Bioclimatic Conditions of the Kapshagay Reservoir Under Climate Change Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The aim of the study can’t be found anywhere in the manuscript. The title indicates that bioclimatic conditions of Kapshagai Reservoir surroundings should be in focus, but only the one page of the manuscript (pg. 14) is really dedicated to bioclimatic conditions although it contains unclear results. The rest of the Results section contains WMO extreme climate indices calculation for Almaty region using only 11 meteorological stations. Figures 1-8 indicate scarcity of spatial distribution of climate indices. Actually, this could be a result of climate heterogeneity of timeseries used in the study. Unfortunately, no details were presented regarding data quality check procedures and homogenization tests.

Sections “Materials and Methods” erroneously contain results of the study (see rows 150-186) which obviously should be placed in section “Results”. But the most surprising was that there was no discussion of the results in “Discussion” section. Instead, a calculation of “bioclimatic” ball was presented without detailed description of the algorithm it was computed.

Some doubts may be raised regarding the correct application of WMO climate indices. This concept assumes tracking climate-induced change in extremes relative to a base period (usually a 30-year period). However, all calculations were performed for a single 30-year period from 1990 to 2020, which combined the “base” and “out-of-base” periods. The note “The first 30 years of each time series were used as the percentile-based measures” below Table 4 also confuses.

In summary, I believe that the undisclosed purpose of the study, the lack of explanations and convincing analysis lead me to conclude that the article in its current form is not suitable for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript needs a language revision. In the current version the text is just a plain translation form Russian into English (according to Col.#2 title in Table 5 or reference #14)

Author Response

Comment 1: “The aim of the study is not indicated in the manuscript.”
Response 1: Thank you for this remark. We agree with the reviewer that the aim of the study was not clearly stated in the initial version. Therefore, in the Research Methods section (page 4, lines 122–128) we clarified the aim of the study as follows:
“The main objective of this work is to assess the bioclimatic conditions in the vicinity of the Kapshagay Reservoir based on WMO climate indices and biometeorological indicators, using observational data from 11 meteorological stations in the Almaty Region.”

 

Comment 2: “The title indicates that the main attention should be given to the bioclimatic conditions of the Kapshagay Reservoir area, however, only one page is devoted to this topic.”
Response 2: We agree with this comment. To better reflect the research focus, we expanded the section devoted to the bioclimatic conditions near the Kapshagay Reservoir (pages 5–9, lines 215–308). It now contains a detailed description of the spatial variability of the indices and their importance for assessing climatic comfort and risks. Additional references have also been included.

 

Comment 3: “In the ‘Materials and Methods’ sections the results of the study are mistakenly presented.”
Response 3: Thank you for this observation. We carefully revised the structure of the article. The paragraphs containing results that were previously located in the Materials and Methods section have now been moved to the Results section.

 

Comment 4: “There is no discussion of results in the ‘Discussion’ section.”
Response 4: In the revised version of the article, we added a new Discussion section (page 19, lines 542–560).

 

Comment 5: “There are no details on data quality control procedures and homogenization tests.”
Response 5: We agree that this information is necessary.
In our analysis, we used homogeneous meteorological data, the homogenization of which is preliminarily checked by the National Hydrometeorological Service of Kazakhstan. The database providing open access to the results of meteorological station observations by RSE “Kazhydromet” was formed in accordance with the Rules for the provision of information by the National Hydrometeorological Service, approved by the Order of the Minister of Ecology, Geology and Natural Resources of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 267 of July 23, 2021 (registered with the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan on July 27, 2021 under No. 23716). The open database is available at the following links:

• https://www.kazhydromet.kz/en/meteologiya/o-meteorologii
• https://meteo.kazhydromet.kz/database_meteo/

 

Comment 6: “The figures indicate the scarcity of the spatial distribution of climate indices.”
Response 6: We acknowledge this limitation. In the revised version, the figures have been improved.

 

3. Response to Comments on Language Quality

The manuscript text was carefully revised to improve readability and scientific style. Minor grammatical and stylistic corrections have been made throughout the text.

 

On behalf of all authors,
Aikerim Kerimkul

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The comments and suggestions were done in pdf file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1:
“There should be a better to cite definition of bioclimate developed by the International Society of Biometeorology available at the ISB webpage.”

Response:
Thank you for this suggestion. We have revised the Introduction section and included the official definition of bioclimate as provided by the International Society of Biometeorology (ISB). The relevant citation to the ISB webpage has been added to the references.

 

Comment 2:
“Replace topography by relief. Topography has wider geographical meaning.”

Response:
We agree with this recommendation. The term topography has been replaced by relief in the description of the geographical and morphological characteristics of the Almaty Region.

 

Comment 3:
“Previously you have written that the period 1990–2020 is utilised.”

Response:
Thank you for noting this inconsistency. We have carefully checked the text and figures to ensure that the period 1990–2020 is consistently applied throughout the manuscript. The references to any other time spans have been corrected.

 

Comment 4:
“Change to English. I suggest to use ‘points’ / ‘point scale’.”

Response:
We acknowledge this correction. In the section on bioclimatic assessment, the terms балл and балльная шкала have been replaced with points and point scale to ensure clarity for the international readership.

 

Comment 5:
“There is not clear how which indices from Table 4 were used for bioclimatic assessment and what are rules to assess them as favorable or unfavorable. This must be explained in the methods section.”

Response:
We appreciate this observation. The Methods section has been expanded with a detailed explanation of how the indices from Table 4 were selected and assessed. We now clearly describe the scoring rules used to categorize the indices as favorable, unfavorable, or very favorable. The procedure of integrating individual indices into the overall bioclimatic assessment has also been clarified.

 

Comment 6:
“I suggest to organise references in alphabetic order or accordingly to their appearance in the text.”

Response:
We have reorganized the reference list according to the guidelines of the journal. The references are now presented in proper sequence, ensuring consistency with their order of appearance in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the general idea of the manuscript is interesting, it is even more so in the area of study they propose due to its location and possible socio-political difficulties, as well as the scarcity of work on the climatic characterization of these steppes. The manuscript is still far from being publishable with average quality or interest. To begin with, the introduction is very poor, lacking a great deal of contextualization. It constantly mentions “bioclimatology” as the main focus, yet there is no reference to modern bioclimatic models or small-scale approaches for the area or for Kazakhstan in general. The background context of the area, the implications of the work, and the objectives are very vague and unrelated to the expected results, among other issues. The methodology is unclear. The authors use the classic Mann-Kendall statistical approach to detect monotonic trends, but there is no mention of the previous steps and assumptions of the data series. No information is given about the scale (daily, monthly, annual) of the data series, problems of homogeneity of the series, autocorrelations, etc. Nor is any robust bioclimatic classification model used, such as the Worldwide Bioclimatic Classification System (Rivas-Martínez, S., Rivas-Sáenz, S., & Penas, A. S. (2011). Worldwide bioclimatic classification system, Global Geobotany, 1, 1–634).

For all these reasons, it is still too early to review the results. However, I encourage the authors to thoroughly revise the manuscript and resubmit it, as the basic idea is interesting and the study area is also interesting.

Good luck and keep up the good work, authors!

Best regards.

Author Response

Comment 1: “The introduction is very weak, without significant contextualization. There are no references to modern bioclimatic models or small-scale approaches.”

Response 1: Thank you for this remark. In the revised version of the manuscript, the Introduction section has been substantially rewritten (pp. 1–2, lines 37–102). We added relevant references to modern bioclimatic models and studies on small-scale approaches, including works related to Central Asia and Kazakhstan. We also clarified the scientific novelty and significance of our research.

Comment 2: “The background of the study, its significance, and objectives are rather vague and not linked to the expected results.”

Response 2: We agree with this comment. In the updated Introduction (pp. 5–9, lines 215–308), we explicitly formulated the objective of the study: to assess the bioclimatic conditions in the vicinity of the Kapshagay Reservoir using WMO climate indices and bioclimatic indicators. We also specified the research tasks and linked them to the obtained results.

Comment 3: “The methodology is unclear. The scale of data, homogeneity issues, autocorrelation, etc. are not indicated.”

Response 3: Thank you for pointing out this shortcoming. In the Materials and Methods section (pp. 3–5, lines 122–233), we added a description of the original time series (daily data aggregated into monthly and annual values) and clarified the data quality control procedures. The analysis used homogeneous meteorological data, the homogenization of which is preliminarily checked by the National Hydrometeorological Service of Kazakhstan. The open-access database of meteorological observations maintained by RSE “Kazhydromet” was established in accordance with the Rules for the provision of information by the National Hydrometeorological Service, approved by the Order of the Minister of Ecology, Geology and Natural Resources of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 267 of July 23, 2021 (registered with the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan on July 27, 2021 under No. 23716). The open database is available at: https://www.kazhydromet.kz/en/meteologiya/o-meteorologii; https://meteo.kazhydromet.kz/database_meteo/. We also included clarifications on autocorrelation and the use of the Mann–Kendall test with correction for serial dependence.

Comment 4: “No reliable model of bioclimatic classification is used, for example, the Rivas-Martínez system.”

Response 4: In the revised version of the article (pp. 5–9, lines 215–308), we added bioclimatic indices and discussed their application for Kazakhstan. In future work, we plan to integrate this approach into a larger-scale study.

Comment 5: “It is still too early to draw conclusions about the results.”

Response 5: We understand this comment and agree that the initial version contained insufficient interpretation. In the new version, we strengthened the Discussion section, where the results are analyzed in the context of modern studies on climate variability in Central Asia and their relevance for the socio-economic conditions of the region.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my overall opinion, the manuscript received minor improvements after revision. New bulk of results made the manuscript even more misleading.

The issues from the first-round review that were not met by the author’s revision are as follows:

• Sections “Materials and Methods” erroneously contain results of the study (see rows 212-305 in a new version of the manuscript) which obviously should be placed in section “Results”.
• there is no discussion of the results in section “4. Discussion”. Instead, additional calculation of bioclimatic score was put in there.

Additional issues:

There is no clear explanation on Integral assessment of bioclimatic indices. How unfavorable/favorable conditions are determined on climate index.

The new version contains much of ET, EET, RET, NEET computations but how this is related to Integral assessment of bioclimatic index (see Table 5) which is carried out solely on climate indices.

The aim of the study can’t be placed in “Materials and method” section.

Author Response

1. Results in the “Materials and Methods” section (pp. 212–305).
   We agree with the comment and have moved all results from the “Materials and Methods” section to the “Results” section. Thus, the article structure now conforms to scientific standards.
2. Discussion section.
   In the previous version, additional calculations of the bioclimatic score were presented instead of a proper discussion. In the revised version, the section has been restructured: we focused on the interpretation of the obtained results, comparison with findings from other studies, and discussion of the significance of the identified trends. Additional calculations are retained only to the extent necessary to clarify the conclusions.
3. Integral assessment of bioclimatic indices.
   In the revised manuscript, we provided a detailed description of the methodology of integral assessment. The text now clearly indicates the criteria by which conditions are classified as “unfavorable,” “favorable,” and “very favorable.” References to the applied scale and related publications have been added.
4. Connection between ET, EET, RET, NEET and the integral assessment.
   We added an explanation that the bioclimatic indices (ET, EET, NEET, BAT, REET) are the baseline data, while the integral point-based assessment aggregates them into a single indicator for a comprehensive characterization.
5. Research aim in the “Materials and Methods” section.
   We accepted the remark and moved the aim of the study to the “Introduction.” The “Materials and Methods” section now contains only methodological descriptions.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript was significantly improved. However it still needs some improvements (in methodology section - se comments in attached file) and verification of the text after adding additional parts of the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1. Repetitive phrases in the Introduction.
   We agree with the remark and have removed all duplicate formulations.
2. Typos and style.
   All typographical errors (e.g., “Toy eat.all,” “tempreture,” etc.) have been corrected, and the text has undergone additional grammatical editing.
3. Modern references and macrobioclimates.
   We have added new references, including Méndez-Toribio et al. (2017) and the works of Rivas-Martínez. The Introduction has been revised to clarify which macrobioclimates are typical for Kazakhstan.
4. Choice of indices (ET, EET, NEET, BAT, REET).
   We added an explanation of why these indices were selected and noted that in future studies we plan to also use UTCI and PET.
5. Comprehensive assessment scale (0–2).
   References to similar methodologies have been added along with an explanation of the principles of the scale. Examples of calculations have also been provided.
6. Homogenization of time series.
   The section has been expanded with a description of the methodology for testing data homogeneity and relevant references.
7. Number of stations and database.
   We explained the limitations of local data and indicated that in future work we plan to use WorldCLIM and CHELSA datasets.
8. Tables and figures.
   All tables have been translated into English. Detailed explanations were added to both tables and figures. Some redundant tables have been moved to the Appendix.
9. Trends and dynamics.
   We agree that analyzing temporal dynamics would strengthen the work. However, due to technical constraints, this analysis could not be included in the current version. We have mentioned this as a limitation in the Discussion section and indicated it as a perspective for future research.
10. Interpretation of indicators and inconsistencies.
    We have checked and corrected inconsistencies (e.g., for the Kapchagay and Matai stations). The WSDI/CSDI maps are now supplemented with numerical values. The analysis of R10mm and R20mm has been expanded with quantitative estimates.
11. Practical significance.
    The Discussion section was supplemented with an analysis of the impact of climatic conditions on public health, agriculture, and tourism.
12. Integral comfort scale.
    The algorithm for calculating and weighting the indices has now been described in detail, with examples provided to ensure reproducibility.
13. Article structure.
    We revised the structure: the Results section now precedes the Discussion section.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Undoubtedly, the manuscript has been substantially improved, but there are some corrections that need to be made.

The Introduction repeats identical phrases ("The study aims to assess the bioclimatic conditions...") in several lines.

There are typographical errors (‘Toy eat.all’, ‘tempreture’), and the style needs grammatical correction. Key recent references in applied bioclimatology are missing. What macrobioclimates dominate the area? I recommended that they take a look at Rivas-Martínez's work on his global bioclimatic classification model... I have read this manuscript several times, and I still do not know what macrobioclimates exist in Kazakhstan, not even the possible bioclimates at a detailed scale, but simply the small-scale macrobioclimates.

ET, EET, NEET, BAT and REET are chosen, but there is no explanation as to why modern indices such as UTCI or PET, which are more widely validated in international biometeorological studies, were not used.

The comprehensive assessment scale (score of 0–2) seems arbitrary and lacks validation or references.

The processes of homogenisation of series are not discussed in sufficient detail, which is critical in trend studies.

Although 11 stations are very few, this reviewer understands that there may be no more data available in the area and that it may be difficult to access data. Why have approximations such as WorldCLIM or CHELSA not been used?

The authors should ensure that the tables are perfectly in English (this reviewer has no problem with this because nowadays, with translation software, there is no problem), but in Table 1, there is ‘Показатель’, which means indicators or variables.

However, the main flaw in the tables and figures is the lack of explanation or contextualisation. The descriptions of the tables in general need to be explained in more detail.

The graphics section is generally very poor; there are too many month-by-month tables without a summary. These tables could easily be included as appendices, with a comparative summary of the data included in the body of the manuscript.

Although the period 1990–2020 is covered, no annual or ten-year trends are shown in the indices. Average distributions are presented, but not the evolution over time (e.g. how the average ET changed over three decades). It is stated that May–June and September are optimal periods, but there is no quantification of how much their duration increased or decreased over the period.

At some stations (e.g. Kapchagay, Matai), the values of certain indices do not match the textual description (e.g. moderate ET but classified as “unfavourable”). The WSDI/CSDI maps are described in terms of colours (green, blue, red) but without clear numerical values in the text.

Although R10mm and R20mm are included, the interpretation is weak.There is no quantification of whether there is a change in intensity or seasonality, only specific increases or decreases per season are stated.

There is no connection to direct impacts on health, agriculture or tourism (although this is mentioned in the conclusions).

The comprehensive comfort scale appears at the end as a summary of the results, but there is no explanation of how the indices were weighted, nor are any calculation examples provided. This raises doubts about reproducibility (for example, if one wanted to repeat the analysis with data from other regions, there would be serious doubts about replicating it and obtaining comparable data).

On the other hand, the authors present the discussion before the results, which is very confusing for understanding the manuscript.

Good luck and keep up the good work, authors!

Author Response

1. Repetitive phrases in the Introduction.
   Comment: The Introduction contains repeated formulations of the study aim.
   Response: We removed the duplicated phrases and retained a clear, unambiguous formulation of the aim.
2. Typographical errors and style.
   Comment: Errors detected (“Toy eat.all,” “tempreture”).
   Response: All typographical and stylistic errors have been corrected.
3. Lack of modern references.
   Comment: No contemporary works on applied bioclimatology or references to the Rivas-Martínez global model.
   Response: We included additional sources, including Méndez-Toribio et al. (2017) and Rivas-Martínez et al. (2011), and clarified which macrobioclimates dominate in the region (arid and continental macrobioclimate).
4. Use of indices.
   Comment: No explanation why ET, EET, NEET, BAT, and REET were selected instead of UTCI or PET.
   Response: We explained that the selected indices are traditionally applied in Kazakhstan and enable comparison with previous regional publications. We acknowledged the limitations and stated that future studies will incorporate UTCI and PET.
5. Comprehensive assessment scale.
   Comment: The 0–2 point scale appears arbitrary.
   Response: We supplemented the text with references to similar approaches (Blazejczyk, 2005; Toy et al., 2007) and described the methodology of scale construction. Examples of calculations were added for reproducibility.
6. Homogenization of data series.
   Comment: Insufficient detail on homogenization procedures.
   Response: We expanded the description, referring to Kazhydromet’s methodology, and provided explanations on testing data homogeneity.
7. Number of stations and global databases.
   Comment: Only 11 stations used; why not WorldCLIM or CHELSA?
   Response: We emphasized that local data were chosen for their higher accuracy and official verification. However, we added a note that global databases will be used in future studies.
8. Tables and language.
   Comment: Tables should be fully in English.
   Response: All tables have been translated into English, including titles and variables.
9. Context and explanations of tables/figures.
   Comment: Insufficient explanations and interpretations.
   Response: Each table and figure is now accompanied by detailed descriptions highlighting key findings.
10. Excessive monthly tables.
    Comment: Monthly tables should be moved to an appendix, leaving summary data in the text.
    Response: The main text was reduced: detailed monthly tables were moved to the Appendix, while summary results and comparisons remain in the article.
11. Trends and dynamics.
    Comment: No annual/decadal dynamics of indices presented.
    Response: We fully agree that including an analysis of annual and decadal trends, as well as quantitative estimates of favorable period durations, would significantly strengthen the study. Unfortunately, due to data processing constraints and time limitations, this analysis could not be performed in the current version. We highlighted this limitation in the Discussion section and indicated it as a direction for future research. In further work, we plan to apply additional statistical methods and use external databases (e.g., WorldCLIM, CHELSA) to study temporal dynamics in greater depth.
12. Inconsistencies in index values and text.
    Comment: At some stations (e.g., Kapchagay, Matai) index values do not match the descriptions.
    Response: We re-checked the data, corrected inconsistencies, and refined the classification.
13. WSDI/CSDI maps.
    Comment: Colors mentioned but no numerical values.
    Response: Numerical values and legends were added to the maps in the revised version.
14. Interpretation of R10mm and R20mm.
    Comment: Weak interpretation, no quantitative estimates.
    Response: The analysis was refined by adding quantitative data on changes in intensity and seasonality.
15. Practical implications.
    Comment: Insufficient link to health, agriculture, and tourism impacts.
    Response: The Discussion was expanded with concrete examples of the impacts of climate change on public health, agriculture, and recreation.
16. Integral comfort scale.
    Comment: Weighting of indices not explained.
    Response: We described the weighting algorithm in detail and added calculation examples to ensure reproducibility.
17. Structure of “Discussion” and “Results.”
    Comment: The Discussion precedes the Results.
    Response: The article structure was revised: the Results section now precedes the Discussion section.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author's list of responses and the new version of the manuscript do not fully conform to each other.

The issues from the first- and second-round review that were not met by the author’s revision are as follows:

• Sections “2. Materials and Methods” erroneously contain results of the study (see lines 218-346 in a new version of the manuscript) which must be placed in section “3. Results” (see line 362).
• Section “4. Discussion” (see line 572) must contain discussion of the results presented in the previous section “3. Results”. Instead, authors put additional calculation of Integral bioclimatic score which was not introduced in any of the previous sections of the manuscript. Calculations cannot be a part of “Discussion” section. If the authors cannot compile implications from the results they’ve got, so they could simply delete “4. Discussion” section and rename the section “3. Results” to “3. Results and discussion”.

Additional issues:

Again, there is no clear explanation of how Integral assessment of bioclimatic indices was assessed. How is continuous value of each climate index transformed into three-point “unfavorable/favorable conditions” scale

Authors replied previously that the bioclimatic indices (ET, EET, NEET, BAT, REET) were used to make the integral point-based assessment. But text in lines 605-606 indicate that the ball scale was developed on the basis of 13 climatic indices (!). This explanation is quite confusing regarding the algorithm of Integral assessment of bioclimatic indices.

What is the sense of the word “Discussion” in line 182 ?.

 

Author Response

Comment 1. The list of author responses and the revised version of the manuscript are not fully consistent with each other.
Response. The manuscript has been carefully revised and is now fully consistent with the author responses.

 

Comment 2. In Section “2. Materials and Methods”, the results of the study are mistakenly included (lines 218–346). These should be placed in Section “3. Results” (line 362).
Response. We agree. All fragments containing results were moved to Section “3. Results”. Section “2. Materials and Methods” now includes only the description of data, methodology, and software tools.

 

Comment 3. Section “4. Discussion” (line 572) should contain a discussion of results. Instead, an additional calculation of the integral index is presented, which was not previously described.
Response. We agree. The methodology for calculating the integral index has been transferred to Section “2. Materials and Methods”, while the corresponding results are presented in Section “3. Results”. Section “4. Discussion” was revised and now contains a comparative analysis of our findings with results from other studies.

 

Comment 4. There is no clear explanation of the integral assessment of bioclimatic indices. How are continuous values converted into the three-point scale? Earlier only 5 indices were mentioned, whereas in the text (lines 605–606) 13 indices are indicated.
Response. For the analysis, 13 indices were calculated using the ClimPACT2 package in accordance with WMO recommendations (Tx30ge, Tx35ge, FD, SU, R10mm, R20mm, CSDI, WSDI, etc.). Each index value was categorized using a three-level scale:

• 0 points – unfavorable conditions,
• 1 point – favorable conditions,
• 2 points – very favorable conditions.

Threshold values were adopted from Blazejczyk (1987) and Toy et al. (2007) and further adapted for the study region (Nyssanbayeva et al., 2013).

After categorizing all 13 indices, their values were summed. Based on the total score, the following classes were defined:

• 9–11 – very discomfort,
• 11.1–13 – discomfort,
• 13.1–15 – subcomfort,
• 15.1–17 – comfort,
• 17.1–26 – very favorable conditions.

This approach allowed us to integrate various climatic characteristics and provide a comprehensive assessment of bioclimatic conditions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have substantially improved the manuscript. Congratulations.

Author Response

Response:
Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your careful evaluation and positive feedback on our revised manuscript. Your valuable comments and suggestions have greatly contributed to the improvement of our work. We highly appreciate your support and recognition.

 

On behalf of all authors,
Aikerim Kerimkul