Dear Dr. Pitawala,

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 30 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If 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,

Manoj Kumar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements: 

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf .

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

4. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

5. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

 [This research was supported by Researchers Supporting Project number (RSP2024R443), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.]. 

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.

6. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript.]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

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.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The manuscript titled "Assessment of Paddy Distribution in the Western Province Under Different Climate Change Projections" presents a relevant and timely study. The research topic is well-conceived and holds significant potential for both scientific understanding and practical applications in agriculture and climate adaptation. However, the manuscript would benefit from several improvements in both content presentation and scientific rigor.

• The manuscript requires a thorough revision for English language usage. Several grammatical errors and stylistic inconsistencies currently hinder readability. Consider professional language editing to enhance clarity and flow.

• The Introduction needs sharpening to clearly articulate the study’s motivation, research questions, and knowledge gaps.

• The captions for all tables and figures need substantial revision. They should be self-explanatory and include enough detail to understand the content without referring back to the main text.

• In particular, Tables 1, 2, and 3 lack descriptive titles and context. Please include information on variable definitions, data sources, and any abbreviations used.

• The manuscript lacks clear identification of the climate models used for current and future projections section in Result. Please specify the model names selected for the assessment.

• The discussion of predictor variable importance is repeated in both the methodology and results sections. This redundancy should be addressed.

• Include a dedicated figure or table summarizing variable importance rankings, and quantify the relative contribution of each predictor to the model outcome.

• Several Maps lack sufficient detail. Coordinate values are either too small or not visible. Please improve the clarity of all spatial maps by enhancing font size, scale bar visibility, and legend formatting.

• It is recommended to include an elevation profile within the study area map of the Western Province to provide additional geographical context relevant to paddy distribution.

• The rice occurrence points would be more informative if overlaid on a true-color (RGB) satellite composite. This would enhance the visual contrast between land cover types and highlight agricultural patterns.

• Figures 2 and 3 appear to present overlapping data. Consider combining them into a single comparative figure to streamline the presentation and reduce redundancy.

• Figures 4, 5, and 7 do not mention the specific models used and replace generic identifiers like “Model 1” with the actual model names for transparency.

• To enable comparative analysis, it would be beneficial to consolidate outputs from all climate models into a single composite figure. This would allow readers to visually assess inter-model variation in predicted paddy distribution.

• The Discussion currently lacks focus. Strengthen it by directly comparing results with past studies, highlighting implications, limitations, and directions for future research.

**********

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

**********

[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

Suitability of paddy cultivation in the Western province of Sri Lanka under different climate change scenarios

PONE-D-25-10830R1

Dear Dr. Kasuni Gayathree Pitawala,

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,

Trung Quang Nguyen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewer #2:

Reviewer #3:

Reviewer #4:

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: This manuscript presents a well-structured, relevant, and original study on the suitability of paddy cultivation in Sri Lanka under different climate change scenarios. The methods (biomod2 modelling) are appropriate, the results are clearly presented, and the discussion links well to global and local implications. The study fills an important research gap and provides practical insights for policymakers and agricultural planners.

Reviewer #3: The article provides a timely and important contribution to the growing body of literature examining the impacts of climate change on agriculture, particularly in vulnerable regions such as Sri Lanka’s Western province. The authors highlight a critical issue—declining spatial suitability for paddy cultivation—which poses worrying implications for food security. By using robust climate scenarios (SSP 245 and SSP 585) and advanced modeling techniques through the biomod2 package in R, the study demonstrates methodological rigor and ensures reliable forecasting.

One of the notable strengths is the clear quantification of potential losses in paddy cultivation areas under future climate conditions, with distinct comparisons across 2030 and 2050 timeframes. This allows policymakers and stakeholders to recognize both the near-term and long-term threats to agricultural sustainability. The integration of spatial data with climate projections enhances the study’s practical application, particularly for regional planning and adaptation strategies.

However, while the paper successfully underscores the importance of adaptation, the discussion section could further expand on specific policy measures or crop management practices that may be feasible in Sri Lanka’s context, such as the adoption of climate-resilient paddy varieties, improved irrigation techniques, or community-based water management systems. This would help bridge the gap between theoretical projections and actionable solutions.

Overall, the article is highly relevant, well-structured, and offers valuable insights that can guide climate-resilient agricultural planning. It strengthens the argument for localized climate research and should be of interest not only to environmental scientists and agronomists but also to policymakers working on food security and sustainable development.

Reviewer #4: the authors have addressed the issues raised earlier. the manuscript is presented intelligently with standard English language.

**********

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:  Dr. Rakesh Chandra Agrawal, Former Deputy Director General (Agricultural Education), Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, India

Reviewer #4: No

**********