Environmental and Land-Use Changes as a Consequence of Land Reform in the Urej River Catchment (Western Tajikistan)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract: Summing up % mentioned will result in >100%. This is strange. Also what are kitchen garden is not clear as in Table 1 you have two classes irrigated land and built-up area with kitchen gardens. Is all irrigated land kitchen gardens?

Introduction: The aim of the study as mentioned in the introduction "rate and direction of land use changes.....resulting from environmental conditions and land reform" could be better described/discussed. In the conclusions the link with the aim of the study is weak. What is the rate of change (rapid but what is rapid) and what is the direction of changes still is vague!

Methods: How interpretation of land use 1988 was done? Aerial photos or satellite imagery as reference material? Are changes mapped/registered?

Height info in lines 105-108 does not correspond with lines 154-156

Results: I miss statistics on land use changes. How much area changed from one land use type into another during 1988-2023? There is no interpretation of changes. What type of changes ...changes from kitchen garden into built-up or into irrigated farm land or changes from irrigated farm land into forest etc.... (or between the types mentioned in section 3.2 (from line 181 onwards). The change analysis is only carried out for limited area (around settlement, but why discussion/conclusions are discussing changes in entire catchment?

Line 187-188 the statement can not be verified with figure 3a as not clear what are gentle slopes as majority of slopes are over 40 degrees.

Section 3.3 "Natural vegetation changes" is an elaborated section summing up species characterising the different land use/cover types but nothing is said about land use changes! What is the objective of this section next to describing the vegetation types? And why mapping of natural vegetation types needed in the context of this study?

Table 1 presents only areas for different land cover types in 2023....... I was expecting also statistics for 1988 and areas/ha changed?

Definition of pasture lands in Table 1 is different from text in lines 181-184 (irrigated farmland (pasture land (?))  vs agricultural (irrigation) and livestock grazing (pasture lands))

What is tugai vegetation (line 219)? 

Figure 9 - make more explicit what is shown in figure 9c compared to 9b ......artificial channels. And what/where are the irrigated farm lands/agricultural land

Figure 10 is difficult to interpret without some additional text as angle and position from where the photos are taken is different.

Discussion: 

- line 315/316 is not clear and not discussed

- try to put the case study in broader perspective (extrapolate.......etc)

-  It would be nice to have a mor straightforward discussion of the effects of land reform (different phases) on land use changes (what are the land reforms and what are the changes). And put it still more in perspective by comparing it with European studies (CORINE land cover changes, CLMS and European Env. Agency). And is land reform the only driver for land use change?

- line 345: ....completely different.....Make it more clear what are the land use changes in the case study area and how different they are!

- Section 4.2 is no discussion at all!

- Section 4.3: These forest ecosystem changes are not presented in the results. Why popping up in the discussion? It is only about drivers wihtout knowing/quantifying the changes. Furthermore the discussion is limited .

Section 4.4: line 400-401 is unclear and should this section deal with the environmental consequences of land use change?

- line 416/417: areas being forested...... completely new and is not shown in results

Conclusions:

- missing some statements about the sustainability of the land use changes 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No major comments

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think this is a decent study on land use cover change in a rather little-known part of the world and as such it deserves publication.  It takes a very standard approach and there is not much in its results that soul not have been expected, but the region is obscure and the results are relevant and interesting.  There're some non-standard uses I English that will need a bit of editing but overall the writing is acceptable.  An interesting thing to me would be some indication of land use (or abuse) under the Soviet system and how management itself has changed since then. Some explanation is given, but I think more context would help.  The figures and tables are generally good quality but Figure 12 appears to be rather out of focus.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I recommend a native speaker go over this manuscript very thoroughly.  While the quality of writing is OK, some uses are not standard and some sentences are unusually short.  A bit f editing is in order.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting paper, mostly because it describes an area about which there is not too much information. The main aim of the papers is to descrive LULC changes in the area and give a glimpse of their reasons. It uses a well-known approach to get new data; analysis and conclusions are secondary here. And it is well written.

I can suggest two improvements. First, the methods should be better described. Especially section 2.2 should be improved: what exactly did you do with the material and how exactly did you reach the map you are talking about.

Second, have a serious round of editing the (place)names in the paper. You are writing in English, so stick to the English version of the names. Now you mix English names with Russian and even Polish transcriptions. So Zarafshan and Hisar range, not Zeravshansky and Hissarsky, or even Zaravszan. Also, the map is Polish, not English. Also, please clarify the name of the main river: is it Urej, as you spell it here and your previous publications, or Urech, as on some maps? Furthermore, the name of the last author should also be spelled similarly to other authors, i.e. first name first (Z.B. Islamova, and not I.Z. Bustonovna).

The discussion part is the most interesting of the paper. Just out of curiosity - where did you get this material, as you never mention this in the description of your methods or data? (that doe snot mean that I don't trust it). And the conclusions part has little to do with your results section - but as there was no very clear research question defined except for describing, then one cannot demand much - the description is given

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript focuses on the Environmental and land use changes as a

consequence of land reform in the Urej River catchment (western Tajikistan). The research used field work documents and photoes to prove the changes. In the whole, the paper’s finding is interesting. The map in the Figures is in

compliance with requirements and beautiful. However, the manuscript still needs revision before formal publication. Here are some specific suggestions for the

authors:

 1. In the Introduction Section, authors need write out some precious research on this study area as well as some comments.

 2. In the Method Section, authors should aplly some quantitative model to calculate the change situations.

 3. line 256: In the “3.4. Land use changes in the Uroz and Urej river valley in 1988-2023”, authors might make a transition matrics to show how the changes happened?

 4. If it is possible, authors could show the relationship between soil erosion and land use change? Foe example, authors can apply the overlay method to find which land use types the severe soil erosion could happen?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Good

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for taking my comments into account. Small English editing of newly added text in methods is the only small issue left.

Author Response

We verified the added fragments of text. 

We would like to kindly thank you for your comments and positive evaluation of our research.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Basically, authors revised according to my suggestion.

Author Response

We would like to kindly thank you for your comments and positive evaluation of our research.