PONE-D-24-37148Research on the Spatiotemporal Characteristics and Optimization Strategies of Land Use and Land Resource Carrying Capacity in the Three Gorges Reservoir Region over the Past 30 YearsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Li,

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 January 22, 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.

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,

Akhtar Malik Muhammad, PhD, Postdoc

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. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: "This research work was partly supported by the National Social Science Funds of China under Grants No.22XJY006,and Science and Technology Research Program of Chongqing Municipal Education Commission under Grants No.KJQN202002101." Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "This research work was partly supported by the National Social Science Funds of China under Grants No.22XJY006,and Science and Technology Research Program of Chongqing Municipal Education Commission under Grants No.KJQN202002101." 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. 5. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript. 6. 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript " Research on the Spatiotemporal Characteristics and Optimization Strategies of Land Use and Land Resource Carrying Capacity in the Three Gorges Reservoir Region over the Past 30 Years" to PLOS ONE.

Reviewers have not recommended on your paper and suggest Minor revisions. I go through the comments and manuscript. The comments are very relevant and important to address to improve the paper quality for publication. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript very carefully and address all comments. You must verify the uploaded documents before approved submission. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision.

For your guidance, reviewers' comments are appended below.

If you decide to revise the work, please submit a list of changes or a rebuttal against each point which is being raised when you submit the revised manuscript.

To submit a revision, go to our online system and log in as an Author. You will see a menu item call Submission Needing Revision. You will find your submission record there.

Yours sincerely

Dr. Malik Muhammad Akhtar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: No

**********

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: 1. Abstract Improvements

Page 1, Line 12-20:

Comment: The abstract could benefit from more detail regarding the classification maps and specific methodology used for land use changes and evaluation. Consider adding a brief mention of the tools used for remote sensing (e.g., ARCGIS version, Landsat processing steps).

Suggestion: Add the following: “Classified maps were generated using ARCGIS 10.8, and Landsat TM images were processed for accuracy using supervised classification techniques.”

2. Methodology Clarity

Page 6, Line 85-92:

Comment: The methodology for Landsat Thematic Mapper image processing lacks details about the specific classification algorithms (e.g., supervised/unsupervised), accuracy assessment, and validation methods. It is crucial to discuss how you ensured the quality of classification.

Suggestion: Include details on the classification methods and any accuracy metrics (e.g., overall accuracy, Kappa statistics). A sentence such as "The land use types were classified using a supervised classification method, and the overall accuracy of the classification was validated with ground truth data, achieving an accuracy of XX%."

3. Classified Map and Figures

Page 9, Line 173-175:

Comment: The classified maps in Figure 2 and Table 3 need to be referenced more explicitly in the text. Ensure the map resolution is high enough for clear interpretation of land use changes.

Suggestion: Add a sentence in the results section like, "Figure 2 shows the classified maps of land use change over the years, clearly indicating the spatial transformation of the landscape in the TGRR." Additionally, consider improving the map legends to make the classification clearer.

4. Data Availability and Completeness

Page 6, Line 87:

Comment: The source of socioeconomic data is not clearly described. While it mentions "statistical yearbooks," it is important to explain whether data were consistently available across all years (1986-2020). Gaps in the data, if any, should be acknowledged.

Suggestion: Include a note such as, "Socioeconomic data from certain years had limited availability and were interpolated using trend analysis for consistency."

5. Accuracy Assessment Missing

Page 11, Line 195-200:

Comment: The accuracy assessment of the classified land use map and model performance is missing. Readers need to understand how reliable the land classification is over time.

Suggestion: Include a section discussing how you validated the classification, such as "Accuracy assessment of classified maps was conducted using confusion matrices and cross-validation, achieving an overall accuracy of XX% for land use types."

6. Land Use Dynamics

Page 12, Line 203-210:

Comment: While the dynamic index model is presented, it is not clear how the transitions between different land types were handled in the spatial-temporal analysis. You should elaborate on how changes between forest, arable, and construction land were treated in the model.

Suggestion: Add details like, "The transition between land types was modeled using temporal change detection algorithms in ARCGIS, and transitions were cross-referenced with historical land use maps."

7. Evaluation and Model Explanation

Page 7, Line 124-130:

Comment: The construction of the evaluation index system (AHP and mean-square decision-making approach) is not explained clearly. It is important to detail the rationale behind choosing certain indicators and their respective weights.

Suggestion: Expand this section with the following: "The selection of indicators for the land resource carrying capacity was based on an analytic hierarchy process (AHP), with weights determined using a mean-square decision-making approach. Each criterion was verified by experts in the field for robustness."

8. Data Gaps and Temporal Resolution

Page 13, Line 259:

Comment: Acknowledge any data gaps during the 30-year period, especially if there are years where Landsat imagery or socioeconomic data might have lower temporal resolution or availability.

Suggestion: Add a statement like, "Due to the limitations in satellite data availability, certain periods required interpolation of land use data, which may introduce minor uncertainties in the analysis."

9. Figures and Tables

Page 14, Line 276:

Comment: Some figures (Figures 4-7) and tables (e.g., Table 6, Table 7) should be more readable, with clearer labels and higher resolution to represent the data accurately. It would be helpful to include error bars or confidence intervals for some of the metrics.

Suggestion: "Figures should include error margins or confidence intervals where applicable to show the variability and reliability of the results."

10. Recommendations for Future Work

Page 15, Line 360:

Comment: While the recommendations provide a solid direction, the need for higher-resolution satellite imagery (e.g., Sentinel-2) for future studies could be mentioned. This would allow for more precise land use classification.

Suggestion: Add, "Future studies should consider the use of higher-resolution datasets such as Sentinel-2 imagery to enhance the accuracy of land classification and further refine land use change detection."

By addressing these minor corrections, the manuscript will improve its technical depth, clarity, and reliability of the presented methodologies. Let me know if you would like further suggestions or help refining specific sections!

Reviewer #2: 1. 16 indicators were used for evaluation of land carrying capacity, On which basis these indicators were chosen.

2. Please explain what optimization strategies (OS) are used in the research?

3. Whats the need of OS in spatiotemporal characterization of Land Use?

4. Similar research studies conducted on the topic have not been cited.

**********

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: Yes:  Suraj Kumar Singh

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.

PONE-D-24-37148R1Research on the Spatiotemporal Characteristics and Optimization Strategies of Land Use and Land Resource Carrying Capacity in the Three Gorges Reservoir Region over the Past 30 YearsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Li,

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 May 26 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.

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:

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

This manuscript mainly analyzed the spatial and temporal characteristic of Land Use and Land Resource Carrying Capacity in the Three Gorges Reservoir Region. It is too simple, the logic is mess. It should be re-adjusted. The specific problems are as follow.

1.In title, the 'research on the' should be deleted, the past 30 years should be revised to specific time span, such as 2000-2023.

2.In abstract, the Landsat images is grid data, while the authors emphasize obtain vector data. In addition, the authors only emphasize the characteristic of spatial and temporal, the influence mechanism is not mentioned. How to optimization strategies without mechanism?

3.The English should be polished. Previous studies aimed to determine the proportion of people, , research on the carrying capacity of land using population and grain. It is difficult to understand. What's meaning of reachesn in line 82.

4.In line 47-48, why the authors suppose traditional approach for assessing the carrying ability of land is no longer suitable for regional sustainable growth?

5.In line 54-56, the authors listed the existing reseach simply. It is lack of summarizing.

6.In line 57-66, this content could moved to 2.1 study area section, it emphasized the important of taking TGRR as case. This part should introduced existing relevant research and compared the difference with your research.

7.In line 73, spatiotemporal is not novelties. The novelties including perspective, method or indicators.

8.The framework diagram should be move to method section, and illustrate each of steps clearly.

9.The content of 2.1 is basic information of study area, it is useless.

10.In 2.2 data sources, it should be introduced more detailed, such as website, resolution etc.

11.In section 2.3.1, this method is too simply, it is not necessary to shown.

12.The authors used land use index model to classify land use categories? It is blur. What's the meaning of land use degree? Maybe it is category or type. The degree means high or low.

13.In line 141-142, the indicators are in 2.3.4, which indicators in 2.3.3 refer to ? It is lack of logic.

14. Is it AHP method in 2.3.4? It is not necessary to describe it too complex. The weight of indicators are not illustrated.

15.In 2.3.5, it is only standardization, it is not necessary to introduced independent. It is a progress of AHP.

16.In section 2.3.6�this is also AHP, an AHP is very simple and doesn't have to be broken down into many methods,

It's too messy. You need to explain how many methods are used in this article and what problems each method solves.

17.The results is too simple. The authors divided a problem into several parts. The results should contain three problems. First, the temporal and spatial evolutuion of land use, the spatial agglomeration characteristics, and the change of growth rate. Secondly,the temporal and spatial evolution characteristics of land carrying capacity. Thirdly, the impact of land use changes on land carrying capacity.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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 #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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 #2:  (No Response)

Reviewer #3:  This manuscript mainly analyzed the spatial and temporal characteristic of Land Use and Land Resource Carrying Capacity in the Three Gorges Reservoir Region. It is too simple, the logic is mess. It should be re-adjusted. The specific problems are as follow.

1.In title, the 'research on the' should be deleted, the past 30 years should be revised to specific time span, such as 2000-2023.

2.In abstract, the Landsat images is grid data, while the authors emphasize obtain vector data. In addition, the authors only emphasize the characteristic of spatial and temporal, the influence mechanism is not mentioned. How to optimization strategies without mechanism?

3.The English should be polished. Previous studies aimed to determine the proportion of people, , research on the carrying capacity of land using population and grain. It is difficult to understand. What's meaning of reachesn in line 82.

4.In line 47-48, why the authors suppose traditional approach for assessing the carrying ability of land is no longer suitable for regional sustainable growth?

5.In line 54-56, the authors listed the existing reseach simply. It is lack of summarizing.

6.In line 57-66, this content could moved to 2.1 study area section, it emphasized the important of taking TGRR as case. This part should introduced existing relevant research and compared the difference with your research.

7.In line 73, spatiotemporal is not novelties. The novelties including perspective, method or indicators.

8.The framework diagram should be move to method section, and illustrate each of steps clearly.

9.The content of 2.1 is basic information of study area, it is useless.

10.In 2.2 data sources, it should be introduced more detailed, such as website, resolution etc.

11.In section 2.3.1, this method is too simply, it is not necessary to shown.

12.The authors used land use index model to classify land use categories? It is blur. What's the meaning of land use degree? Maybe it is category or type. The degree means high or low.

13.In line 141-142, the indicators are in 2.3.4, which indicators in 2.3.3 refer to ? It is lack of logic.

14. Is it AHP method in 2.3.4? It is not necessary to describe it too complex. The weight of indicators are not illustrated.

15.In 2.3.5, it is only standardization, it is not necessary to introduced independent. It is a progress of AHP.

16.In section 2.3.6�this is also AHP, an AHP is very simple and doesn't have to be broken down into many methods,

It's too messy. You need to explain how many methods are used in this article and what problems each method solves.

17.The results is too simple. The authors divided a problem into several parts. The results should contain three problems. First, the temporal and spatial evolutuion of land use, the spatial agglomeration characteristics, and the change of growth rate. Secondly,the temporal and spatial evolution characteristics of land carrying capacity. Thirdly, the impact of land use changes on land carrying capacity.

**********

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 #2: Yes:  Taimoor Shah Durrani

Reviewer #3: 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.

PONE-D-24-37148R2Spatiotemporal Characteristics and Optimization Strategies of Land Use and Land Resource Carrying Capacity in the Three Gorges Reservoir Region(1986–2020)PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Li,

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 Jul 07 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.

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:

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Minor Revision

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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 #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: This paper integrates remote sensing data (RS) and geographic information systems (GIS), combined with an evaluation model based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), to comprehensively analyze the spatiotemporal changes in land use and the evolution of land resource carrying capacity in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area from 1986 to 2020. The research topic has significant implications for regional sustainable development, with rich data and scientific methods, and the results offer valuable references for optimizing land use and policy formulation. However, there still have many problems need to be revised.

1.In Section 2.3, the author uses the Dynamic Land Use Index (Equation 1) and the Composite Land Use Index (Equation 2) to evaluate land use change. However, the selection of these models lacks comparative explanation, such as why these models were chosen over other common methods (e.g., entropy weighting, TOPSIS, etc.). It is recommended to supplement the theoretical basis for model selection or provide comparative analysis with other methods. Although the article mentions AHP and mean square error method for weight allocation, it does not elaborate on the expert scoring process and sensitivity analysis of weight allocation. It is suggested to supplement the reliability test results of weight allocation.

2.The manuscript analyzed change characteristic of land use types, it lacks in-depth discussion on the driving factors of this change (such as policies, population, economic growth, etc.). For example, the fastest changes in construction land occurred between 1995 and 2000, but the specific policies or socio-economic background behind these changes have not been adequately discussed. It is recommended to combine regional historical context and conduct a thorough analysis of the key drivers of land use change.

3.The article mentions the trend of carrying capacity during the study period, but does not delve into whether such changes have nonlinear characteristics (such as inflection points or phased changes). The nonlinear trend of carrying capacity changes can be analyzed by regression models.

4.Although Table 3, Table 4 and Table 6 contain a large amount of data, they only show numerical changes and lack intuitive visual charts (such as bar charts and line graphs) to enhance understanding. In addition, the map of land use change in Figure 3 lacks legends and text descriptions, and it is suggested to add more clear annotations.

5.lthough the article puts forward suggestions on strengthening ecological protection and promoting green development, these suggestions are rather general and lack specific implementation paths. For example, "promoting green development mode" should be combined with the actual situation of the Three Gorges Reservoir area to put forward specific industrial transformation directions or technical application scenarios.

6.The paper lacks comparative analysis with relevant domestic and foreign studies in the discussion. For example, it can be discussed whether the land use change in the Three Gorges Reservoir area is similar or different from other similar areas (such as the Yellow River basin and the Yangtze River Delta).

7.Some paragraphs (such as section 3.1 and Section 3.6) are lengthy in language. It is recommended to simplify the sentence structure and highlight the key content.

8.Some formulas (such as Formula 1 and Formula 2) are too tightly packed. It is recommended to adjust them to be displayed in the center, and add a detailed explanation of the variables after the formulas.

9.In section 2.2, The author mentions the accuracy of remote sensing image classification (94.52%) and Kappa coefficient, but does not explain how to conduct error analysis. It is suggested to supplement the error sources and verification details of classification accuracy.

10.In section 3.5, The weight distribution is briefly described in table 8. It is suggested to supplement the reasonable discussion of the weight distribution and explain its influence on the comprehensive evaluation results.

11.In section 4, the article mentions that "ecological carrying capacity has been significantly improved", but does not specify which policies or projects (such as the project of returning farmland to forest) have had a direct impact on ecological carrying capacity. It is suggested to supplement relevant case analysis.

12.In section 5, The conclusion section should further refine the highlights of the research and avoid duplication with the discussion section. For example, the specific impact of land use change on carrying capacity and policy implications can be highlighted.

**********

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 #2: Yes:  Taimoor Shah Durrani

Reviewer #3: 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.

PONE-D-24-37148R3Spatiotemporal Characteristics and Optimization Strategies of Land Use and Land Resource Carrying Capacity in the Three Gorges Reservoir Region(1986–2020)PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Li,

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 Aug 10 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.

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:

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.

Additional Editor Comments :

The quality of manuscript have been improved. There still have some problem need to be revised as follow.

1.In keywords, the spatiotemporal characteristics and evaluation could be integrated together, such as evaluation of spatiotemporal characteristics.

2.In introduction, the authors shown three major frontier advances. However, these advances are great, your innovation is not enough compared these advances.

3.The sub-sections are too much. It should be integrated. Such as 3.2,3.3 and 3.4.;3.6 and 3.7. 3.5.1, 3.5.2,3.5.3.

4.3.8 should be moved to discussion.

5.The relevant references should be citied as follow

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.

Challenges and considerations of applying nature-based solutions for furture mega-cities: Implications for Karachi as a Sponge City.Human Settlements and Sustainability,2025,1:50-61. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hssust.2025.02.002

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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 #3: 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 #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: The quality of manuscript have been improved. There still have some problem need to be revised as follow.

1.In keywords, the spatiotemporal characteristics and evaluation could be integrated together, such as evaluation of spatiotemporal characteristics.

2.In introduction, the authors shown three major frontier advances. However, these advances are great, your innovation is not enough compared these advances.

3.The sub-sections are too much. It should be integrated. Such as 3.2,3.3 and 3.4.;3.6 and 3.7. 3.5.1, 3.5.2,3.5.3.

4.3.8 should be moved to discussion.

5.The relevant references should be citied as follow

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.

Challenges and considerations of applying nature-based solutions for furture mega-cities: Implications for Karachi as a Sponge City.Human Settlements and Sustainability,2025,1:50-61. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hssust.2025.02.002

**********

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 #3: 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.

Spatiotemporal Characteristics and Optimization Strategies of Land Use and Land Resource Carrying Capacity in the Three Gorges Reservoir Region(1986–2020)

PONE-D-24-37148R4

Dear Dr. Li,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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 #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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 #3: All the problems have been addressed. The manuscript have been improved. I think this manuscript could be accepted.

Reviewer #4: The authors made careful revisions in accordance with the reviewers' comments, which addressed my concerns. I have no further comments and recommend this version for publication.

**********

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 #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********