Land Use Changes Influence Tropical Soil Diversity: An Assessment Using Soil Taxonomy and the World Reference Base for Soil Classifications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Land Use Changes Influence Tropical Soil Diversity: An Assessment Using Soil Taxonomy and the World Reference Base for Soil Classifications” presents an informative, well-structured pedological assessment of land use impacts in a tropical setting in Honduras. The authors apply both Soil Taxonomy (ST) and World Reference Base (WRB) systems to interpret soil changes resulting from deforestation and subsequent land use conversion.

The study is valuable in providing detailed data from the central-eastern region of Honduras. However, the work is predominantly descriptive and lacks analytical depth and a critical discussion of its findings. The following comments are provided in the attached PDF file to help improve the manuscript.

comment：

1. The study includes only 10 soil profiles to represent a 313 ha area with diverse land uses. The authors
should justify this density and clarify whether it is sufficient to support broader conclusions.
2. Although land use changes in the sampled sites have been well described, there is no statistical
testing (e.g., ANOVA, PCA) to support comparisons between soil profiles or land use types. A
quantitative analysis would be encouraged to better substantiate the claims regarding differences or
degradation.
3. Given the land use variability and geomorphological context, the addition of a GIS-based soil or land
use map would greatly enhance the study’s spatial relevance. Figure 1, in particular, could be
improved in terms of resolution and cartographic quality.
4. Repeated sentence in lines 182–183. These lines repeat the same idea twice. The repetition should
be removed or rewritten.
5. The manuscript reports the presence of Ap horizons even in soils currently used as pastures (e.g.,
P06–P09). It would be helpful if the authors could clarify whether these horizons are the result of
historical tillage practices following deforestation, and whether the soils are currently left
undisturbed or still actively managed through practices such as reworking, fertilization, or grazing.
Additionally, the distinction between "pasture for forage" and "grazing pasture" should be explained
more clearly in terms of how these uses may differently impact soil structure and horizon
development.
6. Please clarify the soil horizons highlighted in P08, where a C horizon appears immediately after the
Ap, before the B horizons. How is this interpreted pedogenetically? Does it reflect lithological
discontinuity, truncation, or anthropogenic disturbance?
7. In section 3.5, the authors claim that anthropogenic influence has resulted in changes to soil
classification. However, it remains unclear whether any previous classification or baseline data exist
for these same sites prior to the land use changes. If no such data are available, it appears that profile
P10 is being used as a reference or control. If this is the case, the rationale behind this choice should
be made explicit and discussed more critically, including any limitations of using a single profile as a
baseline. Moreover, incorporating a statistical comparison between P10 and the other profiles would
help to more robustly support the claims regarding anthropogenic impacts on soil development and
classification.
8. The manuscript presents extensive results but lacks a dedicated “Discussion” section. The
interpretation of the data would benefit from critical engagement with other studies in similar
environments. This would also allow the authors to better frame their findings within broader
pedological or environmental debates.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we sincerely appreciate the time you have devoted to this manuscript, your detailed review, and your valuable feedback. Your suggestions have contributed significantly to improving the clarity, accuracy, and scientific quality of the work. They were carefully considered and incorporated into the revised version.

 

1. The study includes only 10 soil profiles to represent a 313 ha area with diverse land uses. The authors should justify this density and clarify whether it is sufficient to support broader conclusions. 

 

Answer: Regarding soil surveying, the genetic-geographical method was used, and the cartographic units were delineated according to the factors and formation processes in the study area, including the anthropogenic factor, where land use represented the heterogeneous element (see Section 2.2). Given that these were productive areas—mainly agricultural and reference plots ranging from 1 to 50 ha—we worked with scales from 1:1,000 to 1:10,000, corresponding to a detailed level surpassed only by precision agriculture. In addition, observations were made at each selected site using augers and verification pits; for example, three pits were opened at site P10 (forest), four at P05 (grain and cereal crops), and so on.

 

2. Although land use changes in the sampled sites have been well described, there is no statistical testing (e.g., ANOVA, PCA) to support comparisons between soil profiles or land use types. A quantitative analysis would be encouraged to better substantiate the claims regarding differences or degradation. 

 

Answer: We believe that including a statistical analysis would considerably broaden the scope of the work without necessarily providing additional information relevant to soil classification. The focus of the study was on the anthropogenic impact on specific edaphic processes and on identifying changes or variations in taxonomic classification, which, in our opinion, offer a more direct and pertinent explanation than a conventional statistical analysis. For example, although the variations in clay content observed in profile P05 could be statistically significant compared to other profiles, their importance goes beyond mere numbers: they demonstrate that changes in land use have altered fundamental pedogenic processes that, under natural conditions, would take between 200 and 500 years (or more) to manifest, but in our case study have occurred over approximately four decades.

 

3. Given the land use variability and geomorphological context, the addition of a GIS-based soil or land use map would greatly enhance the study’s spatial relevance. Figure 1, in particular, could be improved in terms of resolution and cartographic quality. 

 

Answer: A new Figure 1 has been added, presenting more detailed information with higher quality and resolution. Likewise, Table 1 now includes summarized information on the history of each study site.

 

4. Repeated sentence in lines 182–183. These lines repeat the same idea twice. The repetition should be removed or rewritten. 

 

Answer: Thank you very much. The correction has been made.

 

5. The manuscript reports the presence of Ap horizons even in soils currently used as pastures (e.g., P06–P09). It would be helpful if the authors could clarify whether these horizons are the result of historical tillage practices following deforestation, and whether the soils are currently left undisturbed or still actively managed through practices such as reworking, fertilization, or grazing. Additionally, the distinction between "pasture for forage" and "grazing pasture" should be explained more clearly in terms of how these uses may differently impact soil structure and horizon development. 

 

Answer: According to ST/WRB nomenclature, the suffix p in a horizon (Ap) indicates disturbance of the surface layer by tillage, grazing, or other similar activities. In our study, the manuscript details that profiles P06 and P07 have undergone more controlled management compared to P08 and P09, which is reflected in morphological and functional improvements: a more granular structure with the presence of biostructure, darker color, greater porosity, and abundant roots (see supplementary material). Additionally, P07 exhibited a higher concentration of phosphorus, attributable to more intense decomposition and incorporation of organic matter (aerial and root biomass, and livestock manure inputs); characteristics that directly influence the description and classification of soils.

 

6. Please clarify the soil horizons highlighted in P08, where a C horizon appears immediately after the Ap, before the B horizons. How is this interpreted pedogenetically? Does it reflect lithological discontinuity, truncation, or anthropogenic disturbance? 

 

Answer: ndeed, as you indicate, this is a lithological discontinuity which, according to ST/WRB nomenclature, is identified by placing a number before the letter designating the corresponding horizon.

 

7. In section 3.5, the authors claim that anthropogenic influence has resulted in changes to soil classification. However, it remains unclear whether any previous classification or baseline data exist for these same sites prior to the land use changes. If no such data are available, it appears that profile P10 is being used as a reference or control. If this is the case, the rationale behind this choice should be made explicit and discussed more critically, including any limitations of using a single profile as a baseline. Moreover, incorporating a statistical comparison between P10 and the other profiles would help to more robustly support the claims regarding anthropogenic impacts on soil development and classification. 

 

Answer: Profile P10, representative of a primary forest without human intervention, maintains its natural state and evolution, and is therefore used as a reference in this study. In contrast, the area represented by profile P05 shows a notable change in its classification (see also Response 2). P10 is classified as Mollisols (ST) and Phaeozems (WRB); however, P05 is classified as Vertisols/Anthrosols. This change, supported by the results obtained, indicates that anthropogenic disturbance has become an additional factor in soil formation and/or degradation, accelerating pedogenic processes and significantly modifying soil properties.

 

8. The manuscript presents extensive results but lacks a dedicated “Discussion” section. The interpretation of the data would benefit from critical engagement with other studies in similar environments. This would also allow the authors to better frame their findings within broader pedological or environmental debates.

 

Answer: We appreciate your feedback; however, we have decided to combine the Results and Discussion sections to avoid excessively lengthening the manuscript. Furthermore, in tropical environments, studies that document anthropization as a determining factor in soil formation processes and reclassification are scarce, with most research focusing predominantly on changes in fertility indicators, geochemistry, and organic carbon. Likewise, in Section 3.4, we include additional reference works that support and contextualize our findings.

Finally, we have made an effort to improve the manuscript as a whole by addressing the suggestions provided by the various reviewers. The English text has also been carefully revised to ensure greater clarity and accuracy.

Thank you very much in advance.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: "Land Use Changes Influence Tropical Soil Diversity: An Assessment Using Soil Taxonomy and the World Reference Base for Soil Classifications"

Authors: Selvin Antonio Saravia–Maldonado, Beatriz Ramírez–Rosario, María Ángeles Rodríguez–González, Luis Francisco Fernández–Pozo

Manuscript Type: Research Paper

 

Overall Assessment

This manuscript by Saravia-Maldonado et al. investigates the impact of land use/land cover changes on soil properties and classification in a deforested area of central-eastern Honduras. While the authors address an environmentally relevant topic and demonstrate substantial field and laboratory effort, the manuscript suffers from critical methodological limitations and insufficient temporal documentation that compromise its scientific rigor. The core issue lies in the unsubstantiated 40-year timeframe claims and the use of analytical methods (particularly Walkley-Black for SOC) that may significantly underestimate the reported soil organic carbon losses of 25-62%.

The experimental approach, while extensive in scope with 10 soil profiles, lacks proper baseline documentation and statistical analysis to support the broad pedogenic conclusions claimed. The morphological interpretations rely heavily on visual assessments without quantitative validation, and the environmental significance of the taxonomic reclassifications requires stronger regional context and comparison with other tropical systems.

 

Major Concerns

Lines 16-17: The fundamental claim of "deforested forty years prior to the study" lacks proper documentation. No historical land use maps, satellite imagery, or government records are provided to substantiate this critical temporal framework that underlies all comparative interpretations.

Lines 156-157: The use of Walkley-Black method for soil organic carbon determination in tropical soils with high organic matter content represents a significant methodological flaw. This method typically recovers only 60-86% of total SOC, potentially leading to substantial underestimation of your reported 25-62% SOC losses.

Lines 335-336: Claims of 62% SOC loss in agricultural areas versus 25% in pastures lack sufficient management practice documentation to establish causality. The absence of detailed management intensity data undermines the environmental significance of these findings.

 

Specific Comments

Lines 119-120: "According to Holdridge's classification, the predominant life zone is Dry Tropical Forest (bs–T)" - This classification system may not adequately reflect current post-deforestation conditions. More recent climate classification systems should be compared, and the impact of 40 years of land use change on local microclimate should be addressed.

Lines 181-182: "The soil depth in the study area exceeds 120 cm, but there is a 90 cm groundwater table in P04" - The influence of groundwater on chemical analyses below 100 cm depth is not adequately addressed. Redoximorphic conditions could significantly affect your pH, nutrient, and SOC interpretations.

Lines 209-210: Morphological interpretations based on color and structure lack quantitative validation. Visual assessments should be supported by colorimeter readings, aggregate stability tests, and other quantitative measurements to distinguish between natural pedogenic processes and anthropogenic alterations.

Lines 300-301: "Maximum bulk density reaches 1.73 Mg/m³" attributed to compaction requires additional physical evidence. Soil penetration resistance measurements, pore size distribution analysis, and field infiltration rates are needed to substantiate physical degradation claims.

Lines 318-354: Mechanistic Issues: The discussion of pH controls mentions human activities, vegetation, and geology but lacks quantitative analysis of their relative contributions. Multiple regression analysis or soil-landscape modeling would strengthen these interpretations.

Lines 469-470: The suggestion to add anthropogenic soils at the order level in Soil Taxonomy requires systematic comparison with similar studies from other tropical regions. Regional applicability and global universality of taxonomic recommendations remain unsubstantiated.

Lines 465-466: Environmental Impact Assessment Inadequate: Claims of 62% SOC loss and physical degradation lack comparison with other tropical deforestation studies or critical threshold values for soil functionality.

Lines 156-159: Ion chromatography and other chemical analyses lack proper quality control documentation. Recovery efficiency data, detection limits, and analytical precision should be provided.

 

Figures and Data Quality

Figure 1: The study area map lacks sufficient detail about sampling design and spatial representativeness. Include elevation contours, detailed land use boundaries, and justify the 10-profile sampling strategy.

Table 3: Physical characteristics data requires statistical analysis (ANOVA) to test significance of differences between land uses. Current presentation lacks error estimates and statistical validation.

Table 4: Physicochemical data needs uncertainty analysis and comparison with established soil quality thresholds for tropical systems.

Author Response

Overall Assessment

This manuscript by Saravia-Maldonado et al. investigates the impact of land use/land cover changes on soil properties and classification in a deforested area of central-eastern Honduras. While the authors address an environmentally relevant topic and demonstrate substantial field and laboratory effort, the manuscript suffers from critical methodological limitations and insufficient temporal documentation that compromise its scientific rigor. The core issue lies in the unsubstantiated 40-year timeframe claims and the use of analytical methods (particularly Walkley-Black for SOC) that may significantly underestimate the reported soil organic carbon losses of 25-62%.

The experimental approach, while extensive in scope with 10 soil profiles, lacks proper baseline documentation and statistical analysis to support the broad pedogenic conclusions claimed. The morphological interpretations rely heavily on visual assessments without quantitative validation, and the environmental significance of the taxonomic reclassifications requires stronger regional context and comparison with other tropical systems.

 

Major Concerns

Lines 16-17: The fundamental claim of "deforested forty years prior to the study" lacks proper documentation. No historical land use maps, satellite imagery, or government records are provided to substantiate this critical temporal framework that underlies all comparative interpretations.

Answer: We agree with your assessment; however, we have summarized the history of each study area in Table 1 and created a new Figure 1.

Lines 156-157: The use of Walkley-Black method for soil organic carbon determination in tropical soils with high organic matter content represents a significant methodological flaw. This method typically recovers only 60-86% of total SOC, potentially leading to substantial underestimation of your reported 25-62% SOC losses.

Answer: We agree with your comment and are aware of this issue. However, in our work, we have followed only standardized methodological procedures for soil classification. Moreover, previous studies conducted in the same area have confirmed these SOC losses, as reflected in the references.

Lines 335-336: Claims of 62% SOC loss in agricultural areas versus 25% in pastures lack sufficient management practice documentation to establish causality. The absence of detailed management intensity data undermines the environmental significance of these findings.

Answer: Scientific literature reports losses of up to 50% of SOC in agricultural areas compared to forests. In our study, after approximately four decades of intensive use, similar losses were observed when comparing SOC in the A horizon across different land uses and the original forest.

 Specific Comments

Lines 119-120: "According to Holdridge's classification, the predominant life zone is Dry Tropical Forest (bs–T)" - This classification system may not adequately reflect current post-deforestation conditions. More recent climate classification systems should be compared, and the impact of 40 years of land use change on local microclimate should be addressed.

Answer: We wholeheartedly agree. However, the originality of the reference site (P10) lies in its dry tropical forest, a condition that was shared by the other land-use areas at the time. Furthermore, climatic variables (e.g., precipitation, temperature) remain consistent across the sites, with land use being the only differentiating factor. Therefore, this study focuses on evaluating the effect of anthropization on specific soil-forming processes.

Lines 181-182: "The soil depth in the study area exceeds 120 cm, but there is a 90 cm groundwater table in P04" - The influence of groundwater on chemical analyses below 100 cm depth is not adequately addressed. Redoximorphic conditions could significantly affect your pH, nutrient, and SOC interpretations.

Answer: The water table limited the sampling depth for soil classification; therefore, the study was conducted only to that depth. As indicated, the influence of the moisture factor is significant, which led to the classification of this site as belonging to the Entisols order (Soil Taxonomy) and as Gleysols (WRB). In terms of pH, high values associated with bicarbonate-rich waters were recorded, as reflected in the document. Finally, the concentration of nutrients and SOC was related to the alluvial material composing the site and to its current soil management.

Lines 209-210: Morphological interpretations based on color and structure lack quantitative validation. Visual assessments should be supported by colorimeter readings, aggregate stability tests, and other quantitative measurements to distinguish between natural pedogenic processes and anthropogenic alterations.

Answer: The most universal and accessible method for identifying soil color is the Munsell color chart. In our study, SOC values correlated with soil color, as detailed in Table 2 and confirmed in Table 4. Likewise, gleying processes associated with flood irrigation were evident and were reflected in the identified color patterns (Tables 1 and 2). Regarding aggregate stability, although it is not a determining parameter for soil taxonomy, due to its importance—and considering that our work is part of a larger project—we are preparing a complementary manuscript focused exclusively on physical-hydric properties, including aggregate stability.

 

Lines 300-301: "Maximum bulk density reaches 1.73 Mg/m³" attributed to compaction requires additional physical evidence. Soil penetration resistance measurements, pore size distribution analysis, and field infiltration rates are needed to substantiate physical degradation claims.

Answer: These bulk density values were recorded in subsurface horizons (approximately 30–50 cm) in areas used for agriculture and grazing. They are associated with intensive machinery use and animal trampling, further evidenced by the presence of plow pans and surface crusting, which indicate physical degradation processes. Bulk density is a recognized indicator of soil health, as supported by the scientific literature. Porosity is presented in the supplementary material, while the other parameters—although not decisive for soil taxonomy but highly relevant—will be addressed in a future manuscript.

Lines 318-354: Mechanistic Issues: The discussion of pH controls mentions human activities, vegetation, and geology but lacks quantitative analysis of their relative contributions. Multiple regression analysis or soil-landscape modeling would strengthen these interpretations.

Answer: The pH in the study area is primarily determined by local geology, influenced by calcareous rocks, as well as fertilization programs. The highest pH values were recorded in alluvial soils (P03 and P04), formed from materials carried and deposited in the Talgua River basin (Figure 1; see details in Materials and Methods). We believe that including a statistical analysis would considerably broaden the scope of the work without necessarily providing additional information relevant to soil classification. The focus of the study was on the anthropogenic impact on specific edaphic processes and on identifying changes or variations in taxonomic classification, which, in our opinion, offer a more direct and pertinent explanation than a conventional statistical analysis. For example, although the variations in clay content observed in profile P05 could be statistically significant compared to other profiles, their importance goes beyond mere numbers: they demonstrate that changes in land use have altered fundamental pedogenic processes that, under natural conditions, would take between 200 and 500 years (or more) to manifest, but in our case study have occurred over approximately four decades.

Lines 469-470: The suggestion to add anthropogenic soils at the order level in Soil Taxonomy requires systematic comparison with similar studies from other tropical regions. Regional applicability and global universality of taxonomic recommendations remain unsubstantiated.

Answer: In accordance with your suggestion, we have incorporated recent studies in Section 3.4 that support and contextualize our findings, as well as our recommendations regarding the inclusion of anthropogenic soils at the Order level in Soil Taxonomy (ST). The relevance of anthropization in soil formation processes has received increasing attention in soil classification. However, in tropical environments, few studies document anthropization as a determining factor in soil formation processes and taxonomic classification, with most research focusing predominantly on changes in fertility indicators, geochemistry, and SOC content.

Lines 465-466: Environmental Impact Assessment Inadequate: Claims of 62% SOC loss and physical degradation lack comparison with other tropical deforestation studies or critical threshold values for soil functionality.

Answer: Thank you very much for your appreciation. We believe that the reported values (62% SOC loss and significant physical degradation) are not only well-founded but also fall within the ranges observed in various studies conducted in tropical environments. These results are comparable to those of other studies on tropical deforestation and reach critical levels in terms of soil functionality. In our study, due to the extensive literature already included, we did not incorporate additional references. However, one of the cited studies, recently conducted in these same areas, evaluated the dynamics and variability of SOC, as well as bulk density in the top 0.30 m of soil. The results align with the patterns identified in the present study, reinforcing the soundness of our conclusions. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems8030101

Lines 156-159: Ion chromatography and other chemical analyses lack proper quality control documentation. Recovery efficiency data, detection limits, and analytical precision should be provided.

Answer: Your comment is very accurate. However, we have followed universally accepted and standardized methodologies for soil classification, with analyses carried out in accredited laboratories. We recognize the importance and relevance of your suggestion, although we consider its application to be more pertinent in the field of laboratory procedures.

 

Figures and Data Quality

Figure 1: The study area map lacks sufficient detail about sampling design and spatial representativeness. Include elevation contours, detailed land use boundaries, and justify the 10-profile sampling strategy.

Answer: A new Figure 1 has been added, presenting more detailed information with higher quality and resolution. Likewise, Table 1 now includes summarized information on the history of each site studied. Regarding soil surveying, the genetic-geographical method was used, and the cartographic units were delineated according to the factors and formation processes in the study area, including the anthropogenic factor, where land use represented the heterogeneous element (see Section 2.2). Given that these were productive areas—mainly agricultural and reference plots ranging from 1 to 50 ha—we worked with scales from 1:1,000 to 1:10,000, corresponding to a detailed level surpassed only by precision agriculture. In addition, observations were made at each selected site using augers and verification pits; for example, three pits were opened at site P10 (forest), four at P05 (grain and cereal crops), and so on. We have incorporated this information in detail in the manuscript (see Section 2.3) to reinforce the transparency and robustness of the results presented.

Table 3: Physical characteristics data requires statistical analysis (ANOVA) to test significance of differences between land uses. Current presentation lacks error estimates and statistical validation.

Table 4: Physicochemical data needs uncertainty analysis and comparison with established soil quality thresholds for tropical systems.

Answer: We agree with your suggestion; however, we refer you to our response to comment L318-354, which provides a detailed rationale and justification for our methodology and results. Finally, the manuscript has been thoroughly revised, and the English text carefully reviewed to ensure clarity and accuracy.

Thank you in advance.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This ms is an extremely thorough, even meticulous, study of the soils of a small farmed area along the Talgua River in Honduras. The study seeks to determine what has happened in the past 40 years, since the area was cleared for agriculture. The area is a mix of agriculture, orchard, agroforestry (not described), and pasture, with a tract of surviving dry tropical forest. The description of that plot and its soils suggests that it was cut over or at least somewhat harvested, and may be recovering or regrowing; we need details on that. The areas near the river have been irrigated. The study was conducted by digging ten survey pits in different areas of use: 4 in pasture, 2 in agricultural areas, and one each in the other types of use.  Soils were matched by color, consistency, and chemistry with the standard soil types as found in the World Reference Base for Soil Resources (the world standard soils classification) and the US soil classification system. This is the normal way to classify soils, and gives not only labels but also good understandings of the histories of the soils and soil profiles in question, since the causal chains leading to particular soil types are well known and well described. 

Findings were that the soils near the river were heavily affected by flood irrigation, leading to turning them into wet clays, basically. The pasture soils were also fairly water-affected, but one (P9) was substantially lateritized, while the others retained what was inferred to be fairly little affected texture and chemistry (25% alteration). The forest soil seems affected, raising that question of what had actually been done to the forest area--it was clearly not left wholly untouched. The agricultural areas were more affected, in various ways, with various chemical changes, relating to usage history--livestock, irrigation, fertilizers, impaction by heavy use. These results are all more or less what one would expect from known use history.

The main problem with this study is that no base line exists from the previous forested period. It would be most interesting to have the whole history. Unfortunately, this cannot be reconstructed now. We know only what has happened, and we have the somewhat affected surviving forest area to serve as a control. The authors have done the best they could with a limited base. The bibliography is outstanding--they have done the background work.

However, I would like to see some additions: more about the land history of the plots (especially the forest one), and any comparative material from nearby areas that have not been so affected, or have been otherwise affected, by the changes of the last 40 years. It would make this paper a great deal more useful to have a real comparison set with details on what changes had what effects.

Author Response

This ms is an extremely thorough, even meticulous, study of the soils of a small farmed area along the Talgua River in Honduras. The study seeks to determine what has happened in the past 40 years, since the area was cleared for agriculture. The area is a mix of agriculture, orchard, agroforestry (not described), and pasture, with a tract of surviving dry tropical forest. The description of that plot and its soils suggests that it was cut over or at least somewhat harvested, and may be recovering or regrowing; we need details on that. The areas near the river have been irrigated. The study was conducted by digging ten survey pits in different areas of use: 4 in pasture, 2 in agricultural areas, and one each in the other types of use.  Soils were matched by color, consistency, and chemistry with the standard soil types as found in the World Reference Base for Soil Resources (the world standard soils classification) and the US soil classification system. This is the normal way to classify soils, and gives not only labels but also good understandings of the histories of the soils and soil profiles in question, since the causal chains leading to particular soil types are well known and well described. 

Findings were that the soils near the river were heavily affected by flood irrigation, leading to turning them into wet clays, basically. The pasture soils were also fairly water-affected, but one (P9) was substantially lateritized, while the others retained what was inferred to be fairly little affected texture and chemistry (25% alteration). The forest soil seems affected, raising that question of what had actually been done to the forest area--it was clearly not left wholly untouched. The agricultural areas were more affected, in various ways, with various chemical changes, relating to usage history--livestock, irrigation, fertilizers, impaction by heavy use. These results are all more or less what one would expect from known use history.

The main problem with this study is that no base line exists from the previous forested period. It would be most interesting to have the whole history. Unfortunately, this cannot be reconstructed now. We know only what has happened, and we have the somewhat affected surviving forest area to serve as a control. The authors have done the best they could with a limited base. The bibliography is outstanding--they have done the background work.

However, I would like to see some additions: more about the land history of the plots (especially the forest one), and any comparative material from nearby areas that have not been so affected, or have been otherwise affected, by the changes of the last 40 years. It would make this paper a great deal more useful to have a real comparison set with details on what changes had what effects.

Answer:

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate the time you have devoted to reviewing this manuscript, as well as your detailed review and valuable comments. Your suggestions have significantly contributed to improving the clarity, accuracy, and scientific quality of the work.

In response to your comments, the manuscript has been improved in the following ways:

a. A new Figure 1 has been added, presenting more detailed information with higher quality and resolution.
b. The Materials and Methods section has been clarified to facilitate understanding of the sampling methodology, especially for readers less familiar with soil classification.
c. In Table 1, summarized information on the history of each study site has been added. It is worth noting that profile P10, representative of a primary forest with no human intervention, retains its natural state and development, and is therefore used as a reference in this study.
d. In Section 3.4, recent scientific references have been incorporated to support and contextualize our findings.
e. The English text has been revised again to ensure clarity and accuracy throughout the manuscript.
f. Additional improvements can be found directly in the manuscript.

We thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses the topic of how Land Use Changes influence Tropical Soil Diversity. The case presented is of potential interest to the readers of the Agriculture journal, but quantitative conclusions are based only on a small sample size. 

Nonetheless, the authors report on the evidence and clues provided by their case study, and precisely refer to the scientific literature for the related general hypothesis about soil dynamics.

The conclusions are consequently limited in amplitude and generalizability. Still, the inclusion of a Discussion section (by broadening and enhancing some of the material already listed under sub-section 3.5) could significantly improve the paper.

Some minor edits, suggested in the attached PDF by highlights and notes, could increase the readability of the paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate the time you have dedicated to reviewing this manuscript, as well as your detailed and valuable comments. Your suggestions have significantly contributed to enhancing the clarity, accuracy, and scientific quality of our work.

In response to your feedback, the manuscript has been improved in the following ways:

a. A new Figure 1 has been added, providing more detailed information with higher quality and resolution.
b. The Materials and Methods section has been clarified to facilitate understanding of the sampling methodology, particularly for readers less familiar with soil classification.
c. Table 1 now includes summarized information on the history of each study site.
d. All minor edits suggested in the PDF document have been addressed.
e. The Results and Discussion sections have been merged to reduce the overall length of the manuscript.
f. In Section 3.5 (now 3.4), recent scientific papers that support and contextualize our findings have been incorporated.
g. The manuscript has undergone another round of English language revision to ensure clarity and precision.
h. The Conclusions section has been improved.
i. Additional improvements can be found throughout the manuscript.

Thank you once again for your valuable input.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. I appreciate the authors’ explanation of their decision to focus on taxonomic classification and pedogenic processes rather than conventional statistical testing. However, I still believe that including at least a basic statistical or exploratory quantitative analysis would strengthen the robustness of the findings and make the results more compelling to the scientific community. Even though soil classification is qualitative by nature, statistical summaries or tests could provide objective evidence of the differences observed among profiles and land use types. This would enable readers to assess the significance and variability of the reported changes more effectively. While the example provided for P05 is indeed illustrative, diffeùrences in particle size and other key properties could be validated quantitatively, ensuring that conclusions are not based solely on visual or descriptive interpretation. I would encourage the authors to consider adding a minimal statistical treatment or summary to complement their descriptive approach.

 

2. I acknowledge the useful information provided regarding the morphological and functional differences among the pasture profiles (P06–P09), as well as the clarification of the meaning of the ‘p’ suffix in the ST/WRB nomenclature. However, the original question aimed to clarify two specific aspects that remain unanswered.

Firstly, it is important to determine whether the Ap horizons in these pasture soils primarily result from historical tillage following deforestation or ongoing management practices such as reworking, fertilisation or grazing. This distinction is important because it informs our understanding of the persistence of anthropogenic influence over time.

Secondly, the manuscript should explicitly explain the practical and management differences between pasture for forage (P06 and P08) and grazing pasture (P07 and P09), particularly with regard to their distinct impacts on soil structure and horizon development. This would help readers to better understand the processes leading to the observed morphological differences among the profiles.

Including this clarification in the manuscript would strengthen the authors’ results and conclusions by providing a clearer causal link between land management practices and soil changes observed.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we sincerely thank you once again for the time dedicated and the valuable comments provided, which have strengthened and improved the quality of the manuscript. Responses to each of your comments and suggestions are provided below and have been incorporated into the revised version of the attached manuscript.

1. We agree that statistics are essential in scientific research; however, in our case, the objective was taxonomic characterization and classification, where—as is widely recognized in the literature—statistical analysis is rarely applied. This objective was addressed through direct observations using auger sampling and test pits, which ensure the reliability of the results. Furthermore, we argue that statistical analysis would unnecessarily extend the manuscript without providing additional clarity or differences in classification, since absolute values are more explanatory for this purpose.

2.1. In the pasture profiles (P06–P09), the A horizon retains its origin in natural pedogenetic processes, as observed in the reference profile P10. However, its designation as Ap reflects anthropogenic disturbance, regardless of the specific activity that altered its original condition, as established by the ST/WRB nomenclatures. Such interventions are expressed through alterations in specific processes (e.g., melanization, redox reactions) as well as in soil properties, including increased bulk density, compaction, and reduced porosity, which in turn affect water dynamics and key pedogenic processes in subsurface horizons.

2.2. We sincerely appreciate your valuable observation. All suggested improvements have been carefully incorporated into the manuscript and can be consulted in Table 1 (systems P06–P09) as well as in lines 301–310, where they have been thoroughly cross-checked with the corresponding references.

Thank you very much in advance for your consideration.