Using multiple criteria for redesigning habitat corridor plans for Giant Pandas

Yixin Diao; Yue Weng; Qianqian Zhao; Xiangxue Hu; Xiaofeng Zhang; Bojian Gu; Yihan Wang; Zhuojin Zhang; Fang Wang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0326792

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 7, 2024
Decision Letter - James K. Sheppard, Editor Dear Dr. Diao, 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. ============================== This manuscript proposes an interesting framework to identify Priority Habitat Corridors for giant pandas in the newly established Giant Panda National Park, using integrated modeling with biophysical, biotic, and anthropogenic criteria. By providing a standardized methodology to prioritize conservation actions, this work offers some valuable support for future management of giant pandas and other wildlife species, helping improve the allocation of limited resources to the most critical areas for maximum conservation impact. While this study will be of interest to bear ecologists and panda conservation managers, there are some issues with this manuscript that preclude its publication in its current state. Consequently, major changes are required before the manuscript can be further considered. Both reviewers provide insightful comments and suggestions that will help guide the revision process to improve this manuscript. The modeling framework is not particularly innovative and needs further detail and justification. There needs to be stronger integration of results with known genetic distribution of giant pandas and more discussion on landscape changes since earlier corridor predictions. Both reviewers also provide several additional references for the authors to consider incorporating into their manuscript, especially with regard to recent developments in corridor modeling. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 20 2025 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. 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, James K. Sheppard 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “We thank the staff of the Shaanxi Forestry Department who helped us in collecting environment information. We are very grateful to Dr. McShea for his advice in conducting this research. The project was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31971537) and Qiankehe [ZK] (092).” Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “We thank the staff of the Shaanxi Forestry Department who helped us in collecting environment information. We are very grateful to Dr. McShea for his advice in conducting this research. The project was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31971537) and Qiankehe [ZK] (092).” We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: “We thank the staff of the Shaanxi Forestry Department who helped us in collecting environment information. We are very grateful to Dr. McShea for his advice in conducting this research. The project was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31971537) and Qiankehe [ZK] (092).” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. We note that Figures 2,4,5 and 7 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 2,4,5 and 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. 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. We notice that your supplementary tables are included in the manuscript file. Please remove them and upload them with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list. Additional Editor Comments: This manuscript proposes an interesting framework to identify Priority Habitat Corridors for giant pandas in the newly established Giant Panda National Park, using integrated modeling with biophysical, biotic, and anthropogenic criteria. By providing a standardized methodology to prioritize conservation actions, this work offers some valuable support for future management of giant pandas and other wildlife species, helping to allocate limited resources to the most critical areas for maximum conservation impact. While this study will be of interest to bear ecologists and panda conservation managers, there are some issues with this manuscript that preclude its publication in its current state. Consequently, major changes are required before the manuscript can be further considered. Both Reviewers provide insightful comments and suggestions that will help guide the revision process to improve this manuscript. The modeling framework is not particularly innovative and needs further detail and justification. There needs to be stronger integration of results with known genetic distribution of giant pandas and more discussion on landscape changes since earlier corridor predictions. Both reviewers also provide several additional references for the authors to consider incorporating into their manuscript, especially with regard to recent developments in corridor modeling. [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? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: I thought this was an interesting paper and it was well written. I think it is a pertinent topic. I have no major concerns. I have some minor suggestions for improvement below. In general I think there could be a stronger integration of Results/Implications of this study with what we know about genetic distribution of the species (in the Discussion section specifically). The citation below would be great to explore in detail, and I think it appears in your Reference list but is not cited in the paper (Unless I missed it?) Wang, Meng, Guiming Wang, Guangping Huang, Andy Kouba, Ronald R. Swaisgood, Wenliang Zhou, Yibo Hu, Yonggang Nie, and Fuwen Wei. "Habitat connectivity drives panda recovery." Current Biology 34, no. 17 (2024): 3894-3904. I think it might be interesting to touch on more about how things have changed in the landscape since earlier corridor predictions. I wonder about comparing to this paper below from around 2 decades ago (although this is Qionglai only) Xu, Weihua, Zhiyun Ouyang, Andrés Viña, Hua Zheng, Jianguo Liu, and Yi Xiao. "Designing a conservation plan for protecting the habitat for giant pandas in the Qionglai mountain range, China." Diversity and Distributions 12, no. 5 (2006): 610-619. I also think it might be interesting to talk more about what your recommendations mean in light of what has actually been done (or more importantly not done) with respect to actual corridor construction or restoration to date. Maybe this paper can be a good citation to consider. Kang, Dongwei. "A review of the habitat restoration of giant pandas from 2012 to 2021: Research topics and advances." Science of the Total Environment 852 (2022): 158207. Another reference to consider if helpful for adding context to the Discussion: Hu, Lu, Bin Feng, Jindong Zhang, Xin Dong, Junfeng Tang, Caiquan Zhou, Dunwu Qi, and Wenke Bai. "Impacts of land-use change on the habitat suitability and connectivity of giant panda." Global Ecology and Conservation (2024): e03019. Other Line 368- capitalize China Line 375-376- This sentence was hard to understand and should be reworded or fleshed out in more detail Line 399- "giant pandas are distributed in lower elevations" Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this work. I appreciate its motivation, and there seem to be some intriguing potential findings. While I think there is a worthy publication in this work, I do not believe this manuscript is yet where it needs to be - to be published. I have provided some major and minor comments that I hope you can take and help transition this into a more complete and finalized product. Major: There is no new framework provided here. Much fundamental corridor literature has not been cited, including multiple decision science-based corridor frameworks. This includes from the 1980s with ordinal rankings to the following: Bond ML, Bradley CM, Kiffner C, Morrison TA, Lee DE. A multi-method approach to delineate and validate migratory corridors. Landscape Ecol. 2017;32:1705–21. Osipova L, Okello MM, Njumbi SJ, Ngene S, Western D, Hayward MW, et al. Validating movement corridors for African elephants predicted from resistance-based landscape connectivity models. Landscape Ecol. 2019;34:865–78. Barnett K, Belote RT. Modeling an aspirational connected network of protected areas across North America. Ecol Appl. 2021;31:e02387. Dinerstein E, Joshi AR, Vynne C, Lee ATL, Pharand-Deschênes F, França M, et al. A “Global Safety Net” to reverse biodiversity loss and stabilize Earth’s climate. Sci Adv. 2020;6:eabb2824. Cameron DR, Schloss CA, Theobald DM, Morrison SA. A framework to select strategies for conserving and restoring habitat connectivity in complex landscapes. Conserv Sci Pract. 2022;4:e12698. Brennan A, Naidoo R, Greenstreet L, Mehrabi Z, Ramankutty N, Kremen C. Functional connectivity of the world’s protected areas. Science. 2022;376:1101–4. aruemon Tantipisanuh, Somporn Phakpian, Pornpimon Tangtorwongsakul, Supagit Vinitpornsawan, Dusit Ngoprasert, Identifying wildlife corridors to restore population connectivity: An integration approach involving multiple data sources, Global Ecology and Conservation, Volume 53, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2024.e03015. Generally, this manuscript lacks methodological detail and justification for the chosen methods. Many models were considered for the final ensemble without any justification… such as diversity or representation of modeling methods. There is a circular nature to using covariates in habitat suitability, which are then incorporated to some extent into the elimination process. The modeling processes were not described even in the supplement. Minor: There were many minor errors in writing and grammar, mostly with tense, article placement, and singular/plural. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326792.r001
Revision 1
20 Apr 2025 Author Response Responses to reviewers’ comments Dear Editors and Reviewers, We would like to thank you cordially for your thorough and constructive comments concerning our manuscript entitled " Using multiple criteria for redesigning habitat corridor plans for giant pandas” (PONE-D-24-51006). We do feel that those comments are all valuable and helpful for us to improve this manuscript. With the guidance of the comments, we made a quite extensive revision with details as following: Responses to the comments from Editor (Relevant text changes made in yellow in the revised manuscript) 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. Response: Thank the editor for this comment. We have revised the manuscript using the standard format suggested by the editor. 2. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Response: Thanks for your valuable suggestion. We added statement in the acknowledgements: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 3. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Response: We appreciate the editor’s comments. We deleted funding information in the acknowledgements. 4. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 2,4,5 and 7 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. Response: Thank the editor for this comment. Figure 2 was generated based on the location descriptions of 5 national parks published by https://www.gov.cn/, using the public database OpenStreetMap (abbreviated OSM) that allows CC BY 4.0. Figure 4 and 5 were drawn in R studio packages exclusive of copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data. We confirmed that all images were self-drawn and correspond with CC BY 4.0. 5. We notice that your supplementary tables are included in the manuscript file. Please remove them and upload them with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list. Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have removed supplementary tables from the manuscript and make sure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Responses to the comments from Reviewer #1 (Relevant text changes made in green in the revised manuscript) Main comments: I thought this was an interesting paper and it was well written. I think it is a pertinent topic. I have no major concerns. I have some minor suggestions for improvement below. Response: We really appreciate your valuable comments and great efforts on guiding our study. We have tried to address the comments as following. Comment 1: In general I think there could be a stronger integration of Results/Implications of this study with what we know about genetic distribution of the species (in the Discussion section specifically). The citation below would be great to explore in detail, and I think it appears in your Reference list but is not cited in the paper (Unless I missed it?) Response: Thank the reviewer for this comment. We revised more genetic distribution and population information in Discussion section (L 328-330). Comment 2: I think it might be interesting to touch on more about how things have changed in the landscape since earlier corridor predictions. I wonder about comparing to this paper below from around 2 decades ago (although this is Qionglai only) Response: Thanks for your valuable suggestion. We cited Xu et al. (2006) in our Method section (L 205), we further talked about the benefits of existing corridors for different populations, as well as for populations isolated by roads in the Qionglai Mountains (L 337-346). Comment 3: I also think it might be interesting to talk more about what your recommendations mean in light of what has actually been done (or more importantly not done) with respect to actual corridor construction or restoration to date. Maybe this paper can be a good citation to consider. Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s comments. As far as we know, Chinese government had established many giant panda habitat corridors to link geographically isolated populations. It is worth noting that PHCs (Huangtuliang, Tudiling and 108 National Highway of Qinling Tunnel) identified by our framework had been reported the migration of giant pandas (Xiao et al., 2021; Kang, 2022). The remaining habitat priority corridors should also be linked as soon as possible (L 335-351). Comment 4: Another reference to consider if helpful for adding context to the Discussion: Hu, Lu, Bin Feng, Jindong Zhang, Xin Dong, Junfeng Tang, Caiquan Zhou, Dunwu Qi, and Wenke Bai. "Impacts of land-use change on the habitat suitability and connectivity of giant panda." Global Ecology and Conservation (2024): e03019. Response: Thank the reviewer for this comment. We added impacts of land-use change on the habitat suitability and connectivity of giant panda to the discussion section. Comment 5: Line 368- capitalize China Line 375-376- This sentence was hard to understand and should be reworded or fleshed out in more detail Line 399- "giant pandas are distributed in lower elevations Response: Thank the reviewer for this comment. We followed the recommendations and revised the manuscript. The following citations were added to the revised manuscript: Wang M, Wang G, Huang G, Kouba A, Swaisgood RR, Zhou W, Hu Y, Nie Y, Wei F. Habitat connectivity drives panda recovery. Curr Biol. 2024 Sep 9;34(17):3894-3904.e3. Xu, W., Ouyang, Z., Viña, A., Zheng, H., Liu, J., Xiao, Y., 2006. Designing a conservation plan for protecting the habitat for giant pandas in the Qionglai mountain range, China. Divers. Distrib. 12, 610–619. Hu, L., Feng, B., Zhang, J., Dong, X., Tang, J., Zhou, C., Qi, D., Bai, W., 2024. Impacts of land-use change on the habitat suitability and connectivity of giant panda. Global Ecology and Conservation, e03019. Fontoura, L., D’agata, S., Gamoyo, M., Barneche, D.R., Luiz, O.J., Madin, E.M.P., Eggertsen, L., Maina, J.M., 2022. Protecting connectivity promotes successful biodiversity and fisheries conservation. Science 375, 336–340. Fricke, E.C., Ordonez, A., Rogers, H.S., Svenning, J.-C., 2022. The effects of defaunation on plants’ capacity to track climate change. Science 375, 210–214. Xiao, L., Xie, J., Zhang, C., 2021. Construction of giant panda exchange habitat corridors in Giant Panda National Park. New China News Agency. http://www.news.cn/politics/2021-12/02/c_1128125251.html Kang, D, 2022. A review of the habitat restoration of giant pandas from 2012 to 2021: Research topics and advances. Sci. Total Environ. 852, 158207. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Responses to the comments from Reviewer #2 (Relevant text changes made in blue in the revised manuscript) Reviewer #2: Main comments: Thank you for the opportunity to review this work. I appreciate its motivation, and there seem to be some intriguing potential findings. While I think there is a worthy publication in this work, I do not believe this manuscript is yet where it needs to be - to be published. I have provided some major and minor comments that I hope you can take and help transition this into a more complete and finalized product. Response: We are very grateful for your valuable comments and the great effort you put into guiding our research. We have attempted to respond to these comments as follows. Comment 1: There is no new framework provided here. Much fundamental corridor literature has not been cited, including multiple decision science-based corridor frameworks. Response: We appreciate reviewer’s insight, and have revised our manuscript to better explain our framework. We read the relevant literature and found that they mainly focus on species and the environment data with less consideration of socio-economic topics. We have added references above in the section of biophysical and biotic, anthropogenic criteria as filters to select PHCs (L 87-95). Comment 2: Generally, this manuscript lacks methodological detail and justification for the chosen methods. Many models were considered for the final ensemble without any justification… such as diversity or representation of modeling methods. There is a circular nature to using covariates in habitat suitability, which are then incorporated to some extent into the elimination process. The modeling processes were not described even in the supplement. Response: Thank the reviewer for this comment. For the issue of methodological detail and justification for the chosen methods, we chose 9 environment variables based on VIF when modelling habitat suitability (L 146-150; table 1). We randomly selected 70% giant panda locations for model training and used the remaining 30% to assess the discriminative ability of different model algorithms followed Hunter et al. (2010). Furthermore, we have identified key ecological factors and constructed least-cost and circuit models to identify potential movement pathways affecting giant pandas in the current researches and (Bu et al., 2021;Wang al., 2014; Wang et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2018). Comment3: There were many minor errors in writing and grammar, mostly with tense, article placement, and singular/plural. Response: Thank the reviewer for this comment. We checked and revised the manuscript The following citations were added to the revised manuscript: Bond, M. L., Bradley, C. M., Kiffner, C., Morrison, T. A., Lee, D. E., 2017. A multi-method approach to delineate and validate migratory corridors. Landscape Ecol. 32, 1705-1721. Bu, H., McShea, W. J., Wang, D., Wang, F., Chen, Y., Gu, X., Li, S., 2021. Not all forests are alike: The role of commercial forest in the conservation of landscape connectivity for the giant panda. Landscape Ecol. 36(9), 2549-2564. Osipova, L., Okello, M. M., Njumbi, S. J., Ngene, S., Western, D., Hayward, M. W., Balkenhol, N., 2019. Validating movement corridors for African elephants predicted from resistance-based landscape connectivity models. Landscape Ecol. 34, 865-878. Barnett, K., Belote, R. T., 2021. Modeling an aspirational connected network of protected areas across North America. Ecol. Appl. 31, e02387. Dinerstein, E., Joshi, A. R., Vynne, C., Lee, A. T., Pharand-Deschênes, F., França, M., Olson, D., 2020. A “Global Safety Net” to reverse biodiversity loss and stabilize Earth’s climate. Sci Adv. 6, eabb2824. Cameron, D. R., Schloss, C. A., Theobald, D. M., Morrison, S. A., 2022. A framework to select strategies for conserving and restoring habitat connectivity in complex landscapes. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 4, e12698. Barnett, K., Belote, R. T., 2021. Modeling an aspirational connected network of protected areas across North America. Ecol. Appl. 31, e02387. Tantipisanuh, N., Phakpian, S., Tangtorwongsakul, P., Vinitpornsawan, S., Ngoprasert, D., 2024. Identifying wildlife corridors to restore population connectivity: An integration approach involving multiple data sources. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. e03015. Wang, F., Zhao, Q., McShea, W.J., Songer, M., Huang, Q., Zhang, X., Zhou, L., 2018. Incorporating biotic interactions reveals potential climate tolerance of giant pandas. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12592. Wang, F., McShea, W.J., Wang, D., Li, S., Zhao, Q., Wang, H., Lu, Z., 2014. Evaluating landscape options for corridor restoration between giant panda reserves. PLoS One 9, 1–9. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326792.r002
Decision Letter - James K. Sheppard, Editor Using multiple criteria for redesigning habitat corridor plans for giant pandas PONE-D-24-51006R1 Dear Dr. Wang, 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, James K. Sheppard Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326792.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - James K. Sheppard, Editor PONE-D-24-51006R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wang, 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 You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days 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 Dr. James K. Sheppard Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326792.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 .