrop is a water-driven crop growth model that utilizes linear proportionality to transpiration, with crop/cultivar specific scalar parameters [40,41]. Other models, such as CropSyst, use several dozen crop input parameters to simulate the production rate [42,43]. Driven by daily weather inputs, such models can be highly accurate when properly calibrated and have recently been applied to NUS [44-48]. However, such calibration typically requires experimental investigation over the lifetime of a crop, which in the case of long-lived tree crops, and in particular neglected and underutilized tree crops, can be prohibitive. In the case of trees, landscape-level approaches utilizing natural experiments may be better suited to understanding patterns of potential productivity.

Traditionally, breadfruit in Hawai’i was cultivated as a major staple [49-51] in a range of cropping systems, from massive arboriculture developments, to mixed agroforestry, to individual and backyard trees [52]. Following European colonization, a dramatic shift away from traditional crops occurred [53], although many pockets of traditional agriculture and associated practices remained [54] and remnant trees and production systems persisted [50, Lincoln in press]. Over the past 20 years, significant efforts have occurred to revitalize breadfruit in Hawai’i. Such efforts have included large-scale tree giveaways [55], restoration of traditional agricultural systems [54], a growing local food producing sector [56], and consumer education such as outreach, chef campaigns and festivals [57]. Such initiatives have resulted in significant increases in production at multiple levels including backyard trees, small diversified farm plantings, and larger mono-cropped orchards [55,56].

Hawai’i is an excellent location to tune habitat distribution models, including for agricultural species and activities. Hawaii provides a “model system” for ecological investigations [58] due to its consistent geology and wide, well-defined variation in climate and substrate age that allow for a degree of precision that cannot be duplicated elsewhere. Environmental gradients in mean annual temperature (from <10–24 C), annual precipitation (from <200->10,000 mm), and substrate age (from hot rock to >4,000 kyr) are among the clearest, broadest, and most orthogonal on Earth [59]. The matrix of environmental gradients creates among the densest concentration of ecosystems on the planet [60], and correspondingly dense variation in agricultural habitats and opportunities.

The purpose of this paper is to develop an empirically validated, fuzzy-set model for breadfruit production that incorporates both climate and soil data, and to explore the global potential for breadfruit cultivation in current and future climate scenarios. This builds upon prior work that conducted a two-tiered suitability model for breadfruit based on rainfall and temperature [61]. The developed model is utilized to further assess potential changes in breadfruit production over time with anticipated climate scenarios to understand global and regional changes in productive potential.

Methods

Modeling approach

The crop model methodology in this study utilizes a basic mechanistic approach in which 1) environmental criteria deemed important to the crop’s success are selected, 2) suitable environmental ranges for the crop are determined for each of the selected criteria, 3) fuzzy sets are constructed for each criteria based on the environmental ranges, representing the approximate niche of the crop, 4) a crop suitability score is calculated based on how closely the current or future environmental conditions match the constructed fuzzy sets, and 5) model is validated and refined in an iterative process as required. This approach allows flexibility within the model and the ability to add new evaluation criteria.

The initial environmental ranges for breadfruit were obtained from the EcoCrop database [62] which contained an optimum range and an absolute range for each parameter. Environmental criteria with values within the optimal range represent perfect suitability while values outside the absolute range are considered unsuitable. Fuzzy sets were constructed using the methodology adapted from Ramirez-Villegas et al. [37] which utilized a linear algorithm to systematically construct the fuzzy set used to derive scores (0–100) between suitable and unsuitable: where SUIT is the suitability score, and P is the measured environmental criterion at the site (i.e., each pixel), and ABSmin, ABSmax, OPTmin, and OPTmax are the absolute and optimal environmental ranges for the criterion of a particular crop.

Five environmental criteria essential to breadfruit growth were selected to evaluate breadfruit crop suitability based on the EcoCrop parameters, availability of data, and the relationship to tree distribution. These criteria were rainfall, average temperature, solar radiation, soil drainage, and soil pH. The overall suitability score for each crop was calculated on a per pixel basis using the minimum value of the sets the cell location belongs to: where n is the number of criteria used in the evaluation. This conservative approach is based on the law of the minimum [63], in which crop yield is proportional to the most limiting nutrient; the same idea can be applied to environmental conditions and has been utilized in similar GIS crop-suitability analysis [64].

Spatial data layers of the environmental parameters were obtained from the Hawaii Rainfall Atlas [65], the Hawaii Evapotranspiration Atlas [66] and the SSURGO database [67]. All calculations were performed in R Studio (RStudio, Inc., Boston, MA) [68] at a mapping unit of 50m by 50m. The R Studio “raster” and “rgdal” packages were used to generate the equations within and between the spatial layers. The scripts, layers, and imagery are available online at https://github.com/nlincoln2017/breadfruit-suitability-model.

Model refinement and validation

Based on previous modeling of breadfruit habitat [62, 57], the EcoCrop environmental parameters were known to not be accurate. We addressed this by overlaying the habitat suitability maps generated from the EcoCrop parameters with a map of 1,200 naturalized breadfruit trees from systematic surveys of breadfruit on four islands (Kaua’i, Molokai, O’ahu, and Hawai’i) (e.g., [50, 55]); and convening a panel of experts to discuss and refine the optimal and absolute levels for each of the environmental parameters. The model was regenerated with adjusted absolute and optimal environmental parameters for two iterations at which point the panel of experts agreed upon the ranges and the resulting model closely aligned with the mapped tree distributions.

To validate the new model, yield and productivity data from 56 producer sites were used (see [69] for details on producer sites and methods of quantifying productivity). These producer sites were categorized as follows: 11 both irrigated and amended soils, 15 irrigated only, 4 amended soils only, and 27 neither irrigated nor amended soils. Model validation was conducted by comparing the modeled habitat suitability to the observed breadfruit productivity, both utilizing a scale of 0–100.

The model efficacy was evaluated using Root Mean Square Error-observations standard deviation ratio (RSR), Nash-Sutcliff Model Efficiency coefficient (ME) [69], and Willmott’s Index of Agreement (IA) [70] using the following equations: Where S and M are the simulated and measured values of yield and is the average of M values of n measured values. The RSR is an indicator of the distance between the observed and simulated values; the closer the value is to zero the better the model simulation. The ME measures the departure of the model compared to the observed variance, where ME = 1 indicates a perfect model fit and ME = 0 means that the observed mean value is as good a predictor as the model. The IA measures the ratio of the mean square error to the total potential error, with IA = 1 indicates a perfect fit and IA = 0 represents the worst possible model. Values were calculated for all sites against corresponding model output of combined environmental parameters. For instance, modeled outputs compared to irrigated sites did not include the rainfall parameter since this is not a limiting parameter for the irrigated sites. The same concept was applied for the soil pH parameter and sites that used soil amendments. At sites where trees were neither irrigated nor amended, the model output that used all environmental parameters was applied.

Following the development, refinement, and validation of the model in Hawai’i, the derived ranges of optimal and absolute environmental conditions were used to run the model at a global level. The environmental layers of mean annual temperature, rainfall and solar radiation were acquired from WorldClim [71] and the global soil data of pH and drainage class from the WISE database [72,73]. A comparison of the global model to a previous model developed by Lucas and Ragone [62] was conducted by spatially overlaying the two datasets and extracting spatially corresponding suitability scores. A mosaic plot was generated to anecdotally examine the similarities and differences in predicted extent and quality of breadfruit habitat between the two models.

Future projections

Global average annual temperature and rainfall projection data from the WorldClim database were applied to our model to create future suitability scores. These datasets represent the 2060–2080 average using global climate models (GCM) from the CMIP5 of the IPPC Fifth Assessment that were downscaled to a 30 arc second (~1km at the equator) spatial resolution using current WordClim 1.4 as baseline current (1950–2000) data [74]. All 17 GCMs which had projections of the environmental parameters for both Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 and 4.5—representing extreme and intermediate Greenhouse Gas scenarios–were applied. Each set of projections were used to generate breadfruit suitability using our validated breadfruit model. The 17 model outputs from the GCM scenarios were averaged to represent 2070 breadfruit suitability for the two RCPs. Finally, each RCP scenario was compared to the current global suitability output to determine how much suitability would increase or decrease in the next 50 years by spatially overlaying the two datasets and extracting corresponding suitability scores.

Results and discussion

Hawai’i model and validation

The initial breadfruit model that utilized parameters defined by EcoCrop proved to be highly restrictive compared to the distribution of naturalized trees surveyed in Hawai’i especially in terms of rainfall and soil drainage (Table 1). For instance, the absolute maximum rainfall as defined by EcoCrop was 3,500 mm/yr, but tree mapping in Hawai’i demonstrated naturalized trees in substantially wetter areas and experts provided numerous contrary examples from across the Pacific. Similarly, there were ample trees documented in Hawai’i growing on higher and lower drainage class than reported by EcoCrop. Less significant changes were recommended for temperature and pH, and no changes to solar radiation were suggested. Final parameters utilized were in all cases less restrictive than provided by EcoCrop (Table 1).

Table 1

Environmental parameters initially obtained from the EcoCrop database and the refined parameters applied to the habitat suitability model.

		Abs Min	Abs Max	Opt Min	Opt Max
Final Model Parameters	Temp (°C)	17	40	21	33
	Rain (mm/yr)	750	8000	1500	4000
	Solar Rad. (W/m2)	20	295	50	197
	pH	4	8.7	5	6.5
	Drainage Class	2	7	4	6
EcoCrop Parameters	Temp (°C)	16	40	21	33
	Rain (mm/yr)	1000	3500	1500	3000
	Solar Rad. (W/m2)	20	295	50	197
	pH	4.3	8.7	5.5	6.5
	Drainage Class	4	6	4	6

Following refinement of the model parameters, a fuzzy set model was produced for Hawai’i (Fig 1). The effects of Hawai’i’s substantial gradients in temperature and rainfall are clearly visible, with greater potential on the wetter windward (northeastern) sides of the islands and near the warmer coasts. The textured breaks in the model represent the soil parameters driven by different aged lava flows on the younger (southern) islands and valley topography on the older (northern) islands. Leveraging the diversity across the archipelago, validation was conducted using sites located on five islands (Fig 1).

Fig 1

Suitability for productive capacity of breadfruit in Hawai’i, with scores ranging from 0 (white, cannot cultivate) to green (100, ideal cultivation) based on 5 climate and soil parameters.

Validation sites are marked by the black crosshairs.

The sites used for validation differed substantially in both their actual productivity and their modeled suitability. A linear regression between measured productivity of “natural” sites (no irrigation and no soil amendments) and corresponding simulated suitability demonstrated a strong, significant relationship (r2 0.91, p<0.001). Using all sites and their corresponding simulated suitability the relationship weakens but remains strong (r2 0.84, p<0.001). Model validation statistics indicated that overall our model performs very well with moderately high model efficiency (ME) and very high index of agreement (IA) (Table 2). It is suggested that models perform satisfactorily if ME > 0.5 and the RSR is below 0.7 [75], with our model performing substantially stronger.

Table 2

Summary of validation site statistics in terms of measured and simulated productivity and their coefficient of variation, and model accuracy assessment for only sites without irrigation or fertilization and for all sites.

Irrigated	Fertilized	n	Meas. Prod.	Meas. CV	Sim. Prod.	Sim.CV	Model Used
N	N	27	65.7	28.9	63.2	38.4	All model parameters
N	Y	15	78.7	34.4	81.9	50.2	Removed rainfall consideration
Y	N	4	80.0	24.8	59.5	29.1	Removed pH consideration
Y	Y	11	92.7	25.3	99.5	10.7	Removed rainfall and pH consideration
Y/N	Y/N	57	75.4	8.5	74.9	1.7	Relevant model for each site
Irrigated	Fertilized	n	RMSE	St Dev	ME	IA	Model Used
N	N	27	12.2	22.6	0.70	0.95	All model parameters
Y/N	Y/N	57	12.5	21.7	0.67	0.94	Relevant model for each site

Global model and comparison to previous model

Following the development, refinement, and validation of the model using Hawai’i as a model system, the parameters were applied to global data layers to make global predictions of production potential (Fig 2).

Fig 2

Current global breadfruit suitability extrapolated from the environmental parameters derived in Hawai’i.

We compared our empirically validated model against the only previous global breadfruit suitability model published (Fig 3), which applied only rainfall and temperature to define two classes of breadfruit habitat: “suitable” and “best” [62]. Overall our model is more inclusive, with the model by Lucas and Ragone [62] suggesting ~26,900,000 km2 of suitable habitat (~14,800,000 km2 of “best” and ~12,100,000 of “suitable”), and our model suggesting ~35,100,000 km2 of suitable habitat–an ~30% increase in total cultivable area. This is likely due to our more inclusive thresholds for rainfall and temperature as defined in the model fitting process. Since our model applies the law of minimums, the inclusion of additional criteria should have further restricted the extent of breadfruit habitat. Of the lands excluded by Lucas and Ragone [62] and included by our model, ~70% of those lands score 50 or below on the fuzzy set; however, ~10% do show exceptional suitability, scoring 90 or above. Of the lands included by Lucas and Ragone [62], our model excludes ~1,300,000 km2 of “suitable” lands and 700,000 km2 of “best” lands. A brief examination of excluded pixels indicates that these exclusions primarily resulted from the consideration of soil parameters in our model. Overall, however, the two models show fairly good alignment. Of the “best” lands identified by Lucas and Ragone [62], ~90% of the points demonstrate suitability values of 90 or above by our model. The average simulated suitability by our model of the “best” lands in Lucas in Ragone [62] is 89, for “suitable” lands 61, and for “unsuitable” lands 0.6.

Fig 3

A mosaic plot comparing a previous global breadfruit model by Lucas and Ragone [62] on the x-axis in categories of unsuitable (0), suitable (1), and best (2), and our fuzzy set model on the y-axis represented by percentage total of each score.

The width of the x-axis indicates the relative total area of that category, while the y-axis indicates the percentage of that area occupied by each suitability score.

Future breadfruit suitability was assessed using our fuzzy set model using climate projections of precipitation and temperature for the RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 climate scenarios (Fig 4). The results demonstrate successive increase in suitability in the RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 scenarios compared to the current suitability (Table 3). At all levels of suitability, our model predicts an increase of total cultivable land (an increase of 27% and 89% for RCP 4.5 and 8.5 respectively) as well as a total increase in average suitability (an increase of 14% and 45% respectively). While a large portion of the total increase in habitat occurred under marginal suitability (<30), increases in the cultivable area of all suitability classes is clear (Table 3).

Fig 4

Modeled future global suitability in 2070 for RCP 4.5 (top) and RCP 8.5 (bottom).

Table 3

Area of breadfruit suitability in millions of km2 for current and future climate projections, presented as total and individual bins as discussed.

	Current	RCP 4.5	RCP 8.5
Total	32.66	41.62	61.71
Bin
<1	2.59	3.53	9.35
1–10	2.11	4.68	10.38
11–20	1.97	3.62	6.20
21–30	1.83	2.90	5.28
31–40	2.03	2.50	4.62
41–50	3.27	3.74	5.17
51–60	1.64	1.90	3.16
61–70	1.42	1.96	2.93
71–80	1.63	2.12	4.17
81–90	4.25	5.25	6.22
91–100	12.50	12.94	13.59
Group
<1 TO 30	8.51	14.73	31.21
31 TO 70	8.36	10.11	15.88
71 TO 100	18.38	20.31	23.97

While our model suggests a net increase in total suitable land and general suitability over the next 50 years, the changes are not uniform and some areas do show a decrease in suitability, including total loss of cultivation (Fig 5). In particular, losses in suitability occur in currently suitable areas of Central and South America, while large gains are seen in southeast Asia, southeastern United States, and southeastern parts of South America.

Fig 5

Changes (increase/decrease) in breadfruit suitability over the next 50 years under (top) RCP 4.5 and (bottom) RCP 8.5.

In general, though, currently productive areas remain largely unchanged. Under the 4.5 scenario, the area that does not change is 43% of the total modelled area (~16,700,000 km2), and the area that increases/decreases by a suitability of up to 10 is a further 35%, making the total area that remains unchanged or minimally unchanged 78% of the total modeled area (~27,400,000 km2). Under the RCP 8.5 climate scenario, the area that will remain unchanged over the next 50 years is 43% of the totaled modelled area (~15,200,000 km2). The area that will minimally change (+/- 10 suitability score), will be another 30%, to make the total area unchanged or minimally unchanged 73% of the total modeled area (~25,500,000 km2).

Future opportunities

There is substantial potential for future breadfruit production based on the large increases in total cultivable area and average suitability of that area under climate change projections. This is encouraging given that many current staple crops are expected to decline in suitability with projected future climate scenarios [34, 76–78]. Furthermore, most currently producing regions are not negatively affected, providing some security and stability in the face of projected changes.

The vast growth in very low suitability in our model is a facet of outlier GCM models. All of the very low (<1) suitability numbers result from pixels where only one of the 17 GCMs indicated conditions suitable for breadfruit. Further examination into the inter-GCM model variability would provide stronger confidence in future habitat and risk mitigation investment. This is particularly important for a neglected crop species as there is already substantial risk because of the large scale-lack in agronomic research, post-harvest research, and market development.

As mentioned, our model indicates expansion of area in all bins of suitability. In our observation of validation sites, we noted that suitability of 30 or below represented very poor producing trees–the plants would grow and bear fruit but only on the order of 10% of what trees in very high suitability are able to produce. In this light, we propose excluding the sites with suitability scores less than 30. Similarly, at the upper end of the spectrum, sites with suitability of >70 appear to all be highly productive, with only slight changes in relatively high yields. Therefore, a more tempered approach might be to think of “moderate” (31–70) and “high” (71–100) quality habitat for breadfruit. Such an approach would also inherently eliminate the vast areas of very low suitability (<10) caused by model outliers. Applying this breakdown (Table 3), we see a 10% and 30% increase in high suitability sites for RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 respectively, and a corresponding increase of 21% and 90% in moderate suitability.

A current shortcoming to the model is that average annual data was used. This may be particularly problematic in areas that get below freezing temperatures, as frost has been reported to kill breadfruit trees. While the absolute minimum average annual temperature was set at 17°C, freezing temperatures for short periods of time could still occur and be offset by much higher temperatures. Likewise, this could apply to seasonality of rainfall as there is not a clear understanding of how much prolonged drought breadfruit trees can tolerate. Furthermore, there may be temporal aspects of such variations in weather that further complicate the interactions. For instance, local seasonal drought during the season of vegetative growth may have different impacts than if it occurred during the fruiting season. Unfortunately, there currently exists a drastic shortage of such observations, with the limited observations tending to exist as anecdotal evidence rather than quantifiable parameter thresholds. However, with increased plantings globally and increased focus on the crop, the necessary data to move towards more refined models driven by increasingly specific criteria can be generated. Any future modeling efforts should certainly take an approach that considers monthly extremes in temperature and rainfall as well as rainfall seasonal distributions. However, for the tropical and subtropical regions of the world this shortcoming is not expected to impact the results. Other extreme events, such as heat waves, prolonged droughts, damaging floods and hurricanes, etc. are also not considered in examining suitability in this way.

Conclusion

Our study highlights breadfruit as a highly resilient tree crop, suitable for investment and incorporation into climate adaptation and regional land-use planning. The dramatic increases in global suitability shown by our model for breadfruit also begs the question of what other NUS crops may flourish under future climate conditions, and can they do this synergistically in an integrated, adaptive food forest. To plan for future adaptation, they must be identified and nurtured now, and supported with technical and infrastructural resources. Approaches such as validated models can be a first step in this direction, providing an increased degree of security and investor confidence to develop the plantings and infrastructure needed. Further modelling that integrates environmental variability will assist in this capacity and where globally available data or high-resolution data is lacking, site specific, fine-scaled models may serve to fill the gap especially for seasonally variable areas.

Bringing an underutilized crop into the market as a major food source is a difficult task that face many hurdles but is a critical component for addressing mounting needs for food security and good nutrition in a changing world. Our extensive regional work with breadfruit agriculturalist shows a strong need to shift consumer preferences, grow peoples’ palette for new crops, and change perception and markets. Large scale marketing efforts may do well supporting this up-and-coming “superfood”, especially in light of its ability to persist in the future along with the multitude of economic and environmental co-benefits that may ensue from the farming of sustainable, breadfruit forests.

Transfer Alert

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

6 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-26938

Growing Global Potential of Breadfruit Cultivation under Climate Change Scenarios

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lincoln,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Dec 21 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

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

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

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ahmet Uludag, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

Additional Editor Comments:

Two reviewers ended up with different decisions. I agree with reviewer decided for major revision. I am sure your paper will be better if you follow recommendations but you feel free not to follow not relevant ones but we need your reasoning in that case. I would like to have this paper published. Good luck.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

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 requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript needs to be significantly re-conceptualised and re-written so that it can be concise, have logical flow and clarity of purpose in terms of contribution. For example, the introduction is too long and winding, and makes for confounding reading. The methodology is then too brief, and the Results and Discussion sections are even more brief with a one sentence conclusion. This is probably because the analyses done is thin and limited; however, a reconceptualisation of the manuscript as a systematic review and metaanlyses, could improve the quality and flow. I have made comments in the manuscript

Reviewer #2: Well written paper with significant research findings for Breadfruit cultivation.

line 57, add a 'comma' between spectrum, obesity

line 184, add the word 'and' between sets, and 5)

line 214 define R studio (add company of the software)

line 225, add the word 'The' between parameters. The model

line 271 add the word'or' between irrigated or amended soils

The 5 environmental criteria selected were rainfall, avg temperature, solar radiation, soil drainage, and soil PH.

The authors discuss the fact that using the avg temperature is one of the shortcomings of their model in that the average temperature does not monitor temperatures below freezing (monthly extremes) which would kill a breadfruit tree. Did the authors also consider that the rainfall (annual precipitation) may also need further refinement? Annual precipitation may occur over 12 months (some rain every month) or it could be characterized as over a short period of time as in areas with monsoons (seasonal rainfall). Would the breadfruit tree be able to withstand a prolonged period of drought? Perhaps the authors would add this discussion in the paragraph from line 389-397.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: 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 to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: PONE-D-19-26938_reviewer.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

27 Dec 2019

Reviewer #1:

The manuscript needs to be significantly re-conceptualised and re-written so that it can be concise, have logical flow and clarity of purpose in terms of contribution. For example, the introduction is too long and winding, and makes for confounding reading. The methodology is then too brief, and the Results and Discussion sections are even more brief with a one sentence conclusion. This is probably because the analyses done is thin and limited; however, a reconceptualisation of the manuscript as a systematic review and metaanlyses, could improve the quality and flow. I have made comments in the manuscript

We disagree that this paper would be better conceptualized as a review paper as it is based on several years of original, empirical research on breadfruit habitat and productivity, uses such data to calibrate a new habitat model, and then applies that model to existing GCMs to develop a robust picture of the current and future habitat suitability of a long-lived and neglected crop. We would further argue that our research lab is among the few, if any, teams that have the empirical data to calibrate such a model. While we do rely on our previously published data to reduce the need for describing those methods and data, we are not “reviewing” our own work, but building upon it. However, we do agree with the Reviewer that the overall flow and allocation of space in the manuscript was not well developed in the initial submission and have made substantial changes accordingly. The Introduction has been shortened and edited to create better flow and expanded to include previous work of other models. The Methodology has been developed with additional statistical analysis. The Results and Discussion has been combined into one, more comprehensive section, and the Conclusion is much improved.

Line 44. The introduction is too long and winding and contains a lot of text that does not need to be in an introduction. There may be need to revise the format of the introduction

As stated above the previous Introduction has been edited to be more concise and create better flow, while additional aspects of the introduction have been expanded to include previous work of other models.

Line 46. The extent of literature review on NUS and reports of their potential and limitations is limited. Also, there are some useful papers on climate change impacts on nutrition of fruits and vegetables (dominant ones), that needs to be included.

We have included additional work of models on NUS, although in our search we could not find work examining a long-lived tree crop, which is a major limitation in working with breadfruit and what makes most crop models that are driven by short term weather and physiology not applicable to the modeling of a tree crop.

A single line to the introduction was added that acknowledges that climate changes will also affect nutritional quality, with two supporting references.

Line 90. Why is breadfruit still underutilized despite the recognition from ITPGRF and others? What other barriers exist for the crop?

The reasons for underutilization are similar to all NUSs, which were already enumerated in the previous paragraph on NUSs. No additional changes were made.

Line 98. Can you provide exact quantities to allow for comparative analyses

Providing the exact nutrient quantities for the crop are well outside of the focus of this paper. Multiple references for the statement are provided, including an in-depth review paper on breadfruit nutrition, if readers want to explore the topic in more depth. As we do not explore or discuss breadfruit nutrition in the paper we do not see this as a relevant topic to provide detailed information on.

Line 115. This could have been strengthened by a more in-depth but brief review of the literature on modelling NUS

We agree, and have heavily edited the first paragraph of this section, and included an entirely new paragraph after conducting some review of this literature. We conclude, however, that existing models driven by daily weather and plant physiology are not applicable in the case of a long-lived tree crop, and think that this supports our habitat modeling approach for modeling breadfruit.

Line 122. AquaCrop has been applied for several NUS.

Thank you for the suggestion, and we have included some of this literature as mentioned in the previous comment although we conclude that the approach is not currently feasible for breadfruit.

Line 135. “Than”

Thank you for catching this. Change made.

Line 153. Is this desirable?

We did not, and are not, making a subjective argument about the desirability of agricultural form here – we are simply reporting details of the study system that we are working within. No change was made.

Line 176. there is no section on statistical analyses. Also, you need to use more than just R^2.

We agree that our statistical analysis of the model performance was inadequate. We have reviewed relevant literature and included three common model performance metrics in order to assess the validation of the model, including the model efficiency, the index of agreement, and the ratio of the RMSE-observations standard deviation. We have included a statistical analysis section in the methods, and include those statistics in the results/discussion section.

Lines 182-183. I would not consider this stage to be part of mechanistic crop modelling

I think the difference in perspective arises because we are conducted a calibrated crop habitat suitability model that ultimately performs very well as a predictive crop performance model that ultimately performs as a mechanistic crop model (that is, explaining phenomenon in purely deterministic terms). Perhaps the confusion is that our model uses methods that traditionally were applied to habitat suitability and based off of longer-term environmental parameters (climate vs. weather) compared to the plant physiology driven crop models that the Reviewer seems to be more familiar with (Aqua-Crop, etc.).

Lines 187-188. where these linked to any particular location as these tend to vary by variety and location?

There are some interactive effects of climate that could result in slight differences in the environmental limitations. For instance, the temperature limitation may vary as humidity changes. However, as the EcoCrop data base itself, we apply the same parameters to everywhere in the globe. We are only able to empirically test the performance of breadfruit in a few areas so it is not currently possible to delve into these interactions. We also are not able to pull apart varietal effects at this point, although we have established the long-term trials necessary to do so and hope to refine this model in the long term; however, because of the tree crop timeline we anticipate that this will be on the order of a decade to get the meaningful data needed to appropriate parameterize the model for specific varieties. No changes were made.

Line 200. Can you justify the selection of these criteria and exclusion of common ones such as texture, depth, slope etc

The selection of criteria was based on (1) those available on EcoCrop (2) the panel of experts and distribution of novel trees, and (3) the availability of data. Our intent is not to maximize criteria, but rather to focus on the key criteria that our panel of experts (who are informed by some of the leading agronomic work on breadfruit in the word) suggest. To this end, some criteria are not considered as impactful (soil depth is not limiting since breadfruit has been observed to grow on volcanic rock, and sand substrates) and some others were not available at the spatial coverage required. Short additions were made in the methods to clarify our selection method.

Lines 214-216. Why did you not use MCDA and AHP? Then you could have had more criteria - nine –

We did not want to further increase the criteria at this time because we are simultaneously developing and defining the optimal and absolute levels of the criteria. Our model adheres by the law of minimum indicating at that each criteria is limiting on its own. Multi-criteria decision making wouldn’t apply because we are not looking for the right combination of criteria, but rather, the variable that is most restrictive. For example, for any given site, if rainfall is limiting then to some extent temperature does not matter even if it in the ideal range for breadfruit growth. There is also limited sites that can be used for parameterization and validation. We believe that this is an excellent suggestion for future work and we conduct more modeling approaches to understanding the performance of this crop in different environments.

Line 252. There are elements of discussion in this section. I would suggest combining the two into one Results and Discussion section; AND Line 361. As elements of the discussion have already been alluded or preempted in the Results section, it may be good to combine the two sections. Also, on its own, the discussion is not supported by the literature, since its already been used in the Results. There is not much context provided in the discussion, and statements of impact are missing

We agree, and as mentioned we have restructured the paper to merge the results and discussion as suggested.

Lines 311-313. also you had more criteria

As we mention in the methods, we apply the law of minimums, meaning that the most limiting environmental parameter limits the total performance of the crop. Therefore, additional criteria can ONLY restrict the distribution, not increase it. The reviewer may have a fundamental mis-understanding of our modeling approach.

Lines 363-365. PLEASE SUPPORT THIS WITH REFERENCES

References added. Thank you for catching this oversight.

Line 409. Surely, you cannot have a conclusion that is just one sentence

Conclusion was expanded.

Reviewer #2:

Well written paper with significant research findings for Breadfruit cultivation.

We thank the reviewer for the positive response to this manuscript.

line 57, add a 'comma' between spectrum, obesity

Added

line 184, add the word 'and' between sets, and 5)

Added

line 214 define R studio (add company of the software)

Added

line 225, add the word 'The' between parameters. The model

Added

line 271 add the word'or' between irrigated or amended soils

Added

The 5 environmental criteria selected were rainfall, avg temperature, solar radiation, soil drainage, and soil PH. The authors discuss the fact that using the avg temperature is one of the shortcomings of their model in that the average temperature does not monitor temperatures below freezing (monthly extremes) which would kill a breadfruit tree. Did the authors also consider that the rainfall (annual precipitation) may also need further refinement? Annual precipitation may occur over 12 months (some rain every month) or it could be characterized as over a short period of time as in areas with monsoons (seasonal rainfall). Would the breadfruit tree be able to withstand a prolonged period of drought? Perhaps the authors would add this discussion in the paragraph from line 389-397.

This is an excellent point, and it was considered although not explicitly discussed. We have added a portion to the discussion where this is considered.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

21 Jan 2020

Cultivation Potential Projections of Breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis) Under Climate Change Scenarios Using an Empirically Validated Suitability Model Calibrated in Hawai’i

PONE-D-19-26938R1

Dear Dr. Lincoln,

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

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

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Ahmet Uludag, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Please follow the reviewers small comments. Before your manuscript came to yo for checking, please do all recommended changes. I will acept this paper to accelarate the publishing instead of minor revision.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I enjoyed reading your responses to the initial comments. I suggest that you remove the sub-headings in the introduction, as they do not seem to add much value. The sub-section that refers to why Hawaii as a location, should be part of the methodology, and not the introduction. The introduction itself, would still benefit from some shortening for improved readability and conciseness. As it is, it is overly long. The discussion could also still benefit from being strengthened - for example, some questions posed in the conclusion could have been answered/addressed in the discussion, as there is published information available to provide such discussion.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi

7 May 2020

PONE-D-19-26938R1

Cultivation Potential Projections of Breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis) Under Climate Change Scenarios Using an Empirically Validated Suitability Model Calibrated in Hawai’i

Dear Dr. Lincoln:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, 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.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ahmet Uludag

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE