PONE-D-23-01762Designing profitable and climate-smart farms using virtual realityPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lasseur,

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 Apr 17 2023 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,

Jun Yang

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 Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. We note that Figure 7 in your submission contain copyrighted images. 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 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:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 7 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].”

b. 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.

4. We note that Figures 1, 4 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:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1, 4 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].”

b. 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/

Additional Editor Comments:

Reviewer 1

The authors designed profitable and climate-smart farms using virtual reality. The research methodologies are reasonable, and the findings are interesting. However, there are still some aspects that should be improved to make the paper publishable. I focus here only on some points, which are hopefully easy for the authors to take into account in the revision.

(1) Abstract - highlight the innovation and significance. In addition, 300 ha or 400ha, check it.

(2) Maybe data should be first introduced, and analysis Part Results.

(3) Legend is missing in some figures, add it.

(4) There are some references related to climate change and landscapes, I suggest you cited it in the manuscript, as follows.

1)Understanding seasonal contributions of urban morphology to thermal environment based on boosted regression tree approach, Building and Environment(2022), doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109770.

2)The roles of surrounding 2D/3D landscapes in park cooling effect: Analysis from extreme hot and normal weather perspectives, Building and Environment(2023), doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110053.

3)Impacts of urban green space on land surface temperature from urban block perspectives. Remote Sensing(2022) ,doi:10.3390/rs14184580.

4)Regional thermal environment changes: Integration of satellite data and land use/land cover, ISCIENCE (2023), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2022.105820.

5)Relationship between urban spatial form and seasonal land surface temperature under different grid scales. Sustainable Cities and Society (2023), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104374

6)Contributions of sea–land breeze and local climate zones to daytime and nighttime heat island intensity. npj Urban Sustainability (2022) 10.1038/s42949-022-00055-z.

7)The impact of urban renewal on land surface temperature changes: A case study in the main city of Guangzhou, China. Remote Sensing (2020), doi: 10.3390/rs12050794.

8)Spatial expansion paths of urban heat islands in Chinese cities Analysis from a dynamic topological perspective for the improvement of climate resilience. Resources, Conservation & Recycling(2023),doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106680.

9)The Research and Application of Virtual Reality (VR) Technology in Agriculture Science. Computer & Computing Technologies in Agriculture(2009)

10) Decision support tools for agriculture: Towards effective design and delivery. Agricultural Systems(2016), doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2016.09.009.

Reviewer 2

The authors design a low carbon farms by virtual reality. The research is innovative, but it seems only like a design report. The problems need to be revised as follow. 1.The presentation is not standard enough. Firstly, in line 19-20, the tool combines virtual reality technology,environment science and high-resolution spatial data from an operational 300-hectare livestock farm. The environment science is a subject, it can not stand side by side with technology and data. The authors should illustrated environmental science theory, knowledge and so on. Secondly, the different tree means different types, height or others in line 62. Thirdly, the meaning of symbol should be illustrated behind Unreal Engine in line 69. 2.In line 73, there have other digital decision support tool. What's the difference of this VR with existing tools. What's the advantage and disadvantage? 3.The authors should use academic terms in this manuscript. To my knowledge is not belong to academic terms. The research should objective. 4.In 2.1 study site, the name of farm should be mentioned. Why the authors choose this farm? What's the characteristic or speciality of it? 5.In line 101-104, the authors introduced the structure of next section and section 3.3. It should be moved to the last paragraph in introduction. In addition, the structure of each section in this manuscript should be introduced detailed to improve the logic of different sections. 6.Some presentation is not clear enough. Such as line 130-133. 7.The fomulas are lack of serial numbers. 8.In line 139-147, this content is about figure 3 and have little relate to formula1, It should be moved to the end of 2.2. 9.The data source website of NDVI and Sentinel-2 should be supplied. 10.In line 172-174, the number of 4 categories ranging should be illustrated. 11.The structure of section 2 should be adjusted as follow. The logic is very mess. 2.Study site and Methods 2.1Study site 2.2 Data Source 2.3Methods 2.3.1 Carbon emissions and financial estimates 2.3.2 Virtual Reality application 2.4 Research framework 12.The authors should compare the image at present and design image. Then evaluate the profit improve and give some advices. 13.The 3 results and discussion should divide into two sections respectively. 14.The legend should supplied in figures. 15.Some presentation is a little blur in line 282-287. 16.In section 3.2.1 Aesthetic, the present is a little broad. It should illustrate how to VR design influence the aesthetic specificly. 17.In introduction, the authors should illustrate the background of climate change, land use and carbon emission. The references should be cited as follow. Response characteristics and influencing factors of carbon emissions and land surface temperature in Guangdong Province,China.Urban Climate,2022,46(51):101330.doi:10.1016/j.uclim.2022.101330. Regional thermal environment changes: Integration of satellite data and land use/land cover.iScience,2022,26,105820.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2022.105820. Spatial and temporal heterogeneity of urban land area and PM2.5 concentration in China.Urban Climate,2022,45:101268.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2022.101268 Spatiotemporal relationship characteristic of climate comfort of urban human settlement environment and population density in China.Front. Ecol. Evol.2022,10:953725. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2022.953725 Spatio–te

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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: Yes

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 authors designed profitable and climate-smart farms using virtual reality. The research methodologies are reasonable, and the findings are interesting. However, there are still some aspects that should be improved to make the paper publishable. I focus here only on some points, which are hopefully easy for the authors to take into account in the revision.

(1) Abstract - highlight the innovation and significance. In addition, 300 ha or 400ha, check it.

(2) Maybe data should be first introduced, and analysis Part Results.

(3) Legend is missing in some figures, add it.

(4) There are some references related to climate change and landscapes, I suggest you cited it in the manuscript, as follows.

1)Understanding seasonal contributions of urban morphology to thermal environment based on boosted regression tree approach, Building and Environment(2022), doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109770.

2)The roles of surrounding 2D/3D landscapes in park cooling effect: Analysis from extreme hot and normal weather perspectives, Building and Environment(2023), doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110053.

3)Impacts of urban green space on land surface temperature from urban block perspectives. Remote Sensing(2022) ,doi:10.3390/rs14184580.

4)Regional thermal environment changes: Integration of satellite data and land use/land cover, ISCIENCE (2023), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2022.105820.

5)Relationship between urban spatial form and seasonal land surface temperature under different grid scales. Sustainable Cities and Society (2023), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104374

6)Contributions of sea–land breeze and local climate zones to daytime and nighttime heat island intensity. npj Urban Sustainability (2022) 10.1038/s42949-022-00055-z.

7)The impact of urban renewal on land surface temperature changes: A case study in the main city of Guangzhou, China. Remote Sensing (2020), doi: 10.3390/rs12050794.

8)Spatial expansion paths of urban heat islands in Chinese cities Analysis from a dynamic topological perspective for the improvement of climate resilience. Resources, Conservation & Recycling(2023),doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106680.

9)The Research and Application of Virtual Reality (VR) Technology in Agriculture Science. Computer & Computing Technologies in Agriculture(2009)

10) Decision support tools for agriculture: Towards effective design and delivery. Agricultural Systems(2016), doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2016.09.009.

Reviewer #2: The authors design a low carbon farms by virtual reality. The research is innovative, but it seems only like a design report. The problems need to be revised as follow.

1.The presentation is not standard enough. Firstly, in line 19-20, the tool combines virtual reality technology,environment science and high-resolution spatial data from an operational 300-hectare livestock farm. The environment science is a subject, it can not stand side by side with technology and data. The authors should illustrated environmental science theory, knowledge and so on. Secondly, the different tree means different types, height or others in line 62. Thirdly, the meaning of symbol should be illustrated behind Unreal Engine in line 69.

2.In line 73, there have other digital decision support tool. What's the difference of this VR with existing tools. What's the advantage and disadvantage?

3.The authors should use academic terms in this manuscript. To my knowledge is not belong to academic terms. The research should objective.

4.In 2.1 study site, the name of farm should be mentioned. Why the authors choose this farm? What's the characteristic or speciality of it?

5.In line 101-104, the authors introduced the structure of next section and section 3.3. It should be moved to the last paragraph in introduction. In addition, the structure of each section in this manuscript should be introduced detailed to improve the logic of different sections.

6.Some presentation is not clear enough. Such as line 130-133.

7.The fomulas are lack of serial numbers.

8.In line 139-147, this content is about figure 3 and have little relate to formula1, It should be moved to the end of 2.2.

9.The data source website of NDVI and Sentinel-2 should be supplied.

10.In line 172-174, the number of 4 categories ranging should be illustrated.

11.The structure of section 2 should be adjusted as follow. The logic is very mess.

2.Study site and Methods

2.1Study site

2.2 Data Source

2.3Methods

2.3.1 Carbon emissions and financial estimates

2.3.2 Virtual Reality application

2.4 Research framework

12.The authors should compare the image at present and design image. Then evaluate the profit improve and give some advices.

13.The 3 results and discussion should divide into two sections respectively.

14.The legend should supplied in figures.

15.Some presentation is a little blur in line 282-287.

16.In section 3.2.1 Aesthetic, the present is a little broad. It should illustrate how to VR design influence the aesthetic specificly.

17.In introduction, the authors should illustrate the background of climate change, land use and carbon emission. The references should be cited as follow.

Response characteristics and influencing factors of carbon emissions and land surface temperature in Guangdong Province,China.Urban Climate,2022,46(51):101330.doi:10.1016/j.uclim.2022.101330.

Regional thermal environment changes: Integration of satellite data and land use/land cover.iScience,2022,26,105820.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2022.105820.

Spatial and temporal heterogeneity of urban land area and PM2.5 concentration in China.Urban Climate,2022,45:101268.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2022.101268

Spatiotemporal relationship characteristic of climate comfort of urban human settlement environment and population density in China.Front. Ecol. Evol.2022,10:953725. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2022.953725

Spatio–temporal evolution and factors of climate comfort for urban human settlements in the Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macau Greater Bay Area. Front. Environ. Sci.2022, 10:1001064. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1001064

**********

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.]

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.

Designing profitable and climate-smart farms using virtual reality

PONE-D-23-01762R1

Dear Dr. Lasseur,

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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 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,

Jun Yang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Accept

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors have revised the manuscript carefully. However, there still have some problems need to be revised as follow.

1.In introduction, the authors should illustrated the application of VR in existing researches.

2.In line 130, the carbon sequestration values for the different tree species should be introduced simply, the authors could list a table.

3.In line 196-198, the NDVI is represent vegetation coverage. While the authors use it to represent high productive land.It should be illustrated detailed.

4.How to define the steep slope, shallow soils and low fertility in this manuscript. The authors should build a index system and introduce the range of value.

5.The names of figures is too long. Some content could be shown in text. Such as figure 5,6 and 7.

6.Some sentence is repeat. Such as line 323-325. The authors should check the manuscript carefully.

7.The conclusion is too simple. The authors should illustrated how to plant tree can benefit to reduce the carbon emission and keep aesthetic scene in VR.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********