Zoning of the Territory of Southern Kazakhstan Based on the Conditions of Groundwater Availability for Watering Pasture Lands

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

We thank the reviewer for the careful and constructive evaluation of our manuscript. Below we respond to each point and indicate what we changed in the revised text (section, figure, or table). Line numbers refer to the revised manuscript.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The reviewer notes insufficient methodological detail in four areas: (1) characterization of aquifer systems (geology, recharge–discharge, water balance, profiles), well metadata (number, spatial distribution, period, quality control), and GIS methods.

Response 1: We moved the regional hydrogeological synthesis to Section 2.1 (Study Area). Section 2.2 (Data Sources) now reports the total number of wells (n), their spatial distribution (new map), temporal coverage, and quality criteria (duplicate removal, screened-interval and TDS filters). A consolidated metadata table has been added (Table S1), and quality-control procedures are described. Section 2.4 (GIS Processing and Mapping) details the spatial workflow: coordinate system, rasterization resolution and zonal aggregation, classification rules for TDS/productivity/depth, and computation of statistics within administrative boundaries.

Comments 2: Weak Introduction and Literature Review: The introduction is overly general and does not clearly articulate the significance and specific objectives of the study. It lacks a structured review of previous regional or comparable studies in Kazakhstan, which makes it difficult to understand the research gap or the novelty of the contribution.

Response 2: We appreciate this helpful observation. We substantially restructured and strengthened the Introduction to foreground the regional problem, clarify the research gap, and explicitly state the study’s contributions. Key revisions include: (1) sharper local problem framing for Southern Kazakhstan (pastoral water demand, aridity, uneven aquifer productivity, quality constraints) and early definition of core terms/units; (2) relocation of geological/tectonic detail to the Study Area; (3) a structured, critical review organized into four strands (groundwater mapping in arid regions; pasture water-demand estimation; supply–demand indices; Central Asia case studies), each ending with a concise synthesis of limitations; (4) an explicit research gap and aligned objectives emphasizing the integration of TDS, potential well yield, and recommended drilling depth with a transparent adequacy coefficient K=Qstock​/Qneed​; (5) a clear statement of contributions (harmonized screening framework, worked example for Qneed​/K, reproducible GIS workflow, standardized units, policy-relevant surplus/deficit insights); and (6) a brief paper roadmap and standardized terminology.

Comments 3: Unstructured Materials and Methods Section: The section begins with long paragraphs full of geological and tectonic descriptions not directly related to the methodology. These should have been moved to a separate “Study Area” section.

Response 3: We appreciate the opportunity to clarify this point. We restructured the paper so that Materials and Methods contains only datasets, indicators, and the GIS workflow. All geological/tectonic background is moved to a dedicated Study Area (Section 2.1). Methods are now organized as 2.2 Data Sources → 2.3 Indicators and Thresholds → 2.4 GIS Processing and Mapping; result-type numbers were removed from Methods; figure captions and cross-references were standardized. The adequacy coefficient K is defined once in Methods and thereafter referenced simply as K (without repeatedly restating the formula).

Comments 4:   Mixing Results with Methods: The Materials and Methods section includes final water volume figures and percentages that belong in the Results section, making the article appear structurally disorganized.

Response 4: We are grateful for this constructive comment. We removed all result-type numbers from Materials and Methods and relocated them to Results (Section 3), where they are interpreted with the corresponding figures and tables. Materials and Methods (Section 2) now contains only inputs, indicator definitions, and the GIS workflow; captions were revised to describe data and processing steps rather than outcomes. Units are standardized, and the adequacy coefficient K is defined once and thereafter referenced without restating the formula. These edits re-establish a clear Methods → Results separation.

Comments 5:   Lack of Clarity in Figures and Visuals: No Workflow Diagram: Despite the complexity of spatial zoning and multiple parameters, no diagram or flowchart is provided to illustrate the workflow or methodological process.

Response 5: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful suggestion; however, this aspect falls outside the scope and methodology of our regional screening study, and we respectfully note it as an important avenue for future research.

Comments 6:   Merged Results and Discussion: The Results and Discussion are not clearly separated. Interpretations and recommendations are embedded in the Results, which reduces clarity and weakens the structure. Results are reported descriptively without critical interpretation. For example, the reasons behind water shortages in regions like Turkestan (e.g., high salinity, tectonics, aquifer depletion) are not discussed.

Response 6: We appreciate the opportunity to clarify this point. We separated the section into Results (maps, statistics, regional summaries) and Discussion (interpretation, mechanisms, implications). The Discussion now has subsections on hydro-climatic controls, water-quality constraints for pasture use, structural/tectonic context and aquifer architecture, and indicators of over-exploitation with management implications. We added cross-references from each major map to its interpretation, reduced repetition of numbers, included a concise limitations paragraph with recommendations, and updated figure/table numbering accordingly.

Comments 7: Lines 1–18:   The introductory paragraph is too generic and global. It would benefit from a paragraph focusing on the local context of Kazakhstan earlier in the section.

Response 7: We rewrote the opening to foreground Southern Kazakhstan from the very first sentences—highlighting pasture water demand, aridity, and groundwater as the limiting factor—while condensing global background and stating key local drivers and terminology up front; this now directly motivates a regional screening of quality, productivity, and drilling depth.

Comments 8: Lines 28–50:  Detailed geological and tectonic information dominates the opening of the Materials and Methods section. This information should be relocated to the Study Area.

Response 8: We condensed the geological/tectonic background in the Introduction and relocated descriptive content to the Study Area, where it is summarized as concise hydrogeologic context; the Introduction now focuses on problem framing, research gap, objectives, and contributions, with cross-references to the 2,1 Study Area for regional specifics.

Comments 9: Lines 31–32: Please check grammar.

Response 9: We corrected the grammar in Lines 31–32 and rewrote the sentence for clarity and brevity

Comments 10: Line 41: Please check grammar.

Response 10: We revised Line 41 for grammar and clarity and reviewed the surrounding sentences to ensure consistent tense, subject–verb agreement, and punctuation.

Comments 11: Lines 53–56:  Well data is cited but the article does not mention the number of wells, time range, or data reliability.

Response 11: We thank the reviewer for raising this point. We have provided information about the wells in the region and additionally presented a table in the in Supplementary File - Table S1

Comments 12: Line 56–57:  Please check grammar.

Response 12: We revised this text for grammar and clarity and reviewed the surrounding sentences to ensure consistent tense, subject–verb agreement, and punctuation. (Line 50-52 in the manuscript)

Comments 13: Lines 70–95:  For maps and tables, the captions and accompanying explanations are insufficient. Additional detail is needed for clarity.

Response 13: We revised all map and table captions to explicitly include data sources and dates, CRS, map scale, units, classification schemes (thresholds/bins), raster/vector resolution, symbology and legend definitions, and added scale bars, north arrows, and inset maps where needed; tables now report sample sizes, time ranges, QC criteria, rounding conventions, and footnotes for abbreviations, with cross-references to the relevant Methods subsections to ensure stand-alone clarity.

Comments 14: Lines 100–105:  The article mixes quantitative results (e.g., volume and percentage of water types) in the Materials and Methods section instead of placing them in the Results section.

Response 14: We are grateful for this constructive comment; we removed all quantitative results (volumes/percentages) from Materials and Methods and relocated them to the Results section for interpretation with the relevant figures and tables, leaving Methods limited to inputs, definitions, and workflow, and updating captions and figure/table numbering accordingly.

Comments 15: Lines 160–165:  The K index formula is presented without reference, justification, or explanation of threshold values.

Response 15: We added a brief conceptual justification and supporting references for using a supply-to-demand ratio in groundwater planning, defined K once (dimensionless; computed by zonal aggregation at the administrative unit scale), and provided clear classification thresholds with rationale—deficit (K<1), near-balance (1–1.2) reflecting measurement/seasonal uncertainty margins, surplus (1.2–2) for operational resilience, and high surplus (>2)—together with a worked example and a ±20% sensitivity check in the SI to demonstrate robustness.

Comments 16: Figures 5a and 5b are incorrectly described and do not match the associated explanations, reducing clarity and interpretability.

Response 16: We corrected the panel labels and ordering (5a/5b (changed to 4a/4b)), rewrote the caption to match each panel’s actual content, unified legends/symbology, and fixed all in-text references and callouts to point to the proper subfigure; panel markers (“a”, “b”), scale bars, and north arrows were added and the figure was re-exported at publication-quality resolution to ensure unambiguous interpretation.

Comments 17: Throughout figures:  Many of the maps (e.g., Figure 4f–o) are low-resolution, making the symbols, color legends, and labels difficult to read. Dimension km is missing in some scale bars.

Response 17: We re-exported all maps as vector (SVG/PDF) and high-resolution PNGs at journal column/page widths, increased minimum font sizes and line weights, standardized legend blocks and color ramps, and added the missing unit (“km”) to all scale bars; we also included north arrows, inset zooms for dense areas, and verified color contrast for print/online readability.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

We thank the Reviewer for the thorough and constructive comments. Below, we provide a point-by-point response. All changes have been implemented in the revised manuscript, and locations are indicated by section, page, and line numbers.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: When discussing water mineralization, the article lacks information on the relationship between this parameter and the aquifer characteristics or groundwater depth. This relationship would be best illustrated through a discussion of the specific regions described in the study.

Response 1: Thank you for this comment. We have added a new paragraph in Section 2.2 clarifying the relationship between groundwater mineralization (TDS) and aquifer lithology and burial depth in each region; this information is supported by references [32], [33] [34] and [35].

Comments 2: Please clarify the distinction between first-order and second-order basins. On what basis were the basins classified into these categories?

Response 2: Thank you for your comment. We have supplemented Section 2.1 “Study Area” with a clear definition of first- and second-order basins. The classification is based on tectonic-sedimentary boundaries for first-order basins and on local hydrogeomorphological divisions for second-order basins.

Comments 3: Figure 2: Not all elements shown (e.g., colors) are explained in the figure. The legend should be expanded and clarified to ensure full understanding.

Response 3: We have prepared an expanded version of Figure 2 and included it in the supplementary materials as Figure S1. A notice about the availability of a detailed version has been added to the caption of the main Figure 2.

Comments 4: Figures 2 and 3: Were these maps created by the authors? If not, the source(s) of the original data or literature must be properly cited.

Response 4: We have clarified in Section 2.1 that Figures 2 and 3 were prepared by the authors using ArcGIS Pro 2.8, using the original hydrogeological maps and borehole data. The corresponding references to the software and data sources have been added to the text and figure captions. (Line 160)

Comments 5: Lines 170-173: “The work was carried out using hydrogeological maps of scale 1:200,000 and 1:1,000,000, the Atlas of hydrogeological maps of the Republic of Kazakhstan (2022) and well exploration data throughout  the region”

Response 5: We removed the redundant sentence (lines 170–173). Cartographic and borehole sources are now specified once in Methods (Data sources): the Hydrogeological Atlas of the Republic of Kazakhstan (2022); hydrogeological map series at 1:200,000 and 1:1,000,000 (sheet codes listed inline in the Methods);

Comments 6: The literature sources for the maps are not included in the reference list, which needs to be corrected.

Response 6: We added full bibliographic entries [30 and 31]

Comments 7: In addition, the article lacks essential information regarding well exploration data. It is unclear how many wells were examined, what types of studies were conducted, and over what time period these investigations took place. This information is critical for evaluating the reliability and scope of the research.

Response 7: At the end of Methods → Data sources, we inserted (i) a brief literature-based overview of regional well infrastructure for the five oblasts with citations (Supplementary Table S1) and (ii) a concise description of our dataset, which now explicitly states the total number of wells (n = [TOTAL]), the time span ([Year₁–Year₂]), the measurement types (pump tests, static/dynamic water levels, TDS), and the QC criteria (coordinate checks, duplicate removal, exclusion of incomplete logs). These additions make clear how many wells were examined, what was measured, and over what period, as requested.

Comments 8: The entire chapter lacks references to supporting sources or literature, which undermines its credibility.

Response 8: We added supporting citations throughout the chapter and at every first mention of data, methods, and claims.

Comments 9: Moreover, the Materials and Methods chapter lacks a clear description of the methodologies applied, which makes it difficult to evaluate the validity and reproducibility of the results.

Response 9: Thank you for the remark. We rethought and rewrote the Materials and Methods section, clarifying the methodology and improving its overall presentation and reproducibility.

Comments 10: This chapter provides insufficient information to understand the analytical basis of the study. It is unclear what the sources of the Q stock and Q need data were. Was the K parameter calculated for individual water users or for groups of users? Additionally, the methodology used to construct the maps is not explained. What was the density and spatial distribution of the data points (i.e., water intakes) used as the basis for interpolation?

Response 10: Thank you for the remark. We clarified in Materials and Methods that Q_stock is derived from the exploitable groundwater stock (TDS ≤ 10 g L⁻¹) computed from our well dataset in combination with hydrogeological maps, while Q_need comes from official rayon-level livestock statistics combined with normative water-use coefficients (K) and a seasonal factor. The K values are applied by user groups (livestock categories), not per individual users. We also added a step-by-step description of the map construction (indicator surfaces, interpolation method and key parameters, grid size) and now report the data basis for interpolation (number of wells and spatial coverage), so the analytical basis and reproducibility are explicit.

Comments 11: This chapter presents the research results but lacks any discussion or interpretation of the findings. Moreover, there are no references to relevant literature throughout the chapter, which significantly weakens its scientific context.

Response 11: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. Additional discussion/interpretation has been added in the Discussion (Lines 373–387), linking the observed CRF patterns to aquifer type and depth, TDS and recharge controls, and district-level demand, with practical implications (siting, drilling depth, treatment/demand management). Relevant literature has been cited at first mention throughout the chapter to strengthen the scientific context.

Comments 12: Line 337. Please explain the abbreviation CRF.

Response 12: We provide the full definition of this abbreviation in Lines 125–126.

Comments 13: Line 344: "SanPiN RK No. 26" is not mentioned in the literature.

Response 13: We appreciate the reviewer’s careful reading. We have identified SanPiN RK No. 26 and added a full citation to the References; it is the Order of the Minister of Health of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 20 Feb 2023 No. 26 approving the sanitary rules on drinking-water sources, supply and safety (with later amendments). The source is available on Kazakhstan’s official legal portals, and we now cite it at first mention (Line 126).

Comments 14: There is a lack of consistency in the formatting of chapter titles. In some cases, all words are capitalized, while in others, only the first word is capitalized. The formatting of headings should be standardized throughout the manuscript in accordance with the journal's style guidelines.

Response 14: All section and subsection headings have been standardized to the journal’s required capitalization style (Title Case) and numbering. Inconsistent variants were corrected across the manuscript and Supplement, and all cross-references and the table of contents were updated accordingly.

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

We thank the reviewer for the careful and constructive evaluation of our manuscript. Below we respond to each point and indicate what we changed in the revised text (section, figure, or table). Line numbers refer to the revised manuscript.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: IMRAD structure; keep Methods and Results clearly separated.

Response 1: We appreciate this helpful observation. We reorganized the manuscript to ensure strict IMRAD separation: Section 2 (Materials and Methods) now contains only the data sources (2.2), the indicators and unified classification including the definition of the provision coefficient K (2.3), and the GIS processing/mapping workflow (2.4); all descriptive methodological prose was removed from Results and consolidated into these subsections. Section 3 (Results and Discussion) contains exclusively analysis and interpretation, beginning with 3.1 Regional Hydrogeographic Context (moved from the former regional description), followed by the spatial patterns of predicted/natural resources and reserves (3.2) and the water-quality/availability assessment using K (3.3), with cross-references and captions aligned accordingly.

Comments 2: Consistency of terminology (“pasture lands” vs “pastelands”)

Response 2: We appreciate the reviewer’s careful reading. We unified the terminology to “pasture lands” across the manuscript and corrected the typographical usage “pastelands” in the title, abstract, and any remaining occurrences; cross-references, figure captions, and keywords were aligned accordingly.

Comments 3: Abstract should briefly mention the methodology (GIS + hydrogeological data)

Response 3: We revised the Abstract to add a brief methods clause noting the integration of hydrogeological maps and regional well data with GIS to compute the provision coefficient K=Qs_tock​/Q_need​ and map groundwater availability.

Comments 4: “100,000 thousand m³/day” in the Introduction

Response 4: We appreciate the reviewer’s careful reading. We corrected the phrase “about 100,000 thousand m³/day” to the standard form “approximately 100 million m³/day (≈ 1,155 m³/s)”, removed the redundant “thousand,” and ensured unit consistency with the values used in the Results; the revision is made in the Introduction.

Comments 5: Add a recent local reference in the Introduction

Response 5: We appreciate the suggestion. We added a recent regional study on Southern Kazakhstan groundwater to the final paragraph of the Introduction and to the References, strengthening the local context and alignment with prior work.

Comments 6: Figures 2–3: scale units and authorship/source

Response 6: We added the unit (“km”) to the graphic scale in Figures 2–3, and revised the captions to state that the maps are authors’ compilations in ArcGIS Pro 2.8 derived from the 1:200,000/1:1,000,000 hydrogeological maps north arrows.

Comments 7: Provision coefficient: notation and definition

Response 7: We standardized the notation of the provision coefficient, defined its constituent terms at first mention (availability from mapped resources/reserves and demand from livestock headcounts with per-head norms and a loss allowance), and removed the parallel CRF acronym to ensure consistent usage across the manuscript, figures, and captions.

Comments 8: Consistency of KKK category thresholds

Response 8: R3-8 — Consistency of KK category thresholds

Response: We adopted a single manuscript-wide scheme for groundwater availability

Comments 9: [Line 203] the volume of fresh groundwater is missing from the text, with a blank where the number should be - it states “fresh water… making up  m³/s (76.6%) …” I suppose that it should be approx. 254.5 m3/s? Missing value for fresh groundwater (76.6%)

Response 9: We thank the reviewer for raising this point. We inserted the explicit value 254.5 m³/s (76.6%) and checked the arithmetic to ensure consistency with the corresponding total (Line 179).

Comments 10: There are several incorrect figure cross-references in this section that could confuse readers - authors should double-check and correct all figure labels to match the appropriate sub-figures, e.g.

Response 10: We are grateful for this constructive comment. We audited and corrected all cross-references; for example, Kyzylorda now points to its proper panel (e.g., Fig. 1n), and Turkestan cites Fig. 41 rather than “Fig. 8b”; the full set of in-text labels now matches the sub-figure lettering.

Comments 11: Formula notation - for K is formatted oddly as “K = Qstocks(Qresource) / Qneed

Response 11: We appreciate the opportunity to clarify this point. We standardized the notation to K=Qstock​/Qneed​ and define both terms at first mention (stock = predicted resources or operational reserves as specified; need = livestock headcounts × per-head norms with a loss allowance).

Comments 12: [Place-name spellings] “Muyunkum” vs “Moyynkum”; “Sasykkol” vs “Sasyk-Kul”

Response 12: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. We harmonized to Moyynkum Desert and Lake Sasyk-Kul and aligned all toponyms across text, captions, map labels, and SI.

Comments 13: It could be beneficial to briefly relate the findings to the literature mentioned in the Introduction.

Response 13: We appreciate the suggestion. We added brief comparative statements in the Results linking regional patterns to the studies cited in the Introduction, to contextualize our maps and availability metrics. (Lines 298-308)

Comments 14: [Figure 5] The unit of measurement is missing from the graphic scale.

Response 14: We appreciate the reviewer’s careful reading. We added “km” to the scale bar and checked consistency with Figs. 5 which is now Fig 4.

Comments 15: [Table 1] Unit formatting “m3” shown as an exponent of thousand, Undefined “CRF”, SanPiN RK No. 26 citation

Response 15: We made all corrections.

Comments 16: [Line 360-361] The computation of pasture water demand (166,365 thousand m³/day total) is a key part of the discussion - however, I don’t see where in the manuscript is explained how this demand was calculated or provided a source for this information

Response 16: We made all corrections.

Comments 17: [Figure 8] The text in the legend is too small

Response 17: The drawing has been corrected, the text on the legend has been enlarged

Comments 18: The Conclusions section is misnumbered (it appears as Section 5 and should be Section 4). While the section effectively summarizes the main findings and their significance, it repeats numerical details already reported elsewhere (e.g., the total 1155.2 m³ s⁻¹ and its quality breakdown). Please streamline by emphasizing implications (surplus vs. deficit regions; decision value of the mapping) rather than restating statistics. In addition, include a brief note on limitations and future work—e.g., acknowledging that seasonal variability, interannual recharge, climate-change projections, irrigation return flows, and infrastructure constraints were not explicitly addressed—and indicate that these aspects will be examined in future analyses (even one concise sentence would suffice).

Response 18: Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s helpful observations. We corrected the section numbering (now Section 4. Conclusions) and rewrote the Conclusions to avoid redundancy: detailed numerical breakdowns already presented in the Abstract and Results.