Edaphosphere: A Perspective of Soil Inside the Biosphere

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

xxxIn my view this papers merits to be published but it needs some improvements.  I full review by a native English speaking person I think will improve the paper; this is especially relevant in an opinion paper.

Point 4 of the manuscript seems to wants to  present the implications/advantages /consequences of the proposals made. The cases presented are far from complete and the presented ones and how are presented is highly debatable. I would suggest to remove this point or to enlarge and developed properly

The paper is not very long. The Journal Editor has to decide if it should be published as a normal paper or as a short note.

I attached some specific comments in the original manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your answers, corrections and comments.
About the English, we have sent it to the English Philology Department of the University of Murcia, they
are not native English speakers but they have done a great linguistic job.
You are right, point 4 was incipient, but we still need to work on it. We just keep it to be used in a future
article on the use of data in edaphology, and in this one mixed with the integration of the edaphosphere in
the biosphere.
Comments on the manuscript.
1. The bio-inert concept has been explained a little better: “It should be noted that the use of the
term”natural body” is due to historical usage and that, due to the impact of human species on soils,
the term is no longer adequate to describe the full diversity of soils today. In any case, what we are
defending is that soils are bio-inert bodies because they are composed of a living part (biota) and an
inert part (parent material)“(lines 33–37).
2. Of course, physical and biological transformations are also important, but the main idea is simply
to link biochemical and geochemical reactions driven by living organisms. i.e. oxidation of iron is a
geochemical reaction, but it is driven by atmospheric oxygen produced by living organisms.
3. We have accepted the change in the title of point 2, now it is “Edaphosphere a question of definition”.
Actually it is clearer and focuses on the objective of the article: the integration of edaphoshere in
biosphere and its definition.
4. We have explained a little better the problem of separation of biology and geology ” At this moment,
we could say that an interdisciplinary approach is needed, but this is not a new approach in soil science,
on the other hand, the idea is to recover the generalist research as a mediation between specialised
disciplines “. This is actually related to the bio-inert concept.
5. We had a bad definition of horizon A, which even contradicted the figure of horizons (Figure 1), this is
now corrected: : “There is no soil where the biota does not transform matter by means of biochemical
reactions. Even if rhizosphere (horizon A) is eroded there is still microbiological activity, in other
words, without a biota there is no soil, however scarce it may be. Similarly, the soil is affected by the
climate and, in turn, it affects the climate as part of the biosphere” (lines 155–158). And also we added
on the line 54 that this critic is referer to debrisphere and we are agree with the coment because biota
is pressent in all the horizons as a constituve soil factor.
6. Biodiversity and geodiversity are quite important for soil survey, but here we used as synonom for
biological and geological, or biota and parent material. In future discussions we will try to focus on
the importance of diversity in bilogical and intert componets of soil.
7. Thank you for the capital R.
8. The association is etymological. “Pedon” literally means food in classical Greek and is associated with
the base or foot of a structure.
About the type of article, we have no objection. What is important to us is that the article can help in the
discussion and conceptualisation of the environment around us, especially in the context of climate change.
It is a short article, a grain of sand that we hope will be appreciated by the scientific community.
Thanks so much again for your time and interest on this topic.
Brian Herreño

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

In general, the paper treats on very important topic which is soil, and the set of soils - edaphosphere. The paper is clear and easy ito read and understand. The term pedosphere is strictly dependent on definition of soil. However, I have two observations regarding this topic.

First, the authors omit the soil definitions given in the two most widely used soil classifications in the world, Soil Taxonomy (ST) and World Reference base for Soil Resources (WRB). While both soil classifications come out of the earlier concepts described in this article, it would nevertheless be appropriate to mention them and perhaps even include them in this paper.

Second, both earlier and newer definitions of soils treat soil as a natural body. Thus, the influence of humans on the creation and degradation of soils is marginalized - according to the authors, humans are only part of the biosphere. True, humans are part of the biosphere, but after all, their impact on the entire world - including soils and edaphosphere - is incomparably greater than that of other organisms that make up the biosphere. For this reason, the concept of the anthroposphere (technosphere) was created (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthroposphere). Moreover, nowadays, human often creates artificial and fully funcional soils, for example on the roofs of buildings („green roofs”). Most probably, artificial soil were also created in the past, e.g. on Philippine or Peruvian terraces or Mexican chinampas. Therefore, I believe that defining soil as a natural body is not appropriate, and this despite the fact that this is how soil is defined by both ST and WRB. Although the WRB introduced a group of anthropogenic soils, it did not include this fact in the definition of soil as such. I am not in a position to check how the soil classifications of different countries define the term soil, but I know that the latest Polish Soil Classification (2019, http://www.ejpau.media.pl/PDFy/systematyka-gleb-polski-wyd%206.pdf) treats soils as not only natural but also artificial bodies, although it did not define this explicitly. This definition is as follow: „soil is defined as the surface part of the lithosphere, or an accumulation of mineral and organic materials permanently connected to the lithosphere (through buildings or structures), coming from weathering or accumulation processes, originated naturally or anthropogenically, subject to transformation under the influence of soil-forming factors, and able to supply the living organisms with water and nutrients”. There are probably better publications than the Polish Soil Classification (SGP 6, 2019), which takes into account the very strong and sometimes even dominant human influence on soil formation. But in my opinion, the human impact on soil formation - not only today - but also historically - cannot be overlooked or diminished. Therefore, I propose to include in the text, among others, in lines 116-118, of course, with relevant references. The cited items do not have to be written in English, but also, for example, in Spanish, Polish, French or Portuguese. With the current quality of translators, we should not limit ourselves to English papers. I respect the opinion of the authors and most of the scientific community that soils are a natural body, but the authors, however, should include in the discussion more opinions about the dominant role of humans today. The sentence from lines 116-118 is not, in my opinion, convincing enough that man is only a part of the biosphere. Isn't the current climate crisis, at least in part, the result of human actions?

For these reason I recommend major revision of this paper.

DETAILED

I have also small comment - or just different opinion regarding the necessity of existence of A horizon in the soil in lines 141-142: „There is no soil without an A horizon where the biota transforms matter by means of biochemical reactions, i.e., ...”. I think that eroded soil, e.g. on the slope without A horizon is still a soil - roots and organisms are capable to live in B horizon and, are capable to penetrate, at small degree - also the parent rock. In my opinion, an actual distinction between A and B horizon is funded not on the total absence of humus, roots and other organisms in B horizon, but in their abundance - their presence and activity is very limited in other horizons, including B and even C in comparison to A horizon. I am sure that many soils with completely eroded A horizon are biologically active and agriculturally productive. In favorable conditions and if the erosion process is stopped, such soils - particularly developed from loess or glacial till - may recreate the A horizon quickly.

Author Response

Thanks for the answer, corrections and comments.

I would like to start with the last part of the suggestions, where you point out the error about horizon A, and yes, you are right. I was quite focused on criticising the debrisphere and I assumed the rhizosphere (horizon A) as mandatory part of the soil, but as you rightly pointed out there are organisms and biological activity in horizon B and C, we also defend this view and that sentence was constradictory and wrong.

Thank you for pointing this out!

This is the new paragraph: “There is no soil where the biota does not transforms matter by means of biochemical reactions, even if rhizosphere (horizon A) is eroded there is still microbiological activity, in other words, without a biota there is no soil, however scarce it may be. Similarly, the soil is affected by the climate and, in turn, it affects the climate as part of the biosphere”. (lines 155–158)

We left the concept of “natural body” because Vernadsky and Dokutchaev use it as part of the science of the first half of the XX century, but we agree that today it needs to be rethought according to climate change and our influence on nature. Anyway, we are most interested in the definition of bio-inert as a mediation between biology and geology. We have added a new paragraph to clarify this:

“It should be noted that the use of the term”natural body” is due to historical usage and that, due to the impact of human species on soils, the term is no longer adequate to describe the full diversity of soils today.

In any case, what we are defending is that soils are bio-inert bodies because they are composed of a living part (biota) and an inert part (parent material)” (lines 33–37).

Now, about soil definitions, on the article we prefer to make a comparison between authors. We are enthusiastic about as much definitions of soil can be, but institutions as FAO or Soil Science Society of Poland must have difference process than the critics between authors, and we feel more comfortable confront our ideas directly with other authors in their own personal reference (as Huggett).

From now on I will speak only from myself (Brian) because the authors have discussed a lot about the need of mediation work between different disciplines implied in soil science and the need to avoid hyperspecialisation in soil study which could generate contradictory views between biologists, geologists, chemists, geographers. . .  we think and ecological or earth system view is the way to achieve this mediation task between different knowleage areas. The biosphere is site on the cosmos and on the earth, inside the building birds can live, or even a lichen can be present on the floor, which can be consisder an artificial soil (bio-inert), but this is the biosphere, in my opinion to be lithosphere there should be no interaction with spheres
contained inside the biosphere (i.e. atmosphere which is a biological product), this is why there is no soil outside the Earth (known at this moment).

We agree that the human impact on soil formation is undeniable, but the diatoms produce half the oxygen we breathe at the moment, is it possible to assume that humans as mammals have transformed the Earth’s surface more than any other biological species? We have transformed it, yes, but always within the biosphere.
I remember a film where the plot was that the Earth’s core stopped and the “scientist” created an “Earth ship” to go to the core, but the truth is that there is no way to get to the Earth’s core and when something like that happens we are in the same boat as the rest of the biodiversity that makes up the biosphere. We interact within the biosphere as another agent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor%E2%80%93network_theory).

Margulis, whose work I so admired, used to say, “We are not trying to save the planet, we are trying to save our way of life.”Isn’t the current climate crisis, at least in part, the result of human action?” Well, I’m not a denialist or anything like that, my thesis conclusion, which verse about climate change and biodiversity
crisis is: what we call climate change is the misadaptation of Homo sapines from the biosphere, which means that natural selection is hanging like a sword of Damocles over our heads; this situation would be the worst, but we buy a lot of numbers for the lottery.

Other authors that I like very much, especially Antonio Turiel (https://www.icm.csic.es/en/staff/antonio-turiel-martinez-1717), defend that what we call climate change is just the collapse of our civilisation, as others have done before, only this is global. Let me be clear, we are a biological species and we have the same probability of extinction as other biological species, but life
on Earth will continue without us. But here I want to defend the social view over the natural view. Let me explain: a few months ago, my supervisor told me that a researcher had been banned because he defended climate change as being due to natural causes.

As I said, I am radically opposed to this view, but I would really like to see a diversity of explanations and I am concerned about the lack of heretical thinking in science today.

We, here I can speak for the rest of the authors, agree with “the human impact on soil formation - not only today - but also historically - cannot be overlooked or diminished” and I would like to add that the impact of soil (as an actant) in human culture is also quite important. I really like the article where Jenny explores
the different visions of soil through art history (https://www.secs.com.es/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/The-Image-of-soil-in-landscape-art-old-and-new.pdf).

But this relation between soil and human I think is for a further discussion, the idea of this opinion (short) article is to integrate a soil vision inside the biosphere,
but we are also inside the biosphere that is the only we say, after that any relation between actants inside the biosphere must be explored.

Finally, I would like to thank everyone for their comments and corrections, I have been quite nervous during the review process and at the end to have the opportunity to speak so freely is a great gift, sincere thanks and I hope we can continue this discussion in public as a way to contribute to open science.

P.S. We have removed the last point, the verse about data in edaphology, to expand and explain better in another article.

P.S.2 English has been corrected by English phylology department from University of Murcia

Brian Herreño

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

No comments

Author Response

Thanks so mach for the attention and dedication

Kind regards!

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

GENERAL

The authors improved considerably the paper and their answer to my commments is reasonable, although we have still different opinion in some aspects. Above all, the definition of edaphosphere is very convincing, and, in my opinion, could be widely adopted.

Nevertheless, I still think the authors should mention the soil definitions used by WRB and Soil Taxonomy due to their universality, but at the same time I respect their different view.

I am still against equating the rhizosphere with the A horizon of the soil. From the definition of rhizosphere according to Lynch and Brimecombe (2001), it is the zone of interaction between roots, soil and soil organisms, and according to Wikipedia it is the zone of influence of roots on the soil or substrate. Both definitions implie the presence of rather living roots. However, there are sometimes situations when there are no living roots in the soil and it’s A-level, such as after intensive mechanical tillage or after herbicide application. Nevertheless, such soil does not cease to be soil - it continues to perform at least part of its functions related to the transformation of matter, as other organisms live in it, despite the temporary absence of plants. Once again, I urge you not to identify the rhizosphere with the A-level, especially as we remember that roots and organisms are found in smaller numbers below the A-level. I would rather stay with the traditional definition of level A as the level of humus accumulation, and the predominant influence of living organisms, including those in the rhizosphere. It is my opinion, so the authors are not obliged to agree.

For these reasons I recommend minor revision of this paper.

DETAILED

Line 103: Please, check, if this part is related to position [10] (Simonson 1997) or rather [11] (Merrill 1897)?

Author Response

Thanks for  the answer,

About the cite, the cite of Simonson is correct because he cited Merril and he devolop quite well the discussion between Merilll and Dokuchaev, but we have added the Merill cite because the sentence is from him, and now it is perfect.

Regarding the general discussion, there are certainly soils that are difficult to associate with root activity, where diversity is present, there are always exceptions and definitions cannot be suitable for all cases (anomalies).   This does not mean that every centimetre of soil is covered by plants, but that the rhizome, the mychorriza and the prokaryotes associated with them are active, despite temporal variations.  In any case, we can consider a soil where horizon A has been eroded (degraded) or where it has not yet formed (proto-soil). But above all, it is our opinion and if it helps to improve the discussion, we are happy, we hope that the readers, agree or disagree, enjoy thinking about soil and that the definition can help in the scientific community to discuss about soil.

I would like to continue the discussion further but these days I'm full of work finishing my Phd dissertation and I have not the mental  clarity to argue well. Anyway if there is an option and you wish I can give you my email ones the review process has been finished and we can continue the discussion and who knows maybe a future collaboration.

Thanks so mach for the attention and dedication

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors state the need to understand soils as integrated with the biosphere, and they suggest the term ‘edaphosphere’ be used to distinguish this conceptual difference from the term ‘pedosphere’. They imply that ‘pedosphere’ has the connotation of at least being partly divorced from the influence of soil organisms in function and formation. They continue that earth systems must be understood as a unitary system with a variety of interactions of the different spheres – of which edaphosphere should be one.

 While the intent to focus on the importance of soil formation and function within a larger context could be quite valuable, the piece is quite confusing and disjointed. The most confusing part of this opinion piece is the lack of clear definitions for all the broad terminology used. Many of these terms may have different connotations in different regions or scientific subdisciplines. It would be useful to have a table – or just clearly spell out in the text – exactly what is meant by each of these “-spheres”.

 For example, this reviewer understands the term “biosphere” to include all forms of life found on the planet, so that soil biota are already part of the biosphere by definition – just as are organisms found at various levels above the soil surface (in the atmosphere) or underwater (in the hydrosphere). Thus, the spheres are defined by what they are composed of, not where they exist spatially.

 The authors arguments may be better made focusing on the concept of scale. When considering a volume of soil, soil biota exist in space with other organic and inorganic materials, water, and air. It is an ecosystem that includes atmosphere, biosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, etc., and it interacts with surrounding areas via inputs and outputs. As the scale increases and includes aboveground organisms, greater volume of atmosphere, and marine and freshwater systems – then the soil ecosystem becomes one system of many that are interacting with one another.

 The idea that soil needs to be understood within ecological context is valuable, and attempting to find a new paradigm to describe how soil interacts with other systems is a reasonable goal. However, the concept of edaphosphere is not clearly enough defined and contextualized to provide a meaningful contribution to the literature.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
First of all, thank you for your time and dedication to the topic of the edaphosphere as a subsystem of the
biosphere.
Tell me if I’m right, the main errors are:
• The confusion of terms and the place of the edaphosphere in the biosphere.
• The problem of integrating disciplines in a “new” multidisciplinary field and the relationship between
geology and biology in soil science.
Regarding the first argument, yes you are right, we assumed a lot of concepts that are not clear or at least not
widely used. This was my mistake, I worked on this topic further in my thesis memory under the Vernadsky
and Lovelock definition and I only took one chapter introduction to elaborate the manuscript. Now we have
added a definition for biosphere according to Vernadsky. Also there are now two diagrams, the first is a
relationship between soil horizons and edaphosphere parts; the second is a spatial and ecological placement
of the edaphosphere, which is inside the biosphere and just above the litosphere.
The terms ‘edaphosphere’ and ‘debrisphere’ are also better described using Huggett’s definition. Huggett
used the term “edaphosphere” as an equivalent to the rhizosphere and the debrisphere as the sub-sphere of
the pedosphere where the biota has no influence, at best with the presence of detritus, but no living organism
(biota).
Respecting the place in the biosphere, in our opinion the confusion comes from defining all the factors
under the same conditions or rules (reduccionism), a methodology that we consider not optimal. The
litosphere interacts with the edaphosphere in a geological time, because the raw material factor comes from
the lithosphere, but the lithosphere is not included in the biosphere; the biosphere is the Earth’s crust
above the lithosphere. The atmosphere is contained in the biosphere and its chemical composition is created
and maintained by biota. From the top of the atmosphere to the bottom of the edaphosphere there is the
biosphere, as an intermediate layer between the cosmos and the rest of the geosphere (Earth). It might
sound like a big area, but actually the biosphere is only a few kilometres in the whole known universe and
it is also known by facts that life exists and that the biosphere is the only place where humans can live.
About the second issue, we have added a discussion about the new article by Huggett. I did not read it
before the corrections, but the error is already corrected, it is a pleasure to see how Dokuchaev’s theory and
Vernadsky’s biosphere concept are expanded in the discussion of the definition of soil, but Huggett places
the edaphosphere outside the biosphere and uses the term geosphere, which is the Earth, as the lithosphere,
which is the solid rock sphere. Dividing knowledge in order to study reality with its complexity could be a
good approach to knowledge, but in our opinion it is a mistake and we agree with Huguet del Villar who was
concerned about the separation of biology and geology into two disciplines. We recognise the importance of
1specialisation but, for example, Vernadsky describes the soil as a bio–inert natural body and perhaps the
approach to knowledge should be from all perspectives at the same time, like the relationship of CaCO3 with
biodiversity as a calcium cycle, essential for sedimentary rocks and the snail shell.
To add, there is an aesthetic decision about including the atmosphere and excluding the hydrosphere, neither
Dokuchaev nor Jenny include the water in the formula, in our opinion it would be included but after a bigger
discussion about the realtion between biota and parent material on one side and water on the other side.
Our current opinion is that soil can be compared with stationary phase and water with mobile phase in the
HPLC system, but this is only one perspective of soil.
Regards,
Brian Herreño

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Edaphosphere, the integration of soil into ecology in the current climate crisis, a good integration. In common ecology, soil is a part of the ecosystem, which includes soil, bio...  As the authors state, there is another term for all the soils, the pedosphere but these terms are not equivalent and cannot be used interchangeably.  Therefore, we have soil = f(cl, o, r, p, t...) which may include everything below ground and climate. However, if we only consider soil and plant system, we could think it as  ecosystem if we include human interfere, climate change crisis. In this case, where can we find the place of Edaphosphere? 

A web search shows a short description about edaphosphere https://www.healthbenefitstimes.com/glossary/edaphosphere/. In this short statement, it emphasizes that the variability of the soil environment, is particularly pronounced in the bulk soil (another term for soil), where fluctuations in temperature, moisture, and nutrient availability can have a profound impact on the microbial community and the biogeochemical processes that occur. Although nothing is clearly defined about Edaphosphere in the statement, it equally raises the concept  of edaphosphere. 

In current paper, a perspective of soil inside the biosphyere is described, most likely as Edaphosphere to establish a definition of soil that integrates biota and biodiversity without losing sight of the historical development of the science that studies soil. The opinion article proposes a definition for all soils grouped together in the edaphosphere, which in fact is a subsystem of the biosphere. It may be a good piece of opinion. However, soil itself is a group of various soil types and I do not see how we can grouped all soils togethers? This is my major question and the paper does not give any clue about how. It should be pointed out the paper can initialize further discussion on this concept.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, thank you for your time and dedication to the topic of the edaphosphere as a subsystem of the biosphere.

On the first question  «If we only consider soil and plant system, we could think it as  ecosystem if we include human interfere, climate change crisis. In this case, where can we find the place of Edaphosphere?»

We have added a better description of the spheres and the differences between Huggett's pedosphere and edaphosphere paradigms here. The edaphosphere is within the biosphere and both pedospheres are within the geosphere, and the noosphere, atroposphere or human interface is also within the biosphere. We also make a small reference to Verndaky's noosphere concept, but this implies the integration of nature and culture, probably the most fascinating and difficult challenge in climate change, to adapt ourselves as biological organisms to the biosphere, but also to guarantee a humanist society. We agree with Latour's vision about the need for a non-modern worldview, where nature and culture (e.g. agriculture) must be studied under a holistic or complex methodology, but this is a really difficult goal, so we also agree with Latour that any knowledge must be modest and composed.

We hope that with these corrections the idea of soil within the biosphere and its composition by different factors can now be applied in as many disciplines as possible. I mean, in the Glossay description the edaphosphere is described as "the soil that lies beyond the rhizosphere", but Huggett describes the edaphosphere, within the pedosphere paradigm, as the top soil sphere above the debris sphere, actually his description is similar to the rhizosphere. These definitions are contradictory and we speculate that this occurs because of the divorce between biology and geology. Now we have added a diagram of soil profile on edaphosphere paradigms where we think rhizosphere is the most appropriate term to refer to horizon A and pedosphere as horizon c, where horizon c is also inside the biosphere and biota is a constitutive factor of it, as part of the edaphosphere but its influence is less than in rhizosphere. The purpose of this definition is to reconcile the biological/ecological view with the geological view.

On the other question,  «soil itself is a group of various soil types and I do not see how we can grouped all soils togethers?» 

We have added a final section that tries to answer this, because we think it is very important too. In my thesis I spoke about the taxonomic problem in soil science and also in biology, now thanks to the works of Lynn Margulis we know that the evolutionary history is not a hierarchical tree because there are also lineage unions by simbiosis and the biological taxonomy should be more like an anastomosis structure or net.  In this regard, some authors believe that soil biodiversity should be included and this problem will be in this integration of the natural history of soil biodiversity. Furthermore, there have been a lot of attempts to create a unique taxonomy to describe all soils, we think this is not achievable because a lot of interpretations of soil differences can be done depending on what we are looking for. 

However, we believe that there is a computational approach to soil (Table 1 added in corrections) where factors can be described as coordinates (geography), sampling date (time), biodiversity data, parent material data... The table is just a small example, but also human information can be added, as if the soil is in an urban area, a historical event (as a battle or an environmental disaster)...

We are still far from knowing what soil is and how soil biodiversity and geodiversity are linked in soil, but we can say that soil is within the biosphere and at least these 5 factors are part of soil.

To clarify, the litosphere is outside the biosphere, but the parent material of the soil comes from it. This is probably the most confusing point, but it can be solved by considering specific rules for each factor, rather than one rule that can group all factors together. For example, living matter has different properties from inert matter, or the geographical factor has a shape but no mass.

I hope these few paragraphs answer the questions and that you enjoy the parts that have been added and corrected. Thanks again, because your questions have allowed us to introduce a small part of soil data computation, which I must admit is one of my favourite parts of science.

Regards,

Brian Herreño

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The opinion "Edaphosphere: A Perspective of Soil Inside the Biosphere" focused on a very interesting idea, and understanding how soil correlates into ecology in the context of the current climate crisis is crucial for proper environmental management and definition for all soils grouped together in the edaphosphere, which is in fact a subsystem of the biosphere. However, the entire manuscript needs to be thoroughly revised because it was primarily abstract and had minor flaws in general descriptions (L23) and the importance of ecology is missing. Before the study is published, the manuscript needs to be reviewed and revised. 

Minor editing required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, thank you for your time and dedication to the topic of the edaphosphere as a subsystem of the biosphere.

We have changed and added to the article according to your suggestions. The article was based on several concepts that are not as general as Vernadsky's definition of the biosphere or the critique of Huggett's pedosphere paradigm. Now his definition has been expanded in the light of his new publication this year; at the same time the explanation of the paradigm we propose in this article has been expanded: the edaphosphere.

In addition, two diagrams have been added, one to relate the edapohopera to the concept of the soil profile and the other to place the edaphosphere correctly within the Earth System.

As for the importance of ecology, the idea was somewhat the opposite, the importance of the edaphosphere in ecology. Of course, an ecological view, especially because of its multidisciplinary nature, is based on soil science, but the idea presented in the article is to point out some of the ecological functions of soil, especially in relation to biogeochemical cycles, and the silicon cycle and its relation to the oxygen cycle as a paradigmatic example of the interconnection between terrestrial and marine ecosystems. There are other cycles, such as the phosphorus cycle, which is fundamental to the existence of living things and which also depends on the soil, but we naturally assume and defend that ecology is fundamental to having healthy and living soils.

Regards, 

Brian Herreño

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf