Recent Climate-Induced Changes in Glaciers, Biota, Land Use Types and Population Adaptation Models in the South-Eastern Altai Highlands

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, the work needs to be reorganised and restructured, clearly defining the objectives of the work, what has been done in addition to the bibliographic research, presenting the results as much as possible in tabular form with a summary description and discussion. It might be useful to separate the results section from the interpretation and discussion section. As it stands, the article cannot be published. It definitely needs a thorough revision, and several parts need to be reorganised, and the parts of the authors' work need to be clearly described. However, I am attaching some advice and suggestion that may be useful for reorganising your work.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, the work needs to be reorganised and restructured, clearly defining the objectives of the work, what has been done in addition to the bibliographic research, presenting the results as much as possible in tabular form with a summary description and discussion. It might be useful to separate the results section from the interpretation and discussion section. As it stands, the article cannot be published. It definitely needs a thorough revision, and several parts need to be reorganised, and the parts of the authors' work need to be clearly described. However, I am attaching some advice and suggestion that may be useful for reorganising your work.

Response:  First of all, we would like to express our gratitude to the reviewer for his attentive, professional and thorough work with our article. Following his useful advice the paper was completely reorganized and restructured, objectives of the work were rewritten as well as Summary and Results and Discussion was improved according to reviewer's advice.

I have reviewed the manuscript “Recent climate-induced changes in glaciers, biota, land use 2 types and population adaptation models in the South-East Altai 3 highlands”. The study is interesting and deals with a comprehensive description and assessment of environmental changes in three areas (Tsambagarav (Mongolia), Mongun-Taiga, and North-Chuya (Russia)) located in the southeastern Altai cross-border natural region, which is situated in the arid territories of Russia and Mongolia.

The text covers several topics accompanied by a lot of data, which makes it difficult to understand the purpose of the work and, in particular, what the authors have done that is innovative. In the section describing materials and methods, in addition to describing the existing data, it is necessary to explain clearly what processing the authors have done and how it was done.

Response:   Using reviewer’s advice in the section describing materials, methods, and existing data, authors explain clearly what processing the authors have done and how it was done.

As regards the results section, I suggest separating the results from the discussion; furthermore, all data obtained from the bibliography and data relating to botanical species should be included in tables (for the supplementary materials). The list presented in paragraph ‘3.3.7. Results of the study of high-mountain flora’ makes reading difficult and detracts from the purpose of the work. Below are some suggestions and issues to explore further:

Response:   The list presented in paragraph ‘3.3.7. Results of the study of high-mountain flora’ was transferred to the Supplementary materials.

For example in 2.1. Physical and geographical characteristics of the study area” always specify the period or year of reference for the measurements: for example, to which measurement period do the average annual precipitation figures for the three areas refer? Are they averages for a single year or for a range of years?

Response:  Measurement periods were indicated.

Indicate the average altitudes, always referring to mean sea level (m a.s.l.), of the different vegetation environments.

Response:  The average altitudes were indicated.

In paragraph ‘2.2. Methods of glaciological field research, analysis and processing of collected data’, it would be useful to describe clearly what you have done, i.e. historical data on glaciers etc. have been collected with the aim of measuring changes in, for example, the size of glaciers over time, etc., using the following methodologies, and so on.

It is advisable to avoid statements without a clear justification/explanation.

Response: We identified and explained statements without clear justification/explanation.

I also suggest not taking certain concepts or names (e.g., Third Pole) for granted, but adding a concise and clear description.

In the section entitled ‘3. Results and discussion,’ before the paragraph entitled ‘3.1 Climate Change,’ it is necessary to include an introduction explaining how the results are organised, briefly describing the contents of the result paragraphs and explaining how the results are organised.

Response:  we prepared introduction, briefly describing the contents of the result paragraphs and explaining how the results are organized. We put it before the section 3.

Paragraph 3.1 Climate change: explain what you did and how you did it: did you calculate temperature trends? Did you identify precipitation patterns? Or are you reporting the results of other studies?

Because the paper contains a lot of data, the writing needs to be simple and organised; the results and discussion section should be reduced by putting all the “historical” data, such as the various studies and related data on glaciers (paragraphs 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.3.1, 3.3.2), or the lists of botanical species (paragraphs 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.5, 3.3.6), into tables (to be included as additional material). It is not clear what part was played in the research: a large bibliographic search of data on glaciers was carried out, but it is not explained how this data is used.

Response:  all historical data from mentioned glaciological paragraphs as well as the lists of botanical species were replaced to the Supplementary  Materials.

Were the maps presented in Figures 3-8 developed by you or are they derived from bibliographic studies? In the latter case, the bibliographic reference should be indicated in the caption.

Response:  Figures 3-8 are developed by us.

In general, when presenting graphs together, such as the graphs in Figure 14, I suggest using the same scale for the NDVI index in order to highlight the differences between the areas analysed.

Response:  In our opinion, using the same scale for the NDVI index would be harder to read. Moreover, we made graphs for show long-term dynamics for each study site, our goal was not in comparing these sites by NDVI.

I would like to point out some corrections for the first part of the work relating to ‘materials and methods’. (As for the results and conclusions, please refer to the comments I wrote earlier):

Line 70 Please specify what are the “changes taking place”

Response:  we describe what changes are taking place.

Line 74 what is “7M concept”. Please clarify and explaine.

Response:  7M concept” was described and explained.

Lines 85-86 please add some example of “systems of zoning” of the South-Eastern Altai, based on what parameters. Chiarire su quali caratter istiche vengono definite le aree indagate

Response:  First and foremost, we recognize the need to significantly reduce the article's length. Therefore, while we are unable to thoroughly examine the various zoning systems for Southeastern Altai existing in Russian-language literature, we merely reference them and utilize the characteristics and zoning parameters they provide, as well as relying on our own observations to create a comprehensive characterization of Southeastern Altai. We have made it more comprehensive and substantiated, taking into account the Reviewer's very helpful comments and suggestions.

Lines 97-98 This is clearly evident in the modern Altai glaciation centre. It is not clear what is evident in the current Altai glaciation centre and what is meant by Altai glaciation centre.

Response:  lines 97-98 was not proper translated into English. Now they are changed “The modern plant communities of the Altai Mountains are partly the result of recent changes and the current state of the environment, but they also reflect or are relics of the complex ecogeographic history and evolution of the region, in particular, multiple recurring periods of climatic change during the Pleistocene (approximately 2 million to 10,000 years ago), including a series of ice ages. This is clearly evident in the current state of the Altai glacial cluster [26]”.

Line 99-100 “South-Eastern Altai is distinguished by the greatest originality of landscapes, very similar to the landscapes of neighboring regions of Mongolia.” Please explain what makes these landscapes so unique...

Response:  We explained what makes landscapes of South-Eastern Altai so unique.

The uniqueness of the landscapes of Southeastern Altai lies in a unique combination of natural conditions: high-mountain steppes and semi-deserts with strong winds, extreme daily and annual temperature fluctuations, and high insolation; deep intermontane basins (surrounded on all sides by mountain ridges with isolated ecosystems and their own microclimates); and traces of ancient glaciation (trough valleys, moraine deposits, and cirque lakes). Here, altitudinal zonation is clearly expressed, ranging from the dry steppes and semi-deserts of the intermontane basins to the alpine meadows and glaciers of the high ridges. This rapid change in landscapes is one of the key factors in its uniqueness, where Mongolian features (steppes, aridity) intertwine with distinct high-mountain features (glaciers, distinct altitudinal zonation).

Lines 104-105 All this allows us to rightfully include the adjacent regions of Mongolia in the South-Eastern Altai. Justify this statement better. Explain the morphological and physiographic characteristics of Mongolia that allow you to group it with the South-Eastern Altai area.

Response:  We explained physiographic characteristics of Mongolia that allow you to group it. By “adjacent regions of Mongolia,” which we included in the Southeastern Altai, we mean the territory of the Mongolian Altai; its physical and geographical similarity with the studied regions of the Altai-Sayan mountain system in Russia is described in more detail in Section 2.1. Geographical settings and characteristics of the South-Eastern Altai area.

Lines 106-109 “Climate change and increase in the number and intensity of natural hazards add new risks to the vulnerable mountain environment and pastoralist communities, affecting the productivity of agroecosystems, income levels, and population safety, which despite numerous studies remains underexplored [27–29].” Before this sentence, which refers to climate change and the increase in environmental impacts (on pastoral and economic communities), explain more or less since when (e.g. for x years or decades), how climate change is manifesting itself (e.g. increase in average annual temperatures, changes in the hydrological cycle with intense and concentrated rainfall or other typical aspects observed in the area), and what impacts and problems have been observed in the study area (e.g. melting of high-altitude glaciers, slope instability, etc.).

Response:  we explained this.

Line 134 Please describe briefly what is the “dzud”

Response:  We described and explained what dzud is.

Line 216 forse è più corretto utilizzare il termine di “availability”

Lines144-150 “There is a consistent lack of scientific data about adaptation, vulnerability, sensitivity and resilience of population living in this geographic zone, representing the human dimension of climate change, justifying the need to combine glaciological, geographical data with sociological insights, providing understandings about climate knowledge, attitudes and risk perception, the role of community, cultural identity and other socio-cultural factors, mediating human reactions to the changing climate reality.” Please, rewrite this long sentence, perhaps dividing it into shorter, more easily understandable sentences.

Response:  we rewrite this sentence.

Line 176 “The geological structure of the North Chuya Range is determined by the presence of…” .

It is unclear whether North Chuisky Range and North Chuya Range refer to the same mountainous area. If the latter is the case, choose a single name (either North Chuisky Range or North Chuya Range) and use it throughout the text and figures.

Response:  Response:  North Chuisky Range and North Chuya Range is the same area we checked it carefully and write everywhere North Chuya Ridge.

Line 192 what means “the modern glaciation”? Add the period or year of the surveys or

measurements.

Response:  we replaced “the modern glaciation” by «The glaciation of the study area in 2020-s»  .

Lines 197-216 “The climate of the study area……… and the amount of precipitation was 140 mm [60].” I suggest to add a new paragrapher titled “2.2 Climate characterization” where in the meteorological stations part (line 206-216) you can enter what you have analyzed (rainfall and air temperature data to evaluate the areal precipitation pattern, the increase in temperature over time, the Selyaninov complex temperature-humidity index, etc.), using which data (data measured by meteorological stations...).

Response:    we added such section.

Lines 206-208 Please, for the Aktru meteorological station, add the measurement period from …..to….. (or year). This indication of the time period must be included for all analyses and

measurements carried out.

Response:  Observations at the Aktru meteorological station were carried out between 1971 and 1993; since 2015, meteorological observations have been resumed in automatic mode throughout the year.

The average annual air temperature at the Aktru meteorological station from 1971 to 1992 was -5.2°C [57], and by 2021 it had increased to -4.3°C [Climatic conditions. Aktru - UNU "Megaustanovok". Available online: https://gisdatasets.ftf.tsu.ru/Explore/StationV/Details?id=20. (accessed on December 29, 2025)].

Lines 208-211 Please rewrite the sentences maintaining the style of the previous one, i.e.: For the Mongun-Taiga massif, according to the Mugur-Aksy meteorological station, the average annual precipitation (measurement period from …..to…..) is 140.0 mm [48]; for the Tsambagarav ridge, the Erdeenburen and Bayannur meteorological stations, then average annual precipitation (measurement period from …..to…..) are respectively 78 mm and 87 mm [55].

Response: observation periods have been added

For the Mongun-Taiga massif, according to the Mugur-Aksy meteorological station, the average annual precipitation (measurement period from 1966 to 2013) is 140.0 mm [48]; for the Tsambagarav ridge, the Erdeenburen and Bayannur meteorological stations, then average annual precipitation (measurement period from 1995 to 2004) are respectively 78 mm and 87 mm [55]; for or the North Chuysky Ridge, according to the Aktru meteorolog-ical station, the average annual precipitation (measurement period from 1971 to 1992) is 542.4 mm [57], according to hydrological monitoring of glacier runoff: 1000 mm [58]. 

Lines 211-213 “Their uneven intra-annual distribution is observed, up to 70% of precipitation falls in the warm period [48].” Please rewrite adding: “In the period from ... to ..., there is an irregular intra-annual distribution , with up to 70% of precipitation falling during the warm season [48].”

Response: The text has been corrected:

During the observation period (from 1966 to 2013), an uneven intra-annual distribution of precipitation was observed, with up to 70% of precipitation falling in the warm season [48]. 

Line 214 Please add the area where average annual air temperature is -5.6°C

Response:  The names of meteorological stations in the Tsambaragav mountain range were

Lines 214-216 “At an altitude of 3000 m, which practically corresponds to the snow line on 214 the Tsambagarav ridge, the average annual temperatures for the period from 1977 to 2016 215 were - 7.1°C, and the amount of precipitation was 140 mm [60]. “Please modify the last part of the sentences with “the average annual precipitation was 140 mm “.

Response:  the sentence has been changed - “the average annual precipitation was 140 mm “. 

Lines 229-237 Please add the altitudes in m above sea level of the foothills and lower slopes of the Mongun-taiga mountain range and of the Tundra belt and of the edges of glaciers.

Response:  the boundaries of the altitude zones are indicated in meters.

Lines 244-245 “Due to the loss of the forest belt, the steppe zone adjoins the alpine zone.” Perhaps it is more correct to write “Due to the lack of a forest belt” rather than “loss”. However, if the authors have evidence of the “loss of the forest belt”, perhaps through a comparison of analyses carried out at different times, they should include it.

Response:  we have changed “loss” on “lack”.

Lines 247 Please, add a short introductory sentence in which you simply explain which parameters you have evaluated for the glaciers (for example the measurement of the area at different times to evaluate changes over time or reduction rates over time, etc.) and through which data (bibliographic data, photographs, comparison of aerial photos, comparison of satellite data, etc.).

Response:  we did it.

Lines 247 “The work used previously published data on the area of glaciers for 2021, 2000….” Please add the words “for the years 2021, 2000….” Also check the following sentences.

Response:  all this section has been rewritten according to this recommendation.

Line 257 “Table1. Satellite imagery used in the study.” Sateliite images … is better. Specify the glacier analysis method you used for the North Chuya Range area

Response:  corrected.

In my opinion, the work needs to be reorganised and restructured, clearly defining the objectives of the work, what has been done in addition to the bibliographic research, presenting the results as much as possible in tabular form with a summary description and discussion. It might be useful to separate the results section from the interpretation and discussion section. As it stands, the article cannot be published. It definitely needs a thorough revision, and several parts need to be reorganised, and the parts of the authors' work need to be clearly described. However, I am attaching some advice and suggestion that may be useful for reorganising your work.

Response:  We changed and improved the paper using your helpful recommendations. Thank you for the great job!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Recent climate-induced changes in glaciers, biota, land use types and population adaptation models in the South-East Altai highlands” - according to the authors -provides the first comprehensive description of environmental changes in the region. As the region is largely unknown in the West, the contribution in general is of high value for ecologists interested in this part of the world. The paper is kind of “old-school” which is not to be misunderstood as scientifically unsound. Even if the manuscript would have surely benefitted from the use of some more modern analytical tools such vegetation classification or ordination procedures, the results are profound enough to be published and the topic actually matches the scope of the MDPI-journal “Environments”. However, from my point of view, the major problem, with this paper is the excessive length and the poor structure. The structure is more like a monograph and the way chosen, describing and discussing glaciers, vegetation, land use change and adaptation models for each of the three study areas results in the excessive length with many re-occurrences. Even if MDPI does not have a limit on pages or characters, the manuscript in my opinion must be much more focused and has to be shortened considerabably to be considered for publication in a scientific journal. In addition, there are many wording issues and typos, so I recommend to get this manuscript linguistically finalized by a native english speaker or by a professional editorial service.

Some more remarks with regard to content:

• The authors throughout the manuscript use altitude, height and elevation as synonyms. According to McVicar, Tim & Körner, Christian (2012) (“On the use of elevation, altitude, and height in the ecological and climatological literature”. Oecologia. 171. 10.1007/s00442-012-2416-7) Elevation is the appropriate term. Please change throughout the manuscript.
• L 165: Study area: actually three different study areas
• For Soils international classification schemes should be used such as World Reference Base/FAO
• For weather stations (L 207-216) elevation and location is important
• L 244-245: ”the loss of the forest belt”: is it lost or just not represented, please clarify.
• L283: rout method: unclear, please explain
• L290—294: how can data of iNaturalist and Plantarium can be included, please explain
• L373-375: Figure 2: what is the reason for the break in the graph
• L392The Selyaninov complex temperature-humidity index: how calculated? Please include explanation in the methods section
• L511: Table 4: this is material and methods
• L635: Figure 7: use only maps with contour lines
• L 732; humidity: what about warming
• L774: “species that are heterogeneous in nature”: unclear
• L 755: largely determined by the degree of participation of montane (common mountain) plants: unclear
• L781-783: “but will also obviously depend on both the vegetation cover characteristics and the local geomorphological and geochemical conditions of the adjacent territories”: unclear
• L817 & L828: and cryohygropetrophyton, cryoxero-petrophyton: Please define
• L970; what are periglacial meadows?
• Description of vegetation zonation could be joined by vegetation Profiles for a better understanding
• L1088: Figure 11: Sparse larch forest: Where represented on the map?
• Section 3.3.7: this should be supplementary material.
• L1357-1358: “The earlier the glacier retreated, the higher the maximum NDVI values”: This is not a surprising result.

Due to excessive length and the many different additional issues with this paper I recommend to reject the paper at this point but encourage the resubmission of a thoroughly revised version of the paper.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Recent climate-induced changes in glaciers, biota, land use types and population adaptation models in the South-East Altai highlands” - according to the authors - provides the first comprehensive description of environmental changes in the region. As the region is largely unknown in the West, the contribution in general is of high value for ecologists interested in this part of the world. The paper is kind of “old-school” which is not to be misunderstood as scientifically unsound. Even if the manuscript would have surely benefitted from the use of some more modern analytical tools such vegetation classification or ordination procedures, the results are profound enough to be published and the topic actually matches the scope of the MDPI-journal “Environments”. However, from my point of view, the major problem, with this paper is the excessive length and the poor structure. The structure is more like a monograph and the way chosen, describing and discussing glaciers, vegetation, land use change and adaptation models for each of the three study areas results in the excessive length with many reoccurrences. Even if MDPI does not have a limit on pages or characters, the manuscript in my opinion must be much more focused and has to be shortened considerabably to be considered for publication in a scientific journal. In addition, there are many wording issues and typos, so I recommend to get this manuscript linguistically finalized by a native english speaker or by a professional editorial service.

Response:  Using your helpful recommendations we reduced the length of the paper improved its structure.  We also improved English using a special professional service.

Some more remarks with regard to content:

The authors throughout the manuscript use altitude, height and elevation as synonyms. According to McVicar, Tim & Körner, Christian (2012) (“On the use of elevation, altitude, and height in the ecological and climatological literature”. Oecologia. 171. 10.1007/s00442-012-2416-7) Elevation is the appropriate term. Please change throughout the manuscript.

Response:  replaced the wrong variants with “elevation”

L 165: Study area: actually three different study areas

Response:  We have classified these three different research areas as part of a single region: Southeastern Altai. The introduction and Section 1.1 "Physical and Geographical Characteristics of the Study Area" provide a description of the natural conditions that allows us to group the key sites into a single region.

For Soils international classification schemes should be used such as World Reference Base/FAO

Response: We have replaced the soil names in the article in accordance with the FAO International Soil Classification System: mountain-forest-chernozem-like soils – Phaeozems, moun-tain-tundra-permafrost -  Cruosols, mountain-meadow-alpine soils – Umbrisols,  gray-humus soils – Phaeozems, cryozems - Cryosols, petrozems - Leptosols , chestnut soils  - Kastanozems,  sod-goltsy soils – Umbrisols.

For weather stations (L 207-216) elevation and location is important

Response: Added altitude and location to text

The Aktru weather station is located at an altitude of 2150 m, on the northern slope of the Bish-Iirdu mountain range in the North Chuya Mountains.

For the Mongun-Taiga massif, according to data from the Mugur-Aksy meteorological station (located at an altitude of 1850 m, 10-15 km northeast of the massif), the average annual precipitation (measurement period from 1966 to 2013) is 140.0 mm [48]

Bayannur meteorological station is located approximately 35 km northeast of the glaciated part of the Tsambagarav range at an altitude of 1364 m, and Erdenburen meteorological station is located at an altitude of 1250 m, 35 km southeast of the glaciers of the Tsambagarav mountain range.

L 244-245: ”the loss of the forest belt”: is it lost or just not represented, please clarify.

Response:  we clarified this. We changed “lost” on “lack”.

L283: rout method: unclear, please explain

Response:  The traditional route-based method of studying flora involves following a network of pre-planned routes, recording the species composition, phenological state of plants, and their association with different landforms and ecotopes. Photographic documentation of individual species and the plant assemblages they form is also undertaken. When necessary, herbarium material is collected to clarify taxa in a laboratory setting. This method remains the most effective for studying vast, hard-to-reach areas, such as the sites discussed in this study.

L290—294: how can data of iNaturalist and Plantarium can be included, please explain

Response: Modern plant photography technology allows for high-quality images that enable the unmistakable identification of many species. The EXIF (Exchangeable Image File Format) files linked to them, in addition to the date, time, and shooting conditions, contain precise georeferencing information, allowing them to be used to refine the distribution of the objects captured. Of course, only those observations that raise no doubts were considered in this study.

L373-375: Figure 2: what is the reason for the break in the graph

Response:  The graph has been adjusted. The gap has been eliminated.

L392The Selyaninov complex temperature-humidity index: how calculated? Please include explanation in the methods section

Response:  Calculation of the hydrothermal coefficient (HTC) of Selyaninov according to the following formula: HTC = ∑ ? / 0.1 ∑ ?>10 , where ∑ r is the sum of precipitation during the vegetation period with a temperature above 10°C, and ∑ t>10 is the sum of temperatures during the vegetation period with a temperature above 10°C. (Included in the methodological section).

L511: Table 4: this is material and methods

L635: Figure 7: use only maps with contour lines

Response:  Tables 1 and 4 united

L 732; humidity: what about warming

Response:  Everything in this section rewritten.

L774: “species that are heterogeneous in nature”: unclear

Response:  This section (containing L774) was removed from main text to the Supplementary Materials and we explained what you asked about.

L 755: largely determined by the degree of participation of montane (common mountain) plants: unclear

Response for line 755: Apparently a mistake - L 775

Response for lines 774 and 775: The text fragment has been revised and replaced.

Despite such significant quantitative differences in the results, it is important to note the undeniable methodological similarities between these studies. In both cases, all species found in the high-altitude zone were recorded, but the first study examined the high-altitude zone as a whole, while the second considered only ecotopes associated with glacier development.

L781-783: “but will also obviously depend on both the vegetation cover characteristics and the local geomorphological and geochemical conditions of the adjacent territories”: unclear

Response:  we explained what you asked about.

L781-783: “but will also obviously depend on both the vegetation cover characteristics and the local geomorphological and geochemical conditions of the adjacent territories”: unclear

Response: The text fragment has been revised and replaced.

Since the three key sites under consideration are in contact with different high-altitude plant flora types (from forest and meadow alpine types on the North Chuya Ridge to tundra and high-altitude steppe types on Tsambagarav), this results in different compositions of invading (montane) species.

L817 & L828: and cryohygropetrophyton, cryoxero-petrophyton: Please define

Response: Cryohygropetrophyton – plant communities that form on damp, cold, rocky and stony ecotopes, usually on northern-facing slopes or directly adjacent to a glacier. Cryoxeropetrophyton – plant communities that form on dry, cold, rocky and stony ecotopes, usually on southern-facing slopes.

Since the terms are not clear to English-speaking readers, we have changed the text and abandoned their use.

L970; what are periglacial meadows?

Response: We removed it.

Description of vegetation zonation could be joined by vegetation Profiles for a better understanding

Response: we did it.

L1088: Figure 11: Sparse larch forest: Where represented on the map?

Response: This is a mistake; sparse larch forests are not on the map. The legend has been corrected.

Section 3.3.7: this should be supplementary material.

Response: This section was removed to supplementary materials.

Response:  We understand that the manuscript is large, but in our opinion, we cannot put the all section in supplementary. On the other side, we reduced the size of manuscript and made supplementary materials from parts of other sections.

L1357-1358: “The earlier the glacier retreated, the higher the maximum NDVI values”: This is not a surprising result.

Response:  We share your opinion that the results were not surprising. In this section we wanted to prove that these tendencies on study sites were traced, therefore more detailed work can be done in future on the sites to determine the productivity of plant communities, combining in situ and sensing methods.

Due to excessive length and the many different additional issues with this paper I recommend to reject the paper at this point but encourage the resubmission of a thoroughly revised version of the paper.

Response:  We changed and improved the paper using your helpful recommendations. Thank you for the great job!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Here is attached my report review of the manuscript environments-4030071

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Main remark

The first impression is about very large manuscript, which cannot be published at this size, probably joined in one more than two papers, mainly has lack of scientific contribution. The manuscript includes large descriptions which does not fit necessarily with the and main objective, on the same time the scientific language is poor in many parts. From the introduction there was not covered the population model adaptation to climate changes (which criteria was fallowed?), neither in the method section, consequently the geophysical coverage data required for the model it was improvised and as well with unnecessary contents. Furthermore, some components are no treated scientifically (climate changes).

Then, the basic adaptative model discussed does not linked to the large physical-geographic coverages and social dataset.

Response:  First of all, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewer for his attentive, professional and thorough work with our article. Following his useful advice the paper was completely reorganized and restructured, objectives of the work were rewritten as well as Summary and Results and Discussion was improved according to reviewer's advice.

 

Minor remarks

47-145 The novel objective is to perform the population adaptation model to climate changes under conceptual map structure with several coverages, ranging from physical-geographical data, glacier dynamics, till dynamic of biota. The introduction deals with the input data in long-term and spa?al context but nothing it linked to the adaptation model (statistical-mathematical or something like that). It was recognized about the lack of scientific data for the adaptation model; then, how the new or improved data is expected to be critical for the efficiency of the adaptative model. Definitely, the adaptative model to be implemented must be described, also some history of the use of such tools in similar environments. Which are the realistic outcomes that you want to achieve using adaptative model (what parameters are required for the model and why). Instead of the real adaptative model, just is described a kind of conceptual model only.

The introduction includes several small paragraphs, most with the geographical descriptions and in whole much less related to the paper title. So, the whole structure must be improved and reorganized, according to the common thread of the title and components considered for the interdisciplinary adaptative model 164

2.1 Geographical setting of the target area

Instead of: Physical and geographical characteristics of the study area

166-167 The geographical coordinates must be included and the size of each target area. 246-

2.2 Methods of glaciological field research, analysis and processing of collected data Th term methods are not necessary to repeat in the rest of chapters and also each chapter Ɵtle if it possible might be shorter

Response: removed “methods” from subtitles

246-281 Here from the beginning clearly must be described in regard the glacier object data gathering and which kind data were performed on the new satellite processing. In addition, which data was derived from the previous studies.

Response: we added the necessary information:

The work used previously published data on the area of glaciers for the years 2021, 2000 [66] and 1968 [67] for the total glaciation of the North Chuya Ridge, for 2021 [52] and 1966 [68] for the Mongun-Taiga massif.

New studies were conducted to study the dynamics of the glaciers of Aktru (North Chuya Ridge), Seliverstov and East Mugur glaciers (Mongun-Taiga massif), Eregtiyn and Yamat (Tsambagarav ridge), and to determine the total glacier areas of the Mongun-Taiga massif in 2000 and the Tsambagarav ridge in 1968, 2000, and 2023. The information on the total area of the glaciation centers and its changes was based on the remote sensing studies (Table 1), which included identifying the boundaries of the glaciers and the equilibrium line. To analyze the dynamics of the individual glaciers we used both the results of long-term field studies (repeat photographs, geo-desic surveys, in situ geomorphological observations, GPS tracking of the glacial snout, benchmark tape, and GPS measuring (±15 m absolute deviation at the 95% percentile) and the results of interpretation of satellite images and aerial photographs. In particular for the glaciers of the Aktru basin their dynamics was studied on the basis of the remote sensing. For the Seliverstova and East Mugur glaciers (Mongun-Taiga massif) the information on their areas was obtained by remote sensing and information on length changes before 1966 by the remote dending, after – by in situ observations. For Eregtiyn Glacier (Tsambagarav ridge) information about the length changes before 2005 was obtained by the remote sensing, after- by field observations. For the Yamaat Glacier (Tsambagarav ridge) information about the length changes before 2005 was obtained by the remote sensing, after- by field observations.

The terms of realistic color refer to visible color?

Response: Yes, visible color.

In each satellite images how were filtered/removed the cloudiness for instance.

Response: We used the images with minimal cloud cover (less than 15%) with acquisition dates in the end of the ablation season when the seasonal snow cover is minimal and the ELA is observed in the best way. For Landsat 7 to compensate for the missing data in SLC-off mode, we used the central parts of the images, where noise is minimal, or used two images from the same year, in which the gaps in one image are compensated by the presence of an image in these areas in the other image.

Also, the differences of spatial resolution how were normalized.

Response:  No normalization was performed.

2.4 Methods of remote sensings

For the NDVI processing why only three images were analyzed, while the study period is for 1966-2023.

Response: For each study site, we used one modern satellite image to calculate NDVI. We had contours of each glacier from different times (From Little Ice Age to present time). The aim was to compare modern NDVI values ​​at glacier retreat sites over different periods and at different altitudes to detect trends in NDVI change with distance from the glacier.

3.2. Glaciological section (dynamics of glaciers since 1960-s) Just maybe: Glacier surface dynamics

Response: changed the heading: 3.2. Glacier surface dynamics since 1960-s

354-361 Changes in temperature and humidity conditions cause a variety of poorly predictable consequences and serve as a clear cause of landscape transformaеtion!!! For this statement I cannot see any scientific reference or there mut be some referential climaticc values. The paragraph has a lack of structure.

Response:  a complete restructuring of this paragraph, with all regional and local climate standards and references to previous research, would result in an unjustified increase in the volume of the manuscript.

the increase in average long-term annual temperature between the two 365 climatic periods of 1961–1990 and 1991–2023 was 1°C, near the Tsambagarav massif it 366 reached 1.5°C. So, what is the p-significance of each one?

Response:  355-366 In the first case, p-value = 0.009, and in the second case, p-value = 0.011

The Figure 2 seems just a simple plot data, there was not use any trend test, like Man-Kendall test.

Response: To Figure 2: The temperature series under study are homogeneous (their variances do not have significant differences according to the Fisher test) and follow a normal distribution, so the statistical significance of the trend coefficients for both periods was determined using the Student's t-test, which showed a significant result in both cases at a significance level of α = 0.05. An additional check using the non-parametric Mann-Kendall test confirmed the previous results.

381 A linear extrapolation of the identified trends to 2040 suggests a more intense increase in temperature indicators in Mongolia and a slight decrease in the growth in Tuva and Altai. Is not valid a linear extrapolation, for the projections must be used GCM scenarios data. Is hard to say that the limited data and for limited area showed sufficiently demonstrates climate change in the region.

Response: 381 Linear extrapolation, like any other statistical method, has the right to be applied, especially in the case of statistically significant linear trends and a relatively short forecast period. Global climate models (GCM) in some regions, including the one under consideration, due to the lack of consideration of regional specifics in the distribution of climatic characteristics, can also lead to incorrect conclusions. The authors reserve the right to use actual climatic data (which cannot be considered limited in terms of time) to identify regional features in climate change.

The climate changes chapter was not mentioned at all in the methods!

Response: We added the climate changes chapter into methods

405 The following statement makes any sense for the analysis: The glaciers of the North-Chuya ridge were first discovered in 1898 by Sapozhnikov, who found two glaciers in the Aktru river basin and the Dzhelo glacier [91] Maybe is enough the include: North-Chuya ridge includes 118 glaciers with an area of 127 km² (Sapozhnikov, 1898).

Response:  this proposal does not make sense as 118 glaciers with an area of 127 km² were put into catalogue by Tronov. However, we decided to move all the historic information into supplementary.

404-514 All related to temporal glacier surface and ELA data must be summarized in one table, the rest of descriptions is just part of the rhetoric.

Response:  done, new tables included, replacing text.

731 This chapter is poorly discussed and argued. A lot of scientific literature is available in regard the glacier shrinkage and its factors, her only refer the humidity means is just speculative.

Response:  This text has been rewritten.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I read your paper with interest. Your manuscript covers several research topics and is highly interdisciplinary. In my opinion, the breadth of topics is a strength, but it makes the manuscript very long and uneven in some passages (almost three articles in one). The quality of the glaciological data is good; the botany/NDVI and sociology sections are interesting but require more synthesis, greater methodological clarity and explicit conceptual integration between disciplines and results. In my opinion, formal improvements (language, figures, structure) are also necessary for the Environments audience, and therefore my judgement is MAJOR REVISION. Below are detailed comments on how to modify the work to make it publishable.

here following the main critical issues

-Length and structure

i) I think that the text is very long and includes taxonomic details and landscape descriptions that could be moved to Supplementary Material.

ii) I consider the interdisciplinary narrative fragmented in places: there is no integrative framework (conceptual diagram) linking climate → glaciers → biota → land use → adaptation.

-Remote sensing methodology and uncertainties

i) Landsat 8/9 NDVI: resolution of 15 m is indicated. Typically, RED/NIR bands are at 30 m; if pan sharpening or resampling has been used, authors need to explain how and with what effects on the index (potential artefacts; co-registration; SLC off for L7).

ii) Glacier outlines & error: the area error formula (A_er = n × m) must be contextualised (unit of measurement, how n is estimated, error propagation for complex polygons, comparison with DEM uncertainties).

iii) DEM: use of SRTM (2000) and FABDEM (2023). Authors should clarify altimetric offsets and the effect on thickness/mass loss estimates (e.g., 75 m difference at the Eregtiyn tongue): provide confidence intervals or sensitivity analyses.

-Sociological methods and statistical robustness

i) Sampling: detail recruitment methods, representativeness by gender/age/socio-professional role; informed consent and ethical approvals, if any.

ii) Cluster analysis: report variable selection criteria, robustness/stability (bootstrapping, split sample), and clarify the use of recoded binary variables (loss of information).

iii) SEM: add fit indices (CFI/TLI, RMSEA, SRMR), standard errors, confidence intervals, and discuss measurement invariance across regions (North Chuya vs Mongun Taiga vs Tsambagarav).

iv) Treatment of Likert scales: clarify whether they are considered ordinal or approximate continuous; implications for estimates.

-Terminological consistency and conceptual framework

i) The “Third Pole Concept” is presented with ideological/geopolitical implications: I suggest a more neutral scientific contextualisation, focused on cryospheric processes and teleconnections, and precisely define the boundaries of the “South-East Altai” adopted in the study.

-Figures and tables

i) Authors should improve readability (font, contrast, accessible palettes), add scale bars, CRS, data source and acquisition period.

ii) SEM graphs need explanation (observed vs. latent variables, direction of arrows, p values).

-Data availability and reproducibility

i) Recommend depositing glacier outlines (shapefile/GeoJSON), scripts for NDVI/DEM analysis, and code for clustering/SEM in an open repository (e.g., Zenodo/OSF), with DOI and licences.

Here following further detailed suggestions to improve the paper:

Title: i think the actual one to be very broad.

Proposal for a new title: 'Integrated assessment of climate-induced changes in glaciers, vegetation, land use and community adaptation in the South East Altai (Russia–Mongolia)'

Abstract: You need to summarise, reporting key figures (e.g. −21% North Chuya 1968–2021; −43% Mongun Taiga 1966–2021; −28.4% Tsambagarav 1968–2023; ELA increase of 92 m in Mongun Taiga). Indicate n=890 and main model results (cluster shares; determining variables), and a clear operational conclusion.

Introduction: in my opinion, you need to highlight gaps in the literature and formulate explicit research questions/hypotheses (e.g. “humidity variability controls the glacial retreat gradient”; “aridity accelerates the simplification of altitudinal zoning”). The TPC section: you need to reduce political references; strengthen climatic connections (westerlies, Asian anticyclone, foehn, etc.) and include a rationale for the choice of the three centres.

Materials and Methods: the main points to be clarified are as follows

• Remote sensing: clarify pipeline (pre-processing, co-registration, cloud/snow masks), Landsat 7 SLC off processing, seasonality criteria for ELA.
• ELA Kurowski: discuss limitations for small/shaded glaciers; compare with alternative methods/in situ validations.
• NDVI: specify effective resolution and resampling technique; justify choice of dates (phenology) and topographic correction on steep slopes.
• Sociology: describe in detail tools, translations, interviewer training; report table with items, scales and reliability (Cronbach's α/omega).

Results: in this section, too, you must try to be clear and precise.

Glaciology: excellent trends. Add confidence intervals on area and ELA variations; distinguish glacier types and exposures with summary box plots.

Biota/NDVI: excellent descriptive framework; condense the taxonomic list in the Appendix; in the text, focus on patterns (e.g. dominance of Kobresia, replacement of cryo hygro → cryo xero).

SEM/cluster: report fit indices; provide explanatory schematic figures and tables with standardised coefficients, SE, p.

Discussion

You need to integrate the main themes: humidity as the primary control of glacial retreat; aridisation and homogenisation of vegetation; adaptive capacity linked to income/health; gender and age as vulnerability factors.

You also have to Insert a conceptual diagram showing interactions and feedback.

Moreover yoy could discuss limitations (representativeness of the social sample; altimetric uncertainties of DEMs; transferability of results).

Conclusions

Here it is very important that you make the conclusions operational, with 3–5 recommendations for:

(i) integrated monitoring (glaciology+NDVI+survey),

(ii) pasture management (sustainable load; rotations),

(iii) conservation of endemism (micro refugia; north-facing slopes),

(iv) adaptation policy (early warning; economic diversification; community involvement).

Minor comments

8–9 (NDVI): specify exactly the bands and operational resolution; indicate whether a topographic correction (e.g. c correction) was applied on steep slopes.

Tab. 1/2 (imagery): add cloud cover percentage, date selection criteria; indicate SLC off for L7 and how it was managed.

Error formula (p. 8): add units (m²) and explain estimate of n for complex polygons.

ELA (methods): report comparisons with in situ observations where available (Aktru, AAR/ELA 2019–2024) and deviations from the early 2000s.

SEM (Figures 20–22): include clear legend (latent vs. observed variables) and summary table with β, SE, p.

Bibliography: standardise style; for references in Russian/Mongolian, you need to provide English translation of title in brackets.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper is written in understandable English, but with long sentences and awkward constructions: I would suggest that the authors seek professional language editing.

Author Response

Dear authors,

I read your paper with interest. Your manuscript covers several research topics and is highly interdisciplinary. In my opinion, the breadth of topics is a strength, but it makes the manuscript very long and uneven in some passages (almost three articles in one). The quality of the glaciological data is good; the botany/NDVI and sociology sections are interesting but require more synthesis, greater methodological clarity and explicit conceptual integration between disciplines and results. In my opinion, formal improvements (language, figures, structure) are also necessary for the Environments audience, and therefore my judgement is MAJOR REVISION. Below are detailed comments on how to modify the work to make it publishable.

Response: First of all, we would like to express our gratitude to the reviewer for his attentive, professional and thorough work with our article.

here following the main critical issues

-Length and structure

1. i) I think that the text is very long and includes taxonomic details and landscape descriptions that could be moved to Supplementary Material.

Response: We moved very long and included taxonomic details and some landscape descriptions to the Supplementary Materials.

1. ii) I consider the interdisciplinary narrative fragmented in places: there is no integrative framework (conceptual diagram) linking climate → glaciers → biota → land use → adaptation.

Response: We put the proposed by you conceptual diagram to the Introduction section.

-Remote sensing methodology and uncertainties

1. i) Landsat 8/9 NDVI: resolution of 15 m is indicated. Typically, RED/NIR bands are at 30 m; if pan sharpening or resampling has been used, authors need to explain how and with what effects on the index (potential artefacts; co-registration; SLC off for L7).

Response:  NDVI: Thank you for remark. Rechecking the data, we noticed that resolution definitely was 30 m, was corrected in table.

1. ii) Glacier outlines & error: the area error formula (A_er = n × m) must be contextualised (unit of measurement, how n is estimated, error propagation for complex polygons, comparison with DEM uncertainties).

Response : DEM uncertainties do not affect the glacier outlines errors, so we did not compare them with the systematic error. All other suggested improvements were included into the section:

The systematic error was defined as ±1 pixel (2.5 m for Corona, 10 m for Sentinel 2, 15 m for Landsat 7). Thus, the area determination error was calculated by equation:

A_er = n × m

(1)

where n is the number of pixels defining the perimeter of the glacier area (ratio of perimeter (m) to image resolution (m/pixel)), and m is the spatial resolution of the sensor bands applied expressed as an area of the pixel (m²). In cases where glaciers form complexes in which their boundaries run along ice divides, the errors for the entire glacial center are determined not as the sum of the errors of individual glaciers, but by combining the glaciers into one polygon and using its perimeter.

iii) DEM: use of SRTM (2000) and FABDEM (2023). Authors should clarify altimetric offsets and the effect on thickness/mass loss estimates (e.g., 75 m difference at the Eregtiyn tongue): provide confidence intervals or sensitivity analyses.

Response :The elevation estimation errors for both DEMs are given in Table 2.

Table 2. Overall error metrics for each DEM (Meadows et al., 2024 with reductions).

Metric	SRTM	FABDEM
Mean Error (m)	2.42	0.33
MeanAbsolute Error (m)	3.72	1.43
Standard Deviation (m)	4.81	2.60
Root Mean Square Error (m)	5.38	2.62
Median (m)	1.65	−0.04
Normalised Median Absolute Deviation (m)	3.65	1.04
absolute deviation at the 90% percentile (m)	8.47	3.53
absolute deviation at the 95% percentile (m)	11.19	5.42

For 75 m difference at the Eregtiyn tongue) we gave ±26 m error which results from the absolute deviation at the 95% percentile of the SRTM DEM and Garmin GPS measurements.

 

-Sociological methods and statistical robustness

1. i) Sampling: detail recruitment methods, representativeness by gender/age/socio-professional role; informed consent and ethical approvals, if any.

Response: All details about sampling — recruitment methods, representativeness, informed consent, and ethical compliance—have been corrected and incorporated as requested.

1. ii) Cluster analysis: report variable selection criteria, robustness/stability (bootstrapping, split sample), and clarify the use of recoded binary variables (loss of information).

Response: The variable selection was substantiated by the theoretical assumptions about opposite adaptive strategies related to migration and resilience, information about checking cluster results for robustness was added based on split sample comparison.

iii) SEM: add fit indices (CFI/TLI, RMSEA, SRMR), standard errors, confidence intervals, and discuss measurement invariance across regions (North Chuya vs Mongun Taiga vs Tsambagarav).

Response: SEM fit indices were added in a separate table in the Supplementary Materials section.

Three tables (one for each model) with regression coefficients were added as well with z, p and confidence intervals.

1. iv) Treatment of Likert scales: clarify whether they are considered ordinal or approximate continuous; implications for estimates.

Response: All methodological clarifications provided in Supplementary Materials. Measurement invariance testing was not applicable, as the model contained only observed variables without latent constructs.

-Terminological consistency and conceptual framework

1. i) The “Third Pole Concept” is presented with ideological/geopolitical implications: I suggest a more neutral scientific contextualisation, focused on cryospheric processes and teleconnections, and precisely define the boundaries of the “South-East Altai” adopted in the study.

Response:  We have freed ourselves from ideological and geopolitical implications, relying on a purely scientific context.

-Figures and tables

1. i) Authors should improve readability (font, contrast, accessible palettes), add scale bars, CRS, data source and acquisition period.

Response:  we did it.

1. ii) SEM graphs need explanation (observed vs. latent variables, direction of arrows, p values).

-Data availability and reproducibility

Response: all explanations are given in the supplementary materials.

1. i) Recommend depositing glacier outlines (shapefile/GeoJSON), scripts for NDVI/DEM analysis, and code for clustering/SEM in an open repository (e.g., Zenodo/OSF), with DOI and licences.

Response:  NDVI: NDVI was calculated using RasterCalculator from ArcToolbox. Now we added this information in methods of remote sensings.

Here following further detailed suggestions to improve the paper:

Title: i think the actual one to be very broad.

Proposal for a new title: 'Integrated assessment of climate-induced changes in glaciers, vegetation, land use and community adaptation in the South East Altai (Russia–Mongolia)'

Response:  We have retained the old title of the article, as the authors believe it better reflects its versatility and multifaceted nature.

Abstract: You need to summarise, reporting key figures (e.g. −21% North Chuya 1968–2021; −43% Mongun Taiga 1966–2021; −28.4% Tsambagarav 1968–2023; ELA increase of 92 m in Mongun Taiga). Indicate n=890 and main model results (cluster shares; determining variables), and a clear operational conclusion.

Introduction: in my opinion, you need to highlight gaps in the literature and formulate explicit research questions/hypotheses (e.g. “humidity variability controls the glacial retreat gradient”; “aridity accelerates the simplification of altitudinal zoning”). The TPC section: you need to reduce political references; strengthen climatic connections (westerlies, Asian anticyclone, foehn, etc.) and include a rationale for the choice of the three centres.

Response:  Using your helpful recommendations we improved the Introduction.

Materials and Methods: the main points to be clarified are as follows

Remote sensing: clarify pipeline (pre-processing, co-registration, cloud/snow masks), Landsat 7 SLC off processing, seasonality criteria for ELA.

Response: We have already given the processing procedures (combining channels and pan-sharpening). For the clouds, seasonality criteria we added some information: We used the images with minimal cloud cover (less than 15%) with acquisition dates in the end of the ablation season when the seasonal snow cover is minimal and the ELA is observed in the best way.

ELA Kurowski: discuss limitations for small/shaded glaciers; compare with alternative methods/in situ validations.

Response: we added the information about the Kurowski method. However, comparison with other methods would make the volume of the article too much, taking into account that it is not a pure  glaciological article we decided not to include it into it.

NDVI: specify effective resolution and resampling technique; justify choice of dates (phenology) and topographic correction on steep slopes.

Response:  Information about resolution was corrected to the right value – 30 m; the choice of dates is justified by the fact that the period from the end of July to the beginning of August is the peak of NDVI in these areas and least cloud cover, now we added this information in methods of remote sensing.

Sociology: describe in detail tools, translations, interviewer training; report table with items, scales and reliability (Cronbach's α/omega).

 Response: we did it.

Results: in this section, too, you must try to be clear and precise.

Glaciology: excellent trends. Add confidence intervals on area and ELA variations; distinguish glacier types and exposures with summary box plots.

Response: we added the confidence intervals for the current present average area of the glaciers. We're trying to avoid redundant text given the article's large size. Moreover, we lack sufficient data to draw conclusions about glacier-specific changes in the ELA—the original literature data we used for the North Chuya Range in 1968 does not provide information on the ELA at that time. Consequently, generalizations and comparisons with other regions based on this indicator are meaningless. Similarly, these initial data for 1968 lack accuracy estimates, making it difficult to estimate the accuracy of subsequent changes. There were no significant changes in the morphology of glaciers and their distribution by aspect, so we did not add this data to the article.

Biota/NDVI: excellent descriptive framework; condense the taxonomic list in the Appendix; in the text, focus on patterns (e.g. dominance of Kobresia, replacement of cryo hygro → cryo xero).

Response: we did all off your recommendations.

SEM/cluster: report fit indices; provide explanatory schematic figures and tables with standardised coefficients, SE, p.

Response: we provided all explanations about outcomes and predictors, standardized coefficients, SE and p in the supplementary materials. The preliminary steps of the cluster analysis were given in the text.

Discussion

You need to integrate the main themes: humidity as the primary control of glacial retreat; aridisation and homogenisation of vegetation; adaptive capacity linked to income/health; gender and age as vulnerability factors.

You also have to Insert a conceptual diagram showing interactions and feedback.

Moreover yoy could discuss limitations (representativeness of the social sample; altimetric uncertainties of DEMs; transferability of results).

Conclusions

Here it is very important that you make the conclusions operational, with 3–5 recommendations for:

(i) integrated monitoring (glaciology+NDVI+survey),

(ii) pasture management (sustainable load; rotations),

-  the use of proglacial zones (new territories for pastures) requires controlled succession over 10-15 years to form a stable vegetation cover and reduce erosion

 - grazing animals only in extremely dry years, preserving proglacial areas at other times only as a buffer zone for the restoration of biodiversity

- melting glaciers create freshwater reservoirs, but this resource is finite. Therefore, rational use of glacial water is necessary: construction of irrigation ditches to direct runoff to dry pasture areas, artificial reservoirs to collect excess water, and the organization of organized watering sites.

- in the context of climate aridization, it is advisable to increase the proportion of more resilient animals (camels and local goat breeds), while also using the income not to increase the livestock population, but rather to invest in water conservation technologies and the processing of livestock products, so that in the future, when glaciers decrease to a critical size and a sharp water shortage occurs, we can survive with fewer resources.

(iii) conservation of endemism (micro refugia; north-facing slopes),

(iv) adaptation policy (early warning; economic diversification; community involvement).

Response: we did it.

Minor comments

8–9 (NDVI): specify exactly the bands and operational resolution; indicate whether a topographic correction (e.g. c correction) was applied on steep slopes.

Response:  We did not use a topographic correction according to the research – (Evaluation and Normalization of Topographic Effects on Vegetation Indices / Rui Chen, Gaofei Yin, Guoxiang Liu, Jing Li and Aleixandre Verger // Remote Sens. 2020, 12(14), 2290; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12142290) «Results show that topographic effects can be neglected for the NDVI, while they heavily influence the SAVI, EVI, and NIRv».

Nevertheless, our future plans include determination of many vegetation indexes on study sites and then we will make a correction.

Tab. 1/2 (imagery): add cloud cover percentage, date selection criteria; indicate SLC off for L7 and how it was managed.

Response:  To compensate for the missing data in SLC-off mode, we used the central parts of the images, where noise is minimal, or used two images from the same year, in which the gaps in one image are compensated by the presence of an image in these areas in the other image. For glaciological studies we used the images with minimal cloud cover (less than 15%) with acquisition dates in the end of the ablation season when the seasonal snow cover is minimal and the ELA is observed in the best way.

Response:  Cloud cover was added in table 2.

Error formula (p. 8): add units (m²) and explain estimate of n for complex polygons.

Response:  added

ELA (methods): report comparisons with in situ observations where available (Aktru, AAR/ELA 2019–2024) and deviations from the early 2000s.

Response:  We added comparison:

… The average value of the equilibrium line altitude (ELA), determined by the mass balance method using ablation stakes for the period from 2019 to 2025, is 3380 m above the sea level. This corresponds well to the results of the remote sensing results that gave the altitude 3305 m for 2021 [66]… For comparison, during the first decade of XX century (2000–2009), the ELA and AAR values were 3230 m above sea level and 57.6%, respectively [107,108], indicating increased glacier ablation in recent years. This is also close to the information obtained by the remote sensing: 3278 m for 2000 [66]…

SEM (Figures 20–22): include clear legend (latent vs. observed variables) and summary table with β, SE, p.

Response: notation and explanation for all variables, included in the analysis, was added in the supplementary materials. We used traditional graphic presentation, where rectangles represent observable variables and circles – latent variables. In our models only observable variables are used.

 

Bibliography: standardise style; for references in Russian/Mongolian, you need to provide English translation of title in brackets.

Response:  we did it.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper is written in understandable English, but with long sentences and awkward constructions: I would suggest that the authors seek professional language editing.

Response:  We changed and improved the paper using your helpful recommendations. Thank you for the great job!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The organisation of the text has improved compared to the first version: the methods and results sections are better defined. However, the work is still too long.

There is no reference in the text to the documents included in the supplementary materials.

It would be advisable to include a sentence in the text describing the part that has been included in the supplementary material. The description of the flora still seems too long to me.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The organisation of the text has improved compared to the first version: the methods and results sections are better defined. However, the work is still too long.

Response:   Dear reviewer, thank you for your attention to our article and your valuable comments.  We have done our best to reduce the length of the article, in particular, the section on the NDVI has been moved to the Supplementary Materials.

There is no reference in the text to the documents included in the supplementary materials.

It would be advisable to include a sentence in the text describing the part that has been included in the supplementary material. The description of the flora still seems too long to me.

Response:    We included sentences in the text describing the parts that has been moved in the Supplementary materials. We also reduced the description of the flora.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The first version of the manuscript entitled “Recent climate-induced changes in glaciers, biota, land use types and population adaptation models in the South Eastern Altai highlands” was rejected by me for several reasons, amongst others the excessive length and the poor structure of the paper. Now the authors provided a thoroughly revised version, which addresses most of my earlier concern, even if the length issue is not solved. The paper is still very long for a journal paper and as stated earlier reads more like a monograph. Some minor points  include the following:  The authors throughout the manuscript tried to replace altitude and height with elevation according to McVicar, Tim & Körner, Christian (2012) (“On the use of elevation, altitude, and height in the ecological and climatological literature”. Oecologia. 171. 10.1007/s00442-012-2416-7) but missed some. Please check again. In Figure 2 the reason for the break in the graph is still not explained. And I still recommend to use only maps with contour lines. As the authors nevertheless made great efforts to improve the manuscript I recommend to accept the paper after the above issues are addressed in an minor revision, even if I am stil lnot totally convinced due to the length of the paper. 

Author Response

The first version of the manuscript entitled “Recent climate-induced changes in glaciers, biota, land use types and population adaptation models in the South Eastern Altai highlands” was rejected by me for several reasons, amongst others the excessive length and the poor structure of the paper. Now the authors provided a thoroughly revised version, which addresses most of my earlier concern, even if the length issue is not solved. The paper is still very long for a journal paper and as stated earlier reads more like a monograph. Some minor points  include the following:  The authors throughout the manuscript tried to replace altitude and height with elevation according to McVicar, Tim & Körner, Christian (2012) (“On the use of elevation, altitude, and height in the ecological and climatological literature”. Oecologia. 171. 10.1007/s00442-012-2416-7) but missed some. Please check again. In Figure 2 the reason for the break in the graph is still not explained. And I still recommend to use only maps with contour lines. As the authors nevertheless made great efforts to improve the manuscript I recommend to accept the paper after the above issues are addressed in an minor revision, even if I am stil lnot totally convinced due to the length of the paper.

Response:   Dear reviewer, thank you for your attention to our article and your valuable comments. We've made all the corrections you requested and have also made an effort to reduce the article's length. In particular, the section on the NDVI has been moved to the Supplementary Materials.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 

After the first revision of the paper, several evaluated parameters and avalues do not follow a coherent or scientifically accepted methodology. In addition, the overall structure still requires refinement, as some paragraphs are repetitive and overlap in content. At this stage, the paper is not yet suitable for publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper is very large and is very easy to be lost with the detalis and quality writing. 

Author Response

Dear authors,

After the first revision of the paper, several evaluated parameters and avalues do not follow a coherent or scientifically accepted methodology. In addition, the overall structure still requires refinement, as some paragraphs are repetitive and overlap in content. At this stage, the paper is not yet suitable for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper is very large and is very easy to be lost with the detalis and quality writing.

Response:   Dear reviewer, thank you for your attention to our article and your valuable comments. We've made all the corrections you requested and have also made an effort to reduce the article's length. In particular, the section on the NDVI has been moved to the Supplementary Materials.

A clear paper structure is missed and more than one paragraph has unclear objectives with inappropriate parameter assessment. As proof of this, I included here some specific observations. The paper at this situation it cannot be approved.

The fallowing long paragraph also seems unnecessary and repetitive

Structurally, the article consists of an Introduction, three main Sections, integrating results and discussion, and a Conclusion. The first of the main sections presents the physicalgeographical and administrative-territorial characteristics of the studied territory, which includes three key areas of the Southeastern Altai: the Tsambagarav Massif (Mongolia), the Mongun-Taiga Massif, and the North-Chuya Ridge (Russia). It also describes the methods used for field and office research, as well as the analysis and processing of the obtained data. The second section contains the results and discussion of a study of Environments 2025, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 53 climate and glacier dynamics from the beginning of regular instrumental surveys to the present. It also provides the characteristics and dynamics of the biota of key areas, examines the land use structure of administrative districts and its changes over the past 40 years, and presents the adaptation models of the population living within the study region. The conclusion presents the main findings of the research and outlines directions for further study.

Response: We have undertaken to link these two points together. They do not repeat each other

There is any reason to include the fallowing paragraph in the scientific paper, or yes?

The authors apologize in advance for the excessive length of this multifaceted and complexly structured article. However, this is justified by their comprehensive and unprecedented examination of environmental changes, land use systems, and population adaptation models in such a unique, remote, and understudied region as Southeastern Altai. Each reader, regardless of their specialization or area of research interest, will be able to gain not only a comprehensive understanding of this region but also find the specific data they need.

Response: Why not? A scientific text doesn't mean a scientific-sounding text, and a scientific style doesn't mean a scientific--like style. These are two very different things. Common phrases, written with common sense, are perfectly acceptable in a genuine scientific text.

 No one has repealed the common-sense propositions, even in a scientific article. This statement is important for understanding and explaining the article's extensive length. We see nothing wrong or unacceptable in it. It is entirely scientific.

The next paragraph it cannot be Climate Changes, just Tair trends. Also should be explained the Tair threshold and it must be explained why it happened?

3.1 Climate change

The temperature regime around these mountain ranges is subject to a general warming trend, but each has its own unique characteristics. Situated significantly further south, Tsambagarav experiences a more intense warming impact. While in the North Chuya Range, the increase in average long-term annual temperature between the two climatic periods of 1961–1990 and 1991–2023 was 1°C, near the Tsambagarav massif it reached 1.5°C. The rate of increase for this mountain range during the latter period was 0.3°C/10 years, but over the past 15 years, it has increased to 0.8°C/10 years. Within the Mongun-Taiga massif, the same increase was recorded within 1.3°С, and the trend coefficient for the period 1991–2023 was only 0.1°С/10 years, which is the lowest figure for all three mountain ranges (Figure 2).

Response: The main parameters determining climate change in a region are surface air temperature and precipitation. The manuscript demonstrated that precipitation patterns do not undergo any statistically significant changes, so changes in thermal conditions play a key role. In this paragraph, the increase in average long-term annual air temperature over two comparative periods (1961-1990 and 1991-2023) by 1ºC in one mountain range and 1.5ºC in the other indicates a "change" in the decisive climatic parameter, and by a very significant amount in both cases. The extremely low positive temperature trend coefficient for 1991-2023 for the Mongun-Taiga mountain range is explained by the mesoclimatic features of the range and the local location of the Mugur-Aksy meteorological station.

From the linear trend it cannot be correct to take the Tair projection value…….

Taking into account the statistically significant trend coefficients obtained for the temperature series, the trend lines were extrapolated until 2040, allowing for preliminary estimates of future thermal indicators in the region with an acceptable level of probability. In turn, the precipitation series were also subjected to the above-mentioned calculation procedures, but no statistically significant changes were detected, and linear extrapolation was not performed.

Response: This paragraph deals specifically with preliminary estimates of thermal changes over the next 15 years, and for these purposes, linear extrapolation of existing trends with sufficient levels of statistical significance obtained can be used as a guideline.

There is any explanation for using this parameter!!!

Calculation of the hydrothermal coefficient (HTC) of Selyaninov was done according  to the following formula:

HTC = Σ ? / 0.1 Σ ?>10 (1)

where Σ r is the sum of precipitation during the vegetation period with a temperature above 10°C, and Σ t>10 

is the sum of temperatures during the vegetation period with a temperature above 10°C.:

Response: This parameter indicates the complex hydrothermal state of the studied areas, taking into account both thermal and hydrological factors. This makes it a very convenient operator for solving certain problems. It has long been widely used in Russian scientific literature.

The next paragraph seems unnecessary since the table include all the satellite details. They used different image spatial resolution, hot the accuracy was analyzed or corrected?

The work used previously published data on the area of glaciers for the years 2021, 2000 [46] and 1968 [47] for the total glaciation of the North Chuya Ridge, and for 2021 [33] and 1966 [48] for the Mongun-Taiga massif.

New studies were conducted to study the dynamics of the glaciers of Aktru (North Chuya Ridge), Seliverstov and East Mugur glaciers (Mongun-Taiga massif), Eregtiyn and Yamaat (Tsambagarav ridge), and to determine the total glacier areas of the Mongun- Taiga massif in 2000 and the Tsambagarav ridge in 1968, 2000, and 2023. The information on the total area of the glaciation centers and its changes was based on remote sensing studies (Table 1), which included identifying the boundaries of the glaciers and the equilibrium line. To analyze the dynamics of the individual glaciers, we used both the results of long-term field studies (repeated photographs, geodesic surveys, in situ geomorphological observations, GNSS tracking of the glacial snouts, benchmark tape) and the results of interpretation of satellite images and aerial photographs. In particular, for the glaciers of the Aktru basin, their dynamics was studied on the basis of remote sensing. For the Seliverstova and East Mugur glaciers (Mongun-Taiga massif), information on their areas was obtained by remote sensing, and information on length changes before 1966 by remote sensing, and after – by in situ observations. For Eregtiyn Glacier (Tsambagarav ridge), information about the length changes before 2005 was obtained by remote sensing, and after – by field observations. For the Yamaat Glacier (Tsambagarav ridge), information about the length changes before 2005 was obtained by remote sensing, and after – by field observations.

Response: The next paragraph is necessary to indicate which part of the results are taken from previously published articles, and which was first performed within the framework of the current article.

2.3. Glaciological research, analysis and processing of collected data. They used different image spatial resolution, hot the accuracy was analyzed or corrected? – We can’t understand the meaning of this question, could you, please, explain, what you mean?

The next title is nor correct. Maybe methods for NDVI assessing

2.5. Methods of remote sensing The NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) is used to assess the difference between the near-infrared (NIR) and red (RED) reflectivity. The characteristics are determined by the presence of chlorophyll, which absorbs photosynthetically active radiation (400–700 nm) and plant functional traits. The index ranges between -1 and +1, with negative readings being typical of water bodies, bare soil, snow, and artificial surfaces [58].

NDVI is also used to study the dynamics in areas covered by glacial bodies in mountainous regions [59,60]. The NDVI values are based on data from Landsat 8–9 satellites for 2023 and 2025 (Table 3). The choice of date selection is justified by the fact that the period from the end of July to the beginning of August is the peak of NDVI in these areas and has the least cloud cover. The NDVI was calculated using the standard equation using Raster Calculator from ArcToolBox [61]. NDVI = (NIR – RED) / (NIR + RED)

Response: We have changed the title of the NDVI section and it has been moved to the Supplementary Materials.

In the glacier dynamic assessing the most important parameter is the Equilibrium Line  Altitude – ELA, it was not included.

3.2. Glacier surface dynamics since 1960-s

3.2.1. North Chuya Ridge

North Chuya Ridge is one of the largest glacier centers of Altai. In the 21st century, there was a rapid acceleration of glacier decrease: the average rate of glacier area shrinkage increased from 0.36 km²/year in 1968–2000 to 0.96 km²/year in 2000–2021 (Table 5).

Response: in (Toropov, P.A. et al, 2020), from which we took the glacier area data for 1960-s there is no information about the ELA.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, I've read the revised version of your paper.

Your paper has been substantially improved with respect to the previous version. You have carefully addressed the comments, particularly by strengthening the methodological sections, improving transparency in data processing and statistical analyses, and expanding the description of supplementary materials. I think that the glaciological, climatic, ecological, and sociological datasets are now clearly documented, and the applied methods (including remote sensing, field observations, and structural equation modeling) are well justified and appropriately implemented.

Nevertheless some minor weaknesses persist, mainly related to the explicit articulation of overarching research questions and the strength of cross‑linkages between physical environmental changes and social responses. However, these issues do not undermine the overall quality or reliability of your study and can be addressed through minor editorial refinement rather than further substantive revision. Therefore, I recommend acceptance after minor revision, focusing primarily on clarity, conciseness, and strengthening of the concluding synthesis.  

The following comments are intended as non‑blocking, editorial suggestions aimed at further improving clarity, balance, and overall readability of the manuscript before final acceptance.

1) Conceptual Clarity

• I suggest to add one or two explicit sentences in the Introduction clearly stating the main guiding research questions or analytical objectives, in addition to the description of the manuscript structure.
• In the Conclusions, the conceptual framework climate → glaciers → biota → land use → adaptation could be revisited more explicitly as an interpretative synthesis tool, rather than only as a descriptive structure.

2) Integration between Physical and Social Components

• I suggest to add a short bridging paragraph in the Discussion or Conclusions  to clarify how the observed physical environmental changes contextualize or inform the population adaptation models, even at a qualitative level.
• It would be useful to explicitly state that the structural equation models address perceived risk, adaptive capacity, and social responses to environmental change, in order to avoid any potential ambiguity regarding causal relationships.

3) Balance and Length of Sections

• I think that some historically oriented or descriptive sections (particularly those detailing the history of glaciological and floristic research) could be slightly condensed, while preserving their scientific value.
• Ensuring a more balanced proportionality across sections may help maintain readers’ focus on the manuscript’s primary original contributions.

4) Conclusions and Transferability

• In my opinion the Conclusions could be strengthened by clearly articulating two to three key take‑home messages that are transferable to other arid or semi‑arid high‑mountain regions.
• The role of the present study as a baseline reference for future monitoring and interdisciplinary research could be emphasized more clearly.

5) Minor Editorial Aspects

• Check consistency in terminology (e.g., South‑East vs. South‑Eastern Altai).
• Ensure uniform use of abbreviations throughout the manuscript (e.g., ELA, NDVI, SEM).
• Verify that all key figures are cited at appropriate points in the main text.

 

Author Response

Dear authors, I've read the revised version of your paper.

Your paper has been substantially improved with respect to the previous version. You have carefully addressed the comments, particularly by strengthening the methodological sections, improving transparency in data processing and statistical analyses, and expanding the description of supplementary materials. I think that the glaciological, climatic, ecological, and sociological datasets are now clearly documented, and the applied methods (including remote sensing, field observations, and structural equation modeling) are well justified and appropriately implemented.

Nevertheless some minor weaknesses persist, mainly related to the explicit articulation of overarching research questions and the strength of cross‑linkages between physical environmental changes and social responses. However, these issues do not undermine the overall quality or reliability of your study and can be addressed through minor editorial refinement rather than further substantive revision. Therefore, I recommend acceptance after minor revision, focusing primarily on clarity, conciseness, and strengthening of the concluding synthesis. 

The following comments are intended as non‑blocking, editorial suggestions aimed at further improving clarity, balance, and overall readability of the manuscript before final acceptance.

1) Conceptual Clarity

I suggest to add one or two explicit sentences in the Introduction clearly stating the main guiding research questions or analytical objectives, in addition to the description of the manuscript structure.

In the Conclusions, the conceptual framework climate → glaciers → biota → land use → adaptation could be revisited more explicitly as an interpretative synthesis tool, rather than only as a descriptive structure.

Response:   Dear reviewer, thank you for your attention to our article and your valuable comments. We've made all the corrections you requested.  In particular, we add explicit sentences in the Introduction clearly stating the main guiding research questions or analytical objectives, in addition to the description of the manuscript structure.

2) Integration between Physical and Social Components

I suggest to add a short bridging paragraph in the Discussion or Conclusions  to clarify how the observed physical environmental changes contextualize or inform the population adaptation models, even at a qualitative level.

It would be useful to explicitly state that the structural equation models address perceived risk, adaptive capacity, and social responses to environmental change, in order to avoid any potential ambiguity regarding causal relationships.

Response:   We have been realized all your valuable suggestions and improved the paper aqccording to them.  

3) Balance and Length of Sections

I think that some historically oriented or descriptive sections (particularly those detailing the history of glaciological and floristic research) could be slightly condensed, while preserving their scientific value.

Ensuring a more balanced proportionality across sections may help maintain readers’ focus on the manuscript’s primary original contributions.

Response:   We have done our best to reduce the length of the article, in particular, the section on the NDVI has been moved to the Supplementary Materials. We also try to get better balance between sections.

4) Conclusions and Transferability

In my opinion the Conclusions could be strengthened by clearly articulating two to three key take‑home messages that are transferable to other arid or semi‑arid high‑mountain regions.

The role of the present study as a baseline reference for future monitoring and interdisciplinary research could be emphasized more clearly.

Response:   Thank you for this valuable advice; we did all our best to realize it.

5) Minor Editorial Aspects

Check consistency in terminology (e.g., South‑East vs. South‑Eastern Altai).

Ensure uniform use of abbreviations throughout the manuscript (e.g., ELA, NDVI, SEM).

Verify that all key figures are cited at appropriate points in the main text.

Response:  Thank you. We realized all your Minor Editorial Aspects.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks, no more remarks from me, good luck!