Criteria for Assessing the Environmental Quality of Soils in a Mediterranean Region for Different Land Use
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1.The title of the review article should be modified and include "for different land use" after environmental quality of soils.
2. In figure 2, the criteria of less erodibility, higher ecological value, and higher natural fertility should be quantified for various use of soils, otherwise it is meaningless of doing environmental quality of soils of any particular region; as the environmental quality of soil for agriculture or industry should not be the same.
3. when the authors are interested to do the environmental quality of soils, the soil water quality should also be considered, as this will also affect the environmental quality of soils as a whole.
4. There should be clearcut demarcation of environmental quality classes of soils for different land use under Mediterranean region.. A case study in this context with all the parameters for different land use could have been done for the Mediterranean region for better understanding of the fact by the readers or researchers.
5. The authors could have provided light on the issue of suitability of a soil for different land use based on the soil environmental quality classes and more particularly based on erodibility, ecological value and natural fertility of that soil.
Author Response
Many thanks to reviewer 1 for his/her excellent review of this manuscript. Undoubtedly, all your comments and contributions are of great value and have served to improve this review article.
Changes in the new version of the manuscript are marked in red.
1.The title of the review article should be modified and include "for different land use" after environmental quality of soils.
Response: The title has been modified following the recommendation of reviewer 1.
- In figure 2, the criteria of less erodibility, higher ecological value, and higher natural fertility should be quantified for various use of soils, otherwise it is meaningless of doing environmental quality of soils of any particular region; as the environmental quality of soil for agriculture or industry should not be the same.
Response: I fully agree with this comment. As it is a review article I have tried to be faithful to the methodological description proposed by other authors. However, I have added this comment to the text because it seems to me to be of great relevance. The method, even if it is not expressly indicated whether it allows land use to be taken into account. In fact, an example can be read below:……” the implementation of irrigation in a gleysol entails, in most cases, transforming the original soil into a cumulic anthrosol [66], which is a soil developed by humans through drainage and adding allochthonous materials, which would be classified as having low environmental quality. In the second case, the implementation of an urban use would entail a drop of four units of environmental quality, as it would involve the loss of soil due to sealing . [70]……”.
- when the authors are interested to do the environmental quality of soils, the soil water quality should also be considered, as this will also affect the environmental quality of soils as a whole.
Response: I fully agree with this comment. A sentence has been added in the new version o the manuscript. In fact, one of the practical cases discussed in the text is the problem of soil salinization by irrigation with water of high electrical conductivity.
- There should be clearcut demarcation of environmental quality classes of soils for different land use under Mediterranean region.. A case study in this context with all the parameters for different land use could have been done for the Mediterranean region for better understanding of the fact by the readers or researchers.
Response: Thank you very much for this comment. Precisely the motivation for writing this paper has been to show that although there are soil classification maps for different uses in the region, they have been made with agricultural or urban criteria without taking into account the environmental quality or the different classes defined at the end of the twentieth century considering the proposed criteria.
- The authors could have provided light on the issue of suitability of a soil for different land use based on the soil environmental quality classes and more particularly based on erodibility, ecological value and natural fertility of that soil.
Response: Despite the difficulties explained in the previous point, I have added to the text table 2 with some examples of application of this methodology for specific cases of soils in the region depending on the erosibility, ecological value and natural fertility of that soil. Table 2 shows a practical example of classification of Mediterranean soils into the very high and very low classes using the three attributes defined by Sánchez (2000): erodibility, ecological value and natural fertility.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper.
Soil quality represents a problem both for agriculture from the perspective of soil fertility and agricultural productivity, as well as for environmental protection as a result of the application of pesticides and fertilizers with a role in increasing agricultural production, but which often raises soil pollution problems.
The elaborated work is scientifically well documented. The authors have developed an evaluation methodology to assess the environmental quality of the soil, the environmental impact, and plan and organize the land's uses in the scope of the Mediterranean Region (Spain). The selected methodology was correctly and clearly established. The information presented by the authors is based on three attributes have been selected to evaluate soil quality (erodability, ecological value and natural fertility) based in environment quality indicators.
I recommend this paper be accepted and published in this journal. However, there are some recommendations regarding this manuscript.
Point 1: Line 70 – please insert a spaces between , and number [citation]
Point 2: Line 297 - [46, 47, 48, 49 50] - [46, 47, 48, 49, 50]
Point 3: Line 475 – „sealing . [70].” please deleted point „sealing [70].”
Author Response
Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper.
Soil quality represents a problem both for agriculture from the perspective of soil fertility and agricultural productivity, as well as for environmental protection as a result of the application of pesticides and fertilizers with a role in increasing agricultural production, but which often raises soil pollution problems.
The elaborated work is scientifically well documented. The authors have developed an evaluation methodology to assess the environmental quality of the soil, the environmental impact, and plan and organize the land's uses in the scope of the Mediterranean Region (Spain). The selected methodology was correctly and clearly established. The information presented by the authors is based on three attributes have been selected to evaluate soil quality (erodability, ecological value and natural fertility) based in environment quality indicators.
I recommend this paper be accepted and published in this journal. However, there are some recommendations regarding this manuscript.
Response: Thank you very much for the interest shown and appreciation of this bibliographic review. I am very flattered by your very positive comments.
Point 1: Line 70 – please insert a spaces between , and number [citation]
Response: Done.
Point 2: Line 297 - [46, 47, 48, 49 50] - [46, 47, 48, 49, 50]
Response: Done
Point 3: Line 475 – „sealing . [70].” please deleted point „sealing [70].”
Response: Done.
Sorry for the mistakes.
Changes in the new version of the manuscript are marked in red.
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a review article that argues for the need for a consensus among soil scientists as to what indicators to use to measure and monitor changes in what it terms ‘soil quality’, with soil quality defined here as combining measures of the role soils play in human economies (most obviously through crop production) and their role within ecosystem function. Proposals as to what indicators are most effective are reviewed, and it is noted that there are clear overlaps here with research on ecosystem services, land degradation neutrality and so-called ‘nature-based solutions’, though neither land degradation neutrality nor nature-based solutions are explored in detail here. The review makes no claim to be comprehensive, but reviews the history of these discussions fairly well in sections 2, 3 and 4, with simple but easy to understand figures.
However, the paper has a confusing structure, with sections 2, 3 and 4 organised largely chronologically to present the development of these debates up to the present (the most recent references being from 2022), yet section 5 is devoted to a system of soil assessment proposed for the Valencia region of Spain in 1993, with supporting references to justify the methods used in this system dating from the 1960s. This section of the paper is thus very poorly integrated into the rest of the review, yet it appears to inform the paper’s final conclusions. For example, this work in Valencia predates the work reviewed in the previous sections on soil ecosystem services, so it would be very interesting to hear whether this earlier work supports this ecosystem services approach (hinted at in lines 407-8 but not discussed in detail). We are not told whether the Valencia proposals were ever employed, and if so whether they can be regarded as effective and as a useful model to guide future work on defining indicators. We are told on p. 8 that it is important to map changes in soil quality (and excellent point) but there is no discussion of the practicalities of doing this, how often this should be done, or how this would be funded (though the latter could perfectly reasonably be considered outside the scope of this paper). Perhaps a more minor point given the readership of this journal, but it is worth noting that the use of diagnostic horizons is not reviewed in the chronological summary presented in sections 2-4, but is a feature of the system proposed and reviewed in section 5 (e.g. in figure 2, p. 10). The author might consider adding an overview of the efficacy of this approach.
I would recommend minor revisions to restructure the paper and make it clear what contribution this work in Valencia in the 1990s has made within these debates and/or what role they could play in the future.
The English is in general clear and concise though there are a few typos, and some sentences need proofing for grammar, e.g. line 298
Author Response
Many thanks to reviewer 3 for his/her excellent review of this manuscript. Undoubtedly, all your comments and contributions are of great value and have served to improve this review article
Changes in the new version of the manuscript are marked in red.
This is a review article that argues for the need for a consensus among soil scientists as to what indicators to use to measure and monitor changes in what it terms ‘soil quality’, with soil quality defined here as combining measures of the role soils play in human economies (most obviously through crop production) and their role within ecosystem function. Proposals as to what indicators are most effective are reviewed, and it is noted that there are clear overlaps here with research on ecosystem services, land degradation neutrality and so-called ‘nature-based solutions’, though neither land degradation neutrality nor nature-based solutions are explored in detail here. The review makes no claim to be comprehensive, but reviews the history of these discussions fairly well in sections 2, 3 and 4, with simple but easy to understand figures.
Response: Thank you very much for your comments and considerations. I totally agree with this sentence:”The review makes no claim to be comprehensive, but reviews the history of these discussions fairly well in sections 2, 3 and 4, with simple but easy to understand figures”. That has been the main motivation when writing this review article, trying to convince the reader of the urgent need to solve a growing environmental problem, using understandable and didactic examples.
However, the paper has a confusing structure, with sections 2, 3 and 4 organised largely chronologically to present the development of these debates up to the present (the most recent references being from 2022), yet section 5 is devoted to a system of soil assessment proposed for the Valencia region of Spain in 1993, with supporting references to justify the methods used in this system dating from the 1960s. This section of the paper is thus very poorly integrated into the rest of the review, yet it appears to inform the paper’s final conclusions. For example, this work in Valencia predates the work reviewed in the previous sections on soil ecosystem services, so it would be very interesting to hear whether this earlier work supports this ecosystem services approach (hinted at in lines 407-8 but not discussed in detail). We are not told whether the Valencia proposals were ever employed, and if so whether they can be regarded as effective and as a useful model to guide future work on defining indicators. We are told on p. 8 that it is important to map changes in soil quality (and excellent point) but there is no discussion of the practicalities of doing this, how often this should be done, or how this would be funded (though the latter could perfectly reasonably be considered outside the scope of this paper). Perhaps a more minor point given the readership of this journal, but it is worth noting that the use of diagnostic horizons is not reviewed in the chronological summary presented in sections 2-4, but is a feature of the system proposed and reviewed in section 5 (e.g. in figure 2, p. 10). The author might consider adding an overview of the efficacy of this approach.
Response: Thank you very much for your comment. I agree with your comment. In fact, I have tried to make a chronological review of the different concepts that have undoubtedly evolved a lot throughout history. In fact, both in the introduction and in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 I have addressed a systematic review. However, in paragraph 5 I intended to give a methodological example applicable to a specific region. It is a step back, to the 90s but to demonstrate that this proposed methodology is still valid and we must recover the work of these edaphologists. Undoubtedly, Recatalá and Sánchez were ahead of their time, they opted for an environmentalist vision long before there was talk of ecosystem services and propose a methodology for assessing the environmental quality of the practical soil that collects previous knowledge and uses classic parameters of the 60s. I have added to the text table 2 with some examples of application of this methodology for specific cases of soils in the region depending on the erosibility, ecological value and natural fertility of that soil. Table 2 (added in the new version o the manuscript) shows a practical example of classification of Mediterranean soils into the very high and very low classes using the three attributes defined by Sánchez (2000): erodibility, ecological value and natural fertility. Now, we can use modern indicators such as biological, microbiological, biochemical or those based on molecular biology (see Table 1).
Following your indications I have improved section 5.
This sentence has been added in the conclusión section: This methodology proposed for the Valencian region is an excellent starting point and should be reviewed and updated using the new scientific and technical knowledge such as new analytical and technological systems (latest remote sensing techniques and geographic information systems).
I would recommend minor revisions to restructure the paper and make it clear what contribution this work in Valencia in the 1990s has made within these debates and/or what role they could play in the future.
Response: Thank you very much for your recommendations and proposals to improve this paper. Precisely the motivation for writing this paper has been to show that although there are soil classification maps for different uses in the region, they have been made with agricultural or urban criteria without taking into account the environmental quality or the different classes defined at the end of the twentieth century considering the proposed criteria.
The English is in general clear and concise though there are a few typos, and some sentences need proofing for grammar, e.g. line 298
Response: Thanks for your comment. All manuscript text has been revised by a Englsh native speaker. Sorry for the mistakes.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
