PONE-D-25-14092Ecological Suitability Evaluation of Traditional VillageLocations in Jiangxi Province Based on Multi-ModelIntegration Using Artigcial IntelligencePLOS 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 Jun 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,

Yile Chen, Ph.D. in Architecture

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 the following financial disclosure:

We thank the National Natural Science Foundation of China for supporting thisresearch through the projects "Gene Identification and Map Construction of TraditionalRural Settlement Landscapes in the Ganjiang River Basin”(Serial No. 51968026)and"Research on the Visual Perception, Quantitative Characterization, and VisualEvaluation of Traditional Village Landscape Resources in Ganjiang River Basin” (SerialNo.52268012). We also acknowledge the support of Jiangxi Rural Culture DevelopmentResearch Center. We appreciate the technical assistance provided by the GIS andRemote Sensing Laboratory at Jiangxi Agricultural University. Special thanks to allmembers of the research team for their valuable discussions and contributions to theproject.

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.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

We thank the National Natural Science Foundation of China for supporting this research through the projects ”Gene Identification and Map Construction of Traditional Rural Settlement Landscapes in the Ganjiang River Basin” (Serial No. 51968026) and ”Research on the Visual Perception, Quantitative Characterization, and Visual Evaluation of Traditional Village Landscape Resources in Ganjiang River Basin” (Serial No. 52268012). We also acknowledge the support of Jiangxi Rural Culture Development Research Center. We appreciate the technical assistance provided by the GIS and Remote Sensing Laboratory at Jiangxi Agricultural University. Special thanks to all members of the research team for their valuable discussions and contributions to the project.

We note that you have provided funding information that is not 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 National Natural Science Foundation of China for supporting thisresearch through the projects "Gene Identification and Map Construction of TraditionalRural Settlement Landscapes in the Ganjiang River Basin”(Serial No. 51968026)and"Research on the Visual Perception, Quantitative Characterization, and VisualEvaluation of Traditional Village Landscape Resources in Ganjiang River Basin” (SerialNo.52268012). We also acknowledge the support of Jiangxi Rural Culture DevelopmentResearch Center. We appreciate the technical assistance provided by the GIS andRemote Sensing Laboratory at Jiangxi Agricultural University. Special thanks to allmembers of the research team for their valuable discussions and contributions to theproject.

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

6. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

7. We note that Figure 1, 2, 3, 8 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 Figure 1, 2, 3, 8 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/

8. We are unable to open your Supporting Information file [plos.tex, 4ae16001-b9d9-4a06-8e48-3fe3b00bb72e, plos.log, plos.aux]. Please kindly revise as necessary and re-upload.

[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: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This paper evaluates the ecological suitability of 413 traditional village sites in Jiangxi Province based on the multi-model integration method of artificial intelligence, which has certain theoretical significance and practical value. However, there are the following problems that need the authors' attention:

1. The years of meteorological and land use data used in the paper are 2020-2022, whether they are sufficient to reflect the long-term ecological adaptation process of traditional villages.

2. Figure 3 is mixed in Chinese and English, and unified into English.

3. The significance of the study is fully reflected. It is mentioned in the introduction that it aims to provide scientific basis for the protection and sustainable development of traditional villages, the analytical content of this paper does not reflect the significance of these researches, and it is necessary to appropriately expand the dialogues with the existing traditional villages and ecological suitability evaluation related researches in the section of analysis, conclusion and discussion of the research content, in order to further clarify the significance and value of this paper.

4. Although key factors such as elevation and slope are identified, the spatial heterogeneity of factor weights in different regions is not analyzed in the context of geographical subdivisions in Jiangxi Province (e.g., Gannan Mountainous Region and Poyang Lake Plain), and it fails to reveal in depth the ecological wisdom of the forefathers in adapting the ecological conditions to the local conditions.

Reviewer #2: 1. Introduction

1.Ambiguous Definition and Value of "Ecological Wisdom":

The manuscript repeatedly mentions the concept of “ecological wisdom” but fails to clearly define its connotation or illustrate its value with concrete examples. This lack of clarification limits the understanding of its scientific significance and research implications. It is recommended that the authors provide a concise explanation of the specific meaning and practical value of “ecological wisdom” in the Introduction.

2.Suggestions for Literature Review:

While the manuscript offers a relatively systematic summary of previous research on site selection and ecological suitability evaluation of traditional villages, the literature review appears somewhat descriptive. It mainly lists various research methods without clearly presenting the evolution of technical approaches or the shift in research focus. It is suggested to reorganize the review by categorizing the studies based on methodological types and comparing the advantages and limitations of each, thereby clarifying the development trajectory and research frontiers in the field.

2. Research Methodology

1.Lack of Justification for Model Selection:

The study employs eight machine learning models, including XGBoost and Random Forest, as well as two deep learning models (CNN and MLP). However, the rationale for selecting these models and their suitability for the specific dataset is not articulated. It is recommended to include a dedicated paragraph or table that outlines the types, core strengths, and applicable scenarios of each model to clarify the logic behind model selection and enhance the reproducibility and scientific rigor of the methodology.

2.Incomplete Evaluation of Model Performance:

Figure 4 only reports accuracy, which is insufficient for assessing model performance, especially under sample imbalance conditions such as "high suitability areas." Key indicators such as AUC, F1-score, specificity, and sensitivity are missing. It is suggested to add a comparative performance table that includes multiple evaluation metrics across all models, along with training time, to quantitatively demonstrate the superiority of the ensemble model and enhance the credibility of the results.

3. Empirical Analysis

1.Superficial Spatial Interpretation:

The analysis of highly suitable areas is limited to surface-level descriptions such as "abundant water resources" and "flat terrain," without integrating historical contexts or current land-use patterns (e.g., the symbiotic relationship between farmland and irrigation systems in villages). Moreover, low-suitability areas are not cross-referenced with geological hazard or topographic data, leading to a lack of depth and historical validation. It is recommended to enrich the spatial analysis by including case studies of representative villages and incorporating geological background to improve explanatory depth.

2.Unclear Logic Behind the CSI Index Construction:

The study does not clarify the classification thresholds for the five suitability levels, and Figure 8 lacks annotations for key village validation points, affecting the credibility of the map. Additionally, the axes in Figure 8 are not explained. It is recommended to supplement the methodology with the classification criteria, mark representative village cases in Figure 8, and provide axis explanations to improve interpretability.

3.Failure to Directly Address Research Question 2:

Regarding the effectiveness of the multi-model integration approach, the study only qualitatively claims that the ensemble model “performs well,” without quantitative comparison or statistical validation. This results in an inadequate response to the research question. It is suggested to add a subsection under "Model Performance Evaluation" that includes a table comparing the key metrics of ensemble and single models, thereby providing direct and data-supported evidence for the claimed advantage.

4.Surface-Level Interpretation of Ecological Wisdom:

The discussion on traditional ecological site selection principles, such as “facing water and backing mountains,” remains descriptive and lacks quantitative validation. There is no clear link between model outputs and historical practices. It is suggested to analyze the correlation between key factors and historical records, or assess how well village locations in high suitability areas meet ancient disaster prevention and agricultural needs. This would transform traditional wisdom into verifiable scientific knowledge and deepen the academic value of the study.

5.Insufficient Temporal Data:

The study relies solely on data from the year 2022, neglecting the long-term and dynamic nature of traditional village site selection. The lack of multi-year data hinders the validation of the model's temporal reliability. It is recommended to incorporate multi-year datasets (e.g., 2000–2022), analyze spatial-temporal relationships between village locations and ecological factors, or introduce historical village distribution data to assess the model’s ability to identify long-term suitability, thus enhancing the temporal dimension and generalizability of the conclusions.

4. Results and Discussion

1.Insufficient Interpretation of Core Findings:

The scientific connotation of “ecological wisdom” is not supported by quantitative data, weakening the study’s ability to fulfill its goal of decoding ancestral site selection strategies. It is recommended to supplement statistical comparisons, combine historical literature and field investigations, and demonstrate how village locations in high suitability areas meet ancient needs such as flood control, farming, and living comfort. This would help translate qualitative wisdom into quantifiable patterns, strengthening theoretical depth.

2.Weak Justification of Ensemble Model Advantages:

The study does not employ techniques such as Shapley values or model bias analysis to explain how the ensemble model addresses the limitations of individual models. As a result, the claimed technical advantages remain superficial. It is suggested to add bias comparison graphs or feature importance variation tables to visually demonstrate the optimization brought by the ensemble approach, thereby enhancing the persuasiveness of the methodological innovation.

3.Vague Policy and Practical Implications:

The proposed suggestions, such as “prioritizing the protection of high suitability areas,” are not aligned with specific policies in Jiangxi Province and lack actionable differentiation. It is recommended to integrate regional policy documents and propose targeted strategies for areas of different suitability levels to strengthen the practical applicability and policy relevance of the findings.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: renamed_3cb8d.docx

PONE-D-25-14092R1Ecological Suitability Evaluation of Traditional VillageLocations in Jiangxi Province Based on Multi-ModelIntegration Using Artigcial IntelligencePLOS 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 Jul 27 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,

Yile Chen, Ph.D. in Architecture

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. 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: Partly

**********

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: All questions have been answered and resolved. Clearly state that the study has not been submitted or published elsewhere and cite relevant literature to demonstrate originality. Confirm that all authors meet the criteria for authorship, declare any conflicts of interest, and ensure data authenticity and traceability.

Reviewer #3: 1. What was the selection of criteria or factors based on? Please explain.

2. In the discussion section, it is better to make comparisons with the researches of others and the research done, and for the presented arguments, be sure to use valid and up-to-date references.

3. The advantages and disadvantages of the research done should be said.

4. Please provide appropriate and valid references for all provided relationships.

5. Please use the papers (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-022-10327-x, https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2018.1549363, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.09.012, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.05.046; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2023.102002; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03926-2; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-022-10659-8) to improve the quality of the manuscript, especially the introduction and discussion of the manuscript, description and interpretation of properties and select the criteria.

6. What was the accuracy of the methods used? By which criteria are the methods evaluated?

7. Please check the grammar of the whole text with a native speaker and fix the errors.

**********

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: No

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-25-14092R2Ecological Suitability Evaluation of Traditional VillageLocations in Jiangxi Province Based on Multi-ModelIntegration Using Artigcial IntelligencePLOS 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 Sep 12 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,

Yile Chen, Ph.D. in Architecture

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

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:

1. Only the long-term trend of the ecological factors themselves is presented, without directly linking the dynamic response of village location changes to ecological factors. It is necessary to clarify the long-term adjustment rules of traditional village site selection/distribution and ecological factors, and verify the stability of the model in identifying village suitability in the long term.

2. Some ecological factors in the figure (such as temperature) show a gradual increase trend (although marked with fluctuations ≤ 5%), but the impact of this trend on the long-term suitability of the village has not been explained, and the reliability of the model under the ecological factor gradient scenario has not been verified, which cannot support the conclusion of "using 2020-2022 data as a proxy for long-term suitability".

3. Further exploration is needed to verify the accuracy of the model's future applicability by linking the dynamic response of historical village location changes with ecological factors.

[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: Comment 1: Insufficient temporal coverage of ecological data (limited to 2020-2022)

1. The study only presents the long-term trends of ecological factors themselves without directly establishing the "dynamic response relationship between village location changes and ecological factors." It is necessary to clarify the long-term adjustment patterns of traditional village site selection/distribution in response to ecological factors, and to validate the model's stability in identifying village suitability over extended time series.

2. Some ecological factors in the figures (e.g., temperature) exhibit a gradual upward trend (though noted as having ≤5% fluctuations), yet the study fails to explain how this trend affects long-term village suitability. Neither does it verify the model's reliability under scenarios of gradual ecological factor changes, thus undermining the conclusion that "2020-2022 data can serve as a proxy for long-term suitability."

3. Without correlating historical village location changes with the dynamic responses of ecological factors, how can the model's accuracy and applicability for future predictions be properly validated?

Reviewer #3: Dear authors

thank you for your corrections.

all comments have been addressed.

best regards

**********

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: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Javad seyedmohammadi

**********

[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.

Ecological Suitability Evaluation of Traditional Village Locations in Jiangxi Province Based on Multi-Model Integration Using Artigcial Intelligence

PONE-D-25-14092R3

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. 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,

Yile Chen, Ph.D. in Architecture

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: