Integrated Assessment of Pasture Ecosystem Degradation Processes in Arid Zones: A Case Study of Atyrau Region, Kazakhstan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, after carefully reading your paper, titled "Integrated assessment of pasture ecosystem degradation processes in arid zones: a case study of Atyrau Region, Kazakhstan," I think it can offer valuable insights. However, we have a few comments and questions for further clarification.

 

1. In the abstract section, you should pay attention to concepts such as “institutional fragmentation of land tenure systems”. What is the meaning? In addition, the objective is missed in this section, and the method is not clearly presented. Please clearly state the method used in the study, including the study period.
2. The introduction section requires more attention. For instance, the reference of “In Kazakhstan, where pastures occupy about 70%”… should be added. It's the same for the first section, lines 41-50.
3. Additionally, the introduction section is not well-written. For instance, what is the problem statement of this research?
4. The research gap that this study aims to fill is not clearly indicated in the introduction section. So, clarifying the necessity of the research.
5. Globally, the narrative in the introduction section fails to indicate the issues and gaps. The introduction section can provide a strong background related to the topic. Clearly state what is missing and what we need seems to be omitted by the authors.
6. In the Literature Review section, we recommend changing it to “Literature Review and research question”. This way can help to clarify the hypothesis or research questions.
7. Study area: In this section, please focus on presenting the study area situation. So, delete or move elsewhere some elements related to the method between 172 and 183. In addition, kindly indicate the limit between the method and the study area.
8. For the audience, it would be important to make a map showing the geographical location of the study area, including all of Kazakhstan.
9. The justification for your chosen methodology analysis is absent. In addition, data processing remains unclear. Please use a table format and present all the information related to the data. For data processing, use a flowchart to illustrate the overall process of the data.
10. What data are selected in this study? Please clarify the data and its source. The selected data lacks justification.
11. The results section is not presented well. It’s mixed with the method—for instance, lines 411-415, 445-446, etc.
12. The discussion and results sections address the research question. It’s recommended to explore the results of previous studies and discuss why you are obtaining better/different results. In addition, discuss how the assertion indication on lines 33-35 can be applied.
13. What is the theoretical significance & innovation of this paper? What are the limits of the study? Improve the English writing quality.

Best regards

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work is good; however, it requires extensive restructuring work. This includes the writing process, verb tenses, and serious work on developing the structure of the text and the presentation of the work itself. Special attention is paid to describing the methodology, text placement, unification of units, and clarity of figures. The use of terms as significant when statistical analysis was not used to define significance.

The work is a national case study with a very general vision given its scale of 1:1,500,000. It remains at the diagnostic level, although it is important given the topic it deals with: grassland degradation, identifying the factors that affect grassland management.

The assertions of lines 66 and 67, although real, do not have a place in this work because they do not touch any remote sensing data (NDVI SAVI indices or other vegetation indices).

What is stated in line 79 regarding this work filling the data gap at the local level, given the very low resolution level, is not observed. Therefore, it should be reworded to avoid generating false expectations. It is true that this methodology can be multi-scale, and that should be emphasized.

Improve the drafting of the data that is found in the materials and methods, the objective of the methodology, something that should not go there.

The paragraph from line 204 to 208 is an introduction to the topic that should go before line 194

The wording of line 245 suggests that it is a discussion of results rather than a presentation of methodology. Pay attention to the verb tenses. Line 249 represents results as written.

detail limits and scope of the KDE method line 258

Line 261 is results, not methodology.

Line 265 to 275 expand and define methodology put range descriptors parameters must (critical high moderate low)

Lines 306 to 314 are results

From line 325 to line 328 is a conclusion of the work, not methodology.

Significantly improve the quality (resolution) of all figures in the legend.

Unify units in figures and study. Figure 2 is in kilometers, Figure 3 is in miles, etc.

It is suggested to incorporate coordinates into figures

Figure 4 has no abscissa, and the graphic ordinate is incomplete.

Figure 5 is cut off at the top It is recommended to use the same frame for all figures

line 523 to 530 These parameters must be included in the methodology: (high critical moderate low) and not only here

Line 588 to 590 is not a result, it is a discussion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of this article is important, the research idea is innovative and the constructed AL model framework provides a valuable tool for assessing rangeland degradation in drylands. However, the current version of the manuscript has significant shortcomings in terms of the transparency of the construction of the core model, the clarity of the definitions of the key indicators and the depth of the results analysis. These problems directly affect the scientific rigor and reproducibility of the research results. It is recommended that the article be major revised.

(1) Lines 288-289 & 301-303 (Equation 3): This is the central innovation of the article — the Anthropogenic Load (AL) model. The formula is ALᵢ = α×PLᵢ + β×Dᵢ + γ×Aᵢ + δ×Iᵢ. However, the authors did not explain at all how the weighting coefficients α, β, γ and δ were determined. This is crucial for the validity of the entire model and a major concern of the reviewer. In addition, the authors state that "For the integral assessment ... weighting coefficients α, β, γ and δ were used" (lines 304-307), but this merely reiterates that weights were used without explaining how they were derived. In Section 3 of the methods (lines 276-303), the method used to determine the four weighting coefficients (α, β, γ, δ) in the AL model needs to be explained in detail. The authors must explicitly choose a scientific weighting method and describe its procedure in detail.

(2) Lines 294-298 (Dᵢ and Aᵢ): The definitions of spatial density (Dᵢ) and accessibility index (Aᵢ) are too vague. What is the specific "given radius" for Dᵢ? Is it 5 km or some other value? On what basis was this radius chosen? What is the specific mathematical form of this "function" for Aᵢ? Is it a simple 1/distance or a more complex decay function? What role does the 5 km buffer zone play? Does it mean that the accessibility for areas beyond 5 km is zero? Lines 268 & 511-512 (Index of institutional pressure Ii): Index Ii is defined as a value between 0 and 1, but the calculation method is unclear. It is recommended that the authors provide precise definitions for the calculation formulas and the choice of parameters for these three self-constructed indicators in the Methods section: Dᵢ, Aᵢ, and Ii.

(3) Lines 358-421 & Figure 2: When analyzing pasture load (PL), it is recommended to further analyze the relationship between PLi and livestock composition. Linking stress levels to livestock composition may lead to more specific recommendations for managers.

(4) Lines 441-483 & Figure 5: This is the section on the "hotspot" analysis with the conclusion that "38% to 45% of pasture forage capacity is outside of economic use" This is a very important finding. It is recommended to discuss this in more detail in the "Discussion" section (Section 5). This over-centralized grazing pattern, "circling the wells"," leads not only to the degradation of hotspot areas, but also to the waste of a large amount of high quality, distant pastures. Does this reflect "path dependency" and "institutional failure" in the transition of Kazakh pastoralism from nomadic/semi-nomadic to sedentary and intensive models in the post-Soviet era?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is of great significance in the field of land administration, reforms on land administration and political economy. 

Authors should consider to add literature on land administartion schemes that resulted from long term based cadastral systems, e.g. Europe, land registies that were completely replaced by cadastral systems and land registries that function in paralel to cadastral systems. this would show asignificant difference between LA reforms taking place withinin longlasting functioning property rights and properties registrion systems and LA reforms of no formally registered properties and property rights and the economic impact of such policies in both cases.  

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents an integrated methodology for assessing pasture degradation in arid regions, combining biophysical, spatial, infrastructural, and institutional indicators into a multi-component Anthropogenic Load (AL) model. The explicit integration of institutional and accessibility indices with ecological assessments is innovative compared to studies focusing solely on environmental parameters. The case study in the Atyrau Region makes a significant contribution by addressing a locally underexplored region with high vulnerability to degradation, providing a reproducible model that can be applied to other arid areas in Central Asia, and offering a methodological framework that bridges environmental and institutional dimensions.

The methodology is well-structured and clearly explained. However, it could benefit from further discussion, as suggested below:

Paragraph: Institutional Load Index  

The Institutional Load Index (Ii) is presented as a "key factor of pasture degradation" and is normalized on a scale from 0 to 1, where 0 indicates "complete institutional control" and 1 indicates "complete absence of regulation". While the factors considered for its determination are listed (presence of lease agreement, seasonality of use, pasture rotation, access conflict, official registration in the cadastre), the specific method for combining these qualitative or semi-quantitative factors into a single, normalized numerical index (0-1) is not fully described. Clarifying how these elements were weighted or aggregated would significantly improve the transparency and objectivity of the index.

Paragraph: Integral model of anthropogenic load on pasture ecosystems

R 148:

Including a technogenic impact component could provide a more comprehensive assessment of anthropogenic pressure. The research acknowledges that "an additional threat to the pasture landscapes of the region is posed by the technogenic impact of oil production". It states that areas adjacent to oil wells show "a high level of degradation and loss of productive potential" and emphasizes the "need for spatial ecological monitoring and the integration of maps of technogenic impact into land management and pasture resource eco-protection plans". Despite this clear recognition, the technogenic impact  is not included as an explicit variable in the final multi-component anthropogenic load (AL) model.

R 302:

The integrated anthropogenic load (AL) model is defined by the equation 𝐴𝐿𝑖 = 𝛼 × 𝑃𝐿𝑖 + 𝛽 × 𝐷𝑖 + 𝛾 × 𝐴𝑖 + 𝛿 × 𝐼𝑖. The study states that α, β, γ, and δ are "weighting coefficients reflecting the relative significance of each component in the load structure" and that they "were used, reflecting the relative contribution of each component". However, the document does not explain the methodology or process used to determine the numerical values of these weighting coefficients. To enhance the reproducibility and scientific rigor of the model, I would suggest detailing whether these coefficients were derived from expert opinion, sensitivity analyses, statistical methods, or other approaches.

Table 2. Classification of pasture load (PL) levels and their ecological interpretation:

PL is described as a "regulatory-expert classification scale... adapted to the ecological and geographical conditions of the Atyrau Region". While the classification categories and their ranges are provided, the specific scientific or expert-based rationale for these adapted thresholds for the Atyrau Region is not detailed. Explaining the process and data that informed this adaptation would strengthen the validity and local relevance of the classification.

Moreover, while the study's aim is to conduct an "integrated spatial-temporal assessment" of pasture ecosystem degradation processes and mentions that pasture degradation "increases annually" in Kazakhstan, the calculations are primarily based on 2023 statistics, providing a snapshot rather than a dynamic analysis of changes over time. Incorporate multi-temporal data sets (e.g., historical livestock data, remote sensing time series data for vegetation indices) to analyze trends, rates of degradation, and the long-term effectiveness of management practices would provide deeper insights into the dynamics of degradation processes.

R 468

The study highlights a significant spatial imbalance, noting that "from 38% to 45% of the pasture forage capacity remains outside of economic use" due to factors like "lack of transport accessibility" and "shortage of water sources" in remote areas. While the conclusions suggest investments in the development of transport and water infrastructure, as well as programs for spatial load redistribution and incentives for the use of remote pastures, it would be valuable to propose more specific or detailed strategies for the implementation of these measures.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, after carefully reading your revised paper.

 

1. In the abstract section, kindly summarize and describe the method used in the study.
2. In my opinion, the section from lines 103 to 110 can be deleted. Additionally, refine the narrative and logical flow in the introduction.
3. In the Literature Review section, kindly clarify the hypothesis or research questions.
4. Study area: For the audience, it would be beneficial to create a map that shows the geographical location of the study area, encompassing the entire country of Kazakhstan.
5. Figure 1. The methodological framework is not suitable; please improve the presentation.
6. Improve the English writing quality.

 

Best regards

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf