Ecosystem Health Assessment of the Zerendy District, Kazakhstan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the manuscript ‘Ecosystem Health Assessment of the Zerendy District, Kazakhstan’ submitted for review by O. Alipbeki and co-authors, an assessment of the state of the ecosystem is given using the Basic Pressure - State - Response methodological approach.

The manuscript makes the most favourable impression; the authors have done extensive work to collect and analyse a huge large data set. The peculiarity of this paper is the inclusion in the analysis of 35 indicators of spatial, temporal and socio-economic data related to the ecosystem of Zerendy District. The set of indicators used in this paper are generally more comprehensive than other papers, as they cover spatial and temporal natural, social and economic aspects of the Zerendy District ecosystem to the maximum extent possible.

The manuscript is written in excellent scientific language, is well structured and presents a coherent and reader-friendly scientific study. The conclusions drawn by the authors are fully supported by the results of the study. The manuscript contains a sufficient number of relevant references and is well illustrated.

Minor comments:

·         Figure 2, add to the caption of the figure what is marked in pink on the figure.

·        Figure 5 и Table 4. In my opinion, the figure and the table contain duplicate information expressed in different ways. Perhaps the authors could add a pie chart with % ratio of indicators to the figure and delete the table.

·        Figure 6b. The text explanation states: Despite its small area, the ULD class is also characterized by a constant increase. By the end of the observation, its increase from the initial area reached 59.57%. In the figure itself, the scale is limited to 0-3%. Explain or eliminate.

·        Figure 7. In the legend the sign <0.60 is indicated. I think it means >0.60. Explain or correct.

·         Figure 8, is the first figure 8 in the text, there are two figures in the text number 8.  In my opinion there is an error here: 2023(1 dark green colour/should be 2). In the legend there is a sign <0.60. In my opinion it means >0.60. Explain or correct.

·         Figure 8, the second figure 8 in the text. In the text it should be figure 9, in the text there are two figures under number 8.

- There are 3 colours in the figure, the figure legend contains 5 colours. Please correct this.

·        Table 3 и Table 4. In these tables, authors use two types of separator ‘.’ and ‘,’ at the same time. It is necessary to choose one type recommended by the journal.

·        Table 6. Regarding this table, the authors provide the following information in the explanations in the text: Quantitative measurements of spatial autocorrelation of the ecosystem health level of the Zerendy district using the global Moran's I index showed that its values in the studied years (2010, 2016, 2023) ranged from 0.42 to 0.59 (Table 6). That is, we see two digits after the digit separator - 0.00. In the table itself, these data are presented in the form - 0.000000. The sign after the digit separator is a very important characteristic that reflects the accuracy and precision of the method. We should not use it at our discretion, but with an accuracy that will reflect the actual situation and the error of the study. It is necessary to bring the digits to a uniform format of 0.00 or 0.000000.

Author Response

Comments 1. 

Comments 1: Figure 2, add to the caption of the figure what is marked in pink on the figure.

 

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable suggestion regarding Figure 2. In response, we have updated the caption to include an explanation of what is marked in pink on the figure. This addition aims to enhance the clarity and understanding of the figure.

 

 

 

Figure 2. Location and administrative divisions of the Zerendy district.

 

 

Comments 2: Figure 5 и Table 4. In my opinion, the figure and the table contain duplicate information expressed in different ways. Perhaps the authors could add a pie chart with % ratio of indicators to the figure and delete the table.

Response 2: We agree that the figure and table contained overlapping information, and we appreciate the suggestion to enhance clarity.

In response to this comment, we have revised Figure 5 by incorporating a pie chart to illustrate the percentage ratio of indicators, as suggested. Additionally, we have removed Table 4 to avoid redundancy.

Comments 3: Figure 6b. The text explanation states: Despite its small area, the ULD class is also characterized by a constant increase. By the end of the observation, its increase from the initial area reached 59.57%. In the figure itself, the scale is limited to 0-3%. Explain or eliminate.

 

Response 3: We thank the reviewer for their attention to detail regarding Figure 6b and the accompanying text explanation. To clarify, the 59.57% increase mentioned in the text refers to the growth of the ULD class relative to its initial area at the start of the study period, not to its proportion within the overall study area. The 0–3% scale in Figure 6b reflects its minor representation as a percentage of the total area.

To address this, we have revised the text to make this distinction clear and ensure consistency between the figure and the explanation.

The added text can be found in lines 485–490 of the manuscript. For your convenience, we also provide it here:  “WBS and ULD are the smallest LULC classes in the study area. While the WBS class has shown a slight increase likely due to seasonal changes, the ULD class demonstrated a steady growth throughout the observation period. By the end of the study, the ULD class increased by 59.57% relative to its initial area, although it remains a small fraction of the total area. Figure 6b reflects this trend, showing the ULD class’s percentage within the overall study area on a 0–3% scale.”

Comments 4: Figure 7. In the legend the sign <0.60 is indicated. I think it means >0.60. Explain or correct

 

Response 4: Thank you for pointing out the error in the legend of Figure 7 regarding the sign "<0.60." You are correct that it should be ">0.60." This error has been corrected in the revised version of the figure.

 

 

Figure 7. Changes in EH levels in 2010, 2016 and 2023.

Comments 5: Figure 8, is the first figure 8 in the text, there are two figures in the text number 8.  In my opinion there is an error here: 2023(1 dark green colour/should be 2). In the legend there is a sign <0.60. In my opinion it means >0.60. Explain or correct.

 

Response 5: We agree with your observations and have made the necessary corrections.

Firstly, we corrected the numbering of the figures to address the duplicate "Figure 8" issue. Secondly, we corrected the legend in Figure 8, where the sign "<0.60" has been changed to ">0.60" as suggested.

Regarding the dark green color associated with 2023, we agree that the initial interpretation created some ambiguity. To clarify, in 2023, there is one district that reached the 0.60 threshold but did not exceed it, and therefore it was not included in the dark green category.

We hope the revised figure resolves any confusion.

 

 

 

Figure 8. Redistribution of the EH level for 2010, 2016 and 2023.

Comments 6: Figure 8, the second figure 8 in the text. In the text it should be figure 9, in the text there are two figures under number 8.

 

Response 6: Thank you for pointing out the duplicate numbering of Figure 8 in the text. We have corrected this issue by assigning the second figure the correct number, Figure 9.

Comments 7: There are 3 colours in the figure, the figure legend contains 5 colours. Please correct this.

 

Response 7: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have corrected the inconsistency between the figure and its legend by ensuring that the legend now accurately reflects the three colors present in the figure 9.

 

 

 

 

Figure 9. Change in the spatial aggregation of the Zerendy district with the display of clusters of the "High-High" and "Low-Low" types of EH values.

Comments 8: Table 3 и Table 4. In these tables, authors use two types of separator ‘.’ and ‘,’ at the same time. It is necessary to choose one type recommended by the journal.

 

Response 8: Thank you for highlighting the inconsistency in the use of separators in Table 3. We have corrected this issue by adopting the separator type recommended by the journal.

 

Table 3. Ecosystem Elasticity Coefficient by Land-Use Type in the Zerendy District.

LULC classes	Resilience	Resistance	EC
CLD	0.30	0.60	0.51
PTE	0.50	0.70	0.64
FET	0.60	1.00	0.88
WBS	0.70	0.80	0.77
ULD	0.20	0.30	0.27

 

 

Comments 9: Table 6. Regarding this table, the authors provide the following information in the explanations in the text: Quantitative measurements of spatial autocorrelation of the ecosystem health level of the Zerendy district using the global Moran's I index showed that its values in the studied years (2010, 2016, 2023) ranged from 0.42 to 0.59 (Table 6). That is, we see two digits after the digit separator - 0.00. In the table itself, these data are presented in the form - 0.000000. The sign after the digit separator is a very important characteristic that reflects the accuracy and precision of the method. We should not use it at our discretion, but with an accuracy that will reflect the actual situation and the error of the study. It is necessary to bring the digits to a uniform format of 0.00 or 0.000000.

Response 9: Thank you for your detailed feedback regarding Table 6. We appreciate your observation about the importance of consistency in reflecting precision and accuracy. In response to your comment, we have updated Table 6 to ensure that the data is presented in a uniform format, adhering to the appropriate level of precision.

 

Table 6. Global Moran's I index values for 2010, 2016 and 2023

Year	Moran's I Index	Z-score	P-value	Variance	Expected index
2010	0.48	4.19	0.00	0.02	-0.04
2016	0.42	3.76	0.00	0.02	-0.04
2023	0.60	5.07	0.00	0.02	-0.04

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.It is recommended to further highlight the uniqueness of the Zerendy region, as well as to explain why the assessment of Environmental Health (EH) in this area is of critical significance for the realization of global or regional sustainable development goals.

2. It is recommended that the author elaborate on the reasons for choosing the BPSR methodology over other methods (such as DPSIR) and the applicability of this methodology in the Zerendy region.

3. The paper uses 35 indicators, covering spatio-temporal data and socio-economic information. It is recommended that the authors provide a more in-depth explanation of the selection of these indicators, including how they reflect different aspects of EH.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript and for providing valuable and constructive feedback. Your insightful comments have been instrumental in helping us refine and enhance the overall quality of the work.

We deeply appreciate your suggestions, which have guided us in improving the clarity, depth, and scientific rigor of the manuscript. Your feedback has allowed us to better highlight the significance of our study and address critical methodological and contextual aspects.

 

2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Yes
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Yes
Is the research design appropriate?	Can be improved
Are the methods adequately described?	Yes
Are the results clearly presented?	Yes
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Yes

 

Comments 1: It is recommended to further highlight the uniqueness of the Zerendy region, as well as to explain why the assessment of Environmental Health (EH) in this area is of critical significance for the realization of global or regional sustainable development goals.

 

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable suggestion regarding the importance of emphasizing the uniqueness of the Zerendy district and its role in addressing sustainable development goals. Based on your feedback, we have made changes to the 2.1 Study Area section of the manuscript.

Specifically, we have expanded the description to highlight the distinctive natural, urban, and agricultural features of the Zerendy district, as well as the interplay between the anthropogenic impact of Kokshetau city and the conservation efforts within the Kokshetau National Park and Zerendy Zoological Reserve. Additionally, we elaborated on how the study aligns with global sustainable development goals, such as SDG 11, SDG 13, and SDG 15, providing a clearer context for the importance of ecosystem health assessment in this area.

Furthermore, we emphasized that the Zerendy district represents a unique gem of the Kazakh steppe, offering an exceptional confluence of biodiversity, cultural heritage, and natural landscapes. Its expansive steppe ecosystems, interspersed with forested areas and freshwater resources, form an irreplaceable habitat for numerous endemic and migratory species. This ecological richness is complemented by the area's cultural and historical significance, making it not only a natural treasure but also a critical region for promoting sustainable tourism and conservation efforts. The balance between these aspects underscores the importance of preserving the environmental health of the Zerendy district as part of Kazakhstan's broader commitment to sustainability.

The added text can be found in lines 245–262 of the manuscript. For your convenience, we also provide it here:

«The Zerendy district represents a unique and invaluable area for environmental and socioeconomic studies due to its diverse combination of natural, urbanized, and agricultural zones. The presence of key hydrographic features such as the Shagalaly River and numerous small lakes supports biodiversity and contributes to regional water management. The district exemplifies a transitional zone where human activities, particularly those from the city of Kokshetau, intersect with conservation efforts within the Kokshetau National Park and the Zerendy Zoological Reserve. This dynamic interaction creates both challenges, such as urban and industrial impacts on surrounding ecosystems, and opportunities through active conservation initiatives that enhance ecological resilience and restore natural habitats.

This dual nature underscores the Zerendy district's importance as a microcosm of broader global environmental and developmental challenges. Assessing its ecosystem health (EH) is vital for addressing local and regional environmental issues while contributing to the achievement of global sustainable development goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 15 (Life on Land), SDG 13 (Climate Action), and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities). Moreover, the district’s unique heterogeneity in natural and socioeconomic conditions offers valuable insights into balancing urban influence with conservation priorities, providing a scalable framework for similar regions worldwide.»

Comments 2: It is recommended that the author elaborate on the reasons for choosing the BPSR methodology over other methods (such as DPSIR) and the applicability of this methodology in the Zerendy region.

 

Response 2: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comment and fully agree with the importance of elaborating on the rationale behind our choice of the BPSR methodology over other approaches, such as DPSIR, and its applicability in the Zerendy district.

In response to this comment, we have expanded the Introduction section of the manuscript to provide a more detailed explanation of our methodological choice. Specifically, we clarified that the BPSR model was selected due to its suitability for a preliminary assessment in the context of limited data availability for the Zerendy district. We also emphasized that while more complex models like DPSIR provide a comprehensive framework, they require extensive datasets, which are not currently available for this region. This addition helps contextualize the rationale for our approach and underscores the potential for future research to employ more advanced models as additional data become accessible.

The expanded text can be found in lines 109–118 of the manuscript, and we provide it here for reference:

«Considering that this study represents a preliminary assessment of the Zerendy district, the choice of the BPSR model was influenced by the limited availability of data required for more complex and detailed frameworks, such as DPSIR [40]. While DPSIR provides a comprehensive structure by incorporating drivers and impacts into the analysis, it demands extensive and high-quality datasets to accurately model the intricate cause-effect relationships within an ecosystem [39-41]. In contrast, BPSR allows for a simplified yet effective evaluation by focusing on pressure, state, and response, making it better suited for regions where baseline data are limited [19]. This methodological approach ensures the feasibility and reliability of the assessment while laying the groundwork for potential future studies using more complex models as additional data becomes available.»

Comments 3: . The paper uses 35 indicators, covering spatio-temporal data and socio-economic information. It is recommended that the authors provide a more in-depth explanation of the selection of these indicators, including how they reflect different aspects of EH.

 

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable suggestion to provide a more in-depth explanation of the selection of the 35 indicators and their relevance to different aspects of ecosystem health.

In response to this comment, we have added a detailed description of the indicator selection process and their alignment with the BPSR framework in section 2.2.3 Ecosystem Health Assessment. This addition clarifies how each indicator reflects pressures, states, and responses related to ecosystem health in the Zerendy district. Specifically, we emphasized the role of climatic, socioeconomic, and spatial indices, in providing a comprehensive assessment.

The expanded text can be found in lines 318–337 of the manuscript, and we provide it here for reference:

« The Basic indicators provide foundational climatic data essential for understanding the Zerendy district's ecosystem. Average annual and growing season temperatures reflect the thermal regime, influencing vegetation growth, agricultural productivity, and ecosystem functions [24,67]. Similarly, annual and growing season precipitation offer insights into water availability, vital for sustaining biodiversity and agriculture. These indicators establish the climatic baseline, contextualizing environmental pressures, state, and responses and grounding subsequent analyses in the district's natural conditions [24, 69].

The Pressure indicators capture human and natural stresses on the ecosystem. Socioeconomic factors such as population density, livestock numbers, cropland and pasture per capita, and built-up area highlight land and resource demands [67]. Industrial activity, measured through production volume, investments, and atmospheric emissions, indicates the scale of human impact. These pressures collectively influence the ecological balance, providing a clear view of the region’s environmental challenges [42].

The State indicators reflect the ecosystem's current condition. Climatic measures such as temperature and precipitation variations indicate climate stability, while vegetation indices (e.g., NDVI, SAVI) assess plant health and density [66]. Water-related metrics, including the area of water bodies and moisture indices, reveal aquatic ecosystem health. Forest area reflects carbon storage and biodiversity stability, offering a comprehensive snapshot of ecosystem health [67].

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, I have added a few comments in the attached below. Maybe useful to improve your paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

1. Summary

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their detailed and thoughtful feedback, which has significantly enhanced the quality and clarity of our manuscript. Your emphasis on including relevant references and examples has allowed us to strengthen the scientific rigor of our work and provide clearer explanations of key concepts. We deeply appreciate your valuable input, which has greatly contributed to improving the depth and precision of our study.

 

2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Yes
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Can be improved	Improved
Is the research design appropriate?	Yes
Are the methods adequately described?	Yes
Are the results clearly presented?	Can be improved	Improved
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Yes

 

Comments 1: Maybe betterto specify which ones here? with a reference?

 

Response 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their suggestion to specify the relevant Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and include a reference to support the statement [Recurring patterns of SDG interlinkages and how they can advance the 2030 Agenda]. Based on this valuable feedback, we have revised the text and added a specific reference highlighting the importance of research in identifying patterns of sustainable development that contribute to achieving the 2030 Agenda.

Comments 2: As above, better to specify also this point

 

Response 2: . In response to this valuable comment, we have revised the text to include specific examples, such as integrating climate action with biodiversity conservation and enhancing sustainable urban planning, as well as future research directions in areas like artificial intelligence, renewable energy, and climate-resilient agriculture.

The revised text of the manuscript is located on lines 49–55 and is provided below:

«Importantly, these concepts provide additional information that serves as a basis for developing new approaches and strategies for implementing the SDGs, such as integrating climate action (SDG 13) [13] with biodiversity conservation (SDG 15) [14] or enhancing sustainable urban planning (SDG 11) [15]. They also enable the prediction of future research directions, such as exploring synergies between SDG implementation and advancements in artificial intelligence, renewable energy technologies, or climate-resilient agriculture [16].»

Comments 3: Reference. 

 

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable suggestion to provide a reference for the statement regarding the development of EH dating back to 1941. In response, we have included a reference to the "Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941," a foundational piece of New Zealand environmental legislation. This Act highlights critical aspects of soil conservation, flood protection, and ecosystem health by promoting sustainable land and water resource management. It underscores the importance of balancing environmental and human impacts on natural resources and aligns with the conceptual development of ecosystem health.

 

 

Comments 4: When why and who invented it? references needed.

 

Response 4: Thank you for your valuable suggestion to provide a reference for the statement regarding the prototype of the index method as Vigor, Organization, and Resilience (VOR). We have added an appropriate reference to support this statement in the revised manuscript.

Response 5: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We fully agree with your comment and have incorporated the necessary changes into the revised text. The updated version is provided below:

One of the disadvantages of the index system is that it is considered to be ignoring detailed information [20], for instance, the presence of non-photosynthetic vegetation (NPV), biological soil crust (BSC), and bare soil can significantly distort the values of spectral indices, such as NDVI, leading to overestimation of productivity indicators and other inaccuracies in ecosystem health assessment [20].

 

 

 

Comments 6: Where is it, some geographic information  needed about its characteristics etc..

 

Response 6: Thank you for your comment regarding the need for more detailed geographic information about the study area. We have expanded the Study Area section of the manuscript to provide a more comprehensive description of the Zerendy district's geographic characteristics.

Additionally, we include here further details about the geography of the region:

The object of our study is the Zerendy district, located in the northern part of Kazakhstan, within the Akmola Region, which occupies a central position in the country. The Akmola Region borders several other major regions and serves as an important agro-industrial and administrative center. The Zerendy district consists of 22 rural di-visions, each representing an administrative-territorial unit. These divisions are key sources for the collection of statistical information at the national level and play a significant role in the agro-industrial activities of the region.

Response 7: Thank you for your valuable comment. We fully agree with your observation and have addressed it by adding an example and a relevant reference to support the statement.

Below is the revised and supplemented text:

The peculiarity of rural EHA is that they include a vast diversity. When studying rural health, they are often divided into disciplinary boundaries, which limits the un-derstanding of the health of rural ecosystems as a whole. As an example, one could note that the Rural Ecological Revitalization Strategy emphasizes not only addressing local environmental issues but also achieving broader objectives related to the social and economic development of rural areas. Thus, the authors highlight the necessity of “enhancing ecological productivity, conserving biodiversity, improving people’s lives, and empowering local communities” [65]. This interdisciplinary approach lays the groundwork for a holistic understanding of rural ecosystem health, going beyond narrowly focused research and encompassing a wide range of factors that affect the sustainability and well-being of rural territories.

Comments 8: something more about the goegraphic characteristics of the territory would be important to know.

 

Response 8: Thank you for your valuable comment regarding the need for more geographic details about the territory. We fully agree with your observation and have addressed it by adding the necessary information. The revised text is provided below:

 

The Zerendy district, located in Kazakhstan's steppe zone, is defined by its fertile chernozem and chestnut soils, which play a vital role in supporting agriculture and sustaining local ecosystems [77]. These soils enable extensive crop cultivation and pasture use, forming the backbone of the district’s agricultural productivity. The land-scape is dominated by vast grasslands interspersed with sparse forested areas along rivers and lakes, where birch and pine species thrive [77, 78]. This diverse environment supports a wide range of fauna, including marmots, roe deer, and numerous migratory birds, emphasizing the district’s ecological and conservation importance. These features underline the need for sustainable management practices to preserve its unique natural resources.

 

 

Comments 9: any important river? Строка 198

 

Response 9: Thank you for your insightful comment regarding the importance of providing more details about the hydrological network of the district. In response, we have expanded the description to offer a broader overview of the hydrological features. The revised text is provided below:

The hydrographic network of the district includes the rivers Shagalaly and its right tributary, Kylshykty, which flow from south to north. In the south of the district, the rivers Zhabay, Arshaly, and Koshkarbay originate from the Ishim River basin. Although this part of Kazakhstan is relatively poor in river networks, the presence of these smaller rivers is crucial for supporting the local ecosystems and agricultural ac-tivities. These rivers play a key role in maintaining water balance, providing vital re-sources for irrigation, and sustaining biodiversity in the region. Additionally, numer-ous small lakes scattered across the district further contribute to its ecological and hydrological stability [76, 79, 80].

 

 

Comments 10: how rapidly? what is the effect of this rapidity on the landscape? Строка 293

 

Response 10: Thank you for your insightful comment regarding the rate of cropland expansion and its impact on the landscape. In response, we have revised the text to address these points. We clarified that cropland expansion has been rapid, leading to significant transformations in the landscape, including the loss of natural habitats, reduced biodiversity, increased soil disturbance, and heightened ecosystem fragmentation. These additions highlight the broader implications of this expansion on the resilience and sustainability of the region.

The revised text is provided below:

In this study, more emphasis was placed on Resistance, as the area occupied by cropland expanded rapidly. Between 2010 and 2023, the cropland area increased by approximately 28%. This rapid expansion has led to significant transformations in the landscape. Natural habitats, such as grasslands and small forest patches, have been increasingly replaced by cultivated land, leading to habitat loss and reduced biodiver-sity. Additionally, the intensification of land use has increased soil disturbance and heightened the fragmentation of the ecosystem, reducing connectivity between natural habitats. These changes have made the landscape more vulnerable to external pres-sures, including erosion and decreased ecosystem resilience, which in turn impacts the sustainability of land use practices in the region.

 

Comments 11: reference?

 

Response 11: Thank you for your comment highlighting the need for an additional reference. In response, we have included a relevant citation to support this section. The updated text with the added reference has been incorporated into the manuscript.

 

 

 

Comments 12: please specify what you mean with restoration. This may be important.

 

Response 12: Thank you for your insightful comment regarding the clarification of the term "restoration." In response, we have revised the text to specify that restoration in this context refers to ecological restoration efforts, including activities such as reforestation, the restoration of natural vegetation, and measures to enhance biodiversity and ecosystem functionality. This addition aims to clarify the intended meaning and address your important observation.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf