Fossil birds from the Roof of the World: The first avian fauna from High Asia and its implications for late Quaternary environments in Eastern Pamir.

The Eastern Pamir (eastern Tajikistan) is a high-mountain plateau with elevations up to 7000 m, currently characterized by extremely severe environmental conditions and harboring a specialized montane fauna, which in part is shared with that of the Tibetan Plateau. The modern bird fauna of High Asia comprises a diversity of both ancient and recently diverged endemics, and thus is of general importance for historical biogeography and understanding the origin of modern high mountain ecosystems. However, the past history of the Central Asian highland avian communities remains practically unknown, as no fossil bird assemblages from high elevation areas were previously reported. In particular, it remains completely unexplored how birds responded to late Quaternary climatic fluctuations. Here we report the first fossil bird fauna from the High Asia and the first fossil birds from Tajikistan. An assemblage from the late Pleistocene through middle Holocene of Istykskaya cave (4060 m) in Eastern Pamir surprisingly comprises a remarkable diversity of waterbirds, including a few species that are completely absent from High Asia today and that were not reported globally from such high altitudes. The diversity of waterbirds incudes taxa of various ecological preferences (shorebirds, underwater and surface feeders, both zoophagous and phytophagous), strongly indicating the presence of a productive waterbody at the vicinity of the site in the past. These observations correspond to recent palaeoclimatic data, implying increased water availability in this region, currently occupied by high mountain semi-deserts. Our findings for the first time show that milder environmental conditions of late Quaternary attracted lowland species to the Central Asian highland wetlands. The reported assemblage yet contains several characteristic highland taxa, indicating a long-time persistence of some Central Asian montane faunistic elements. In particular, it includes the Tibetan Sandgrouse (Syrrhaptes tibetanus), a highly-specialized montane dweller, which is for the first time found in the fossil record.

Introduction

Highlands cover vast territories in Central and southern Asia, and are characterized by distinctive avian faunas containing numerous endemic species [1-3]. Although the evolutionary history of the Central Asian mountain avian faunas is of special interest, direct paleontological evidence for the past history of highland birds is extremely limited. From high elevations (~2000 to 2700 m above sea level) of the Tibetan Plateau only a couple of fossil birds were previously reported [4, 5]. There are no published data on the past avian diversity of the more westerly located mountain ranges, such as Pamir, Karakoram or Tian Shan. Furthermore, no fossil bird faunas were previously reported from highlands of Central Asian Mountains in general. But mountain ranges and plateaus are important areas harboring a remarkable diversity of both relictual and recently diverged taxa and hence playing a significant role in the global biogeography [1]. Additionally, birds are sensitive environmental indicators [6-11], and thus provide important source information for palaeogeographic and palaeoecological reconstructions.

Here we describe an assemblage of bird bones, dated to late Pleistocene through middle Holocene [12, 13], from a cave in southeastern Pamir Mountains (eastern Tajikistan). The Eastern Pamir is the western part of High Asia, metaphorically described as the Roof of the World, and it is a highland plateau with elevations of 3500–7000 m, presently covered by cold mountain steppes and deserts. This region is characterized by a very harsh climate with extremely poor annual precipitation (below 40 mm for the particular area [14]), low mean annual temperatures (at least -2.5C) and prolonged period of snow cover (at least about 240 days annually; [15]). The site (Istykskaya cave) is located 4060 meters above sea level [12], and thus the reported assemblage is the first and the only known high altitude avian fauna in Asia. The avian remains from Istykskaya cave for the first time yields insights into the past history of birds of Pamir Plateau and indicate environment conditions, which attracted a diversity of water bird species, including lowland taxa that are no longer present in this region.

Material and methods

The Istykskaya cave (37°44’05.9”, 074°22’15.8”) is located in the SE part of Eastern Pamir (eastern Tajikistan) at the absolute elevation of 4060 m a.s.l. (Fig 1A–1C). The cave is located on the left bank of Sul-Istyk river (left tributary of the Murghab river) some 65 km southeast of Murghob town. The cave was first explored in 1970s by V.A. Zhukov, who excavated a total area of 30 m² [13]. Most recently in 2018, a field team led by NS and SVS cleaned the northeastern section of the original Zhukov’s excavations in the drop line of the cave, and further excavated an area of 2x2 m2 in 2019. Four stratigraphic units were identified during archaeological work (Fig 1D and Table 1).

Fig 1

Istykskaya cave.

(a) Site location (star) in the Pamir region. (b) View of the valley of Sul-Iistyk river. (c) View of the cave entrance. (d) Stratigraphic NE profiles of the cave as of 2019.

Table 1

Stratigraphy of the Istykskaya cave.

Stratigraphic unit	Depth (m)	Description	Archaeology	Absolute 14C dates (calibrated)
1	0.0–0.4	Gray silty sandy loam.	Cultural layer 1. The layer contains fire places, wooden pieces, broken bones and charcoal.	4410–3981 years BP (GV 02109), this study
2	0.45–0.53	Brown to dark brown humified silty sandy loam.	Cultural layer 2. The layer contains numerous fire places and organic material (mostly animal dung).	8635–8192 years BP (GV 02109), this study
3	0.53–0.65	Gray silty and structureless sandy loam. At the boundary between layers 3–4 a sterile layer is noted.	Cultural layer 3. The layer has yielded numerous animal bones, wood remains and lithic artifacts.	14066–13351 years BP (NSKA 1622) and 13792–13605 (UGa 23052); see [13]
4	0.65–0.85	Well sorted gray river sand without inclusions.	Sterile

Field works at the site were carried out under the terms of an international scientific cooperation agreement between the Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography of the Republic of Tajikistan and the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of SB RAN of Russia (2017–2021), and were licensed by the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Tajikistan.

We conducted a new absolute dating of Istykskaya cave assemblage using samples obtained from two bone fragments found within archaeological collections from excavations in 2018 stored at the Archaeological Department of Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography (Dushanbe, Tajikistan). The samples were processed and dated at the Golden Valley laboratory of Novosibirsk Center for Cenozoic Geochronology (Russia) giving a calibrated date of 4410–3981 for cultural layer 1 (GV 02109) and 8635–8192 for cultural layer 2 (GV 02111). Given date ranges correspond to 2-sigma (95.4%) probability range, calibrated using IntCal20 (OXCAL version 4.4). For cultural layer 3 two dates were previously obtained: 14066–13351 (NSKA 1622) and 13792–13605 (UGa 23052) [13].

The material described herein is deposited in the Archaeological Department of Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography (Dushanbe, Republic of Tajikistan). In the provided specimen numbers, the prefix IST refers to the collection from Istykskaya cave, 2018/2019 refers to the corresponding excavation season, and the following digit designates the cultural level.

The studied collection contains a diversity of bones of small passerine birds, which were not identified due to their fragmentary nature and generally uniform osteology. Only a small portion of passerine bones which display a characteristic morphology, were identified and are reported here. However, all bones of non-passeriform birds were identified and are considered in this work.

The general anatomical nomenclature in this work follows that of Baumel and Witmer [16], and the morphology of the quadratum follows Elzanowski and Stidham [17].

Order Anseriformes Wagler, 1831

Family Anatidae Leach, 1820

Anas crecca Linnaeus, 1758

Results: Systematic section

Material (Fig 2C). Cranial fragment of right coracoid (specimen IST 2019-3-43); partial right scapula (specimen IST 2019-2-49); poorly preserved distal fragment of left tarsometatarsus (specimen IST 2018-2-3-su 7–15).

Fig 2

Late Quaternary bones of non-passeriform birds from Istykskaya cave compared with selected modern taxa.

a–e, h–m, u–w, coracoids; f, g, humeri; n, o, p, q, ulnae; r–t, quadrati; x, y, carpometacarpi. a–e, h–j, u–y, dorsal views; f, g, cranial views; k–m, lateral views; n, o, p, q, ventral views; r–t, medial views: a, Aythya fuligula (modern, specimen PIN 40-68-1); b, A. fuligula, specimen IST 2019-3-69; c, Anas crecca, specimen IST 2019-3-43; d, A. crecca (modern; specimen PIN 40-23-1); e, Spatula querquedula (modern; specimen PIN 40-46-1); f, Gallinula chloropus, specimen IST 2019-2-49; g, G. galleata (modern, Cuba; specimen PIN 59-119-3); h, k, Syrrhaptes paradoxus (modern, specimen PIN 89-2-5); i, l, S. tibetanus, specimen IST 2019–2.4–36; j, m, Pterocles orientalis (modern, specimen PIN 89-7-1); n, Coturnix coturnix, specimen IST 2019-3-42; o, C. coturnix (modern; specimen PIN 49-66-2); p, Podiceps nigricollis/auritus, specimen IST 2019-3-54; q, P. nigricollis (modern, specimen PIN 13-16-2); r, Spatula clypeata, specimen IST 2019–2.1–22; s, S. clypeata (modern, specimen PIN 40-52-1); t, Mareca penelope (modern; specimen PIN 40-17-1); u, Rallus aquaticus, specimen IST 2019-2-49; v, R. aquaticus (modern, specimen PIN 59-7-3); w, Crex crex (modern, specimen PIN 59-62-3); x, Actitis hypoleucos, specimen IST 2019-2-49; y, A. hypoleucos (modern; specimen 76-26-1). Abbreviations: cap, capitula oticum et squamosum; cml, condylus mandibularis lateralis; cs, cotyla scapularis; dl, dorsal labrum of the facies articularis sternalis; exc, excavation at the base of the os metacarpale alulare; fah, facies articularis humeralis; fns, foramen n. supracoracoidei; ila, impressio ligamenti acrocoracohumeralis; isc, impressio m. sternocoracoidei; p, pit within the sulcus musculi supracoracoidei; pa, processus acrocoracoideus; psm, prominentia submeatica; pf, processus flexorius; pp, processus procoracoideus; t, tuberculum on the mediocranial angle of the impressio m. sternocoracoidei; tc, tuberculum carpale; tsd, tuberculum supracondylare dorsale.

Remarks. The coracoid belongs to a small-sized teal, comparable in size with the modern A. crecca and Spatula querquedula, but distinctly smaller than Sibirionetta formosa. A distinct pit in the dorsal part of the sulcus musculi supracoracoidei (Fig 2, p), characteristic of Spatula ducks (and S. querquedula in particular), is absent. The absolute size is similar to the smallest modern specimens of A. crecca (reconstructed medial length is smaller than 34 mm), which are smaller than S. querquedula [18, 19]. The scapula (not figured) is also similar to the smallest specimens of A. crecca and thus is referred to this species.

The Eurasian teal is currently a rather common non-breeding and migrant species in Eastern Pamir [20].

Spatula clypeata (Linnaeus, 1758)

Material (Fig 2R). Right quadratum (specimen IST 2019–2.1–22); proximal fragment of left tibiotarsus (specimen IST 2019-3-code).

Remarks. The quadratum plays a crucial role in the kinematics of the feeding apparatus of birds in general and filter-feeding ducks in particular [21-23], and thus it is expected that this bone would be diagnostic in ducks with different feeding specialization, of which the Northern Shoveler (S. clypeata) is one of the most striking examples [24]. The fossil specimen can be referred to Anatidae because it has a caudally shifted cotyla quadratojugalis, only two mandibular condyles and one-headed caput quadrati–characteristic features of the waterfowl quadratum, which is unusually built in comparison with that of most other birds [17, 23]. In size, the specimen is similar to S. clypeata, Mareca penelope, or Aythya fuligula. However, Aythya have widely-spaced capitula oticum et squamoum, which instead are closely-spaced in filter-feeding ducks [23]. Aythya further differs in the shape of prominentia submeatica, which in these ducks has a gradually sloping dorsal margin. The dorsal margin of the prominentia is more abrupt relative to the shaft of the bone in dabbling ducks (Anas s.l.). Spatula clypeata differs from other Palearctic dabbling ducks by a ventral displacement of the prominentia (together with cotyla quadratojugalis, which is located on it). In other dabbling duck, the ventral margin of the prominentia is shifted dorsally relative to the condylus mandibularis lateralis, whereas in S. clypeata it is positioned notably closer to it (Fig 2, psm). Additionally, the capitula oticum et squamosum are especially closely spaced in S. clypeata to form a ball-like articular surface, characteristic of specialized filter-feeders [23]. Also, in M. penelope, the condylus mandibularis lateralis is notably more ventrally prominent (Fig 2, cml).

The fragmentary tibiotarsus agrees with S. clypeata in size and is tentatively referred to this species.

The Northern Shoveler occurs in Pamir only during migrations and appears to be a relatively rare visitor of the highland territories [14, 25, 26].

Aythya fuligula (Linnaeus, 1758)

Material (Fig 2B). Omal fragment of left coracoid (specimen IST 2019-3-69).

Remarks. The coracoid can be referred to diving ducks because of the characteristic orientation of the plane of the processus acrocoracoideus that is more angled relative to the plane of the dorsal surface of the shaft than it is in dabbling ducks (see [27], character 45). In general size and proportions, the specimen agrees with A. fuligula. The coracoid of A. fuligula and A. ferina do overlap in overall size [19], but the fossil specimens agrees with the small-sized A. fuligula (greatest length, reconstructed given the size of the omal end, is no more than 47 mm) and is thus smaller than A. ferina (greatest length ~49–52 mm in most specimens [19]). The extremitas omalis is further somewhat more gracile than in A. ferina. In addition, the attribution to A. fuligula is indirectly supported by the notion that this species occurs at notably higher altitudes (up to ~3400 m [3]). The coracoid of A. nyroca is distinctly smaller and A. marila is distinctly larger. Similarly-sized ducks of the tribe Mergini have a notably more robust coracoid. The specimen displays several short cut-marks on the dorsal surface of the shaft, indicating that the bird carcass was processed by humans. Cut-marks on the avian coracoid generally result from filleting rather than disarticulation of bird carcasses [28].

The Tufted Duck (A. fuligula) is currently a rather common (predominately autumn) migrant species in the Eastern Pamir [14, 20, 26].

Order Galliformes Temminck, 1820

Family Phasianidae Horsefield, 1821

Coturnix coturnix (Linnaeus, 1758)

Material (Fig 2O). A distal fragment of right ulna (specimen IST 2019-3-42).

Remarks. The bone displays a typical morphology of galliform birds; it has a distinctly protruding tuberculum carpale (Fig 2, tc) and a sharp ventrocaudal margin of the bone. In size, it corresponds to Coturnix coturnix and metrically strongly differs from other (larger) representatives of the Palearctic Phasianidae.

Presently, the Common Quail is absent in Eastern Pamir as breeding species, but the species breeds in Northern and Western Pamir (at elevations below 3000 m [14]). The Quail also occurs at Eastern Pamir on migrations [20, 25, 26, 29]. According to [3], the species now occurs globally at elevations up to 3600 m.

Order Podicipediformes Fürbringer, 1888

Family Podicipedidae Bonaparte, 1831

Podiceps sp. (P. nigricollis/auritus)

Material (Fig 2P). Distal fragment of left ulna (specimen IST 2019-3-54).

Remarks. The specimen can be referred to Podicipedidae due to characteristic proximally elongate base of the tuberculum carpale (Fig 2, tc) with a characteristic concavity on its ventral surface. In size, the ulna corresponds with the living P. nigricollis and P. auritus, which apparently cannot be distinguished based on isolated distal ulnae [30].

Either Horned (P. auritus) or Black-necked (P. nigricollis) Grebes are currently totally absent in Pamir, and can be found only in lowland Tajikistan during autumn migrations [20, 25, 29]. Globally, these grebes occur at elevations up to 3500 m [3].

Order Charadriiformes Huxley, 1867

Family Scolopacidae Rafinesque, 1815

Actitis hypoleucos (Linnaeus, 1758)

Material (Fig 2X). Left carpometacarpus (specimen IST 2019-2-49).

Remarks. The bone belongs to a small wader and is characterized by elongate slim proportions, no intermetacarpal process and non-roundish trochlea carpalis, which especially distinguishes it from similarly built carpometacarpi of Rallidae. In morphology and size, the bone is identical to that of Actitis hypoleucos and hence is referred to this modern species. Similarly-sized plovers (Charadrius spp.) have a notably more roundish ventral trochlea carpalis, notably thicker apex of the processus extensorius, poorly pronounced fossa supratrochlearis, and a longer distal symphysis. Sandpipers of the genus Calidris are morphologically very close to Actitis, and the species C. alpina, which today occurs in highlands of Pamir during migrations [14], is further very similar to the fossil bone in size. However, Actitis can be distinguished from Calidris by the presence of a well-defined excavation at the base of the os metacarpale alulare on its dorsal side (Fig 2, exc). This area is nearly flat in Calidris waders.

The Common Sandpiper is a common breeding species in Pamir, occurring at elevations up to 3800 m [14, 29]. Globally, the species occurs at mountains up to 4000 m [3].

Order Gruiformes Bonaparte, 1854

Family Rallidae Rafinesque, 1815

Gallinula chloropus (Linnaeus, 1758)

Material (Fig 2F). Distal fragment of right humerus, belonging to a subadult bird (specimen IST 2019-2-49), left ulna (specimen IST 2019-3-47.4), proximal fragment of left carpometacarpus (specimen IST 2019–2.3–32).

Remarks. The distal humerus belongs to a rather large rallid and is characterized by the following features characteristic of this family: a narrow distal end with distally protruding processus flexorius (Fig 2, pf), cranially elevated tuberculum supracondylare ventrale and low and proximally shifted tuberculum supracondylare dorsale (see comparisons in [31]). The specimen is roughly similar in size to G. chloropus, being distinctly smaller than Fulica and Porphyrio, but still larger than all other Palearctic rails. Interestingly, the specimen belonged to a remarkably large individual, comparable in size with G. galeata cerceris from Greater Antilles, which are the largest representative of the genus [32]. The porose surface of the distal end indicates that the specimen comes from a subadult individual. On the caudal surface of the fossa olecrani, there is an artificial notch, made by overextending the joint to disarticulate the wing [33]. The proximal carpometacarpus has a roundish trochlea carpalis and proximally oriented processus extensorius as in rails, it can also be referred to G. chloropus based on size. The ulna also agrees in size and morphology with G. chloropus.

The species rarely occurs in Pamir Mountains now and can be seen only during autumn migrations [14, 25]. According to del Hoyo [3], the species occurs at elevations up to 3000 m.

Rallus aquaticus Linnaeus, 1758

Material (Fig 2U). Caudal fragment of a left coracoid (specimen IST 2019-2-49).

Remarks. The specimen shows a characteristic morphology of Rallidae with trapezoid-shaped and dorsally excavated extremitas sternalis (see [31] for intrafamiliar comparisons). The overall length of the fossil coracoid, despite its fragmentary nature, can be reconstructed because the foramen n. supracoracoidei is preserved. In the length between the foramen and the caudal margin of the bone, the specimen is comparable with modern Crex crex and Rallus aquaticus. It is distinctly smaller than Gallinula chloropus. However, the proximomedial angle of the impressio m. sternocoracoidei is not developed in Crex, whereas in Rallus this area forms a distinct tubercle, which is also present in the fossil specimen (Fig 2, t). Additionally, in Crex, the shaft is thicker and its medial margin is concave [31], and the dorsal labrum of the facies articularis sternalis (Fig 2, dl) expands laterally, whereas the labrum is evenly narrow in Rallus.

The Water Rail globally occurs at altitudes no higher than 2000 m [3]. The species now inhabits only the foothills of the Pamir Mountains and is absent in highlands [14, 20].

Order Pterocliformes Huxley, 1868

Family Pteroclidae Bonaparte, 1831

Syrrhaptes tibetanus (Gould, 1850)

Material (Fig 2I and 2L). Cranial part of a right scapula (specimen IST 2019-3-50), cranial fragments of a left scapula and coracoid (specimens IST 2019–2.4–36).

Remarks. The coracoid displays a characteristic morphology of Pteroclidae and distinctly differs from the somewhat similar Charadriiformes by a very large and strictly dorsally oriented cotyla scapularis and reduced processus procoracoideus. Columbidae can easily be distinguished from Pteroclidae in that their coracoid has a smaller, non-excavated and laterally positioned cotyla scapularis (deeply concave, wide and centrally positioned in Pteroclidae), much wider and cranially oriented processus procoracoideus (thin and mostly medially oriented in Pteroclidae), straight and elongate shaft (it is notably shorter and gradually widens caudally in Pteroclidae), as well as notably less medially protruding processus acrocoracoideus. The specimen is morphologically similar to that of Syrrhaptes paradoxus and differs from Pterocles orientalis by a short impressio ligamenti acrocoracohumeralis, short and evenly dorsoventrally high facies articularis humeralis, and wider (craniocaudally larger) cotyla scapularis (Fig 2, cs, fah, ila). Most importantly, the processus acrocoracoideus is notably more cranially protruding in Pterocles than in the fossil and S. paradoxus. The fossil species however differs from S. paradoxus by a notably larger size, wider facies articularis humeralis, shorter impressio ligamenti acrocoracohumeralis, and the lack of extensive excavation beneath the facies articularis clavicularis. In its large size, the specimen corresponds with S. tibetanus, which is notably bigger than S. paradoxus. Morphological distinctiveness of S. tibetanus in comparison with S. paradoxus was already reported based on general morphology, which even resulted in treatment of the Tibetan Sandgrouse as a distinct genus, probably more closely related to other Pteroclidae than S. paradoxus [34, 35]. The structure of the coracoid, as revealed by the new material from Pamir, does not contradict such treatment.

Both scapulae (not shown) also agree in morphology with S. paradoxus and differ from P. orientalis by shorter and blunter acromion. They are however remarkably larger than S. paradoxus and hence are referred to S. tibetanus.

The Tibetan Sandgrouse currently inhabits highlands (more than 3000 m) of Eastern Pamir, which represent the western most part of its geographical range [3, 14, 26, 29, 35]. The find represents the first documentation of this species in the fossil record.

Order Passeriformes Linnaeus, 1758

Family Corvidae Leach, 1820

Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax (Linnaeus, 1758)

Material (Fig 3F). Cranial fragment of left coracoid (specimen IST 2019-2-26).

Fig 3

Late Quaternary bones of perching birds (Passeriformes) from Istykskaya cave compared with selected modern taxa.

a–h, coracoids; i, j, rostra maxillae; k–o, tarsometatarsi; p–u, ulnae. a–e, i–k, dorsal views; f–h, s–u, ventral views; l–o, distal views; p–r, cranial views; a, Motacilla ? citreola, specimen IST 2019-3-74; b, M. citreola (modern; specimen PIN 168-3-1); c, Acanthis flavirostris (modern, specimen PIN 226-63-1); d, Eremophila alpestris, specimen IST 2018-2/3-SU7-15; e, o, E. alpestris (modern, specimen PIN 165-77-1); f, Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax, specimen IST 2019-2-26; g, Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax (modern, specimen PIN 244-65-1); h, Corvus modenula (modern, specimen PIN 244-68-1); i, Leucosticte sp., specimen IST 2019-3-42; j, Leucosticte brandti (modern, specimen PIN 226-68-2); k, l, q, s, Monticola saxatilis, specimen IST 2019–1.1–15 (k, l) and IST 2019-3-44 (q, s); m, M. saxatilis (modern, specimen PIN 185-186-1); n, p, t, M. solitarius (modern, specimen PIN 185-189-1); r, u, Turdus atrogularis (modern; specimen PIN 185-273-3). Abbreviations: cv, cotyla ventralis; dep, depression; dl, dorsal lobe of the facies articularis sternalis; f, foramen on the dorsal side of processus acrocoracoideus; in, incisura; lg, labrum glenoidale; ol, olecranon; pa, processus acrocoracoideus; pp, processus procoracoideus; t, tuberculum; tI-tIII, trochleae metatarsorum I-III. Arrow indicate the orientation of the olecranon.

Remarks. The specimen has a characteristic morphology of perching birds (Passeriformes) and is referred to Corvidae because of its large size. Among Corvidae, the specimen agrees in size [36] with the largest specimens of Corvus monedula and Pica pica, as well as middle-sized specimens of Pyrhocorax pyrrhocorax. In Pica pica, the impressio ligamenti acrocoracohumeralis is notably shorter than in the fossil specimen. On the ventral (“cranial”) surface of the processus acrocoracoideus, there is a depression, which is defined in C. monedula, but is poorly developed or absent in Pyrrhocorax [36]. This character supports the allocation of the bone to this species. Additionally, the apex of the processus acrocoracoideus points cranially in the fossil specimen and P. pyrrhocorax, whereas in C. monedula it is oriented more laterally.

The red-billed chough is presently a common species in the highlands of Pamir Mountains (up to 4500 m [14, 26, 37, 38]).

Family Motacillidae Horsfield, 1821

Motacilla ?citreola (Pallas, 1776)

Material (Fig 3A). Complete right coracoid (specimen IST 2019-3-74).

Remarks. The complete coracoid belongs to a small passeriform bird and displays a combination of features which is characteristic of Motacillidae: the processus procoracoideus (Fig 3, pp) has a sharp apex and a concave cranial margin, and the dorsal lobe of the facies articularis sternalis is short, set apart from the angulus medialis, and there is a sub-triangular tubercle (Fig 3, t) located just cranial to this facies. In size, the specimen is similar to M. citreola and thus is preliminary referred to this species. It is however also possible that the bone belongs to small individuals of M. cinerea.

The Citrine Wagtail is a very common breeding species in the highlands of Pamir in contrast to Grey Wagtail (M. cinerea), which occurs in Eastern Pamir only during migrations [29, 38].

Family Fringillidae Leach, 1820

Leucosticte nemoricola/brandti

Material (Fig 3I). Rostra maxillarum (specimens IST 2019-3-42, 56), complete left carpometacarpus (specimen IST 2019-3-44).

Remarks. Beaks are probably most diagnostic elements of the passerine bird skeleton, sometimes allowing separation of close species [39]. The maxillae have a very broad base, as in Passeridae and some Fringillidae, but they lack a ventral band in the lateral margin of the bone, which characterizes Passeridae. The rostra are much larger than in Bucanetes mongolicus and agree in size and morphology with Leucosticte finches. Rhodopechys sanguineus is a larger bird with more robust beak. The carpometacarpus is rather uniformly built in passerines, and the specimen from layer 3 is referred to Leucosticte preliminary, based on similar size and proportions.

The two species of Leucosticte are all-year residents of the highlands of Pamir Mountains [29, 40].

Family Alaudidae Vigors, 1825

Eremophila alpestris (Linnaeus, 1758)

Material (Fig 3D). Complete right humerus (IST 2018-2-21 SU 7X), right coracoid (IST 2018-2/3-SU7-15), proximal fragment of right humerus (IST 2019-3-67).

Remarks. Two humeri differ from all other (unidentified) paseriform humeri from the locality in the poor development of the dorsal tricipital fossa, as in Alaudidae (see [41-43] for differentiation from other families). They further have a well-marked notch in the proximal outline of the bone made by the incisura capitis, which is also characteristic of larks. In size and general morphology, the specimens are similar to Eremophila. Alauda larks have a more proximally protruding caput humeri relative to the tuberculum ventrale. Species of the genus Calandrella, and especially the Hume’s Lark (C. acutirostris), which inhabits the region today, are remarkably smaller. The coracoid also displays a characteristic morphology of Alaudidae, mostly manifested in the pronounced cranial part of the labrum glenoidale and the presence of a pneumatic foramen on the dorsal side (see [43]).

The horned lark is a common species in Pamir, breeding at elevations up to 4500 m [14, 26, 37, 38].

Family Muscicapidae Fleming, 1822

Monticola saxatilis (Linnaeus, 1766)

Material (Fig 3K, 3L, 3Q and 3S). Distal fragment of right tarsometatarsus (specimen IST 2019–1.1–15); proximal fragment of left ulna (specimen IST 2019-3-44).

Remarks. The distal tarsometatarsus has an unusual configuration of the trochleae metatarsorum in distal view. In this specimen, the trochleae metatarsi II et IV are closely pressed to trochlea metatarsi III, and thus the distal end is very narrow, whereas it is usually much broader in Palearctic passerines. A similarly narrow distal end of tarsometatarsus is present in Sylviidae sensu lato, but the described specimen is notably larger than warblers and have a dorsoplantarly short trochlea metatarsi IV, whereas this trochlea is as high as trochlea metatarsi III in Sylviidae. In this morphology and size, the specimen is identical to Monticola saxatilis and hence is referred to this species here. M. solitarius and Turdidae have a more generalized wide distal tarsometatarsus.

The ulna belongs to a medium-sized passeriform bird, similar in size to Turdus merula/atrogularis, Lanius excubitor, Sturnus vulgaris and Monticola spp. The ulna of Sturnidae is characterized by a notably more robust olecranon, which is thin in other mentioned taxa. Monticola has a more caudally oriented olecranon, which is oriented more proximally in Turdus and Lanius (in ventral view). Additionally, Turdus differs from Monticola by the presence of a well-defined incisure in the dorsal margin of the cotyla ventralis and a concavity in the caudal margin of the bone in ventral view (at the level of the cotyla ventralis), and further by a non-convex proximoventral margin of the cotyla ventralis. Differentiation between M. saxatilis and M. solitarius may not be possible based on the preserved fragment of ulna, and we preliminary assign it to M. saxatilis based on the identification of the tarsometatarsus.

Nowadays the Rufous-tailed Rock Thrush breeds only at western Pamir at altitudes up to 3500 m, but still rarely occurs at higher altitudes of Eastern Pamir during autumn migrations, when it can be seen at elevations up to 4300 m [14, 38]. Among representatives of the genus Monticola, this species occurs at highest altitudes (globally up to 5000 m [3]).

Discussion

The avian fauna from Istykskaya cave (Table 2) is the first fossil bird assemblage from Eurasian highlands (above 3000 m), and thus it contributes significantly to our knowledge of the history of Central Asian high mountain ecosystems, and bird communities in particular. Previously, only a couple of bird remains were described from somewhat less elevated areas of Tibet (see Introduction [4, 5]), and all other Asian fossil bird assemblages come from low mountain areas with elevation of approximately 1000 m or less [7, 44–49]. In Europe, several Quaternary avian faunas are known from less elevated areas in Alps and Caucasus (Drachenloch in Switzerland is the highest avian locality, with an altitude of 2427 m [44]). Furthermore, no fossil birds were previously described from Tajikistan. The new fauna is especially interesting because it originates from Eastern Pamir, an area with especially severe climate and environmental conditions (see above), and thus it sheds lights on the past history of these specific ecosystems with poorly known evolutionary history. It must be noted that there are no paleoelevation data for the Istyk river valley in the latest Pleistocene and early Holocene. Earlier geological estimates of the uplift rate of the Eastern Pamir during the late Quaternary ranged from 20 to 62 mm/year, and hence about 13 ka ago the valley must have been positioned some 260 to 850 m below the present level [50, 51]. However, the recent surface uplift rate of the north-eastern Pamir is estimated as only 1–5 mm/year [52], and such a slower rate would imply a significantly less uplift since the late Quaternary.

Table 2

Occurrence of various bird taxa in different layers of Istykskaya cave.

taxon	cultural layers
	3 (late Pleistocene)	2 (early Holocene)	1 (middle Holocene)
Common Teal (Anas crecca)	X	X
Northern Shoveler (Spatula clypeata)	?	X
Tufted Duck (Aythya fuligula)	X
Common Quail (Coturnix coturnix)	X
Grebe (Podiceps nigricollis/auritus)	X
Common Sandpiper (Actitis hypoleucos)		X
Common Moorhen (Gallinula chloropus)	X	X
Water Rail (Rallus aquaticus)		X
Tibetan Sandgrouse (Syrrhaptes tibetanus)	X	X
Cough (Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax)		X
?Citrine Wagtail (Motacilla ?citreola)	X
Mountain Finch (Leucosticte sp.)	X
Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris)	X	X
Common Rock Thrush (Monticola saxatilis)	X		X

The composition of the bird fauna from Istykskaya cave indicates notably milder environmental conditions in Eastern Pamir during late Quaternary. The fauna contains a remarkable diversity of water birds, which is unexpected because presently the Eastern Pamir plateau is covered by high montane semi-deserts and only a small stream is present in the Valley of Istyk River. This diversity of waterbirds is especially notable as it includes forms with different ecological preferences. The presence of phytophagous dabbling ducks, zoophagous diving ducks and grebes, as well as shorebirds and rails, indicate a relative abundance of both surface, benthic and shore resources and definitively points to the existence of a rather productive waterbody. A detailed study of distribution of various bird species at Pamir [40] emphasized the importance of local humidity, which correlates with the richness in vegetation and invertebrates. Indeed, increased water availability during the late Pleistocene through middle Holocene was recently shown from Karakul lake in northeastern Pamir [53, 54]. Lake levels much higher than today were identified for the period from ~19ka to 6.5 ka, with the highest level (~35 m above present) occurring at ~ 15 ka [53, 54]. Increased productivity of Karakul Lake can also be traced for late Glacial to middle Holocene time interval [55]. Higher level of lakes at Eastern Pamir during late Glacial apparently resulted from decreased summer evaporation, and this implies a hydrological regime that is different from the present one [56]. Today, river valleys and lakes of Eastern Pamir are especially attractive for birds on migrations, and autumn migration in particular, which in this area starts as early as July [14]. The presence of Water Rail and Podiceps nigricollis/auritus grebe in the sediments of Istykskaya are especially remarkable, as these species were not recorded at such high altitudes globally [3]. It is thus may be concluded that productive waterbodies of Eastern Pamir attracted more lowland inhabitants during late Glacial and early-middle Holocene, including even some species that do not occur in this region now. Presently, Aythya fuligula, Coturnix coturnix and Monticola thrushes can be seen in Eastern Pamir only during autumn migration [14], but richer resources of the proposed waterbody might have attracter these species in other seasons as well.

Besides water birds, the avian assemblage from Istykskaya includes a diversity of specialized montane species, presently confined to highland areas of Central Asia. Especially notable is the find of the Tibetan Sandgrouse Syrrhaptes tibetanus, a specialized highland species of likely Tibetan origin [35], which was never reported before in the fossil record. Other bird taxa shared with the modern avian fauna of the Tibetan Plateau are Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax, Eremophila alpestris, Motacilla citreola, and Leucosticte sp. This assemblage shows that close zoogeographical affinities of the Eastern Pamir with the Tibetan Plateau [37] were already established during late Glacial. However, as the Eastern Pamir Plateau is still a largely isolated highland area, the exchange of alpine avian faunas with Tibet in the past might have only been possible via the Karokoram range [37]. The presence of above mentioned montane bird species further indicates the persistence of rather stable highland environments in the higher parts of the valleys during the late Quaternary, which agrees with palaeovegetation data [57].

Istykskaya cave further documents one of the earliest occurrences of Paleolithic humans in Eastern Pamir and Central Asian highlands in general [13]. The occurrence of humans in this area around 13.5 ka may be linked with the above-documented climatic changes and greater humidity in particular [58]. A previous analysis has shown that Common Quail Coturnix coturnix is the avian species that is most frequently found in Palaeolithic sites across Eurasia [9]. It is notable that the quail is also present in the deep level of Istykskaya cave together with stone artefacts, although this species is only a rare migrant in Eastern Pamir at present time. Although the only quail bone from Istykskaya does not bear traces of human impact, this species still could have been consumed by humans, because several bones of waterfowl from the cave display cut-marks (Fig 4; see also descriptions above). This means that at least some bird remains (particularly, those of larger species) accumulated at the site as a result of human activity. Smaller passeriform birds were most likely brought to the cave by predators or died there naturally.

Fig 4

Human-caused modifications (arrows) on avian bones from Istykskaya cave.

a, cut-marks on the dorsal surface of coracoid of A. fuligula, specimen IST 2019-3-69; b, humerus of Gallinula chloropus (specimen IST 2019-2-49), showing characteristic notch on the caudal surface of the fossa olecrani, made by overextending the joint to disarticulate the wing.

30 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-16734

Fossil birds from the Roof of the World: the first avian fauna from High Asia, and its implications for late Quaternary environments in Eastern Pamir

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zelenkov,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we believe it has merit although it needs some corrections to fully meet the PLOS ONE publication criteria as they currently stand. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised by the three reviewers during the review process. When you do, please pay special attention to the reviewer's questions 1.

Please submit your revised manuscript by before July 10. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Claudia Patricia Tambussi, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional location information of the study site, including geographic coordinates for the data set if available.

3. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

5. We note that Figure  in your submission contain map/satellite images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

5.1.    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

5.2.    If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting manuscript, which adds novel data on the avifaunas of Central Asia. I have only various minor comments you may wish to consider:

- lines 278 ff: For the coracoid of the Pteroclidae you characters distinguishing it from the coracoid of the Charadriiformes. However, wouldn’t it be more important to indicate how it differs from the coracoid of the Columbidae? I think the coracoids of the Pteroclidae and Columbidae are much more similar than those of the Pteroclidae and Charadriiformes.

A large-sized pigeon species that occurs in the Pamir region is the Snow pigeon, Columba leuconota, so that a differentiation from columbids would be needed.

- Line 362 ff: Concerning the identification of the lark: What about Calandrella acutirostris, which also occurs in the Pamir region?

-line 407: “first fossil bird assemblage from Eurasian highlands (above 3000 m)“ – are you sure? Are there no bird fossils from caves in the Alps (I am just asking and do not known myself)?

- Fig. 1: The style of the lettering of this figure does not correspond to that of the other figures

Minor comments:

- in the abstract, it would be good to indicate more exactly the geographic location of the Pamir plateau (i.e., that it is in eastern Tajikistan)

- abstract, line 21: "partly common with" reads awkward to me. Maybe, "which in part are shared with"?

- abstract, line 30: I think this should be "a few", not "few", since you intend to say that there are "some" species (rather than "not many species")

- line 51: "up to 2700 above sea level" - do you really mean "up to" here, or shouldn't that rather be something like "above" or "starting from"? I think the lower rather than the upper boundary should be given here.

- line 60: "by cold mountain steppes and deserts" (delete "a" before cold)

- line 65: here and elsewhere: "high altitude" may perhaps sound better than "high elevation" (elevation is, however , not wrong, so you may leave it)

- line 66: "represent the first evidence" sounds awkward. Maybe "for the first time yield insights into"

- line 75: excavated a total area of (instead of "who totally excavated an area")

- line 77: "and further excavated"

- "Table 2: Is "lithic artifacts" a correct term or should this be "stone artifacts"?

- line 95: “is deposited in” or “was transferred to”(not “referred in”)

- line 100: “diagnostibility“ is no existing word. Maybe “diagnosability” “low amount of diagnostic features”?

- line 166 and elsewhere: “capitula oticum et squamosum” (not “capituli”)

- line 175 and elsewhere: “fragment of omal extremity of left coracoid” (not “cranial fragment of left coracoid”)

- line 184: “is additionally indicated”. Better start sentence with “In addition, the…”

-line 189: “of bird carcasses” (plural)

- line 194: add author name after Phasianidae (since author names are also provided elsewhere)

- line 246: “similar in size to” (not “with”)

- line 339: “procoracoideus” (delete second “i”)

- line 350: “Rostrum maxillae” (if singular) or “Rostra maxillarum” (if plural, which I think is meant here)

- line 381: what is meant with “the trochlea intertarsorum”? Trochleae metatarsorum?

- line 385: “specimen is” or “specimens are”

- line 389: “similar in size to thrushes Turdus merula/atrogularis, Lanius excubitor, Sturnus…” It is misleading to add “thrushes” here, since most of the species you list are no thrushes

- line 397: “may not be possible based on the preserved fragment, but we preliminary assign it to M. saxatilis based on more precise identification of the other specimen” – this reads a bit confusing and I suggest to write “based on the preserved fragment of the ulna”

- line 413: “an area with”

-line 425: “Lake levels” (delete “the” at start of sentence)

- line 428: “Higher lake levels at Eastern Pamir” – I am not sure what exactly is meant with this. It reads, as if you want to indicate a higher water level of the lakes, but I assume you mean something like “lakes at higher altitude levels in the Eastern Pamir”

- line 432: “nigricollis/auritus grebe” – I suggest to add the genus here

- line 435: “ioncluding even some species that do not occur…”

- line 453: “with the above-documented”

- line 455: “increase in moisture availability” sounds awkward. Better “greater humidity”?line - line 454: “has shown”

Reviewer #2: This is a straight-forward description of new avian fossils of some interest to the paleornithological community. The writing is relatively clear and concise and most of the figures are of good quality. My comments are largely restricted to some suggestions for minor edits and additions that would improve this manuscript.

Comments:

Title: There is no need for a comma after “Asia”

Table 1: The addition of common names (e.g., Quail, grebe, etc…) would be useful to the reader. Also, some indication of the relative age of “cultural layers 1, 2, 3 would be helpful. Finally, this table seems out of place and should likely be moved down to a spot after the materials and Methods as you have not introduced the reader to most of these specimens/taxa yet. This table is a “Result” of your study.

Table 2: charcoal is both singular and plural, depending on context (delete the “s”)

Line 89: Golden Valley (capitalize?)

Line 101: “characteristic morphology, were identified and are reported…”

Line 187: “cut-marks”

Line 260: “trapezoid-shaped”

Line 270 & elsewhere throughout the entire manuscript: The use of capitalization for common/English bird names is inconsistent (should be Water Rail). All English bird names should be capitalized (e.g., Tibetan Sandgrouse on line 296). Note, that the hyphenated parts of species name modifiers are not capitalized (e.g., Red-billed Chough). Common names are not capitalized when referring to a group in a general way unless they are the first word in a sentence (e.g., Hawks eat thrushes.). Please check the entire manuscript and correct as I did not but do see lines: 331, 345, 374, 399, 432.

Lines 297-298: You state that this is the first fossil record of Tibetan Sandgrouse but above on lines 290 you mention that this species has not always been considered distinct. Some mention of whether it is possible that other material, previously referred to the group could represent this taxon might be appropriate.

Line 385: I assume you mean “Sylviidae sensu lato”. Please write out in full (and properly italicize) or clarify.

Line 411: suggest change to “with elevations of approximately 1000 m or less”

Lines 406-413: This discussion would greatly benefit from the addition of data on the paleoelevation of the site during the times of deposition. What was the altitude of the cave from 4-13ka?

Line 412-413: this statement about the study being “especially important” because “of especially severe climate” is awkward and unclear as to your meaning. Please explain why this study is especially important and why it matters that the area is today characterized by extreme climate. Does it matter that the areas’ climate is extreme today when the climate was much less extreme during the time of deposition of the fossils?

Line 432: Write out the full names of these species (nigrocollis/auritus)

Line 433: “at such high altitudes”

Line 448: The Karkorum Range should be labeled on your map (Figure 1), as should many other features (see comment on Figure 1 below).

Line 454: “has shown”

Line 459: “waterfowl from the cave display cut-marks (Fig.4…”

Figure 1: This figure needs to be revised. The globe at the top is blurry and is essentially pointless at this scale. I assume the “red area” is the study area we see at a adjacent to it but this is not clear. Panel A needs the addition of labels for modern political boundaries, mountain ranges, paleoboundaries of the lake if available, etc… Panel A lacks information that the reader will be looking for to orient themselves based on the mention of physiographic features in your text. Panels B and C are blurry.

Reviewer #3: This is the first account of the montane avifaunas, from the latest Pleistocene through to the middle Holocene, of the Eastern Pamirs; the composition of the assemblages argues for milder climatic conditions at the time compared to the present. The manuscript is very well written and the conclusions are straightforward. I only have minor suggestions that might improve readability:

- p. 2 line 27. delete “further”

-p. 3. I recommend deleting the first sentence of the introduction as it lacks the context that makes it meaningful – as it stands it reads a bit vague. Alternatively, it could be moved towards the end of the introduction.

- p.3 line 54. The “However” does not seem to follow from the previous sentence, and it does not read like these two sentences are linked.

p. 4 line 73, add “the” before SW. Also p. 8, line 138 before modern; p. 13, line 279 before somewhat; p. 18 line 414 before bird

p. 4 line 75 delete “totally”.

p. 6, line 101, add “a” before characteristic. 100, replace with generally not diagnostic.

p. 8 line 143, mention that the scapula is not figured.

p. 12 line 249, replace “unfinished” with striated, porose, or similar.

p. 17, l 382. trochleae metatarsorum

I would also recommend using capitals for the common names of birds. I note that several abbreviations are used (e.g., lig.) and these should either be spelled out (at least at first mention) or included under “Abbreviations”.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

9 Sep 2021

Response to Reviewers

Dear Editors,

We are very grateful to the reviewer and editors for comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have implemented all the requested changes, and our replies are given below in red.

Sincerely,

The authors

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

We have reviewed our reference list. No retracted papers are cited. We have added a couple of references related to paleo elevations, as requested by one of the reviewers.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

checked.

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional location information of the study site, including geographic coordinates for the data set if available.

Done.

3. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

We have added such information.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

ORCID ID validated for corresponding author.

5. We note that Figure in your submission contain map/satellite images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

We have changed a figure, now providing an artist’s physical map of the region, and attach a license for this artwork.

5.1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

Done

5.2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting manuscript, which adds novel data on the avifaunas of Central Asia. I have only various minor comments you may wish to consider:

- lines 278 ff: For the coracoid of the Pteroclidae you characters distinguishing it from the coracoid of the Charadriiformes. However, wouldn’t it be more important to indicate how it differs from the coracoid of the Columbidae? I think the coracoids of the Pteroclidae and Columbidae are much more similar than those of the Pteroclidae and Charadriiformes.

A large-sized pigeon species that occurs in the Pamir region is the Snow pigeon, Columba leuconota, so that a differentiation from columbids would be needed.

Thank you for this comment. Indeed, Pteroclidae are superficially similar to Columbidae, though still differ significantly in osteology. We have added a comparison.

- Line 362 ff: Concerning the identification of the lark: What about Calandrella acutirostris, which also occurs in the Pamir region?

We have added a comment on this, Calandrella are notably smaller larks.

-line 407: “first fossil bird assemblage from Eurasian highlands (above 3000 m)“ – are you sure? Are there no bird fossils from caves in the Alps (I am just asking and do not known myself)?

Thank you for this note, we have somewhat clarified this – indeed, several sites are from altitudes above 2000 m in Europe, but none were reported from above 2500 m.

- Fig. 1: The style of the lettering of this figure does not correspond to that of the other figures

Corrected.

Minor comments:

- in the abstract, it would be good to indicate more exactly the geographic location of the Pamir plateau (i.e., that it is in eastern Tajikistan)

- abstract, line 21: "partly common with" reads awkward to me. Maybe, "which in part are shared with"?

- abstract, line 30: I think this should be "a few", not "few", since you intend to say that there are "some" species (rather than "not many species")

- line 51: "up to 2700 above sea level" - do you really mean "up to" here, or shouldn't that rather be something like "above" or "starting from"? I think the lower rather than the upper boundary should be given here.

- line 60: "by cold mountain steppes and deserts" (delete "a" before cold)

- line 65: here and elsewhere: "high altitude" may perhaps sound better than "high elevation" (elevation is, however , not wrong, so you may leave it)

- line 66: "represent the first evidence" sounds awkward. Maybe "for the first time yield insights into"

- line 75: excavated a total area of (instead of "who totally excavated an area")

- line 77: "and further excavated"

- "Table 2: Is "lithic artifacts" a correct term or should this be "stone artifacts"?

- line 95: “is deposited in” or “was transferred to”(not “referred in”)

- line 100: “diagnostibility“ is no existing word. Maybe “diagnosability” “low amount of diagnostic features”?

- line 166 and elsewhere: “capitula oticum et squamosum” (not “capituli”)

- line 175 and elsewhere: “fragment of omal extremity of left coracoid” (not “cranial fragment of left coracoid”)

- line 184: “is additionally indicated”. Better start sentence with “In addition, the…”

-line 189: “of bird carcasses” (plural)

- line 194: add author name after Phasianidae (since author names are also provided elsewhere)

- line 246: “similar in size to” (not “with”)

- line 339: “procoracoideus” (delete second “i”)

- line 350: “Rostrum maxillae” (if singular) or “Rostra maxillarum” (if plural, which I think is meant here)

- line 381: what is meant with “the trochlea intertarsorum”? Trochleae metatarsorum?

- line 385: “specimen is” or “specimens are”

- line 389: “similar in size to thrushes Turdus merula/atrogularis, Lanius excubitor, Sturnus…” It is misleading to add “thrushes” here, since most of the species you list are no thrushes

- line 397: “may not be possible based on the preserved fragment, but we preliminary assign it to M. saxatilis based on more precise identification of the other specimen” – this reads a bit confusing and I suggest to write “based on the preserved fragment of the ulna”

- line 413: “an area with”

-line 425: “Lake levels” (delete “the” at start of sentence)

- line 428: “Higher lake levels at Eastern Pamir” – I am not sure what exactly is meant with this. It reads, as if you want to indicate a higher water level of the lakes, but I assume you mean something like “lakes at higher altitude levels in the Eastern Pamir”

- line 432: “nigricollis/auritus grebe” – I suggest to add the genus here

- line 435: “ioncluding even some species that do not occur…”

- line 453: “with the above-documented”

- line 455: “increase in moisture availability” sounds awkward. Better “greater humidity”?line - line 454: “has shown”

Thank you, we have implemented all requested changes. We used “omal fragment” instead of suggested “fragment of omal extremety” for coracoids, because described fragments include not only extremity but additionally a part of the shaft.

Reviewer #2: This is a straight-forward description of new avian fossils of some interest to the paleornithological community. The writing is relatively clear and concise and most of the figures are of good quality. My comments are largely restricted to some suggestions for minor edits and additions that would improve this manuscript.

Comments:

Title: There is no need for a comma after “Asia”

Table 1: The addition of common names (e.g., Quail, grebe, etc…) would be useful to the reader. Also, some indication of the relative age of “cultural layers 1, 2, 3 would be helpful. Finally, this table seems out of place and should likely be moved down to a spot after the materials and Methods as you have not introduced the reader to most of these specimens/taxa yet. This table is a “Result” of your study.

Table 2: charcoal is both singular and plural, depending on context (delete the “s”)

Line 89: Golden Valley (capitalize?)

Line 101: “characteristic morphology, were identified and are reported…”

Line 187: “cut-marks”

Line 260: “trapezoid-shaped”

Line 270 & elsewhere throughout the entire manuscript: The use of capitalization for common/English bird names is inconsistent (should be Water Rail). All English bird names should be capitalized (e.g., Tibetan Sandgrouse on line 296). Note, that the hyphenated parts of species name modifiers are not capitalized (e.g., Red-billed Chough). Common names are not capitalized when referring to a group in a general way unless they are the first word in a sentence (e.g., Hawks eat thrushes.). Please check the entire manuscript and correct as I did not but do see lines: 331, 345, 374, 399, 432.

Lines 297-298: You state that this is the first fossil record of Tibetan Sandgrouse but above on lines 290 you mention that this species has not always been considered distinct. Some mention of whether it is possible that other material, previously referred to the group could represent this taxon might be appropriate.

Line 385: I assume you mean “Sylviidae sensu lato”. Please write out in full (and properly italicize) or clarify.

Line 411: suggest change to “with elevations of approximately 1000 m or less”

Lines 406-413: This discussion would greatly benefit from the addition of data on the paleoelevation of the site during the times of deposition. What was the altitude of the cave from 4-13ka?

This is a really important notion; thank you. We have added an estimate of Pamir uplift during last 13 ka.

Line 412-413: this statement about the study being “especially important” because “of especially severe climate” is awkward and unclear as to your meaning. Please explain why this study is especially important and why it matters that the area is today characterized by extreme climate. Does it matter that the areas’ climate is extreme today when the climate was much less extreme during the time of deposition of the fossils?

We have rephrased this.

Line 432: Write out the full names of these species (nigrocollis/auritus)

Line 433: “at such high altitudes”

Line 448: The Karkorum Range should be labeled on your map (Figure 1), as should many other features (see comment on Figure 1 below).

Line 454: “has shown”

Line 459: “waterfowl from the cave display cut-marks (Fig.4…”

Figure 1: This figure needs to be revised. The globe at the top is blurry and is essentially pointless at this scale. I assume the “red area” is the study area we see at a adjacent to it but this is not clear. Panel A needs the addition of labels for modern political boundaries, mountain ranges, paleoboundaries of the lake if available, etc… Panel A lacks information that the reader will be looking for to orient themselves based on the mention of physiographic features in your text. Panels B and C are blurry.

Thanks so much for the comments, we have implemented requested changes. The Tibetan Sandgrouse was not always treated within the genus Syrrhaptes (sometimes was considered to represent a distinct genus), but it was always considered as a separate species. We have changed images of the Figure 1, and have added labels on the map.

Reviewer #3: This is the first account of the montane avifaunas, from the latest Pleistocene through to the middle Holocene, of the Eastern Pamirs; the composition of the assemblages argues for milder climatic conditions at the time compared to the present. The manuscript is very well written and the conclusions are straightforward. I only have minor suggestions that might improve readability:

- p. 2 line 27. delete “further”

-p. 3. I recommend deleting the first sentence of the introduction as it lacks the context that makes it meaningful – as it stands it reads a bit vague. Alternatively, it could be moved towards the end of the introduction.

- p.3 line 54. The “However” does not seem to follow from the previous sentence, and it does not read like these two sentences are linked.

p. 4 line 73, add “the” before SW. Also p. 8, line 138 before modern; p. 13, line 279 before somewhat; p. 18 line 414 before bird

p. 4 line 75 delete “totally”.

p. 6, line 101, add “a” before characteristic. 100, replace with generally not diagnostic.

p. 8 line 143, mention that the scapula is not figured.

p. 12 line 249, replace “unfinished” with striated, porose, or similar.

p. 17, l 382. trochleae metatarsorum

I would also recommend using capitals for the common names of birds. I note that several abbreviations are used (e.g., lig.) and these should either be spelled out (at least at first mention) or included under “Abbreviations”.

Thank you, we have corrected all of these.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

14 Oct 2021

Fossil birds from the Roof of the World: the first avian fauna from High Asia, and its implications for late Quaternary environments in Eastern Pamir

PONE-D-21-16734R1

Dear Dr. Zelenkov,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Claudia Patricia Tambussi, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

18 Oct 2021

PONE-D-21-16734R1

Fossil birds from the Roof of the World: the first avian fauna from High Asia and its implications for late Quaternary environments in Eastern Pamir

Dear Dr. Zelenkov:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Claudia Patricia Tambussi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE