A Review of Farmland Soil Health Assessment Methods: Current Status and a Novel Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In general, the article is well written and nicely presented. Can be accepted in Sustainability after following suggestions.

1. The abstract need to be in qualitative terms.

2. Hypothesis must be clear and the author should demonstrate how the present review is different from other published reports.

3. Author should provide a table about the current methods of soil health assessment and recent advancements along with merits and demerits for better readability and understanding.

4. Author should check the language of the article critically to avoid grammatical errors.

5. Conclusion must be clear and short.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This a very interesting topic and much needed in the field of soils and of agricultural sustainability. The review is fairly complete and well focused, although some important references are missing (whichare highlighted in the pdf attached). 

My main criticism to the manuscript is that some of the weaknesses attributed to the reviewed methods of soil health assessment are then not addressed when explaining the new proposed method. In particular, the subjectivity aspects that are considered a flaw for some of the methods reviewed, then are not mentioned when explaining the advantages of the proposed index. In fact, the the proposed index is not subjected to any kind of criticism and its limitations are not discussed. In relation with this, I found also that methodological details on the proposed index are not sufficient, and would like to see more explanations on the consultation process that led to its design. But I am sure that the authors will be able to provide explanations on that, because the paper shows a solid knowledge and strong analysis of the topic.

I recommend its publication after addressing the most important aspects highlighted in the enclosed pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The author summarizes and analyzes the existing soil health assessment methods, and proposes a “three sets of the dual index system”. The results can provide new methods and ideas for the evaluation of soil health. However, there are still some problems in this paper. The specific suggestions are as follows：

1. Line 368 and Line 390: The headings are all numbered “3.3”, need to be modified.

2. It is not appropriate to refer to the lands to be evaluated as “plots with low performance” in Figure 2.

3. Line 538: What are the criteria for selecting “best-performing soils”? “Yield” is vulnerable to human factors. What indicators are used to determine “quality”? Should be further elaborated

4. Lines 581-584: Adding to the criteria for determining the lesser and greater values of the numerator.

5. The level determination criteria for the column “number of indicators” in table 1 are incorrect

6. Some punctuation errors in this paper, please check and correct them.

7. The research in this paper focuses on agricultural land health evaluation, which has some deviations from the title. Please make additions or modifications.

8. In the abstract, the authors only state the results of the study, without clearly stating the status and significance of this study, and the necessity of this research cannot be reflected.

9. The introduction section should be reorganized. The present introduction cannot convince readers of the importance of this study.

10. In “3. Common soil health assessment methods”, only assessment methods are described, and examples of the application of each assessment method should be added.

11. The specific basis for the selection of evaluation indicators and the reasonableness of the selection of indicators are not explained. No description of the specific scope of application of this system, such as the difference in use between agricultural land and other land

12. Describe the advantages of this evaluation method over other established evaluation methods in each step, and suggest specific study subjects to be selected for application and comparison

13. Authors should give the paper to read and correct by professional proof reading.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Now MNS improved a lot and I did not have any major question, The mns can be accepted in present form.