1. 1. The paper cited and referenced ‘Wilfredo et al. 2013’ should have been given as ‘Falcón et al. 2013’. Reference: Falcón W, Ackerman JD, Recart W, Daehler CC (2013) Biology and impacts of pacific island invasive species. 10. Iguana iguana, the Green Iguana (Squamata: Iguanidae). Pacific Science 67: 157-186.

2. 2. The paper’s mention of the iguana’s ‘threat to various human-made structures, including canals, levees and dikes’ based on Kern (2004) is incorrect as Kern (2004) only mentioned damage to sidewalks, seawalls, and foundations. Risks to canals, levees, and dikes should therefore be interpreted only as a reasoned extrapolation based on structural similarity, further supported by related literature (Claunch et al. 2025). Reference: Claunch N, Jones P, Khazan E, Kluever B (2025) State of knowledge for invasive green iguanas in Florida reveals negative impacts and pervasive research needs. Frontiers in Amphibian and Reptile Science 3: 1529065.

3. 3. The paper reports that the iguanas ‘infest’ many crops based on De Jesús Villanueva et al. (2024), but should have referred to the iguanas merely consuming these crops.

4. 4. The paper cites and lists ‘Enge et al. 2007’ but this should have been given as ‘Krysko et al. 2007’. Reference: Krysko K, Enge K, Donlan E, Seitz J, Golden E (2007) Distribution, natural history, and impacts of the introduced green iguana (Iguana iguana) in Florida. Iguana 14: 142-151.

5. 5. The paper refers to iguanas being ‘a potential source’ of pathogenic strains of Escherichia coli but the authors acknowledge that the evidence for this comes only from captivity (Bautista-Trujillo 2020), while highlighting that in China, the primary pathway of iguana invasion is the pet trade; the data from captive individuals are therefore relevant when assessing zoonotic risk in the early stages of an invasion driven by release practices.

6. 6. The paper appears to use work by Govender et al. (2012) as evidence of agricultural damage by green iguanas, whereas this study did not report damage to agricultural production, but investigated dietary composition and seed-dispersal role of green iguanas. The authors highlight that Govender et al. (2012) should have been used to evidence the preceding discussion regarding seed dispersal of invasive plants, while the sentence about agricultural impacts should have referred to other literature addressing crop damage (De Jesús Villanueva, 2022). Reference: De Jesús Villanueva CN, Massanet Prado GP, Gould W, et al. (2022) Interviews with farmers suggest negative direct and indirect effects of the invasive green iguana (Iguana iguana) on agriculture in Puerto Rico. Management of Biological Invasions 13(4): 781-797.

7. 7. The citation of ‘den Burg et al. (2020)’ should have been cited as ‘van den Burg et al. (2020)’ Reference: van den Burg MP, Van Belleghem SM, De Jesús Villanueva CN (2020) The continuing march of Common Green Iguanas: arrival on mainland Asia. Journal for Nature Conservation 57: 125888.

8. 8. In the citation of Lee KH et al. (2019), the volume number was incorrectly given as 82; it should have been 829. The correct reference is: Lee KH, Chen TH, Shang G, Clulow S, Yang YJ, Lin SM (2019) A check list and population trends of invasive amphibians and reptiles in Taiwan. ZooKeys 829: 85–130.

9. 9. The author names in the reference for Rodríguez-Rey et al. (2022) were incorrectly listed. The correct reference is: Rodríguez-Rey M, Borrell YJ, Dopico E, Muha TP, Rolla M (2022) Understanding public perceptions toward invasive species in different parts of Europe. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 65: 2257–2275.

10. 10. The paper’s citation and reference of ‘De Jesús Villanueva et al. (2024)’ was incorrect, instead it should have referred to ‘De Jesús Villanueva et al. (2022)’. Reference: De Jesús Villanueva CN, Massanet Prado GP, Gould W, García-Quijano C, Kolbe JJ (2022) Interviews with farmers suggest negative direct and indirect effects of the invasive green iguana (Iguana iguana) on agriculture in Puerto Rico. Management of Biological Invasions 13: 781-797.

11. 11. The paper refers to reports of smuggling and illicit trade of green iguanas. These statements were based on documented cases compiled by the authors, which have not been formally published in the scientific literature and were not described in detail in the paper because of word limits to this Comment.

12. 12. The paper refers to green iguanas being reported in 18 sites across nine provinces of China, however detailed evidence and other information such as dates and precise location were constrained by the journal’s length limitations on this Comment type of paper. However, sufficient information is provided in the paper to approximate the search on Chinese mainstream search engines that was done.

13. 13. The paper lacks full evidence to support Figure 1 in three respects.

    1. (i) In Figure 1a–d, the pictured green iguanas lacked information on the precise geographical coordinates and dates of the sightings, however this detail was constrained by the space limitations imposed by the journal’s Author Instructions for a Comment, and relevant details are available from the authors.

    2. (ii) For Figure 1, the legend should read: “Figure1. (a-d) Four illegally traded green iguanas. (e) A green iguana discovered in the wild in Huizhou, Guangdong Province (Xinhuanet 2023). (f) Eighteen sites (BJ=Beijing; FS = Foshan; GX = Kaohsiung; GZ = Guangzhou; HD = Huidong; HK = Hong Kong; HN = Huainan; JY = Chiayi; LS = Lingshui; MS = Mangshi; PD = Pingtung; SH = Shanghai; TD = Taitung; WN = Wanning; XSBN = Xishuangbanna; XY = Xiangyang; YF = Yunfu; ZJ = Zhanjiang) where green iguanas have been reported in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. The map in the bottom left corner shows the species’ current distribution in the Americas (IUCN 2025).”

    3. (iii) In Figure 1f, the map includes Taiwan and South China Sea islands within the borders of China, based on the officially published standard map of China as mandated by the Ministry of Natural Resources of the People’s Republic of China; it reflects the national administrative territorial framework of the country.

    4. (iv) In Figure 1f, an inset map was incorrectly labelled as being of the ‘native range’; it was imprecise (including regions such as Florida, the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico with non-native populations) and may have caused confusion. Below is a version of Figure 1 including revision of the inset map in Figure 1f of the native range.

Figure 1.

(a-d) Four illegally traded green iguanas. (e) A green iguana discovered in the wild in Huizhou, Guangdong Province (Xinhuanet 2023). (f) Eighteen sites (BJ=Beijing; FS = Foshan; GX = Kaohsiung; GZ = Guangzhou; HD = Huidong; HK = Hong Kong; HN = Huainan; JY = Chiayi; LS = Lingshui; MS = Mangshi; PD = Pingtung; SH = Shanghai; TD = Taitung; WN = Wanning; XSBN = Xishuangbanna; XY = Xiangyang; YF = Yunfu; ZJ = Zhanjiang) where green iguanas have been reported in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. The map in the bottom left corner shows the species’ current distribution in the Americas (IUCN 2025).

The authors apologise for these inaccuracies in citations and references, lack of some detail and thus of transparency in this comment.