Study on the evolution of the spatial patterns and driving factors of national agricultural cultural heritage in China

Lifei Xu; Yuyu Liao; Jun Liu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0313926

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 4, 2024
13 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Bijay Halder, Editor PONE-D-24-22604Study on the Evolution of the Spatial Patterns and Driving Factors of National Agricultural Cultural Heritage in ChinaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. LIU, 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 Oct 28 2024 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, Bijay Halder 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. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. In the online submission form, you indicated that your data is available only on request from a third party. Please note that your Data Availability Statement is currently missing the name of the third party contact or institution / contact details for the third party, such as an email address or a link to where data requests can be made. Please update your statement with the missing information. 4. We note that Figures 1 and 2 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 and 2 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/ 5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [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 Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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 Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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 Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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: Abstract: Lines 31 - 38 should read: in general, the spatial distribution of national agricultural cultural heritage sites during 2013-2021 became increasingly obvious; the center of gravity of spatial distribution showing showings an offset trajectory of ‘north-east, then south-east’. The direction of is in the north-east-south-west spatial distributions direction; including the national-level agricultural cultural heritage sites are rich and diverse, involving farmland landscapes, composite systems, crop varieties, vegetables and melons, tea, forest fruits, special products, farmland irrigation, and animal breeding, in which forest Forest and fruit class heritage site dominate. Line 43 New sentence: At the county level Line 47 ②, ③ (??) Lines 45 - 47 Define LL, LH, HH types Lines 47 should read In terms of influencing factors, the spatial pattern of national-level agricultural cultural heritage is influenced by temperature, precipitation, level of economic development, population status, transportation accessibility, cultural environment and other factors. Strong interaction influences are evident between these factors and these also affect the spatial distribution of national-level agricultural cultural heritage. (delete "Strong interaction") In summary, the spatial pattern of national-level agricultural cultural heritage varies greatly, the spatial distribution is extremely unbalanced, and the regional spatial distribution varies significantly, with strong national and regional characteristics. The development of the agricultural cultural heritage has a strong correlation with the tourism industry as it gradually assumes a distribution of “widely distributed, locally concentrated”. Line 106- delete “connotation Lines 114-117 – delete sentence Line 132 – Academia should read Academic Lines 141-143 – delete 141 “the selection of indicators has mostly focused on social, 142 economic and natural factors and has lacked consideration of cultural factors. and 143 tourism factors on the spatial layout of agricultural cultural heritage. The” Line 212 The term “gravity” is not appropriate. Change header to “Centres for standard deviation ellipse analyses” Line 213 center of gravity shift should read “center of gravity shift” since it a published name but the term”gravity is not appropriate. Line 215 delete of gravity Line 216 …according to the change trajectory of the center of gravity…. should read according to the changed trajectory of the center of agricultural cultural heritage sites Line 293 delete gravity – Line 301 delete Gravity of Line 306 center of gravity should read center of agricultural cultural heritage Line 708 ……interacts and reinforces….. should read . interact and reinforce Line 748 center-of-gravity should read “center-of-gravity” as noted above Line 755 center-of-gravity should read “center-of-gravity” as noted above Reviewer #2: In this paper, spatial analysis methods such as the nearest-neighbor index, center-of-gravity-standard deviation ellipse, kernel density, spatial autocorrelation and geographic probes are used to explore the spatial distribution characteristics and driving factors of national agricultural cultural heritage. Generally, the structure of the paper is clear and complete, but the theoretical depth is general, and there is still room for improvement in the depth and breadth of the research. Here are some comments: 1.Abstract. The description of the study context/importance of the study is relatively good, the study methods and data are clearly described. However, if possible，these parts should be more simply and the main findings part should be more accurate and detailedly. 2.The introduction should outline the background of the undertaken research. However, the research gap is not discussed deeply enough. Increase the summary and brief review of relevant research literature, and highly refine the shortcomings of research and the main innovations or contributions of this manuscript. 3.Figures. The format of the figures should carefully refer to the journal requirements. Some words in the picture cannot be read clearly. Tables. The format of the tables should carefully refer to the journal requirements. 4.The layout of the full text (Including references)is very rough, and it is suggested that the author should carefully revise and improve according to the standards of the journal. Reviewer #3: Title: ok. Abstract: Line 25- Modify abstract start (To…) Line 52; replace word summary. Go for concluding words or line with a future prospect’s recommendations. Introduction Line 125, Check citations format of journal again. Line 156 re write objective section. Don’t start line with backets Materials and Methods Line 164 mention/provide data collection year information. Line 194 check with mistakes. (start line with capital word “value”) Results Presented Well. Discussion: • Ok, but include citations for the discussion. Authors can present their results by using examples of other previous studies Conclusion: Rephrase heading to conclusion and future prospects. General comments After carefully reviewing the manuscript, I must commend the author for their skillful writing and overall presentation. However, I have identified several areas where the manuscript could be improved. These suggestions will help the author further enhance the manuscript's readability, structure, and impact. Reviewer #4: 1.Some parts of the manuscripts are not written properly, such as L142, L51-52······; 2.The format of the references is not uniform; 3.The driving factors should be considered more agriculture-related,such as farmers' income, agricultural enterprise efficiency and government input to agriculture; 4.Are the factors influencing agricultural heritage the same in different types of agriculture? For example, food crops, cash crops, forestry？ ****** 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: Yes: Wentai Bi Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Review comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313926.r001
Revision 1
30 Oct 2024 Author Response Dear Reviewer， Thank you very much for your comments. We have carefully studied all your constructive and helpful suggestions and attempted to incorporate them into the current version of the paper, which has undoubtedly greatly improved it. Please refer to the following point-by-point responses to your comments, with our replies and modifications highlighted in blue. Comments from Reviewer 1 Comment 1: Abstract:Lines 31 - 38 should read: in general, the spatial distribution of national agricultural cultural heritage sites during 2013-2021 became increasingly obvious; the center of gravity of spatial distribution showing showings an offset trajectory of ‘north-east, then south-east’. The direction of is in the north-east-south-west spatial distributions direction; including the national-level agricultural cultural heritage sites are rich and diverse, involving farmland landscapes, composite systems, crop varieties, vegetables and melons, tea, forest fruits, special products, farmland irrigation, and animal breeding, in which forest Forest and fruit class heritage site dominate. Thank you very much for your careful review and valuable suggestions on this article. Based on your feedback, I have made appropriate changes to the summary section to ensure accuracy and fluency in expression. We have revised “in general, the spatial distribution of national agricultural cultural heritage sites… in which forest and fruit class heritage dominates.”to “From an overall perspective, the spatial pattern of China's national agricultural cultural heritage changed greatly from 2013 to 2021, with a highly uneven spatial distribution, gradually showing a distribution pattern of "widely distributed, locally concentrated". The spatial distribution of China's national agricultural cultural heritage is increasingly evident, and the spatial distribution type has evolved from discrete to clustered. The spatial distribution center of gravity shows a shift trajectory of "north-east, then south-east". During the study period, the X axis of the standard deviation ellipse was always greater than the Y axis, but the difference between the X and Y axes was small, indicating that the spatial distribution direction was northeast-southwest, but the directionality was weak. The types of national agricultural cultural heritage are diverse and rich, involving farmland landscapes, composite systems, crop varieties, vegetables and melons, tea, forest fruits, special products, farmland irrigation, and animal breeding, in which forest Forest and fruit class heritage site dominate.” Comment 2: Line 43 New sentence: At the county level We thank you for the comment. We concisely outline the research logic of this paper regarding the new sentence. This paper initially examines the spatial distribution of China's national agricultural cultural heritage from a holistic national perspective, analyzing its central shift trajectory and overall spatial distribution direction. Subsequently, given the localized clustering pattern observed in the spatial distribution of these heritages, which spans multiple cities across China, the paper delves into the high-density clusters of national agricultural cultural heritage from an urban agglomeration perspective. Furthermore, to enhance the scientific rigor and granularity of the study, this paper draws heavily on the extensive research conducted by Chinese scholars in the field of spatial autocorrelation. While previous studies often employed prefecture-level cities or county-level administrative regions as analytical units, the relatively vast geographical scope of prefecture-level cities may not adequately capture the nuanced spatial correlation characteristics of national agricultural cultural heritage. Consequently, this paper selects county-level administrative regions in China as the research unit. This choice aims to refine the analytical granularity, ensuring a more precise exploration of the spatial distribution patterns of agricultural cultural heritage, thereby providing more comprehensive data support and theoretical foundations for conservation and inheritance efforts. Comment 3: Line 47 ②, ③ (??) Thank you for pointing out the problems in our paper. In the abstract section, we have summarized the three key points of the entire article: ① Firstly, we provide a national overview of the centrally shifted trajectory and directional trends in the spatial distribution of China's national agricultural cultural heritage. ② Secondly, from the regional perspectives of urban agglomerations and county-level administrative regions, this paper separately analyzes the agglomeration areas and spatial autocorrelation in the spatial distribution of China's national agricultural cultural heritage. ③ Lastly, in terms of influencing factors, this paper summarizes the extent to which factors such as temperature, precipitation, economic development level, population status, transportation accessibility, and cultural environment influence the spatial distribution of China's national agricultural cultural heritage. Comment 4: Lines 45 - 47 Define LL, LH, HH types We appreciate the suggestion and agree that defining the LL, LH, HH types is important to the reader of the manuscript.The article places the definitions of LL, LH, and HH types on line 477-480. Comment 5: Lines 47 should read In terms of influencing factors, the spatial pattern of national-level agricultural cultural heritage is influenced by temperature, precipitation, level of economic development, population status, transportation accessibility, cultural environment and other factors. Strong interaction influences are evident between these factors and these also affect the spatial distribution of national-level agricultural cultural heritage. (delete "Strong interaction") In summary, the spatial pattern of national-level agricultural cultural heritage varies greatly, the spatial distribution is extremely unbalanced, and the regional spatial distribution varies significantly, with strong national and regional characteristics. The development of the agricultural cultural heritage has a strong correlation with the tourism industry as it gradually assumes a distribution of “widely distributed, locally concentrated”. Thank you for your careful revision of our manuscript.We have reorganized and refined the conclusions regarding the influencing factors in the paper to ensure greater accuracy.The revised and improved content is located between lines 58 and 66 of the paper. Furthermore, after in-depth discussions, we have ultimately decided to refine and integrate the content of the "In summary,…widely distributed, locally concentrated" section into the findings and results. Comment 6: Line 106- delete “connotation We were really sorry for our careless mistakes. Thank you for your re-minder. Comment 7: Lines 114-117 – delete sentence Thank you for your careful revision of our manuscript. Comment 8: Line 132 – Academia should read Academic We feel sorry for our carelessness.in our resubmitted manuscript, the typo is revised. Thanks for your correction. Comment 9: Lines 141-143 – delete 141 “the selection of indicators has mostly focused on social, 142 economic and natural factors and has lacked consideration of cultural factors. and 143 tourism factors on the spatial layout of agricultural cultural heritage. The” Thank you very much for your advice. We strongly agree with your suggestion and have already removed the relevant content. Comment 10: Line 212 The term “gravity” is not appropriate. Change header to “Centres for standard deviation ellipse analyses” We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. Following your suggestion. The title was revised and rewritten as follow “Centres for standard deviation ellipse analyses”. Comment 11: Line 213 center of gravity shift should read “center of gravity shift” since it a published name but the term”gravity is not appropriate. Thank you very much for your advice. We have revised "The center of gravity shift model" to "The center shift model" Comment 12: Line 215 delete of gravity Thank you for your careful revision of our manuscript. We have fixed the misrepresentation. Comment 13: Line 216 …according to the change trajectory of the center of gravity…. should read according to the changed trajectory of the center of agricultural cultural heritage sites Thank you for your careful revision of our manuscript. We have revised the original sentence from “according to the change trajectory of the center of gravity” to “according to the changed trajectory of the center of agricultural cultural heritage sites” Comment 14: Line 293 delete gravity – Thanks for your careful checks. We are sorry for our carelessness. Based on your comments, we have made the corrections to make the word harmonized within the whole manuscript. Comment 15: Line 301 delete Gravity of Thank you very much for your advice. the article has fixed the misrepresentation. Comment 16: Line 306 center of gravity should read center of agricultural cultural heritage Thank you for your careful revision of our manuscript. We have revised“center of gravity” to “center of agricultural cultural heritage”. Comment 17: Line 708 ……interacts and reinforces….. should read . interact and reinforce Thank you for your careful revision of our manuscript. We have revised“interacts and reinforces” to “interact and reinforce”. Comment 18: Line 748 center-of-gravity should read “center-of-gravity” as noted above We sincerely thank the reviewer for careful reading. Comment 19: Line 755 center-of-gravity should read “center-of-gravity” as noted above Thank you again for your careful revision of our manuscript. Comments from Reviewer 2 In this paper, spatial analysis methods such as the nearest-neighbor index, center-of-gravity-standard deviation ellipse, kernel density, spatial autocorrelation and geographic probes are used to explore the spatial distribution characteristics and driving factors of national agricultural cultural heritage. Generally, the structure of the paper is clear and complete, but the theoretical depth is general, and there is still room for improvement in the depth and breadth of the research. Here are some comments: We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article.As you are concerned,there are several problems that need to bead dressed.According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft, the detailed corrections are listed below. Comment 1: Abstract. The description of the study context/importance of the study is relatively good, the study methods and data are clearly described. However, if possible，these parts should be more simply and the main findings part should be more accurate and detailedly. We deeply appreciate your meticulous review of our paper and the insightful suggestions you have provided. Based on your comments, we have revised the background, research methodology, and data description sections of the abstract. Furthermore, we have revised the primary findings to ensure greater precision and comprehensiveness. The adjustments can be found in lines 19 to 60 of the paper. Comment 2: The introduction should outline the background of the undertaken research. However, the research gap is not discussed deeply enough. Increase the summary and brief review of relevant research literature, and highly refine the shortcomings of research and the main innovations or contributions of this manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. We have checked the literature carefully and have added a summary and brief review of relevant research literature in the introduction section, while also conducting an in-depth refinement and overview of the limitations of the study as well as the main innovations or contributions of this paper. The summary and brief review of relevant research literature are located between lines 105 and 124 of the paper. The limitations of the current research are clearly pointed out in lines 139-150. And the main innovations or contributions of this paper are comprehensively and concisely summarized in lines 156-169. Comment 3: Figures. The format of the figures should carefully refer to the journal requirements. Some words in the picture cannot be read clearly. Tables. The format of the tables should carefully refer to the journal requirements. We feel sorry for our carelessness.in our resubmitted manuscript these issues have been revised. Thanks for your correction. Comment 4: The layout of the full text (Including references)is very rough, and it is suggested that the author should carefully revise and improve according to the standards of the journal. We sincerely thank the reviewer for careful reading. We have carefully revised and refined the entire manuscript in accordance with the norms and standards of the journal, aiming to provide readers with a clearer, smoother, and more comprehensible reading experience. Comments from Reviewer 3 Comment 1: Title:ok. We thank you for comment. Comment 2: Abstract: Line 25- Modify abstract start (To…) We think this is an excellent suggestion. We have further revised the abstract, striving to make the descriptions of the background and methodology more concise while accurately and comprehensively summarizing the research findings of the paper. The revised content is located in lines 19-60 of the paper. Comment 3: Line 52; replace word summary. Go for concluding words or line with a future prospect’s recommendations. Thank you again for your careful revision of our manuscript. We strongly agree with your viewpoint. After reviewing relevant literature, we have also come to realize that the word "summary" is not appropriate to use here. However, after in-depth discussion, we believe that placing these contents in the conclusion or findings section would be more suitable. Comment 4: Introduction Line 125, Check citations format of journal again. Thanks for your correction. We have revised the format of the paper according to the journal's format requirements. Comment 5: Line 156 rewrite objective section. Don’t start line with backets Materials and Methods We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. We have rewritten this section, and it is located in lines 156-169 of the paper. Comment 6: Line 164 mention/provide data collection year information. Thank you for your suggestion.We have added the year information of data collection in line 174 of the paper. Comment 7: Line 194 check with mistakes. (start line with capital word “value”) We feel sorry for our carelessness.in our resubmitted manuscript the typo is revised. Thanks for your correction. Comment 8: Results Presented Well. We thank you for comment. Comment 9: Discussion: Ok, but include citations for the discussion. Authors can present their results by using examples of other previous studies We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. In the discussion section, we have cited the results of previous studies as examples, with the relevant content located in lines 730-736 of the paper. Comment 10: Conclusion: Rephrase heading to conclusion and future prospects. We think this is an excellent suggestion. Based on your suggestion, we have changed "Conclusion " to "Conclusion and Future Prospects ". Comment 11: General comments After carefully reviewing the manuscript, I must commend the author for their skillful writing and overall presentation. However, I have identified several areas where the manuscript could be improved. These suggestions will help the author further enhance the manuscript's readability, structure, and impact. Thank you again for your careful revision of our manuscript. Comments from Reviewer 4 Comment 1: Some parts of the manuscripts are not written properly, such as L142, L51-52······; Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have made corresponding adjustments to these parts of the article to facilitate better reading and understanding for the authors. Comment 2: The format of the references is not uniform; Thanks for your careful check. We are sorry for our carelessness. We have re Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response letter.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313926.r002
4 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Bijay Halder, Editor Study on the Evolution of the Spatial Patterns and Driving Factors of National Agricultural Cultural Heritage in China PONE-D-24-22604R1 Dear Dr. LIU, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Bijay Halder Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313926.r003
Formally Accepted
7 Nov 2024 Acceptance Letter - Bijay Halder, Editor PONE-D-24-22604R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. LIU, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Mr. Bijay Halder Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313926.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .