Inconsistent Statements in 10.3390/f17040470
A recent investigation reveals several inconsistent statements in the article [1]:
(1) The article states in the 3.1 section that the meteorological information was obtained from CN05.1 database; while the table indicates than the meteorological information was obtained from WorldClim database.
(2) The article states in the 3.1 section that soil sand content (mass percentage) was chosen as the sole soil variable; however, in section 4.3, the article discusses the effect of soil type, including fluvisols, gleysols, and others.
(3) The article states in the Abstract section that "under the high-emission SSP585 scenario by the 2070s, the suitable habitat area is projected to decline by 7.579 × 103 km2 for Malus sieversii and 9.883 × 103 km2 for Prunus cerasifera relative to the baseline"; while in the 4.5 section, it states "habitat area declined progressively over time under each fixed scenario, with maximum reductions of 8.244 × 103 km2 for Malus sieversii and 12.894 × 103 km2 for Prunus cerasifera under SSP585 by the 2070s".
The above inconsistent statements were identified with the help of the Large Language Model DeepSeek-v4.1 Flash.
Reference