A Review and Analysis of Rangeland and Wildland Soil Health

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The evolution of soil health mainly focuses on intensive management of soil (IM, such as farmland), while extensive management of soil (EM, such as grasslands, deserts, etc.) is often overlooked. IM soil has high agricultural production value, while EM soil has cultural, recreational, scenic, and scientific value, providing habitat for wild animals and plants. At present, the two are evaluated using the same health (or quality) standards, but the terminology confuses the differences between the two. This article defines soil health as an inherent attribute, while quality is a dynamic attribute. Although EM soil is healthy, its agricultural production value is low. Neglecting its health and quality can lead to misunderstandings. We evaluated four different EM soils, but insufficient information was a challenge in the evaluation. It is recommended to address this issue through sampling design, reference locations, and standardized evaluation. Soil surveys, classification names, and map unit data can provide a healthy baseline. Detailed investigation and quantitative evaluation of EM soil health data are scarce, and certification supplementary information is crucial. Outdoor living laboratories (including descriptions of ecological sites) may fill information gaps.

There is an issue with the layout of Table 2 and it needs to be adjusted again.

The layout of Table 3 is also quite messy and needs to be adjusted again.

Lack of further analysis of the information provided in Figures 3, 4, and 5.

Page 39, line 272: DISCUSSION should be changed to DISCUSSIONS.

The arrangement of line numbers in the text is discontinuous.

The font in the table is too large and the format is not consistent.

The formatting of the paper is not standardized, it is recommended to reorganize it.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The evolution of soil health mainly focuses on intensive management of soil (IM, such as farmland), while extensive management of soil (EM, such as grasslands, deserts, etc.) is often overlooked. IM soil has high agricultural production value, while EM soil has cultural, recreational, scenic, and scientific value, providing habitat for wild animals and plants. At present, the two are evaluated using the same health (or quality) standards, but the terminology confuses the differences between the two. This article defines soil health as an inherent attribute, while quality is a dynamic attribute. Although EM soil is healthy, its agricultural production value is low. Neglecting its health and quality can lead to misunderstandings. We evaluated four different EM soils, but insufficient information was a challenge in the evaluation. It is recommended to address this issue through sampling design, reference locations, and standardized evaluation. Soil surveys, classification names, and map unit data can provide a healthy baseline. Detailed investigation and quantitative evaluation of EM soil health data are scarce, and certification supplementary information is crucial. Outdoor living laboratories (including descriptions of ecological sites) may fill information gaps.

There is an issue with the layout of Table 2 and it needs to be adjusted again.

The layout of Table 3 is also quite messy and needs to be adjusted again.

Lack of further analysis of the information provided in Figures 3, 4, and 5.

Page 39, line 272: DISCUSSION should be changed to DISCUSSIONS.

The arrangement of line numbers in the text is discontinuous.

The font in the table is too large and the format is not consistent.

The formatting of the paper is not standardized, it is recommended to reorganize it.

Author Response

1. The layout of Table 1 has been reconsidered. It is now in the same layout of all the other tables.
2. The same has been done for Table 2, as suggested by this reviewer.
3. DISCUSSION has been changed to DISCUSSIONS.
4. We have abandoned attempts to assign line numbers for the full text. The document returned to use from editors did not have line numbers and our attempts to add them so far have failed.
5. The format in all tables is now consistent and of the same font and size as the narrative text.
6. The manuscript has been reformatted.

Thank you for your constructive comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor 

Although proposed strategies to address the problem of evaluating soil health in EM soils are mentioned in the summary, there is a lack of description of the aims, methodology used, and the key results that illustrate the strategies in action.

I suggest that the objectives presented in line 171 be disglossed in the text, in the last paragraph of the introduction.

Congratulations

Author Response

Reviewer 2.  I appreciate your comments and suggested revisions. 

1. The aims, methodology and results have been tightened and made more illustrative.
2. I do not understand the reviewer’s use of the word “disglossed.” I assume the reviewer meant to say “discussed.”  If so, I have added more discussion, but succinctly, of the objectives in the text.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is a fairly extensive literary review and is of some value for fundamental soil science. The manuscript is difficult to understand. The authors use different terms: soil health, soil quality, soil sanitation, and others.

With such a large volume of text, descriptions of soils and tables, the main idea of the article is lost.

It is unclear from the manuscript whether the authors have their own ideas about assessing the quality and health of soils?

It would probably be better to start the manuscript with variants of the meanings of the definition of "health" of the soil and "quality" of the soil, and then provide information from literary sources as confirmation.

The choice of study areas is not entirely clear. It is obvious that the use of different approaches to soil assessment will distinguish a set of indicators for assessing the soils of the studied area.

Of course, if the quality of the soil is understood to correspond to the taxonomic characteristics of undisturbed soils, then pastures actively used by humans will be of poor quality. Then can it be better to determine the degree of degradation?

For example, over-compaction of the soil, loss of humus, lack of vegetation, etc. can be estimated.

These will be more universal indicators, independent of the taxonomy and genesis of soils.

If we are talking about the sanitary condition, then it is necessary to monitor indicators that affect the life and health of people and animals, for example, the content of heavy metals and other toxins.

If we talk about the indicators of soil fertility, it is better to monitor the content of nutrients in the soil (available forms of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium), acidity, humus content and recommendations for preserving or improving fertility.

If you choose more conservative indicators of soil quality, depending on the conditions of soil formation, it is better to monitor humus reserves and granulomeric composition.

Unfortunately, it is not yet clear what to do with this large set of data for the soils of each territory and what the authors' own idea is to assess the quality and health of soils.

The article probably needs to be reformatted to better understand the main ideas of the authors

Author Response

You have made substantial comments and my sense is consideration of them and adoption of most has made this draft more understandable. 

1. I have reduced the synonyms used for “soil health,” and tightened the review materials.
2. I have reduced the volume of the text by about ten pages and reiterated the main ideas of the article.
3. I hope the trimming of the manuscript and the added discussion have made my ideas about assessing soil health and soil quality clear.
4. I think the way the manuscript is now laid out the variation in the meaning of “health” and “quality” have been clarified and are still confirmed by literary sources.
5. I have made clear in the abstract why these soil set were used. It is stated” Here, four different sets of EM soils were evaluated to showcase their diversity, evaluate levels of health and display their often unconventional dynamic characteristics.”
6. I would content, and have stated, that the “health” not the “quality” of the soil can be derived from its taxonomy when undisturbed by humans. If the pasture is used heavily by domestic animals and to such a degree that erosion is setting in, compaction is increasing, nutritiously preferred plants are diminishing, then I agree with this reviewer that the quality of the pasture will be poor.
7. See 6 above.
8. Soil health would be estimated ideally from undisturbed soils and by determining if they meet the definition of their taxonomic placement.  "If with time compaction, soil humus levels and loss of plants” (words from reviewer 3) are compromised, then it becomes likely the quality of the soil as well as the health of the soil are both diminished.
9. For certain, levels of “heavy metals and other toxins” (words from reviewer 3) would be critical in evaluating soil health and quality. There are soils on the Pitchstone Plateau in SW Yellowstone park that are dangerously high in radionuclides.  They are undisturbed by humans and thus would be considered healthy.   Radioactivity would be a characteristic of their undisturbed health.  However, their utility or quality is low.   The Natrargid in Table 3 has very high SAR.  However, the evidence suggests this is characteristic of that soil even in an undisturbed state.   Thus the soil is healthy.  In terms of its quality, it may be of high quality for biota dependent on the high sodium content of the soils and plants.  Often grease wood (Sarcobatus ) occupies such areas.  This plant provides important habitat for some birds.  On the otherhand, if the soil should be used for grazing of domestic livestock, the quality would be low.
10. I completely agree with this reviewer that monitoring nutrients (N, P, K) pH, humus might be important in some situations. In Table 1, all of these are indicated.   Implied throughout the manuscript are statements that the parameters to be measured may include more than the eight or so that should be evaluated.  Recommendation for these evaluations would come from inspections in the field as well as the use to which that soil will support.
11. Monitoring humus (SOM here) is probably the most important parameter to monitor. Granulometric considerations (e.g. texture and/or particle size distribution) could be examined but would not change much unless there was a severe erosional or deposition event. 
12. I think I have clarified in the revised draft, the parameters for establishing soil health and soil quality.
13. The article has been reformatted.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors should check typos. Validation and updates are needed for references. Similarity found should be reduced.

Better presentation is needed in introduction section about the research methodology that is applied, and gaps found that exist in literature. Better presentation also should exist about the Tables 1, figure 2. In analysis section more analysis is needed as well as update in references, validation in references and gaps found about soil health relative regional investigations about the results in pages 13, 14, Table 3, Figure 3,4,5 Table 4,5, Figure 6. Better presentation should exist in conclusions in terms of future results for stakeholders and research scholars.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Authors should check typos. Validation and updates are needed for references.

 

Similarity found should be reduced. 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. 

1. Typos have checked and corrected. References have been updated, rearranged and revised.
2. The research methods have been revised and tightened. Further I have revised, tightened and provided more explanation for the various tables.
3. Have checked for typos.
4. Redundancy has been eliminated, I hope.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the modern period, anthropogenic pressure on the environment has become on a scale commensurate or even exceeds many natural processes, which is explained by the rapid development of industrial and agricultural production in connection with the growth of the overall level of consumption. Therefore, it can be considered that the sustainable development of soil EM implies sustainable use of natural resources, having in mind the optimal level of supplying the population with various types of products. It goes without saying that sustainable development of a region is impossible without ecologization of all spheres of human activity. Sustainable land use is a very important topic and this article is a fascinating and informative read on the subject. The author discusses many aspects of sustainable land use and its importance for biodiversity conservation, food security and environmental protection. He offers interesting insights and backs them up with case studies. However, the reading raises some questions about the structure of the article and the research methods, which makes some conclusions less convincing. Overall, the article is an important contribution to the study of sustainable land use, but there is potential for further improvement and in-depth research.

This article provides valuable research material; however, the length makes it difficult to access key information. Therefore, it is advisable to condense the text. This will make the paper accessible and more understandable for readers, making it easier to find and assimilate key information.

      In addition to the length of the paper, the reference list also plays an important role and influences the quality of the publication. According to my preferences, I prefer the reference list to be more structured and user-friendly. One can consider writing the key points of the article to make it easier to find the information needed and also to make it easier to access the reference list.

Author Response

Although your comments were brief, I took your check marks seriously and have done considerable reformatting and shortening of the manuscript.

1. I appreciate reviewer 5’s comments. As such I have shortened the manuscript, removed redundancy, sharpened research methods and more convincingly connected conclusions to information presented in the manuscript.   

       2. I have updated references including putting them in correct form for this journal.  

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

You did a good job on the reviewer's comments. Soil quality assessment is a very difficult topic. I think now readers will understand your ideas and recommendations.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.  I and my office manager have gone through the manuscript several times for spelling and grammar errors.  I have further tried to tighten language, checked references but have added three more 2023 references.  

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors should check typos and minor spelling errors.

Table 3 should be linked properly in text in terms of analysed results and conclusions.

Conclusions should presents future perspectives for stakeholders.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Authors should check typos and minor spelling errors. 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.  I have used spell checker and grammar checker to check for errors.  There were several that have been corrected.  I have added verbiage and information connecting table 3 as well as table 4 to analysis, results and conclusion.  Future perspectives for stakeholders have been accentuated by bringing in a few more references (see [109], [110] and [111]) illustrating that current research still assumes that the terms “health” and “quality” are the same.  I have pointed out that if one addresses the semantics of these terms, they are not the same and definition of one does not use the other.  

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Soil health on rangelands and wildlands depends on many factors such as climate, vegetation, wildlife, and human activities. Grazing management plays a key role in maintaining soil health and the ecosystem as a whole. Proper grazing management can help maintain soil fertility, biodiversity and reduce erosion. However, unregulated grazing management can lead to soil degradation, loss of fertility and ecosystem collapse. The study of soil conditions on rangelands and wildlands conducted by the author is very important and relevant for the development of sustainable land management strategies and conservation of natural resources.

       I reiterate that this article is a valuable research material. The author has finalized and made some corrections, thus eliminating redundancy, updating references, bringing it into the correct form, which will make this paper more understandable for readers, facilitating the process of searching and assimilating the basic information.

 

Author Response

I appreciate your comments here in round 2 as well as those in round 1.  In this round I have done more to eliminate redundancy, and my office manager and I have gone through the manuscript several times to check spellings, grammatical errors, accuracy of references and to further focus and shorten the manuscript.