Review Reports - Science and Indigenous Knowledge: The Hybrid Heuristics of Glacier Grafting and Climate Adaptation in Baltistan, Pakistan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your research topic is intensely interesting, which is why I agreed to review the manuscript.

It is problematic to call it "modern science" as compared with Indigenous knowledge because you have used "modern" as an adjective for only one and not the other. It is problematic because it connotes that Indigenous knowledge is not modern (and perhaps also that it is static and is not improved upon over time). Reserving the term "modern" for industrialized countries has a long history rooted in racism and colonialism. Rather than reinforcing that racist classificatory scheme, if part of your goal is to show some of the value of Indigenous knowledge, then permitting them to be seen as coeval with science seems important. What about calling it "professional science" or some other appropriate term that avoids the problematic use of "modern"?

In my field (anthropology), we do not publish based on preliminary fieldwork alone (you call it "initial field inquiry") as you have done here (you call it "initial field inquiry"). You lay out essentially a research proposal in your conclusion and the first time I read the manuscript, I assumed that you planned to continue fieldwork to answer those questions, but upon reading it the second time, I see that you don't have plans to do that. However, if it is common in your discipline to publish based on preliminary fieldwork and if the other peer reviewers raise no objection, then feel free to ignore this comment.

I would want to know more about the fieldwork conducted (your methodology).

Some readers might wonder why you use the term "Indigenous" to refer to these people in Baltistan, as in most instances, the term "Indigenous" refers to people who inhabited a region prior to invasion and subjugation by a colonizing force. Is that the case here? I've never heard the word used for residents in the Himalayas. You explain on page 5 that it is "their dynamic relationship to the Pakistani state and place based spatial practices that lend them the quality of being Indigenous," but for me, that isn't a satisfactory answer. Why not refer to it as "local knowledge" or "traditional knowledge," or "community-based knowledge"? (Any of the latter would be less exoticizing.) Indeed, in line 157, you describe another author's work and use the term "local knowledge."

Could you define what an "ice stupa" is the first time you use that term? I was unfamiliar with the term.

After reading the manuscript, I still don't have a good understanding of how glacial grafting is done.

You will need to include evidence that your research proposal was reviewed by an IRB in accordance with ethical standards for working with human subjects and also a statement about informed consent.

It's not really until section 5 that I understood that glacial grafting as it is conducted in Baltistan was designed to even out the flow of water variability from year to year and that it wasn't and isn't done with climate change in mind, although you believe that it could be adapted for climate change (and I think that's an excellent insight). It seems important to discuss these facts earlier in the manuscript.

There are minor edits needed (such as hyphens missing in spots), but those should be worked out in the final draft.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to learn from your research.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your very constructive comments on our manuscript. Below we respond to each of your comments and outline how we have modified the manuscript in light of your specific comments.

[Comment 1] Your research topic is intensely interesting, which is why I agreed to review the manuscript.

[Response] We thank you for this very complementary comment.

[Comment 2] It is problematic to call it "modern science" as compared with Indigenous knowledge because you have used "modern" as an adjective for only one and not the other. It is problematic because it connotes that Indigenous knowledge is not modern (and perhaps also that it is static and is not improved upon over time). Reserving the term "modern" for industrialized countries has a long history rooted in racism and colonialism. Rather than reinforcing that racist classificatory scheme, if part of your goal is to show some of the value of Indigenous knowledge, then permitting them to be seen as coeval with science seems important. What about calling it "professional science" or some other appropriate term that avoids the problematic use of "modern"?

[Response] We do not use the term 'modern' in its colloquial normative or temporal sense. Instead we are using the term as a historically specific intellectual and cultural phenomena. Something that Peet & Watts (2004) call 'a regional [European] discursive formation.' As a critic of modernity and the intellectual edifices it has spawned, we do not consider calling something modern as necessarily complementary. It is a long debate and it would quite digressive to engage in that in this manuscript. But we have added some text on pg. 3 to clarify what we mean when we use the term modern or modernity.

[Comment 3] In my field (anthropology), we do not publish based on preliminary fieldwork alone (you call it "initial field inquiry") as you have done here (you call it "initial field inquiry"). You lay out essentially a research proposal in your conclusion and the first time I read the manuscript, I assumed that you planned to continue fieldwork to answer those questions, but upon reading it the second time, I see that you don't have plans to do that. However, if it is common in your discipline to publish based on preliminary fieldwork and if the other peer reviewers raise no objection, then feel free to ignore this comment.

[Response] It is quite customary in our discipline (geography) to publish initial field results. We have every intention of taking this research forward and are in the process of developing grant proposals along those lines. But we thought that it would still be useful to highlight what we have learned and to draw attention to this research problem of the wider academic community.

[Comment 4] I would want to know more about the fieldwork conducted (your methodology).

[Response] On pg. 5 we have added a note on methodology in response to your comment. The IRB approval was indeed obtained before the field work was conducted. There were no formal questionnaires or interview protocols beyond opportunistic conversations with field guides and a few collective conversations with community members and local researchers.

[Comment 5] Some readers might wonder why you use the term "Indigenous" to refer to these people in Baltistan, as in most instances, the term "Indigenous" refers to people who inhabited a region prior to invasion and subjugation by a colonizing force. Is that the case here? I've never heard the word used for residents in the Himalayas. You explain on page 5 that it is "their dynamic relationship to the Pakistani state and place based spatial practices that lend them the quality of being Indigenous," but for me, that isn't a satisfactory answer. Why not refer to it as "local knowledge" or "traditional knowledge," or "community-based knowledge"? (Any of the latter would be less exoticizing.) Indeed, in line 157, you describe another author's work and use the term "local knowledge."

[Response] This is a legitimate point and something we have clarified further on pg. 8. The literature cited in our discussion on Indigeneity convincingly argues that, while the notion of First People in the American and Australian sense might be the dominant understanding of Indigeneity, Indigenous people exist on all continents, and it is the relationship to the state and Ontological pluralism in their cosmology that lends them the quality of being Indigenous. Such a formulation helps us engage with Adhivasi communities in South Asia, for example through an Indigeneity lens much more meaningfully than the First People framing would allow. No one really knows in India, for example, who was there first.

[Comment 6] Could you define what an "ice stupa" is the first time you use that term? I was unfamiliar with the term.

[Response] We have elaborated upon that in a footnote on pg. 3 in conjunction with Figure 1.

[Comment 7] After reading the manuscript, I still don't have a good understanding of how glacial grafting is done.

[Response] We have added some text on pgs. 4 & 5 to clarify how it is done in general. The specifics of it vary from community to community, hence we didn't get into too much detail of it at this time.

[Comment 8] It's not really until section 5 that I understood that glacial grafting as it is conducted in Baltistan was designed to even out the flow of water variability from year to year and that it wasn't and isn't done with climate change in mind, although you believe that it could be adapted for climate change (and I think that's an excellent insight). It seems important to discuss these facts earlier in the manuscript.

[Response] We have highlighted these facts earlier on now at the beginning of pg. 5.

[Comment 9] There are minor edits needed (such as hyphens missing in spots), but those should be worked out in the final draft.

[Response] Apologies for that. We have now done a careful editing of the manuscript and we hope that it is error free now.

[Comment 10] Thank you for giving me the opportunity to learn from your research.

[Response] Thank you for taking the time to engage with the manuscript and writing such a helpful review.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article submitted for review features a highly original research topic. In it, the Authors describe a little-known local practice known as “glacier marriages” (“glacier grafting”), observed among the Balti communities in the Baltistan region of northern Pakistan.

This research is characterized by its interdisciplinary nature and an engaging presentation of local knowledge, beliefs, and social practices related to glaciers. To elucidate the potential physical mechanisms responsible for ice accumulation, the Authors conducted field research in 2023 at two locations where successful glacier “grafting” was reported to have occurred. It was demonstrated that there is currently a lack of sufficient observational data and measurements to unequivocally explain the processes responsible for ice growth. The study also sought to determine how local and scientific knowledge can coexist and complement one another.

The greatest value of this study lies in the formulation of a new research agenda that addresses questions concerning physical processes, the effectiveness of practices, socioeconomic factors, the distribution of benefits, and the relationship between indigenous and scientific knowledge. It is also valuable for identifying research gaps and formulating specific questions that can serve as the basis for future research.

The most significant limitation of the study is its very limited empirical basis. The study is based on observations of two sites visited during a single field trip in 2023. Consequently, many of the explanations presented regarding physical processes are hypothetical in nature rather than based on direct measurements. Another weakness is the lack of a quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of grafting. Thus, based on the data presented, it is difficult to determine to what extent the practice actually increases water resources.

The article is also, in places, more essayistic and reflective than a typical scientific article based on empirical research.

In my opinion, given the originality of the topic and the way it is approached, the article can be recommended for publication after significant revisions. I suggest, first and foremost:

- clarifying the field research methodology,

- more clearly separating the results from the hypotheses and interpretations,

- formulating conclusions regarding the effectiveness of glacier grafting more cautiously,

- supplementing the article with the most recent empirical literature, if available.

Specific comments:

- Please revise the way references are cited to comply with the journal’s requirements,

- In my opinion, even in Fig. 2, you could indicate, at least approximately, the area where the field research was conducted,

- Figure 4: To what period or year do the presented values of meteorological (climatological) parameters refer? Please add this information.

- Figure 6: Image “B” is labeled twice, but there is no label for image “E.” There is no explanation of what the red outlines in images A, B, C, and E represent. Did the person visible in image D give consent to the publication of their image?

- The references require a detailed review; the manuscript contains works that are not listed in the bibliography (e.g., Norstegard 2007, lines 44 and 375; Azam et al., 2020, line 182; Archer 2003, line 196, line 202; Vincent et al., 2016, line 232; Olson and Rupper, 2019, line 235; Kluwer, 1989, line 239; Whalley and Martin, 1992, line 262);

- inconsistent spelling of the same authors' surnames (“Nusser et al. 2019” line 45 and “Nϋsser et al. 2019” line 52; Kruetzmann line 135 and Kreutzmann line 495);

-error in the year (Hewitt 2005, line 483 or 2011, line 226?);

-missing citations in the text: Line 504: Mustafa, D., G. Gioli, M. Memon, M. Noshirwani, I. Idris, and N. Ahmed 2018.; Line 524: Tveiten, Ingvar, N. 2007.

Author Response

[Comment 1] The article submitted for review features a highly original research topic. In it, the Authors describe a little-known local practice known as “glacier marriages” (“glacier grafting”), observed among the Balti communities in the Baltistan region of northern Pakistan.

[Response] We thank the reviewer for her/his most gracious comments on our manuscript and highlighting what we are seeking to accomplish here.

[Comment 2] The most significant limitation of the study is its very limited empirical basis. The study is based on observations of two sites visited during a single field trip in 2023. Consequently, many of the explanations presented regarding physical processes are hypothetical in nature rather than based on direct measurements. Another weakness is the lack of a quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of grafting. Thus, based on the data presented, it is difficult to determine to what extent the practice actually increases water resources.

[Response] This is a legitimate observation and we do not present the article as anything different than an exploratory essay/article, which highlights a field of hitherto less understood field of inquiry and the potential intellectual and topical implications of a new research agenda. I hope that the weaknesses pointed to in the above comment are pardonable in light of what we are trying to accomplish here. An empirically rigorous and detailed manuscript would be a different one from the one we are presenting here.

[Comment 3] The article is also, in places, more essayistic and reflective than a typical scientific article based on empirical research.

[Response] Again a legitimate observation, which is consonant with what we intended with this article—reflexivity and accessibility to a multi-disciplinary audience.

In my opinion, given the originality of the topic and the way it is approached, the article can be recommended for publication after significant revisions. I suggest, first and foremost:

[Comment 4] - clarifying the field research methodology.

[Response] On pg. 5 of the manuscript we have added a note on the methodology.

[Comment 5] - more clearly separating the results from the hypotheses and interpretations,

[Response] As noted above, there are no substantive results or hypotheses to report here. Instead, this is a reflexive piece trying to outline a research agenda. Our intent is to move forward with this agenda. But we believe that there is value in sharing observations from an initial field visit with the wider scholarly community. This is an attempt to find fellow travellers in our journey of scientific, social scientific and policy discovery with regard to the practice of glacier grafting.

[Comment 6] - formulating conclusions regarding the effectiveness of glacier grafting more cautiously,

[Response] We re-read our conclusion in light of this argument and we are unable to see if we are making any unwarranted claims regarding the efficacy of the glacier grafting technique. Instead, seems to us we are posing questions—how can its physical efficacy be measured? How can we understand it better? How can it be relevant in enabling adjustment to climate change in high mountain communities? I hope that the reviewer agrees that those are very modest conclusions? Happy to change any conclusions if they seem intemperate, and but are not jumping out at us.

[Comment 7] - supplementing the article with the most recent empirical literature, if available.

[Response] We have done quite a bit of literature trawling for this manuscript and the anaemic literature we were able to find is cited in the manuscript. It is precisely the paucity of the empirical literature that is one of the main motivations and rationales for this manuscript.

Specific comments:

[Comment 8] - Please revise the way references are cited to comply with the journal’s requirements,

We shall definitely be doing that in the final stage of the manuscript.

[Comment 9] - In my opinion, even in Fig. 2, you could indicate, at least approximately, the area where the field research was conducted,

[Response] That has been done on Figure 2.

[Comment 10] - Figure 4: To what period or year do the presented values of meteorological (climatological) parameters refer? Please add this information.

[Response] That information has now been added to Figure 4 caption.

[Comment 11] - Figure 6: Image “B” is labeled twice, but there is no label for image “E.” There is no explanation of what the red outlines in images A, B, C, and E represent. Did the person visible in image D give consent to the publication of their image?

[Response] Apologies for that oversight. The caption has been reworked to comprehensively explain every one of the features and circles in Figure 6.

[Comment 12] - The references require a detailed review; the manuscript contains works that are not listed in the bibliography (e.g., Norstegard 2007, lines 44 and 375; Azam et al., 2020, line 182; Archer 2003, line 196, line 202; Vincent et al., 2016, line 232; Olson and Rupper, 2019, line 235; Kluwer, 1989, line 239; Whalley and Martin, 1992, line 262);

- inconsistent spelling of the same authors' surnames (“Nusser et al. 2019” line 45 and “Nϋsser et al. 2019” line 52; Kruetzmann line 135 and Kreutzmann line 495);

-error in the year (Hewitt 2005, line 483 or 2011, line 226?);

-missing citations in the text: Line 504: Mustafa, D., G. Gioli, M. Memon, M. Noshirwani, I. Idris, and N. Ahmed 2018.; Line 524: Tveiten, Ingvar, N. 2007.

[Response] Apologies for the mistakes and omissions. They have all been fixed now.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed all my comments and made the necessary corrections. In my opinion, the article in its current form can be accepted for publication in the journal.